Draft Carer's Leave Regulations 2024 Draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 24 May last year. These accompanying regulations were laid on 11 December 2023. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has played a role in taking these measures through Parliament. I thank in particular the promoters or sponsors of the private Members’ Bills that enable these regulations: the hon. Member for North East Fife, who is with us today, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), Lord Fox, Baroness Tyler and Baroness Bertin. The legislation that they helped to enact recognises the importance of unpaid carers and the significance of providing improved job security for pregnant women and new parents.

Statistics from the family resources survey 2021-22 showed that there were 4.9 million adult informal carers in the UK. Just over half of those are also holding down a job. That is about 2.5 million people trying to balance work with their caring responsibilities. According to research by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, one in nine mothers reported that they had been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant where others had not been, or treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave work. If scaled up to the general population, that could mean that as many as 54,000 mothers a year are pushed out of the workforce. Although that data is from some time ago, we know that the problem persists. Put simply, that situation is unacceptable.

Delivering both these sets of regulations will fulfil our 2019 manifesto commitments to introduce one week of leave for unpaid carers and to introduce new protections for pregnant women and new parents. I will turn first to the carer’s leave regulations. Before getting into the substance, may I use this opportunity to flag a correction slip? The first line of regulation 5(1) on page 2 of the SI previously read “is entitled one week”, but now reads “is entitled to one week”.

Unpaid carers play a vital role in our society. There can be real challenges in balancing work with caring responsibilities. These regulations acknowledge some of those challenges and put in place measures that will help to ease the situation for a group of people who we know can be time-poor.

Carer’s leave will be a day one right for employees, who can then provide care, or make arrangements for the provision of care, for a dependant with a long-term care need. The definitions of care and care need have deliberately been kept wide to encompass a broad range of circumstances. Unpaid carers will be able to take their leave in a flexible manner, spanning from half a day to an entire week. That flexibility gives carers the most choice of how to manage their leave, based on their specific needs.

When applying for the leave, there will be no need to provide evidence indicating how the leave will be used or for whom. That will help to minimise any pressure on the carer, including any apprehension they might have about disclosing potentially sensitive third party information. It will also reduce the administrative burden for employers and eliminate red tape. Unpaid carers applying for the leave will have to provide advance notice, similar to the situation with the existing annual leave requirements, subject to a minimum notice period of three days.

Employers will not be able to deny the request for carer’s leave. However, they may postpone it. When doing so, they must let their employee know as soon as reasonably practicable and, following consultation, confirm a new date on which they can take the leave within a month of the original date. Lastly, on carer’s leave, safeguards will be in place, such as protection from dismissal or detriment as a result of having taken carer’s leave.

Turning to the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations, as I said, it is not right that for a significant number of pregnant women and new parents, fearing losing their job unjustly is another worry they have to deal with. Under existing regulations—the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, often referred to as MAPL—before making an employee who is on maternity leave, adoption leave or shared parental leave redundant, employers have an obligation to offer them a suitable alternative vacancy where one is available, not just to invite them to apply for a role. In effect, that gives a parent taking one of those forms of leave priority over other employees, who are also at risk of redundancy. The point of these draft regulations is to extend that additional redundancy protection into pregnancy and for a period once the parent has returned to work.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

To start, I am 100% behind all the important measures that the Minister has outlined. I was pleased to work with the hon. Member for North East Fife on the Bill Committee to bring forward carer’s leave. Is the Minister aware of the active consideration of, and some of the challenge around support for, kinship carers? A recent study shows that 50% of kinship carers have been forced to give up their work, and that there are 130,000 kinship placements. I support every measure that he is outlining, but will he reassure me that active consideration is being made for that important and significant group? The needs of children are well met by the support of their wider family, but it is generally in traumatic and difficult circumstances.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work. I, too, have kinship carers in my constituency. I know the important work they do and the saving they make to society, but also the help they give to children in such a situation. I am sympathetic. I have met the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing on a number of occasions, and I continue to do so. We are engaging to see what extra workplace entitlements we might make available to people in that situation, while trying to ensure that we do not add too many extra burdens to employers, in particular at this time when many face some difficulties. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and am keen to continue to work with her on this particular area.

The provisions will help to alleviate some of the anxiety about job security that a pregnant woman or new parent may face. For the purposes of the draft maternity leave regulations, pregnancy is defined as the period from when a woman informs their employer of their pregnancy until two weeks after the pregnancy ends, for whatever reason. The additional redundancy protection continues for 18 months after the birth of the child, encompassing any period of relevant leave.

The 18-month period serves two purposes. First, it ensures that a mother returning from 12 months of maternity leave will receive six months of additional redundancy protection when she goes back to work. That meets the commitment that the Government made in their consultation response. Secondly, a single, consistent and clear period of protection is a simple way to accommodate the flexibility of shared parental leave and the interaction between shared parental leave and other types of parental leave. Creating a bespoke approach for those and other scenarios would have introduced considerable complexity into the regulations. That is why we opted for the simplicity and clarity of a single period of protection.

The period of protection for redundancy on return to work is activated immediately someone returns to the workplace following a period of maternity or adoption leave. However, the new draft regulations will introduce a minimum qualifying period for those taking shared parental leave alone—by “alone”, I mean that they have not previously taken a period of maternity or adoption leave. That is to avoid the situation where a parent who has taken just a few weeks of shared parental leave receives 18 months of additional protection in a redundancy situation. When we spoke with our stakeholders, they considered that it would be disproportionate to extend that level of protection to someone who had taken only a short period of shared parental leave. For that reason, the draft regulations require a parent to have taken a minimum period of six continuous weeks of shared parental leave—unless they have taken maternity or adoption leave—to activate the additional redundancy protection once they have returned to work.

Together, these measures will provide additional support and protection for pregnant women and new parents, and for those with caring responsibilities beyond childcare. The Government were pleased to support the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023, which were introduced as private Members’ Bills. We are pleased to have laid these regulations and look forward to their coming into force.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for his introduction. We will not be opposing the regulations today, although that is not to say that I do not have a few questions and comments—I know the Minister would have been disappointed if I did not have anything to say. Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for their work on the private Members’ Bills that led to these regulations.

As the Minister highlighted, the draft carer’s leave regulations will provide employees from day one—we in the Opposition certainly like day-one rights—the right to a maximum of one week’s leave per year to care for a loved one, without any requirement to provide evidence. As we know, the entitlement can be taken in chunks as small as half a day or as one week’s continuous leave, and it cannot be refused by an employer, nor can an employee be detrimentally treated as a result of taking such leave, in common with many other protections in employment law.

Campaigners have pushed for many years for the right to statutory care leave, but until now there has been no such right. We know that there is a whole range of reasons why carers might need to take time out; the regulations will hopefully allow them to provide assistance with a doctor’s appointment or recovery after surgery, for example. The regulations are undoubtedly a step forward, and they should make a difference to those with caring responsibilities who are in paid work.

As we heard, the number of people potentially affected by the regulations is not insignificant. There are millions of people who are both in work and responsible for caring. Carers UK found that before the pandemic almost 5 million people were juggling work and caring, and that increased to 7 million during the pandemic. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimates that the figure is closer to 3.7 million people, while the impact assessment published alongside the regulations states that the total number of carers—not just those who are in work—stands at 4.2 million. There are, therefore, several different estimates of the number of people who will be impacted by the regulations, and I will return to that briefly later on, but whatever figure we choose, it represents a substantial proportion of the total population, let alone of the number of people actually in work. Given that, at the latest count, there were about 33 million people in work, around 11% to 15% of the overall workforce may benefit from the regulations.

There is a large amount of evidence that good employers already have informal care leave practices in place, but of course many employees do not have that option and, unfortunately, often take caring leave in the form of annual leave or sick leave. That was uncovered during the Government’s 2020 consultation, which found that two thirds of carers had had to use annual leave to provide care for their dependants. In essence, until that point the issue was hidden: carers would use annual leave or find another way, by hook or by crook, to take the time out that they needed. We should make it very clear that annual leave is meant for rest and recuperation, not caring responsibilities.

A 2018 report by the Work and Pensions Committee summed up that unfortunate practice as “detrimental” to carers’

“own physical and mental well-being,”

and said that, in the long run, it would increase

“the risk of sickness, exhaustion and ‘burnout’.”

Those warnings appear to be accepted in the summary of the “do nothing” approach in the impact assessment published alongside the regulations, although I cannot help but point out to the Minister the irony of the Government’s being alive to the importance of a worker having the option and the ability to take annual leave in the context of caring, just a couple of months since the introduction of reforms to rolled-up holiday pay, which will have the opposite effect.

All hon. Members here will appreciate how taxing such caring efforts will be for workers, and many will, of course, have personal experience of such difficulties. Research published by the CIPD in 2021 found that almost one third of working carers provide at least 30 hours of caring per week, meaning that they are effectively undertaking another full-time job on top of their full-time caring responsibilities. Of those working full time, 28% provided at least 30 hours of care. Understandably, for many that can take a huge physical as well as psychological toll, not to mention the need to balance such personal challenges with the development of a career.

For many the situation can seem insurmountable, and people often reduce their working hours or give up work entirely. I hope the regulations stop that happening as much as it has been to date, but according to research 9% of the population have had to do that: the impact assessment notes that 5% have left the workplace altogether and a further 4% have had to cut their hours. Carers UK claims that this translates to 600 workers leaving the workplace per day. If that is correct, it is a staggering figure and clearly something that we should all want to do something about. It is clear that informal care needs can impact on one’s career, leaving many working people in a state of economic inactivity in order to provide care. When so much potential and experience is lost to the labour market, we need to address that; I hope the regulations will help in that respect.

It is important to note that the burdens do not fall on all sections of society equally. The impact assessment notes that the impact of caring while in work hits those aged 45 to 54 hardest—I declare an interest at this point as I am in that age group; I know it is hard to believe, but I am under 54—with more than a quarter of people reporting that it had taken a toll on their work. There is also a gender aspect to this, with women more likely than men to be responsible for caring. The family resources survey found that 9% of women, as opposed to 6% of men, are in this position. If we put the facts together, it is no surprise that women aged between 45 and 64 years old are most likely to be carers. As we know, with such added responsibilities they are more likely to be leaving the workforce, which exacerbates the existing gender pay gap.

All this shows that not only are many making a massive personal sacrifice, but there are societal consequences as well. The inequalities in terms of who is responsible should trouble us all, but there are also profound financial impacts. The impact assessment notes that the potential cost incurred to the Exchequer alone is around £2.9 billion per year. Analysis suggests that better carer’s leave policies could save businesses a cumulative £4.8 billion per year in unplanned absences, and a further £3.4 billion in improved employee retention. Clearly, those figures may need to be tested by experience, but it is clear that some businesses have caught on to the benefits of providing carer’s leave and introduced voluntary policies. Sadly, though, that applies only to a small proportion of businesses overall—Carers UK report that it is around 12% of existing employers.

It is an understatement to say that a very strong case for carer’s leave has been made for a number of years, but we do have concerns about some of the aspects of the regulations. Most significantly, the calls made during the passage of the Carer’s Leave Act for the Government to consider making such leave paid have fallen on deaf ears. It was not just the Opposition who called for paid leave; the Government’s own response to the consultation on the matter, which was published in September 2021, stated:

“There were strong calls from charities and individuals for this leave entitlement to be paid.”

Despite those strong calls, the space allocated to considering them in the consultation extended to just 162 words, in which the Government said they were “sympathetic” to the calls but judged that the impact on businesses would not be “proportionate”. There is no analysis to support that position, and no further evidence. I know that finances are tight, but we already know about the potential positive financial impact, so I would have expected some form of analysis in the impact assessment—which took a year to come out—of the costs and benefits of making the entitlement paid. The Government should at least have considered that as an option.

Why have the Government decided that it would be disproportionate to make the entitlement paid without offering any supporting evidence? Has the Minister looked at costings at any point? Indeed, has there been any consideration of that point at all? Given the evidence that there is an economic benefit, it is important that there is an explicit acknowledgment in the impact assessment that keeping the leave entitlement as unpaid will discourage some carers from taking up leave. The impact assessment says that

“as this is an unpaid leave entitlement some carers will be disincentivised to take the full entitlement of leave, as they do not want to lose more of their income. Existing survey evidence shows that one of the key reasons for not taking leave is because of affordability.”

Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen a policy which, according to their own analysis, appears to limit the take-up?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is implying that we should make the entitlement paid, which is a perfectly reasonable position. As he makes that assertion and that policy decision that the Labour party will presumably adopt, does he understand how much that decision will cost and where the money will come from?

[Justin Madders]

As the Minister knows, we will publish our proposals with costings when we get to the general election. However, as the Government have been considering the regulations, I want to know whether they have undertaken such an exercise. It appears they have not, and I think, given that there is apparently some financial benefit, that it is perfectly reasonable to ask why that question has not been addressed at all. I further point out that the impact assessment states that

“some employees may prefer to use their annual leave for caring responsibilities, as this is an unpaid entitlement and annual leave is paid at full-pay.”

That undermines the purpose that the regulations are trying to achieve, so I hope the Minister can address that in a little more detail when he responds.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a question about how many people will actually benefit. I quoted figures from Carers UK and the CIPD, which place the number of people in work who are carers at more than 5 million or at 3.7 million, respectively. The Government’s estimate of those who will benefit is substantially lower, at 1.9 million, according to page 13 of the impact assessment. That number is also alluded to in the explanatory memorandum, which states that the number of in-work carers is roughly half the total number of informal carers, which is 4.2 million. It would be useful to hear from the Minister why we have such discrepancies on the figures; after all, there are several million people between the Government’s and the CIPD’s estimates. One possibility is that many carers do not qualify for the assessment because they are not employees. I do not know whether that has been part of the issue.

I have some concerns about the mechanics of the entitlement and will ask the Minister to address those when he responds. The particular issue is the ability of an employer to postpone the leave for a period of up to one month. The regulations state that an employer is entitled to delay the take-up of leave if

“their business will be unduly disrupted if the employee took carer’s leave during the period identified in the notice”.

That appears rather open-ended. What constitutes a business being unduly disrupted? Will the Minister help us with that? Will there be guidance issued on that point, alongside the regulations, to clarify the circumstances in which it can be invoked?

It is also worth noting that if an employee provides less than one week’s notice, the leave could be postponed before the earliest day or part day requested in the employee’s notice. That means that there are asymmetrical notice requirements. Where an employee must provide adequate notice to proceed with their entitlement, the employer can seemingly postpone at a moment’s notice. We can all see why that that might not necessarily align with people’s caring responsibilities. Most of the time, the leave will be dependent on the care needs of the recipient, and it might not be possible to rearrange cover in such a fashion, so will the Minister accept that a balance must be struck between the needs of the carer and of the employer?

I suggest that the way the draft regulations are framed means that the employer could, if so minded, refuse a request for whatever reason they chose, as long as they use the wording of regulation 8(b). On the face of it, under the draft regulations, there is no mechanism to challenge an employer’s decision. On reasons to postpone carer’s leave rather than refuse it—it is supposed to be operational in a month—what explanations does the Minister expect a business to produce? What measures can the Government take to ensure that consent is not withheld unreasonably?

Before I move on to the second set of regulations, I will say that it is a little disappointing that we have had to wait such a long time for regulation. It is now not far off seven years since the Government promised to

“give workers a new statutory entitlement to carer’s leave, as enjoyed in other countries”,

in the 2017 Conservative general election manifesto. That was repeated in the 2019 manifesto, which stated that they would introduce the

“entitlement to leave for unpaid carers, the majority of whom are women, to one week.”

A promise to introduce the provisions as part of the now mythical employment Bill was made in the 2019 Queen’s Speech. A consultation was launched in March 2020, followed by a Government response a year later, but then we heard nothing more.

As we know, throughout the passage of the Carer’s Leave Bill there was no opposition to its principles and no amendments were made. I think it was universally accepted that it was a positive step forward, which poses the question of why we have had to wait seven years for this to be delivered. Why did we have to rely on a private Member’s Bill for it to come into law? Hundreds of thousands of workers could have benefited from the protections in the legislation had it been issued earlier. It is positive that we have finally got there, but it is reasonable to ask the Minister why it has taken us so long.

I now turn to the second set of regulations, the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave, and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations. As the Minister stated, they are about the protections against being made redundant that are afforded to workers who take maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. The rights stem from the MAPL regulations of 1999 and similar provisions in the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002 and the Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014.

All the existing regulations state that if a worker’s job is being made redundant during their maternity, adoption or shared parental leave period, they are entitled to be offered alternative employment that is not substantially worse than their previous job. As the Minister said, the new regulations will expand the time during which those protections apply up to 18 months after the birth of the child. That will mean that a mother taking the full 12-month entitlement to maternity leave or a parent taking the full 12-month adoption leave will be protected for at least six months after their return to the workplace. For a parent taking shared parental leave, protections apply only if they take off at least six consecutive weeks of parental leave.

We absolutely support the Government on increasing protections and, as the Minister said, a range of evidence that has been available for a long time indicates that new mothers have been pushed out of jobs and discriminated against. The Minister referred to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2015 estimate of about 54,000 new mothers being forced out of their jobs, equating to about 11% of the women responding, who had

“been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant where others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave their jobs”.

In 2020, a Pregnant Then Screwed a survey of almost 20,00 women also found a figure of about 11% of women on maternity leave who had been made redundant or expected to be made redundant. The Government recognised that position and made positive noises following a 2017 Women and Equalities Committee report, but did not launch a consultation on the issue until 2019. Again, a commitment to act was made in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, but here we are in 2024 before we finally have some regulations.

It must be stated that the second set of regulations will address only one element of the challenges that women and other parents face: that of being made redundant while pregnant. On page 7 of the impact assessment, it is estimated that the measure will likely cover about 7,500 people. Clearly, that is a not insignificant number of workers, and it is a welcome step that additional parents will have the protections, but that is only a small proportion of those who start a family each year, and it is certainly a drop in the ocean compared with the 11% figure in the surveys to which I have referred.

There is concern, then, that the regulations will not take us all the way to where we want to be in protecting women and new parents from discrimination during and after pregnancy. I think we can all agree that the surveys and the evidence show us that there is currently an unacceptable level of discrimination, but it is important to remember that that has all been happening under the current rules on maternity, adoptive and shared parental leave, so it is reasonable to ask this question. What do the Government think will happen, when the extension of the period comes into force, to actually ensure that all discrimination in the workplace is eliminated? We know that tens of thousands of women are already being forced out of their jobs, through reasons not associated with redundancy, during pregnancy or within six months of their return to work. I fear that the measure will not go far enough, so does the Minister have any thoughts or suggestions about what else could be done to reduce the very high numbers?

The regulations on which the statutory instrument builds are reliant on awareness by the employer of the rules and on the ability of the worker to enforce their rights. The impact assessment noted that 70% of employers reported a high level of awareness of female employees’ rights, but it also noted that deeply concerning biases were held by an unacceptably large proportion of employers. Reportedly, 70% of employers held the belief that women should declare a pregnancy during the recruitment stage, and 25% thought it was acceptable to ask a woman about their plans to have children when hiring. Those statistics are concerning and should be setting off alarm bells about the latent discrimination that still exists. I started work nearly 30 years ago and even then those sorts of questions were simply unacceptable, so the fact that the impact assessment reveals that that kind of prejudice is still alive is worrying to say the least.

The concern is reflected in the part of the impact assessment that raises concerns that the effectiveness of the regulations could be blunted through an employer’s adherence to them. I will draw to the Committee’s attention two passages in the impact assessment. The first is the comment on the wider landscape, where it says:

“The legislation in this area is complex and thus businesses may struggle to understand their obligations. As a result, employees may find it difficult to exercise their rights.”

The other, which is a surprisingly candid comment about how the current system is not robust enough to adequately protect workers, says:

“Employers are currently not incentivised to provide sufficient employment protection for pregnant and new parents, and are likely to prioritise their costs and bottom line.”

It would be useful to hear the Minister’s reflections on those comments, because they allude to a wider problem. Will he reassure us that there will be adequate support for businesses to understand the new protections and that they will be accompanied by a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that the protections actually benefit the people they are intended to benefit?

In closing, I remind Members again that the Select Committee report with actions in relation to where we are with the regulations today was published in 2016. We know that a week is a long time in politics, so eight years must seem like an eternity, particularly to those 54,000 women who we can estimate have been forced out of work each year during that period. The total is more than 400,000 women during that time. As I said, I will conclude on those points. We support the regulations, but there are some questions that I hope the Minister will address when he closes the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Government are very pleased to bring forward these two pieces of legislation and to deliver on two of our manifesto commitments. Let me touch on the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North East Fife.

The cost of carer’s leave to business is already around £33 million annually. Whether to extend it so that it is a paid right is an interesting question. As I said in my intervention, that would clearly mean a cost either for the taxpayer or for business, and we do not think, at this time, that that is the right burden to place on businesses, which are already facing difficulties from a number of sources, not least covid and the cost of living crisis.

Indeed, we have legislated in a number of areas. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned the employment Bill, but he will be aware that there are six private Members’ Bills that will have some impact on businesses. As well as the draft regulations we are considering, we introduced flexible working legislation, neonatal care leave and the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. Those are a number of requirements on business, and we always want to maintain a balance in relation to the impact on business and jobs. We think that this change strikes the right balance.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many people will be affected. Our statistics came from the family resources survey 2021-22, which states that there are 4.9 million adult informal carers, and half of those hold down a job. That is where we got the figure of 2.5 million from. A lot of the discrepancies he referred to may be a result of the kind of question that is asked. The questions are not necessarily the same, but the numbers are around the same ballpark. There may be a few hundred thousand either side, but in the context we are probably in the right place.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North East Fife made a good point about postponement and who judges what is unduly disruptive. Our perspective is that it is right that the business—the provider of employment—determines that. Hopefully, most people acknowledge that most employers in the UK are decent businesses that do the right thing by employees. That is good businesses, and most are run by decent people. Of course, where things go wrong, there is a natural recourse to the employment tribunal, which can determine whether a business has been reasonable or whether a person has been inappropriately discriminated against. We could potentially look at guidance in this area; we will take that away.

On the time it has taken for us to get to this point, of course we seek to deliver these things as quickly as possible, but there has been a series of disruptions to our legislative programme over the past few years—not least covid and the cost of living crisis. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation, as we discussed earlier.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to further protections, and of course we always look at that. Part of what we do in legislation is set a baseline that encourages cultural change. We will continue our work with the Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Advisory Board to develop improved guidance, which may provide the further protection that he seeks.

The hon. Member for North East Fife rightly asked how we can promote this legislation. We constantly work with stakeholders and various employer groups to talk about legislation that we are introducing, and we will continue to do that to ensure they inform the employers—their members—about the regulations.

I thank everyone who participated in the debate, not least the hon. Lady, who has done incredible work in taking forward her private Member’s Bill. It is always a pleasure to be involved in legislation that receives cross-party support, and I am very pleased that that is the case today. We very much hope the new carer’s leave right will improve the lives of carers who are juggling their caring duties and work commitments. The extension of additional redundancy protections to pregnant women and new parents will reduce the number of parents who feel they are being unjustly pushed out of the workplace. We want the regulations to succeed because we have an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of those who may rely on these changes in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024.

DRAFT MATERNITY LEAVE, ADOPTION LEAVE AND SHARED PARENTAL LEAVE (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Business and Trade

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Ministerial Corrections

The following are extracts from the Second Reading debate on the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill on 26 January 2024.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Our 2019 manifesto pledged changes to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. The Government have delivered on those commitments by supporting a package of six private Members’ Bills helping new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers; giving all employees easier access to flexible working; and giving workers a right to request a more predictable working pattern. We have been pleased with the successful progress of that legislation through Parliament, where it has received cross-party support, resulting in six Acts successfully receiving Royal Assent. The Government have already made good progress on laying secondary legislation in due course to implement those new Acts.

The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, for example, will give all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service the right to request flexible working, empowering employees to ask for a working arrangement that suits them and their unique circumstances.

[Official Report, 26 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 523.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):

An error has been identified in my speech on Second Reading of the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill.

The correct statement should have been:

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Our 2019 manifesto pledged changes to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. The Government have delivered on those commitments by supporting a package of six private Members’ Bills helping new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers; giving all employees easier access to flexible working; and giving workers a right to request a more predictable working pattern. We have been pleased with the successful progress of that legislation through Parliament, where it has received cross-party support, resulting in six Acts successfully receiving Royal Assent. The Government have already made good progress on laying secondary legislation in due course to implement those new Acts.

The Flexible Working (Amendment) Regulations 2023, for example, will result in all employees, including those without 26 weeks’ continuous service, having the right to request flexible working, empowering employees to ask for a working arrangement that suits them and their unique circumstances.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will provide greater protection to women who are on maternity leave or an employee who is on adoption or shared parental leave in a redundancy situation.

[Official Report, 26 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 523.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):

An error has been identified in my speech on Second Reading of the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill.

The correct statement should have been:

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will provide greater protection to women who have returned from maternity leave or an employee who has returned from adoption or shared parental leave in a redundancy situation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Obviously, all legislation should include an impact assessment, including a financial impact assessment on business. The impact assessment result was de minimis—I think that is below £5 million, which is not a significant impact. We therefore do not think that the changes will create a significant burden on businesses. We have engaged with business representative organisations and payroll professionals throughout the policy development of these changes. They have responded positively and understand how the changes will increase flexibility for families. We are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to plan communications with businesses to ensure that they fully understand the new arrangements, and we will continue to engage with them while we finalise guidance to ensure the smooth introduction of these changes.

[Official Report, 26 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 525.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):

An error has been identified in my speech on Second Reading of the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill.

The correct statement should have been:

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Obviously, all legislation should include an impact assessment, including a financial impact assessment on business. The impact assessment result was de minimis—I think that is below £5 million, which is not a significant impact. We therefore do not think that the changes will create a significant burden on businesses. We have engaged with business representative organisations and payroll professionals throughout the policy development of these changes. They have responded positively and understand how the changes will increase flexibility for families. We will work with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to plan communications with businesses to ensure that they fully understand the new arrangements, and we will continue to engage with them while we finalise guidance to ensure the smooth introduction of these changes.

Post Office Services: Isolated Communities

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on securing this important debate on a subject close to my heart, as the representative of the rural seat of Thirsk and Malton.

We all know how highly our communities value post offices, and our constituents have deep concern whenever they are closed, even temporarily. They value them because of the services they provide but also, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, because they are the provider of trusted relationships—I could not agree more. The post office network is still significant, with over 11,500 branches across the country. Recent research by the London School of Economics highlighted that the network makes a valuable contribution to the economic health of our high streets, generating £3.1 billion of additional spending every year. It is understandable that the hon. Gentleman wants to debate the issue, given that his constituency has seen changes in its provision of post offices in recent months and years.

The Post Office has the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters set for it by Government. Those parameters include minimum access criteria and minimum services to be provided at branches across the country. For example, 99% of the population must live within three miles of their nearest branch and 95% of the total urban population must live within one mile of their nearest outlet, which relates to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency because it is in an urban area. Despite all the challenges faced by retailers in recent years, it is pleasing that the Post Office meets and exceeds those criteria at a national level. In fact, more post offices have opened this year than have closed and the network is as large today as it has been for five years, with around 11,700 branches open.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, 12 branches are operating in in Stretford and Urmston, serving around 13,000 customers each week. The post office network in the area supports around 60 full-time equivalent jobs and has an economic contribution to his constituency of over £6 million each year, as well as driving an additional wider high street spend of £5 million a year.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the situation in Partington, where I understand the post office branch closed last year when the postmistress retired after an incredible 35 years serving her community. From my own constituency experience, I fully appreciate the impact a branch closure can have on a community. It can be disruptive, particularly for communities without nearby alternatives, but that fluctuation is part of the modern, dynamic, franchise-led business that the Post Office primarily is. The network is made up of small businesses and, just like any other franchise-based business, the Post Office cannot control a franchise’s decisions about their future. As postmasters move on, branches close and new ones open, as the hon. Gentleman has experienced at first hand, with the opening of Stretford post office in its new permanent location late last year.

The reasons for a temporary branch closure are generally outside the control of the Post Office. However, in such instances, the Post Office ensures services are maintained as quickly as it can. I understand from the Post Office that there is interest from a community group in taking on the Partington branch, with a further meeting scheduled next week, so I am hopeful that the branch can be reopened as soon as possible. I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about the provision of a mobile service, and I am happy to take that away and update him. It is not easy to secure, as I have experienced myself, but we will do whatever we can.

We are not blind to the realities of taking on and running a post office. Like any other retailer, post offices face pressures from continually evolving consumer behaviours, particularly as consumers shop online more, driving footfall away from our high street. When it comes to consumer habits and accessing Government services, it is not our place to dictate to people where they should access those services—I think that we often like to access those services online. None the less, we are keen to retain what services we can. The hon. Gentleman did point to the DVLA contract, which has been extended for another year. I think that everyone would like to see that contract extended on a longer-term basis, but negotiations will have to continue.

Changes in consumer behaviour are significantly driving down the number of letters being sent, which is also having an impact on post offices. Nevertheless, there are reasons to be optimistic. We were pleased to see the Post Office launch its Parcels Online business last year, whereby customers can select and pay for Evri and DPD products online before dropping parcels off at their nearest post office. The Post Office is now also rolling out a similar proposition across the physical network, which means that customers can compare different carriers to choose the option that best suits their needs. We see this as a significant opportunity to improve competitiveness and competition in the market, and I am keen that the Post Office expand that proposal further to include more carriers.

There is also a major opportunity, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, in banking services. All customers should have appropriate access to banking and cash services wherever they live. That is why we have legislated to protect access to cash to ensure that customers can continue to access everyday banking services at the post office. This development is important for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as, for example, around 50% of bank branches in Stretford and Urmston have closed since 2015, so post offices are key in providing access to cash in the constituency, as they are across the country.

In December, £3.3 billion in cash was either deposited or withdrawn across the country. The post office network is therefore a crucial component of this country’s long-term provision of cash and banking services. And that is why I have been clear that the Post Office should be ambitious in its negotiations with the banks for the next iteration of the banking framework agreement, which already provides significant revenue into the post office network. We welcome that, but there are further opportunities. The hon. Gentleman may want to speak to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about other services, such as banking hubs. As I said earlier, there are 30 hubs around the country already and 70 more in the pipeline, but our aspiration is to get 500, and it may be suitable to provide a hub in his constituency.

[Gerald Jones]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I fully accept that there are challenges. For example, many of the people working in our post offices have done so for many years and when they come to retirement, it really is a challenge to get people to take on those businesses. The communities that we have described this afternoon—geographically isolated communities and communities with public transport issues—tend have many older people who often use cash in their transactions. Banking hubs are great in larger towns perhaps, but things are much more difficult in smaller, isolated communities. What other options can be considered so that those communities do not become financial deserts?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Banking hubs are not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are other solutions, some of which are facilitated by the banking framework. Enhanced facilities in post offices is one such solution—for example, a separate line in the post office. Smart ATMs are part of the solution. OneBanx provides a mini-banking solution that can be provided in libraries, for example. Different financial organisations, such as some of the building societies, are rolling out such provisions, but we see banking services, and the remuneration that flows from them, as critical to ensuring that we have a sustainable network of post offices. I have always been clear in this House that if Members have particular local issues, I am happy to work with them and the Post Office to try to deliver solutions on a case-by-case basis.

Although there are opportunities, that does not mean we are out of the woods. Branch profitability is a top priority for postmasters, and I am keen to ensure that it can be enhanced wherever possible. I assure Members that we remain steadfast in our support for the network. We have provided significant financial support to sustain the nationwide network—over £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade alone—and we are providing a further £588 million for the Post Office between 2022 and 2025. The moneys include investment and, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston referred to, an annual network subsidy of £50 million, which helps to safeguard services in the uncommercial parts of the network.

The Government have been clear that post offices should be a valuable social and economic asset for communities and businesses for years to come. We continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that the organisation and the network are fit for the future, and we always welcome views on the network, such as those expressed today. I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for introducing this important debate, and the other hon. Members who contributed to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Post Office Management Culture

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I frequently agree with him on Post Office matters. This is important, because the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, of which he is a member and I am the chair, is a true cross-party group. There is no party that does not have a member of the APPG.

Sean Hudson of the Communication Workers Union described the management culture perfectly:

“Every serious management failure results in a culture of offering that failure up for external investigation at significant expense to POL and the taxpayer, without learning from those mistakes.”

It has since transpired that the legal fees for resolving disclosure issues in the past year alone cost £24 million. That money could have gone into the network to help struggling sub-postmasters, many of whom are working for below the minimum wage. For context, POL announced remuneration improvements this year of just £26 million, which in no way take into account the rise of costs and overheads. Some of the issues were only brought to light through the perseverance of campaigners through freedom of information requests that revealed that not all relevant evidence had been disclosed to the inquiry. Some of the issues outlined came to light before the transmission of ITV’s “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, which has had a monumental impact on the public consciousness in Britain. It is important that that was beamed into front rooms across the nation. It has caused deep distrust of Post Office management among the general public.

With the words “openness and transparency” in mind, I want to bring to the attention of the House the case of my constituent Salman Aslam. Salman, or Sal, is a young man who ran a post office in my constituency for five years, before he walked away last year. Sal took over the post office from his father, when he was in remission from Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Sal began noticing shortfalls, which he continually plugged himself and which ranged from £4,000 to £16,000 at a time. He estimates that he has paid in about £100,000 of his own money. When audited last year, a shortfall doubled in front of his eyes to £80,000, He decided he could no longer go on, for the sake of his finances, and of his mental and physical health, which doctors were saying was under threat due to his levels of stress.

Throughout the five-year ordeal, Sal contacted the Post Office for help continually, but none was forthcoming, and after handing in his keys, the Post Office was not in touch for more than a year, leaving him in a perennial state of stress and fear. Sal went public with his story a few weeks ago—I had a hand in that—and once the story went out, Post Office Ltd immediately sprang into action and the communications department got in touch with him. That is not indicative of a change of culture. It echoes tales of the past that are all too familiar: desperate postmasters reaching out to POL for help, but receiving little in return; and communication from POL arriving only after some negative press.

Throughout the Horizon scandal, POL prioritised institutional reputation over the welfare of sub-postmasters, whom Mr Read himself recently told the Business and Trade Committee were the trusted asset that made the network what it is. Sal is one of many postmasters who have been in touch in the past weeks to tell me that they are experiencing shortfalls—not historical shortfalls, but ones that have occurred in the past year. Issues with Horizon appear to be continuing to this day, which is seriously concerning. Is the Minister aware of ongoing issues with Horizon? What has he done, or is he going to do, to address these? Sal, like all the victims who preceded him, is in this position through no fault of his own. Today, I call for an undertaking from the Government, the Post Office’s sole shareholder, that he will not be pursued for the ghost debt of £80,000, and I ask the Government to examine what kind of redress he can expect, having sunk so much of his own money into his post office to cover repeated shortfalls generated by Horizon. I have other constituents who are also in that position.

The culture of change that Nick Read has called for has not been apparent. In 2023, POL was rocked by scandals once again, with one appropriately named “bonusgate”. The former Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), outlined the statutory definition of “false accounting” at a meeting and said:

“it seems to me that in the annual accounts that Post Office reported to Parliament there was false or misleading information presented that did lead to…financial gain”.

I said in July:

“That is the management culture of POL: bonuses for doing ‘a reasonable job’.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 161WH.]

We should compare that with the compensation schemes, which have been fraught with difficulty every step of the way. The fundamental principles of public life, including openness, honesty, and integrity, have not been upheld by the management of POL for decades.

Regrettably, even the compensation schemes established to address the injustices of the lamentable Horizon chapter are not immune from POL’s unjust approach. Dan Neidle, a renowned tax expert, soon realised that the schemes are designed to ensure that the lowest amount of compensation is paid out. The application forms are so legally intricate that even a legal expert such as Mr Neidle expressed the need for legal advice in order to complete them, but POL provides only token amounts for legal advice. The original absence of an option to claim punitive damages, something a lawyer would notice, puts applicants, many of whom are elderly and financially vulnerable, at risk of missing out on a significant portion of their compensation. I have seen a heavily redacted offer, and that is what happened to a sub-postmistress who was spat at by members of her local community after rumours of her stealing abounded in the neighbourhood. This is appalling, shameful and a stain on us all.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The hon. Lady remarked earlier about the number of people coming forward following the ITV series, and I am keen for people to do that. It is important to say to all postmasters that they will be treated fairly. I know that she has some concerns about that, and she is right to raise concerns where she has them. I, too, have concerns about some elements of the original Horizon shortfall scheme. We are looking at that, in conjunction with the advisory board, to see what might be done to make sure that those payments were fair.

Let me draw the hon. Lady’s attention to some of the stats on the new group litigation order scheme. We may be talking about the simpler cases coming forward here, but with 58 claims received, 52 offers have been made and 41 have been accepted without even a reference to the independent panel for people who are unhappy with the offers made. I do believe that the offers made are fair, but I am also happy to be challenged, in order to make sure that they are.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. I know that he has worked hard since he took over his post to make things better, but it would not be right if I did not continually and continuously push him.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

[Marion Fellows]

He is acknowledging that.

At this point, it is worth reading out a letter from Professor Chris Hodges, the chair of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, who has been similarly scathing. He writes:

“Dear Nick Read,

My colleagues on the Advisory Board and I remain deeply unconvinced by the substance of what you say on legal issues. We continue to hear stories your former Sub-Postmasters and Mistresses are confused, intimidated and hurt by the behaviour of the Post Office and its lawyers in negotiating settlements generally and in continued use of legalistic terminology. This is especially true for the significant number who remain deeply traumatised, and who do not understand the practice of terminology of what they see as an aggressive approach to settling claims. This is irrespective of whether the language or behaviour may or may not be technically permissible, and irrespective of the fact that they may have legal representation. Your reliance of legal argument and legal terminology similarly does not impress us. We do not perceive demonstration of behaviour that is anything like a sympathetic understanding towards the people your organisation has harmed. We suggest that this should give you cause for deep concern.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Lady yet again, but people might listen to her speech more than mine at the end, so I am keen to get a point on the record about the non-disclosure agreements. In evidence to the Select Committee, the Post Office has been quite clear—it is certainly our position—that nobody will be held to their non-disclosure agreement, so everybody should feel completely at liberty to discuss the terms of their settlement with Members of Parliament and others, as they feel appropriate. It is important to get that on the record.

[Marion Fellows]

I really thank the Minister for his intervention because hearing direct from the Minister that he will not be pursued will provide my constituent with some element of comfort. However, people are still traumatised years later because of the treatment they have had and it is hard for them to believe that people will not pursue them. I will show my constituent a clip of what the Minister just said.

I have met recently with Christopher Head, who is in the Gallery today. He is a Horizon victim and campaigner who, out of his own good will, helps others in applying for compensation. I do not want anyone else to add to Christopher’s burden because he is doing such a good job. He has told me of the difficulties people face and that he himself received an offer that was only a minuscule fraction of his estimated Horizon losses. Alan Bates recently talked about his offer as well.

Many sub-postmasters I have spoken to recently told me that they plugged shortfalls out of their own pocket for years. The Minister has advised those people to apply for the Horizon shortfall scheme, and I sincerely hope that many more people will take advantage of that. Will the Minister ask Post Office management to make their records of those payments available to individuals? Have Post Office management let the Minister know when they will give an estimate of the excess claimed in Horizon shortfalls, from the introduction of the system to the end of financial year 2019-20? That is important because all that excess money, which was not owed, was put into Post Office Ltd and management bonuses were paid on profits.

The Post Office network is in disarray. Sub-postmasters have no faith in the current management of Post Office Ltd to turn things around. What they see is an organisation that is top-heavy, with multiple layers of management and directors, who have self-interest at heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Today’s debate is extremely timely and important. It is harrowing to listen to cases from across the UK, and it takes time for it to sink in how the cover-up of this scandal has cost the lives of ordinary, hard-working people who only wanted to provide for their families by working for their communities in post offices. We have to think about how many of those people have been tret, not just by the Post Office but by the Government and Fujitsu. Many of them have had extreme difficulties in employment. They were not just betrayed but sent to prison for crimes that they did not commit. They knew they were innocent; more importantly, the people who sent them there knew that they were innocent as well. We need a lot of answers. More and more is coming to the fore every day with regard to this scandal.

Mention has been made of who knew about this. The Government knew about it, Fujitsu knew about it, and the Post Office knew about it; yet they still sent investigators into sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses’ post offices. They investigated people, charged people, and devastated people’s lives. They acted like the Gestapo. They turned up on the day and closed post offices down. That is the Post Office management culture, and it needs to be addressed.

I am not sure how we can compensate anybody. How can we compensate the family of a woman or man who committed suicide as a result of the pressure that they were put under by the Government, the Post Office and investigators? How do we compensate people for the death of a loved one who was the breadwinner in the family, and decided that their only option was to take their own life? It is unimaginable. We cannot put ourselves in their shoes.

What about the men and women who went to prison because they had supposedly falsified accounts and committed theft? They were imprisoned with child-killers and rapists for things they had not done. Not only did they know they had not done them; the Government and the Post Office knew it too. Fujitsu knew what was happening behind the scenes. This does not seem like the country I am very proud of—what happened with the Government behind the scenes. It is very murky and sinister. At the same time, the Government and the Post Office were prosecuting people with evidence from Fujitsu, and people were being imprisoned and taking their own lives. Frankly, it is enough to make us cry.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly making a typically impassioned speech. I have been very careful throughout the whole time I have been involved in this matter, which is over four years, as a Back-Bencher and a Front-Bencher, not to play any kind of party politics with it. I put it on the record that the issues occurred under a series of Governments: the Labour Government, the coalition Government and the current Government. It is important that we look at the matter on a cross-party basis and seek to resolve it as such. I am keen to work with him on that basis.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, and I agree. I have a lot of time for him. We have had conversations about this matter and many others. As he will notice if he looks in Hansard, I have not been party political. I have said “the Government”. He is correct to point out that there have been Governments of different colours throughout the period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Not only that, but Jo Hamilton had to pay £36,000 back, even though she knew she was in the right. I asked Nick Read, the chief executive of the Post Office, whether it was a possibility that the money paid back by a number of the victims would have been in a place where it could have provided bonuses for senior executives. How perverse is that? The answer from the chief executive, when I pressed him and pressed him, was that yes, it was a possibility, but he did not know where the money actually went. That in itself is so bad that it beggars belief.

Fujitsu, meanwhile, denied any knowledge of bugs or any wrongdoing, but actually knew quite the opposite, and it supplied evidence to the Post Office to prosecute individuals. How bad is that situation? This is not a spy movie—it is worse than a spy movie. They had a dark room in Fujitsu where its employees were communicating with the Horizon computer system in post offices up and down the country. Fujitsu denied it all along, saying that it was impossible it could ever happen, yet people there were changing the amounts of money openly. The Government knew. Fujitsu knew, because it had the operation in its own offices, with employees changing facts and figures in the accounts of ordinary hard-working individuals—again, spy movie stuff. It is unbelievable that that could be the case.

Is it not unreal to think that none of this would have come about if not for the ITV dramatisation, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”? We would not be discussing it in this Chamber, because it would have been kicked into the long grass. The people would all have suffered the same—those who are in prison, the families who have been destroyed, and the kids who have been brought up with the criticism and abuse that their parents were thieves —but it would not have been unearthed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no doubt that the ITV series has rightly heightened awareness both in this House and further afield, and I welcome that, but much work was going on in this space before it aired, including on how we can overturn more convictions on a blanket basis. I was working on that with the advisory board before the series aired, so it is not right to say that we would not have got to this position without it. We probably would not have got here as quickly, but the hon. Gentleman must concede that this work has been going on for years—although I welcome the fact that it is happening more rapidly now.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I suggested that nothing at all had happened, because I know that the Minister, the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and others have been working on the matter assiduously. However, as the Minister said, we might not otherwise have been at this stage. We might not have got Fujitsu to say for the first time, “Yes, we are sorry,” and the Post Office might not have started to admit that it had pursued wrongful or unsafe prosecutions. But we are where we are. I would not want to mislead anyone in the debate.

I have three brief examples. These people, Minister, were heavily involved with Horizon and the Post Office, and suffered greatly. It causes me real heartbreak, to be honest. The first example is that of Janine, a lady from my constituency who has sadly passed on; no one came to see me about her case until they saw the ITV documentary. Her husband simply cried for the entire hour that I sat with him. He wanted justice for Janine, who sadly died of covid. He is hoping for some sort of justice now.

Janine was employed in a post office in a newsagents, which is a regular thing up and down the country. Her contract with the newsagents said that any shortfall in the post office finances must be made up by her. She and another person were employed by the newsagents, and then there was the sub-postmaster or mistress— I am not sure which it was on this occasion. Janine was accused of stealing £25,000, even though she had not seen that amount of money before. The Post Office investigators came to the newsagents and basically tret her like a common thief. The pressure was put on: “We are going to charge you with theft and you are going to prison.”

Janine was absolutely devastated. She pleaded guilty. Then, she sat back and realised, “Why should I be pleading guilty when I am not guilty?”. It cost her and her family a small fortune to take the case back to court and have the guilty verdict rescinded. The Post Office then said, “Okay, you can accept the lesser charge of false accounting and pay the money back.” She refused. All this cost her £15,000 in legal fees—these are just ordinary working people in the community. She was then informed that if she paid the £25,000 back, the Post Office would drop the charges. That is what happened: she paid the money back. Unfortunately, by the day she sadly passed on, she and her family had lost everything they had.

That needs scrutiny. We need to look at the management culture. What on earth was going on at the Post Office during this thing? Who directed the investigators to go to those post offices and treat people the way they were tret in the investigations? They knew at the time that the allegations were false. That is the thing that I have reiterated and will continue to reiterate: they knew that the allegations were in many ways false, unfounded, unfair. Maybe the investigators did not, but the people at the top of the Post Office certainly knew; people in government knew. That cannot be right. Janine’s husband has written and submitted a really heart-rending letter, but under the current schemes, he is unlikely to be able to claim any money. How can that be just? I will follow that up with the Minister.

The second example is that of a man who wrote to us saying: “I’ve got a massive problem. I’m like lots of other sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. We work at the very heart of the community. It’s where people used to come to talk. We were trusted, well respected, listened to.” He was seeing mistake after mistake crop up on his computer week after week, but rather than inform the Post Office, he was putting money in week by week to balance the accounts, which had been altered by somebody at the Fujitsu head office.

This individual says that he simply could not stand the idea that anybody would think him in the slightest—in the remotest sense—a thief. He has paid tens of thousands of pounds, if we aggregate the money that he paid week by week. There is no way that he or hundreds of other employees have the opportunity or ability to claim compensation at this moment. That begs the question of whether the Post Office, together with the Government, will write to every single person who was a sub-postmaster between 1998 and now to ask them if they are aware of anyone who might have put their own money—out of their own backside pocket, out of their family’s savings—into balancing the accounts. There should be consideration of compensation for such individuals. The Post Office will have all the details of people in those roles who claimed to have used finances from their own back pocket.

I will briefly mention the last example. I have not actually seen these individuals—they are coming to see us next week—but I have been told by one of their relations that they were involved in the Horizon scandal and paid £25,000. That sum crops up time and again. They paid that just to save their name. Nothing went to court—nothing happened—but they paid the money, despite the fact that they were innocent. They thought that because they paid the money, the matter would go away, and there is very little opportunity for people like them to reclaim their money. It is unfair. Never mind them stealing money off the Post Office; the Post Office has stolen money off hard-working people. That should be recognised.

It would be helpful if the Post Office and the Government could listen to what other people have to say. This is not just about those who were convicted or prosecuted; there are more people who were not convicted or prosecuted, but who are out of pocket and have had their life destroyed as a consequence of the Post Office Horizon scandal. We need to look at how that can be addressed. Those people deserve compensation. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, this scandal is appalling. It is disgraceful, shameful, and a stain on all of us. I agree with the Minister that this is a cross-party issue. We have the opportunity to put things right, so let us do it. Let us look after the people whose only crime was going to work and looking after their family.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

May I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing this debate and her fine work as always on the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, and to the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this debate? I also pay tribute to all Members of this House and the other place for their work on this issue. I promise the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), that I do not need anybody to hold my feet to the fire, but it is good that we have this momentum. I very much appreciate the work that has been done by many.

There have been many kind words from contributors about my work, but it is a bit part compared with that of many others who have campaigned long and hard on this issue, as have people outside this place, including members of the legal profession and the media, many of whom we are familiar with for their great work on bringing this scandal to light.

On the governance issues, I am fond of a quote by Emerson, who said:

“An institution is the lengthened shadow of a single man.”

I am keen to ensure that the Post Office’s management culture is in the right place. A positive management culture is paramount to the health of any organisation, so I very much welcome the opportunity the debate brings to consider that point. The Post Office scandal is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in living history, and the victims must get the justice they deserve. I do believe that today’s Post Office is different from the past, but restoring trust will take time. That does not mean that we are satisfied with the current situation. This will never be about quick fixes; it will be about fundamental changes in every part of the organisation, and that change will not occur overnight.

When the current chief executive of the Post Office, Nick Read, started in September 2019, he made it clear that as well as delivering the essential services that we value across our constituencies, the Post Office needed to apologise for the events of the past and fully address them. On the point made by the shadow Minister about the current board, no one serving on a day-to-day basis on the current board was there at the time of the scandal. As I said, Nick Read joined in 2019, and only one member of the board was there at the time, but they are on extended leave on health grounds and do not work on the board on a day-to-day basis. No members of the senior management team were there at the time.

Post Office is taking steps to right the wrongs of the past. However, it is also important to highlight what it has done with a view to the present and future of the business to improve the culture and ensure that a similar situation can never arise. Crucially, Post Office is taking steps to restore trust between itself and postmasters. That is so important, because, as I have said many times, without postmasters, there is no post office network.

In December 2019, the parties to the group litigation in Bates v. Post Office Ltd took part in a mediation session and issued a joint statement confirming Post Office’s commitment to resetting its relationship with postmasters. Since then, Post Office has improved the board’s structure by ensuring that two non-executive director postmasters nominated and elected by other postmasters have a seat on the board. That is intended to ensure that postmaster voices are being heard at the highest level and that senior management are aware of the impact that decisions will have on those on the frontline delivering services.

Post Office also created a postmaster experience director role, which is filled by a serving postmaster. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, it is held by Mark Eldridge, who is a serving postmaster at Great Massingham. He is seconded to the role, so he may no longer be in that post office on a daily basis, but he is nevertheless a serving postmaster. He leads the day-to-day relationship with postmasters. Alongside those senior appointments, the Post Office has reformed operational matters to improve culture and trust between senior management, staff and postmasters. Improved training packages and the hiring of more than 100 new area managers to provide dedicated local support are all examples of positive changes. At my meeting yesterday with Voice of the Postmaster and Communication Workers Union national postmasters, they spoke highly of the support and engagement provided by those area managers.

Post Office has also strengthened how it listens to postmasters, with two postmaster conferences and a nationwide postmaster consultation conducted each year to provide the foundation of Post Office annual priorities. I experience at first hand how postmasters in the network today can challenge Post Office leadership on various issues when I chair a regular working group between the Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I know that, according to various commentators, past experience of that group has been mixed, but my experience from working with them on an ongoing basis has been that the challenge they provide is constructive but robust.

I know that branch profitability is the top priority for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office is committed to increasing the share of income going to postmasters. That has been stressed on every occasion we have met. We have also very much stressed the need to control central costs—indeed, to reduce them—so that we see more of the remuneration heading towards postmasters. The clear strategy for the Post Office to do that and ensure that the highest share of income goes to postmasters is through parcels and banking services, which are key; we have discussed that regularly when we have met. That point was raised by the hon. Members for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I have been clear that the banking framework, which is negotiated between the Post Office and the UK banks, should be as ambitious as possible. Banks have saved about £2.5 billion a year through closure of branches, and in our view a greater percentage of that should go to postmasters directly. I am pleased that the shadow Minister likes our policy on banking hubs, which came principally as a result of our legislation on access to cash. Thirty are open already, and another 70 are in the pipeline, so we will be at 100 and we anticipate that about 500 will be rolled out across the country. Clearly there is more to do to strengthen the relationships with postmasters, but I believe that the Post Office has made and is making some positive steps forward.

Members rightly raised compensation, which speaks to the current management culture at the Post Office. Getting compensation to those impacted by the scandal has not been as swift as we would have hoped. I can assure Members that my Department has been working hard on compensation, alongside colleagues in the Post Office who were recruited specifically for that purpose. As the Secretary of State said recently, we continue to look for ways to speed things up, and we work closely with the Horizon compensation advisory board to ensure that we deliver faster compensation, and that compensation is seen to be fair and is fair.

Recently, we introduced measures such as fixed sum awards of £600,000 for overturned convictions, and £75,000 for the GLO. To be clear, a fixed sum award is an option for people who believe that it will provide sufficient redress. People who believe that their claims are above that level can go down the full assessment route, but the fixed sum award route has the benefit of speedy resolution of claims and reducing the number of people in the queue who want to go down the full assessment route. That should mean faster resolution of claims for all parties involved in the compensation process.

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The Minister has been given credit for the assiduous way that he is righting the wrongs. Members in all parts of the House have been contacted by those affected, such as sub-postmasters who have been prosecuted or have suffered in other ways. Is there a constituency breakdown of the numbers affected? Some people will be more familiar with how to avail themselves of opportunities than others. If we can make ourselves available to those affected —not just those prosecuted—that may provide some assistance, albeit at a late stage, and some solace to them as they try and right the wrongs that he has rightly outlined.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and his work on this matter. It is interesting that more people are coming forward, through colleagues, to the compensation processes, which is very welcome. Some colleagues have written to all their postmasters in their area, asking them to come forward. That is a positive step. I was not aware that I had a postmaster in my area who had been affected—Sam Harrison of Nawton, near Helmsley, who sadly passed away last May. She was one of the 555 members of the GLO scheme. Sadly, she has passed away. New cases come to light all the time. I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend to see what information we might provide him, so that he can take forward those actions.

As I said, we are aware of concerns about the Horizon shortfall scheme, which was the first scheme set up. We are looking at ways to ensure that that scheme’s compensation is fair and seen to be fair. More than £160 million has been awarded already to 2,700 victims, and 64% of all claimants who made their claims prior to the ITV series—more will come forward as a result, which we welcome—have had full and final compensation. Much work has been done by me, my predecessors and many officials, who do a tremendous job trying to right the wrongs of the past, but there is more that we can and have to do.

As of 6 February, more than £35 million has been paid out to those with overturned convictions. There have been 42 claims submitted already for the 101 convictions that been overturned; 36 offers have been made and 32 have been accepted. A very significant proportion of those have taken the fixed sum award. £27 million has been paid out to 479 claimants among the original 555 postmasters who took the Post Office to court. A total of 58 completed claim forms have been received, and 52 claimants have received offers. Of those, 41 people have accepted those offers without going to the next stage, the independent panel. That indicates that people feel that the offers they are receiving are fair, because there are two further stages in that process if they feel that they are not getting fair settlement of their claims. Some £98 million has been paid out through the Horizon shortfall scheme.

There were 2,417 claimants who claimed prior to the original deadline, which has now been extended for late applications, so there is no final date for applications in that scheme. Some 2,417 offers have been made and 2,051 have been settled, meaning that 84% of claims have been settled. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw raised the total compensation amount—I think she mentioned the figure of £2 billion. The maximum budget set thus far is £1 billion. That is the number we are working to at the moment. However, we have always been clear that that is not a cap and it will not stop people getting fair compensation for their claims.

On the matter of more people coming forward, we are absolutely united with the Post Office in calling for anyone impacted by the scandal to bring forward their claims as soon as possible. I welcome the fact that the ITV drama has helped to uncover people who had not previously come forward.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked about ongoing shortfalls. There may be instances of that, although not all shortfalls occur as a result of software problems. I am happy to look at any cases of that that the hon. Lady has, but I have to say that it has not been raised with me thus far in my conversations with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Voice of the Postmaster and the CWU. However, I am happy to look at that as we proceed.

Compensation is one part of providing justice; the other is truth and accountability, which the Post Office has told us it is fully committed to. The Post Office Horizon inquiry has been established to uncover what went wrong, and the chair, Sir Wyn Williams, continues to make good progress.

The Post Office is co-operating fully with the inquiry. While the recent disclosure issues have been disappointing, they were the consequence of a failure of process rather than a reflection of the management culture. We do not regard them as a deliberate obfuscation, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said. Nevertheless, it is a serious and unacceptable matter, and we certainly want to ensure that they do not happen again.

It was reassuring to hear Sir Wyn Williams’s comments on Friday that he was “impressed” that the Post Office’s new lawyers have a

“grasp of the scale of the disclosure exercise”,

and that he currently has no reason to doubt that the Post Office will continue to assist the inquiry by disclosing relevant material. The inquiry will also look at the future of the Post Office itself from September this year.

On governance, strong and effective leadership of the Post Office is essential. As is set out in the Post Office articles of association, the Business Secretary appoints the chair and approves the appointment of directors of Post Office Ltd. It is a role that the Government take very seriously. As Members will be aware, following a conversation with the Business Secretary in late January, Henry Staunton agreed to step down as chair of the Post Office. We judged that the current chairmanship was not proving effective and had a difficult decision to make between changing course or waiting and hoping that it improved.

The shadow Minister referred to ministerial scrutiny, and I think all Ministers should learn the lessons of the past in terms of their approach to concerns that are raised. Of course, we as a Department have learned from this ourselves. We will continue to look at governance arrangements and make sure they are fit for purpose. We are not planning any further changes at this time. Members of the House and others have looked at different models of governance of the Post Office, such as mutualisation. As I said, I met with the Voice of the Postmaster and the CWU yesterday, and I am happy to have further conversations with them about that potential route. We are confident that our representative at UK Government Investments, Lorna Gratton, is doing a good job to ensure that the Post Office’s governance is fit for purpose.

The hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Motherwell and Wishaw asked about the surpluses and where they ended up—whether they went into a suspense account, into profit and loss, or into bonuses for directors. We are currently conducting an exercise to find out where that money went and how much it was, and we will report accordingly.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) talked about the role of Fujitsu. We welcome the admission from Fujitsu that it holds moral responsibility for the scandal and a responsibility to contribute towards the compensation bill. We will certainly take that up in due course, but it is right for us to ensure that we understand the extent of the bill. The inquiry is looking at other matters surrounding Fujitsu and it is right that we wait for the outcome of that. He mentioned the role of Ofcom. Ofcom does not regulate the Post Office; it regulates Royal Mail. There is a distinction there.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck talked about who knew what. That is something we very much want to know. The inquiry’s purpose is to find exactly that. He made the absolutely correct point that no amount of redress could ever make up for what has happened to some people in this scandal. People have taken their own lives and people have been made bankrupt. The least we can do is try to make that good by providing them with full and fair compensation.

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to Janine. I am very happy to look at that case with the hon. Gentleman, as he asked me about it offline the other day. It is certainly the case that if an employee suffered financial detriment, their employer should be able to claim on their behalf. There may be other cases we need to look at, including that case, so I am very happy to have that conversation with him.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about non-disclosure agreements and raised the tragic case of Martin Griffiths in that context. As I said to her in an intervention, it is absolutely right —the Post Office has said this and it is also our position—that no NDA should prevent somebody speaking to relevant individuals, including their Member of Parliament. It is the case, in whatever part of our system and wherever an NDA is signed, that no NDA can ever prevent somebody speaking out—going to the police or other authorities—about a crime. That is the case in any circumstance. The Official Secrets Act only covers the confidentiality of mail and it is no longer signed by postmasters. Again, I am very keen that the gentleman she referred to passes on his evidence to the inquiry, because I think it might find it very useful.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for his very kind words. Understandably, many people are still affected by the scandal and in terms of my performance as a Minister—whether I am the right person or whether I am fit for purpose—I guess the jury is out. I quite understand that. People will judge me at the end of the process, but while I am here, I am very keen to make sure that the full and final settlements are made as quickly and as fairly as possible.

To conclude, I have outlined some of the progress the Post Office has made to improve its culture and its relationship with postmasters, and its determination to right the wrongs of the past. Despite the positive progress made since 2019, there are clearly still improvements to be made. Where the Post Office makes mistakes, I will continue to challenge the leadership. Where action is needed, I will not hesitate to act decisively.

Post Office Ltd

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on the removal of Henry Staunton as Post Office Ltd chair and wider governance issues within the organisation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Following a conversation with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade over the weekend, Henry Staunton agreed to step down as chairman of the Post Office. An interim chair will be appointed shortly, and a recruitment process for a new chair will be launched in due course, in accordance with the governance code for public appointments. I will update the House when we have further details.

The current chairmanship was not proving effective, and we had a difficult decision: change course, or wait and hope that it improves. Given the challenging context for the Post Office and the importance of the role of chair, the Business Secretary took decisive action. I understand that Members would like more details around the decision, especially considering that the Post Office is rightly under heightened scrutiny at this time. I can confirm that there were issues beyond the handling of the Horizon scandal, but as hon. Members would expect, I am not able to comment on the specifics of individual human resources cases.

As the Business Secretary has said, Post Office governance is a priority for the Government. The Post Office is a public corporation; as such, the Post Office board has responsibility for the strategic direction of the company. While there was a clear need for new leadership of the board, we continue to have confidence in the other board members, who are experienced executives with a range of business expertise across the legal, financial, insurance, asset management and pensions sectors; there are two elected postmaster non-executive directors, too.

The Post Office faces unprecedented challenges. It needs to work at pace to deliver compensation to the thousands of postmasters who fell victim to a faulty IT system, as well as to continue the essential work to implement the necessary operational and cultural changes needed in the business. As such, strong and effective leadership of Post Office Ltd is a necessity.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is concerning that the Secretary of State’s move towards clarity and better governance at Post Office Ltd begins with the Government being on a different page from Post Office Ltd on whether Staunton was fired or left by mutual consent. Will the Minister clarify that? Is it possible that Mr Staunton is being made a scapegoat to take the heat away from this Government, and those who came before, the Government being the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd?

Back in July, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business said in a debate on POL’s management culture:

“Through the shareholder’s representative on the board, the Government oversee the Post Office’s corporate governance, strategy, performance and stewardship of its financial and other resources.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 180WH.]

That is not the same as the chairperson. Are the Government satisfied that the UK Government Investments board representative has adequately fulfilled his oversight role? Indeed, has Tom Cooper, who stood down in May, been replaced? That is not clear from Post Office Ltd’s website.

It is clear that the governance model simply has not worked. The arm’s length approach used by successive Governments has allowed scandal after scandal to fester. The post office network is in disarray. Financial redress to postmasters is far too slow and, in some cases, wholly inadequate. The remuneration package for sub-postmasters means that many are working for below the minimum wage, and services are continuously being stripped away. Does the Minister have confidence that the removal of Mr Staunton will speed up financial redress for victims and bring about change in the management culture of Post Office Ltd?

Back in July, Mr Staunton appeared in front of the Business and Trade Committee over the bonusgate scandal. In a debate at the same time, I asked the Minister if he had confidence in the current management of Post Office Ltd. I received no meaningful answer, so has it taken a TV drama for the Government to take action? How is that acceptable?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work; the all-party parliamentary group on post offices does a tremendous job. The phrase used in the statement was “mutual consent”, but it is fair to say that the Government exercised their right to remove the chairman; the hon. Lady can deduce from that what she will. This is not a case of allocating responsibility for the past problems of the Post Office; we are simply saying that we need new leadership going forward. There were specific circumstances around the chairman that meant that we felt that he was not the right person to lead the organisation of the board at this time.

The shareholder representative on UKGI, as the hon. Lady was right to say, is not the chair; it was Tom Cooper, but is now Lorna Gratton. Do I have confidence in her? Yes, I do. I meet her regularly and have a high degree of confidence in her.

Compensation is too slow—we accept that. A number of measures were introduced prior to the TV drama, as the hon. Lady puts it, including the fixed-sum award of £600,000 for overturned convictions. We have also introduced a fixed-sum award for the group litigation order to expedite compensation. That is something on which I am absolutely focused on a daily basis.

I accept what the hon. Lady says about the remuneration of sub-postmasters around the country. Part of that, of course, is about consumer habits—where we shop on the high street. We are keen to identify new sources of revenue, including through the banking framework, which is a potential lucrative opportunity, and parcel hubs.

On the issue of confidence in the individuals, let me say that, having been a board director myself for 30 years, you are only as good as your last game, so it is fair to say that, at this point in time, we did not feel that Henry Staunton was the right person to lead the board.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Given the Government’s role as the sole shareholder in the Post Office, and the associated liabilities and responsibilities that go with that, when will the Secretary of State for Business and Trade make public all the associated papers related to Horizon and this entire scandal, so that the victims as well as the country can see where the responsibility for all this lies? By doing so, the Government will be able to take the right kind of action and support the victims as they seek compensation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and the work that she has done on this. We set up the inquiry in 2021 to undertake that work. Those documents are public and subject to public scrutiny. She may have watched some of the inquiry sessions, which were very revealing about some of the conduct that happened at the Post Office. That inquiry is due to conclude by the end of this year and then report probably sometime next year. We will have a much clearer understanding then of who is responsible, and, as is often said at this Dispatch Box, that is the time to hold those individuals to account.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It certainly was not something that we wanted to do on a weekend. There was a chance that it would come into the public domain by other means, which is why a conversation had to take place over the weekend. We did not think that it would be right for the individual to hear about the potential course of action by other means than the Secretary of State speaking to him. I think that was the right thing to do. I do not know why the hon. Lady would feel, or whether she any evidence, that there was some kind of falling out, as she put it; this was about very serious governance issues related to the person who headed the board of the organisation, which are obviously confidential human resources issues.

On the timeline to replace Mr Staunton, as I said, we will do so as quickly as possible. We are looking at recommendations as we speak, and we will report back to the House as soon as possible on an interim and a permanent replacement. This was not about holding somebody responsible for past problems in the Post Office; it was about the governance of the Post Office going forward. That is why a mutual agreement took place for Mr Staunton to step down.

We are working at pace to deliver the blanket overturning of convictions. We are keen to update the House as quickly as possible, and should do so in the coming days.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I was deeply concerned by the inability of Mr Read, the chief executive officer of Post Office Ltd, to answer an array of very simple questions. In fact, he appeared not even to have done his basic homework when it came to looking back at the Horizon scandal. Although he was not the CEO at the time of the scandal, what confidence do the Government have in Mr Read as chief executive officer to turn it around, and has he yet made public the board minutes that show when the matter was brought to the board’s attention for the very first time? If any board member was complicit in hearing that information and not acting upon it, what steps will the Government take with lawyers to ensure that they are held accountable?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee. I was present for his line of questioning during that session. The chief executive committed to providing responses to the Committee; I am not sure whether they have been provided thus far. A number of questions needed to be addressed, and it is right that those answers be provided. As far as the Government are concerned, our primary means of achieving that is through the inquiry, which is hearing important evidence right now, and will conclude its work by the end of the year and report shortly afterwards.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Surely if ever there was a time to consider removing Mr Staunton from his post, it was after it emerged last year that bonuses were being paid to Post Office executives simply for doing what I think we would all expect them to: co-operating fully with the Horizon inquiry. I think that people will be forgiven for having the suspicion that, when it comes to Horizon, Ministers have been a bit like the Japanese moon lander, suddenly bursting to life as soon as a bit of light is shone on them, in this case by an ITV programme.

I have two questions. First, Fujitsu’s representatives told the Business and Trade Committee a fortnight ago that Fujitsu had a “moral obligation” to contribute to the financial redress for the victims. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions yet with Fujitsu about how and when that might happen, as well as about the size of the contribution that it might make? Secondly, with regard to the continued unexplained shortfalls in Horizon, will the Government commit to revealing how much in excess the Post Office claimed back from staff, resorting to forensic accountancy if required?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The bonuses were returned voluntarily by anybody who received them for that sub-metric, and the chief executive returned his bonuses from across the entire inquiry.

On the point about the Government picking up the pace because of the ITV drama, I would say a couple of things. We were putting a number of measures in place already. We had put in place the Horizon compensation advisory board, which has Lord Arbuthnot as one of its key members. A fixed-sum award was introduced last autumn. We were looking at advice on overturning convictions. Things were happening at pace in this area prior to the dramatisation, but of course we are public servants and members of the public. Of course we want to expedite things, and the impetus behind them is at a raised level because of the public outcry.

Conversations are ongoing with Fujitsu. In my view, the best point to negotiate is when we have all the evidence at our disposal, which will not be until the inquiry concludes. We welcome the fact that the company has taken and accepted some moral responsibility to contribute towards the compensation and we will take it at its word, but negotiating at the right point is the right way to deal with that.

The question of any excess moneys that came back from postmasters effectively into Post Office accounts is an important one, which we are asking now, and we hope to get answers in the near future.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I spoke recently to a couple of my constituents whose parents were wronged by the Post Office Horizon scandal. Now they are being asked to provide invoices from more than 20 years ago to prove that they bought the Horizon system—records the Post Office itself admits it does not keep. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that we focus on those who have been wronged, and that the benefit of the doubt must be with those postmasters who were completely wronged?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolutely right. It should not be the case that a postmaster has to evidence a document that does not exist. The benefit of the doubt should be with the postmaster. Of course it is fair to ask, “Do you have documentation to support any claim you are making?”, but if the evidence is not there, the benefit of the doubt should be with the postmaster.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Leaving the Post Office rudderless now, when people are literally dying before they get redress, is not a situation we can put up with. The key question for the Minister is this: where is the Bill to expedite redress for those who were wrongfully convicted? Will he commit this afternoon finally to making sure that we have pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill so that it is as strong as it can be, and will he commit to a hard deadline enshrined in law in the Bill to make sure the payments are made as rapidly as possible? Frankly, Mr Bates and the other sub-postmasters who have been wronged for so long should not be made to wait a moment longer.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not accept his premise that the Post Office is rudderless. The chief executive is still there and I spoke to him a few moments ago, prior to the urgent question. As I have said, we are looking to appoint an interim chair as soon as possible and a permanent replacement shortly after that, and meanwhile the daily work of the board will continue.

On our commitment to overturn convictions on a blanket basis, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s previous constructive collaboration and engagement with our Department, and I hope that continues. I am keen to engage with him on our approach. These are legal matters that need to be considered carefully and we had a number of meetings last week on this very issue, so I am keen to engage with him, but in a way that does not slow down the process of bringing the legislation forward. He will find us contacting him and knocking at his door in the coming days to talk about how we will go forward with that legislation.

I should point out that Mr Bates’s compensation is not related to the overturning of convictions, because he was never convicted. That is not what is getting in the way of Mr Bates’s compensation, although it is getting in the way for something like 900 other people, and we are keen to resolve that as quickly as possible.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to look at the Post Office’s reported practice, under the former chairman, of making payments of just £5,000 under the Horizon shortfall scheme for distress and inconvenience to people it falsely accused of theft, when a similar claim made at an employment tribunal, in the most exceptional cases, is 10 times that amount?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

To be clear, those schemes are run independently of the Post Office. There are independent processes all the way through, and an independent panel assesses the loss. I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Horizon shortfall scheme, but it is clear that any tariffs that might go with payments are not a ceiling—they tend to be a floor. People should of course be fully compensated for both their financial and their non-pecuniary loss; that is a principle we have adhered to all the way through the process. We are looking at the recommendations of the advisory board on how to make sure people who have been through those schemes have received fair payments. In the group litigation order scheme, there will effectively be a minimum £75,000 fixed-sum award. We are keen to ensure not only that we get the money out of the door, but that that compensation is fair and seen to be fair.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The Post Office bullied, threatened and lied to sub-postmasters and, as we have heard, there is huge frustration that throughout the entire compensation process it has tried to minimise payments, or used extra-long and complex forms to avoid making payments to them. Is the Minister confident that the compensation programme is truly independent and that sub-postmasters will get the full and fair payments they deserve?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that premise. I do not see any evidence of the compensation schemes trying to minimise payments. The independent panel for the Horizon shortfall scheme included Lord Garnier, for example, and seven or eight KCs—very reputable people seeking to do the right thing—so we must be careful in our rhetoric. Of course we want to ensure that people get their full and fair compensation. That is why we implemented the Horizon compensation advisory board, which includes Lord Arbuthnot, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Chris Hodges and Professor Moorhead. They are decent people who want to ensure that people get treated fairly, and full and fair compensation is what people will get.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Clearly, in the wake of the Horizon scandal, there is a need for massive change in the culture driving Post Office management, particularly in its relationship with sub-postmasters, who are, after all, running private businesses under contract with—not owned by—the Post Office. Will the Minister ensure that whoever is appointed chairman commits themselves thoroughly to that culture change, and, if necessary, will he change other board members to ensure that we get the change that we all want to see?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a good point. In the past, the relationship between Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters has not been where it should have been. It is important that that changes. There has been much work on this: 100 area managers have been appointed to help build that relationship, and some of the past conduct and culture of the Post Office has changed. However, we know that it needs to change further. That is the job of the board; we need the right leader of the board in order to do that—hence the action that we took over the weekend.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Poor leadership and governance of the Post Office led to the badly designed Horizon shortfall scheme, which other Members have referred to. I have to say to the Minister that there has been massive under-compensation of sub-postmasters, including my constituent Mr Pennington. For 10 years, he was forced to find shortfall amounts totalling a possible £100,000 because of the Horizon system. He and his wife had to use their own savings, sell shares and even jewellery, and remortgage their house twice.

The stress and worry of finding those shortfalls over 10 years was immense, and Mr Pennington had a mini-stroke shortly after selling the business in 2012 because he could not stand paying the shortfalls any more. Yet the Horizon shortfall scheme has paid out a paltry £1,500 for those 10 years of stress and worry, and has compensated only half the shortfalls. Even the tax top-up promised in November has not yet materialised. I have written to the Minister about that case, but what action can he promise now to ensure that my constituent is finally compensated for those years of distress to him and his wife?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to work with the hon. Lady on that particular case. We are clear that people should get full and fair compensation for financial loss and other impacts, including reputational loss—[Interruption.] I am setting out the position as it is. Of course, we are all concerned to hear about people who do not feel that they have been properly compensated. That is why we have the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which Lord Arbuthnot sits and to which I have referred a number of times. We are keen to ensure that all those people get, and can see that they have got, fair compensation. We are looking at the recommendations for an appeal mechanism, for example. I am very happy to look at this particular case in that context. It is absolutely the case that people should be fully compensated for financial loss and other impacts on their lives.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. By taking this action, the Government have accepted by default that the arm’s length body model for the Post Office does not work, so will he look again at the structure of Post Office Ltd, and will he confirm on the record that the former chairman, having left by mutual consent, did not receive or accept any severance payment?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I can confirm that there was no severance payment. I do not think it is fair to say that we do not think the arm’s length model works. Clearly, we have the right to terminate the chair’s position, which is what we have done.; that is part of the current governance process. Of course, individuals are important, and having the right individual leading the board is very important. We did not think that was the case prior to this weekend, which is why we took the action that we did. We are very keen to appoint the right person to help make the cultural changes within the Post Office that we all want to see.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. The effects of the Horizon scandal and Post Office business practices are still hurting our communities. The post office in Nefyn closed partly because staff no longer trust the computer systems, which I bet is happening in countless communities. I have asked the Post Office to provide an outreach van in Nefyn if no business at all is willing to provide that service—as appears very likely, because I have asked businesses; last week, the Post Office said no. Will the Minister guarantee the people of Nefyn that this, the oldest and second largest town in Llyn, will again have post services in the town?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to take that point up with the right hon. Lady, and to meet her to discuss it. It is very important that our citizens—our consumers—have confidence in the Post Office. That has certainly been the experience in my patch: people have been outraged when there is a closure, so the general public definitely have some confidence in the service. The Horizon system is being replaced. As far as I know, there has never been a case of a customer losing out because of the Horizon system, but I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady to discuss her case in Nefyn.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Shepherd’s Bush Crown office closed in 2017, and Hammersmith Crown office closed in 2020 after 100 years. Four sub-offices in my constituency have been temporarily closed for up to 10 years. With queues at the remaining offices stretching around the block at times, and a lack of competition thanks to multiple bank closures, will the Minister investigate why Post Office Ltd lacks commercial sense as well as integrity?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to look into any cases that the hon. Gentleman refers to. There are clear set criteria: the Post Office has to maintain 11,500 branches nationwide, and 99% of the population has to be within three miles of a post office. The Post Office is maintaining its requirements under those criteria, but I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the issue. Of course, we are looking at how to ensure that the network of individual post offices is sustained over the long term with new revenue streams, including through the access to cash legislation that the Government have put in place and things like parcel hubs. We think there is a bright future for the Post Office, but I am very keen to work with the hon. Gentleman to make sure of that in his particular cases.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I recently raised serious concerns with the Minister that the UK Government are not putting enough effort into making sure that post offices have a sustainable future—something that was of concern before the ITV drama shone a light on this issue. It is a challenge, and I do not feel that I really got an answer, so I am coming back to the topic again: we really need to know that we have a clear, proper plan for ensuring that there is no further deterioration of the network and to help build it back up. People in places like Neilston in my constituency, whose post office closed two weeks ago, or Clarkston, whose post office closed on Saturday, need those services. Those closures are billed as temporary, but they are only temporary if someone has the confidence to take up the opportunity to be a postmaster—who would feel that way now? What is the Minister’s plan to address the issue and make sure we have post office services for all our communities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We need sustainable post offices, and that is about revenue. There have been changes in consumer habits and business levels, which have caused difficulties for postmasters. As I said, the Government have legislated for access for cash, which is a new opportunity for post offices. The banking framework delivers more revenue into those post office branches; we are keen to see that enhanced and for the Post Office to be more ambitious about that relationship, with that money flowing straight into the profit and loss accounts of individual postmasters’ branches. There are many other opportunities, including parcel hubs and foreign exchange. I am happy to discuss the matter offline, if that would be helpful.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The reputational damage to the brand of the Post Office as a direct consequence of the Horizon scandal has been massive—as the Minister knows, my constituent Della Robinson was one of the 555 litigants who had their convictions quashed a couple of years ago. Looking to the future, what is the Minister’s vision for reinvigorating the Post Office as a great British brand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member, and I thank Della Robinson for her work. She was one of the trailblazers who were so important in getting to where we are today and to our getting compensation to the people affected. As I said in response to earlier questions, I believe the Post Office brand is not damaged; it is the centre of the Post Office—those who ran it from the centre—that is damaged. I think we should all get behind our post offices, and of course support them wherever we can. This is not about the brand itself. As I say, when I hear about any closures from colleagues or in my constituency, I know that the local populations are opposed to them, which identifies the high esteem in which people regard their post offices. I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member, if necessary.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It has been very concerning over the last few days to read that a senior UK Government civil servant colluded with the Post Office to shut down the independent investigation by forensic accountants back in 2014, and that he did so with the full knowledge of the coalition Government. Now that the Metropolitan police are finally investigating possible criminality on the part of the Post Office and high-up employees, does the Minister agree that they should also be looking at the possibility of misfeasance in public office?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is certainly of concern to the Government as well. The inquiry is there to ascertain exactly who did what, or who did not do anything when they could have done something. The Met police will conduct investigations and take forward prosecutions wherever they choose. That is not something we seek to influence, although as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, I would welcome somebody being charged or criminal charges being brought against somebody for what has happened in this horrendous scandal.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The family members of a terminally ill constituent came to my surgery in Corkerhill on Friday; that person was a shopkeeper in the highlands who, like so many, were caught up with unexplained shortfalls in Horizon totals, and although that did not lead to criminal action, they paid up to avoid trouble—often borrowing from other sources to do so. Can the Minister tell us whether work will be done to ensure that we know exactly how much in excess the Post Office claimed through all Horizon errors? Can he also tell me in general terms how he will ensure that those who are terminally ill get the justice and compensation they richly deserve?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s particular case. The most important thing we can do is to get compensation to those people as quickly as possible. We have the first scheme that was implemented, which sounds as though that is the right one for his constituent—the historical shortfall scheme. I assume they have made an application to that scheme, and they should be compensated accordingly. About 2,400 people applied on time; 100% have received offers and 84% have accepted those offers. That is a route to compensation. On the excess, we are very keen to find out exactly where that money went, and how it was dealt with when it did appear in some kind of suspense account. That is something we are working on, but we are certainly keen to make sure people are compensated. It is the most important thing we can do right now.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

When considering the governance of Post Office Ltd, will the Minister bear in mind the demoralising impact of the Horizon scandal on current and potential sub-postmasters, as well as on the people who were victims of the scandal itself? In our communities, we are fighting to return post offices to Shap and to Hawkshead—as he knows, because he kindly met me to discuss them recently—and to maintain a post office in Staveley, but we are being hampered by apparent inertia and administrative hurdles, in Shap especially, which are the last things we need. We need encouragement, not red tape. Is there a plan to proactively support current and potential postmasters, so that we can maintain and expand our vital post office network in Cumbria’s communities and across the country?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, it was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member, and I am happy to meet him again to try to expedite matters if he is experiencing delays. Of course, checks and balances need to be gone through with any new postmaster application, but it is good to hear that people are coming forward, and I am very happy to work with him to make sure that that situation is resolved as quickly as possible.

Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

May I first thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for bringing the Bill before the House, and all the other hon. Members who have spoken on this important matter today? He has been incredibly constructive and pragmatic in our deliberations on what we should do in this area, and I thank him for that. It is always a pleasure to work with him on this issue, and we have worked together on a number of issues over the years.

I would like to express my wholehearted agreement with the intent behind the hon. Member’s Bill. His speech was incredibly touching and he spoke passionately about the need for the Bill, but also about the devastating impact on individuals. His point about the future plans of one’s life suddenly going to ashes was incredibly powerful, and I express my sympathy for Mr Thorpe, whom he referred to in his speech.

It is always a great pleasure to take forward legislation that makes a meaningful difference. I was lucky enough to take through Parliament two private Member’s Bills prior to becoming a Minister. One was on parental bereavement leave, and people asked, “Why does this not exist in the first place?” When people say that to us, as I am sure they have said to the hon. Member about his Bill, we know we are on the right track. In my experience, we normally do not do these things on our own—we do them jointly—and his work with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) has been really important in bringing the Bill forward.

It is clear that we should look at what more we can do to support employed parents who lose their partner around the time of their child’s birth and who do not currently qualify for statutory leave entitlement because they do not meet continuity of service requirements—that is, they have not been in the job for the required length of time to qualify. The principle of this Bill has support across the House, and I was pleased to hear that reflected in the debate.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who has long campaigned on this issue. We met his constituent in my early days as a Minister, and I thank him for bringing it to the House’s attention. We were always keen to do something when we could, and I am delighted to say that we now have the right time and space to do this. It was a pleasure to meet him and his constituent Mr Horsey, who is in the Gallery today, in the Department the year before last. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to Mr Horsey for the loss of his wife Bernadette and in sending our best wishes to him and their son Tim.

I will take the time to address some of the points raised by hon. Members today, but I will first put on the record why the Government support the intent behind this legislation. Losing a partner is a truly devastating experience for anyone. The combination of the terrible grief and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, loneliness in these situations—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), called it “unimaginable”, which is an apt description—with the challenges of caring for a new baby must be incredibly hard. My deepest sympathies go out to anyone who finds themselves in this terrible position.

The United Kingdom has a generous range of entitlements and protections designed to support parents to balance their family and work commitments and maintain their place in the labour market while raising their children—for example, maternity leave and pay, paternity leave and pay, and shared parental leave and pay, among others. Maternity leave is rightly available from the first day of a woman’s employment, recognising the special circumstances of pregnant women and new mothers.

Parental leave and shared parental leave are not day-one leave entitlements for mothers, fathers and partners; all parents must meet continuity of service requirements. As such, if a mother dies in the first year of a child’s life, a father or partner who has not met continuity of service requirements for paternity leave or shared parental leave will not have the statutory right to take leave so that they can care for the child. In those tragic but, thankfully, rare circumstances, they will need to rely on the compassion of their employer to provide them with adequate leave and job security. As the hon. Member for Ogmore says, though, some of these people are falling through the cracks.

The intent of the Bill is to provide more support for the grieving and surviving parent when their spouse or partner has tragically passed away. The legislation will support people in those terrible circumstances to take time away from work to care for their new baby, without the risk and associated stress of being made to return to work before they are ready to do so. I am delighted that the Government are able to support this positive development in the parental leave and pay system.

However, as is the case with any legislation, it is crucial to ensure that it is not only well intentioned, but practical and effective in achieving its intended effect. It is therefore important that I set out to the House today, as I have previously discussed with the hon. Member for Ogmore, the Government’s view that the Bill will require amendment in Committee to fully achieve its intended changes and operate effectively alongside existing parental leave legislation. I am delighted that the hon. Member has agreed to work with me to do that, and that we have a shared understanding of the need to create a legislative framework that not only supports families in their time of need, but does so in a way that is clear, fair and effective. Committee stage provides us with the opportunity to fine-tune the details of the Bill and address any potential gaps, issues or inconsistencies to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose. I will, of course, provide more information on the necessary changes ahead of Committee stage, but I will take a moment to highlight some of the areas in which we are considering amendments.

First, we will need to consider what type of parental leave best meets the intention of the Bill. Secondly, we will need to analyse whether it is right to confine its scope to the death of the mother, or whether it should make broader provision for the death of other parents. Thirdly, we need to make sure that the changes we make integrate well into the wider framework of parental leave legislation. Finally, we intend to remove the pay element from this entitlement—I will explain why shortly. The hon. Member for Ogmore and I are in agreement on the removal of the pay element. As Members will have seen, the text of his Bill does not refer to pay, although I hear and understand his clear ambition to include it at a future stage. I concur with his point, though, that we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

All the UK’s statutory parental pay entitlements have a continuity of service requirement, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory adoption pay. They are designed to ensure that a parent has made a reasonable contribution towards their employer’s business before that employer is required to administer statutory parental payments. Continuity of service requirements are designed to achieve a balance between the needs of employers and those of working parents.

I will be able to give more details in Committee on the changes we intend to make to the Bill. In the spirit of collaboration, I encourage all Members to engage constructively in Committee. Our priority is to work together to deliver a piece of legislation that meets the needs of bereaved families, providing them with the support they require during one of life’s most challenging chapters.

In response to the shadow Minister’s points about workers’ rights, the Government are committed to supporting the participation and progression of parents in the labour market to ensure that it is fair and works for parents. Our 2019 manifesto pledged changes to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. The Government have delivered on those commitments by supporting a package of six private Members’ Bills helping new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers; giving all employees easier access to flexible working; and giving workers a right to request a more predictable working pattern. We have been pleased with the successful progress of that legislation through Parliament, where it has received cross-party support, resulting in six Acts successfully receiving Royal Assent. The Government have already made good progress on laying secondary legislation in due course to implement those new Acts.

The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, for example, will give all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service the right to request flexible working, empowering employees to ask for a working arrangement that suits them and their unique circumstances.

I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) about homeworking. Flexible working does not necessarily mean homeworking; it can mean different working times to suit people’s parental responsibilities—for example, different times during holidays—and it does not necessarily mean that people have to work from home. He is right to say that workers should work where they are most effective, and where employers require them to be.

The Protections from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will provide greater protection to women who are on maternity leave or an employee who is on adoption or shared parental leave in a redundancy situation. That legislation will help to clamp down on poor or inappropriate practices, such as discriminating against pregnant women or new mothers, or waiting for a woman to return from maternity leave, and when the current protected period ends making her redundant.

The Employment (Allocations of Tips) Act 2023 will make it unlawful for businesses to hold back tips, gratuities and service charges from employees, ensuring that staff receive the tips they have earned. This package of legislation will increase workforce participation, protect vulnerable workers, and level the playing field, ensuring that unscrupulous businesses do not have a competitive advantage. The legislation builds on the strengths of our flexible and dynamic labour market, and gives businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, allowing them to generate long-term prosperity and economic growth.

Protecting and enhancing workers’ rights while supporting business to grow remains a priority for this Government. We are determined to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. A key part of the UK’s economic resilience is our strong, flexible, and dynamic labour market. It is a labour market that gives businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, and allows them to generate long-term prosperity and economic growth. It is a labour market that rightly bears down on unscrupulous employers, and protects those keeping to good working practices, promoting more competition in UK markets to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy.

[James Daly]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the point I raised my speech, that we should not denigrate employers? Most employers in this country support their staff, are keen to invest in skills to improve productivity, and are keen to ensure that they take whatever steps necessary to keep employees who are key to the future of the business, no matter what personal circumstances someone is facing at that time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend has great experience, and it is great to hear from people with experience at the sharp end of business. It is not an easy place to be. I had a fairly long business career myself for 30 years before politics, and we know that people are our most precious assets. It is good business to look after our workforce, not only because of the individuals concerned and the loyalty that brings, but because of the loyalty of other members of the team when they see how someone is treating their staff. It is important to recognise that what we are legislating for is not a ceiling, but a floor. It is a minimum period of leave that people can be offered, and of course the minimum level of pay. Clearly an employer can pay more than that expected by law, and I know that many employers do so. I understand that Mr Horsey was well treated by his employer. That illustrates that most employers are good employers, and we in the House should always recognise that when we are legislating. We want a labour market that promotes competition and choice, so that consumers have confidence in markets, and businesses compete on a level playing field.

Turning to the specific points, the hon. Member for Ogmore raised a point about the numbers of people affected. Maternal deaths—the number of people who pass away during pregnancy or within 42 days of that—are around 290, as he said. Some will have continuity of service requirements. We therefore think that this legislation will benefit just under 50 people a year. That is our best guesstimate, because there are so many different moving parts, but that is the kind of number we are talking about. That is not a huge number, but the legislation is very important to those affected by it.

I noted the hon. Member’s points principally about pay. It is a first step on the road, but it is a very important step, and future Governments—of whatever colour they may be—may go further. He also raised the complexity and take-up of shared parental leave. Take-up is in line with estimates and has doubled over the past few years. In July 2021, the shared parental leave tool was deployed. The tool enables parents to check their eligibility and plan their leave, and it has been well received. I think that also covers the point raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West.

The hon. Member for Ogmore also asked why parents with other employment statuses, such as the self-employed, are not entitled to this support. The Government’s support is focused on employed parents, as they do not generally have the same level of flexibility and autonomy over how and when they work as self-employed parents. Employees have a contractual requirement to work regular hours and have an employer who has control over when they work, where they work and how their work is done. Due to that, employees have the greatest level of employment protections, to balance the lack of flexibility that their employment type provides in other ways.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talked in his intervention and his speech about the burdens on business. Obviously, all legislation should include an impact assessment, including a financial impact assessment on business. The impact assessment result was de minimis—I think that is below £5 million, which is not a significant impact. We therefore do not think that the changes will create a significant burden on businesses. We have engaged with business representative organisations and payroll professionals throughout the policy development of these changes. They have responded positively and understand how the changes will increase flexibility for families. We are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to plan communications with businesses to ensure that they fully understand the new arrangements, and we will continue to engage with them while we finalise guidance to ensure the smooth introduction of these changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton rightly talked about the UK Commission on Bereavement and the important work that it does. She also referred to a cross-departmental bereavement strategy, which may include bereavement counselling for people in key situations. That is a little outside my remit, but she may continue to press for that across Government.

[Fiona Bruce]

I would indeed support that. Not many people want to talk about bereavement—certainly not as death approaches—but there is a well understood concept, particularly in hospices, of such a thing as a good death, where families are encouraged to get together to talk, including with the person whose life on this earth is coming to an end, about how issues may be best resolved. Those might be differences that have occurred over many years, but can also be practical issues surrounding the death, where involving everyone is a good thing. Such work has a lot to commend it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for those points. As the hon. Member for Ogmore stated, bereavement affects all of us. Society is probably more open than it was when I was a young child, and I think we are now better at dealing with these matters and getting them out in the open. There are good ways to deal with bereavement—better ways to deal with it than we experienced in the past—and some of the counselling offered by experts must be a good thing. We certainly had a lot of engagement on that during our consideration of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which I dealt with. That obviously covers the loss of a child, and in this context there is nothing more devastating than the death of a child.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe again on getting to where he has got with this legislation. I know he would have loved to have taken it through the House himself, but these things are a team effort. He understandably asked for an explanation as to why the entitlement will not include pay. In response, I flag that no statutory parental leave entitlement, including maternity leave, has pay available from an employee’s first day in a new job. That is because, apart from small businesses, employers are required to contribute towards the cost of statutory parental pay, as well as meeting the costs and burdens associated with their employee’s absence from work and the administration around that. I think he would accept that this legislation is a floor, not a ceiling, and that good employers will go further and in some cases much further than the legislation.

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his comments. I am pleased he supports this legislation. Understandably, he talks about Northern Ireland, and my officials in the Box today have rightly had conversations with their counterparts in Northern Ireland, and we are keen to continue those discussions. Clearly employment law is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Employment law is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland, I understand, but we will continue those conversations. I note his point about an Order in Council, and we will take forward discussion on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) spoke passionately about this issue, and he reflected on what it would mean for him as a husband and father. He rightly talked about how this is a great injustice and how we need to address it, and I am pleased to tell him that that is exactly what we are doing.

To conclude, the Government support the Bill’s intent as an important extension of support and protection for those parents who have to face one of the most challenging and tragic situations. The Government take pride in endorsing this private Member’s Bill, allying our efforts with an unwavering commitment to bolstering workers’ support and cultivating a high-skilled, high-productivity and high-wage economy. It is always good to see support from across the political spectrum, and no less than that has been on show today in this House. This is a hugely important measure, as has been clearly set out in today’s discussion. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for his unwavering support and advocacy for parents who find themselves in this tragic position. He has been pivotal in bringing this issue to the forefront of our minds and this legislation forward. It is a pleasure to work again with the hon. Member for Ogmore, and I look forward to working with him to support the passage of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help increase access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Please may I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to pay tribute to Tony Lloyd? I worked with him very closely on the all-party groups on poverty and fair business banking. He was a thoroughly decent man. On behalf of myself and the Department, I pass on our deep condolences to his friends and family.

The Government work with the British Business Bank to improve access to finance for smaller businesses through targeted programmes, such as the £12.4 billion of finance that is backing more than 90,000 businesses across the UK and the £1 billion in start-up loans for 105,000 small businesses since 2012.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Many SMEs and new businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to open a bank account and to then obtain the support and services that used to be available in the rapidly diminishing branch network. What steps is he taking to address those challenges that SMEs are facing?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Leading banks and alternative lenders are committed to the SME finance charter to help small businesses and start-ups. We continue to work with the UK finance and banking industry to make sure that SMEs have the support from banking services that they require. Many leading challenger banks, such as Metro, Aldermore and Starling, provide additional application support. Banking hubs are also available for those without a bank on their high street to offer face-to-face support. Thirty have already opened, and 70 more are in the pipeline.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. There is a willingness to meet net zero commitments from businesses all over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so would the Minister be prepared to introduce a scheme whereby small businesses can access funding to implement infrastructure changes in their businesses to help them achieve net zero, and will this be available to all parts of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. It is something that we look at all the time, and certainly we have had discussions on the matter. We already have programmes in place, including the £12.4 billion that we distribute through the British Business Bank that supports nations and regions funds. Some of that will certainly help businesses to access finance to decarbonise. We look at those measures all the time, and we are happy to work with him on future programmes that we might roll out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Small and medium-sized enterprises are a vital part of a thriving global economy, yet 49% of British SMEs say that they lack the time or resources to sell internationally. They are being hindered by complex regulation, insufficient access to funding and inadequate Government guidance. That is why Labour has launched the small business export taskforce with the Federation of Small Businesses to listen to business needs and address them head-on. What is the Minister doing to support hard-working SMEs in navigating the Government’s complex web of regulatory requirements and help unleash this untapped entrepreneurial potential?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We agree with the hon. Gentleman on the ambition, but he is probably behind the game a little in terms of what we are actually doing, not least in the 73 free trade agreements that we have agreed, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership that is coming down the track. I hope that he will be supportive of that agreement. He has probably also never heard of the export support service, the international trade advisers and the export champions, all of which help our SMEs export to other parts of the word.

[Mr Speaker]

I call George Freeman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

3. What assessment her Department has made of the implications for her policies of trends in the level of operating costs for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Government have taken action to help SMEs deal with cost of living pressures, including freezing fuel duty, maintaining the 5p cut for a further year, introducing the energy bills discount scheme and reversing the national insurance rise. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a substantial business rates package to support the UK’s small businesses worth £4.3 billion over the next five years.

[Christine Jardine]

Notwithstanding what the Minister says, I am still frequently being approached by small and medium-sized enterprises in Edinburgh West that are struggling to meet soaring energy costs, stave off inflation and deal with Brexit red tape. The number of Scottish SMEs in financial distress is up 10%, according to research, and those were formerly strong, stable and well-managed businesses. They have a huge impact on employment in tourism, which is one of our main industries. Will the Minister tell me what more the Department will do to reassure businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, and whether he will ask the Chancellor to do more in the forthcoming Budget to help them?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady raises important points. Of course, the Chancellor can do nothing if the Scottish Government do not pass on our support to Scotland, which they have not done for business rates. I know that that is out of her hands, but it is a point she may want to raise with the Scottish Government. The average pub in Scotland is £15,000 worse off a year than its English counterpart because they have not passed through that rates support. The average restaurant or guest house is £30,000 worse off than its English counterpart, and closure rates in Scotland are 30% higher than in England.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Business closures now exceed new business openings, with 345,000 businesses across the UK closing in 2022—the highest since records began. This week, the Financial Times reported that more than 47,000 businesses are on the verge of collapse. Former Prime Minister Johnson used an expletive to describe his party’s commitment to business. His successor well and truly delivered on that commitment by crashing the economy. Is it not time the Government put businesses out of their misery by calling a general election, so that the country can get back to business?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On this side of the House, we are for business because we are from business, and we understand the needs of businesses.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

So are we!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an interesting point that the hon. Gentleman makes from a sedentary position. The actual numbers of closures—although of course we are concerned about increases—are below pre-pandemic averages, but nevertheless we have stepped in to help by freezing fuel duty, maintaining the 5p cut and announcing £4.3 billion of business rates support, all to help our SMEs. Closure rates are lower in England than in Labour- run Wales.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

4. If she will take steps to ensure that the proposed trade deal with India includes legal commitments on upholding human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

9. When she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to exonerate the remaining sub-postmasters with criminal convictions relating to the failure of the Post Office Horizon system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

On 10 January, we announced the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation within weeks to overturn the convictions of all those convicted in England or Wales on the basis of Post Office evidence during the Horizon scandal. I met the Justice Secretary only this week to make sure that those plans are on track, and we hope to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.

[Jeff Smith]

Does the Minister have an estimate of how many convictions were made during the Horizon pilot? Will he confirm that those convictions will be included in the legislation, given that they were not made using Horizon data?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We do not know that number yet, but we are very concerned about people who used the pilot version of Horizon and were potentially subject to similar abuses. We do believe they fall under similar compensation schemes, and there is no reason why they would not be covered by the legislation to overturn convictions.

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

For the legislation to work, postmasters have to come forward. When I asked one of my constituents this weekend why they had not come to me sooner, they said it was because they had signed a non-disclosure agreement, but also because they had had to sign the Official Secrets Act. I thought that was so bonkers that I did not believe it, until I read page 26 of Nick Wallis’s book, which says that postmasters do have to sign the Official Secrets Act. If that mad policy is still going on, will the Minister bring it to an end? Will he tell postmasters all over the country that they are completely at liberty to talk to their MPs about any aspect of the Post Office?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done in this area. I understand that the requirement to sign the Official Secrets Act relates to the confidentiality of mail; it does not relate to the confidentiality of issues regarding mistreatment by Post Office Ltd. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and I will certainly raise it with Post Office Ltd, but I can confirm that that would not prevent somebody from speaking out, including to their Member of Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that we are willing to work with the Government on a way to exonerate the sub-postmasters and get them compensation as quickly as possible. The proposals will have to be imperfect, but they represent a clear option for resolving this terrible issue. As a way to ensure safeguards against any potential future misuse of precedent, could cross-party agreement be established as an essential provision for the exercise of powers of this kind?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way he has engaged with us on this issue. I know that the Justice Secretary spoke to the Leader of the Opposition this week on this very matter, and we are very keen to engage with the hon. Gentleman too. He is right to say the solution is imperfect. We believe it is the least worst option, but of course we will engage with him and make sure that he feels the legislation is in the right place.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I hope that exchange gives some reassurance to all colleagues in the House. Will he confirm that all prosecutions that arise from the Horizon pilot scheme will now also be included in the exonerations, given that, although people were technically prosecuted without official Horizon data, it is very much the same issue?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, similar to one made earlier. The circumstances were similar, so we feel there is no reason to exclude people who have been convicted in similar circumstances. Again, I am happy to work with him on that issue.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of the principal barriers to trade for importers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to encourage sub-postmasters who were affected by the failure of the Post Office Horizon system to claim compensation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Over £153 million has been paid to 2,700 victims. We encourage anyone impacted to use the three compensation schemes available. We have already published the details of the up-front £75,000 fixed-sum offer for group litigation order postmasters on the gov.uk website, created a new claim form, and written to all eligible members of the GLO scheme to explain the offer further.

[Jo Gideon]

The Post Office Horizon scandal has shocked the nation. My constituent Kym Ledgar received a settlement under the historical shortfall scheme, which did not take into account the enormous stress, the extra work in trying to balance the books, the damage to her reputation and the price she and her family paid in lost income, having had to make up the shortfall herself. Does the Minister agree that we need to acknowledge the wider cost of the Post Office’s appalling behaviour? Will he meet me to discuss how those who accepted an offer under the historical shortfall scheme may now receive compensation that truly reflects the impact that the Post Office’s conduct over two decades has had on their lives?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I apologise on behalf of the Government to Kym Ledgar for what she has been through. It is absolutely our intention that everybody gets full and fair compensation, and that is not only for financial losses but for non-pecuniary losses. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that the compensation is fair and delivered swiftly, including by establishing the independent advisory board, on which the noble Lord Arbuthnot sits. We will continue to work with the board and consider what further action is required, but yes, I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters further.

[Mary Robinson]

The Post Office Horizon scandal has made clear to us all what happens when whistleblowers are ignored or silenced. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as ensuring that victims are properly compensated, we need better legislation to protect whistleblowers? As the Government’s whistleblowing framework review draws to a close, will he meet me to discuss how the outcome of the review can be used to support the Whistleblowing Bill that I presented to the House yesterday?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work. At one point we were co-chairs of the all-party group for whistleblowing, and she does a tremendous job in raising this issue time and again in the House. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework in meeting its intended objectives. Every scandal that I have talked about in this House over the years, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches, has come to light because of whistleblowers, who are hugely important. We are reviewing that frame- work. The research for the review is near completion, the Government will set out the next steps in due course, and yes, of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, have a constituent who, although she was thankfully not prosecuted, was forced over a period of more than a decade to pay back thousands of pounds every year, and it amounts to a six-figure sum. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) said, this is not just about that pecuniary loss; this is about the impact on my constituent’s family—I will not go into her personal details, but they took a real hit and I wish she had come forward to me sooner. I met her a couple of weeks ago and it really has wrecked her life. She has not yet had any compensation through the shortfall scheme, so I urge the Minister to ensure that such people are properly compensated.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that point. Yes, the compensation scheme is there to compensate and provide redress for financial loss, but also, quite rightly, for personal loss, loss of reputation, impact on health—those kinds of matters. There are two routes open to compensation: the £75,000 fixed-sum award, which is pretty much an immediate payment, or someone can go for a full assessment of losses, which takes into account all those matters. Interim payments are also available. We have paid out £153 million in total across the schemes. I am happy to help the hon. Lady with that specific case, and we are looking to try to expedite the payment of full and fair compensation to all individuals. I am working on a daily basis to try to do that.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle late payments to small and medium-sized businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Government are committed to tackling late payments. That is why we launched the prompt payment and cash flow review, which was published alongside the autumn statement. The review includes amending payment performance reporting requirements for large businesses, and providing the Small Business Commissioner with more powers to investigate late payments.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but unfortunately late payments continue to blight the ability of small businesses to trade, with an average of £684 million a year being lost. Unfortunately, that is on the increase, with a 7% increase in 2023. I appreciate what the Minister said about another review— I think we had one a few years ago—but what specific actions are the Government taking to address this appalling abuse of power, which is contributing to 50,000 small businesses going under a year?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, and earlier I set out specific actions such as giving the Small Business Commissioner more powers, and producing league tables. We work closely with the Good Business Pays campaign, which produces league tables on this issue, and naming and shaming the people responsible is important. The Government are leading the way, and from April 2024 firms bidding for Government contracts worth more than £5 million will have to demonstrate that they pay their invoices within an average of 55 days, tightening to 45 days in April 2025 and to 30 days in the coming years.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

14. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on taking fiscal steps to help support the steel industry.

--- Later in debate ---

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

15. What steps she is taking to help support the growth of co-operatives and social enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

This week, I spoke to a conference attended by building societies about how we can increase presence on the high street to help with access to cash and finance facilities. The Government provide extensive business support to all businesses, including social enterprises and co-operatives. The British Business Bank’s recovery loan scheme and start-up loans improve access to finance to help those kinds of businesses to invest and grow.

[Rachael Maskell]

Co-operatives and social enterprise businesses provide a fairer way of doing business, involve members in greater business decisions and provide economic growth for local areas. However, they are being held back by financial and regulatory constraints. Will the Government match the Labour party’s and the Co-operative party’s ambition of committing to address those challenges and doubling the size of the co-operatives sector?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Personally, I am a big fan of co-operative movements and the regional mutual bank system in Germany, which I have spoken about many times in this place. Of course, the Government supported the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023, which helps to maintain the status of co-operatives. Social enterprises and co-operatives can also access support via the business support helpline as well as help through our websites and our network of local growth hubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

T2. With many banks closing on high streets, the post office is picking up so much slack, but in rural areas the limits placed on the amount of cash that can be paid in at the post office is having a real impact on businesses. For instance, pubs have a lot of cash but cannot pay it in because of the limits. Can the Minister review that and ensure that the post office can take far greater volumes of cash from rural businesses?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this matter, which he and I have discussed on many occasions. The limits are there to try to prevent money laundering, but it is important that the checks are proportionate. I have raised their impact on a number of occasions with the Financial Conduct Authority and UK Finance. There is more transparency now and they are working more effectively. I know that the wonderful Ingham’s fish and chip shop in Filey now experiences fewer problems when it pays in money at its local post office. There is a great opportunity not just for Inghams fish and chip shop but for the post office banking framework to make that relationship more lucrative.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Postal workers are the bedrock of our communities, but they are being forced to work at unsustainable levels—something that, sadly, has not been recognised in Ofcom’s report on the future of universal service obligations. The input of postal workers is critical to a successful Royal Mail, so please can we have confirmation that their views will be considered in any future decisions?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That would make perfect sense. We read the Ofcom report into the review of universal service obligations with interest. Our clear position is that we will retain a six-day service for our citizens and businesses, but those views will be taken into account.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T8. The Secretary of State has often stated her support for post-Brexit regulatory reform and divergence, and did so again in answer to an earlier question. Is she in a position to deny reports in The Daily Telegraph today that the Government have pledged to introduce a requirement that all future regulatory change will be screened to ensure that extra barriers in the Irish sea are not created? That could be a significant impediment to divergence from EU laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government have no plans to alter the legislation on the marketing of infant formula and other breastmilk substitutes?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I am very happy to write to him about it.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)]

Royal Mail customers will have welcomed the Minister’s reassurance this week about ruling out a reduction to the current six day a week service. However, many customers already feel short changed by what is often an inadequate service in their area. Does the Minister agree that any proposed changes must protect the small businesses whose business models rely on the six-day service, and customers’ rights?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. The service has not been satisfactory, and Royal Mail has been fined £5.6 million by Ofcom as a result. It has employed 3,000 more postal workers to address those problems, and we are seeing some improvement, but he is right to raise the point about our six-day service being vital to businesses, particularly those in the magazine and greeting card industries.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

T3. What assessment has the Minister made of the results of private sector trials in relation to the introduction of a four-day week? Will he meet me in due course to discuss the results of those trials?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is clearly up to businesses to decide if they want to trial a four-day week. We have made no assessment of any results. It is our belief that we should not run a Stalinist economy, where we tell private sector businesses how to operate their workforce and on what days of the week—he may differ on that particular perspective—but we have introduced important reforms that help businesses work more flexibly, including the flexible working changes that were introduced recently.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Gosport branch of Asda is the first in the UK to ballot for strike action. Employees cite issues including low staffing levels, health and safety, and delayed equal pay claims. Considering Asda’s importance to the UK food chain and employment across the country, what powers does the Minister have to ensure that both workers and consumers are protected?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend raises an very interesting point. We have looked at this particular situation with interest and will continue to monitor it. Clearly, Asda is a private company and it is up to it to decide how best to deploy its workforce, but I am very happy to continue our conversation and I appreciate her engagement on this issue.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T4. A lot of concern has already been expressed in the House this week about the steel industry. With the expansion of renewables across Scotland and the rest of the UK, there will be demand for the vital materials required to build more wind turbines, which may now need to be sourced from abroad. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps will be taken to try to provide the vital materials for an important industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Post Office Minister meet me and my constituent, who was a postmistress? She lost £250,000 in 2000. It is an unusual case, otherwise I would write to him, but it does need him to meet her, so I would be grateful if he would do that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I would be very happy to meet. There are three compensation schemes and it depends on which one she falls into. If it is the group litigation order, an immediate award of £75,000 can be made; if it is an overturned conviction, the amount is £600,000. I am sure there will be one scheme that the hon. Lady’s constituent will fit into. I am very happy to meet her to help ensure she finds the right one.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Mining is coming back to Cornwall. This week, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, I met industry leaders from around the country at a roundtable here in this place to talk about the challenges the critical minerals industry is facing. Will the Minister agree to come to a meeting to discuss the challenges facing the industry? Demand is going up exponentially, but it is a high risk industry and it needs her help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for working with me on the issue of button battery safety, and grateful for the ongoing commitment of the five working groups that were set up in 2022 following the tragic death of one of my constituents, Harper-Lee Fanthorpe, and the campaign for Harper-Lee’s law. Will the Minister meet me to discuss progress, and, in particular, how the guidelines drawn up by the Office for Product Safety and Standards can be made compulsory so that more deaths and injuries from button battery ingestion can be prevented?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend has done a fantastic job with the campaign, and has made huge progress towards ensuring that best practice is followed by suppliers. Of course I shall be happy to meet her to see what more can be done.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

T7. Ferguson Marine, the last remaining shipyard on the lower Clyde, is threatened by the way in which its current work is configured. It badly requires an order from CalMac for seven small island ferries. The issue of procurement is one for the Scottish Government and their agencies, but will the Minister ensure that no impediment, no obstacle and no rules that are under her control will prevent the order from being given directly by the Scottish Government to Ferguson Marine if they so wish?

Product Safety and Metrology: (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Today, I am updating Parliament on developments to the Government’s approach to the UK Conformity Assessment (UKCA) product marking and plans to continue recognition of ‘conformité européenne’ (CE) beyond 31 December 2024. The Government intend to lay legislation in spring to provide businesses with the flexibility to place goods that fall under 21 product regulations and meet current EU requirements on the market in Great Britain. Later in the year, the Government also intend to introduce greater labelling flexibility, including the option for manufacturers to use digital labelling. This forms part of the Government’s smarter regulation programme of regulatory reform, designed to improve regulation across the board, ensuring it is effective and used only where necessary and proportionate.

I announced in August 2023 that the Government plan to extend CE recognition indefinitely for the product regulations managed by the Department for Business and Trade. Since then, we have continued to engage with industry. We have listened to businesses—both in the UK and those who supply the UK from abroad, and we are taking further action. I am today announcing that the Government intend to lay legislation, this spring, using powers under the Retained EU Law Act 2023. This legislation will support economic growth and provide businesses with greater flexibility to continue to place products on the market in Great Britain using either CE or UKCA marking after 31 December 2024. In Northern Ireland, the CE mark is and will remain recognised, pursuant to the Windsor Framework.

The continued recognition of current EU requirements, including the CE and reversed epsilon markings, will apply to 21 product regulations, including the 18 product regulations owned by the Department of Business and Trade, previously announced on 1 August 2023. Following feedback from industry, we are also continuing CE recognition for a further three regulation, which will now include: the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products 2010 Regulations—Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the Explosives Regulations 2014—Department for Work and Pensions, Health and Safety Executive; and the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012—Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012 is included within this announcement. However, we are taking a two-part approach given the role of exemptions in these regulations. Where products meet the maximum concentration values set out in Annex II to the EU RoHS Directive (2011/65/EU), we will continue to recognise current EU regulations and CE marking. Where a product relies on an exemption, we will also continue to recognise current EU regulations and CE marking provided there is an equivalent exemption under the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012.

The UK Government will also introduce new measures to introduce a ‘Fast track UKCA’ process, allowing manufacturers to use the UKCA marking to demonstrate compliance in Great Britain with either UKCA product requirements or EU product requirements where they are recognised. Where products are covered by multiple regulations, a mixture of both UKCA and CE conformity assessment procedures can be used. This is designed to provide longer term certainty and flexibility for businesses if the UK mandates UKCA marking for certain regulations in the future.

The Government also recognise the important role that UK conformity assessment bodies play in ensuring the compliance of goods to UKCA requirements and their role in supporting innovation. We will continue to work with the UK Accreditation Service and industry to monitor capacity of the conformity assessment market.

In response to feedback from businesses through engagement and the Product Safety Review consultation, the Government also intend to provide for permanent labelling flexibility to enable importers of goods from the EU and the rest of the world to supply their details indelibly, on an accompanying document, the packaging or on an adhesive label. The Government will also introduce the option for manufacturers to use digital labelling. Businesses will be able to include the UKCA marking, manufacturer details, importer details and the declaration of conformity via, for example, a QR code attached to the product via a label. In scanning the code, the information can be accessed by a website or app. We will set out further details in due course.

The Government are taking a tailored approach to support the interests of British businesses and ensure consumers are protected, taking account of the specialist nature of each regulation. This means that not all product regulations covered by the CE or UKCA regime will be included in this legislation. Separate approaches apply to products covered by: the Medical Devices Regulations, the Construction Products Regulations, the Cableway Installations Regulations, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) Regulations, the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations, and the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations.

The UK Government will continue to monitor any regulatory changes the EU may make in future, and we will continue to work with industry to ensure UK regulatory policy reflects the interests of British businesses and consumers. We recognise the importance of being able to mandate UKCA marking, and we may choose to do this in the future for certain regulations where this is in the interests of British businesses, consumer safety, or environmental protection.

This announcement is in line with the REUL Act Report published Monday 22 January 2024, which outlines the progress the Government have made in reforming and revoking retained EU over the last six months.

[HCWS202]

Smarter Regulation: Improving Price Transparency and Product Information for Consumers

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Today, my Department has published the Government’s response to the consultation on “smarter regulation: improving price transparency and product information for consumers”. The consultation sought views and evidence on steps the Government could take to improve price and information transparency for consumers.

The response sets out our intent to reform the Price Marking Order 2004, and to legislate on hidden fees—“drip pricing”, fake reviews, online interface orders and interim online interface orders.

The Government plan to:

Reform the Price Marking Order 2004 (Retained EU Law), simplifying the requirements making it easier for businesses to comply with and for consumers to compare prices of products;

facilitate the DEFRA, Scottish, and Welsh Government plans to create deposit return schemes;

introduce new rules on hidden fees—“drip pricing”, by requiring that unavoidable and mandatory fees be included in the headline price or indicated at the start of the purchasing process;

prohibit commercial practices related to fake reviews; and

extend the power to apply for online interface orders and interim online interface orders to additional public enforcers.

I am placing a copy of the consultation response in the Libraries of the House.

[HCWS203]

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023: June to December 2023 Report

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has, today, laid before Parliament a report outlining the progress made in reforming and revoking retained EU law.

The report fulfils our obligations under section 17 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 —the REUL Act. This requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at six-monthly intervals until June 2026.

Through this process, the Government have taken back control of the UK’s laws and have a road map to repeal or reform more than half of all the stock of regulations that were inherited from the European Union.

The REUL Act removed the special status of REUL at the end of 31 December 2023, and REUL which had not yet been revoked became “assimilated law”. EU principles of interpretation no longer apply to these laws. This removed the principle of EU law supremacy in the UK legal system for the first time since 1972. In total, more than 2,000 pieces of REUL have already been revoked or reformed. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 and the Procurement Act 2023 will together revoke hundreds more pieces of REUL.

The report sets out the considerable progress the Government have made since the REUL Bill received Royal Assent in June 2023. Twenty-six statutory instruments have been laid using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation. Many of these instruments revoke redundant EU legislation or make significant legislative reforms, and the powers in the Act have already been used to remove over 100 pieces of REUL from the statute book by SI. Important specific reforms that have already been delivered include changes to employment law by reducing record-keeping requirements around working time regulations and simplifying the calculation of holiday pay entitlement. These changes will cut bureaucracy and could save industry up to £1 billion a year. In addition, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was able to reform REUL relating to the marketing and production of wine, which will strengthen the wine industry’s potential for growth and innovation. These reforms come alongside a number of important transport reforms, including to airport slot allocations, merchant shipping and aviation statistics.

But this is only the start. After 40 years living under EU laws, the Government road map includes a further 500 revocations and reforms of REUL in 2024, and we are on track to have repealed or reformed 3,424 regulations inherited from the EU by June 2026. Laws which are not earmarked for reform by 2026 are either already suited to the UK or are necessary to uphold our international obligations in treaties.

The report provides details of Departments’ ambitious plans for REUL reforms in 2024. These include policy areas such as product safety, clinical trials, carbon capture and metrology. These future reforms will support British businesses to innovate and grow the economy.

Today the Government have also updated the REUL dashboard, available on gov.uk. It now tracks 6,757 pieces of retained EU law—now known as assimilated law—concentrated over 400 unique policy areas.

The REUL Act is a key part of the Government’s smarter regulation programme, enabling Departments to deliver regulatory reform, reduce regulatory burdens and costs on UK businesses and consumers, and ensure regulations are fit for the UK economy. By regulating in accordance with our smarter regulation principles, the Government will ensure that regulation is deployed only where necessary, and its design and use is both proportionate and future-proof.

Alongside reforms to the stock of regulations, the Government’s new better regulation framework will put downward pressure on the flow of new regulation; encourage alternatives as far as possible; and allow for a full consideration of wider impacts, such as effects on competition and innovation. Significant progress is being made to ensure the wider landscape of regulators works for the UK.

The Government will be taking forward the plan to extend the regulators’ growth duty to Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat, with effect from 6 April 2024, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary secondary legislation. The Department for Business and Trade’s call for evidence on the regulatory landscape invited views from businesses, consumers and regulators to establish areas that are working well and where regulators could improve, and a statement updating Parliament on its findings will be made in due course.

Next steps

The Government are committed to lightening the regulatory burden on businesses to help to spur economic growth. The second parliamentary report will be published in six months, to continue to keep Parliament updated.

[HCWS201]