(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. In the usual way, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing today’s important debate, and I apologise to him and to other Members for getting my timing slightly wrong. I will make a point of reading the early part of this debate in Hansard a little later.
We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for East Londonderry and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), but also important interventions from a series of hon. Members. In the short time available to me, I will probably not be able to do full justice to all those interventions, but let me try to pick up at least one or two of the points made.
Crucially, we need to underline the fact that retail has a key role to play in supporting high streets in every corner of the UK—particularly in Northern Ireland, given the focus of this debate, but more generally across the UK as well. In 2023, the retail sector contributed about £110 billion to our economy: just under 5% of the total UK economy. It remains a very high employment sector, directly supporting 2.9 million jobs across the UK in 2023. In short, retail is the backbone of our high streets and remains a key driver to support economic growth.
I recognise that recently there have been concerning stories in the media about the challenges that retailers are facing, and I know that that is a concern for Members across the House. We know that retailers are facing a series of economic headwinds, as well as dealing with the challenges of changing consumer shopping habits and the rise of online shopping. A thriving high street will continue to need a strong retail offering, helping to drive growth in local economies and supporting local communities. Never has it been so important to help retailers—particularly the small and independent retail businesses to which a number of Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), have referred—to grow.
The Minister rightly talks about the importance of supporting small and independent businesses. One thing that those businesses rely on is having access to banking, but banks are closing, which has a particular impact in rural communities. For example, my constituents have lost Barclays in Harleston and this year are due to lose Lloyds in Halesworth and Beccles. Will the Minister outline the progress that the Government are making on their pledge to roll out far more banking hubs so that local communities and businesses keep access to banking in their market towns and areas?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the 100th banking hub very recently, and I know from figures that Cash Access UK and LINK have published that 200 locations for banking hubs have been identified; that is part of the commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs.
But we want to do more. The Post Office plays a key role in offering banking services, particularly as banks themselves have exited the high street, and we are beginning work with the Post Office to strengthen its banking offer on the high street. I heard very clearly the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) about the directly managed branch in her constituency. I recognise the importance of post offices to all our high streets. She will know that no decision has been made on Hampstead—or, indeed, on any other directly managed branch—but I know she will continue to campaign on this issue.
To support businesses, the Budget honoured the manifesto commitment not to raise corporation tax. It set out the tax road map for this Parliament, in which we will not change corporation tax, which means we have the lowest rate in the G7. All that will support businesses, including retailers, to invest.
As the hon. Member for East Londonderry is aware, retail is a devolved matter. I welcome measures such as the Back in Business rate support scheme, which has been created to incentivise business rate payers to consider occupying empty retail premises. Vacancy is a blight on too many of our high streets and town centres across the country and it can fuel a spiral of decline. That is why Government in all forms need to work together with local communities and businesses to strengthen the offer.
The Minister rightly points out the devolved nature of much of retail. Does he agree that the chronic level of VAT, which is not devolved—it is a matter for the Treasury—compared with our neighbour in the Irish republic is having a detrimental effect on retailers?
The hon. Member may want me to go straight from this debate to the Treasury to get an immediate concession.
That is generous of him. I will take that question away and look at it. I know that that is an issue particular to Northern Ireland. He will understand that it is not immediately the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I will none the less take a look at it.
Could the Minister provide a brief update on progress towards reforming business rates? It is a popular policy with many small businesses—particularly independent retailers in my area, who appreciate the Government’s work on this matter. They would be grateful for further updates.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget in October the intention to permanently lower the level of business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. She published a discussion paper at the same time to involve the business community in further discussions about what else we can do in the business rates space. I strongly encourage hon. Members across the House to encourage businesses in their communities to get involved in that debate. That makes all the more striking the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley about the approach of the SNP Government in Scotland not to get behind businesses. I hope that her speech was listened to and will be acted on by those currently in government in Scotland.
Hon. Members will know that more widely we have introduced high street rental auctions, enabling local authorities to tackle decline on the high street by bringing vacant units back into use. We are already working with three local authorities to begin to learn the lessons of how that new power works.
Forgive me, but I have only 2.5 minutes. If I missed something and the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will be happy to reply.
I have touched on business rates reform. We want to introduce a new business growth service to simplify the support available for all small businesses and bring it under one single trusted banner. We will set out further reforms in that regard in our small business strategy, which we will publish later this year.
Since I took office, I have been in engaging with the industry-led Retail Sector Council, which is a collaborative forum made up of widely experienced senior figures from across all parts of the retail industry, helping us and indeed other Government Departments to think through the challenges facing the retail sector. One of those big challenges is about how we tackle retail crime.
Shop theft continues to increase at an unacceptable level, with more and more offenders using violence and abuse against shop workers. Recent figures from the British Retail Consortium’s annual crime survey show that violent and abusive incidents were up by more than 50% last year, and retailers are reporting 55,000 thefts a day. That is why clamping down on that behaviour is one of the first steps that we are taking to deliver safer communities, including delivering on a specific commitment for a new offence of assault on a shop worker. We are also ending the effective immunity that the previous Government granted to help stop theft of goods under £200.
We all know that retail businesses are hugely important to our constituents and to our high streets. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry for giving the House the opportunity to raise this important issue. I am happy to take up further specific concerns that any hon. Member has in this space.
Question put and agreed to.
(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. In the usual way, let me, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate.
We have heard a series of powerful speeches from Members from Northern Ireland and from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and some particularly strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). I note in passing that not one Conservative Back-Bench MP or Reform MP is present to champion rural areas. I gently say to the shadow Minister that if the previous Government had done a slightly better job, this debate would perhaps not be necessary.
I will address as many of the points that have been raised as I can, but let me first say this. It goes without saying that our high streets play a vital role in providing a place for communities to come together, work, socialise, shop and access essential services. I very much share the passion of Members across the Chamber for ensuring that all communities in rural areas have access to those services, wherever they are in the UK. Rural areas offer significant potential for economic growth. More than half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, and the rural economy contributes more than £315 billion a year in England alone. The Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, in part so that we can realise the full potential of rural businesses.
If a high street or town centre is to flourish, residents, businesses and councils must work together to develop their own unique offer for the high street that resonates with the local community. That is why this Government are focused on our five-point plan to breathe life back into Britain’s high streets: addressing antisocial behaviour and retail crime, reforming the business rates system, rolling out banking hubs, stamping out late payments, and empowering communities to make the most of the vacant properties with which rural communities, and indeed urban ones, are all too familiar. We have already made progress on that plan.
My Department is working with others across Government to ensure that we do all we can to create thriving high streets now and long into the future. Our small business strategy, which we will publish later this year, will set out further plans to support small businesses on the high street and beyond. We want to support efforts to ensure that all our high streets are places for our businesses, local people and visitors, creating jobs and economic growth wherever they are in the UK. When thinking about solutions to the future of the high street in rural areas and more generally, we need to recognise that no two high streets are the same, and that the way we live and work is evolving quickly.
A series of hon. Members raised the issue of high street banks and branch closures. The UK branch network is now below 5,000—half what it was in 2015—and although the banks point to the increasing use of digital channels for day-to-day banking, access to cash and in-person banking services are still essential for many, not least the elderly and the vulnerable, who often need face-to-face engagement to get their banking sorted.
I commend the Minister for his response. My constituency has lost the most banks—I think we have lost 12 over the years. It is obscene and immoral that the banks are making exorbitant profits, in the hundreds of millions, at the same time as they close branches and deny pensioners and vulnerable people the right to bank access. Has the Minister spoken to the banks about their immorality in relation to their profits, and their dedication and responsibility to vulnerable people?
We certainly want the banking industry to do more to work with us as a Government to ensure that there is much better access to financial services, in particular for small businesses. Too often, one of the big pressures facing small businesses is accessing the finance they need to expand and thrive. We know that good access to finance for small businesses is not universal; that is a challenge not only in rural areas, but more generally. We will continue to press the financial services industry generally, and banks specifically, in that space.
The Government have said that accessing physical banking services is important, which is why we are working closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs to provide people with critical cash and banking services on their doorstep. The hubs offer basic counter services, provided by post office staff, that allow people and businesses to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. Many hubs also have dedicated rooms where customers can see community bankers from their own banks to discuss things such as staying safe from fraud, adding a lasting power of attorney, making payments or registering for online banking.
Ystradgynlais is the biggest town in my constituency, and it has a catchment area of 24,000 people. People there tell me that they experience long waits when they go to use the post office, and that post office staff have lost cheques and made other errors that have created problems for local businesses. Does the Minister agree that a post office is no substitute for a functioning bank branch run by trained staff?
Having some Welsh blood, I am instinctively sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I would not put it in quite the way that he did, but if he and his constituents have concerns about the service that the post office provides in his constituency, I am happy to take those up. Perhaps outwith this debate, he might drop me a line or have a word; I am certainly willing to press the post office. I will come back to the question of post office banking services.
Just before Christmas, the Chancellor opened the 100th banking hub in Darwen in Lancashire. Out of the 100-plus that have now opened, 12 are located in Scotland, seven in Wales and five in Northern Ireland. This is just the start. I am pleased that Cash Access UK and LINK have announced that over 200 banking hub locations have been recommended, including a further four in Wales, one in Northern Ireland and 17 in Scotland. Among those will be a new banking hub in Wick, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I acknowledge his work and campaigning for the banking hub in Wick, which I hope goes some way to addressing the concerns in his constituency that he mentioned.
On the question of banking hubs, I should say that where they are located is determined independently by LINK, the operator of the largest ATM network in the UK. An access to cash review can be requested via its website, which also sets out the criteria it uses for considering locations for banking hubs. These include population size, whether other banks remain nearby, the number of small and medium-sized enterprises on the high street and public transport links, as well as the level of vulnerability in the community.
When it comes to big high street banks pressing ahead with closures, we expect all banking firms to follow closely the Financial Conduct Authority’s branch closure guidance in supporting their customers.
Will the Minister allow me to intervene?
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but he has only just rocked up to the debate, so if he will forgive me, on this occasion I will not give way. If there is a specific issue about which he wants to write to me, I would be happy to look at it.
Hon. Members will know that the FCA engages with banks and building societies to ensure that the impacts of branch closures on customers are properly considered. Where firms fall short, the FCA can and will ask for a closure to be paused or for other options to be put in place. Some banks also provide pop-up services, with a community banker visiting a library or a community centre to offer support where other options are not available. I understand that that has been the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross following the announcement of the closure of the Bank of Scotland branch in Golspie, and that Lloyds Banking Group will be providing a pop-up community banking service on a regular basis to support local people with banking services.
For a number of reasons, we are beginning to look at what else the Post Office can do to improve its banking offer, and I hope to say a little more about that in a moment. When the local high street bank closes, the alternative option for accessing everyday banking services in person is the post office. As our economy has modernised and evolved, so too have our local post offices. Today, they are much more than just a place to send letters and parcels. They increasingly act as basic high street banks, but also as access points for some Government services and, in many places, as community hubs for an array of different activities, generating tremendous social capital in our communities. So it is right that the Government hold the Post Office to account to ensure there is enough provision across the country. We protect the post office network by setting minimum access criteria. At all times, we want 99% of the UK population to live within three miles of a post office and 90% to live within one mile.
The Minister seems to be outlining very succinctly the failure of the banks to provide a service and the importance of post offices in providing services. I am struggling to understand why the Government are punishing the Post Office with national insurance contribution rises while maintaining the Tory tax cuts for the banks, so will the Minister explain why we are rewarding the people who are failing us and punishing those who will now provide this service to us?
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government had a very difficult fiscal inheritance and had to make some very tough choices in the Budget back in October.
We continue to provide a subsidy to the Post Office of some £50 million to ensure that the loss-making parts of the network can be maintained. Indeed, just before Christmas we provided a further £37.5 million to support the Post Office network this year. We are working with the senior leadership team at the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue while reducing its costs, as well as improving the service to all our constituents.
I heard the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, whose constituency includes Stornoway, about the future of the directly managed post office in his constituency. No decisions have been made on the future of all the directly managed branches, but I know he will continue to campaign on the issue.
We want our post offices to form part of healthy, bustling high streets. Like the post office itself, our high streets have had to adapt quickly to the post-covid economy. High streets have faced more than their fair share of challenges in recent years, in terms of vacancies opening up—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket referred to. That is why in December we brought forward new powers for councils, which can now force landlords to rent out unsightly, vacant, boarded-up properties via high street rental auctions. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable, giving local businesses and community groups a right to rent valuable space on their local high street. I welcome the fact that Bassetlaw, Darlington and Mansfield are already working with us as early adopters to help to learn how the new power can be used to make a difference.
We have also announced our intention to introduce a new community right to buy, empowering residents to address decline and protect valuable spaces such as pubs, theatres and cinemas, and thereby keeping those assets in the hands of the local community. We are investing in further initiatives to boost town and city centres, including by maintaining the high street accelerators that bring together the local community, businesses and property owners to work in partnership with their council to regenerate and revive local high streets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe referred to our work to improve and reform the business rates system. That was a key manifesto pledge that we are beginning to deliver on, with permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including those on the high street, from 2026-27. We have published a discussion paper to explore what else we can do in this space.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk referred to issues to do with digital connectivity. He will be pleased that we are committing over £500 million next year to deliver Project Gigabit and the shared rural network to roll out broadband and 4G connectivity, which will support growth in rural areas and beyond.
Digital connectivity is one consideration for rural communities but, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out, physical connectivity is another. For people in far-flung communities, especially those without a car or family living nearby, getting to the high street can be extremely difficult. We recognise that challenge and are responding in turn with more than £650 million for local transport outside city regions in 2025-26. The Department for Transport will say more about how that funding will be used shortly.
We are also providing more than £1 billion of funding to support and improve local bus services and keep fares affordable wherever we can. In December we introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill that will put control over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders right across England. It is intended to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities that rely on them.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and all Members who participated in this debate for their contributions. High streets are the beating heart of all our communities. The services they provide are essential for the people and businesses they serve. As a Minister with a key interest in this area, I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members to help to improve local high street services in their communities.
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsIn September 2024 the Secretary of State announced that the Government would be introducing an independent Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process. This will help ensure that all HSS claimants have the full opportunity to receive fair compensation and reflects a recommendation from the Horizon compensation advisory board.
During my December statement to the House, I promised that I would provide an update in the new year.
First, I can confirm that my Department is in the final stages of procuring a contract for its legal advisors on appeals cases, which will include an initial assessment of each postmaster’s case. We will also be appointing a separate firm as secretariat for the scheme’s independent panel and reviewer shortly, once the procurement process is complete.
My officials will shortly send to both appellants’ representatives and the advisory board a draft of detailed principles and guidance. These will ensure that the HSS appeals scheme is fit for purpose and provides a satisfactory outcome for affected postmasters, in line with the advisory board’s recommendation. They will also establish the eligibility criteria. We will continue to engage both groups on all aspects of the scheme.
I can also announce that this Government are committed to covering the reasonable costs of postmasters obtaining legal advice at each stage of the appeals process. As with appeals under the group litigation order and horizon convictions redress schemes, we will do this using a legal tariff. We strongly encourage potential appellants to take up this offer and only seek the advice of firms who have signed up to these tariffs. We are working with appellants’ legal representatives so that we can establish these tariffs as soon as possible.
Clarity about the principles of the scheme and our support for appellants’ legal costs will mean that legal representatives can begin to produce cases for appeal. We expect that the first cases will be ready for submission in the spring.
Eligible postmasters within Post Office’s HSS dispute resolution procedure will receive a letter in spring inviting them to transfer their case to HSS appeals. I will provide a further update to the House nearer to that time.
[HCWS399]
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberI echo the thanks to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this important debate. There have been some very clear and consistent messages from across the House to the Government in this debate, and I pay tribute to the passion with which hon. Members on all sides of the House have raised key constituency concerns, as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said.
We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) has particular concerns about Didsbury post office. We also heard from the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), and I know you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have concerns in this space, too.
Post offices provide hugely important everyday services to millions of people across our country. Communities rightly expect to have access to those essential services, just as they would to a GP surgery, a primary school or neighbourhood police. That is because, as many Members made clear, post offices are the very beating heart of our towns and villages.
As our economy has modernised and evolved, so too have our local post offices. Today they are so much more than a place to send letters and parcels. They act as high street banks, as many have said, as access points for some Government services, and as community hubs for an array of different activities, generating crucial social capital. Indeed, after the unearthing of the Horizon scandal, the nation’s unanimous support for sub-postmasters and their campaign for redress and exoneration shows how revered the post office and its workers are by the British public—by all of us.
We are working as fast as we can to give sub-postmasters the compensation they deserve, and we are indeed exploring what further steps we can take. But since the end of June, in just the six months that we have been in office, more than 1,000 more sub- postmasters who are victims of the scandal have received compensation. The amount paid out in redress has increased by over £355 million, more than double the amount that had been paid out at the time of the general election. As of 3 January, almost £600 million had been paid to over 3,800 sub-postmasters across all four main compensation schemes. Also as of 3 January, the GLO—group litigation order—scheme had received 453 claims of which 370 are fully complete and the remaining 83 are being assessed for their completeness or undergoing a request for further information that would unlock a more generous offer of compensation. We expect then to have paid substantial redress, even if the claims are not fully settled, to the majority of GLO claimants by 31 March. But let me be clear: there are still complex cases to resolve and there is still much more to do in terms of compensation.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire, speaking for the Opposition, asked about Capture. We have identified a number of gaps in the compensation process. We published in particular the Kroll report into what had happened in terms of the Post Office use of the Capture software prior to the installation of the Horizon system. We are beginning to talk to sub-postmasters who used the Capture software about redress going forward so that we can design an effective redress scheme. The hon. Lady and the House may be aware that there are a number of cases where there were convictions that appear to relate to use of the Capture software by the Post Office that are with the Criminal Cases Review Commission at the moment.
The hon. Lady also asked about the timing of when we might hear the Sir Wyn Williams conclusions. As she will understand, we as the Government do not want in any way to be seen to be rushing Sir Wyn Williams. We have heard a similar timescale as her—sometime later this year—and we will all wait with considerable interest for the conclusions.
The hon. Lady also asked about the Ofcom consultation. I stress that it is still a consultation. Ofcom will be consulting for some 10 weeks and, as she would expect, we will be fully engaged in that process.
On the future of the post office, we all know that our high streets have faced huge challenges in recent years. In some cases, the presence of a post office on a high street has been a game changer in driving footfall and attracting custom to other businesses. The public—as many Members have alluded to, it is often the elderly, those who use cash and those who are digitally excluded—rely on the post office for essential services. It is therefore right that the Government hold the Post Office to account to ensure that there is enough postal service provision across the country, and I recognise my particular responsibility in that regard.
We protect the post office network by setting minimum access criteria. With a network of this size, we are likely to see fluctuation in the number of branches open at any one time, but crucially, the access criteria ensure that regardless of how the network changes, services remain within local reach of people at all times. The Government recognise the key role that post offices play in their communities and how branches in rural areas in particular often act as community hubs. We are listening carefully to stakeholders to ensure that the whole network, including those branches, is sustainable.
Does the Minister agree that the manner in which the Post Office allowed the information about the closure of directly managed branches to come into the public domain was unacceptable? What is he doing to ensure that the Post Office treats communities with better respect than that in the future?
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are where we are, and it is important that we move forward. I will come to the question of directly managed branches in a second.
To ensure that we are planning properly for the future, we will publish a Green Paper before the summer to seek the public’s views, insights and experiences to help shape the future of the Post Office. In the meantime, we are taking steps to continue to support the network. Along with the annual £50 million subsidy, we have provided a further £37.5 million to support the Post Office network next year.
Our thinking on the future of the post office will also be influenced by Sir Wyn Williams’s conclusions. We continue to support and encourage the chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, to shift the focus of the Post Office away from headquarters and towards postmasters. The Post Office, with our support, is reviewing its costs, as its financial position continues to be challenging. We are working with the senior leadership at the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue going forward. The Post Office has set up a new consultative council that will work with senior management on how these new plans are taken forward. It is a first, but none the less important step to change the culture of the Post Office.
Building a sustainable future for the Post Office is imperative. It has had many false new starts. Nearly half of its branches are not profitable or make only a small profit from post office business. Postmaster pay has not increased materially for a decade. Mr Railton is looking to deliver a reduction in the Post Office’s costs and, as I have alluded to, an increase in its commercial revenues. He has also set out an intention to transform the service and the support that postmasters receive from the Post Office, which we have strongly encouraged. He has announced ambitions for a new deal for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office recently made a £20 million immediate one-off payment to postmasters to increase their remuneration.
On the future of directly managed branches, I appreciate that it is challenging for communities that lose their post office service. I speak from experience, having had Harrow’s directly managed branch close in 2016 and transfer to a franchise service instead. I am always happy to challenge the Post Office on specific concerns that Members have at constituency level. However, the Post Office operates as a commercial business, and the company has the freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters we set.
I know there is concern about the future of DMBs, and it is important to underline that no definitive decisions have been taken on the future of any individual directly managed branch. I have made clear to the Post Office that there must be discussions with unions and other key stakeholders. I am pleased to hear that the Post Office has seen positive engagement from independent postmasters and strategic partners, who have expressed their interest in taking on DMBs. It is encouraging that there continues to be such interest in the chance to run a post office.
I look forward to working with the Minister on the future of the franchise in my constituency. Is he aware that there were 373 Crown post offices in 2010 but that by 2024 that number had fallen to 115? The shadow Minister either did not know that figure or did not want to admit it.
Funnily enough, I am aware of that statistic; my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully.
We were clear in our manifesto that that we would seek to strengthen the Post Office network in consultation with postmasters, trade unions and customers, and that remains very much our ambition. That is one of the reasons why we are working closely with the Post Office in providing funding to support the replacement of the Horizon computer system. The Post Office’s future lies particularly in cash and banking. With the right support from the financial services industry and engagement with groups such as Cash Access UK, there is clearly more that the Post Office could offer on the high street through banking hubs and the Post Office network. We are beginning to work with the Post Office to improve its banking offer on the high street.
The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Post Office. It is a national asset that provides an invaluable public service in all our constituencies. There are certainly challenges ahead, but we continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that it is fit for the future. We always welcome views on the network. I thank those hon. Members who secured the debate and all other hon. Members for their contributions.
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberSmall businesses are critical to our economy and to the future of all our communities. We will bring forward our small business strategy later this year to improve the environment for small businesses to grow. As part of that work, we are consulting widely with small businesses and other stakeholders on the design of the business growth service, which we will launch later this year.
Before Christmas, I was pleased to meet some of the many microbusinesses operating in Osset and Denby Dale. They told me that they previously felt that they had fallen through the cracks of Government policy and economic ambition. How will the Minister’s business growth service assist those microbusinesses, as well as broader measures that the Government are taking to help smaller organisations to grow?
I commend my hon. Friend on her support for the microbusinesses in her constituency. We want to get behind all those who are willing to take the risk to set up their own business. They help to make our communities more vibrant, they create jobs, and they generate the tax revenues that make our country stronger. The business growth service will be designed to get businesses quicker access to the support they need from the Government, such as applying for a start-up loan, access to training and management support and help with exports.
I thank the Minister for his positive response to that question. In Strangford, small businesses are the backbone of the community, and many people in those businesses work from home. The business growth policy may be specific to England, but what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Business and Trade in Northern Ireland to ensure that we benefit?
The hon. Gentleman has always been a great champion of small businesses in his constituency and in Northern Ireland more generally. We want the business growth service to complement the support that the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments already give their businesses, to improve the quality of advice and support available to all businesses in all parts of the UK.
We are continuing to work with colleagues across Government to develop a programme that will revitalise the nation’s high streets and support businesses. We will publish a small business strategy later this year, and high streets will be a key pillar of that. We have already committed to continuing funding for business growth programmes such as the growth hub network and announced plans for a new business growth service.
Yesterday, Bromsgrove received the devastating news that it is about to lose both its Lloyds and Halifax bank branches in the town centre. Those banks are a lifeline to many small businesses, particularly those run by independent small entrepreneurs, as well as many residents who use their banking facilities on probably a weekly or daily basis. Does the Minister agree that banking hubs can be part of an ongoing solution to retain banking services in our towns? Will he support my campaign for a banking hub in Bromsgrove? Will he meet me to make that a reality?
I recognise that there will be a lot of concern in the hon. Member’s constituency following that news yesterday. I agree that banking hubs can make a significant difference, which is why we have been quick to roll out more than 100 of them. Plans for another 76 have already been developed and we are committed to rolling out 350 in total. In the spirit of one Thomas trying to help another Thomas, I am happy to meet him.
Our small businesses are the lifeblood of our high street and often give young students their first opportunity for a job on a Saturday or in the holidays. However, one of my local small business owners says that she can no longer afford such roles because of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and changes to business rates, among other things. What will the Government do to support our young people into jobs when small businesses are left in that awful position?
The hon. Lady might want to check again with the business she refers to, because, in the most recent Budget, the employment allowance was raised to some £10,500, which will help every small employer’s national insurance bill every year, and should ensure that more than 1 million firms benefit. That is a very practical measure; more broadly, on the point about national insurance contributions, she will know that Labour inherited a very difficult financial situation because of mistakes made by the Conservatives, and difficult decisions have had to be taken.
Small local businesses in Grangemouth such as pubs, restaurants, cafes, hairdressers and garages all rely on the custom that they receive from the workers of the Grangemouth refinery, but the Government have been very passive in allowing the refinery to close, thus impoverishing the local community. What message do the Government have, first for the refinery workers who face redundancy, and secondly for the small local businesses that rely on their custom?
In her speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a series of measures that the Government want to take to boost growth across the country and benefit every part of the UK, from investing in modern road and rail systems to expanding airport capacity, rebalancing the planning system and driving investment in cheaper renewable energy, and by creating a national wealth fund that can back the new technologies of the future. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specific concerns he has mentioned, if he thinks that would be useful.
Falkirk High Street is the beating heart of our district, with recent additions including Barracuda chippy, El Toro Gaucho steakhouse, Greek Theory restaurant and Rock Bottom beer hall. Many Falkirk town centre businesses still raise with me the hardship they have faced because of cost rises and utility, rent and parking increases over a number of years, as well as rental value threshold changes by the Scottish Government, which have contributed to decreased footfall and failing business over a number of years. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to shifting the burden away from the high street, will the Minister outline what further steps he is taking to support my high street, and what engagement he has had with the Scottish Government to support shifting the rate burden away from Falkirk High Street taxpayers?
I referred to the establishment of the business growth service in answer to an earlier question. We are working with the Scottish Government to begin to think through how that service can support businesses in Scotland and complement the support already provided by the Scottish Government. We are clear on the need to reform business rates to support retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend if he thinks there are further initiatives we can take to help small businesses in Falkirk.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
R Young Art Gallery is the last art gallery in Wokingham town centre and a proud feature of our high street. However, political inactivity on business rates reform means that it is on the precipice of closing. I was shocked to learn that it is the impending cuts to business rate relief, with no measures in the short term to provide financial support, that have led the owner to fear for the survival of his business. High streets across the country continue to struggle. What is the Minister doing to ensure that small, independent businesses such as R Young Art Gallery are supported?
One reason why the Conservatives lost the confidence of the British business community was that despite repeated promises to reform business rates, they took no steps to do so. We announced plans in the Budget, back in October, to reform business rates and introduce permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Conservatives were going to end business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure; we have chosen to extend it. We also announced in the Budget that we were looking at what further steps we could take on business rates reform.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said only yesterday, we are driving forward planning reforms, boosting capital investment by over £100 billion over the next five years, and creating the national wealth fund. We are launching the business growth service and will soon publish our modern industrial strategy, which will be unreservedly pro-business. Business leaders, not surprisingly, have backed those measures.
But the Minister will be aware that in the last few weeks the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the London chamber of commerce have all said that business confidence is plummeting. Given the tsunami of national insurance contribution increases, business rates increases and employment cost rises, is it not hardly surprising that confidence is being destroyed? Are the Government, rather than promoting growth, not actually destroying it?
I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to check his sources for comments from business leaders. Only yesterday the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses were making very positive comments about our plans for growth, and last week, interestingly, PwC published its annual survey of global CEOs to reveal that Britain was the second most attractive country in the world in which to invest. That is something that I do not think the party opposite ever achieved.
Business confidence increases when businesses know that they have the skilled workforce they need in order to grow. We have just had Nuclear Week in Parliament, and it was a pleasure to host Rolls-Royce and its apprentices. Its nuclear skills academy is providing a pipeline of talent, and the same is needed across other industries—from technical skills to creative skills, and from multinationals to small businesses. What cross-departmental discussions have Ministers had about helping businesses of all sizes to provide skills opportunities for our future workforce?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her support for Rolls-Royce, which is one of our great British companies leading the way in many export markets across the world. Only yesterday I was discussing with the Minister for Skills our plans to reform the growth and skills levy to make it easier for businesses such as Rolls-Royce to recruit apprentices and find the talent that they need to continue to be successful.
I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
When consumer confidence is low, business confidence is low, and nowhere is that more visible than in our automotive sector, with UK car production slumping to its lowest level since 1954. Autocar magazine warned today that the zero emission vehicle mandate
“is currently the industry’s biggest headache, as…consumer demand is not there to meet the stringent regulations which are increasing each year.”
When policy fails, it is sensible to admit it and change course. Will the Minister accept that the ZEV mandate flies in the face of what consumers actually want, and that a radically different path is required to boost business confidence in our automotive sector?
No, I do not accept that, and I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy to which he has referred was introduced by his party. I recognise that there are many aspects of the Conservative party’s record about which he and his colleagues are probably embarrassed. The Liz Truss Budget—which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), helped to write—did huge damage to our country and to consumer confidence. The measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday, for example, will drive growth forward, and that is one of the reasons why businesses backed them so strongly yesterday.
It normally takes longer than six months for a Government to drift that far from reality. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has predicted that just 775,000 cars will roll off production lines in 2025, compared to 1.3 million in 2019. Today’s edition of The Telegraph reports:
“The slump has been accelerated by a slowdown in demand across Europe, particularly by drivers shunning new electric vehicles”.
Why does the Minister persist in a policy to undermine our automotive businesses by forcing them to make a product that people just do not want to buy? Is it not time to get the state out of the way, let our innovators innovate, and boost automotive businesses’ confidence by letting them deliver to actual consumer demand?
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the extra investment that Nissan has announced, and the extra investment that has been announced by a number of other car manufacturers. He and his colleagues were very clear in opposing the measures that we took in the Budget, including measures that backed investment in the automotive sector, and they set out no plans to pay for that investment. I gently encourage him to reflect a little further on the mistakes that his party made in government, which have caused some of the problems that we are having to sort out now.
The Post Office has the freedom to operate the branch network within the parameters set by the Government. We protect the network by setting minimum access criteria so that, in urban and rural areas, everyone has easy access to their nearest post office. Those criteria ensure that however the network changes, services remain within local reach of all citizens.
The community of Plymstock in my constituency saw its main post office close in September 2021, when Morrisons closed more than 80 of its newsagents across the country; the post offices were essentially collateral damage. Despite the best efforts of the community, my predecessor and councillors—including me, at the time—since the Post Office has downgraded the franchise on offer from main branch to post office local, it has been impossible to secure an operator due to the financial unviability of the model. Yesterday, the final local branch announced that it will close later in the year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that sustainable joint post office and banking services replace closing branches in constituencies like mine?
We have supported the Post Office in taking measures to increase sub-postmaster pay, to make it a more attractive profession to come into, in order to deal with precisely the issues that the hon. Member set out. She will understand that I do not have specific knowledge of the issues around the post office in her constituency, but I am always happy to challenge the Post Office on constituency issues, so if she would like to write or speak to me about this afterwards, I would be happy to look at the issue in more detail.
As the Chancellor announced yesterday, the Secretary of State will travel to Delhi in February to relaunch trade talks with India. Work is under way across Government to prepare for those negotiations as we seek a deal that drives economic growth. An agreement with India, projected to be the fourth-largest global importer by 2035, could provide further opportunities for businesses across the UK and further unlock growth.
I thank my constituency neighbour for that update. The previous Government had more than 15 rounds of trade talks with India before the general election, in both India and the UK. Will the Government ensure that we in the UK gain access to the services market in India, which has previously been denied to UK firms? That is the key issue in our negotiations.
If I remember rightly, the hon. Member and I were probably the two most enthusiastic Members of this House for a trade deal with India—me slightly more than him, I think. We are determined to do everything we can to secure a trade deal with India. He will forgive me, I am sure, if I do not give a running commentary on our priorities for those trade talks with India, but they represent a significant prize for the UK if we can reach an agreement. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security are determined to work extremely hard and do everything they can to reach an agreement.
Although it is appreciated that a new trade deal with India could support jobs and prosperity in the UK and thus drive growth, will the Minister ensure that the talks include discussion of an agreement to the immediate release of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal from arbitrary detention in India before any trade deal is concluded?
I recognise that this is a significant issue for my hon. Friend. We remain committed to encouraging the Government of India to make faster progress on resolving this case. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister raised this case with Prime Minister Modi on 18 November, and we have made clear the need for faster progress towards a resolution.
The Government continue to support entrepreneurs through, for example, start-up loans via the British Business Bank. We will publish our small business strategy later this year, which will signal a clear, overarching ambition to promote entrepreneurship, and will articulate a new vision for business support, built around the new business growth service that I have alluded to.
Economies grow and jobs are created when individuals are able to take risks and invest in their ideas, so what have the Government done specifically since the general election to help more people in my constituency of Broxbourne become entrepreneurs?
One thing we need to continue to do is make it easier for entrepreneurs in the hon. Member’s constituency and across the UK to access the finance that they need to set up their business. We have given an extra £250 million to the British Business Bank, which will help to ensure that more people have access to finance across the country, including in his constituency. We will publish our small business strategy later this year, in which he will see further measures to support entrepreneurs in Broxbourne and across the UK.
What specific support is being provided for women entrepreneurs? They are the driving force behind small businesses in my Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency, and deserve all the support that they can get.
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s substantive point. We are backing the Invest in Women taskforce, which was set up to increase the number of female-powered businesses. We are looking at how to increase significantly the proportion of investment going to all-female founding teams; it has been stuck at just 2% of equity investment in the last decade. That is one example of the things we need to change to help women-led businesses realise their full potential.
I commend Charlotte on her business. We recognise that we need to do more to help businesses like hers to be able to export more easily to Europe. That is why the Prime Minister has set out our determination to reset the relationship with Europe. We have made clear our plans to negotiate a phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which may or may not make an immediate difference for Charlotte, but there are other aspects of our plans to reset the relationship with Europe that I hope will help.
Yesterday, out of the blue, Bank of Scotland announced that it will close five branches in my constituency, leaving hundreds of square miles of the rural south of Scotland without a single bank branch. While we must work with Link and others to ensure access to cash in those communities, does the Minister share my concern not only that this will leave empty premises prominent on the high street, but that it sends a message that the banks are giving up on rural areas and on those who do not bank online?
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be concerned about the Bank of Scotland’s decision. He may know that more than 9,500 bank branches closed between 2010 and 2023. That is why the Government are determined to ensure the much more widespread roll-out of banking hubs, with a commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs. I strongly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he get in contact with Link and Cash Access UK to make the case for a banking hub in his constituency. If I can help in any way, I will be happy to consider doing so.
Our precious high street in Eastbourne is blighted by the dilapidated Debenhams building on Terminus Road, whose owner has left it empty for years, attracting antisocial behaviour and crime. Will the Minister meet me or support me to meet his colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Eastbourne borough council to discuss how we can use the new high street rental auction powers to force the owner to make that unit occupied again, so that we can regenerate our high street in the sunniest town in the UK?
I have already met the hon. Gentleman to discuss some of the issues facing the high streets in his constituency. If he thinks I am the most appropriate Minister for that discussion, I am happy to make sure that it happens. He may actually want to discuss this particular issue with colleagues in MHCLG, whose attention I will draw to the question, because they and their officials are working much more closely on the implementation of the powers he mentions.
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesI beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 7 October 2024. By way of introduction, let me explain that the regulations seek to amend the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) Regulations 2017. Let me give a bit of context to the issue. Prompt and fair payment has long been an issue in the construction sector and particularly affects small businesses in the supply chain. Holding what is known as retention money is a long established construction contractual practice intended to provide security against defective work or the insolvency of the subcontractor supplier. However, it can operate unfairly against smaller suppliers who can feel unable to question or to challenge how the practice is applied.
A retention clause allows the employer to deduct and retain a proportion of the value of the contract otherwise owed to the supplier until particular contractual conditions are met. Typically, 3% to 5% is held over the duration of the project and for a period post completion. The use of retention clauses in construction contracts can be particularly problematic to the supply chain due to late, partial or non-payment of retentions, or these being permanently lost through upstream insolvencies.
There has been an attempt to deal with this issue. Not everything the previous Government did was entirely wrong. This is one of those rare exceptions where the Government recognised that there was a problem in this space and were intending to introduce this regulation until the general election was called. Recognising the good intent behind this particular proposal, we have sought to lay it before the House again, and this is the result. What is not in the existing regulations, as they stand at the moment, is the requirement for specific reporting relating to retentions that are held under construction contracts, and this SI seeks to put that right. It will bring greater transparency in relation to the retention policies, practices, and performance of larger businesses that have construction contracts.
In the first instance, reporting will require a statement on whether the company's payment practices and policies include or do not include retention clause. Where a company makes a statement that retention clauses are included in its construction contracts, further information must be submitted. Details will be required on whether retention clauses are included in all its construction contracts, whether the company’s standard payment terms include retention clauses, or whether retention clauses are used only in specific circumstances, which it would need to describe. Details would also be required on whether there is a contract value under which no retention clause is included, and that value, whether there is a standard rate of retention applied and that rate, whether there is a practice of using retention clauses that is no more onerous than those that businesses upstream are subject to, and whether there is a description on the process for the release of the retentions that are held.
Two specific metrics will also be required: the percentage ratio of the amount of retention that is withheld from the company by its clients, which the company holds back from its suppliers, and the percentage ratio of the amount of retention that the company withheld from the total value of payments made to suppliers as a proportion of the amount paid to suppliers during the reporting period. Those metrics will help to provide smaller firms with better information about a large business’s retention payment practices, and by doing so, incentivise large businesses to improve those practices.
In conclusion, this is a measure that will provide small firms in the construction supply chain with information that will enable them to take decisions about entering into contracts and to understand how to ensure that retentions owed to them are paid. It will also create a clear incentive for firms to improve their payment performance in relation in relation to retentions. The Government are looking at the whole practice of late payment in in general terms. We have announced our intention to consult more broadly on what further measures we can bring in to tackle the problems around late payment, but this SI stands alone as a useful measure, and I commend it to the Committee.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for West Worcestershire and for St Albans for their questions. On the question of the prosecution of firms, as I think I alluded to in my opening remarks, regulations on reporting did come into force back in 2017. To be blunt and to be candid in this forum, there has not been much enforcement of those regulations. We are seeking to put that right, and have written to over 500 firms who have not been complying with those regulations. There has not been a prosecution as yet, because we are still within the period that we want to give firms the chance to comply. If there is a refusal to comply, prosecution can take place, with potentially unlimited fines for non-compliance. Obviously, I very much hope we do not get to that to that stage, and that firms do respond appropriately to the correspondence from my officials to those firms who have not currently complied.
I cannot give the hon. Member for West Worcestershire a specific breakdown of which sector of the construction industry were opposed to this regulation. All I would say is that there was a very strong balance in the consultation responses that were presented to the last Government, as I understand it, in favour of the approach that we are taking now. On that basis, and as a result of conversations we have had since we got into government, we believe the measures are appropriate. That comes on perhaps to one of the issues that the hon. Member for St Albans raised about what happens if this does not lead to the to the outcomes that we want. Our sense is that it will work, that creating incentives has been shown to work to date. Build UK, which is a fairly representative organisation for the construction industry, has benchmarked construction businesses on their payment performance since 2018. Its work shows a significant improvement in terms of payment, and we hope a similar level of improvement will be achieved by the requirements in this SI. Under the regulations, we have the opportunity to come back if loopholes are spotted, and we will obviously keep that in mind and see how things develop.
More broadly speaking, the second question from the hon. Member for St Albans alluded to what else we are doing in the late payment space—a question that was touched on also by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. We are getting ready to consult on a package of further legislative measures around payment practices. We are not quite ready to do it now, so I cannot tell the House that, but we will bring forward proposals shortly, and obviously the House will be informed at the appropriate time. We recognise this is a huge issue for small businesses. It has led, in many cases, to small businesses going bust and is a huge waste of time in terms of the productivity of small businesses having to chase late payments. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWith your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to provide an update to the House about the Government’s Post Office redress schemes and funding.
No one in this House—no one in this country—will have failed to be moved by the plight of postmasters caught up in the Horizon scandal. The fact that they suffered so much over so many years is both unconscionable and inexcusable. The Government are determined to do right by them and to learn from the mistakes of the past. That is why, before the election in July, we promised to ensure swift and fair redress for postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal and, in the past five months, we have made significant progress.
To date, compensation has more than doubled since the Government took office, with £499 million paid to 3,300 victims. Of that amount, £79 million has been paid to 232 people from the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which we set up in July. As of 29 November, the Ministry of Justice had notified more than 520 people in England and Wales that their convictions have been quashed by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024. The relevant justice authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are also continuing to notify individuals within their jurisdictions.
While the progress we have made is positive, we know there are still complex cases to resolve, and we need to speed up other parts of the redress process. Many postmasters are still yet to be compensated or have their cases reconsidered. I am conscious that for the victims of the Horizon scandal, justice delayed is justice denied, and that our responsibility in Government is to work to make the compensation process as effective as possible. That is why we have asked the Post Office to write to over 16,000 former postmasters, encouraging them to come forward if they believe they have a genuine claim. I can confirm those letters have been sent. We want to ensure that every postmaster who is eligible for redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme has the opportunity to apply for it.
On more complex cases, notably in the group litigation order and the Horizon convictions redress scheme, for which my department is, and should be seen to be, directly responsible, we have agreed a new target for 90% of challenge cases in the GLO and HCRS to receive a substantive response within 40 days. We have moved in additional staff, and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, who is already assisting us with the overturned conviction cases, has been appointed chair of the independent panel for the HCRS.
We are looking again at the arguments for providing additional redress to postmaster family members who were affected by the scandal, and to the employees of postmasters. I will report back to the House on that in due course. The Horizon compensation advisory board recommended the establishment of an appeals process for the Horizon shortfall scheme that is independent of the Post Office and Government, and we accepted that recommendation in September. We are in the process of assembling a team of independent external lawyers to help deliver the appeals process. We expect that contract to be awarded in January. I will be able to provide a further update on the appeals process early in the new year.
There are still concerns about the responsibility of the Post Office to deliver the Horizon shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. The Government are considering the merits of my Department taking over that responsibility, but the benefits of such a move must clearly outweigh the potential disruption. We are carefully considering what intervention we may take.
Thanks to a small group of postmasters and their families coming forward this year, as well as to parliamentarians including Lord Beamish, we now know that issues at the Post Office went beyond Horizon, and that some postmasters may have been affected by earlier systems such as Capture. The Government have responded with swift, significant action. The Kroll investigation published its report into Capture on 30 September, with a further addendum made on 18 October. From that report we have concluded that there are postmasters who may have fallen victim to flaws in Capture software.
Most of us will not be able to comprehend fully what it was like to be accused of mistakes never made, ill intent never harboured and crimes never committed. Some postmasters have told us that, like victims of the Horizon scandal, they were shunned by their local communities—by their customers, friends and neighbours. I speak on behalf of the whole Government in expressing how sorry I am for what those postmasters and their families have gone through. For that and all they were forced to endure, they deserve not just redress but the restoration of their good names.
Uncovering exactly what happened in each case will be a challenging exercise given the passage of time and the lack of records and evidence. However, we are keen to apply the lessons that we have learned from previous redress schemes, and to take account of the needs of this group of victims. The Government will develop our proposals through engagement with postmasters and other key stakeholders, such as the Horizon compensation advisory board and legal experts. Over the coming months, we want to determine the scope of the financial redress and the eligibility criteria, so that we can bring both redress and closure to the impacted postmasters and their families. I expect to provide a further update to the House on that matter in the spring.
Next year, we also expect to receive Sir Wyn Williams’s report. The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry has reviewed the oral evidence that was submitted to it over the course of the last two years. I am thankful to Sir Wyn Williams for his excellent chairing of the inquiry, which closed yesterday. I am also thankful to the Horizon compensation advisory board for the report that it published earlier this year. In case Members are not aware, the board is recommending that a new independent body be set up to deliver any future redress schemes on behalf of the Government, as well as to act in a role similar to that of an ombudsman. The goal is, of course, to reduce the chances of future scandals—or at least to expose them more quickly.
The Government welcome those recommendations. Any recommendation that might prevent harm, or at least help the Government be more responsive to it, is worthy of serious consideration. The potential impact of such a body would be wide ranging, with potential implications for existing redress schemes in the NHS, which need to be considered alongside other issues. We will therefore take time to consult and consider in particular the view of the Williams inquiry before reaching a conclusion. We intend to give a full response within six months of the publication of the Williams inquiry report.
For too long, decisions about the future of the Post Office have been put off. That neglect has allowed significant issues at the heart of the company to grow and take root. As previously set out, we will publish a Green Paper in the first half of next year to seek the public’s views, insights and experiences to help shape the future of the Post Office. In the meantime, we are taking steps to continue to support the post office network and the important services it provides. I can announce that we are providing a further £37.5 million to subsidise the post office network this year. The interim chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, is rightly shifting the focus of the business from headquarters to postmasters; the Post Office is also reviewing its costs, as its financial position continues to be challenging. He has announced ambitions for a new deal for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office is going to make an immediate one-off payment to postmasters to increase their remuneration, in recognition of the pressures that postmasters face. That payment is expected to be delivered this month.
We are working with the senior leadership of the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue and reduce its costs in communities across the UK. Together, we hope these steps will enable the Post Office to move forward, working better with its postmasters and better serving the needs of its customers. This Government are attempting to fix the foundations, deal with the injustices of the past, and invest in a different future for the Post Office so that it can sit at the heart of our communities as a trusted institution once more. I commend this statement to the House.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
As shadow Secretary of State, I can say on behalf of every Conservative Member that we are committed to working collaboratively with the Government to deliver the appropriate redress to all those affected by the Horizon scandal and any issues relating to the Capture software. Many of the actions on which the Minister has updated the House were initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). As my hon. Friend has said, Ministers will have our full support in the swift delivery of redress and the overturning of the convictions of those affected by this wide-ranging scandal. The Conservative party welcomes the redress schemes that have been implemented to remedy the gross miscarriages of justice that have affected hundreds of families across the country. Our only focus now must be on processing claims to get those schemes completed as quickly as possible.
There remain a number of questions following the Minister’s statement that I would be grateful if he would clarify. I understand that the Kroll report did not publish any conclusions about the safety of criminal convictions. The Horizon advisory group had already recommended that the Government introduce legislation to overturn the convictions of postmasters who fell victim to the Capture scheme. I read that the Government have deferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on that matter. Could the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with the CCRC in relation to the process of overturning convictions?
The redress that the Minister has announced is welcome news, but there remains a lack of specific detail on how the affected parties can expect progress. Will he set out a timeline for the redress of postmasters affected by Capture? He said that he has instructed the Post Office to write to 16,000 potentially affected former postmasters, urging them to come forward if they believe they have a claim to make, and that those letters have been sent. Can he confirm when they were sent?
Is the Minister able to provide an update on his conversations with Fujitsu? How much has Fujitsu contributed to date? What meetings has he had, and where are we on that important aspect of this process? It was concerning to learn back in September that only a small handful of claims had been offered redress through the Horizon convictions redress scheme and, at that point, no full and final settlements had been made through that scheme. Could the Minister reassure the House that the Government are not just opening the door to those claims, but managing the process of getting them heard, resolved, and ultimately redressed? I was pleased to hear that additional staff have been seconded to facilitate the compensation scheme—I welcome that and thank the Minister—but can he confirm how many have been seconded and from where, and can he give the House an assurance that they will remain seconded for as long as is necessary?
Finally, we welcome the Government’s announcement of £37.5 million of network subsidy. It was announced in yesterday’s written ministerial statement, and it is indeed welcome news. The Minister said that it is for this year, so would he clarify whether that relates to the period up until the end of March 2025? What certainty is there of funding beyond that period so that we can all proceed on a sustainable footing? Is it only for this year, or does it also cover the fiscal year 2025-26?
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his willingness to work with us collaboratively on providing redress not only to the victims of the Horizon scandal, but to the victims of the Capture software issues.
The shadow Secretary of State referenced the Kroll report. As he and, I suspect, other Members of the House who have followed this issue closely will be aware, Kroll did not take a specific view on convictions. We are aware that a small number of sub-postmasters—those who believed they were victims of using the Capture software, given the shortfalls it generated and the way they were treated by the Post Office as a result—have referred their claims to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to work at speed to review what evidence it can provide to the CCRC to help it make decisions on the safety of those convictions. Similarly, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at a number of cases, and we have similarly instructed the Post Office to co-operate with it as quickly as it can.
On Capture redress, yesterday we met sub-postmasters who have campaigned on Capture, and indeed Lord Beamish, to update them on the steps we will take. We will work at pace. As I said in my statement, we face a significant challenge with the amount of evidence available. For example, no central record has as yet been found of the number of Capture users or of who they were. We are nevertheless going to be working to design a redress scheme. We will consult sub-postmasters and the Horizon compensation advisory board. As I have said, I will bring forward an update on where we have got to by next spring.
On the 16,000 letters that the Post Office has sent out, I can confirm that they have gone out very recently—the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not have the exact dates. He rightly aired again the concern about the responsibility of Fujitsu, which is felt across the House. I am sure that he will recognise that we need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry to report, to give us a better understanding of the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibilities and, therefore, its potential liabilities. We have said that we will respond to the inquiry’s recommendations at pace, and certainly within six months. I am sure that he will opine on Fujitsu, and we will respond accordingly.
On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), and I had the pleasure of appearing before the Business and Trade Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), to update it on progress in overturning the convictions following the legislation last summer. She committed the Ministry to completing its work of assessing the cases by the end of January, and I understand that it still intends to do so. We have already paid out some £79 million as part of our responsibilities to provide redress to those whose convictions were overturned.
Lastly, on the network subsidy uplift, the shadow Secretary of State will understand that the money is just for this year. Spending review discussions are taking place across Government, and the Post Office is an active part of those discussions.
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend that the first report of his Committee has looked at the Post Office redress schemes. He will know that progress has been made, but as I alluded to in my opening statement, we recognise that there is still significantly more to do, particularly with the complex cases. Specifically on convictions and Capture, I have to tell the House that at this stage we do not know how many people were convicted as a result of the Capture software. We are aware of a small number of cases. As I have said, a number of cases are with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to review all its records—we know it has some records available for the 1991 to 1999 period—and to get what information it does have to those two bodies, so that they can opine as quickly as is feasible on the safety of those convictions. It is right that that is the first step we take. We will wait to see the judgment. In the meantime, we will get on with designing a redress scheme for all those who were not convicted but who suffered as a result of the Capture software.
I thank the Minister for sharing his statement in advance.
Honest, hard-working people had their lives totally wrecked by this scandal, and it is a great shame that it happened over a number of years, and that there was dither and delay over it for far too many years. I welcome the steps that he has outlined this afternoon. I welcome the suggestions made to him about an independent body for compensation. However, this scandal must never happen again. One way this Chamber could ensure that is the case is by having a duty of candour on officials, as the Liberal Democrats have called for. I hope he will give that serious consideration, to stop such a scandal ever happening again. Finally, there is a real opportunity, should the Government choose to take it, to set up an office for whistleblowers through the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently making its way through the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. In particular, I share his anger, and that of the whole House, at how sub-postmasters were treated, whether as victims of the Horizon scandal or of the Capture software issues, which was clearly appalling. We must do everything we can to ensure that can never be repeated. He will understand that yesterday was the last day of hearings in Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. Sir Wyn Williams has said that he will publish his conclusions and recommendations within months. The Government will then work at pace to consider his recommendations and to publish our response within six months of that date. The specific ideas that the hon. Gentleman has referenced in that context will, I am sure, be part of the Government’s deliberations. He will forgive me if I wait at this stage for Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations. We will then look at those recommendations and come to the House with the future steps we intend to take.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement on the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office. It is also welcome that the Government are taking additional steps towards financial redress for the postmasters who suffered such horrendous treatment in that scandal. I am concerned that this new deal for postmasters comes at the expense of post office branches across the country, including at Kensington Park in my constituency. Does he agree that there should not be a choice between giving postmasters a fair deal and losing essential high street services? Will he please meet me to discuss that further?
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recognise that post offices are a fundamental part of every one of our communities in the UK. That is one of the reasons why the Government have been clear that we adhere to and support the commitment on various access requirements to ensure that every community has good access to post office facilities. On directly managed branches, she will know that no decision on the future of all those branches, or indeed any individual branch, has been taken. I recognise that she has particular concerns about the branch in Kennington, and I am happy to meet her to discuss that.
I am glad that the Minister chose to reference the excellent work done on behalf of the postmasters by Lord Beamish, who is better known to many of us as our former colleague Kevan Jones. I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his appointment today as the new Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee—an appointment, by the way, by his fellow Committee members, which is exactly as it should be done.
May I gently ask the Minister—this may go slightly outwith his Department’s responsibilities—whether there is any news or progress about the question of prosecutions for criminal conspiracy? That is something I have raised before. That is one thing that might act as a deterrent to this sort of terrible behaviour by a gilded, self-selecting class of people who think that their institutional importance is greater than truth or justice.
I am certainly happy to echo the right hon. Member’s congratulations to the noble Lord Beamish and to emphasise again my appreciation for his work on championing the concerns of those who are victims of the Capture software. He is one of those whom we will continue to work with going forward as we put together redress and think about these issues more generally.
Specifically on prosecutions, the right hon. Member may be aware that the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it has established a unit and is looking at a number of issues to do with how the Post Office operated. He will understand that, quite rightly, Ministers are not involved in those decisions, but the information that I have set out is publicly available. We will obviously all have to wait to see what happens in that regard.
My hon. Friend rightly said that there is an urgent need to speed up the redress process. What we know is that while £500 million has been paid out in claims, £267 million has been spent on lawyers. Nigel Railton told us that between 80% and 85% of all claims are simple cases, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real opportunity to automate the process so that we handle claims far more quickly?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Specifically on what further action we can take to speed up the process, one of the reasons why we introduced a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 for those whose claims had been accepted as part of the Horizon shortfall scheme was deliberately to offer an option of faster redress for victims.
On the question of automation, we encouraged Nigel Railton and the senior leadership at the Post Office to look at what further steps they can take to speed up the consideration of claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme, where there is particular pressure given the numbers that are still coming forward. I welcome the fact that they are coming forward, but we need faster action to get through them and to support all those whose claims are being accepted to get redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme.
Recently I met a couple of constituents—Tony Hibberd, a former sub-postmaster, and Colin Chesterton, a solicitor who is representing him pro bono. During our meeting, they raised concerns about the delays and inadequacies of the Horizon shortfall scheme. My constituent has waited in excess of four years since his claim application and 14 years since he was forced to lose his livelihood. What percentage of the claimants to the Horizon shortfall scheme have received an interim payment, and what percentage have had their requests settled in full?
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of that case, I will happily look at where it is at. The Horizon shortfall scheme has been run by the Post Office for some time. Initially, it was closed and then it was reopened under pressure. All those who came forward in the initial tranche of claims have had them assessed and offers have been made. The majority of the compensation that was offered has been paid out. When the scheme was reopened, there was a substantial increase in the numbers of people applying for redress. Indeed, we are still seeing people coming forward now and we would expect, as a result of all the letters that we have asked the Post Office to send out to sub-postmasters who might have a claim, that there will be further substantial claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme. With the Post Office, we are looking at what more we can do to speed up the assessment of those claims.
The fixed sum payment that we announced in September of some £75,000, which sub-postmasters can choose to accept in full and final settlement of their claim, has been welcomed and accepted by a significant number of sub-postmasters. That is helping to speed up redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I accept that there is more to do, and we are looking at what else we can do in that regard.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the fact that he is putting more resources and manpower into processing people’s claims. But I wonder where the complexity of these claims is coming from. Are we asking for too much information from people in the first place? I watched the evidence of Sir Alan Bates at the Business and Trade Committee, and I have read some of the cases in the news. In one case, a person with breast cancer had their compensation reduced and I thought, hang on a minute, this may be going too far and is a bit churlish. Just how much information is being gone through in order to process these cases? I wonder if we may want to go back and look at that. I have spoken to the Minister about this, and I know that he wants to speed the process up as much as possible. Is it possible that we could streamline the process?
I have looked at this issue, which came up at the Select Committee. We write out to ask for further information in order to be able to justify the payment of more compensation, not to query the information that has been provided by sub-postmasters to date. To try to provide reassurance on that point, we are making that explicit in the letters that we send out to sub-postmasters. We are anxious to reduce the stress and concern and, essentially, the trauma that people have gone through already. We do not want that process to be repeated, if at all possible, during the compensation process. Asking for more information is designed to enable us to offer more and fairer compensation to the individuals concerned.
I am listening in detail about the processes you are going through looking for more information on Horizon. You have mentioned Capture, which goes back to 1992—30 years ago. You have mentioned a lack of information and that you are looking for more detail—
Bad habits—must get rid of them. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Capture system, which is more than 30 years old and had 19 different versions. We do not know who used it, and we do not know who has been convicted for it. The people who have been convicted are probably dying every other week just now. The Minister talks about working at pace, but can he make a flying sprint to get to those people urgently, to ensure that investigations are carried out and that compensation deserved is duly received?
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—it is something I feel acutely. I have met a number of the sub-postmasters who used the Capture software and were treated very badly as a result by the Post Office, so I am acutely conscious of our collective responsibility to those individuals and their families. Some of the sub-postmasters who used Capture software have already passed away, which only underlines the points he and I have made. I can assure the House that we will work at pace. We are working with the Post Office, and have asked the organisation to go through its records so that we can identify, inasmuch as we can, how many people were potentially victims of Capture. We are also supporting the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in looking at whether convictions are safe.
The devastating case of Susan Cain, the mother of my constituent Zoe Stokes, highlights the profound human cost of this scandal. Susan, who ran the post office in Hampton in Arden, was falsely accused of theft, and forced to sell her business and home in order to repay £25,000 to avoid prison. Tragically, she later died from emphysema, which medical evidence links to the immense stress that was caused by these false allegations. Despite her exoneration, her family have been offered just 40% of their claim, with the Post Office refusing to accept responsibility for her illness. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the compensation programme for families like Zoe’s is fair and transparent, and fully accounts for the harm caused by this scandal?
I commend my hon. Friend for championing the cause of the family of a sub-postmaster in his constituency. He will forgive me if I do not know the exact compensation scheme that his constituent applied to. However, in general, independent elements are built into each of the compensation schemes to try to ensure that as fair a sum of redress as possible is offered. On the Horizon shortfall scheme in particular, in September we committed to setting up an independent appeals process, and I hope to have more information for the House early next year. We are determined to establish that process to provide a further independent element for that particular scheme.
My constituent Donna is one of the 555. She was audited through Horizon, which found a loss of £186,000. An employee admitted fraud and was later imprisoned, but Donna was made bankrupt for the loss—for not just £186,000, but £250,000, which, of course, she could not pay. It was never challenged; we do not know whether the real amount was £180,000 or £180. She was awarded an interim payment, most of which was taken by the receivers. Now, the amount the receivers took has been taken from the final £75,000 fixed amount, and she has only been offered £20,000, despite losing everything. Will the Minister personally look at Donna’s case and ensure she gets proper redress for this obvious miscarriage of justice?
I would be very happy to receive further information from the hon. Lady, and I will endeavour to reply to her as quickly as I can. I recognise that there are concerns about the fairness of the compensation process. There are complex cases that are still to be settled. We are working at pace to ensure, where we can, that those cases are settled, particularly with regard to the GLO scheme. We have made it clear that for all the remaining cases that are with us by Christmas, we will be able to get substantial redress paid out to those individuals by the end of March. As I say, if she writes to me I will happily look at her letter.
It is known as the Horizon scandal, but the real scandal is not the failings of software but the action and deeds of individuals and institutions, as Sir Alan Bates said. In that light, I would include the misuse and potential abuse of private prosecutions. Will the Government commit to acting on that?
Yes. My hon. Friend raises a very good point. The Ministry of Justice has made clear its concern about this issue and is set to bring forward a consultation document early in the new year, I believe, to address exactly that concern.
I welcome the Minister’s statement, but does he recognise the frustration that many, many sub-postmasters still experience? We put legislation through this place months ago on the quashing of convictions. The compensation scheme has been in place for many years now, yet well over half of the individuals still have not had their cases dealt with. I met some of them when they came over for the inquiry a few weeks ago, and there is real fear among them that the Post Office is still in denial and is therefore still reluctant to proceed with these claims. Two people gave me examples. One has been asked for information that he does not have because the Post Office seized all the information. For the other, the delay is caused because she meticulously kept records and now the Post Office says it has so many records to go through that it will take some time. Does the Minister understand why many people feel that, despite the decisions of this House and the commitment of Ministers, there is still reluctance on the part of the Post Office to deal fairly with these people?
I understand completely the frustration of sub-postmasters who have waited so long to get redress and have their cases heard. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are four Horizon scandal compensation schemes. In the case of the convictions that were overturned by this House this year, the fourth compensation scheme, the Horizon convictions redress scheme, was set up on 30 July and has begun paying out significant sums of money to sub-postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—some £79 million, as of the end of November. As I said earlier, the MOJ has sought to contact all individuals who had their convictions overturned as a result of that legislation. It has said that it will complete its work by the end of January and I understand that it is on course to do so, but I am acutely aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is why we continue to look, as much as we can, at what further efforts we can take to speed the delivery of compensation.
Last but by no means least, I call Emma Foody.
I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to providing redress as soon as possible. One of my constituents, a former sub-postmaster who wished to remain anonymous, attended a surgery recently to share their experience. Accused of stealing over £40,000 due to the Horizon system, they lost their home, their job and their business, and were forced to pay thousands from their and their family’s savings. Compounding the financial loss was the reputational loss: ostracised by the community, experiencing racial abuse and forced to move away—appalling in its own right but, as we have heard today, just one of many, many examples. Does the Minister agree that any redress must address not just the financial loss, but the further damage done to people’s lives as a result of the actions of the Post Office?
I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that I wish the experience that my hon. Friend has described was just an isolated example, but sadly there have been far too many similar examples of what sub-postmasters have been through. We absolutely must get more speed into the compensation process, and we are very much working on that, but we will also look carefully at the recommendations of the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry when they are published next year. His work will be crucial in helping to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
Bill Presented
Public Procurement (British Goods and Services) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Champion presented a Bill to make provision about public procurement in respect of British goods and services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 153).
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsNetwork subsidy uplift and postmaster remuneration
The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment to strengthen the post office network. To do this, we intend to take steps that will improve the culture, structure, and organisation of the company. I have announced that the Government will publish a Green Paper in the first half of next year to seek the public's views, insights and experiences to help shape the future of the Post Office. In the meantime, it is important to continue to support the post office network and the important services it provides across the country. I can therefore announce that the Government are providing a further £37.5 million of network subsidy this financial year.
Postmasters have raised concerns with me that their income has not kept up with inflation over the past decade. The Government therefore welcome that the Post Office is going to make a one-off payment to postmasters to increase their remuneration.
Government response to independent investigation into Capture software
I am today publishing the Government response to the independent report conducted by forensic accountant Kroll Associates, into the Post Office Capture software. This can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-investigation-into-capture-government-response. I have also placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
Earlier this year, concerns were raised by parliamentarians and postmasters about the Capture software which was rolled out by the Post Office to some branches in the early 1990s and predated the Horizon IT system. The concerns were that the Capture software had bugs which may have caused shortfalls, leaving postmasters to pay the Post Office back, and that some postmasters may have been prosecuted as a consequence.
In responding to these concerns, the Government committed to publishing the conclusions of the Kroll report as quickly as possible after the investigation concluded. The report was published on 30 September 2024, and an addendum to the report containing additional evidence was published on 18 October 2024. The report concluded there was a reasonable likelihood that Capture could have created shortfalls for postmasters. The Government accept those findings.
This has come to light thanks to the hard work of postmasters, campaigners and parliamentarians and the Government are committed to moving swiftly on proposals for delivering redress.
After closely considering the findings and other evidence presented to the Government, including testimony from postmasters, the Government have concluded that postmasters who were adversely impacted by Capture should be offered redress.
The next step in this process will be to decide how and what form of redress should be offered in the context of Capture, which is distinct from Horizon due to the passage of time and the significant lack of contemporaneous records and evidence.
The Government will develop their proposals, engaging with postmasters and other key stakeholders over the coming months to determine the scope of the financial redress and the eligibility criteria. Financial redress will be offered to postmasters who do not have a criminal conviction or where a court has overturned their conviction.
The Kroll report does not make conclusions on whether Capture led to unsafe convictions. Therefore, the Government are continuing to work with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Post Office on their ongoing investigations into the use of Capture in prosecutions.
I would like to thank postmasters that have come forward so far, and for those who have shared their initial suggestions for redress.
Lastly, I urge all postmasters who may have used Capture and may have experienced shortfalls related to Capture to come forward to the Government to make themselves known. Equally, we welcome family members of any postmasters who have sadly passed away, who believe their relative may have been affected, to come forward.
[HCWS318]
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWe recently launched Unlock Europe, a new export programme designed to help UK businesses build stronger relationships with European customers. Last month, in Manchester, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a new pilot scheme, alongside the mayor and his team, that offers businesses in the north-west more support in selling their products and services overseas. We are determined to do more, and will bring forward further plans in due course.
Exports from our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors contribute around £40 billion to our economy, but without additional support, many of the small businesses I speak to in Aldershot and Farnborough are limited in their ability to export. What can Ministers do to help them, and will the Government consider reinstating the trade show access programme, closed down by the Conservatives, to help more small and medium-sized enterprises trade around the world?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to do more to help small businesses in particular, and businesses in general, to export more overseas. That is one of the key, but often understated, ways in which we can deliver growth for this country. As part of our work on a new trade strategy and a small business strategy, we are looking at further proposals to help our businesses export more.
The Italian press has been reporting that the global combat air programme consortium, involving the UK, Italy and Japan, might be extended to include Saudi Arabia. Can the Minister confirm this press report? How would that affect any future decision to suspend licences to export arms to Saudi Arabia, as the Government decided to in 2019?
We are looking at working with other GCAP partners. I was in Italy last month to discuss the further potential of GCAP, and other work that we can do with the Italians in this space, but that will not affect the issue about which the hon. Gentleman is specifically concerned.
Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our communities and are vital for economic growth. The Government are creating a fairer business rates system, reducing alcohol duty on qualifying draught products and reforming the apprenticeship levy to support businesses and boost opportunities. We are addressing strategic issues for the hospitality sector relating to high-street regeneration, skills, sustainability and productivity, and that work will be supported by the publication of the small business strategy Command Paper next year.
In Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, we have many amazing pubs that contribute hugely to the economy, such as the Garibaldi community pub in Redhill. For those businesses to thrive, reform of the unfair business rates system by 2026 is critical. Will the Minister commit to the proposed 20p reduction to the small business rate multiplier, which is the absolute minimum reduction needed for the long-term sustainability of the pub sector?
The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed in the recent Budget to a series of reforms to business rates, including permanently lower business rates for hospitality businesses from 2026-27. I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for that measure.
UKHospitality has estimated that the Budget measures will increase the cost of employing one employee by £2,500. Shops, pubs and restaurants across my constituency have said that that will lead to higher prices or fewer jobs. Will the Minister at least consider delaying the implementation of the national insurance contribution increase to 2026-27, when the planned realignment of business rates is due to come in?
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in the Budget, the Chancellor more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. That will mean that more than a million small businesses, many of them hospitality businesses, will see no increase in their national insurance liabilities next year.
The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals and co-op sector. The creation of Great British Energy will help drive a significant expansion in the number of energy co-operatives, while work to modernise co-op, credit union and mutual law to drive expansion was recently announced by Treasury colleagues. We will work particularly closely with the recently established mutual and co-operative business council on this agenda. We will bring forward further proposals in due course.
Co-operative businesses can be the life- blood of our towns and communities. In my constituency, I have been working with stakeholders and interested parties to bring about a community co-operative bookshop, following the closure of independent bookshops in Southport in recent years due to the cost of living. May I take this opportunity to encourage new expressions of interest in the bookshop, and to ask the Minister to confirm what more support the Government can provide for our co-operative sector, so that towns like mine can see a thriving high street built around our community?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the positive community impacts that co-operatives, mutual businesses and social enterprises can have not only on our high streets, but in our communities more generally. We recently announced a significant increase in the capital available to the British Business Bank, and that has enabled us to give £150 million of additional support to community banks, or community development finance institutions, as they are officially known. That will help drive more lending to community businesses, potentially including the one he set out, but if there is anything I can do to support the initiative, I would be happy to meet him to discuss it.
Working across government with mayors, local authorities and—crucially—local communities, we are beginning to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, reforming business rates, working with the banking industry to roll out 350 banking hubs, stamping out late payments, empowering communities to make the most of vacant properties, strengthening the post office network and reforming the apprenticeship levy.
I welcome the new powers delegated to local authorities, enabling them to tackle the blight of empty shop fronts and rejuvenate our local high streets. This will be particularly welcome in East Thanet, where the Ramsgate empty shops action group has been a powerful advocate for addressing this issue. We have a 24% vacancy rate on Ramsgate high street, so what steps are the Government taking to support and encourage local businesses and community projects to take over those vacant properties?
I commend my hon. Friend on her work with the Ramsgate empty shops action group. Her experience on her high street is sadly echoed up and down the country—under the Conservative party, vacancy rates on our high streets shot up. High street rental auctions, which are the new powers that my hon. Friend alludes to, will help local councils to bring vacant units back into use, working with local communities. That will hopefully help to drive co-operation between landlords and councils and make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable. We are encouraging local authorities to take advantage of those powers. As I suspect my hon. Friend already knows, colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are looking to do further work in this space.
I did not realise you had grouped them, Mr Speaker. Forgive me—a schoolboy error.
What advice would the Minister give struggling businesses in my constituency who are trying to work out how to absorb Labour’s national insurance hike? Would he advise them to increase their prices, to squeeze wages or to cut investment, and can he explain to those businesses how that fits with the Government’s promises to increase growth?
I think the best advice I could give to businesses in the right hon. Member’s constituency is to never vote Conservative again. His and his party’s idea of good economics in Government seems to be to create a huge fiscal hole and leave it to the next Administration to fix it. We are working at pace to try to tackle the difficult economic inheritance that he and his colleagues in Government helped to create. Measures such as the industrial strategy and the decisions we have taken in the Budget—albeit some are difficult—will help to bring back economic stability to this country. In the long run, that will help businesses in his constituency and, indeed, in constituencies up and down the country.
On Small Business Saturday recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Derby’s small businesses of various types, which are the beating heart of our city. However, as our planned city centre regeneration project recognises, empty shops on our high street do not reflect the high-performing, high-technology economy that we are so proud to have in Derby. Building on the new community right to buy, what more can the Department do to ensure that community groups receive the correct business advice and support to use this new right and to breathe new life and vibrancy into our high streets?
I commend my hon. Friend not only for his work recently on Small Business Saturday, but as the leader of Derby council in driving the town centre regeneration work that he mentioned. We are determined to establish a small business growth service to provide better support and information to small businesses so that entrepreneurs in this country can take advantage of new powers to set up small businesses on the high street, perhaps capitalising on the high-tech, high-growth sectors of the economy to which Derby has access, and in that way making sure that we see benefits from the industrial strategy not just for bigger businesses, but for smaller businesses.
My hon. Friend will know from his visit to Gateshead this week some of the fantastic small businesses we have on our high street, but also some of the incredible challenges faced by so many high streets and town centres. With that in mind, will he tell us what the Government are doing on access to finance for small businesses?
Despite the considerable cold, I very much enjoyed my recent visit to Gateshead town centre, and I was impressed by the dynamism of the businesses that he and I met at his instigation in the railway quarter. One of the things we are determined to do is to increase access to finance for small businesses up and down the country. That is why we have provided over £1 billion across this year and next year for the British Business Bank, particularly to drive access to finance for small businesses such as the ones to which he introduced me.
One of the ingredients for a successful high street is having a post office in the mix. The Government have inherited a network of 11,500 post offices, and that number has been stable since 2010. Will the Minister commit to supporting high streets by maintaining the scale of the post office network in this Parliament?
Yes, we are determined to maintain and, indeed, strengthen the post office network. I suspect that the hon. Member will recognise that we inherited a Post Office with huge problems, which we are working with the new leadership of the Post Office to begin to tackle. We are looking at what new commercial opportunities there may be for the Post Office, and banking appears to be the most significant one. We are also working with the Post Office to identify some of its infrastructure problems, not least in developing a replacement for the Horizon scheme.
The creative industries are a huge force for good in our country. They were responsible for 2.4 million jobs last year, and more than £124 billion for our GDP in 2022. They are one of eight growth sectors in our industrial strategy. We are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and across Government, to identify what more we can do to draw out even more of the potential growth that Britain’s creative businesses can offer.
As we all settle down for Christmas, we will be watching “Mission: Impossible”, “James Bond”, “Ironclad”, and perhaps even “Call the Midwife”, which were all filmed in Medway—[Interruption.] And also “The Great Escape”, which was not filmed in Medway, unfortunately. How can we make “Mission: Impossible” possible across our country when it comes to new films?
I cannot follow the impressive nature of that question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed a new independent film tax credit, which will help to enable the successes that he has alluded to in his constituency and the surrounding area to be spread, potentially, across the country. That will allow more businesses to set up and generate growth and wealth for our country.
No decisions have been taken on the future of any directly managed branches, including in Chester-le-Street in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Post Office continues to work with local communities, and others, to consider how best to meet the need for post office services in a local area. The Government set minimum access criteria to ensure that 99% of the UK population live within 3 miles of a post office, and those Government-set access criteria ensure that, regardless of changes, services remain within reach of all citizens.
The post office in Chester-le-Street has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936, and offers vital services to my constituents. Does the Minister agree that keeping those services accessible is vital to keeping footfall on our high streets and encouraging other businesses to locate themselves there?
I recognise the significance of the post office in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as indeed I recognise the significance of post offices in my constituency and across the UK. It is important to maintain access to post office services as they play a crucial role in the high street. That is why we are determined to work with the Post Office to strengthen the network, as I alluded to earlier.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced £20.4 billion in investment for research and development for the next year, which will help to drive even more of the type of technological investment that she rightly champions. We are also working with small businesses to encourage them to adopt more digital technologies through the digital adoption taskforce.
Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are at the sharp end of the Bank of England’s business confidence survey. Unlike the Chancellor and the Secretary of State, they know that her Budget and the Employment Rights Bill are a recipe for higher prices, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Is that the growth that the Secretary of State had in mind?
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I appreciate the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and in the usual way I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I thank her for her invitation to visit Eastleigh; I do not know specifically when I will have the opportunity to do so, but I will certainly consider it when I am in the Southampton area. Her constituency sounds like a particularly attractive part of the UK—if she will forgive me for saying so, almost as attractive as Harrow West, where we also have some great hospitality businesses.
The hon. Member rightly alluded to the significance of Small Business Saturday this week, which provides a great opportunity to celebrate the small hospitality businesses that bring such joy and life to the communities of all our constituencies. I will say more about Small Business Saturday in due course.
This debate matters because the hospitality sector is hugely important to the UK economy, employing around 3.5 million people and generating around £140 billion of economic activity. It contributes around £54 billion in revenue per annum. The sector is important to local economies because it helps to create vibrant places that people want to visit, work in and live around. It is important in supporting wider social objectives, providing accessible jobs, community cohesion and welcoming spaces for people to enjoy. The hon. Member referenced the work of the landlady, Lorraine, as just one example of the difference that hospitality makes in so many of our communities. In short, hospitality is the backbone of our high streets and the lifeblood of many of our communities.
I meet regularly with hospitality businesses, and only yesterday hosted a meeting of the Hospitality Sector Council, so I hear first-hand the pressures facing hospitality businesses. A hospitality business, like any other business, can only prosper and grow on the firm foundation of economic stability. Unfortunately, economic stability is certainly not what we inherited when we came into power in July. At the end of October, at the Budget, the Chancellor made decisions that she did not want to have to make, but however painful those decisions may have been in the short term, they were the right decisions and were necessary to fix the foundations of what most in the House recognise was a broken economy.
The Budget also reflected the need to protect smaller businesses—for example, by more than doubling the national insurance contribution employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. It will provide relief for about 1 million small businesses. It also set out the steps that we will take to address the iniquities of an antiquated system of business rates that is particularly unfair for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly referred to that in her contribution. Not only is the current system of business rates unfair, but it disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets.
The Budget delivers on our manifesto commitment to make hospitality pay a fairer share of business rates, with a permanently lower multiplier from 2026. Until then, we have extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief at 40%. In addition, the business rates multiplier will be frozen at 49.9p for small businesses, and we intend to introduce permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. The hon. Member for Eastleigh will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published a discussion paper on business rates reform in order to create a wider debate with the business community about business rates and possible additional ways to reform the system. The proposed business rates reform has been supported by UKHospitality, and the Treasury widely consulted the sector before making those proposals.
Securing access to finance can be a big issue for many businesses, including those in hospitality, and to that end, the Government have provided more than £1 billion in 2024-25 and 2025-26 for the British Business Bank, aiming to improve access to finance for small businesses, including more than £250 million each year for small business loans programmes.
The British Business Bank also supports community development finance institutions—community banks. Recently, I was lucky enough to visit Dhillon’s Brewery Spire Bar in Coventry. After the owner initially struggled to access mainstream sources of finance, he approached the Coventry and Warwickshire Reinvestment Trust, a community development finance institution, which stepped up and provided the funds needed for the brewery and bar to survive and prosper. That is just one example of the way in which we are taking action to improve access to finance, helping to grow the economy so that we can deliver a fairer, more prosperous and healthier society, and help the hospitality sector, in particular, to grow. Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and our new industrial strategy and small business strategy are both central to that.
The small business strategy Command Paper, which the Chancellor announced we will publish next year, will set out our plan to boost scale-ups, grow the co-operative economy, create thriving high streets, make it easier to access finance, help break into overseas and domestic markets, build business capabilities and provide a stronger business environment.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the need to do more to support high streets, and I am sure she will be delighted to know about the high street rental auctions policy, which colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have brought into effect. It allows local councils to require landlords to open up high street facilities that have been closed down so that hospitality or other businesses can take advantage of those spaces and bring renewed life to our high streets. In the coming months, we will be setting out further measures linked to the need to invest in our high streets and support small businesses more generally.
We also consulted on an industrial strategy Green Paper, which we published in October, setting out our vision for a modern industrial strategy. With our growth mission, those two strategy papers will ensure we create the conditions for all businesses to invest and grow, and for consumers to be able to spend with confidence. They will help to break down barriers to growth regionally and nationally.
Jobs backed by employment rights fit for a modern economy are at the heart of our plans. In October, we published the Employment Rights Bill, and we will consult to ensure we strike the right balance between the needs of businesses and fairness for workers.
Local growth plans will be a cornerstone of our place-based approach. Locally owned 10-year strategies will set out how mayoral combined authorities will use their devolved powers and funding to drive growth in their regions. That will help to deliver the investment and growth at a local level that our country needs.
Hospitality businesses are not only important to supporting growth in our towns, villages and cities; they are also an integral part of our rural communities. They provide accessible jobs and places for people and communities to come together. In fact, the social value of hospitality is arguably at its greatest in rural and more remote areas. In all areas, hospitality provides opportunities for people to develop important life skills, as well as opportunities for those wanting a fresh start. To enhance those opportunities, we have established Skills England, a new partnership with employers at its heart. It will transform the existing apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy, which will be better suited to support businesses and boost opportunities.
As I mentioned earlier, yesterday I hosted a meeting of the Hospitality Sector Council, which exists to co-create solutions that will help deliver resilience and growth in the hospitality sector. It has done some great work in improving the longer-term resilience of hospitality businesses. I will of course continue to work closely with it as we deliver on our priorities for wider investment and growth, and for reinvigorating our high streets in villages, towns and cities across the UK.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) referred to the lack of business rates relief in Scotland. That is clearly a matter for the Scottish Government, but we will continue to have conversations with all the regions and nations about what else we can do to deliver growth in our country.
A couple of other issues have been brought to our attention. Hospitality businesses on our high streets often face challenges with antisocial behaviour and crime. We are increasing the number of police officers on our streets and in our town centres to bring down antisocial behaviour and crime, and make it easier for people to enjoy the many benefits that the hospitality sector brings.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh raised energy costs. We are setting up Great British Energy not only to accelerate the transition to renewable and net zero forms of energy, but to bring down bills, because we recognise that energy costs have risen in recent years. Great British Energy will certainly help us to bring those costs down in due course.
We all know that hospitality businesses are important. As MPs we recognise that they matter to our constituents, and as individuals we know that they matter to us, our friends and our families. Our high streets are going through a period of transition, from traditional shopping centres to a mix of retail, hospitality and leisure. I assure the House that we recognise the role of hospitality in creating places that people will want to visit, and study, work, live and invest in. As the Minister responsible for hospitality, I will continue to represent the interests of that vital sector, not only in my Department but across Government.
Question put and agreed to.