Draft Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 General Committees

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Stephen Barclay)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

In 2015, the Government introduced a series of reforms to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. The regulations will amend the relevant special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of those reforms. The Deregulation Act 2015 separated out the authorisation of insolvency practitioners for personal and corporate insolvency to reduce the cost of training for applicants who wish to specialise. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 introduced a series of changes to streamline the insolvency process, including allowing liquidators to exercise powers without court permissions and extending the maximum term for an administration. The Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 made similar reforms to the insolvency legislation in Northern Ireland.

The purpose of the reforms was to reduce unnecessary regulation and therefore cost, to improve public confidence in insolvency legislation and to make the legislation clearer. The Government carried out extensive consultations before introducing the reforms to the insolvency regime, and there was broad support from the industry.

The regulations will make consequential amendments to the existing modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector. Modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector exist because general insolvency procedure is not always suitable for failed financial institutions. Such regimes apply general insolvency law with modifications designed to address the special nature of some financial institutions. For example, a bespoke bank insolvency procedure tackles the impact of insolvency on financial stability.

The special insolvency procedures for the financial sector are built on general insolvency law, so they now need to be amended to reflect the reforms. The regulations are therefore important to ensure that the benefits of the reforms to general insolvency law are extended to the financial sector. They will also ensure that the modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector are compatible with general insolvency law, thus reducing legal uncertainty. The proposal of the consequential amendments follows discussions with the regulatory authorities and the banking liaison panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his broad support for the regulations, which essentially focus on tidying up measures relating to the financial services sector. He referred to Philip Green. The focus of the regulations is to target not the retail sector as a whole, but the financial sector specifically.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. In the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, I will answer them as best I can. First, he referred to section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015 and the difference between bankruptcy and corporate insolvency. He asked whether those who are trained to act on one will understand the other. The key point is that we intend that there will be a general paper, and that people can specialise within that. We are separating out the authorisations to allow insolvency practitioners to specialise in one or the other, but there will still be an initial general paper covering both.

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide clarification and further detail on his points about fraudulent or wrongful activity and the extension to financial services. The key point to make to the Committee is that we have had a much wider debate on the changes that are being made to insolvency, and I do not want to revisit that wider debate today. We are here to debate the specific impact on financial stability and how we amend the legislation to fit with those wider reforms.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on staff and the extent to which we ring-fence for insolvency procedures. He mentioned the Comet case specifically, which I know caused numerous concerns. The reforms are intended to benefit creditors by removing red tape. Therefore, as far as insolvency procedures are concerned, staff are often creditors and will benefit from the reforms. I hope that that reassures him that where instances like Comet arise in future, there will be some benefits from this exercise.

I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration—

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister kindly offered to write to me on one matter. Perhaps when he does, he could flesh out some of the other points a little more. In particular, can he give details of how staff will benefit, rather than the more general point that he just made? I appreciate that he is probably not in a position to tell me that in detail now, so perhaps that will be an opportunity to address the point more fully.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with a much fuller example, and I commit to writing to him on that basis.

Subject to there being no further comments from Members, I am very grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations today and for the points that have been made. In summary, the regulations make consequential amendments to the special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of the reforms that we have discussed. I ask the Committee to support the changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in my provisional certificate issued on 5 September. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.

Under Standing Order No. 83M, as modified by Standing Order No. 83S, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does a Minister intend to move the consent motion?

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Stephen Barclay)]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

draft Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) order 2016

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 General Committees

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2016.

In this rare speaking part, I would first like to give the apologies of my ministerial colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House, who is unable to be with the Committee today due to trains being cancelled.

The statutory instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 22 February, is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 as a consequence of the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014, which makes provisions about badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons. The draft order was requested by the Scottish Government and has been agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments.

One of the main aims of the 2014 Act is to help tackle blue badge misuse by providing additional powers to local authorities and the police to enforce the blue badge scheme in Scotland. The 2014 Act strengthens enforcement powers, including the ability to cancel or confiscate a badge in certain circumstances, and provides for security features of the blue badge format to be approved administratively by Scottish Ministers.

Although eligibility for badges, scheme administration and enforcement measures all vary between Scotland, England and Wales, there is agreement between the Administrations and their respective local authorities to work together on the common parts of the blue badge scheme. That has led to the creation of a shared database for the production of badges, and allows local authorities to enforce the scheme across Great Britain.

The draft order will ensure consistency throughout Great Britain with regard to the validity of blue badges issued in Scotland and will give full effect to the 2014 Act. This will produce certain practical results—for example, a badge issued by a local authority in Scotland will be in a valid form if it meets the requirements of section 1 of that Act. That will ensure that enforcement officers can confiscate badges that are being misused and that have been cancelled by a local authority in another area of Great Britain.

Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides for subordinate legislation to be made by the UK Government that contains provisions necessary under an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, the provision is required in consequence of provisions made by the 2014 Act, which received Royal Assent on 24 September 2014. The draft order extends to the law of England and Wales the effect of certain amendments made in Scots law by the 2014 Act; those amendments are to section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which provides for badges to be issued to disabled persons and their carers, entitling them to parking concessions.

Section 1 of the 2014 Act changes the rules about the form badges issued in Scotland must take to be recognised as valid. Section 2 ensures that, in certain circumstances, Scottish local authorities can cancel badges that they have issued. Article 4 of the draft order will fix a cross-reference in section 21(8C) of the 1970 Act, which glosses references to local authorities elsewhere in section 21, so that they fall to be read as including the Secretary of State.

As I have said, the need for and content of the draft order have been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The Department for Transport, which has responsibility for the legislation covered by the draft order, has been consulted throughout the order’s drafting, and all its provisions have the approval of that Department and the Scottish Government. The draft order demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work.

I hope that the Committee agrees that the draft order is appropriate and sensible in its use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Edinburgh South for their supportive remarks. In respect of the one issue that has been raised, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to publicise these measures, but we will pass on the concerns of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.

It is worth pointing out that both before and during the passage of the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014, Transport Scotland engaged with a multi-agency group to bring forward new and focused ways to educate badge holders, with the aim of improving compliance. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned, the wider consultation with Dennis Robertson also raised awareness, but we are happy to pass on those concerns to the Scottish Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Do not worry. I can give the answer now: no, I do not.

There will now be a joint debate on the consent motion for England and Wales and the consent motion for England. I remind hon. Members that all Members may speak in the debate but that, if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England on the consent motion for England.

I call the Minister to move the consent motion for England and Wales. I remind the Minister that, under Standing Order No. 83M(4), on moving the consent motion, the Minister must also inform the Committee of the terms of consent for England.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The legislative consent motions are before the House and available to Members. I beg to move.

Resolved,

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Enterprise Bill [Lords] and certified amendments made by the House to the Bill:

Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 30, 32, 39 and 40 as amended in Committee (Bill 142) including any amendments made on Report;

Amendments certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England and Wales

The omission in Committee of Clauses 33 and 34 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 112).—(Stephen Barclay.)

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I seek some clarification. The paperwork handed out says “Legislative Grand Committee (England)”, but the oral statement referred to “England and Wales”. May I seek clarification about the difference?

Football Governance (Supporters’ Participation) Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting the Bill. I am also a Millwall season ticket holder—

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Good heavens!

[Vicky Foxcroft]

It is in my constituency. I will be going this weekend to celebrate Jimmy’s Day, and I hope that my hon. Friend will also be there.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

Those are points I will come to. I did not know that Harrods had a shop in the Minister’s constituency or that it contained the Knightsbridge of the east.

The other description might have been the “domino clause”. The Minister talked about local leaders having the opportunity. The Opposition fully support the proper devolution of powers and responsibilities, and the ability to make a difference in the local area. Although he talked about local leaders, he did not talk about the views of the local community, the workers affected or the small independent retailers and the impact the proposals will have on many small shops.

The problem is that, when talking to local authority leaders and chief executives, as some organisations have done, one main reason given for saying they may well end up implementing these provisions is that they feel they have no choice. Their neighbours having allowed Tesco, Asda or out-of-town shopping centres to have extended opening hours on a Sunday, they fear that loss of trade within their own boundaries will force them down the route of using these provisions in their own local authority area.

The Government knew full well that any attempt to reform Sunday trading legislation would spark significant debate and opposition from a wide range of stakeholders. The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman wrote on 20 April last year to the campaign group Keep Sunday Special assuring them that the Conservatives had no plans to relax Sunday trading laws. Indeed, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto. She wrote:

“I can assure you that we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe that the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.”

There we have it. Presumably, in the Conservative party, the Government and the previous coalition Government, when the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson spoke it was on his behalf and we should take as gospel what she said at the time. The country as a whole should have trusted what we were told on 20 April. The Government knew this would be opposed and were that worried about it that they went so far as to reassure the country before the election that they had no plans to change Sunday trading laws. They knew it would be opposed, cause problems and break the consensus that had stood for 22 years, since the Sunday Trading Act 1994.

The amendments we are considering include a change to the name of the Bill in amendment 77, as the Minister has just said, to include Sunday trading. We have to wonder what is going on when a Bill started in the Lords and went through the entire Lords proceedings without any mention of Sunday trading. Only on Second Reading in this House was Sunday trading mentioned. In fact, it was so late that Members who oppose changes to Sunday trading did not even know the Bill would consider it.

I spoke to a number of Members on the Government Benches on the day of Second Reading and they had no idea that the issue was in the Bill because they were not in the Chamber to hear the Secretary of State mention it in his opening speech. Had they been, they could have made their opposition clear and raised their concerns but there was no such opportunity for Government Members. That is a great shame.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

With the leave of the Chair, I beg to move that the Committee be now adjourned.

[Hon. Members]

He hasn’t finished!

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951).

May I add my appreciation to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central at being able to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Percy?

The bundle of measures before the Committee are a miscellany, to put it politely, but at their heart is the proposal to scrap maintenance grant support for disadvantaged students and replace it with a loan system. I will address the specifics of the regulations shortly, but for now I observe that the policy change is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern that is also happening across other areas of Government. It is mirrored by the changes that were debated in the House on Monday, which removed NHS bursaries for nurses and other staff, and it has been foreshadowed by changes that the Government have made to education support and protection over the past three to four years. That included, of course, the scrapping of 24-plus loans in further education, which is particularly relevant to the case before us today.

As the Minister will be aware, the Government released figures in October 2015 showing clear evidence of the deterrent impact on learners that I and others warned about when loans were introduced as replacements for grants in January 2013. The figures showed that in 2014-15, only £149 million of the £397 million allocated for the process had been taken up, or 62% less. Not surprisingly, people in the further education community lamented the lost opportunity of £250 million that could have helped some of our most disadvantaged learners. With that in mind, my first question to the Minister is whether he took any of those figures into account, particularly their impact on older learners, when formulating the proposals in these regulations.

The truth of the matter is that the Government have ducked and dived to avoid further debate on their direction of travel, and particularly on freezing the threshold, which is not specifically part of these regulations, although it is referred to in the assessment that comes with them. We have seen how they have dealt with the regulations before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has referred eloquently to the failure to bring the debate to the Floor of the House, but I also draw to the Committee’s attention the equality impact assessment that the Government have produced, which is on the table at the back of the room. It runs to some 60 pages, so I am not sure how many Members will have the opportunity to consider it in detail today if they have not read it already. The equality impact assessment was slipped out without ceremony at the end of November, and it came out only after a campaign and legal moves.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

That was several weeks ago.

[Mr Marsden]

Well, there might have been weeks to read it if the Government had actually made it available, but they did not.

This is the document that almost dare not speak its name, not least because the detailed evidence of impact tucked away in its pages, to which I will refer later, is belied by the bland conclusions appended to it that it will be all right on the night. What is driving panic measures such as the threshold freeze is the Government’s dawning recognition that their whole set of financial assumptions about repayment in other areas that underpinned their swingeing fees increases is producing a black hole for them and for future taxpayers.

Mr Percy, I am sure that you and those of us who have been here under all sorts of Governments will have observed the rule of thumb in this place that there are two ways for Ministers and their advisers to present and package things that they feel might be unpalatable. One is to bundle in the controversial bits with more technical or anodyne measures that might lull the reader into a false sense of security. Here is an example of such wording in the impact assessment:

“The following maximum grants and loans for living and other costs will be maintained at 2015/16 levels in 2016/17”.

Another way is to entitle the document innocuously, to increase the camouflage. Both methods have been employed on this occasion.

This is not a bit of incidental tinkering with existing financial regulations. It represents a major departure and reversal of policy, only four years after the Government hailed maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds as an essential element in their strategy for fairness and in the acceptance of tripled tuition fees. I am afraid the measures are typical of the ideology-driven but evidence-light approach that this Government too often employ. They will affect probably 500,000 of England’s most disadvantaged students and define their futures for good or ill. Has the Minister made, or had given to him, any breakdown, geographical or otherwise, of that total figure and its impact on higher education institutions? If not, why not?

The statistics about those institutions helpfully provided to me by the House of Commons Library amount to a Domesday Book listing the numbers of students who will lose their grant under the new rules. Institutions in all parts of the country will be affected, both old universities and new ones. Further education colleges will be affected, of course, because they make an increasingly valuable contribution, 10% and more, to higher education for the group of people affected. Of course—this is not irrelevant in today’s circumstances—Scottish students who are taking courses at English universities will be affected.

There are a number of disadvantaged students studying at higher education colleges, and the Association of Colleges tells me that many of the colleges that deliver higher education are in northern towns—Blackpool and Blackburn are cited. Cornwall and the south-west also help to provide the large number of places at HE colleges. The association has said in specific response to these regulations, “We have real concerns about the proposed change as many of the students may never earn enough to pay back the money and the policy does appear to penalise poorer students. The new system therefore needs careful monitoring to ensure it is as fair as possible.”

These changes will affect significant numbers of students, from the north to the south. On the basis of the figures for 2014-15, for example, 14,728 students at Manchester Met University will be affected; 8,167 at the University of Manchester; 1,527 at my own excellent further education college, Blackpool and The Fylde College; 10,924 at Nottingham Trent University; 4,897 at Bournemouth; and 3,738 at King’s College. The other institutions that I have not had the opportunity to mention are far from incidental. The list will be a roll-call of lost opportunities if this issue is not handled carefully.

However, despite this being such a major issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has observed the Government have refused to bring the changes to the Floor of the House and prefer to try to sneak them through the delegated legislation route, whereby it can be debated and voted on by only a handful of MPs. As he said, there is cross-party support on the issue.

Importantly, the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in her letter to the Secretary of State explaining why there needed to be a full debate on these measures, wrote that scrapping maintenance grants for lower income students and replacing them with loans would have a regressive impact and should therefore receive further scrutiny from Members of Parliament. That was why she went on to call for a debate on these measures in Government time. She also made the practical point, which I will come on to, that the change would not improve Government finances in the long term, and she also made the link with the adverse impact of freezing student loan repayment, which I have touched on briefly.

Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State did not deal adequately with any of those points in his reply? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has asked, will the Minister also explain why his Department has ignored the words of the Leader of the House in December and is prepared to break the precedent of debates in the House under these circumstances?

Turning to the impact of the regulations, of course we can only speculate on the future cohorts of people who come in, but we have some reason to make those speculations on the basis of existing experience. The National Education Opportunities Network, which is the professional organisation for widening access to education in England, and the University and College Union are currently undertaking research with more than 2,000 final-year A-level and level 3 students to look at how costs influence the HE choices they make. The interim findings from that research show that more than half the students who are deciding not to go into HE are taking that decision because of the lack of direct financial maintenance grant support that they had envisaged for the year ahead. If research suggests that a large number of students are deciding not to go to university due to that lack of support, why are the Government risking even more students dropping out by introducing the regulations?

A study by economists at the Institute of Education in 2014 showed that a £1,000 increase in grants would create a 3.95% increase in participation, and that the removal of grants would see participation levels fall. In fact, the institute said that it should also be of grave concern that more than a third of students had told a recent survey that they would not have chosen to go to university if they had not had access to maintenance grants. Does the Minister not fear a severe drop in participation levels, given that statistics indicate that the accessibility of a maintenance grant is a deciding factor for many when choosing whether to go into higher education? His equality assessment, which has been circulated, as I have said, states:

“At an aggregate level there is currently no evidence that the 2012 reforms, which saw a significant increase in HE fees and associated student debt levels has had a significant impact in deterring the participation of young students from low income backgrounds.”

That is debatable, because the safety net of maintenance grants, introduced in 2012 with that tripling of fees, is now being removed.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote in her letter praying against the regulations:

“Labour are concerned that this change won’t improve Government finances in the long-term.”

Hon. Members might say, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?” but perhaps more cogent is the view of the Institute for Fiscal Studies:

“The replacement of maintenance grants by loans from 2016–17 will raise debt for the poorest students, but do little to improve government finances in the long run.”

The IFS states that in the short term, Government borrowing will drop

“by around £2 billion per year. This is because current spending on grants counts towards current borrowing, while current spending on loans does not.

In the long run, savings will be much less than this. The amount of money lent to students will rise by about £2.3 billion for each cohort, but only around a quarter of these additional loans will be repaid. The net effect is to reduce government borrowing by around £270 million per cohort in the long run in 2016 money—a 3% decline in the government’s estimated contribution to higher education.

About two-thirds of those eligible for the full maintenance grant will repay no more as a result of this reform because they will end up with the additional debt being written off.”

There is the rub. Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Treasury about the accuracy of those predictions, and why his Department is embarking on a leap in the dark that will, as the IFS makes clear, diminish the contribution to higher education and do little to address the black hole?

The IFS states:

“Students from households with pre-tax incomes of up to £25,000 (those currently eligible for a full maintenance grant) will have a little more “cash in pocket” whilst at university. But they will also graduate with around £12,500 more debt, on average, from a three-year course. This means that students from the poorest backgrounds are now likely to leave university owing substantially more to the government than their better-off peers.”

It also states:

“The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. This will result from the replacement of maintenance grants”.

The removal of those grants threatens access to higher education and, importantly, follows on from the removal of the national scholarship programme, which was designed to help students from low-income households. The programme has been scrapped, just as the Government are doing to maintenance grants.

In 2012, when the Government tripled tuition fees, they tried to sweeten the pill by talking up the centrality of the maintenance grant to ensuring that the most disadvantaged could still access higher education.

“The increase in maintenance grant for students from household with the lowest incomes, the National Scholarship Programme, and additional fair access requirements on institutions wanting to charge over £6,000 in graduate contributions should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately.”

That is what the Conservative-led Government said in 2011-12 through the Minister’s predecessor, but the regulations will disadvantage the same groups of students the Government promised to protect two years ago. In June 2011, the Minister’s predecessor, David Willetts, pledged in Parliament:

“We want students from a wide range of backgrounds to benefit from the reforms. We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 770.]

He had previously defended the measure as a quid pro quo for the trebling of tuition fees, saying:

“Our proposals are progressive, because they help to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university, because of the higher education maintenance grant, and because of the higher repayment threshold. That crucial commitment to taking progressive measures is one of the reasons we commend these proposals to the House.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 940.]

Does the Minister accept that the Government have now broken both those promises? His colleague, who is now Lord Willetts, must be revolving in his ermine at the way his promises have been so lightly regarded by the Government.

Post Office Closures

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing the debate and the way in which he has championed this issue most effectively since his election to Parliament. He raised a number of points that it may be helpful to address at the outset, on whether this is a new model in the Post Office, to what extent it is commercially attractive and how the Post Office is being held accountable.

Like my hon. Friend, I represent a rural constituency and I have a similar change programme in my area. I am also aware of the challenges in areas such as mine on public transport, to which he alluded. As for whether the franchise model is new, it is not; it has been around since the 1990s and it is long-held practice to collocate a post office and a shop. What is changing to a certain extent is the number and scale of post offices being collocated, and while in the past we had post offices with shops that sold sweets, birthday cards and various other things—many of us will remember that from our childhood—now we more often have shops with a post office attached to them.

On whether running a post office is commercially attractive, the footfall generated is very attractive to many shop owners. Indeed, having one counter as opposed to two can mean that customers do not have to queue twice and can make managing staff in the shop more efficient. There are therefore commercial attractions to collocating a post office in another business nearby, which is part of the appeal for many taking that approach forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly spoke of the social hub that the post office offers. That is why I hope he will support the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure 3,000 rural post offices and, as part of the arrangements with the Post Office, to maintain 11,500 branches as part of the network. The Government recognise, through the funding that has been allocated, the important social hub that post offices provide. Indeed, that is in stark contrast to the previous Labour Government, under which at least 5,000 branches closed as part of their closure programme. The Government have made a commitment to the Post Office in recognition of the exact point the hon. Gentleman raised—that post offices make an important social contribution to communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) injected a welcome note of optimism to the debate, recognising that, in securing the network as the Government have done, we have increased significantly the hours that branches are open, often on Sundays, compared with the past.

Alongside the allocated funding, there is a specific £20 million community branch fund, which I urge Members to take advantage of. The fund encourages branches that may be the last shop in their community to bid for things they may need to make their businesses more viable, so measures are available within the funding mechanism to help preserve post offices where they are aligned with the last shop in a village or community. That is part of the wider £2 billion allocated since 2010 as part of this programme.

Before I come to the specific case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and the chain of events behind the post office’s temporary closure there, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who raised the issue of the hoops that have to be jumped through, causing frustration and adding to the time taken to open a new post office or appoint a new postmaster. I think we all share that frustration, but there are good reasons for it, given the significant position of trust that postmasters and postmistresses hold within their communities and the large sums of money they often handle. It is therefore right that a thorough consultation process is part of those appointments, but that can have an impact.

[Andrew Percy]

I think any reasonable person would accept that. We could perhaps do better by ensuring that interim measures are in place while something else is being worked on. That is the problem. Everyone understands the importance of a postmaster’s job and the compliance regime that must go behind it, but the length of time between the closure of a post office and the opening of a new one is unacceptable, and we need to smarten up on that.

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. These things are looked at on a case-by-case basis, and each case tends to be different. That is highlighted in the case of the post office in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, where a number of interim measures were tried. He alluded to a portakabin being used and the attempt made to look at whether that could be located close to the store or needed to be further away. The issue of temporary staff was considered. A mobile van was also considered, which is sometimes suitable, but the volume of customers at the Heathfield store was too high. There were specific issues with the portakabin, but that solution was tried.

Attempts are made to mitigate the time taken, but sometimes local factors work against that. Unfortunately, in my hon. Friend’s case, a chain of events has made it more difficult to put the interim solution in place. I hope that better news is imminent. I know he supports the proposal for a new permanent host for the post office in Heathfield: Unique Wine Ltd, which is on the high street. The consultation is ongoing, so I hope there is light at the end of the tunnel for him.

In terms of locating a post office in an existing business—in that case, an off-licence—there are plenty of examples around the country of such collocation working well, not least due to the longer hours in which it enables the public to access the post office. I take slight issue with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) that the Post Office is imposing unfair terms by asking for longer hours. She also suggested that the public are not getting access to post offices. I think most customers will welcome the fact that a post office, through collocation, is open for longer hours. That is part of the public benefit.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I will simply give the Minister an example from my constituency, where a local shop has a post office in it but is finding it difficult to maintain a profit with that post office because of the hours for which it has to maintain that particular counter. It is thinking of closing the service, rather than keeping it open for shorter hours.

[Stephen Barclay]

Indeed, but the proposed new branch in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle would be open for 21 hours longer a week than the previous store. Notwithstanding the time taken to put the new branch in place, once it is in place, subject to the consultation, the collocation means that the post office will be open for an additional 21 hours, which I think will be particularly welcome to his constituents.

The Post Office is tasked by Government to maintain a network of 11,500 branches and to meet specific access criteria—for example, that 90% of the UK population live within 1 mile of a post office. The Post Office is meeting those criteria, as set out in the annual report it publishes. That agreement does not specify that every community must have or retain a post office. That is because the business needs the flexibility to respond to local circumstances in each case. Were we to require the Post Office to maintain individual branches or reopen them within a set period—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle raised—it could lead, in extremis, to a new post office having to be built if a lease could not be secured on an old site. Such a restriction would be counterproductive to protecting the commercial viability of the network.

The economics of the Post Office is such that with the changes brought about by the internet and the digital world, small stand-alone post offices sometimes do not generate enough business to be sustainable on their own. The modernisation programme that the business has been following for the past few years has been about moving local post offices into a vibrant shop where the overheads of a business, such as property and staff costs, are shared with the host business, which is what we are seeing in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

The experience of the Post Office’s directly operated branches—the Crown branches—is illustrative. Collectively, those businesses have moved from making an annual £50 million loss to breaking even. That underlines the Government’s commitment to the Post Office network and a mix of modernisation, automation, labour reform and, in no small part, the franchising of weaker branches that are not delivering that performance. Were the Post Office to be forced to run more directly operated businesses with weaker turnover than in busy town centres, those branches would not be sustainable without greater public subsidy. Rather than force that on the business, we are allowing the estate to manage itself in a more value-for-money way, while protecting the 3,000 rural branches and the wider network.

It is regrettable that the Post Office has been unable to maintain service provision at Heathfield since April. However, that is not due to a lack of effort or expense by the Post Office. Unfortunately, local circumstances sometimes prevent the ideal outcome, as we saw with the portakabin example. In most cases, the business is able to find a way to maintain provision successfully. I am glad that a potential branch has now been found in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I know he supports.

In seeking a solution at Heathfield, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Post Office is delivering a service that is open for more hours, with less public subsidy, and therefore offers a better, value-for-money service for the taxpayer. That reflects the Government’s commitment to maintaining the branch network and recognising the social hub that the hon. Member for Strangford described so well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered service provision in the event of post office closures.

Speaker’s Statement

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have two short statements to make. The first is an announcement in relation to the management of the House.

On 22 January the House agreed to the recommendations of the Governance Committee chaired by Jack Straw. That included the appointment of a new post of director general of the House of Commons reporting to the Clerk of the House but with clearly delineated autonomous responsibilities for the delivery of services and with the task of chairing the Executive Committee. I am pleased to tell the House that, in line with the process of recruitment agreed by the House, Mr Ian Ailles has been appointed as the first director general of the House of Commons and will be joining the House service on 27 October. He brings a wealth of experience in the private and public sectors, notably in the travel industry, and I am sure will enable us to raise our game in the quality of services which we provide.

I also want to make a short statement that is relevant both to today’s debate and much more widely, and which reflects discussions I have had with the other occupants of the Chair.

Colleagues, a very large number of Members have put in to speak in today’s Second Reading debate—the last time I looked no fewer than 62 Members were seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. I shall try to accommodate as many as possible by setting a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I am afraid some will inevitably be disappointed.

This may be a good moment to remind Members, and particularly new Members, of the expectation that those called to speak must remain for at least the next two speeches and must return to hear the wind-ups. That is in addition to being here for the opening speeches. This is not just a matter of courtesy, although that is not to be disregarded: it is important to the quality of the debate in this House that Members listen, and respond, to each others’ contributions, rather than merely offering their own opinions in isolation.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Very sensible.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always very reassuring to have a Government Whip say from a sedentary position, “Very sensible.” [Interruption.] Mr Barclay it is on the record; you can’t retract now, man.