Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Written Statements

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

This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd for the construction and operation of a nuclear power station near Leiston in Suffolk.

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the Sizewell C nuclear power station application is 25 May 2022.

I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 8 July 2022 for deciding this application. This is to ensure there is sufficient time to fully consider further information provided by the applicant and interested parties in response to the Secretary of State’s post-examination consultation.

The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.

[HCWS17]

Low-income Workers: Exclusivity Clauses

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the latest steps the Government have taken to better protect and support low-income workers as we look to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy.

The UK’s flexible and dynamic labour market has always been the envy of the world. It gives businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, whilst giving workers more choice over who they work for, and how often.

This Government want to put more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances. Today we are confirming our intention to widen the ban on exclusivity clauses, ensuring the lowest-paid workers have the freedom to boost their income through extra work if they wish.

Exclusivity clauses, which restrict staff from working for multiple employers, were banned in zero hours contracts in 2015. Since then, the number of people on zero hours contracts with a second job has risen, and more workers have been able to take advantage of the opportunity to boost their income. Our latest reform will build on the success of those changes.

The Government proposals will widen the ban on exclusivity clauses which restrict staff from working with multiple employers, to those whose income is below or equivalent to the lower earnings limit at £123 a week. An estimated 1.5 million workers are earning on or below £123 a week and the new reforms will ensure that workers in this group that have exclusivity clauses have the freedom to top up their income with extra work if they choose.

While not everyone will want a second job, the reforms will remove any barriers that currently prevent those who want to do so, and give workers more flexibility over when and where they work to best suit their personal circumstances such as childcare or study.

As well as supporting workers to increase their income, the reforms will also benefit businesses by widening the talent pool of job applicants to those who may have been prevented from applying for roles due to an exclusivity clause with another employer, and also helps businesses to fill vacancies in key sectors like retail and hospitality. The reforms will support low-paid workers to make the most of new opportunities where demand is growing.

The reform will be delivered through new secondary legislation which will be laid before Parliament in due course. It follows a consultation launched by the Government in December 2020, where the majority of responses agreed with the approach to extend the ban to contracts where the workers’ guaranteed weekly income is below or equivalent to the lower earnings limit of £123 a week.

Additionally, many responses to the consultation highlighted the impact that covid-19 has had on job security and the decrease in guaranteed working hours for many people. Extending the ban to those earning below or equivalent to the lower earnings limit will therefore enable workers who have been moved to reduced hours contracts due to the pandemic to increase their income by taking on additional work if they wish.

The Government also announced its commitment to publishing employment status guidance, making it easier for individuals and businesses to understand which employment rights apply to them.

This Government have been absolutely clear that we will do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights, and give businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce. These reforms will put more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances.

[HCWS51]

Register of Overseas Entities

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend Lord Callanan, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility) has today made the following statement:

I welcome the opportunity to update Parliament on the progress the Government are making implementing the register of overseas entities, six weeks after the expedited Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 received Royal Assent.

The Act sets out measures to tackle economic crime, by creating a register of the beneficial owners of overseas entities which own or buy property in the UK, as well as measures on unexplained wealth orders and sanctions.

Since the legislation received Royal Assent, the Government have been working at pace to ensure the register is in place as soon as reasonably practicable. There are two main aspects to this work—the technical development of the register itself and the establishment of the appropriate legal framework through secondary legislation. An implementation group comprising officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Companies House and the UK Land Registries has been established and is driving forward delivery across both aspects.

On developing the register, Companies House digital design teams are making strong progress in building the register for operational readiness. They have been working at pace alongside the three land registries to have systems and processes in place to identify and capture information on overseas entities who buy, sell or transfer property in the UK. This work will ensure that a first phase of the register can be operational as soon as possible capturing new transactions from the moment the register is live, enabling those in scope already owning land in the UK to register, and capturing disposals of assets between 28 February 2022 and the end of the six-month transitional period. This important amendment introduced during passage of the Act will ensure we have information on any relevant property sales taking place before the register is operational. Further steps will be taken over the course of the transitional period to enhance the functionality of the register.

On legislation, as set out in the Act, a number of important aspects of the register need to be defined through secondary legislation before the register can come into force. These include technical details of verification requirements to ensure the register is sufficiently robust; the protection regime for beneficial owners and managing officers that wish to have their details protected from public disclosure due to a risk of serious harm or violence; and mandating the digital delivery of information to Companies House.

In the weeks since Royal Assent, good progress has been made on finalising the policy on these areas of detail. These details are vital to get right if the register is to work as intended. Engagement with expert stakeholders, such as the UK’s law societies, on technical aspects of the register and the supporting legislation is ongoing and we welcome their constructive input to ensure the register works as intended across the UK. Drafting the actual regulations and accompanying guidance will begin imminently and we will lay the regulations for parliamentary scrutiny as soon as possible.

[HCWS788]

Subsidy Control Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 12.

Lords amendment 13, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 14 to 51.

[Paul Scully]

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the shared ambition, across both Houses, to create a domestic subsidy control regime that will work for people and communities throughout the United Kingdom. The rigorous debate in both Houses has resulted in the improved Bill that is before us today, and I hope that the Government amendments passed by the House of Lords will in turn be accepted by this House.

  I shall start with Lords amendments 13 to 38, 44 to 47 and 51, relating to the topic of transparency. This topic has been well championed in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is no longer in his place. First, in place of the higher transparency thresholds that applied to subsidies given under a published scheme, and given as minimal financial assistance or services of public economic interest assistance, we have introduced a single upload threshold of £100,000, which now applies to all subsidies that are subject to the transparency requirements. Of course, there has never been a threshold for regular stand-alone subsidies, which all need to be published. This represents a substantial 80% reduction from the original threshold of £500,000 for subsidies given under the schemes.

Secondly, we have significantly shortened the upload deadlines; for non-tax subsidy awards, we have halved them from six to three months, so that subsidies will be visible on the database far sooner. The third change is that we have introduced new obligations to upload certain permitted modifications of a subsidy or scheme to the database. Public authorities will now be subject to the same obligations to upload even minor changes, with the same upload deadlines as for the original subsidy. This will ensure that the database continues to provide up-to-date information about subsidies or schemes that are modified after they have been granted. Fourthly, we have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to review the transparency database at such intervals as they consider appropriate, thereby ensuring additional quality control.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for what he is saying. He referred to the fact that there had been thorough discussions in this House and in the other place. I am wondering whether those thorough discussions involved the devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but also the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. If there is disagreement, how do the Minister and the Government intend to deal with it?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. We tried to work with all the devolved Administrations right the way through the process from beginning to end, and we have continued conversations with each of them over this period. Clearly there are, and will be, differences in the process. This needs to work for the whole of the United Kingdom, so I am keen that we continue the dialogue, whether it is with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, to ensure that we can do as much as we can to reach agreement, though clearly that will not always be possible; that is the nature of dialogue.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Is the Minister not saying that ultimately, on these devolved matters, the English Government, as represented down here in Westminster, will have a power of veto over the decisions of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments?

[Paul Scully]

No. However, the UK Government have a reserved power over subsidy control, so it is the UK Government who act on that reserved power.

Finally, we have introduced an amendment specifying that the Secretary of State may provide statutory guidance to public authorities on pre-action information requests—that is, the provision of information following a request about a subsidy decision to an interested party that is considering whether to ask the Competition Appeal Tribunal to review the subsidy.

I shall now move on to two amendments related to levelling up. Lords amendment 50 makes it clear that addressing local or regional disadvantage is considered to be an equity rationale for the purpose of assessing compliance with principle A. This puts beyond any doubt that a subsidy to address local or regional disadvantage can be given, provided that the other principles and requirements of the regime are met. Lords amendment 9 exempts from the prohibition on relocation those relocation subsidies that have the effect of reducing social or economic disadvantage. The subsidy must, of course, also comply with the principles and other requirements.

[Jim Shannon]

On the issue of levelling up, I know that the Government and the Prime Minister have given a commitment to levelling up all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I am always conscious that we want to see that actually happen, not just words. Can the Minister give me some assurance that Northern Ireland—where the cost of living is higher, wages are lower and products and consumer goods are higher in price—will, through the Northern Ireland Assembly, receive the levelling up that we should?

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, yes. Levelling up does not exclude any one area of the United Kingdom. It also does not exclude levelling up within regions; that is really important. This legislation only provides the framework; the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and other measures that can use the framework will, I am sure, benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and Northern Ireland as a whole. It is really important that we get this right.

I am happy to report that we produced Lords amendments 1, 5 to 8, 10 to 12, 39 and 40 to respond to concerns about the Bill in the 17th report of this Session by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 1 addresses a concern with clause 10. Parliamentary scrutiny of streamlined subsidy schemes made under clause 10 has been strengthened by giving either House the ability to annul any streamlined schemes after they have been made, by applying the negative procedure.

Lords amendments 5 to 8 replace the direction-making power in clause 16 relating to the designation of marketable risk countries with a power to make regulations for the same purpose. Lords amendments 10 to 12 relate to the powers in clauses 25 to 27 to change definitions in secondary legislation. Those powers will be removed. Finally in this group, Lords amendments 39 and 40 address concerns raised by the DPRRC about secrecy regarding the financial stability direction-making power in clause 47. These amendments make it clear that such directions will need to be published in due course. In addition, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has written to the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee to commit to notifying the Chairs of those Committees confidentially about the use of a financial stability direction.

I turn to Lords amendments 41 to 43 and 49, relating to the Competition and Markets Authority and the Subsidy Advice Unit. Although the Secretary of State could already direct the SAU to complete a monitoring report for a specified time period under clause 65(4), these amendments make specific provision in the Bill for more frequent scrutiny in the early years of the new regime. Instead of mandating a report within five years of the implementation of the regime, the tabled amendments require an initial report after only three years, to be followed up with a further report after another three years. After that, reporting will revert to a five-year cycle. The Secretary of State will retain the ability to direct that a report be made at a specified period after the publication of the second three-year report. The sunsetting provisions in clause 87(6) have been extended so that they take effect after the second three-year report. Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 48 are minor and technical in nature. They clarify definitions under clauses 11 and 82.

In summary, this substantial package of amendments represents an improved set of measures that will strengthen the new domestic subsidy control regime and make it more transparent and accountable. There will now be greater transparency of subsidies awarded, and improved oversight and monitoring of the regime by Parliament and the CMA. I am grateful to colleagues in both Houses for their hard work on, and attention to, this important Bill. They have helped to bring about these improvements, which I hope will be endorsed by Members from across this House.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I start by acknowledging all the efforts in the other place, and thank the peers, staff and civil servants who have helped to move the Bill along to this stage. I also thank colleagues on both sides of this House, including all the Opposition parties.

As Labour has outlined throughout the Bill’s progress, we support the principle of a quicker, easier subsidy regime now that we have left the EU. However, we recognise that any subsidy regime must provide sufficient transparency and accountability for the spending of billions of pounds of public money each year. We have also repeatedly raised our concerns that this regime has failed to match up to the Government’s levelling-up rhetoric. We are pleased to see that many of the Lords amendments, including our amendment to Lords amendment 13, will improve the Bill in some of those areas.

I turn briefly to areas in which we would have liked the Government go further, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on these issues. The first is net zero. Labour has been clear that while this is framework legislation, it should not be an empty vessel. The Government should have used the opportunity of an independent subsidy policy to design a regime that supported their wider industrial policy and our national priorities. We were also disappointed that the Subsidy Control Bill was not published alongside a subsidy strategy. Net zero is a good example of this. The climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and the world, and we need urgent action to drive down emissions. That is why, in Committee, we called on the Government to support our amendment to hardwire net zero into the principles that public authorities have to consider when awarding any subsidy or designing any scheme. There was cross-party and cross-Bench support in the other place for a similar amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely do. The Government cannot hide behind agricultural being in the trade and co-operation agreement, because the TCA specifically says that agricultural subsidies can and should be excluded from subsidy control regimes. The Government still have not given a good reason for including agriculture in the subsidy control regime. It works in the EU and in the state aid regime, so it is perfectly workable to exclude agriculture from the subsidy control regime. Including such subsidies will cause problems. The fact that NFUs across these islands have raised concerns shows that it is incredibly serious. I urge the Minister to think again about how the issue of agriculture is treated by the Bill.

The shadow Minister extensively addressed net zero. Granting authorities are required to consider the environmental and net zero impacts of energy-related subsidies, but that is not what net zero is about. This is not the only time we will be thinking about how to reduce our impact on climate change. If a granting authority decides to give a significant amount of money to a bus company, for example, it does not have to consider the climate impact. If it decides to scrap all the buses and replace them with diesel taxis, it does not have to consider the net zero impact, because it is not an energy-related subsidy. I am massively concerned that net zero is included only in schedule 2 and not in schedule 1. If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they need to be looking at every piece of legislation that comes through this place and ensuring that it does not have a negative impact on our ability to meet net zero; and if it does, they should be ensuring that that is then balanced by further, more dramatic actions in order that we can meet net zero.

In summation, the Bill is better than it was, but it still falls far short. I am still concerned about transparency and massively concerned about agriculture. I am hugely concerned about the lack of importance this Government are giving to net zero—that should go through everything we do.

[Paul Scully]

I thank all hon. Members for their engagement throughout the passage of this Bill and for their contributions this afternoon. I am glad that there has been broad consensus, albeit with some questions, which I will try briefly to address. The importance of that new independent subsidy control regime has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill and it was evident again today, so I thank hon. Members for their broad support.

Let me respond to the question from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) about P&O and that kind of example. Clearly, we are shocked by the action of P&O Ferries and angered by the lack of empathy and consideration it has demonstrated towards its employees. The Government are continuing to work to establish whether P&O Ferries or DP World are in breach of any requirements of them as partners in the Thames and Solent freeports. Speaking more generally, I can confirm that the Bill ensures that public authorities can recover a subsidy where it has been misused, but it is important to note that the purpose of a subsidy is to achieve specific change in behaviour to facilitate a specific policy objective; it is not to give the Government ongoing leverage over how a company conducts its affairs. It is for other areas of law to set out the limits of what is acceptable corporate behaviour. None the less, because the subsidy is there to have that specific policy objective, we will make sure that that policy objective is met as best we can. However, it is difficult to enforce—

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration of this point, but will he clarify whether a company that breaks the law and does not meet minimum standards on employment law, on environmental law or in other areas could still be in receipt of public subsidies through the subsidy control regime?

[Paul Scully]

It is difficult to come up with the examples, but in essence a subsidy is there to determine a particular policy objective. We would want to partner with businesses and companies that are most likely to deliver those policy objectives: reliable partners. Clearly, ones that are in breach of the kind of examples that the hon. Lady mentions are less likely to be those reliable partners. Technically, she is correct, but this is about how we enforce something, probably after the event; similarly, had we given P&O Ferries a subsidy last year, we probably would not have been able to get that subsidy back. That is the difficulty with enforcement after the event. None the less, the sentiment is absolutely there: we do not want to be partnering with unreliable companies to achieve our policy objectives.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The issue with that is that if a company is given money to run a freeport and it runs a freeport with that money, it can sack all the staff it likes at P&O and still be eligible for the subsidy. The issue is that there is a gap, which has been well highlighted by the shadow Minister.

[Paul Scully]

We will work out how the subsidy control regime is working; it is part of what I will come back to in a moment about the CMA’s approach to reporting back how the regime is working. We have to make sure that this is watertight—excuse the pun—if we are going to go down the road of making sure that we can recover any subsidies. I suspect that other areas of law will be better suited to approaching that, rather than specifically dealing with it within this framework Bill.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time, but let me make this brief point, for clarity. There is an important distinction between companies or businesses with which the Government may be working to achieve policy objectives, and their eligibility still to receive public subsidies, potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds or millions, where they have explicitly even admitted to this House that they have broken employment law. There is an important distinction here about how public money could be spent and about rewarding those who have behaved badly.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. This is what I mean about using other areas of law; other areas testing the value of the use of public money will be better suited for addressing exactly those points, but I very much take the one she makes.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Would it not in future be possible for the Government, when offering a subsidy to companies, to specify that they need to meet certain labour standards so that the subsidies regime would apply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Again, that is up to the public authorities. The whole point about this regime is that it is a loose, permissive framework, rather than something more onerous which adds layer upon layer to recreate the EU state aid system. None the less, I would expect that, again, because of value for money and good governance, any public authority, whether national Government, local government or another public body, would expect to have exactly that kind of criteria—

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish Government asked that the freeports that were going to be in Scotland had green stuff in them and fair work rules, but the UK Government said no. Now the Minister is saying, “Yes, we can totally do that. That definitely should be in it.” The UK Government refused to let us have that in the freeports planned for Scotland.

[Paul Scully]

I am not going to get involved in a wider discussion about freeports; I am talking about a framework Bill, which is exactly why I said that other areas of legislation and of governance will better frame this area, as opposed to having it within this framework Bill. I am going well over time on this issue, because I wanted to cover some of the other areas.

Net zero has been mentioned. Schedule 2 contains a lot of common-sense principles already, which support the UK’s priorities on net zero and protecting the environment. They require subsidies in relation to energy and the environment to meet one of the specified aims, such as increasing the level of environmental protection, and to ensure that subsidies do not undermine the polluter pays principle. We talked about the tax subsidies and the timings. Clearly, within the timings of the tax subsidies a longer period is still necessitated, because of the fact that tax returns and such things take longer to go through the process—as opposed to having the immediacy of sponsorship through a subsidy or more immediate cash assistance.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston talked about CMA thresholds and limitations, but ultimately that is what the CMA will be looking at in any case as part of its reporting back on the regime and its overall effectiveness. So we will always be able to look at how those thresholds and limitations are working in practice; we want to make sure that that can be put in place.

I wish to conclude by reaffirming what I set out in my opening remarks: this Bill creates a domestic subsidy control regime that will work for people and communities across the UK, creating a robust yet agile system that allows public authorities to provide subsidies where they are needed most. The rigorous debates in both Houses have resulted in the improved Bill we have before us, so I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 51 agreed to.

Building Safety Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Building Safety Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 July 2021 (Building Safety Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 19 January 2022 (Building Safety Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 93, 94, 98, 107 to 109, 145, 184, 6, 1 to 5, 7 to 92, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 110 to 144, 146 to 183, 185 to 191.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Alan Mak.)

Question agreed to.

Covid-19 Pandemic: Royal Mail Services

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing today’s important debate about Royal Mail’s services and the covid-19 pandemic. Clearly, this is not the first time that we have discussed the issues—the ongoing issues—in her constituency. I am sure that we will continue the conversation, and it is important that we do, so I am glad that she has had the chance to air her views in this debate. I hope that Royal Mail continues to respond and to engage constructively with her.

Before discussing the level of service overall, I would like to provide some context, outlining both the importance of and the pressures on postal services in the lead-up to the debate. We have heard today that the postal service has played a critical role in helping to mitigate the impact of coronavirus on individuals, families and businesses across the UK. We absolutely recognise that postal workers have been working incredibly hard to meet demand and deliver the universal service in incredibly difficult circumstances. We all rely on them to keep people connected across the country by delivering the letters and parcels that are so important to everyday life, and supporting the economy in these difficult times.

As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is aware, Royal Mail’s contingency plans to mitigate disruption to postal services are well established. They are overseen by Ofcom, the independent regulator, which has been raised, so it is for Ofcom to monitor service levels, although Royal Mail has reassured Government that it has been doing everything it can to maintain service levels during the pandemic. I do look out for and try to support hon. Members’ inquiries with Royal Mail when those are raised, as has been the case today—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) raised the situation there.

Royal Mail has set out that improving service levels is its No. 1 priority at this stage, so although the situation is improving, it is clear that there are still issues that need to be addressed in certain areas. I do expect Ofcom to continue to challenge the business, under its regulatory framework, to ensure that it is delivering the best possible service. It was disappointing to hear otherwise from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood about the policy of engagement with Ofcom, which she said was missing in her exchanges. That is certainly regrettable to hear.

Overall—looking at the wider picture—customers continue to be satisfied with Royal Mail’s services. Ofcom’s last annual monitoring report, for 2020-21, which was published in December of last year, found that more than eight in 10 residential customers and around eight in 10 SME users are satisfied with Royal Mail. Those results are in line with Ofcom’s findings in its review of user needs published in November 2020. That general satisfaction is despite the challenges of delivering postal services during a pandemic.

The statutory framework recognises that, in an emergency, Royal Mail may not be able to sustain the universal postal service without interruption, suspension or restriction. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it was reasonable for Ofcom to acknowledge in this context that the pandemic was indeed an emergency. Therefore Royal Mail was legitimately able to modify its obligations, including by reducing the frequency of letter deliveries temporarily, for six weeks, in 2020. However, Ofcom’s declared emergency regulatory period ended on 31 August 2021 as Royal Mail implemented its improvement plan. Normal regulatory requirements have since applied, although in monitoring compliance Ofcom needs to take account of any relevant matters beyond Royal Mail’s control that may impact on its performance. Throughout the pandemic, Royal Mail has been transparent about any changes to the services that it provides; that information can be found on the Royal Mail website.

Royal Mail’s quality of service results, published last month, indicated that it had not met its universal service obligation targets for the delivery of both first and second-class mail in the third quarter of the financial year. Royal Mail reported that that was due to high levels of covid-related isolation and to absences being at double the normal pre-pandemic levels at the peak of the omicron variant. That is something that we have heard from any number of sectors, and any number of businesses, beyond postal services. Royal Mail has also reported that hiring temporary staff to help to manage service issues proved very challenging because of the combination of very high competition for temporary staff and high infection rates across the population. Despite those challenges, postmen and women worked exceptionally hard to ensure that the delivery of covid-19 test kits was prioritised. Royal Mail responded to the Government’s call to double the volume of covid test deliveries within days, and Royal Mail next-day delivery for kits exceeded 98%.

Royal Mail accepts and acknowledges that its quality of service has not always been as it would have wished, and has publicly apologised for any resulting delays that customers may have experienced in their local areas. It has reassured me that it continues to work to improve service levels, having spent more than £340 million in the last financial year on overtime, additional temporary staff and sick pay, as well as providing targeted support for the offices most impacted by staff absences. Royal Mail also publishes a daily list of the delivery offices most impacted by service delays. I understand that near the start of the year 77 local delivery offices were listed on the website, and that number had been reduced to one as of last week, indicating the progress that has been made.

I would like to take some time to say something about local service disruptions, particularly in regard to the constituency of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I know from correspondence with her that this is, unfortunately, not a new issue and that she has been in contact with Royal Mail about service issues in the area.

Royal Mail has informed me that the service was disrupted because sickness absence levels in some part of its operation remained higher than normal—East Dulwich delivery office in particular has been experiencing high levels of sickness. Royal Mail has taken measures to tackle the issue, including rotating mail deliveries to addresses so that customers receive mail as frequently as possible.

The hon. Member said she had recently visited the East Dulwich, Herne Hill and West Norwood delivery offices to see the measures first hand. I encourage others to do the same—to go into sorting offices and meet the management, as well as saying thank you to the workers. It is good to see what managers are doing. Hon. Members have mentioned changes of route, which tend to be put together by managers in the sorting office, close to those who walk the beat.

I understand that mail deliveries for the delivery offices that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood visited have been taking place six days a week, barring occasional unforeseen disruptions, such as Storm Eunice and a spike in absences since February. I am also aware that Royal Mail has introduced operational changes to its network as part of its wider transformational plans. Modernising Royal Mail operations is necessary to maintain sustainable universal postal services and deliver better outcomes for customers.

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank the Minister for giving way—I have always found him to be polite and helpful in my engagements with him. On the point about customer service and universal connectivity, can I press him on the issue of Crown post offices? The UK seems to be one of the only nations in the world where counter services are dis-integrated from delivery services—it does not even happen in the USA. I am one of the lucky MPs in Greater Manchester to have a Crown post office branch in their constituency. Can the Minister give me some assurance that the Government will not continue to close such branches or downgrade them to retail outlets?

[Paul Scully]

I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance, because he is referring to Post Office Ltd, which was disentangled from Royal Mail at the time of sale. Post Office Ltd oversees franchised post offices and owns and runs Crown post offices, and it is going through its own modernisation programme. The financial situation of the Post Office has been well rehearsed, including the backdrop of the Horizon situation. Allowing Royal Mail to work through its own modernisation programme disentangled from that scenario is not necessarily a bad thing.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was elected at the same time as me; in those seven years, I have seen a huge difference when I go to the sorting offices each Christmas in the balance between letters and parcels. Royal Mail has had to change all the racks and systems to adapt to the big drift to more and more parcels being delivered and fewer and fewer letters.

[Navendu Mishra]

I accept the point about the change in letter and parcel volumes. My broader point, as we are here talking about Royal Mail, is that Crown post office branches offer services that other post offices do not. It is about not just letters, but banking services, insurance and so on. Every MP in this room will have people in their constituency who do not have access to broadband or a telephone and who depend on those branches. I will perhaps write to the Minister and he can come back to me on my local Crown branch.

[Paul Scully]

I do not want to be tempted into debating Crown post offices in this debate, but I would be happy to exchange correspondence with the hon. Member. He raises some important issues about access to cash and banking services. The future of the Post Office is very close to my heart. I want to make sure that we provide something that meets customer demand and is acceptable in this place, and that retains the social value we put on post offices while getting the fine balance right in terms of providing a solid financial footing—we should get that and more in a post office for the future. I will gladly engage with the hon. Member on that issue after the debate.

I am aware, as I said, that Royal Mail has introduced changes to its network. Modernising Royal Mail operations is necessary to maintaining that sustainable universal postal service and delivering those better outcomes for customers. However, in the immediate term, that may have contributed to local service issues while the business adapts to changes. It is always difficult to embrace and work through change, but Royal Mail has assured Government that if for any reason an address does not receive a mail delivery one day it will be a priority the next working day.

Royal Mail is open to engaging with the public, and indeed with all MPs about delivery services in their respective constituencies and across the UK. I urge any hon. Members whose constituents are not happy with the service they receive to take that up with Royal Mail. I have always found it engaging, but I am also here to help expedite things, if that does not work.

Ofcom is aware of continuing reports of delivery delays, and it issued a statement on 19 January expressing its concerns and making it clear to Royal Mail that it must take steps to improve its performance as the worst effects of the pandemic subside. As the regulator, it is ultimately for Ofcom to determine whether Royal Mail is meeting its statutory obligations. Ofcom has the powers to investigate and take enforcement action if Royal Mail fails to achieve its performance targets, without good justification, at the end of each financial year. That includes penalising Royal Mail for failing to meet its targets, as Ofcom did when it imposed a fine of £1.5 million on the business for missing its first-class delivery target for 2018-19.

Ofcom reviewed Royal Mail’s performance against its quality of service targets in 2020-21 and in the light of the impacts of covid-19 throughout that year decided not to open an investigation. However, Ofcom continues to scrutinise performance closely. It is currently preparing to review Royal Mail’s performance for the 2021-22 financial year and, if appropriate, it will not hesitate to act where necessary.

I would add that Ofcom must ensure that postal regulation keeps pace with the changes in the market and remains relevant, fit for purpose and effective. It last reviewed the regulatory framework for post in 2017 and said at the time that it should remain in place until 2022. It is now carrying out a further review of the future regulatory framework, which it aims to complete later this year. As part of that review, Ofcom ran a consultation on its proposals, from 9 December 2021 to 3 March 2022. It is currently considering the responses and expects to issue a statement in the summer.

A couple of quick questions were asked. The Government do not have any plans to renationalise Royal Mail. The sale of Royal Mail shares in 2013 and 2015 added £3.3 billion to public funds. In addition, we heard a lot about dividends, but not about the £2 billion that has been invested in the firm since privatisation, with a further £1.8 billion announced in 2019 for the following five years. Access to private capital, as with any other large, successful business, has enabled the investment necessary to innovate and seize the opportunities presented by new markets.

As I said, I want to ensure that I can help any hon. Member, should they have problems with their deliveries in the short term. I have found Royal Mail to be particularly proactive in engaging with hon. Members, should there be longer-term issues, and it does come back in good time. However, should it not, I am here to help expedite things, as I said.

There have been exceptional challenges in the last two years, and services have been disrupted. However, the postal system has continued to operate, and Royal Mail is now able to resume normal service levels as absence levels move closer to normal and as the business adjusts to operational changes. I want to take this opportunity to once again thank Royal Mail, and all postal workers, for the dedication and commitment shown while providing continued service throughout the pandemic.

Long Covid: Impact on the Workforce

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on opening the debate so incredibly well, and I congratulate her, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—unfortunately he could not be here—on securing this important debate on the impact of long covid in the workplace. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all those who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful and insightful comments.

We heard about the ONS estimate that, in the four-week period ending 31 January 2022, 1.5 million people in the UK reported experiencing ongoing symptoms following covid. Of them, nearly 300,000 reported that their ability to undertake day-to-day activities had been significantly limited. It is therefore clear, as we have heard, that long covid presents a growing challenge for the workplace and more widely. The emergence of a completely new condition such as long covid is a real rarity and, much like our experience of the covid-19 pandemic itself, we must be and are constantly developing our understanding.

We have put support in place for those suffering from the condition. NHS England has invested £224 million to date to provide care for people with long covid. It has established 90 long covid assessment services across England, which are assessing and diagnosing people experiencing long-term health effects as a result of covid-19 infection, whether they have had a positive test or are likely to have long covid based on their clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they were admitted to hospital during their covid-19 illness. The services offer physical, cognitive and psychological assessment and, where appropriate, refer patients to existing services for treatment and rehabilitation. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon talked about the $1 billion in the States. Not all of that has been allocated yet, while the UK is already ploughing ahead, and we are quite far ahead of other countries, including the States, in our research in the area. Of course, there is always more that we can do.

It is clearly essential to get the right healthcare and treatment in place for individuals, for employers and for the wider economy. However, the theme of the debate is the impact of long covid in the workplace. People can suffer from many long-term health and other conditions that may affect their work. We have heard about ME, and we could talk about fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barré, Miller Fisher all those things. Indeed, there are other conditions that are not necessarily post-viral.

Earlier this month, I gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee on the impact of the menopause in the workplace, and in February I responded for the Government to a Westminster Hall debate on supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace. Those are different conditions, but, none the less, they are long lasting and we need to ensure that we can get people the right treatments and adjustments. Indeed, in the case of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), a simple, natural adjustment made his working life so much easier, and for so many of these other conditions there are examples of small things that employers can do to keep people in the workplace. They do not have to be complicated, and they certainly do not have to be expensive.

We believe that employers should play a significant role in supporting people with long-term health conditions to access and remain in work. That can certainly benefit individuals as well as bringing real bottom-line benefits to employers through, for example, avoiding recruitment costs and not unnecessarily losing experienced and valued members of staff.

However, it is not sustainable for every condition to get different or special treatment. For employers, that could lead to confusion and complexity; likewise for employees. That is why the Government’s starting position is that, specifically in the workplace and in the overall framework for providing health support to employees, long covid should be treated the same as any other long-term health condition. Let me set out that framework, which, as hon. Members would expect, is a cross-departmental effort.

The Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation, led by the Department for Work and Pensions, was published in July 2021. It sets out some of the measures that we will take to protect and maintain the progress made to reduce ill health-related job loss and see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 through to 2027.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am listening keenly to the Minister, but the issue is that this is an infectious disease that is contracted partly as a result of exposure, and there is clear evidence that exposure happens in the workplace. It is therefore not the same as existing progressive or fluctuating illnesses; it is very much an infectious disease contracted in the workplace. That is the basis for our recommendations.

[Paul Scully]

I understand the hon. Member’s point. I am trying to set out the framework for managing long-term illness, but clearly, we still have support in the workplace for those with infectious diseases. I cited ME, fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barré syndrome and Miller Fisher syndrome, which are all post-viral infections—an infection beforehand typically leads to those other long-lasting conditions. That is why I am compartmentalising the framework, but none the less, I take the hon. Member’s point about the infections happening in the first place.

“Health is everyone’s business” did not consult on long covid, or any other specific health condition for that matter; it looked at system-level measures to support employers and employees to manage any health condition or disability in the workplace. The measures that we are taking forward include providing greater clarity on employer and employee rights and responsibilities by developing a national digital information and advice service; working with the Health and Safety Executive to develop a set of clear and simple principles that employers would be expected to apply to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions in the work environment; and increasing access to occupational health services, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which, as we know, are currently underserved.

As I said, although those measures are not long covid-specific, they are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness management. That will benefit those suffering from long covid in the same way as those suffering from other longer-term health issues or disability.

As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) said, we are also responsible for flexible working. We know that that policy can be incredibly helpful to those suffering from many long-term health conditions, including long covid, as they seek to manage the symptoms, some of which we have heard about today, such as extreme tiredness, insomnia, depression and anxiety. Although flexible working does not provide the whole answer, it can be an important tool for employers and employees as they have discussions about how better to balance the demands of work and life, particularly for those managing long-term health conditions.

The consultation on flexible working introduced plans for a future call for evidence on ad hoc flexible working; we want to explore how non-contractual flexibility works in practice. I discussed that with the Flexible Working Taskforce in February. We will ensure that the role of ad hoc flexible working to support those with long covid and other health conditions—such as the menopause and endometriosis, which I have mentioned—is part of its considerations.

[Marion Fellows]

Is the Minister looking at cutting the time before someone can apply for flexible working? At the moment, they have to have been in work for quite a long while before they can do so.

[Paul Scully]

Our manifesto committed to consult on this issue. Within that consultation, we looked at a day one right to request flexible working. That is key, because it will attract people to and keep them in a good workplace. We might as well start as we are set to carry on.

Another significant part of the cross-departmental framework is the Government Equalities Office, which is responsible for the Equality Act 2010. That is an important part of the matrix, because it may protect those with long-term health conditions from discrimination. That Act ensures that any person with a condition that meets the definition of a disability is protected, so it should not be stigmatised. The Act describes disability as

“a physical or mental impairment”

that

“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

on a person’s

“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

We heard about that not least from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and during the incredibly passionate speech of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who cited the example of his family member. By the way, I know how difficult it is for an hon. Member to describe a family member who is suffering from something that we are debating, and I thank him for his personalised experience, which has informed the House and positively contributed so much to the debate.

As I said, the disability should not be stigmatised, though some may do so. This is simply about the impairment, as we have heard loud and clear. “Long-term” is defined having lasted, or being likely to last for, at least 12 months. “Substantial” is defined as more than minor or trivial, as we have heard strongly in Members’ examples today.

The Act makes it clear that it is not necessary for the cause of the impairment to be established, nor does the impairment have to be the result of an illness. A disability can therefore arise from a wide range of impairments. That means that any person who falls within that definition will already be protected as having a disability. That can therefore encompass some of the emerging effects of long covid, but every case will be different and should be considered on its merits.

As well as paying tribute to the hon. Member for City of Chester, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and ask her to pass on our regards to Andrew, Nell and Rebecca. We also heard about Julie Wells and her daughter and the caring responsibilities involved. The examples that we have had really add colour and inform the debate.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about statutory sick pay. We have discussed the fact that we need to look at statutory sick pay, but this is not the time to do so, particularly while we are in the middle of the pandemic. However, we also need to look at statutory sick pay in the round. She mentioned people earning under £120 a week, but many in that situation are already in receipt of other benefits. That is what I mean about not just concentrating on one issue; we need to look at the whole person and their whole personal finance.

In summary, we are supporting people with long-term health conditions, including long covid, by working hard on the general approach to work and health, through our response to the “Health is everyone’s business consultation”, and taking steps to make some of our employment rights work a little harder to support those balancing work with other issues and challenges. All that is underpinned by the protections against discrimination provided by the Equality Act. We must also showcase the good employers, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester.

[Layla Moran]

If I understand this correctly, the consultation is happening and guidance will be provided more comprehensively for all longer-term illnesses. The issue particularly with long covid is that it is so new that many employers do not have a clue what it is. Will he consider suggesting a public health information campaign particularly targeted at businesses so that they know that it exists and where they can go for such guidance?

[Paul Scully]

I often talk about ACAS guidance, which, obviously, is available in this area. The hon. Lady mentioned what she saw as shortfalls in that guidance. We will always look at that to make sure that guidance is up to date, especially with an evolving condition such as long covid. I keep citing the example of ME, which, like fibromyalgia, is one of those diseases that is very poorly understood by so many people in the workplace and even, frankly, by health professionals. It will evolve and I am sure that we will able to push that information out to employers.

I hope that hon. Members would agree that there is a wide-ranging set of actions to address long-term health issues in the workplace, whatever those health conditions are. We want to encourage a better culture around work and health, including for those suffering from long covid. I firmly believe that it is an important principle to have a single, consistent and clear approach to managing health in the workplace. It is unsustainable to have a number of different approaches for different conditions. I close by thanking everyone once again for this helpful and informative debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of long covid on the UK workforce.

Business Update

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Written Statements

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

The Government have condemned the use of threats of dismissal and re-engagement on reduced terms, so-called “fire and rehire”, as a negotiation tactic when employers are seeking to renegotiate contracts.

Last year I asked the Advisory. Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to look at this issue, and welcomed the publication of their online guidance. In the guidance, ACAS states that an employer should only consider dismissing and offering to rehire someone on new terms as a last resort. Before doing so, an employer must have made all reasonable attempts to reach agreement through a full and thorough consultation. The guidance is available at: Considering employment contract changes: Making changes to employment contracts – employer responsibilities - Acas

The Government will go further. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will bring forward a statutory code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement, under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. We will bring this forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

This statutory code of practice will be admissible in evidence before a court or employment tribunal in England, Scotland and Wales. Where relevant, statutory codes are referred to by employment tribunal judges when deciding the level of award an employee is entitled to. Subject to satisfying the statutory requirements the tribunal can award an uplift in compensation to the employee subject to a maximum of 25% of the overall award. This increases the size of the sanction for companies who abuse the process and do not treat their employees fairly, and should provide a further deterrent effect.

The Government will set out next steps after recess, and will be consulting on the draft code later this year as required by law.

[HCWS735]

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that the supply chains of businesses in the UK do not use forced labour of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China.

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

In January 2021, we announced a robust package of measures to help to ensure that no UK organisations are complicit in the human rights violations being perpetrated in Xinjiang. We have also supplied detailed guidance to UK businesses, and will continue to engage with them.

[Afzal Khan]

I have lost count of the number of times I have urged the Government to take stronger, more robust action against China’s ongoing genocide of Uyghur Muslims. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was spot on when he said that UK organisations must immediately sever their commercial ties with Russia to ensure that public money is not funding Putin’s war machine. In the light of a genocide that is happening on our watch, is it not high time that the Government applied the same rules and ensured that public organisations sever their contracts with Xinjiang? Will they also support amendments to the Health and Care Bill to prevent the NHS from being complicit in forced Uyghur labour?

[Paul Scully]

Evidence of the scale and severity of the human rights situation in Xinjiang paints a harrowing picture. The British Government will not stand for forced labour, wherever it takes place. We require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery and forced labour in their operations and supply chains, and we plan to extend that to certain public bodies and to introduce financial penalties for organisations which do not comply. That will require legislative change, and legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

That was a pretty strong-sounding answer from the Minister, but let us see whether those fine words are put into practice. An audit undertaken two years ago found that 17% of organisations—more than 2,500—that should have published a modern slavery statement had failed to do so. Can the Minister tell us what action has been taken since then to ensure that they do?

[Paul Scully]

On 11 March 2021, the Government launched an online modern slavery statement registry, and we are now encouraging all organisations within the scope of the legislation to submit their statements to it. More than 7,000 statements have been submitted, covering more than 23,350 organisations on that voluntary basis.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Canadian Solar wants to build a solar plant in my constituency the size of 1,400 football pitches. In 2021, four of its shipments were seized owing to its links with Uyghur blood labour, and its subsidiary GCL-Poly has been sanctioned by the United States Government because of its complicity in genocide. Will my hon. Friend assure me that we will blacklist from nationally significant infrastructure projects all those companies that are complicit in genocide, and confirm that we will not allow blood labour to stain our green and pleasant lands?

[Paul Scully]

As I have said, we have strong procedures to vet suppliers, and we have been given repeated written assurances from people who supply that they proactively monitor supply chains to ensure that forced labour is not used. We will of course ensure that the company to which my hon. Friend has referred comes within that robust supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

7. What steps he is taking to monitor the environmental performance of holders of existing Contracts for Difference in the context of new standards agreed at COP 26.

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

The contracts for difference scheme is a flagship scheme that has contributed to our fivefold increase in renewables since 2010. High environmental performance is a prerequisite for contracts for difference applications, and the next CFD round will require even more ambition from applicants.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I, like many people, have difficulty understanding how burning trees on an industrial scale and pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can be any part of a low-carbon solution, or indeed why the British taxpayer subsidises private companies to do this. Given the Glasgow declaration and the new COP26 standards, is it not time to review whether the British taxpayer should remain the world’s largest subsidiser of tree burning and, in particular, whether contracts for difference on biomass awarded before 2015 would now be awarded were they to meet the new standards and targets?

[Paul Scully]

As a condition of receiving payment under the contracts for difference scheme, generators must demonstrate that they meet our biomass sustainability criteria, irrespective of where that biomass is sourced. There is no evidence that deforestation has occurred in the areas from where UK electricity generators source their biomass, but we must make sure biomass is sourced from areas that are managed consistently with sustainable forest management practices.

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

8. What steps he is taking to support investment in UK manufacturing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to support small businesses with rising costs.

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

The Government are cutting fuel duty, at a cost of £5 billion over the next 12 months; raising the employment allowance to £5,000; and zero-rating VAT on energy-saving materials. That builds on existing support, including business rates relief worth £7 billion over five years.

[Mary Glindon]

Businesses such as Sidhu’s chippies in my constituency had pinned their hopes on the Chancellor reducing VAT to 12.5%. They are now going to be pushed to the brink as energy costs are set to almost triple this financial year. What hope can the Minister offer Sidhu’s and other businesses that have served their local communities for decades but now cannot guarantee jobs and services into the future?

[Paul Scully]

Our hospitality strategy, which includes fish and chip shops and other restaurants around the country, has a number of workstreams to co-create solutions with businesses rather than the Government having all the answers. The hon. Lady needs to consider the issue in the round, including the business rates relief and other support that we have given of £408 billion over the past two years.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

Supporting businesses to manage their costs must not come at the expense of employment rights. The P&O ferry scandal is not about fire and rehire, but it puts the issue back in the spotlight because it exposes how vulnerable workers can be when faced with an exploitative employer who is willing to trample over their statutory rights to slash wages. At the Dispatch Box last week, my hon. Friend the Minister intimated that the Government would make further announcements on the issue. May I press him to tell the House today whether the Government are prepared to act definitively on fire and rehire?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty champion on the issue. The Government have always been clear that it is completely unacceptable for any sized business to use threats of fire and rehire simply as a negotiation tactic. We have already taken action. In November last year, we commissioned ACAS, which published guidance. I promised to take further steps, as she rightly said, and I am pleased to announce that we will bring forward a statutory code later this year under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. We will introduce that as soon as parliamentary time allows. The code will have legal teeth; it will be admissible in evidence before courts and employment tribunals in England, Scotland and Wales.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Businesses face a barrage of rising costs: inflation at a 30-year high, taxation at an 80-year high, and rocketing prices for materials, energy, food and fuel that are hitting businesses and consumers hard. This is a Government of photo ops but shuttered shops, with no clear plan to support businesses and workers, and their spring statement does not go far enough. Does that not make Labour’s call for an increase to the small business rates relief threshold even more urgent? Or is the truth not plain to see that small businesses can no longer afford the Conservatives?

[Paul Scully]

Nobody—whether in a domestic or business setting—can afford Labour. We have put £408 billion of support into wrapping our arms around jobs, livelihoods and businesses. We have 408 billion reasons to get this next bit right. The Labour party can talk about scrapping business rates, but it has not made any suggestion of what to replace them with. Fine words, but we will act.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect of trends in the level of investment in renewables on household energy bills.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is great that my hon. Friend is supporting Rodale and other companies in her area. We know that this is a worrying time for business, which is facing significant increases in global gas prices. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is in regular contact with the energy industry and Ofgem to manage the impact of price increases on businesses. Clearly, we need to look at this in the round, and in the context of the £408 billion that we provided throughout covid to allow businesses such as Rodale to survive.

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

Last October the Secretary of State promised support for energy-intensive industries such as steel, glass and ceramics. His exact words were that it was his

“priority…to ensure costs are managed and supplies of energy are maintained.”

Yet six months later there is still no action, and there was nothing in last week’s spring statement, so when will this promised support be presented?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T4. I thank the small business Minister for speaking to our Staffordshire chamber of commerce event in Parliament recently. Recruitment continues to be a challenge for many businesses across Stoke-on-Trent, so will my hon. Friend outline what more we can do to support small businesses, particularly to upskill and recruit more workers?

[Paul Scully]

It was a pleasure to speak to the Staffordshire chamber of commerce. The Department for Work and Pensions’ “Way to Work” campaign is a drive to help employers to fill vacancies faster by streamlining recruitment processes and offering employers a named adviser. The Department is also supporting people to upskill through skills boot camps and sector-based work academies.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T2. We have world-leading motor neurone disease scientists here in the UK who are on the cusp of developing the first ever treatments for this disease. Patients, scientists and charities were promised that by the end of January we would know how the £50 million of targeted MND research funding would be allocated. It is now the end of March. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding will be awarded quickly and in full, and via a single application process, as set out by MND charities in the 2021 spending review submissi-on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the welcome announcement that employment leave would be extended to unpaid carers. Will he please update the House on when that is likely to be delivered?

[Paul Scully]

I recommit to our manifesto commitment to introduce carers’ leave. That will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are looking forward to getting on with that as soon as possible.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

South Yorkshire is home to some extraordinary research and development assets, including the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and the Advanced Wellbeing and Research Centre. It was great to meet the Minister recently to discuss the issue. Will he continue to work with me and others on unlocking the undoubtedly huge potential in South Yorkshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Unscrupulous company directors make use of the compulsory strike-off process to avoid paying debts to both private and public sector creditors. In considering reform of Companies House, what can Ministers do to tackle this practice?

[Paul Scully]

We are looking at a range of methods of reforming Companies House, including unscrupulous behaviour by directors. It will be the biggest upheaval of companies law for the last 150 years, and we will legislate for new powers in the economic crime Bill when parliamentary time allows.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that there is a distinct difference between the current energy price spikes and the long-standing unfairness that UK steel makers face when it comes to the charges and levies they pay on their energy costs. Does he agree that, when the energy strategy that the Prime Minister promised comes out, it must address both these distinct and separate issues?

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 20.

[Paul Scully]

Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I thank the shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—for their constructive and positive engagement during the Bill’s passage through the House. I have been pleased with the support for the Bill across both Houses. The Government made several amendments in the other place to ensure that the Bill is as useful as it can be. To that end, I believe that Members across this House will support the amendments.

I will begin with the Lords amendments that were introduced following extensive engagement with the Welsh Government; I am grateful for their positive and thoughtful discussions about the Bill. Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 8, 10, 15 and 17 were introduced to allow Welsh Ministers to have rightful control over devolved matters.

Lords amendment 1 defines Welsh and English business tenancies to allow the Bill to distinguish between business tenancies in later provisions.

Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for making a reference to arbitration could be exercised separately for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.

Lords amendment 4 removes a definition that is redundant due to Lords amendment 6 to clause 23.

Lords amendments 6 and 7 decouple the moratorium period from the period for making a reference to arbitration. They provide that the moratorium period will end six months from Royal Assent unless extended.

Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause that means that the consent of Welsh Ministers would be needed to extend the moratorium period for Welsh businesses in respect of devolved matters.

On the power in clause 28—which was previously clause 27—to reapply the Act, Lords amendment 10 enables regulations under the clause to be made just for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.

Lords amendment 15 requires the consent of Welsh Ministers to exercise the power to reapply devolved provisions in relation to Welsh business tenancies.

Lords amendment 17 inserts a new clause that provides that Welsh Ministers can use the power in clause 28 concurrently with the Secretary of State insofar as it relates to the reapplication, in respect of Welsh business tenancies, of devolved provisions—that is, certain moratorium provisions.

Following those amendments, I am pleased to say that the Senedd has agreed a legislative consent motion, for which I thank them wholeheartedly.

Separately, I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill. The Committee raised concerns about clause 28, which, as I said, was previously clause 27. The clause provides that the Act can be reapplied if there are further closure requirements due to coronavirus.

The Committee’s concerns were about the breadth of the power and the potential for significant alterations to be made for a reapplication. In response, Lords amendments 12 to 16 were introduced to limit the power’s breadth. As a result, the power would still allow for targeted modifications in order to accommodate new dates and make adjustments to moratorium provisions to take account of new timeframes. However, the amended power could not be used to change the operation of the arbitration process or policy.

I am sure that Members will agree that the Committee’s points are important and will be reassured by the appropriate limitations.

Lords amendment 11 ensures that the power can be used in respect of closure requirements imposed after the protected period set out in the Bill, whether that is before or after the Bill is enacted and whether or not the closure requirement has ended when regulations are made. It ensures that the power will be clear and robust for any new waves of coronavirus. Along with Lords amendment 9, it also ensures that the language of clause 27 is consistent with that of clause 4.

We have continued to listen to stakeholder concerns. When the Bill was in the other place, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors gave useful feedback relating to the exercise of the arbitration bodies’ functions to remove arbitrators on the grounds provided for in the Bill. The Arbitration Act 1996 gives arbitration bodies immunity from liability in relation to the function of appointing arbitrators; arbitration bodies were concerned that under the Bill they did not have explicit immunity from liability in relation to the function of removing them. In response, Lords amendment 18 clarifies that approved arbitration bodies have immunity from incurring liability for anything done in exercise of the function of removing arbitrators under the Bill, unless the act is shown to be committed in bad faith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for the chance to raise issues with him earlier. I also thank colleagues in this House and the other place, as well as staff and all those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee.

As the Opposition have laid out here and in the other place, Labour has consistently recognised the need for a fair arbitration process to deal with the significant commercial rent arrears that have accrued during the pandemic. Our amendments were intended to strengthen and clarify the legislation, so that the new regime can be effective, accessible and affordable, and can fairly balance the interests of landlords and tenants.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have been clear that no otherwise viable business should face an overwhelming burden as a result of rent arrears that threaten its future. Likewise, commercial landlords must have access to clear mechanisms for recouping appropriate levels of arrears. The guiding principles in the process must ultimately be fairness for landlords and tenants alike, and the long-term interests of British businesses and jobs. I pay tribute to the landlords and tenants who have not waited for the Bill to make it to the statute book, but have used the time to work together in good faith in order to come to an agreement.

We should be clear that commercial rent arrears are just one of the challenges that many businesses face. With today’s announcement that inflation is at a 30-year high, many firms up and down our country face a cost-of-doing-business crisis. Labour recognises how difficult the past two years have been for businesses up and down the country. Sectors of our economy such as aviation, live events, travel and tourism have been hit particularly hard.

The Lords amendments, which are all Government amendments, help to clarify the Bill. In our view, they also give appropriate powers to the Welsh Government; we know that discussions were undertaken. The amendments improve the Bill and we support them all, but there are still a number of areas on which I would welcome clarity and assurances from the Minister on how the Government will move forward.

First, we continue to be concerned that the Bill contains no limits on the costs of arbitration. We cannot let high arbitration fees, or concerns that fees will be prohibitive, deter landlords and tenants from using the processes established under the Bill to achieve a fair solution. That would be a failure of policy and of planning.

We have previously called for a cap on fees, but the Government did not accept that proposal. I note that the Minister in the other place said a cap could be imposed if there was evidence that it was needed, but I should be grateful if this Minister would specify his intentions in that regard. Will he update the House on when guidance on the costs of the arbitration process will be published? Will he also confirm that Lords amendment 18—which relates to schedule 1—effectively limits the liability of the arbitral bodies in the discharging of their duties under the Bill, which is what I understood from his comments?

Ensuring the quality of arbitration is important, and we have consistently called for the Government to explain how they will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of arbitrators to handle the volumes of cases under the scheme. What discussions has the Minister had with the arbitral bodies on their capacity, and on maintaining a sufficient number of arbitrators with the necessary skills and experience, and what quality assurance does he expect will be in place? It is important to have reassurances on these issues, especially in view of the limitation of liability that we have put into the Bill.

Finally on this issue, let me say that the arbitration process will not carry confidence unless the decisions are demonstrably fair and there is consistency of assessment. The Minister will know that business organisations had particular concerns about how the “viability of the business” would be established. Viability is referred to in some of the draft guidance published in February, but what review has the Minister undertaken of that guidance with stakeholders, and when will he finalise the guidance that will accompany the Act?

Let me turn briefly to the detail of the Lords amendments. The Bill, which applies largely to England and Wales, confers a number of powers on the Secretary of State in respect of Wales. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 10 are designed to ensure that different provisions can be made in relation to Welsh and English business tenancies. Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for arbitration can be exercised separately for English and Welsh businesses, which is an improvement, while Lords amendment 10 allows the Secretary of State to reapply the Act to both England and Wales, or to just one of the nations.

Similarly, Lords amendments 4, 6 to 8 and 17 give Wales increased powers to extend the moratorium period, which is the period in which tenants have protection against enforcement action by the landlord in relation to covid rent arrears. This must, of course, be a process that works for both England and Wales, but also, looking at the Bill overall, for Scotland and Northern Ireland, in so far as there are limited provisions that apply to those nations.

Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause requiring the Welsh Government to consent to any extension of the moratorium period for Welsh business tenancies under clause 23. It states that this moratorium period must be the same length as the arbitration period. Lords amendments 6 and 7 allow for the new clause specified in Lords amendment 8 by proposing that the current moratorium period should be six months long, rather than being tied to the arbitration period. This change allows for different moratorium periods to apply in England and Wales. We support those changes because we recognise that the Welsh Government should have a say in the extension of the moratorium period in Wales.

Lords amendments 12 to 14 were tabled in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 12 removes the Government’s power to specify certain parts of the legislation that would not apply if the Bill itself were reapplied. Previously, the Minister would have had the power to pick and choose which parts of the Bill were reintroduced or reapplied, but Lords amendment 13 ensures that the Government can make modifications to a reapplication of the Bill only if they are “necessary”. That is important for the role of Parliament and the Welsh Senedd.

Lords amendment 15 allows the Minister to reapply the Bill in Wales only with the consent of the Welsh Government. Lords amendment 14 allows different provisions to be made in England and Wales during reapplication. Labour supports these amendments, and it is important that the Government have listened to the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is a respected voice on these matters.

We are also pleased to see Lords amendments 5 and 19, which ensure that neither the tenant nor guarantors nor previous tenants are liable for any protected rent debt that an arbitrator has cancelled. Similarly, Lords amendment 20 ensures that neither the tenant nor guarantors nor previous tenants can be subject to winding-up petitions or bankruptcy orders for protected rent during the moratorium period. On Second Reading, I raised Labour’s concerns about ensuring that not only tenants but anyone liable for their rent are protected during the moratorium period, so I am pleased that these amendments support that protection.

Lords amendment 2 ensures that the provisions in clause 4, specifying closure requirements, apply to the closure of businesses and premises. On Third Reading, I raised concerns that businesses that no longer occupied the premises—because, for example, the pandemic had made a particular location unprofitable—would not be able to access the arbitration process. We are pleased to see this amendment, which ensures that the Bill explicitly allows such businesses to benefit from the provisions in this legislation.

In conclusion, the Lords amendments make some important changes to the Bill. They rightly increase the powers of the Welsh Government over this legislation, provide appropriate constitutional limits to the Government’s powers on reapplying the Bill, and ensure that tenants, guarantors and previous tenants are all protected during the moratorium period. However, Minister should provide further assurances in connection with these amendments—for example, on the cost of the arbitration process, and on ensuring that arbitrators apply the measures consistently across cases. Nevertheless, Labour supports all the Lords amendments. We support the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent and look forward to its implementation as soon as possible.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution today, and for the way in which she has engaged with me and the Bill team. I also thank other Members across the House for their contributions. The Bill’s passage through both Houses has been a positive and collaborative process, and that is testament to its importance in supporting businesses in recovering from the ongoing impacts of the pandemic. The amendments made in the other place were made for good reason and will serve only to improve the Bill. Let me spend a couple of minutes trying to answer the questions that she has rightly and understandably raised.

The hon. Lady talked about the cost of arbitration. We want to ensure, as best we can, that arbitration fees are predictable and affordable. We have discussed this at length at various stages of the Bill, with good reason. The Bill aims to support both tenants and landlords in resolving rent debt, and it is therefore important that the scheme remains affordable and accessible. Approved arbitration bodies will have the function of setting arbitration fees, and they have the expertise to set them at a level that will ensure that the scheme is affordable while also incentivising arbitrators to deliver the scheme in good time. In the interests of transparency and accessibility, the bodies must publish the details of the arbitration fees on their websites, so that the applicant will know in advance how much it will cost to go to arbitration.

We will monitor the affordability of the scheme by engaging regularly with arbitration bodies, as well as with tenants and landlords. We will be able to judge how things are going by those early cases going through the process. The Secretary of State has the power to cap fees, should they become unaffordable. That power can be used where necessary, but it cannot used prematurely, because we do not want to reduce the number of arbitrators available to act, thereby risking the delivery of the scheme.

The hon. Lady talked about guidance on costs and the viability of businesses. I assured the House that we would bring forward guidance for arbitrators, and we are looking to expedite that, so that it happens within a couple of weeks of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am pleased to say that we have published the draft guidance, which is on the Government website, in order to gather feedback from the arbitrators. That addresses viability clearly by setting out a non-exhaustive list of evidence that an arbitrator could have regard to in assessing viability. The final version of the guidance will be published shortly after Royal Assent. Viability is deliberately not defined, because of the vast array of different business models, both within and between sectors.

Treharris: Restoration of Post Office Services

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing today’s important debate. I thank him for his commitment to the post office network, in particular his commitment to his constituents in Treharris and to getting postal services for them, especially given the social value that post offices provide to so many people.

Post offices play a crucial role in communities and for small businesses around the United Kingdom, and they comprise the largest retail network in the country, with more than 11,500 branches. Over the past 10 years, the Government have provided more than £2.5 billion to support the post office network. Crucially, that has included an annual subsidy to ensure the viability of rural and community branches. Since 2019, that has been maintained at £50 million a year, and I can confirm that it will remain at the same level until 2025. That shows that we in the Government are committing significant funding to the future of the network.

The country has faced unprecedented challenges in responding to the covid-19 pandemic, and post offices were essential services and postal workers key workers. That enabled the continuation of essential services provided by post offices, which would not have been possible if it was not for the hard work of postmasters and postal staff, who worked tirelessly to ensure that those services could continue. That enabled people to keep in touch with loved ones, which provided a lifeline to our communities and to the most vulnerable. That goes to the heart of what the hon. Gentleman was talking about: why people in Treharris value services that are as close to them as possible.

I would like to take a moment to thank postmasters and post office staff for their tireless efforts, the immense contribution made to communities across the UK, and their continual hard work and support. I am extremely thankful to all postmasters, who are pillars of their communities.

In a network as large as this, there will be variations in the number of branches open at one time. That is usually outside the Post Office’s control and is subject to external changes, such as postmasters retiring or branches closing and new ones opening. The network fluctuates and changes over time. That churn in the network is part of the modern and dynamic business that is the Post Office, but the Government-set access criteria ensure that services remain within reach for all citizens, which helps to protect the network: 99% of the UK population are within 3 miles of a post office outlet, and 90% within 1 mile.

To allow itself time to identify alternative ways to provide services, the Post Office requires operators to provide six months’ notice of a branch closure. Those plans apply to all partners, whether a multiple retailer or an individual postmaster. Where notice is given, the Post Office works with communities to ensure that the service is maintained.

As we have heard, Treharris post office has been closed for nearly three years, and I recognise that that is extremely frustrating for the hon. Member, and indeed for his constituents. He has been campaigning extremely hard to reopen Treharris post office, whether it be on the existing site or a business taking over that site. I thank him for his commitment to ensuring that the impact on his constituents is fully understood by the Government, the Post Office and the House. It reminds us how important post offices are to our communities, not only acting as a hub with social value but connecting to the country, from Swansea to Stockport, indeed to Strangford and Stirling, as we have seen from our absent hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who would normally be here contributing to the debate. Post offices are valued across all four nations of this great country.

Changes to the network are extremely concerning to members of the community who daily rely on postal and other services. I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney recently met with the Post Office to discuss the future of Treharris post office. As he is aware, the Treharris post office will remain closed. He mentioned the Trelewis branch, just under a mile away. That was subject to a commercial transfer, which resulted in an extension of opening hours from 7 am to 9 pm, seven days a week. Two branches in such close proximity could reduce the viability of both businesses, based on current levels of post office footfall in the area.

Like many businesses, Post Office is operating in a challenging economic climate, and having two businesses open may not be sustainable. Post Office Ltd carried out a comprehensive review of the network, to ensure it is meeting the evolving needs of customers. It assessed the current services in Treharris and concluded that customer demands have been met, but I appreciate what the hon. Member said about the pressures on the local community due to the bus service. I hope the Post Office will listen to that, as well as the debates in this place, and reflect that in any further considerations of the area’s coverage.

[Gerald Jones]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his speech. I support his comments about post office workers, who have been essential to the national effort during the pandemic. I want to re-emphasise the topography for communities such as Treharris. A mile away does not sound a lot but, with steep hills and a poor bus service that is sporadic at best, those challenges are too great to overcome for communities and residents alike in the valleys.

[Paul Scully]

I have no doubt. This is where it is right to bring to bear the hon. Member’s local championing and expertise. It is easy for us to look at a bit of paper or at Google Maps, but that does not emphasise the topography he describes. I very much take that on board. I hope that the Post Office will equally take that on board, as it listens and reads Hansard, and will reflect on that when considering wider views on the Post Office network in the hon. Member’s area. Because the Post Office operates as an independent commercial business, the company has the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters we have set, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that his concern has been taken seriously. I will continue to monitor network numbers in his area.

He referred to recent Citizens Advice research that highlighted the number of branches classed as temporarily closed. I agree that the overall number of branches classed as temporarily closed needs to be reviewed. Post Office has started that review and is engaging with Citizens Advice on the process to reclassify the majority of branches classed as temporarily closed to permanently closed. I will engage with Post Office to find out its plans regarding this specific branch, as part of that exercise.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney talked about outreach, as he has done on other occasions, not being a substitute for a bricks-and-mortar shop. Clearly, we would all prefer bricks-and-mortar shops in our communities. That is the ideal for any post office services. In absence of that branch, it does provide a full range of services and remains an important means of maintaining access. Post Office does try to keep set times for outreach services for each week, so local communities can rely on them timewise. They know the patterns, so they are not hoping and waiting for a service to come, but I freely admit that we would all rather have that bricks-and-mortar post office, both for the convenience and for the social value I have talked about.

The retail sector has undergone a significant period of change, which has been accelerated by covid-19 and has raised many challenges that we are working hard to address. The Post Office continues to explore new business opportunities to ensure a thriving national network for the benefit of communities, businesses and postmasters up and down the country. Post offices play a key role in supporting high streets across the UK and helping keep town centres vibrant, as well as levelling up communities throughout the country. On 15 July, we published the “Build Back Better High Streets” strategy, which set out the Government’s long-term plan to support the evolution of high streets into thriving places to work, visit and live.

As demonstrated during the pandemic, the Government have sought to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods while supporting businesses and public services across the UK. Post offices, like many other businesses on the high street, are eligible for Government support. We will continue to provide 66% business rate relief until the end of the month and a temporary 50% relief in 2022 and 2023 to eligible businesses; reduce the burden of business rates for all businesses by freezing the multiplier for 2022-23; introduce a new relief to support investments in property improvements; and introduce measures to support green investments and the decarbonisation of non-domestic buildings.

However, the trend towards online shopping has been accelerated by covid-19, resulting in more and more of us shopping online. Post offices, whether in Treharris and Trelewis or further afield, will clearly need to keep up to meet those consumer demands. A new agreement has recently been signed with Amazon and DPD, and more than 3,100 branches now offer click and collect services, allowing consumers to receive their goods quickly and conveniently.

To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution; for bringing this debate before the House; and for making sure that the voice of Treharris has been heard, not only by this House, by me as the Minister or by Government, but by the Post Office, which—as I said—will be monitoring this debate.

[Gerald Jones]

Just to reiterate, the community has not had a consultation on the temporary closure. I seek reassurance from the Minister that any changes from a temporary closure to anything more permanent would be subject to a full community consultation, because the community deserves nothing less than to have its voice heard in a consultation process.

[Paul Scully]

I will certainly reflect that in the conversations I have with post offices, not just in Treharris, but all around the country. It is important that the Post Office operates as an independent commercial business, but none the less it has a responsibility to provide social value as well as economic value to reflect the communities it serves. In doing so, it needs to listen to those voices and consider all aspects of this issue, because the most vulnerable in our communities—the hon. Gentleman talked about the topography of getting from Treharris to Trelewis—are often those who need access to cash and services because they do not necessarily have good online access, or the any online access at all. We need to work through a reasonable listening exercise to make sure any decisions are taken in full knowledge of the facts and the views of the people the Post Office network serves.

We in this place all share a common cause: ensuring that a vital national asset continues to serve our constituencies for many years to come. I reiterate that I too am absolutely committed to safeguarding the post office network, and will continue to work closely with the Post Office to deliver that sustainable network and deal with the challenges faced in a post-covid world.

Question put and agreed to.