Britishvolt

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

The reality is that the development of this Britishvolt plant would have transformed lives and communities not just in the south-east of Northumberland, in places such as Blyth, Wansbeck and Bedlington, but—my hon. Friend is right—in the likes of Jarrow and farther afield in Sunderland, North Tyneside and the entire region. It was to be the biggest investment in our region since Nissan in the ’70s.

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

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that despite the clear failure of the Government’s UK industrial strategy, they should continue to try to attract investors to support a battery gigafactory in his constituency by establishing a localised supply chain across the north-east? That would in turn support automotive giants, such as Nissan, which he mentioned, that are already investing in electric vehicles. We know that that is vital for EU trade and the drive toward zero-emissions vehicles by 2030.

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks for that intervention. The supply chain is so, so important. Britishvolt suggested at the time that there would be 3,000 jobs created at the site and 5,000 jobs created in the supply chain. That would have been felt throughout the whole of our region in the north-east and probably further afield.

Links with Nissan would be brilliant. We need to take a leaf out of Nissan’s book in the way it has operated in the north-east for so many years. We were hoping to see some sort of link. Nissan is looking towards an on-site gigafactory with Envision AESC, which is in progress as we speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, of course. I will come on to the nub of the questions the hon. Gentleman raises during my speech—I have only got through two paragraphs up till now.

The Britishvolt site has been kept alive for years. It is not just something somebody has come up with; it is to the credit of the former Labour-run council, which had the foresight to recognise the site’s advantages. It insisted on maintaining the site for industrial use to create thousands of potential jobs in the future, a prophecy that Britishvolt promised to make a reality. We should remember that projects on the scale Britishvolt was proposing do not just appear from thin air. They go through decades of decision making and planning. That was largely done by the Labour group on Wansbeck Council, which made the site so attractive to potential builders over decades.

Britishvolt arrived on the scene in late 2020 and was full of promise and potential. While many of the industry professionals I spoke to, along with others, expressed scepticism about its lack of experience and long-term plans, it continued to exceed expectations and gather support. I recall the chief executive ringing me up before Christmas that year, just out of the blue. He said, “I’m the chief executive of Britishvolt”—I had not heard of it—“and we are bringing 8,000 jobs to your constituency.” They were going to be well-paid, secure jobs—green industrial jobs. I promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I could not believe it. It was like all my Christmases had come at once. Since then, I have been heavily involved, only to be devastated by the current position.

As I say, Britishvolt arrived on the scene in late 2020. It impressed people so much that it managed to secure a £100 million grant from the Government’s automotive transformation fund. To many, that seemed to legitimise the company. There were still many people—many, many people, in fact—who doubted it, but they were confounded by glowing reports from the then Business Secretary, the then Chancellor and the then Prime Minister.

At the time, the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), announced:

“I’m delighted to confirm we have now provided Britishvolt with a final grant offer through the Automotive Transformation Fund. The Blyth gigafactory will turbocharge our plans to embed a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK and it is fantastic to see how the project is progressing.

The vast site will ensure Britain can fully capture the benefits of the booming global electric vehicle market. The well-paid jobs and growth it will generate for the North East of England will be transformational and are exactly the reason we are investing to make the UK the best place in the world for automotive manufacturing.”

In an interview with national media when the grant had been confirmed, he also claimed:

“It is absolutely what levelling up is all about. In fact, I can’t think of a project that demonstrates levelling up better than this one.”

The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), claimed:

“Britishvolt’s plan to build a new gigafactory in Northumberland is a strong testament to the skilled workers of the North East and the UK’s place at the helm of the global green industrial revolution.

Backed by government and private sector investment, this new battery factory will boost the production of electric vehicles in the UK, whilst levelling up opportunity and bringing thousands of new highly-skilled jobs to communities in our industrial heartlands.”

Last summer, before his departure from office, he gave me further guarantees in this House that support for Britishvolt was in the post and that the Government remained 100% behind the project.

The then Chancellor, who is now the Prime Minister, also took the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon, boasting:

“Once complete, this factory will produce enough batteries for over 300,000 electric vehicles each year…Our #PlanForJobs is working.”

So he claimed. At the time, everybody wanted a piece of Britishvolt, which was hailed as the poster boy of levelling up and as a tribute to the vision of life post Brexit held by this new-look Conservative party.

So where did it all go wrong? What actually happened? Why are we in this situation now? At what point did the Government go cold on Britishvolt, which was hailed only a year ago as the jewel in the crown of their levelling-up plans and vision for Britain? As ever, the Government will be keen to blame the cost of soaring energy bills and the knock-on effects of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, but that does not add up with the story across Europe. The website Sifted is tracking the development of 33 gigafactories across Europe, many of which are due to be up and running imminently. Germany has plans for 12 gigafactories, while the UK has plans for only three, one being the Cambois gigafactory we are discussing, which is now in great peril at best.

The underlying issue with Britishvolt is that as a start-up it had no capital to work with, and a range of issues meant it was not able to attract sufficient investment and meet the milestones that would have unlocked the Government funding that was promised—not a penny was ever received by the company, despite the benefits explained by the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and the former Business Secretary.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow too much, as he is making some excellent points. On the number of gigafactories we need, he mentioned plans for three. I hope the one in his constituency will be saved, but it looks as though we may lose it. We actually need eight gigafactories if we are to meet the 2030 target for zero-emission vehicles. The last thing in the world we should be doing is not saving the plant in his constituency. The Minister shakes her head, but I do not know how we will ever reach that target if we do not save such plants.

[Ian Lavery]

I will come on to that point later in my speech, but my hon. Friend makes a very valid and strong point.

On the issue of competitive energy sources, the UK’s industrial energy pricing is far from competitive and drives investment away, while our green energy infrastructure is nowhere near able to guarantee a supply of energy via the national grid. In December 2022, the UK cost per megawatt-hour was £580, while in Germany it was £225, in Italy £259, in France £238, and in Sweden £206. If we are ever going to reach our targets and support the automotive industry, that disparity must be addressed without any further delay.

That is just a drop in the ocean of the wider strategic issues that have been allowed to develop in the industry. We have hundreds of thousands of workers producing parts for vehicles that will not be required, with no clear plan on how those workers will transition and be reskilled in a rapidly changing industry. That is part of the wider issue of a chronic skills shortage that needs to be addressed by having the proper training available for our young people leaving schools and paying them a proper living wage to do well-paid skilled jobs. We are being rapidly overtaken by European competitors who have support from the European Commission and the member states themselves, and we are also being stymied by the strength of the US and, in particular, China, which has a near dominance in the supply of cells, cathodes and anodes, as well as the base materials for their manufacture.

CATL in Germany has received grant and loans from the state of €750 million, or 22.8% of the total build costs; Northvolt in Sweden has had €505 million, or 17.1%; and in North America General Motors has had $2.5 billion, or 36.2%, Stellantis has had $l billion, or 35.7%, Tesla has had $1.3 billion and Ford has had $884 million—the list is nearly endless. Compare that with Britishvolt, which was promised just £100 million by the Government, and guess what percentage that was of build costs—only 2.3%. That is absolutely disgraceful. Moreover, the £100 million was heavily caveated, to the point where the company never had a penny of Government support. How can this country—how can we, as a manufacturing nation—expect to be competitive while Governments across Europe and beyond are offering real incentives for the manufacture of batteries, far greater than those offered by our Government? We have to pull our socks up. We have to get on to the pitch. We have to start playing the game, for the sake of this nation.

In the autumn, when Britishvolt was facing financial difficulties, it asked for £30 million of the £100 million grant that had been agreed by the Government. The company asked for this to be released early because it had cashflow problems, arguing that the money would help keep it afloat and attract the private investment that it needed to reach the other milestones set by the Government. The Government have repeatedly made the point that they need to act responsibly with taxpayers’ money. I agree with that, and I am sure no one disagrees with it, but it seems to me that £30 million for a company that says the money will allow it to stay in business and create 8,000 jobs in a region that has been held back for so long, keeping it afloat, is a worthwhile investment. That £30 million is a mere drop in the ocean of the money lost so carelessly during the pandemic, which went into the coffers of those with close ties to senior members of the Government, but when it might be spent on benefiting held-back towns in the north-east, it is held under very tight wraps.

By this point, the Government’s attitude towards the company seems to have cooled considerably since the previous January, when they were singing its praises from every rooftop they could find. The pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been harsh reminders of the need for national self-reliance, particularly in key strategic industries. Simply assembling the batteries in the UK is not enough; as we enter a new phase of globalisation, we must take control of our own destiny—and of battery manufacturing—if we want our car industry to survive. We still do not have a single fully functioning gigafactory, although, as was mentioned earlier, predictions suggest that we will need anywhere between eight and 10 by 2040.

All this has real consequences at an individual human level. Towns and villages across south-east Northumberland and in the north-east as a whole, including my constituency, have been held back for decades. Once thriving industrial communities, they have had their economic and social fabric swept from under them with nothing to replace it. More than a decade of brutal austerity has hollowed out our public services and civic spaces and left us battling high levels of unemployment, low pay, poverty, crime, and addiction problems. The jobs that were promised to come with the gigafactory had the potential to be the first step in changing the fortunes of our region. The income from the new well-paid local jobs would have supported thousands of families across our communities, and might well have helped to kick-start a new era of manufacturing in industrial work that could have reignited the economy in the towns and villages close by.

There was a good deal of reluctant optimism about announcements of new developments in transport and infrastructure, alongside the announcements about the factory and the possibility of money from the Government’s new towns fund and levelling-up fund, but bit by bit, drip by drip, that has ebbed away. Only last week a bid from Ashington, in my constituency, for levelling-up money to transform the crumbling town centre was rejected, while Richmond, in the Prime Minister’s Yorkshire constituency, received a cosy £19 million. That is pretty offensive to people in held-back communities.

Bedlington in my constituency got about £8 million to build new cycling lanes, although the bid was somewhat ironically designed with getting workers to the new Britishvolt factory in mind. Although every penny given to Bedlington is welcome, many are already questioning whether new cycle lanes are all that levelling up will amount to, given how starved the town has been, like many in my constituency, of crucial infrastructure funding for so long. The levelling-up fund has proved itself to be time-consuming, expensive, divisive and unable to meet the needs of held-back towns in the north-east. The south-east has received nearly twice as much as the north-east from the fund, and none of this touches the sides of the cuts to local councils since 2010 and the introduction of austerity.

The best use of levelling-up money for south-east Northumberland would have been getting behind the Britishvolt gigafactory. The people of Northumberland and the north-east have, sadly, once again been let down by those working far away in the halls of Whitehall and Downing Street. Three Prime Ministers in a matter of weeks and a merry-go-round of Ministers in different positions, based on nothing but blind loyalty, rather than competence and know-how, has been a disaster for any plans the Government may have had to level up my constituency and the region. As usual, we are the ones dealing with the consequences of the internal political drama unfolding in the ranks of the Conservative party.

We need long-term thinking and a proper plan for our broader industrial sector, and we need to overcome the major obstacles our automotive industry is up against, if we are to truly level up, or gauge up, our communities in the north-east, not just a few packets of money—not just the crumbs off the table. It cannot just be that who is best at submitting a bid will get the money and other areas that are sadly lacking will again get left further and further behind—my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about that.

This morning, the news broke in the press that Recharge Industries, an Australian-based company, had put in an offer to buy Britishvolt, which is very encouraging, as were other reports in the press this morning that 12 other companies have shown an interest. Let us hope that something can happen, because we cannot have another false dawn. We cannot have another Britishvolt, where we have a project of this magnitude, with the land, the planning and everything else in place, only for the Government to go cold and step back from assisting our regions.

A couple of issues are really interesting. The administrator, Ernst & Young, has a legal obligation to accept the highest offer. It has no legal obligation to accept what might be the best offer for the people in our communities or to say, “I will take that offer because it is going to create tens of thousands or hundreds of jobs.” It has an obligation to seek what is best for the current shareholders. We have to look at that and hope that the administrators bear in mind when making this ultimate decision that this is not only about the shareholders, many of whom will probably not live in our region, or even in this country, and are looking for as much money as possible—the people in our region count and they should not be forgotten. We have to put as much pressure as we can on the administrators.

I am going to ask the Minister a number of quick questions. We have to make sure that the Government step up to the plate on this. I have explained this and I will not repeat myself, but the Government were shouting about Britishvolt from the rooftops one minute and then they were refusing any finances to it the next moment—that is well documented. They said that one of the milestones was private investment, but the company thought that was wrong way around. Those private companies were willing to invest on the basis that the Government would support it morally and financially. If the company had UK Government support, that would hold sway. The British Government basically abdicated responsibility, and jumped off the ship like a rat. That caused investors to be extremely unhappy, and probably put them off in the short and the medium term.

We are where we are with Britishvolt at Cambois. Will the Minister commit to do whatever it takes to get behind whoever acquires the site to build a gigafactory, including offering a proper package of financial support, in line with what other states across Europe offer? I have explained the massive difference in support that European countries get from their Governments. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plans to ensure that the site in Cambois is developed as quickly as possible? There cannot be any more delays. We hope that the Government will get in intense discussions to support any successful bidder for the plant.

Would the Minister tell us why money was not forthcoming to Britishvolt when it requested the £30 million early, which it argues would have gone a long way to reach its milestones and to get the gigafactory developed? Can the Minister clarify what due diligence was done on the company when it decided to offer it a £100-million grant in the first place? Why did the Government eventually go cold on their support? Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to reach the target of building eight to 10 gigafactories by 2040? How do they plan to stay competitive with other companies across Europe and globally, given the strategic barriers that I have outlined?

I have spoken for quite some time, but the issue is critical for Members, individuals and families in south-east Northumberland and the wider afield constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Hemsworth and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). We feel left behind. We feel that the Government have not supported us, despite the initial euphoria that this was to be the best possible opportunity to transform our area. I say to the Minister that, seriously, we need to get on to that playing field. We need to support the automotive industry. That includes electrical vehicle battery plants. We are way behind if we are to have 80 by 2040. Let’s get cracking. Let’s get the site developed in Cambois. Let’s get the Government support to the preferred bidder and make sure that the bidder wants a gigafactory, not something much less, so we can transform the economy of our great region.

Energy Price Cap: Residential Buildings with Communal Heating Systems

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I live in a building that has shared heating, although I do not have that shared heating—I have my own heating system. We are all affected by the increase in energy prices. However, it is being most keenly felt by those who are not protected by the energy price cap because they live in apartments within buildings served by heat networks. Indeed, those affected are now facing, or are due to face, a staggering increase of around 300% in their heating bills. It is incredible how many people in Cities of London and Westminster and constituencies like mine are affected because their buildings, whether mansion blocks, social housing blocks or new, larger developments, are part of heat networks. I can assure you, Mr Pritchard, that this is a very real issue for my constituents.

Many have outlined the positives of such heating systems, and while I appreciate the potential of heat networks and the fact that many blocks are commercial enterprises with their own targets, their end users are ultimately residents, not businesses. Those residents, through no fault of their own, are fully exposed to extreme market changes, with little recourse to any help. This cannot be left for any longer. Right now, Europe faces its worst energy crisis since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s. In turn, consumers and landlords operating heat networks are consistently reporting extreme examples of energy price rises to me. Figuratively speaking, people whose homes have communal heat networks are being charged up to four times their previous energy bills, purely because their building has one communal heat source.

It is for that reason that I was grateful to meet recently with the Minister in the Lords, Minister Callanan, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), to discuss these issues for central London in more detail. It was a very interesting discussion, made all the richer for having some of our constituents in attendance to speak directly with the Minister about how difficult it is for them at the moment. I thank Richard Cutt and James Wright for their time representing Cities of London and Westminster on this matter. It was promising to hear from the Minister that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is considering looking at options to legislate for Ofgem to be given powers to intervene when prices are significantly higher for consumers. I would welcome such powers, which would go a long way to protect residents in buildings with communal heating.

That said, the question that remains is how long it will take for legislation to resolve the issue. As I have said, I have spoken to those affected, and I do not think residents can afford such a long lead-in time for the relevant laws to come to fruition. I appreciate that we need to wait for the Queen’s Speech, which I hope will contain the much anticipated energy Bill. However, even if we prioritise that Bill, we will only see results on the ground within a year or two. After all, BEIS will need ample time for policy development. We would then legislate for transparency on costing, so that we can see what organisations are paying and Ofgem can then make sure that consumers are not ripped off, so there is a huge time lag in this.

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

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. In my constituency of Washington and Sunderland West, I have over 1,000 properties attached to one of these heating systems, and they do not benefit from the energy price cap or anything like that. I agree with her that the Government need to bring forward that legislation, but in the meantime those people need help now, as she is saying. Does she have any suggestions for what that help could be from the Government?

[Nickie Aiken]

I hope that the Minister might address that very well made point. We can live in hope.

Through all the good and necessary steps that the Government are taking to protect consumers through the energy cap, the timescales are quite difficult for our residents who are facing the cost here and now. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about what help, if any, can be given to those on heat networks now. I hope that if there is a consultation and it is a quick one, it will also throw up lots of secondary concerns. For example, how can we address the detail of meters? Can any price cap in this area take into account different monitoring systems as technology evolves? Can we have a cap on the wholesale price for consumers as well as domestic users with a single supply? It is not an easy task to resolve this.

Right now, we in Parliament need to ensure that there is interim support that takes into account the nuances of those locked into heat networks—they are literally locked into this. Indeed, I was concerned to hear reports from some of my constituents who are currently excluded from the otherwise comprehensive package of support being offered by the Treasury, precisely because they are on a heat network.

I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not think that a solution will necessarily require more money. We just need to ensure that Government support is allocated fairly and takes into account the complexities of people locked into heat networks with no price caps.

I hear time and again that transparency is key to resolving this matter, and right now I am concerned that Ofgem does not quite have the capacity to target the support that is needed to residents who are affected. In fact, that was brought up in the responses to the Government’s “Heat Networks: Building a Market Framework” consultation. It seems that some of those previous concerns are now transpiring, and I suspect that we are seeing the additional complexity of a top-down approach when the market really requires a bottom-up approach.

To conclude, I hope that the Minister can address a few of the concerns that I have mentioned. I know that the Government are committed to making heat networks a key part of their energy policy. After all, heat networks have the potential to offer low-cost, low-carbon heat. But without intervention now, hundreds of thousands of families are facing horrendous and unaffordable heating bills. What is important here and now is that we must not leave families living on these schemes behind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My right hon. Friend speaks from experience, having been a business Minister in the past. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we reduce burdensome regulation and red tape, but we need to make sure that we stick with the protections that are there for employees.

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

T9. Following the conviction of two ticket touts in Leeds last week for fraud, what discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about including financial harm in the online harms White Paper?

[Alok Sharma]

I will make sure that my colleagues and I have the discussion. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to share with my office the details of that case.

Sale of New Petrol and Diesel Cars and Vans

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It really is a pleasure to speak in this debate today, because it is on an issue of great importance not only to our environmental commitments, but to the continued success of the UK’s automotive industry. As people will no doubt be aware, because I bang on about it, it is also important to my constituency, which is home to Nissan’s UK car plant. Just last month, the plant became the first in the UK to build its 10 millionth vehicle—an astonishing achievement and a real testament to the efficiency of the facility and the dedication of the workers.

Despite that good news, the overall picture for the automotive industry is worrying. A decline in sales of diesel vehicles, continuing uncertainty over Brexit, fears of a no-deal outcome, and the shift towards electric cars and autonomous vehicles are just some of the key factors that have led some in the sector to describe the current situation as a crisis. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, British car production fell for the 12th month in a row in May as output dropped to 15.5%. It is now clearer than ever that we need an urgent resolution to the ongoing Brexit stalemate and one that avoids the UK crashing out without a deal, which would be disastrous for the automotive industry.

While we must recognise the challenge that the transition towards electric vehicles presents to the automotive industry, it is important to see it as a great opportunity. Climate change is rightly back on the top of the political agenda, partly due to recent protests, including last week’s successful “The Time is Now” mass lobby. The deadly heatwave that swept across Europe last week should also focus our minds on tackling this issue. According to scientists, it was at least five times, and possibly a hundred times, more likely because of climate change.

As the shadow Public Health Minister, I am hugely concerned by illegal and harmful levels of air pollution across the UK, especially here in the capital. Air pollution damages the health of millions of people and is hugely dangerous for children, babies, older people, and those with existing health conditions. Successfully transitioning to electric vehicles is just one way of combating the climate crisis.

Nissan has been leading the way in developing EVs and the battery technology upon which they rely. The Nissan Leaf, made in my constituency, was the best-selling EV in Europe last year. The plant in Washington is also the only volume car manufacturer making a pure battery EV and has the first UK battery plant. Disappointingly, uptake of EVs in the UK lags behind other European countries, and the Government must be held partly responsible. They have failed to create an environment in which the EV market can thrive. Grants for EVs have been cut, and investment in the charging infrastructure has been insufficient, as we have heard from several hon. Members.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the Government continue to hold an unambitious phase-out date for new petrol and diesel models of 2040. By comparison, Norway’s target is for all vehicles sold to be low emission by 2025, the Netherlands and Sweden are aiming for 2030, and Scotland’s target is 2032. Although opinions vary on what the target should be, many in the industry have told me that the sector could absolutely cope with our target being brought forward to, say, 2035. The Committee on Climate Change recently called for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to be banned by 2030, so does the Minister agree with the CCC?

If companies such as Nissan are to build on their successes by producing and selling EVs, the right conditions must be in place for consumers to feel comfortable about making that transition. Two of the key barriers to consumer uptake are concerns around sufficient charging infrastructure and the high price of purchasing an EV compared with a petrol or diesel vehicle. Last year, the Government cut the grant for EVs from £4,500 to £3,500, which Labour strongly opposed. We simply cannot expect people, many of whom were encouraged to buy diesel cars not that long ago, to be able to afford new EVs when they can cost up to £10,000 more than a petrol or diesel vehicle. Even if they cost less to run over time, that initial outlay is the barrier.

As for charging infrastructure, Sunderland is well served, as is the north-east as a whole, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) pointed out. I attended the launch of our new Fastned charging station in Sunderland just last month, for example. As she said, the current market-led approach could lead to an unequal and inefficient distribution of charging points, and if the Government expect consumers to make the change to electric, they need to set out a national strategic infrastructure plan for charging points and further support individuals with home charging.

Although it is welcome that, as of 1 July, all electric car charge points installed via the official homecharge scheme must now have smart features, that means that chargers installed outside of the scheme will not have to be smart. In order for the electricity grid to ever be able to cope with this new future of high levels of EV charging, the systems in place need to be as efficient and smart as possible, not only in homes, but in workplaces and public locations.

The SMMT published figures today showing that the UK car market is in decline for the fourth consecutive month and that alternatively fuelled vehicle demand fell for the first time in 26 months. It is clear that the EV market in the UK can thrive with the right conditions in place, and the Government should be ensuring that the transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles is seen as an opportunity by all.

Consumer Protection

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am going to speak about something slightly different, which is what I think should be in the statutory instrument. As Members probably know—if they do not, it is probably because I have not banged on about it enough—I chair the all-party group on ticket abuse, in which capacity I wish to speak today. I feel strongly that with this SI the Government have missed a great opportunity to address some concerns that have been expressed to me over the years.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 refers explicitly to secondary ticketing. Despite that important legislation, fans continue to be ripped off by secondary ticket touts who sell tickets for huge profits to genuine fans. Some touts do this regardless of whether the ticket actually exists, and without any regard for existing legislation. This leaves people out of pocket, frustrated, disappointed and unable to attend an event that they have saved for and looked forward to. The 2015 Act exists to protect consumers, which is what we are discussing, but it is failing to do so because of insufficient enforcement. Without sufficient enforcement, it becomes a moot Act, if there can be such a thing. That is why I wish to make the case today for more funding for our enforcement agencies, as I believe that enforcement is a significant aspect of the 2015 Act that is missing from this SI. I hope the Government will consider rectifying that.

National trading standards

“delivers national and regional consumer protection enforcement…Its purpose is to protect consumers and safeguard legitimate businesses by tackling serious national and regional consumer protection issues and organised criminality and by providing a ‘safety net’ to limit unsafe consumer goods entering the UK”.

To perform this huge task, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provides national trading standards and Trading Standards Scotland with just £14 million. With that small amount of funding, trading standards is expected to protect consumers from scams and cyber-crime and to protect UK borders and public safety. Does the Minister agree that £14 million per year for this huge responsibility, which requires investigation, prevention, safeguarding and enforcement, is really not enough to fulfil the task to any acceptable level, and that it must—I know it does—leave NTS officers continually frustrated and overworked? Has the Minister made any assessment of how much funding NTS needs to fulfil its role to the highest standard?

The 2015 Act makes it clear that sellers must provide seat, row and block numbers, as well as the unique ticket ID number, if the event organisers insist on it, yet there are still examples of secondary ticketing sites that do not supply this information. Touts are therefore still able to operate illegally and rip off genuine fans without any serious implications. The legislation exists—we are talking about it—but despite a long-running Competition and Markets Authority investigation, enforcement is still lacking. That means it is up to organisers, venues and promoters to monitor secondary ticket touts, cancel tickets when necessary, and respond to disappointed fans who are denied access with invalid tickets. Such expectations are unreasonable for organisers, venues and promoters. At a recent meeting of the all-party group, an event organiser said:

“We don’t want to be the enforcers, but if agencies aren’t there then we have to step in.”

Does the Minister agree that this is not an acceptable expectation for organisers, venues and promoters?

As the House knows, I have been working on this issue for a long time now, and I am convinced that ticket touts will continue to operate outside the law until there is a sustainably funded agency to ensure that the existing legislation—this legislation—is enforced. That is why the SI is deficient. Recently, we saw two English teams fly to Madrid for the champions league final. I have to admit that I am not a fan of either team—I do not know whether you are, Madam Deputy Speaker—but many fans flew over, too, paying out for their flights, transfers and accommodation, on top of as much as £5,000 per ticket, going up in some cases to £10,000 per ticket, only to be told, just hours before the game, that the tickets they had purchased from secondary ticket sites did not exist and were cancelled. I can only imagine the sheer disappointment, anger and frustration that those fans went through, even though the 2015 Act should have made it impossible for that to happen. Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurrence: it is something I hear about all too often from the excellent campaign groups Victim of Viagogo and the FanFair Alliance.

If the Government want to protect consumers—which is what we are here to do—they must invest in our enforcement agencies to ensure that the existing legislation is totally adhered to. I know that what I have talked about is slightly outwith the scope of the SI, and I am so grateful for the House’s indulgence and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to talk about the funding of national trading standards, but I hope the Minister has heard what I have had to say, even though I have sneaked it in as I have done, and will look into the issue as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I should say that I allowed the hon. Lady some leeway and she has put her views on the record, but I expect the Minister to address what is in the statutory instrument, rather than what is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon lady raises an important point. The process we have followed has meant that the Office for Product Safety and Standards carried out a review. We obviously want to move on to the next stage, and this is a great example of what the Office for Product Safety and Standards is able to do. The statutory instrument describes a specific element of that, mainly relating to the investigatory powers. We are doing further work on consumer protection as we bring together—we hope, in the near future—a consumer White Paper on strengthening enforcement and a host of other things, on the back of the Green Paper that was announced last year.

On the Secretary of State’s powers to investigate, local trading standards in Great Britain and district councils investigate claims about potentially unsafe products in their local areas. National incidents are designated under the Office for Product Safety and Standards’s national incident management plan triage process. We want the OPSS to lead on national incidents and to have the same investigatory powers as local trading standards. The Secretary of State already has equivalent investigatory powers to investigate any products regulated under specific legislation, such as cosmetics and electrical equipment, but not cots and DIY tools. This order aligns the Secretary of State’s powers with those that are already available to trading standards and ensures the consistency of the powers that could be used by the OPSS. The circumstances under which the Secretary of State would exercise those powers is where the OPSS’s national incident management plan triage process concludes that the nature of the product warrants such action.

With regard to the OPSS and its communication with our trading standards, I have to tell the House that the relationship between national trading standards, local trading standards and the OPSS is one of continuous communication and working together. We would not be able to influence and to have such a great enforcement system without those organisations working together. Yesterday, I met trading standards professionals across the enforcement landscape. A key part of my role has been making sure that I keep in touch with representatives of national and local trading standards. I wish to put it on record that trading standards officers do invaluable and exceptional work throughout the country. They work incredibly hard and are very much the unsung heroes.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree with the Minister on that point, but I want to highlight the points that I was making about the funding of national trading standards. [Interruption.] She has just assured me that she is coming on to that point.

[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.

Industrial Strategy: North-East of England

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered industrial strategy in the North East of England.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am delighted to have been granted this debate on such a crucial subject for our region. There are two local enterprise partnerships in the north-east, so we have two local industrial strategies: one for seven north-east local authorities, and one for the Tees valley. My area is covered by the North East LEP, which leads on the creation of the local industrial strategy, as its footprint includes two combined authorities: the newly created North of Tyne combined authority and the North East combined authority. As the North of Tyne combined authority has a devolution deal that specifically refers to the LIS, the picture is a little more complicated than elsewhere, as the Minister will appreciate. However, both combined authorities are working together, and with businesses and partners and through the LEP board, to make sure the local industrial strategy makes sense for residents and businesses in the north-east.

I will not talk about the north-east’s fantastic industrial and inventive past, because we see that backward look too often in the region, and although it is important to recognise that we have been passionate, ambitious and innovative for hundreds of years, looking back does a disservice to the brilliant people and businesses that we have today. It does not highlight the fact that the north-east has proportionally more businesses in manufacturing—10.5% against 7.7% nationally—or the fact that in 2018, the growth in the number of businesses massively outstripped what was happening nationally; we had 14.2% growth, versus a national fall of 0.5%, and we have seen a growth in productivity since 2014. Those are positive things, but that is not to detract from the less positive things happening in the region that I think my colleagues will talk about.

Looking back would not highlight the fact that the north-east is a brilliant place to live; I am sure all of us in this room agree on that. It is way more affordable than significant parts of the country. As of March, our average house price—for a very nice house—was £123,000, whereas the national average was £227,000, so I urge people to look at relocating to our area.

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

Not too many.

[Mary Glindon]

Perhaps not too many, but all are welcome.

I want to talk about what is strategically important to the north-east today, and what will make a difference to our future. For the north-east, the industrial strategy and the local industrial strategy will be about our ambition, the sectors in which we are strong, and the infrastructure that will lead to growth, and they have to be about turning strategy into action. The LIS is seen as building on the north-east strategic plan, which was agreed with businesses and communities of all shapes and sizes. It has an ambition for more and better jobs—100,000 jobs by 2024, with at least 70% being what are termed better jobs in managerial, professional and technical roles. We have already seen more than 64,000 new jobs created, of which 77% are classed as better jobs, but we need more investment and support from the Government, so that more can be achieved, and we need the right infrastructure put in place.

Yesterday, some of us went to the drop-in held by Highways England. I was pleased to go and congratulate it on the fantastic new Silverlink interchange on the A19, which has massively improved access to the Tyne tunnels. It was done on time, through collaboration between the council, businesses, and Highways England—a great feat for the region.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for securing this important debate and for her excellent speech. She has laid out why a proper industrial strategy is so important, especially for us in the north-east.

The north-east strategic economic plan has been active for five years. In that time, the region has seen some great change and investment, despite the uncertain times in which we find ourselves. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for Washington and Sunderland West, which is home—as all Members know, because I bang on about it enough—to Nissan’s UK car plant. There has also been exciting development around the International Advanced Manufacturing Park, known as IAMP, which I am sure Members will become equally sick of hearing me talk about.

Meanwhile, a bid to unlock a potential £33 million in funding is under way with the Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Advanced Manufacturing. That hub will provide advanced manufacturing solutions to many businesses across the market in the region, such as Driving the Electric Revolution, which is based in Sunderland. I am certain that that will attract innovation and investment across the region, to benefit both the local and national economy. Those developments have the potential to transform the north-east.

The north-east strategic economic plan has been successful to a certain extent. It has helped towards the creation of 100,000 more jobs by 2024, as we heard, and the economic gap between the north-east and the rest of the country has narrowed. Some 71,600 jobs have been created so far, of which 70% can be described as “better jobs”. That is an excellent feat for the region and its long-term planning. However, we can be certain that the gap still exists between the north-east and the rest of the UK.

If performance, enabled by investment and infrastructure, had matched that of the rest of England except for London, we would have 93,000 more jobs in the north-east and 25,000 more businesses. The north-east still lags behind in the majority of areas of economic performance, despite, as we heard, securing more foreign investment than any other region. That suggests that the Government’s economic plan is failing us. It has held back the economies and communities of Washington and Sunderland, and those of many other ex-coalfields and post-industrial northern towns.

[Alex Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have two economies in the north-east: an economy with well-paid jobs, which allows people to go on foreign holidays and enjoy their lives, and poverty that afflicts tens of thousands of people in our area? We have done extremely well as a region; if we just had more investment, we could take so many more people out of poverty.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Inequality and the wealth gap still exist, probably in all regions—we see it here in London too. Prosperity has never reached some parts of our region, which has led to disenfranchisement in some of our communities. We are now feeling the brunt of that in how they are voting.

Growth is good, but it is important to know where that growth comes from. The quality of communities and how they are sustained by the economy is an important part of keeping the fabric of society vibrant. The role of the Government in the economy must be more than simply growth and redistribution; they should aim to ensure that the country’s growth is responsible and has a social value, so that everyone lives a better life. That is something that the Labour party is committed to, with the introduction of a Minister for manufacturing.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes some really important points, especially on the wealth gap, which I, as a Yorkshire MP, would say is between the north—rather than the north-east—and the south. Skills and education play a key role in improving the lives and opportunities of everyone. Does she welcome the technical education offer, and the announcement of 12 new technical institutions? Two are in the north-east and Yorkshire: one, York College, is in my constituency and the other is New College Durham. Surely we have to grasp that opportunity to ensure that we improve skills and technical education in our region—I say “our region”, as a Yorkshire MP—as the north moves forward.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am happy to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Skills are so important. We hear from employers all the time that they often cannot find the necessary skills in the local workforce, which is heartbreaking when many young people are desperate to acquire those skills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned, we need to ensure that prosperity is shared among everyone. The rise in the number of apprentices is also welcome, and the technical colleges that the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned play a huge and important part in that.

The Government often point to low unemployment figures as proof that their approach is working, yet in-work poverty is on the rise. It is at its highest for 20 years, with 4 million people living in poverty despite being in work—it is not just me saying that; the figure comes from Joseph Rowntree Foundation research. One in four workers in the north of England is paid less than the real living wage, after a decade of stagnant wages and the rise of zero-hours contracts. That leads to the two-tier workforce that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North mentioned.

Although we are on our way to closing the gap and making businesses in the north-east a more valuable prospect, we are still recovering from the catastrophes that the region has faced in the last 50 years. Those catastrophes have made our communities resilient, but to ensure that we endure, one thing must be at the heart of any strategy: the environment. We must invest sustainably in our economy to ensure that future growth does not come at the expense of our environment. It is essential to confront the climate crisis in every Government strategy, especially an industrial strategy. I am proud that the Labour party has committed to do that, having already forced the Government to declare a climate emergency in May.

Nissan’s investment in battery technology and electric vehicles has put Sunderland at the forefront of the European market. It is the only plant in the UK that makes a purely battery electric vehicle, the LEAF. Nissan’s expansion on the back of the worldwide move to electrification offers the UK the chance to be a leader among European manufacturers, and our local communities will benefit most.

Sustainability should be at the centre of all sides of development. For example, with the expansion of IAMP, which I mentioned, I would like the local transport network to be developed to ensure that in years to come, the staff who work there will have an alternative to private motorised transport when going to work. An excellent way to do that—another opportunity that I never cease to mention—would be to expand the Tyne and Wear metro to Washington and IAMP.

Economic development is another concern in these turbulent times. The ongoing uncertainty of the Brexit process—I have mentioned it as well—may damage investment and businesses in the north-east, as 55% of Nissan’s exports go to the EU. We need a solid and sensible deal for exiting the EU to give businesses certainty. Parliament has made it clear that it rejects the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, yet the idea of reintroducing a no-deal option has been used numerous times by candidates in the Conservative party’s ongoing leadership campaign—I will name no names; I do not want to give anybody more publicity, not that anybody would take any notice of me—in a reckless attempt to bolster themselves. That is worryingly irresponsible and gives no assurance to UK manufacturers, some of whom described the idea of leaving the EU without a deal as “economic lunacy” this week.

The potential for a bright future in the north-east is high. Our region is growing well, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside said, it is a great place to live, work and have leisure time, but there are more steps to take to ensure that its development can be sustained and work for everyone, which I hope the Minister will consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

No, no, but I know that Stockton had the first passenger railway in the world. We have a lot to be proud of in our area.

NETPark, a science park just outside Sedgefield village is leading the way in all kinds of technologies, including light-based technology. It produces masks that people with diabetes wear when they are asleep, which helps. It is also a catapult centre for the space industry. It is the home of technology for the future. The park overlooks the site of the old Fishburn coke works and pit, where my dad worked all those years ago. If he could only see the technologies that are now on the doorstep of where he was brought up. I am really proud of it all.

There are 9,000 manufacturing jobs in Sedgefield, which is second only to those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), where there are 17,000 jobs and tens of thousands in the supply chain. We have a supply chain of about 16,000. Manufacturing is a key industry for the north-east of England. Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation, is now saying that it is very worried about a no-deal scenario, as it is “economic lunacy”. On this side of the House, we can all agree. Make UK’s key findings are that domestic and export orders are continuing to weaken, the gap between output and orders has increased, export orders remain at their weakest since the referendum, there is growing evidence of European companies abandoning UK supply chains, investment intentions are paralysed, and the manufacturing forecast for growth is just 0.2% in 2018 and 0.8% in 2020. These are dire figures. We need to think about those indicators as we further consider in this House what to do about Brexit.

I have deep concerns about Brexit. The north-east is the only region that exports more than it imports, and more than 60% of our exports go to European markets. Being part of the EU, the single market and the customs union is vital to the north-east of England. If there is a no-deal Brexit, it is estimated that GDP will fall by 16%, which could mean the loss of something like 200,000 jobs. Those are dire figures, and we should be broadcasting them all the time.

Between 2014 and 2020, the European structural investment fund invested £437 million in the north-east economy. The aim of EU structural funds is to rebalance our economy through regional investment allocated according to need. Will the Minister tell us where that money will come from when it stops coming from the EU? The Government’s stronger towns fund, launched in March this year, consists of a £1 billion fund allocated to English regions and £600 million available under competitive bidding after Brexit. That is less than 10% of what UK regions would receive if the UK remained in the EU; the north-east alone was projected to receive £1 billion over seven years. The shared prosperity fund, which was designed to reduce inequalities between communities, has released no details on the level of funding, the funding model, the length of funding periods or the fund’s administration.

Another issue that I want to raise with the Minister, which he might not be responsible for, is the high street fund, which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few months ago. We all agree that we need to see improvements to our high streets. Newton Aycliffe in my constituency has a high street that is owned by Freshwater. The environmental area has been vastly improved—something for which the town has won awards—but there is still the problem of empty units and shops closing, which affects not just Newton Aycliffe, but our high streets up and down the country. If the likes of Darlington and Durham are losing their branches of Marks & Spencer, I really worry about the future of high streets in new towns such as Newton Aycliffe. What can we do to remedy that?

I want to make one or two other points. The north-east is one region, but we do not act like one region. If we did, we would become a true powerhouse. The regional development agency, which was abolished by this Government back in 2010-11, was a key asset to the north-east of England. I think it is fair to say that investment was from the public sector to the private sector in the north; in the south-east, it might be from the private sector to the private sector. The regional development agency was therefore a key contributor to bringing investment to the north-east.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point, which I want to reinforce by putting it on record that, from my recollection, the regional development agency in the north-east was the only one that really worked as it should have. For every £1 that the Government invested in the north-east through the One North East RDA, the return was £7. I might have it wrong, but that is the figure from memory. Does he agree that we should have certainly been able to keep One North East, because it worked?

[Phil Wilson]

That is right, and to abolish One North East was an act of economic vandalism. It was a kind of ideology gone mad—“If it is public sector, we should abolish it.” We now see the impact of its loss, to the detriment of the north-east of England. We have got rid of the regional development agency, and we do not act as one region. We have two Mayors and three combined authorities competing with each other, whereas we need to be one region—the north-east of England—talking as one for the benefit of the whole region.

I will finish by discussing the issue of Brexit. I remember when the news came out a few months ago about the manufacturing loss of Nissan models such as the X-Trail. I remember people from the region saying on the television, “Well, if Nissan goes, we’ll be okay. We survived the closure of the pits. We survived the closure of the shipyards.” Well, we might have done—we might be starting to come out of that period—but it has taken years. How did we survive that? Why have we got a big upturn in car manufacturing? How have we as a region been able to attract foreign direct investment in the way that we have, with Nissan and Hitachi in my constituency, and with other manufacturers around the country? How were we able to survive the closures of the pits and the shipyards? The reason is that we were in the single market and the customs union, and we had access to the biggest trading bloc—the biggest economic bloc—in the world. My view is that it is absolutely wrong for the region, and for this country, to close the door on that.

We were able to come round from the closure of the pits. I grew up in a pit village, and I know what happened back in the 1980s. We managed to get through the catastrophe of the closure of the shipyards because we were in the single market and the customs union. If we close the door, what will it do for the future of manufacturing and the economic wellbeing of my region and the country? Should there be a no-deal Brexit, GDP will fall by 16%, which is not in the best interest of the people of the north-east of England. We need to be saying that loud and clear from this day on, until we get a resolution to the issue of Brexit. In my view, there is no deal that is better than the one we have now. I have asked the Prime Minister whether the deal she brought forward is better than the one we have now, but I have yet to receive an answer.

Honda in Swindon

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I do take it at its word; it is only fair to do so. However, as it departs, I reflect on the words it has given to me and to Committees of this House based on its experience of the requirement to avoid changes in our trading relationship with Europe that would introduce frictions. It has said those words on the record, and they are as valid today as at the time when it said them during the weeks and months past.

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

The news confirmed today from Honda will be hugely concerning for the thousands of employees in the automotive industry, as well as its supply chain, across the UK, including those at Nissan in my constituency. The Business Secretary is well aware that the UK automotive industry is facing a number of urgent challenges, including ongoing uncertainty around Brexit and the threat of no deal. There are just 38 days until we leave the EU. When will we have clarity on what the deal will be the day after?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the environment in which investment decisions take place affect all businesses, not just those in the automotive sector. That is why I have taken pains to remind the House of what the leaders of the industry say, which is that we should conclude these matters on the lines of the deal that has been negotiated. It is in her hands to contribute to that resolution.

Nissan in Sunderland

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I say to my right hon. Friend that, in fact, the extra investment is going into new Powertrains—cleaner Powertrains. Far from being critics of this, Nissan, as people who know the industry well know, is among the principal advocates for more ambitious environmental standards and has been a pioneer in establishing electric vehicles in this country. It is recognising that that is the way consumer demand is going, but it recognises that this is a positive step.

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

Nissan in my constituency, together with the supply chain, employs almost 40,000 people, many of whom will be extremely concerned at this decision. This Government’s chaotic approach to the Brexit negotiations, concerns about diesel and a new free trade agreement between Japan and the EU have created a perfect storm. With just 53 days until we are due to leave the EU, no Brexit parliamentary business scheduled for two weeks, the Prime Minister currently engaged in fantasy politics over the backstop and the sweetheart deal on the rocks, what immediate steps is the Secretary of State taking to reassure the whole UK automotive industry?

[Greg Clark]

One of the pleasures of dealing with the automotive industry in the UK is that it is one of the most advanced and most capable in the world in innovation. We are working with the sector, through our industry strategy, to be the leading place in the world, and our work not just for the discovery of new battery technologies, but for manufacturing, and the testbeds that we have put in place for connected and autonomous vehicles make Britain the place in the world that people come to for innovation. This Government back that, and I know it enjoys support across the House; it is a source of confidence around the world. However, it is true that an international business such as an automotive one wants to know, perfectly reasonably, what its trading relationships will be with the rest of the European Union in the years ahead. That is why these companies have been so clear that this House should come together and back the deal. I hope that the hon. Lady, with the care for her constituents that I know she always has in mind, will see fit to do so too in the days and weeks ahead.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate—we can tell from the quantity and quality of the Members attending how important it is. She gave an excellent speech, as others have said, and set out the case so well. I will probably repeat some of what she said, but because it is so important I think it is well worth saying twice, or even three or four times. Maybe then we will get the message across to the Minister, who I am sure will be in no doubt about how strongly we all feel about this.

Over the last five years, 150 Crown post offices have closed, with the closure or franchising of a further 74 Crown post offices announced in October last year. Unlike many of my colleagues, I am fortunate that no Crown post offices in my constituency are scheduled to be closed or franchised under those plans. However, the Crown post office in Sunderland is one of the busiest in the country. I can only imagine the impact on the local community if it were to be closed in the next phase of franchising. I thought I had better get in there now and stake the claim for that one to be taken off any future list.

Post offices are at the heart of local communities and are more than just somewhere for people to buy stamps or post letters. They provide vital services for many across the country, and it is therefore right and perhaps obvious that proposed closures are taking place in the face of significant local and national opposition. That is why we are all here today.

The continued privatisation and closure of Crown post offices risks leaving vulnerable customers and rural communities without access to banking and postal services. In addition, a 2016 report from Citizens Advice concluded that franchising to retailers in the past has led to inferior services and poor disabled access, which is concerning given the number of disabled welfare claimants and pensioners who access payments via Post Office card accounts. Will the Minister please tell the House whether the Government plan to carry out equality impact assessments to ensure that any post offices that are franchised are accessible to all?

Franchising is often accompanied by substandard service, as we have heard. A constituent of mine who is a former Crown post office employee wrote to me recently to voice his concerns about the impact of franchising on the employment of trained, experienced staff. In fact, Citizens Advice reported that franchising leads to a deterioration in service and fewer staff with less experience. It seems that the economics of the franchise model are based on cutting staff numbers and reducing service provision. Franchise plans put in place by the Post Office in 2014 could work only if 50% of existing Crown post office staff left the service. This expulsion of experienced, knowledgeable staff is all done at a massive cost to the taxpayer, with £13 million paid in compensation agreements to redundant postal staff between 2014 and 2015. Then, after all these experienced staff are let go, their jobs are replaced with low-paid, temporary employment.

Recently announced plans show that many Crown post offices will be franchised to WHSmith, as my hon. Friends have said. Unions have raised concerns about the retailer’s employment practices, given that its business model is based on low-wage, part-time jobs paying little above the minimum wage, whereas the usual pay for a counter position at a Crown post office is way above that. How can the Minister justify the replacement of well-paid, quality jobs with low-paid temporary positions? It is exploitative of staff and residents in areas where Crown post offices will be franchised.

I wrote to the Minister recently to voice my concerns and those of my constituents, and I thank her for her quick response. She said in reply that franchising is not a process of privatisation or closure. However, when considering the staff cuts, substandard service provision and poor profits that the postal service has faced in recent years, it appears that this publicly funded service is going through a period of managed decline.

The Minister also told me that franchising was about reducing costs for taxpayers. However, the process of franchising is paid for by public money. Millions have already been spent on compensation agreements with Crown post office staff and on installing and furnishing new, franchised branches. The Post Office will not even disclose the magnitude of some of these costs and has refused to carry out a public consultation on franchising.

Does the Minister agree that the public should at least be consulted before they are billed for substandard service and the loss of publicly owned assets? There has been a serious lack of transparency throughout the process and it is wrong that significant sums of public money are being used to finance the privatisation of the post office network. Franchising leads to poor service, poor accessibility and job cuts. The Government must justify their use of franchising and acknowledge the effect on service provision in all our local communities across the country.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

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

[Mrs Hodgson]

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

[Helen Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, including the 595 people from my constituency who signed the petition.

This is becoming a regular debate. I have seen the Minister’s response to the petition and it is hugely disappointing, because my constituents do not have confidence that their concerns are being listened to or that action will be taken on them. My constituents in Glasgow Central are increasingly concerned by the escalation in violence around fireworks. On 5 November, my inbox and my Twitter feed was inundated with videos, pictures and complaints, particularly from people in Pollokshields, who were finding that fireworks were being used as weapons in their community. They are extremely disturbed by that. The Pollokshields community council is having a public meeting tonight, which has had to be moved to a bigger venue, such is the concern in the community. They expect the Government here, which has the responsibility for firework sales, to take action on their concerns, which I will outline further.

Concern is not confined to Pollokshields. Constituents in Govanhill were concerned to see fireworks being let off in the streets, some tied to railings in the middle of the road and let off at cars. People in Bridgeton were concerned by the uprooting of an entire back fence of a community garden to be used on a nearby bonfire, at a cost to the community to replace. These incidents occurred even with the big public display in Glasgow Green nearby. People did not have the excuse of there being nowhere else to go and nothing else to see. The public display was literally at the other end of the street, but people still went ahead and did that.

A resident in Strathbungo, who has been plagued by fireworks as well, points out that it is illogical and bizarre that people are allowed to go out in this country and buy explosives for their own use. That really ought to change.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am about fireworks being used against firefighters? She has given examples of fireworks being used against members of the public, but in my constituency on bonfire night, firefighters in Sunderland were ambushed by a gang of youths in one of the communities, who had set fire to a car with fireworks. They had put the car over the bonfire and the car was alight. They then used other cars—what they call criminal pool cars—to block the estate, so the firefighters were trapped. The only reason the firefighters got out was because one of them had experience from the Meadow Well riots. Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am that we are selling explosives that are used against firefighters as well as the public?

[Alison Thewliss]

The experience that the hon. Lady describes is absolutely terrifying. No community should have to put up with that. The firefighters and emergency services staff should not be put at risk when they are trying to go out and help the public.

I want to mention the impact on my local police in Glasgow. The police were prepared. They went out and visited the offenders from last year and they visited shops and did test purchasing. They did what was within their power to do. Under current law, they are not able to seize fireworks, if people have them, so even if they found them, they would not be able to take them away. They were taken aback, particularly by the aggression towards the police on the night. Fireworks were being quite deliberately fired at local police officers. It was by good luck, more than anything else, that nobody was injured. Local residents were calling the police from their flats, saying that this was happening. When the police turned up there were 30 to 40 youths and young adults—not just kids, but adults as well—firing industrial scale fireworks, not small bangers, along the streets, at flats, up closes, in buildings, and towards and underneath cars. It was really quite frightening.

I will send the Minister some of the footage, which is on Twitter. Some additional footage that the police have shown me is absolutely terrifying. It was more by good luck than anything else that no one was more seriously injured. I understand that in another incident in Glasgow a three-year-old girl was injured by a firework. It is only a matter of time before things get worse. The police knew what was going to happen, as I have said. They supplemented their policing resources with a national policing resource; they had something akin to a riot van when they came to police the community. Even then they were forced to withdraw. The situation was so dangerous that they could barely put their officers out there. If it is that scary for the police, how terrifying it must be for residents, who feel that nothing can be done. The Minister must do something about it.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned PTSD and service personnel. Many of my constituents have come here from other countries—literally from war zones. It must cause fear to people who have fled violence and explosions when they hear such things replayed nightly over many weeks. It is quite significant.

I want to quote some of my constituents, who do not feel their voices have been listened to. In a comment that chimes with what the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said about his experience with his dog, one constituent said:

“As I write this email, I am sitting in my tiny internal bathroom for the third night in a row with my extremely distressed dog. I expect to be sitting here each night for at least another week. I’ve had to do this for the past 9 years.”

It is entirely unreasonable that people should have to live their lives in that way. Another constituent wrote:

“This is the third year we have lived in this area and the third year our children have been terrified of the noise and the feeling of relentless bombardment throughout the night on fireworks night. My daughter was in tears…as were many of her school friends as they were woken up dozens of times by the loud banging, racing cars and arguing voices. Our friend had a live firework thrown at his two year old in a buggy as he picked up his daughter from after school care...It is only a matter of time before one of our young people is seriously hurt…So much is written about dogs and pets being terrified at this time of year but what about our children?”

The impact can be quite traumatic, and children’s education can be affected by nights of disturbed sleep, distress and worry. From my family’s background in education, I am aware that fireworks are sometimes used in school; young people let them off in the corridors, so clearly they are able to get their hands on them.

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

Another constituent wrote:

“The explosions were continuous from before 6pm until after 10 pm, with intermittent before and after that…The most terrifying was on our street. We live on Kenmure street and there were gangs congregating on the corner with Albert drive. The police tried but couldn’t keep on top of it. They let fireworks off in the street, on the pavement, horizontally, under cars and amidst people. I don’t know how more people weren’t seriously injured.”

A resident of a neighbouring street said:

“Those of us living in Herriet St Pollokshields had 30-40 men, many wearing balaclavas, setting off industrial sized fireworks in the middle of the street.”

That was a terrifying experience for my constituents, as may be imagined.

There was also a need for a clear-up afterwards. There were boxes of abandoned fireworks to be picked up, some of them dud and some not—who knows? They were littered all over the place, and I picked some up in a park last week as well. They had just been left behind. During our debate in January, I mentioned sparklers being left behind in Glasgow Green, causing damage to people’s dogs. They could not walk or play in the grass because people had left metal sparklers all over the place. I tweeted about that earlier, and someone pointed out that the red blaes pitch at the Glasgow Gaelic School in Finnieston has been left pretty much unusable by the community and school, because of the mess left behind after the fireworks. There is a cost to local government in clearing up all those things, which may take weeks.

We need to look at better licensing of events. At the moment there is a free for all, and that is not working for our constituents. There should be some kind of audit trail for wholesalers that sell industrial-sized fireworks. If they sell industrial-grade fireworks, for want of a better term, what happens to those afterwards? How do we ensure that they can be traced? If they turn up on the corner of a street on Pollokshields, how can we know where they came from? We also need to think about criminal offences in connection with agent purchase. Many fireworks fall into the hands of young people. They are clearly bought for them by adults—friends or family members; then the young people are sent off into the street with them. The criminal offences should be similar to those relating to agent purchase of alcohol. The law should allow for local byelaws. If, as in my constituency, there are areas with a particular problem, byelaws could be tighter than the overall law in preventing the sale or use of fireworks.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the frustrations of his constituents, and I share his concerns. The Minister has heard concerns from across the House, and should take them on board. One of my constituents said:

“Every year, I sign one or more petitions asking Parliament to ban the private use of fireworks, limit the public use of fireworks and/or mandate the use of so-called silent fireworks. Every year, the government responds with a bland platitude about fireworks being regulated and there being no plans for change. Every year, I hear and see those regulations being flouted, for example: fireworks being set off in public parks by private individuals …youngsters…throwing them at fire service personnel, and even fireworks being set off in the street”.

The Minister cannot hide or duck the issue. There is a problem here. The Scottish Government have taken on a review, and I welcome that. The Minister will know that the signatories to the petition come largely from Scottish constituencies. They want something to happen, because in Scotland the law does not allow us to do much more than we have done already. I urge the Minister either to deal with the issue or devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament and let the Scottish Government get on with it.