House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Jun 1996 (pt 33)

PETITIONS

Life Sentences

10.14 pm

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport): I wish to present a petition on behalf of the relatives of Jean Crowie, who was murdered by her husband 17 years ago. Her body was buried in the garden of the marital home and not discovered until August 1994. Her family are outraged that her husband, William Crowie--who showed little remorse in court--was sentenced to only five years' imprisonment. The petition reads:

To the House of Commons. The petition of the people of Plymouth and the South-West declares that in Lincoln Crown Court on 13 October 1995, William Crowie was sentenced to five years' imprisonment after murdering his wife and concealing the body in the back garden of his marital home for 17 years.

11 Jun 1996 : Column 219

Therefore your petitioners request that the House of Commons pass legislation to provide for mandatory life sentences for those who commit murder. And your petitioners remain as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.

The petition is signed by Rose Hayes and Wendy Jasper, sisters of Jean Crowie; by Malcolm Westmore and Andrew Edwards, the brother and son of Jean Crowie respectively; and by 2,000 other people.

To lie upon the Table.

Postcodes (Beddington)

10.15 pm

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington): It is my pleasant duty to present a petition signed by Mr. Brian Keenan of 22 Bristow road, Beddington, and a large number of local residents in the Beddington North ward in my constituency and their supporters.

The petition draws attention to the problem of postcodes in Beddington and the fact that too many of my constituents feel disadvantaged by the way in which the Royal Mail persists in allocating a Croydon postcode when they want a Sutton postcode, reflecting their actual geographical location in the London borough of Sutton. The petition reads:

To the House of Commons. The petition of the Residents of Beddington North ward within the London Borough of Sutton and their supporters declares that the petitioners wish for their addresses and postcodes to reflect truly the actual geographical location of their residences, in place of those of the neighbouring borough of Croydon, which have been imposed by Royal Mail.

The petitioners therefore respectfully request the House of Commons to find time to debate and request the Minister of the Crown responsible to arrange for the necessary corrective action to be taken. The petitioners remain hopeful that their wishes will receive the favourable consideration of the House of Commons, for which they will be truly grateful.

To lie upon the Table.

11 Jun 1996 : Column 220

Homepower (Closure)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Coe.]

10.17 pm

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I am most grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends about a situation that has led to more than 800 people mainly in Yorkshire, Humberside and the east midlands losing their jobs. Those job losses are a direct consequence of the Government's privatisation of the electricity industry and pose serious questions about the most basic right of employees when redundancies arise.

I declare my membership of the Unison trade union, which represents many of the people directly affected. From my knowledge of the events leading to those huge job losses, the Unison officers concerned are to be strongly commended for striving long and hard to represent their members' interests in an extremely difficult situation. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Dave Mitchell, the Unison district officer, for the help that he has given some of my constituents.

My interest in the matter started with concern for the future of the former Yorkshire electricity board showroom in Wood street, Wakefield. That showroom has existed for as long as I can remember, and has, over the years, given excellent customer service to many of my constituents, particularly elderly people and those with low incomes who have traditionally paid their electricity accounts there through regular contributions.

Following privatisation, the regional electricity companies reviewed their retail operations, and in July 1993 Homepower Retail Ltd. was formed as a joint venture between Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity. Later that year, following a ballot, the Homepower Retail employees accepted substantial reductions in pay, in many instances by £3,500 per annum, and reduced holidays and other conditions, as part of an attempt to reduce the new company's cost base. Despite those changes, the sales performance remained poor; by early 1995, Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity were looking to sell Homepower, and a major shop closure programme was proposed in readiness for the sale, involving 27 of the 59 outlets in Yorkshire and Humberside.

I raised my concerns about the future of Homepower at a reception held in the House of Commons by Yorkshire Electricity in March last year. A number of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber today were present at that time. I was concerned to be told that evening that the Wakefield showroom was to be included in the closures.

The following morning, I arranged for my constituency researcher to visit the showroom for a dialogue about how we might support attempts to retain that important facility. The staff there had no knowledge of the closure proposal. I was told subsequently by Yorkshire Electricity that it had made a mistake, and that the Wakefield showroom was to stay open for the time being.

Two severance packages were offered to those involved in the closure programme at the time. The first was a maximum payment of 18 months' salary to someone with 25 years' service leaving in 10 days. The second,

11 Jun 1996 : Column 221

a reduced package for those refusing an offer of suitable on-going employment, was seven-and-a-half months' salary for someone with 25 years' service.

PowerStore, which owns electricity stores in the south of England, bid for Homepower, and a business transfer agreement was made on 21 February 1995. However, the completion and actual transfer of the stores and employees did not take effect until 8 May 1995. Mr. Clive Vlotman, the chairman of the PowerStore group, issued a letter dated 10 March 1995 to the recognised trade unions giving assurances which said:

"That as a minimum, the overall value of existing terms and conditions will be maintained and indeed, in some areas, more beneficial arrangements will be proposed

That any member of staff transferring into Powerstore from Homepower Retail, who within the period of 12 months after completion, find themselves in a redundancy situation, receive the same terms as to compensation on termination of employment (except for those relating to occupational pensions) as those offered to redundant employees as a consequence of the business transfer."

Staff transferring to the new employer received a payment of £1,300 in recognition of loss of benefits such as pension and share save entitlements. I understand that the purchase price for the business was only £2, and that an agreement was reached between the vendors and the purchasers to the effect that, if the number of employees to be transferred increased, Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity would reduce the purchase price of the stock by between £1,000 and £7,500 per employee, depending upon the category of the employee.

In correspondence with me, the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity confirmed that his company and East Midlands Electricity

"did many things to give PowerStore a good start."

One of Yorkshire Electricity's senior managers, in a telephone conversation with me on 20 May, denied that his company's actions in this respect were motivated by a wish to avoid severance costs in respect of Homepower employees. Those directly affected seriously question that point.

As the Minister will be aware, Homepower went into administration on 29 April. He may have some knowledge of the circumstances from the contents of Mr. Clive Vlotman's affidavit and the report prepared by Arthur Andersen, the administrator. On 29 April, the trade unions were advised that redundancies could result, and that it might not be possible fully to comply with the consultation requirements in legislation.

On 1 May, the trade unions had the first formal meeting with the administrators, with Unison stating that it considered the 29 April letter to be a declaration of redundancy, with the consequence that Clive Vlotman's guarantee of severance payments in the letter of 10 March 1995 must apply. At that stage, the administrators said that, while redundancies were likely, no definite decision had been made--although temporary and agency employees had already been removed from head office.

The administrators would make no redundancy payments, and claims were to be against the Department for Education and Employment redundancy fund. Confirmation was given that, if another electrical retailer bought the business in whole or in part, transfer of undertakings legislation would be likely to apply.

11 Jun 1996 : Column 222

On 3 May, the administrators advised by telephone that they intended to make 17 individuals redundant later that day. They withdrew the proposal after a threat from the trade unions to seek a court injunction. I am told that, at a meeting with the trade unions six days later, the administrators refused to produce information on prospective purchasers, detailed proposals on redundancies or information concerning selection criteria and the method of implementation. Health and safety concerns were raised at that meeting, because employees in shops had been threatened with violence by customers who had been refused either refunds or access to previously purchased goods, on the instructions of the administrators.

On 13 May, the administrators stated that 31 stores were to be closed, with about 250 job losses and a further 20 to 25 job losses at the head office at Normanton near Wakefield. Employees were sent home immediately, and selection appears to have been based on who was in the shops at the time.

Later--I believe on 20 May--the logistics department and all drivers were made redundant. The drivers received a letter calling them to a meeting at Normanton. They were told to bring their vehicles for inspection. Once they had all gathered at the meeting, their keys were collected and they were told that they were dismissed and should go home. Only after a protest were they given their bus fares.

On 30 May, the administrators advised of an additional round of closures, again without prior consultation or notification, with a further 295 retailing jobs to go. That meant that trading was taking place in only 20 of the 85 shops originally taken into administration. By that point, only 56 employees remained at head office and 154 at the remaining 20 shops.

As a consequence of the shop closures, an associated company--Powerdirect Receipting, which collects electricity accounts through its shops--had to advise its work force of 203 that their employment was being terminated, by reason of redundancy, with effect from31 May. By that date, more than 800 people had lost their jobs as a result of the company being in administration, the vast majority of whom had no advance notification--merely being turned away from work or being told not to turn up the following day.

A number of my Wakefield constituents have been directly affected, not only by the shabby way in which their employment was terminated, but by the financial implications.

My constituent Mrs. Wendy Gosnay, of Thornes, Wakefield, worked for Yorkshire Electricity and its successor companies for eight years, including two on a youth training scheme. Her employment at the Castleford store ended on 17 May. She expects a baby at the end of August and will lose maternity benefits as a direct result of this affair. She has been advised that she is owed nearly £8,500 in redundancy payments.

My constituent Mrs. Beverley Finnerty, of Alverthorpe road, Wakefield, lost her job at the Dewsbury shop on31 May. She wrote to me on that day and said:

"I am one of these poor unfortunates who worked for Yorkshire Electricity for 12 years, only to be sold like a piece of meat to a company owned by Clive Vlotman . . . along with my colleagues, I viewed this sell-out with some trepidation but I was assured by my Counsellors (one of who was employed by Yorkshire Electricity), that should the new venture fail within twelve months, we would be

11 Jun 1996 : Column 223

entitled to the same redundancy package as staff not required by the new company in May 1995 . . . suffice it to say that Yorkshire Electricity now denies all knowledge of their promise . . . to add insult to injury, the administrator, Arthur Andersen, has treated the workforce with the sensitivity of a military junta, laying people off as they come in to work, denying holiday entitlements etc.

"To our tired and dispirited little workforce, it seems that everyone has washed their hands of us and this is the second time in a year that this has happened."

Mrs. Finnerty has lost more than £13,000 in redundancy payments.

Other staff who were counselled by Yorkshire Electricity before the transfer described the way in which certain counsellors employed by the company left the room to check with the main business before returning to confirm that the severance guarantee was underwritten by Yorkshire Electricity and by East Midlands Electricity.

The staff I have spoken to are firmly of the opinion that those companies--the original owners--bear a very clear responsibility for the situation that their former employees now find themselves in. They firmly believe that the disposal of the company to Mr. Vlotman was undoubtedly a means by which to avoid what would otherwise have been substantial severance costs.

The point has also been made that Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity should have ensured that Homepower was being sold to a reputable business man with the ability to safeguard the business and its employees. The business's failure within 12 months clearly suggests that that was not the case.

In my view--I reflect the views of those who have lost their jobs--although Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity may be able to avoid a legal responsibility for the redundancy costs, they have a very clear moral responsibility for what has happened to their former employees.

The Government brought about the privatisation of this industry, and they, too, have a responsibility to ensure that those companies properly compensate their employees for what has happened. At the very least, the companies should bridge the gap between the statutory redundancy paid by the state and the enhanced severance that would be due if the company had closed in May 1995.

The Government also have a responsibility to ensure that laws on redundancy procedures are followed to the letter in relation to advanced warnings and consultation. They should ensure that administrators do not see themselves as above the law, and that they concern themselves with employment rights as well as with creditors' interests.

There is a fear that, following the likely closure of all the stores, a management buy-out or external purchaser may then reopen a part of the business and recruit new staff in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

I end with my concerns about the impact of this affair on consumers. Yorkshire Electricity has told me that customers can now pay bills at post offices. They cannot, however, query bills at post offices, or seek advice there on issues related to their electricity consumption. That facility is no longer available to those--particularly elderly people--who prefer and need face-to-face contact. I have been told of a queue of elderly people forming

11 Jun 1996 : Column 224

outside one of the PowerStore shops in Huddersfield the day after it had closed. The people involved had no idea how to make alternative arrangements.

It has also not gone unnoticed that, immediately before the Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity sale to PowerStore, the company had actively encouraged customers to buy through credit arrangements. Many customers took on such commitments and made their repayments to credit companies through the shops on a weekly or monthly basis. This is no longer possible, and may well result in serious difficulties for many consumers.