Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. Many items of law will be assimilated. The idea that we will debate every single one on the Floor of the House is slightly absurd. The idea that we will be debating laws that are now obsolete is absurd. We will use the same process as we did for the no-deal Brexit; the usual programme of work will take place.

The powers in the Bill will allow us to overhaul regulation where it is not fit for purpose and move us away from the EU body of law. However, once powers have been used to replace the retained EU law or assimilated law with ordinary domestic legislation, they cannot be used in respect of that legislation again. This is a far cry from the Executive power grab of which we have been accused.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I chair the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which has been mentioned in this House already. We provide the sifting process, ensuring that there is parliamentary oversight as we review Brexit legislation. Does the Minister agree that comments that there is no parliamentary oversight are plain wrong and that attacks from the Labour party, when it does not even take its Committee places, are entirely—[Interruption.] Does she agree that those attacks are extremely hollow?

[Ms Ghani]

They are not just hollow, but simply inaccurate. My hon. Friend has mentioned his European Statutory Instruments Committee, but we also have the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; the usual channels, which are managed by our business managers; and Leaders of the House in both Houses. So it is not as though there is not ample opportunity to consult.

Once again, let me say that I know people are amused by the dashboard, but it is there and people who are interested can log on, and it will indeed be updated. Without this Bill, legislation that flowed on to the statute book directly from the EU into 300 different policy areas would, in many cases, have to be replaced via primary legislation. That would take decades to amend and this would mean a marked reduction in our ability to regulate in an adequate and timely manner. Without the powers in the Bill, the UK will remain at a competitive disadvantage. It would be economically irresponsible to leave this body of law unchanged, as the Opposition would wish us to do. As I have set out today, this Bill is of vital importance to the future of the UK. As I am sure colleagues will recognise, the reform of retained EU law must be completed without delay. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that many of those who support the Bill do not think that any level of parliamentary scrutiny is necessary to revoke EU laws because—they claim—accountability and scrutiny were lacking in the first place when the laws were brought in. I say to those people that two wrongs do not make a right. Is taking back control not about us, in this Parliament, having a fuller say in the legislative process?

[Andrew Jones]

It is clearly right to have parliamentary scrutiny of these measures and those that will come as a consequence of this legislation, but why has Labour not filled its places on the European Statutory Instruments Committee? If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see parliamentary scrutiny, why has his party not taken the opportunity that it has?

[Justin Madders]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to the Whips Office around the corner. He can have a word with them and see what is going on.

I do not accept the characterisation of how these laws were introduced in the first place. As we know, the vast bulk of EU subordinate legislation was adopted by the member states and the European Parliament, of course, both of which had representatives from the United Kingdom—indeed, our MEPs were democratically elected until 2020—so it is simply wrong to say that politicians, stakeholders and policymakers did not have ample opportunity to exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation.

In fact, there are many examples of where EU legislation was supported and even promoted by the UK Government of the day. One good example is the social chapter, which the Labour party’s 1997 manifesto pledged to introduce. It included rights on parental leave and working hours. Nobody can say that those rules were forced on us without our consent. Conservative Members may not have liked them—that is clear—but there was a clear democratic pathway to their introduction.

Amendment 36 is about Parliament taking back control, but new clause 2, which is on the amendment paper, goes one step further. It would require Ministers to set out their analysis of the impact of the removal of EU laws and the abolition of the application of EU principles to our laws. As our amendment 26 sets out, there needs to be some recognition that tearing up 50 years of legal development overnight might just create a little bit of uncertainty—as, of course, will revoking thousands of laws. New clause 2 would require some thought to be given to what the impact of all that might be and, crucially, would require it to be shared with everyone else.

We therefore think that it ought to be a matter of agreement among everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement regulations under the Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply by ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, by non-decision. All we are asking Ministers to do is to publish their work on how these laws will affect our constituents, which they ought to be doing anyway. Or will we have to wait until the end the year to find that some law that has slipped off the books is causing problems with, for example, the trade and co-operation agreement? Is it not better for us to know about that now? Ministers will know what the issues are, so why do they not share that knowledge with the rest of us? New clause 2 would give Parliament sufficient time to express a view on all that, putting power back into the hands of Parliament, which is what I thought all those who campaigned to leave the EU actually wanted to happen.

Likewise, new clause 3 would create a requirement for there to be genuine consultation if the powers under sections 15 and 16 are to be exercised in revoking, replacing or updating a regulation, and, again, for Parliament to be sighted on that consultation and on the Government’s assessment of the proposed changes. I hope that we are not being too revolutionary by wanting accountability and transparency for Ministers’ actions.

While we are on the regulations, why are we tying Ministers’ hands—we have already touched on this—by insisting that anything that replaces them cannot add to the regulatory burden? Why is the language of rights and protections always expressed as a burden? Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce the number of EU regulations in our system, which in itself will reduce the regulatory burden, but when Ministers are looking to update or replace these rules, why must we insist that they do not add to the burden? What even counts as a burden? I am saddened that Conservative Members think it a burden to ensure that our workplaces are safe and that people are protected against discrimination, and to protect natural habitats.

If it was thought that reviewing the laws on maternity discrimination, for example, was actually a good opportunity to strengthen protections—possibly along the lines of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)— this Bill would not allow that. If my hon. Friend’s Bill navigates the private Member’s Bill lottery, it would extend the time period for protection against unfair redundancy to a six-month period after the return to work from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. That is, by the way, something that the Government committed to in 2019, but under this Bill they would not be allowed to implement it because it would increase the burden. I am not sure how that circle will be squared, but it illustrates the point that this Bill could prevent the Government from implementing their own policies. Although most of us on the Opposition side would want that to apply to just about everything this Government introduce, when it is confined to things that might actually benefit our constituents, it is a cause for concern.

That brings us neatly to our amendment 20, which deals with workers’ rights. The regulations that it lists represent, as far as we can identify, all the major employment rights within the ambit of the Bill—rights that people enjoy every day; rights that nobody voted to squash; rights that those on the Labour Benches will do everything in our power to protect. To protect them and remove any scintilla of doubt, we need to take them outside the scope of the Bill.

I heard what the Minister said about there being no plans to remove those rights, which ought to mean that she has no problem with voting for the amendment. After all, if that is what the Government are going to do anyway, what is there to lose?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

T7. Last week I visited Duftons Plumbing & Heating Supplies, a leading local firm, and its tie-up with Daikin UK, a heat pump manufacturer. The importance of having trained engineers locally available to advise customers and install green heating technologies was clear. Will my right hon. Friend please advise what support there is for training those new skills?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for skills and training if we are to meet our ambitious net zero targets. On 20 September, the Government launched the latest phase of the £9.2 million home decarbonisation skills training competition, which will fund training for people working in the energy efficiency, retrofit and low-carbon heating sectors in England. We are confident that there is enough training capacity to meet demand for heat pump upskilling as heat pump deployment increases.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

We are proud of the record and our delivery at COP, and the COP President continues to deliver. It is a fantastic achievement to get coal written into a COP document for the first time. We should be proud of the fact that we are the co-chair of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, and the fact that so much more of the world’s GDP has been under net zero obligations at the end of the UK’s year than at the beginning.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

The UK’s journey to net zero will still require some fossil fuels during the transition period. While my right hon. Friend focuses on our sustainable future, will he ensure that domestic production meets our transition needs? If we do not see that, all we will see is increased emissions.

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is right: this is an industry in transition, which is why we did the North sea transition deal with the sector last March. There are obligations in both directions. For instance, the industry has an obligation to electrify offshore, while we need to work with the industry to transform jobs, skillsets and the energy mix. As my hon. Friend says, this is a transition, not an attempt to close down the sector, which I think is what the Green party is calling for.

Income Tax (Charge)

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng).

I have to say that only one of those speeches was remotely optimistic and captured the positive nature of yesterday’s Budget. If we think back to the data we were given at the start of the Chancellor’s Budget speech, it is clearly excellent news that we are recovering from the pandemic faster than expected. We return to pre-pandemic levels in the economy by the end of this year. Considering the decline 300 years ago after the Great Frost, that is a remarkable achievement. Unemployment was predicted to be 12%. It is now 5.2%, which is a huge difference—that is 2 million more people in work. On the impact of the Budget on Harrogate and Knaresborough, I think it will be very helpful and very well received. I will focus on just a few areas, if I may—I am conscious of your point about time, Madam Deputy Speaker—the first of which is low-paid work.

The change to the universal credit taper is extremely positive and very significant. Not everybody knows what it is, but we in this Chamber do because we discuss it regularly. Moving from 63% to 55% simply means that people will be able to keep more of their money by not losing benefits if they earn more. That directly incentivises work and is a tax cut, and if we combine it with the increase in the work allowance, it represents a tax cut of £2.2 billion. It is easy to bandy around very big numbers, but I am more conscious about what that means to individual households: basically, it makes people £1,000 a year better off in their pockets. That is a significant figure.

Universal credit has been part of Harrogate for a considerable period. We were one of its development locations and we are the location for the managed migration pilot. I have been following it very closely during that period. I have met those implementing it at the jobcentre, those receiving it and employers, and I have absolutely no doubt that it has helped more people into work.

On the national living wage, it is very positive that we have moved to £9.50 an hour. That is a 6.6% increase and a big pay rise for 2 million people. Some sectors of the economy will be more exposed to this than others. Harrogate and Knaresborough has a large hospitality, retail and care sector, which will benefit disproportionately from the increase in the national living wage, and I welcome that.

Cutting business rates by 50% for 90% of the businesses in hospitality, retail and leisure is also significant for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We are one of the top 50 constituencies in the country for the hospitality sector. North Yorkshire will be particularly affected by this measure; in the top 10%, we also have Thirsk and Malton, Scarborough and Whitby and York Central. To use figures from UKHospitality from the 2019 general election—in other words, before the pandemic—nearly 9,500 people in Harrogate and Knaresborough worked in the hospitality sector. They have had a very tough time. This measure will help those businesses continue to invest and stay strong and will therefore be very welcome in the sectors affected. We have a strong, high-quality retail offer—not just in Harrogate and Knaresborough, but in much of the north—with a large number of independents across a number of different sectors, so I welcome these measures, as it has been a tough time.

On business rates more broadly, I welcome the points made about the frequency of revaluations, but business rates need reform in the longer term. This is an analogue tax in a digital economy. It is still clumsy and it does not reflect how the economy works, but the measures that are being taken are positive and I welcome them.

Turning to alcohol duty, in Harrogate and Knaresborough we have one vineyard, two distilleries and five breweries—we are obviously very thirsty—and just outside the area we have many more. The number of businesses involved is therefore high, as is the number of workers in those companies as a result. We have quality producers. Yorkshire beer is famous, and rightly so. It is positive that we are seeing the 3p cut in duty for draft beers. Pubs have also had a grim time over the past few years. They have a social function in our communities that is not easy to quantify, but we all know that pubs are at the heart of village and town life. The cut is therefore helpful for the on-trade.

The small brewers relief, which has been a feature of the industry for a while, is being extended to cider. Let me give a slight hint of a warning: the small brewers relief has had a disincentivising effect on investment and growth in the beer industry. I discovered that early on in my time in the Treasury. I clearly saw businesses that had stopped growing—in fact, they directly told me that—because they had reached the top of the tax breaks. That is clearly disincentivising. When we have a tax structure that disincentivises growth, it needs to be reformed. The Treasury has been doing that. I started the review—I have been followed by many others since—but we now need to press on with that. I am absolutely sure that we have the correct policy, with a tapered effect, but we need to implement it. We need to make sure that as the relief is extended to cider, we do not delay implementation or make the mistakes that we have seen with beer.

I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me say a few words on levelling up. Communities have been left behind in our country for far too long. We in this House have often talked about things such as the north-south divide or the northern powerhouse, but this issue is far broader in scale than just north-south. There are communities all over the UK that have been left behind, even in the most affluent areas. I like the focus on levelling up, but we must also recognise that this is a long-term issue and that the situation is hard to change. Governments of all colours over many years have tried to make progress on that and not succeeded sufficiently. There are a number of different elements that can make a real difference, such as infrastructure, skills and devolution.

The Budget is strong on investment in infrastructure, with £35 billion for rail infrastructure, which includes opening some of the closed lines, and £31 billion for roads, to remove bottlenecks. We can add to that the investment in broadband, so infrastructure will clearly get a significant benefit. One issue that does not get quite so much coverage is bus networks, to which we are seeing big changes around the UK. In implementing the Bus Services Act 2017, we are seeing people move towards enhanced partnerships or possibly franchising. We have seen Budget funding go towards zero-emission buses. These are very positive developments. They are about connecting people to jobs, making it much easier for larger cities in particular to develop sustainable transport plans, which we all know is the right thing to do, and making it easier overall to move people and goods around the UK.

The infrastructure provisions are positive. However, having spent much of my time here talking about infrastructure and being at the Department for Transport, I actually think that skills policy is the most significant thing that we can use to improve the levelling up around this country. That is how we will improve the productivity of our nation. Big changes will be required in the skills environment. Our economy is going digital, and that trend has been compounded by the pandemic. We are transforming our economy as we go to net zero. The number of jobs required in new industries will be fantastic, so this is a transforming moment. It is also clear that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor clearly recognise that, which is why we are seeing a 26% overall increase in the skills budget across this Parliament. Other areas matter for levelling up—we have discussed the levelling-up funds—but all these measures add up to a strong performance on a difficult issue.

There are other areas of interest in the Budget, but let me highlight what I consider to be a risk: we are very exposed to changes in interest rates on our public borrowing. Yesterday, the Chancellor quantified that by saying that a 1% increase would lead to a £23 billion cost, so we are exposed, and we are greatly sensitised to change. That means two things: the pressure must be kept up to keep inflation down, and we must make every effort to reduce our borrowing. I thought the positive words from the Chancellor about fiscal conservatism at the end of his speech yesterday did that very well. The good management of our economy has meant that we will also meet the criteria for returning to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid in 2024. I was very pleased to see that.

Overall, this Budget is positive. It is optimistic. It is a direct contrast to the messages from the Opposition parties, giving us their customary mixture of unfunded spending promises and, “Vote for us—the future’s gloomy”. That strategy has not worked for them, but they have not learned. This is about making our country better. The prospects are brighter. The Budget showed that in the data that the Chancellor highlighted, and it will only make the situation even better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We introduced the national living wage. We have enabled workers to carry over more annual leave because of the pandemic. We have increased the reference period that employers use to calculate holiday pay, to improve seasonal workers’ wages. We are continuing to improve workers’ rights over this Parliament. We are indeed the workers’ party, so we will continue to make sure that we tackle fire and rehire when it is used as a bully boy tactic.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to establish the UK’s position as a world leader in science, research and innovation.

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

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a distinguished Minister in the Treasury and the Department for Transport and a champion of innovation. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government are completely committed to unlocking this country’s global reach as a science superpower and an innovation nation. That is why we are committed to spending £14.9 billion this year on research and development, and to increasing the total R&D budget to £22 billion and 2.5% of GDP.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate him. It is good to see him back at the Dispatch Box.

One of the largest employers in my constituency is Labcorp, a business that is at the heart of new medicine development both in the UK and across Europe and has played a role in the life science industry response to covid. It is considering UK expansion over the next five years at a number of sites across the UK. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss that opportunity, and also some of the obstacles that may get in the way of it, with a view to securing expansion in the UK as a whole but in Harrogate in particular?

[George Freeman]

I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend soon to discuss that. Labcorp is a major global corporation whose investment in the new clinical pharmacology site is vital. It is in such companies that we need to be investing to drive private investment in research and development.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman and I have different views on that issue. It stands to reason that as we go towards net zero, we will need dispatchable power and a source of firm power. Most of the analysis we have seen suggests that nuclear has a part to play in that net-zero future.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Harrogate and Knaresborough has a large conference and events industry, mainly driven by the Harrogate convention centre, which is now a Nightingale hospital. I have raised the industry’s specific challenges with Ministers already, but I understand that my right hon. Friend has been having discussions with the sector directly. Will he update the House on those discussions, and will he meet me to discuss the specific challenges for the industry in my constituency?

[Alok Sharma]

The Government of course recognise the challenges facing the industry. My hon. Friend is right, and I have also heard directly from representatives of the National Exhibition Centre about these challenges. Conference and events businesses can draw on the Government’s current support package, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who has responsibility for the sector, will continue to work closely with them.

Post Offices (North Yorkshire)

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Post Office provision in North Yorkshire.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Let me begin by saying up front that I strongly support post offices and want to see them thrive. Everything that I will say about how we can make our post office network more sustainable for the future is to be taken in that positive way.

I sought this debate because of the closure of the Cold Bath Road post office in Harrogate and the proposed relocation of the Crown post office in Harrogate from its location on Cambridge Road to WHSmith. However, it is not just Harrogate in North Yorkshire that is affected. We are seeing the same relocation to WHSmith being proposed for York, Scarborough, Selby, Northallerton and, more widely in Yorkshire, in Beverley and Pontefract. We are seeing it in other parts of our country, too.

This debate has attracted attention from other parts of the UK. We are being followed by sub-postmasters up and down the country. I have had emails from the west country, Wales and much closer to home. They confirm that the underlying points I will raise are of wider concern. That was also clear from the meeting last week of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, which discussed the relocation issue.

Post offices are an important part of our national infrastructure. They provide access points not only for post office services, but for banking and Government services. We are seeing huge growth in the parcels business through internet shopping, and the Post Office has developed very good products. We are seeing increasing use of post offices for their banking services. That is particularly important as the number of high street bank branches has fallen. That point has been highlighted to me by smaller, often independent traders. We are also seeing increasing use of the gov.uk Verify scheme. That service matters, as it helps to tackle the growing issue of identity fraud. The passport and driving services have been highlighted by local residents in Harrogate and Knaresborough as being valuable. The services matter, so post offices matter. The question with the relocations then is about how we ensure that the people of Harrogate can continue to access the services.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. In York, we too face the challenge of a post office closure. The post office has been there since 1884. It is on the main thoroughfare for tourists and residents coming into the city, and it is due to relocate to an area where footfall is falling massively—it is 15% down in the past two years. Does he agree that we need to look at the business case and the impact on the local community and local businesses when assessments are made of the future viability of a post office?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I entirely agree that as these relocations are considered, the implications for business and the community must be considered in the round. I am aware of the location of the post office—York is a very near neighbour to Harrogate and Knaresborough—and its importance, and I strongly agree with the point that she has made.

Post offices matter and the services matter. The access point is absolutely critical, and I am not happy with the proposals. I have enormous reservations about the relocation of a Crown post office to a WHSmith. In Harrogate’s case, it is moving from Cambridge Road to the Victoria Centre. My key reservations are about access and security. On access, both locations are in our town centre, but parking in the immediate proximity is easier at the existing location. Disabled parking in particular is good at Cambridge Road, whereas for the Victoria Centre it is across the A61, a very busy road.

I did not know how the proposed location in WHSmith would work until I received an email from WH Smith at lunchtime today with significantly more information, followed by a six-page letter from the Post Office a couple of hours ago. Having been in meetings today, I have not had the chance to go through it in detail yet, but I will do so directly after the debate. Clearly it will answer some questions, but I think it will raise even more.

We now know that the proposal is to locate the post office on the first floor of WH Smith. There are lifts, escalators and stairs in the store, and the shopping centre entrance will be flat, but first-floor retailing inevitably has a lower footfall than ground-floor retailing. I spent many years in retail before I came to Parliament, so I know that first-floor and ground-floor locations are very different. I am sure that the email that I received at lunchtime was trying to help, but in reality it has made my fears worse. However, at least the Post Office has confirmed that all the staff in the very good Crown post office team will be TUPE-ed across and have some security, which is reassuring news for everybody.

On products and services, the Post Office has confirmed that all existing services will transfer with the location, but that Home Office passport services will not transfer. That is a loss. It feels as if the Post Office is in retreat, both physically and in its offer, when the opposite should be happening.

I must draw the Minister’s attention to the nature of the Post Office consultation. When it first got in touch with me, its email said that

“any proposed changes will be subject to a public consultation”.

However, at the all-party group meeting last week, it announced that the franchising decision has already been made and that it is a private commercial matter. I am not sure that those two comments are in any way consistent. We need a proper, wide consultation.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene again. I, too, was at the APPG meeting. The Post Office made it very clear that its consultation was more about information exchange, rather than being a proper consultation. It said that it had already looked at access issues, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that it will not take note of those crucial issues?

[Andrew Jones]

That was indeed a very disappointing part of the Post Office’s response at what was otherwise a very good APPG meeting. I want the consultation to be much more wide-ranging. I want it to consider the views of the people of Harrogate; I am sure the hon. Lady wants the same for the people of York, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wants the same for his constituents. The issue affects locations right across north Yorkshire.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Post office services are always critical, but particularly now. Banks in villages and towns such as Kirkbymoorside and Filey in my constituency are closing, handing over responsibility for banking services to post offices and walking away, yet there is no long-term guarantee of how long those post offices will exist. Does he agree that it is critical that we continue to invest in our post offices so that people have physical access to banking services and to the many other services that post offices provide?

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point; I totally agree. From a business perspective, I have no doubt that in some parts of our country, post offices are the last opportunity for local banking. They play a critical role, and the need for their preservation has to be a consideration not just for the Post Office but for the Government when they consider how the financial services structure of our country can thrive in the future.

I learned from the correspondence that I received this afternoon that the consultation will start tomorrow; I do wonder whether I would have received the information with quite the same urgency if the debate had not been scheduled for today. I am sure that there will be a big response to the consultation. My campaign to collect local opinions on the proposal has already had hundreds of responses. A summary of the views submitted is that, overwhelmingly, people value their post office and want a secure future for it without loss of service. Consultations on other branches across the country that have moved have been very shallow, so I hope this consultation will be better, instead of being just a paper exercise. I will make sure that all the responses that I have received will be fed into the considerations.

I am not blind to commercial pressures on the high street. I recognise that the internet is changing business models and that the Post Office, like all companies, must evolve—that is a given. The Post Office is to be commended for returning to profit last year for the first time in 16 years. I can see why it may wish to leave the Cambridge Road location, because it is a very large building—the team showed me round some years ago—and much of it is unused. Leaving space empty is bad business, but has the Post Office considered a new smaller stand-alone location more tailored to its future needs, in which it could continue to offer good access and a complete transfer of services without any erosion? I fully recognise that unnecessary overheads make business unsustainable, but a search could easily reveal a location that would make the post office fit for the future.

I ask the Minister to raise in her discussions with Post Office management a few points for consideration about the relocation programme across North Yorkshire and particularly in Harrogate. Are the consultations genuine and proper or are they a paper exercise? Do they address matters of principle or smaller, peripheral matters? Will she review with Post Office management the process for reletting sub-post offices and the speed at which they do it?

We need a new sub-postmaster at Cold Bath Road post office, which has closed. It is a popular branch: when it was earmarked for closure by the Labour Government in 2008-9, we held a protest march, which is quite unusual for Harrogate, that attracted significant attention. We marched from the Cold Bath Road post office to the Crown post office, and we changed the Government’s mind. The post office stayed open and became a valuable part of our local business network and our thriving community. We want it to open again, but it needs a sub-postmaster to run it. The process needs to be speedy, so I ask the Minister to consider the process and speed of reletting sub-post offices. That issue has been highlighted by hon. Members who are not present for our debate because they do not represent North Yorkshire, but who recognise the same issue in their constituency.

At a time at which the Government are taking action to support high streets and make them viable, through significant Budget measures such as the future high streets fund and the changes to business rates, it feels as if the Post Office is taking steps in the opposite direction. People and businesses need post office services, from parcels to banking, and from passports to savings, but a business does not thrive by making it harder for its customers to find and use it. It should do the opposite. Instead of thinking about a retreat to fewer services, we should think about growth towards more.

Those are the points that I will raise with the Post Office, because I want to see all post offices thrive in Harrogate and beyond. I ask the Minister to raise them in her discussions with the Post Office, because the issue affects many parts of our United Kingdom. Post offices are a valuable part of local communities right across the UK.

Marks & Spencer

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the review I hope we can all support. I will ensure that my hon. Friends in the Treasury bring it forward as soon as possible. I do have to push back slightly. The hon. Gentleman is right and wrong. He is right that we are buying less stuff. In fact, there is the phrase “peak stuff”, which suggests that the younger folks among us no longer go shopping for pleasure, but prefer to do other things with their time—mostly involving their phones, as best I can tell from my own kids. There is the view that the acquisition of products and services is on the decline globally. I believe the vacancy rate for shops in great cities such as New York is now in double digit figures, which is very surprising and reflects a global trend.

We should welcome the fact that in this country real wages are now going up and increasing ahead of inflation. People are getting more money in their pockets. The Government’s actions in cutting taxes by over £1,000 for over 3 million people and in continuing to invest in high streets, allowing both money and choice, has meant that spending has held up reasonably well—in particular, since the Brexit referendum, which was supposed to deliver the death knell to shopping in this country. That has not happened. We are seeing a change in the way people spend, but it is vital we recognise the importance of this sector as part of our industrial strategy going forward. Industrial strategy, by the way, does not just mean smokestack industries. It means retail industries and creative industries—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) should welcome the fact that we have a sector council up and running and should look closely at the steps it suggests the Government need to take.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I speak as a former Marks & Spencer supplier and current Marks & Spencer customer. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) highlighted the importance of an anchor store to a town’s retail offer and the social importance of the high street. I entirely agreed with her question. Will my right hon. Friend remain vigilant on, or at least sensitive to, the impact of business rates for physical retailers as compared to internet retailers? Will she monitor that carefully, because we want to ensure a level playing field for the social benefit we have been talking about?

[Claire Perry]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have tolerated that difference for too long. It is right to have a fair allocation of VAT between both channels.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. He is clearly concerned about those jobs. There are a number of distribution jobs in my own constituency, Burton being at the centre of the country and well connected.

Let me make two points. First, the number of supermarkets being serviced will be the same, so the number of lorries, distribution outlets and goods being shipped will also be the same. Secondly, I have no power over the issue of jobs in relation to mergers. The Enterprise Act 2002 limited such powers. While we can have conversations, I urge the hon. Gentleman to do the same to protect those jobs.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Having previously been a supplier to both companies, I read about the proposed deal with much interest. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the implications for all parties will be considered—particularly the implications for the smaller regional food producers?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Let me say again that, as the Small business Minister, I am particularly attuned to that issue. I think that all of us, as consumers and as parliamentarians, want those small food producers—those artisanal businesses—to grow and thrive. Both Asda and Sainsbury’s have given assurances that they want to continue those important relationships. However, the Competition and Markets Authority, within its powers, will consider the impact on the supply chain.