Groceries Code Adjudicator

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

I am delighted to accept the hon. Lady’s advice on that. She is not, in parliamentary technical terms, my hon. Friend, but she is a friend none the less, and she is right in her assertion, which I shall move to after I entertain the House a little further with my preparation for making exactly that argument. The essence of my call today is that this Government need to take action to deal with the near-monopolistic supply of foodstuffs that our constituents are obliged—I use the word again—to endure. The best way of doing that is through a more regulated market, and she is right to say so; but let me set the scene a little more before I come to the point at which I will call for exactly what she has suggested.

As well as the loss leaders that I mentioned, which have the seductive effect on consumers of encouraging them to buy many other things, secondly, that kind of provision of food has led to a great deal of waste. From studies that have been done, we know that these days much of what people buy—as much as 20%, or perhaps a little more—is never consumed. That would have been unthinkable a couple of generations ago. People would not have believed it was possible to stock the pantry or fridge with all kinds of things that ended up on the scrapheap.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to the Select Committee Chairman, to whom I pay tribute on this subject for bravely making the case that I will make today, with less expertise than his.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman flatters to deceive, I fear. He is right about the way grocery supermarkets go about their business, but much of the problem is the way they choose to go about it. I recently heard from a livestock farmer who bought in potatoes to feed stock. He expected to find them green, bruised or damaged, but when they arrived they were perfect; they just were not conformed to the particular specification that the supermarket demanded. That demand does not come from consumers, but directly from supermarkets. If he looks around Europe and elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman will find that supermarkets there behave very differently.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, when he and I were in Government together, we introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator. He will remember that I worked closely with his colleague Vince Cable, then Secretary of State, and was involved in that decision. He is also right to focus on the producers. I have spoken so far about consumers, but I want to go on to talk, thirdly, about the distortion in respect of producers.

I began my speech by speaking about how both producers and consumers need a multiplicity of places to buy and sell. In the model that I set out, the one that prevailed for aeons, people who made and grew food, primary and secondary producers, were able to sell to a variety of places. In our lifetimes—I might be overestimating the age of some hon. Members present, but certainly in many of our lifetimes—markets existed where farmers would take their produce to auction. Indeed, there was a livestock market in Spalding in the streets until the 1930s and a covered market until the 1990s, where livestock was brought to be traded and auctioned very openly.

Producers have also been affected by this distortion. As the food chain breaks, it is not only consumers who struggle, able to go to only one or two places to get not just what they want, but what they need, because, as I said, foodstuffs are fundamental.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing time for this debate from the Backbench Business Committee. I find myself in the curious position of being in violent agreement not only with him, but with the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). That is a moment worth reflecting on.

In advance of this debate, we have received some very useful briefings from the National Farmers Union and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union about food insecurity and workers’ rights; the hon. Lady has just touched on those issues. Curiously, the one organisation from which we have not heard a peep is the Groceries Code Adjudicator itself. That is quite significant, because this is not the first time that the House has debated the work of the adjudicator: my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) secured a debate on it in February, I myself presented a ten-minute rule Bill on it in March, and now we have this debate today. If the adjudicator had a good story to tell, we would expect to have heard something from it by now, given the criticism that has been levelled at it. But not a peep: it has maintained an omertà that would put the Mafia to shame.

I do feel slightly conflicted. The adjudicator has a tiny office and, I think, a staff of seven or eight. Given its inability to process complaints at the moment, I do not know that I want it to spend that much time talking to MPs and policymakers. But if it has a story to tell, it needs to come out and tell it. Otherwise, we will be entitled to assume that there is not much that it can say.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke about the need for reform and the way in which that reform might take shape. I disagree with very little of what he said. What we need, as the hon. Member for Salford says, is a single regulator from the farm gate to the supermarket shelves. At the moment, too many unfairnesses are hardwired into the system, there are too many players in the market and it is just too easy for outcomes to fall between the gaps. Those who suffer are always the consumers, who are left with higher food prices, or the primary producers. At the moment, it is principally the primary producers who are losing out. The supermarkets are entering into a price war as they try to push down food price inflation. As a primary food producer myself, I declare a registered interest.

There are wider issues around the behaviour of supermarkets. There has been widespread and justifiable outrage in the past few days about Asda selling Uruguayan beef. The way it is often done is instructive. The labelling on the top looks lovely. It says that the beef is 30-day matured rib-eye steak of “heritage breed origin”, whatever that means. A shopper has to turn it over and see the small print on the back or underside of the tray to find out that it is beef produced in Uruguay from cattle slaughtered in Uruguay. Even if we park for a moment the concern about animal welfare standards, the carbon consequences of shipping beef around the world in this way are utter madness, even though ironically it would help us to meet the targets set for us by the Climate Change Committee.

That example illustrates that amid growing competition among supermarkets on price, if we continue to reduce our levels of livestock in this country the resulting gap will be filled by cheaper imports. That surely renders any definition of food security utterly meaningless. Once we lose our own producers, we will not get them back.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate, and on the sweeping historical nature of his opening comments, which gave us a broad view of the importance of agriculture and food in the development of civilisation. Of course, we are talking about more contemporary issues, which he went on to address, and I will respond to some of his comments in my remarks.

This is an appropriate time for the House to discuss the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator because, as Members will be aware, we are currently undertaking the fourth review of the GCA’s effectiveness, as required by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. The statutory review will consider how the GCA’s powers have been exercised and how effective the GCA has been in enforcing the groceries supply code of practice. It will also consider whether the existing permitted maximum financial penalty for non-compliance following an investigation is appropriate and whether there should be any restriction on the information that the GCA may consider when deciding whether to investigate.

On the question of financial penalties, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to two investigations where no fines were issued. However, it is worth stating for the record that, following the Tesco investigation, it was charged £1 million by the GCA for the cost of that investigation, and the Co-op investigation led to a charge by the GCA of £1.3 million for the cost of it, plus compensation to suppliers of £650,000. But it is noted that the GCA has not been issuing fines. I think that is part of its overall approach to try to get compliance rather than issuing fines, but that is something that Members can respond to as part of the review.

[Mr Carmichael]

The difficulty is that the review of a limited regulator is always going to bring up a limited answer. What we need is something much more holistic. Just to take one small example, the number of small abattoirs in the country is now down to the hundreds, from 2,500 some time ago. That is a direct consequence of the way in which the supermarkets bring pressure to bear in other parts of the supply chain, so what we need is something that looks at the whole process, from farm gate to supermarket shelf.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Of course, the review is dictated by the legislation that his party was, in government, involved in introducing, so part of the problem is where we are with the statutory framework, but I do take his wider point that clearly there are a number of different developments in how we deal with the overall agricultural food supply market; the GCA is just one part of it. The other developments, which Members have talked about, particularly in terms of ASCA, probably need to be looked at more holistically than is the case at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I wondered whether the shadow Secretary of State might finally use this set of questions to take the opportunity to apologise for helping to write the Liz Truss Budget, which drove interest rates up fourteen times and did more damage to business than any other single measure in recent times. We had to take difficult decisions to sort out the fiscal inheritance we got, and we recognised that to tackle the cost of living crisis that the Conservatives bequeathed us, we needed to ensure that there is more money in people’s pockets. The Employment Rights Bill will help to do just that.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the potential impact of his trade negotiations with the US on the farming sector.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I regularly engage with my Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues, and in particular the UK’s ongoing trade discussions with partner countries, given the cross-cutting nature of those matters. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a key partner in that process, including with the US.

As colleagues know, we have had constructive discussions with the US on an economic deal, and we remain committed to those talks, but we have made it clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK’s national interests. Our manifesto was also clear that we will always uphold our high food standards.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Secretary of State in DEFRA recently appointed Baroness Batters to lead a profitability review in farming and has set up a farm profitability unit in the Department. Those are welcome and necessary steps, but it is not entirely unknown for the efforts of one Government Department to undermine those of another, so before the Secretary of State signs any trade deal with America, will he check in with DEFRA and run the rule over what it is doing on farm incomes so that he does not undermine its efforts?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We will all struggle to believe that at times different Departments could be better co-ordinated —I cannot recognise that at all!

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The moves to look at the business models around farming and profitability are welcome, and I think colleagues on both sides of the House would support that. On matters of trade, DEFRA and its Secretary of State are closely involved with those conversations.

Perhaps in the past the community has not always felt this, but in some of the ongoing trade negotiations that we are progressing there are real export opportunities for UK agriculture. Its quality and the premium and brand associated with that is a market that is growing around the world. Part of our discussions in a range of different trade negotiations is about ensuring that there are more opportunities in future, but I promise the right hon. Gentleman that the overall efforts of Government in the sector are co-ordinated, and that is ongoing.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The North sea fields are a declining basin. We lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Government. Something like only one in 10 of the licences that have been approved over recent years have actually amounted to anything, because of the difficulties of a declining basin. The impact on prices of a very small amount of the global mix coming from the North sea would be zero. It would not change a penny in the costs we would pay.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

When the previous Government looked at supporting energy-intensive industries, they included within the definition brewers, cider makers and wine makers, but not distillers, despite the fact that distillers use 17 kW per hour to make a litre of alcohol, compared with brewers which use just 0.5 kW per hour. As the Government consider what they will have to do to support energy-intensive industries such as distilling, will the Minister consider that the Scotch whisky industry in particular is critical to the maintenance of economic activity and good- quality jobs in some of the most remote and economically fragile communities in this country?

[Sarah Jones]

We are obviously keen to do what we can to support the Scottish whisky industry. I have been to see it and understand how important it is. The definitions of energy-intensive industries were developed under the previous Government, and we have no immediate plans to change those, but I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s point and look into it.

Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued representation of his constituents’ interests. He has made a number of very clear representations to me on the importance of the Gloucester post office, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss its future as it transitions to a franchise-run operation. I should make it clear that the Post Office very much wants these franchises to be in key locations that are important for our communities, because that is obviously where the commercial income will come from, so it will be keen to meet with stakeholders such as Members of this House and other local stakeholders. If my hon. Friend would like to meet me to discuss this issue further, I would be very happy to do so.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Where a post office branch that is currently directly managed is not staying in its current premises, will there be a proper formal scheme of community engagement to give the community some control over ensuring that what is provided in its place will be at least as good? Communities simply do not trust the Post Office at the moment to make that judgment for itself.

[Gareth Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a completely fair point that the Post Office suffers from a significant lack of trust, for all the reasons we know. I completely understand why he would want to press the particular point that his community should be involved in discussions about their post office services going forward. As I alluded to earlier, I would expect the Post Office to engage with local stakeholders, including the right hon. Gentleman as the local Member of Parliament. If at any point he is concerned about those discussions, he is very welcome to get in contact with me, and I will happily meet him.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the work that he did, alongside me, in this area over many years in opposition. He knows the commitment of the Government and Government Members to the steel industry. Of all the issues of industrial neglect that we were bequeathed, those are some of the harder ones to resolve; there is no doubt about that. He knows that our ambition is strong, whether we are talking about the future of British Steel at Scunthorpe and Teesside, or, in terms of sovereign capability, our aspirations under the steel strategy for new investments and new technology. The issues are difficult—particularly this week; I know that all the workers at Scunthorpe are concerned—but the Government’s commitment to and work on the steel sector will go on.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State offer us any guarantee that the Government will not enter into a trade deal with America that will allow the importation and sale in this country of food produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we demand from United Kingdom farmers?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The right hon. Member knows that I will not go into the detail of any negotiation, but he knows of our manifesto commitment to our SPS regime, which I mentioned to the shadow Secretary of State. That commitment is important to the Government, and it affects all our trade negotiations, not just this one.

Non-disclosure Agreements

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue overwhelmingly affects women and it overwhelmingly affects low-income workers; it affects all vulnerable people, particularly disabled people and people of colour. She is absolutely right that we have to address it in order to help fulfil our mission to tackle violence against women and girls, but we also need to be careful that we do not narrow our definition only to sexual harassment, as NDAs cover all kinds of abuse in the workplace. Quite simply, we need to remove this tool from employers completely.

It is only those with the means and the confidence to pursue their employers through the courts who can challenge these practices. Low-paid workers in hospitality or retail are being legally silenced after they have suffered serious harm, and they have no access to redress. I want to stress that I do not think 100% of hospitality businesses are bad employers or that the sector is packed full of people who set out to silence victims after they have been abused or discriminated against. The point is that these clauses have become boilerplate. They are signed unwittingly by workers and, in many cases, are required unwittingly by employers with little or no understanding of the consequences. It has become standard practice to include these broadly drafted confidentiality clauses in contracts that go far further than is required to protect commercial confidentiality or trade secrets.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What the right hon. Lady is saying is very important and the overall thrust of her case is absolutely on point. Is it not the case, though, that NDAs are the symptom, and that the underlying disease is the inability of ordinary people to get access to justice through the courts? That is why people enter into non-disclosure agreements: they fear that there is no other way that they will get proper recognition of their case.

[Louise Haigh]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. NDAs are one tool of oppression, essentially, used against workers after they have been abused or discriminated against in the workplace. That failure to access justice through the courts is without doubt a wider disease that needs to be tackled by the Government, but NDAs and their misuse have to be clamped down on because they are having this terrible chilling effect across society and the world of work.

Since the debate last month, I have been inundated with details of such cases. There was the woman who was raped by a colleague at work but had signed a confidentiality clause that explicitly prevented her from discussing the issue even with medical professionals, making it impossible for her to recover from her trauma. An employee who signed an NDA on leaving her workplace has since been effectively blacklisted, because her former employer is undermining her to prospective employers, while she cannot tell her side of the story. A woman I met yesterday told me about the mental health charity she worked for that has discriminated on mental health grounds against at least four people she is personally aware of in the past year; three of them have signed an NDA, but she is bravely pursuing the charity through the courts, because she believes that it is the only way to get justice.

If mental health charities are exploiting this practice to discriminate against people with mental health issues, or, as raised in last month’s debate, progressive news organisations and trade unions are exploiting this practice, we have to accept that it is a serious problem in every type of workplace in this country and that employers simply cannot be trusted with this tool at their disposal.

This practice undeniably has a terrible impact on the individuals affected. It prevents organisations from facing up to the fact, or the scale, of their wrongdoing. It also affects our economy and our productivity, as people are forced out of their workplace—maybe because they are pregnant, have additional needs, or their face simply did not fit—and then they struggle ever to return to work. As the woman I met yesterday who had been a victim of this practice said:

“With all the discussion at the moment around disabled people and returning to work, I just want to cry. My experience is far too common for disabled people because too many employers simply don’t support disabled people at work.”

This is the tool that is then used against them.

If we are to tackle such structural issues, we have to remove the ability to silence people at will, and many other countries and jurisdictions agree. Ireland has recently legislated to ban the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment or discrimination. In the US, 27 states have legislated to ban the improper use of NDAs, with no apparent detriment to business or discouragement of settlements. Canada and Australia are following suit. Of course, we also saw some limited progress in this country under the last Government. In May 2024, the Victims and Prisoners Bill was amended to make it clear that any confidentiality agreement is void if it precludes a victim from speaking to legal and therapeutic advice services or family when it is related to criminal conduct. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was also amended to prohibit NDAs being used in cases of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying.

We now have the absurd situation where students and workers in universities are protected, but a cleaner, who works on a university campus but for an outsourced company, would not enjoy those same protections. We have created a two-tier system of protection, so what is the possible justification for denying workers outside the higher education system that same level of protection?

All of this progress has been predicated on multiple consultations, reviews and evidence bases. In 2019, the Minister’s Department, which was then the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ran an extensive consultation on measures to prevent the misuse of confidentiality clauses in cases of harassment or discrimination. In 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission ran a consultation on the use of confidentiality agreements in discrimination cases. The Treasury Committee in 2023 conducted an inquiry into sexism in the City, which recommended further protections for victims of sexual harassment. The Women and Equalities Committee has conducted three inquiries into this issue, under both the last Government and the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). The most recent one was on misogyny in music, which again explicitly recommended banning the misuse of NDAs. There has been extensive scrutiny in the legal sector, with both the Legal Services Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority conducting large consultations, resulting in more evidence of the endemic misuse of confidentiality agreements. Both the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society have called on the Government for legislative reform.

My one question to the Minister, who I know agrees that this issue needs to be tackled, is: what else does he or his Department need to be satisfied on the need to legislate? How much longer must low-paid workers be legally required to suffer in complete silence before we can be persuaded to take the necessary legal steps? I know he wants to take action. The strength of support from a number of political parties in the Chamber today demonstrates that the House wants to take action. Twenty-seven US states have passed legislation. The UK Government are starting to look like the outlier. Let’s not let this opportunity pass us by. Let this Labour Government lead the way on protecting victims and survivors in the workplace and finally bring an end to legalised abuse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

If we were listing the difficult things that small businesses had to deal with in the previous 14 years, we would be here for most of the day and the weekend, if we are being honest. Whether it is how the Conservatives handled Brexit, the mini-Budget or austerity, we could go on and on. I say to the hon. Member that we are not casual about what we have had to ask of business because of the unenviable situation we inherited, but the fundamentals of the UK are incredibly strong in political stability and openness to the world, and we have the changes we are making to planning, skills, regulation and energy to make sure we are delivering.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on small and medium-sized enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

The Treasury published a tax information and impact note in November 2024, alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the employer national insurance contribution changes. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer and the impacts on business, and that approach is consistent with previous tax changes.

[Mr Carmichael]

The impact I hear from SMEs in my constituency, predominantly in the visitor economy, is that they are anticipating cutting the hours of part-time staff or laying them off and reducing the number of seasonal employees that they will take on. Will the Minister take those concerns seriously and work with Ministers in the Scottish Government to ensure that the legitimate concerns of SMEs in my constituency do not blossom into a full blown crisis of confidence?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am always happy to work with the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments on how we can improve the business environment. I am sure the right hon. Member will join me in encouraging the Government in Scotland to mirror the changes we have made to business rates relief. Given the sizeable increase in the Scottish budget, it is somewhat surprising that the SNP has not been willing to support the retail sector through an extension of retail hospitality relief.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he has come to a very important part of the debate. First, we need proper resourcing of the GCA as it currently exists. Secondly, there is a structural problem with the accountability chain here. The GCA effectively governs the relationship between the middle link, the processors and distributors and the supermarkets. The Agriculture Act 2020 deals with primary producers in that middle link. What we need now, surely, as well as extra resources, is a process by which the whole thing can be rewired together.

[David Chadwick]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly. He will be aware that the levy that supermarkets pay to fund the Groceries Code Adjudicator has not been increased since 2018, despite the massive increases in food prices and supermarket profits since then.

Local Post Offices

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on taking the initiative to secure time for this debate and on the way in which he opened it.

We are all familiar with the old maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I have lost count of the number of post office debates I have taken part in over the years, and it seems to me that as far as post offices are concerned, the maxim that has governed the thinking of Governments of all colours is, “If it ain’t broke, keep reforming it until it is.”

The fundamental problem is that there has been an incoherence of approach within Departments. On the one hand, we have heard—I suspect we may hear similar things from the Minister today—Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box saying that the post office is a brilliant institution and it can be the front office or front desk for Government services in communities across the country. The next day, we will have another Minister standing at the Dispatch Box telling us that access to Government services will become digital by default. Unless we decide exactly what role we expect our post offices to perform in our communities, we cannot be surprised when they fail to thrive and then wither in the way that they are doing.

It is more than 20 years now since the Department for Work and Pensions thought it could save money by driving people away from getting pensions and other benefits from their local post office. Doubtless that was a saving for the Department for Work and Pensions, but it has just meant that the Department for Business and Trade or whatever we call it these days has had to put more money in through Government subsidies. I hesitate to predict the future in politics at all these days, but one day, when we have finally turned the key to lock the last post office in the country, some bright spark in Downing Street somewhere will come up with a policy paper saying that we should have a hub in every community where people can access Government services and meet their postal needs, their banking needs and all the rest of it, and in that way we will end up reinventing what we have reformed to the point of destruction.

The Post Office and how it interacts with the sub-postmasters has not always helped in that respect, including the innovations that it has brought, such as the pick-up and drop-off initiatives. In my constituency, it is not the sub-post offices that are given the contract to do the pick-up and drop-off points. If the Post Office at the heart is not able to support sub-postmasters at the frontline, we frankly cannot be surprised if they start to fail.

In particular, I want to talk about the Post Office’s approach to the closure of Crown branches. We see that in my constituency, where the last Crown post office in Kirkwall is listed for closure. The way that has been done by the Post Office has been nothing short of a disgrace. It has been totally lacking in respect for its employees and the communities that the post office is there to serve. At a time when we might have hoped that the Post Office would want to demonstrate a change of culture—for reasons we have debated often enough—we see it still behaving in this way in my community. It makes me think that all the fine words about changed culture at the top of the Post Office are simply meaningless weasel words.

I have seen similar situations before. We lost the Crown post office in Lerwick in Shetland a few years ago. It was taken out and folded into a local newsagent service. For all the promises given about maintaining services, in fact the community was left with a much inferior service at the end of the day, despite the best efforts of the newsagent who got the contract. If we are to see these changes in Kirkwall, we need to know first of all that the same range of services will still be available as there are from a Crown post office. That includes vehicle licensing, currency exchange and passport checking—all those things should still be available.

Just as important as the range of services is the question of the physical infrastructure. People want a stand-alone post office to offer a level of service of the sort they get with a Crown post office, especially when we are encouraging banking into them. That is a highly personal service for many people. They do not want to be doing that next to somebody buying a tin of beans and their weekly paper. The size and availability of any post office that is to replace the one that the Post Office wants to close in Kirkwall is critical. We do not want people queueing around the block at Christmas when the post office is at its busiest, standing in the rain, sleet and snow to get their postage done. The size, the range of services and the quality of service have to be at the heart of anything that comes from the Post Office by way of revision. That is the basis on which we in my community will be judging any proposals that it comes forward with.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I 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.

[Mr Carmichael]

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?

[Gareth Thomas]

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.

Future of the Post Office

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a strong and compelling case. The criticisms that he has just articulated about the compensation process are ones I have heard directly from victims of the Horizon scandal and their legal representatives. We are looking at a series of further things that we can do to improve the compensation process. We have moved more staff in the group litigation order compensation process to help speed up redress for sub-postmasters in that scheme, whose remaining cases are more complex. Perfectly reasonably, people want to see them compensated as quickly as possible. I am optimistic that for claims that come into the GLO scheme before Christmas, we will see significant redress delivered to victims of the Horizon scandal by March.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

If sub-post offices are so much cheaper to run than Crown post offices, the Minister may wish to reflect on the fact that that is probably down to the level of remuneration for sub-postmasters. Notwithstanding what he says about no decisions having been made, it would be reassuring to those who rely on post offices and the staff who work in them, including in Kirkwall, which is on the list of those to be considered for closure, if they could be told when that decision will be made. When the Minister talks about consulting postmasters, trade unions and other stakeholders, are we safe to assume that “other stakeholders” include communities and customers? They will be looking for the full range of services and adequate physical space in which to access them.

[Gareth Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to bring the House’s attention back to the issue of sub-postmaster pay: there has been no material improvement in sub-postmaster pay for over a decade. If we are to see sub-postmasters genuinely treated better in the future, addressing the issue of pay is fundamental. I welcome the focus on that by the chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, in his speech today. I gently re-emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to the Government requirement to deliver 11,500 branches, to ensure that every community has easy access to the post office branch network. Communities will absolutely need to be involved in any decisions about individual branches.