Summer Jobs
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his excellent speech. I agree with everything he just said. This is a really important debate, and the motion put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition is so significant for young people. I am the most worried I have ever been for young people and their prospects. Although I do not doubt the intentions of many Labour Members who have spoken, I sense a massive disconnect in Government policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about the triple whammy, and I will come on to some of those points, although I am conscious of time.
There is a massive disconnect between what the Government say that they are doing and the reality on the ground. Businesses in my constituency increasingly tell me that they cannot take on young people because the costs are so high. On the recent polling day, a business owner came up to me while I was knocking on doors and said, “I just don’t know if it’s worth it any more.” It struck me what a sad state of affairs that is: someone is grafting away and running a small business; he wants to do the right thing and hire people, and he is unable to do so. That is significant.
Three things have had a huge impact on the labour market. If there had been just one intervention, there would have been some impact. It is basic economics that interference in the labour market will have a consequence: naturally, business owners must make logical decisions and will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly; they will do what they can afford, and they must make a profit. But there has been a triple whammy with the impact of business rates, national insurance—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Act, possibly the single most damaging piece of legislation to business from any Government. We will see the impact of that.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) asked which bits of the ERA the Opposition would repeal. Well, I would repeal everything that has to do with the liberation of trade unions. That legislation is not about employment rights; it is a love letter to trade unions. It is there to ensure that trade unions and the hand of the state can interfere with private enterprise. We are starting to see the consequences, which will only increase. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made this argument logically and eloquently, but when a business owner must make a decision—he used the hypothetical example of the 18-year-old and the 30-year-old—they will of course take the individual with more experience. That individual requires less training, has proven that they are resilient, and has proven that the opportunity cost of hiring them is much lower than with the 18-year-old.
When I ran a business, I loved hiring apprentices and young people—they had a hunger—but small businesses can only do that within the parameters of what is affordable and within the profit they can project. The consequence of the Government’s policies is that youth unemployment is high, at 14.5%—much higher than when they took office in 2024—and among 16 to 17-year-olds it is 30.7%. Those are huge numbers, and I worry about them.
I recently held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the Government’s policies on rural pubs. As has been alluded to, hospitality, leisure and retail are great employers—not just for Saturday jobs, but of young people generally. The impact of those policies has meant that, if those pubs are staying open, they are not able to hire more young people. It is going the opposite way. We are seeing the impact.
As a number of hon. Members have said, there is dignity in having work. It gives young people the soft skills—or the soft-hard skills, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said—and gives them an opportunity to get ready for life. There might be other, structural issues, such as getting on the work ladder, but that first job has such a positive impact on young people. We have heard about sweeping floors, but whatever the job, it ensures they are able to work.
I still remember a 16-year-old I hired once. He did not have his tie done up or his shirt tucked in, but I took a risk on him—and it was a risk, because I had to train him up. I said to him, “Young man, you’re going to have to tuck your shirt in and do your tie up.” Only two years later, when a grad came in for interview, he told them, “Tuck your shirt in, and do your tie up.” That just made me laugh—I thought, “Look how far that young individual has come on.” He went on to do other forms of employment, go up the job ladder and get higher wages. I take great pride in all the young people I employed and trained.
Flexibility in the labour market is important, as is ensuring that the Government do not increase the burden on businesses. I come back to the disconnect. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who I have a great deal of time for, made a valiant effort—
Saqib Bhatti
I have lots of time for the Minister who will be closing the debate as well, but I have not heard him speak yet, so I will reserve judgment.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore made a valiant effort at defending the Government’s record, but he did not acknowledge that the unemployment rate has gone up—as a natural consequence of the Government’s interventions—and there is no indication of how they are going to get it down. With the best will in the world—however much money they spend training people up and doing interventions—if businesses are not hiring, the unemployment rate will stay where it is. I invite the Minister to address that point in his closing speech. What reassurances will he give to 16-year-olds, 18-year-olds and other young people who want hope and want to build their lives?
I will end in a moment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) wants to speak. Recently, I was at the opening of the Bluebell Wood café in north Solihull. It was an idea that I came up with, and I worked with Andy Street, the former Mayor of the West Midlands. Hospitality is a big employer in my constituency—we have the National Exhibition Centre, the largest regional hotel, the Hilton Metropole, and many other businesses—and they all talk about the need for skills. We talked to University College Birmingham about bringing to north Solihull a training restaurant that would train top-level chefs and “maître d’s”. When I cut the ribbon, the main chef said that they were training level 1 apprentices to do level 3 work. I invite you to come and visit, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would like—top football clubs and top restaurateurs go there to recruit. But there have to be jobs at the end of the line.
This is so important. I urge the Government to reflect on their policies and consider the impact they have had on the future prospects of young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to close this debate after so many thoughtful contributions from hon. Members across the House. Many difficult questions have been raised. I thought of following the example of the soon-to-be-former hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in just resigning to avoid those difficult questions—[Interruption.]. I will resist the encouragement.
It has been fantastic to listen to hon. Members talking about their own experience of Saturday and summer jobs. It allowed me to imagine the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) running around with multiple plates balanced on her arms, and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) getting busy with his chamois. I pictured the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), who I belatedly welcome to his position, as a postie in shorts, fighting the rain coming off the North sea. I pictured the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) with long, flowing locks getting busy scrubbing pots in the Italian sunshine. That was important, because it allowed me to picture Conservative MPs doing something productive. More importantly and seriously, it was a reminder of the importance of our first employment experiences in making ourselves into fully rounded human beings and workers.
My job was working on Saturdays before going to university and in the summers at Beveridge fishmongers’ in Giffnock. The antisocial teenager in me would want to be in the back of the shop filleting something, but every time a customer came in I had to remake myself and find confidence all over again. It is in no way an overstatement to say that all the Saturday and summer jobs that hon. Members have spoken about are why we are all here. They gave us that first chance and opportunity to find confidence in ourselves, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said.
However, I will caution Conservative Members. Yes, this is about experience and people finding an opportunity and, as some have said, avoiding the long-term scarring effect of youth unemployment, but for many young workers this is about paying the bills. These jobs are not a nice additional thing. I think of the young woman with a family who I met; she had a zero-hours contract and simply did not know from month to month whether she would be able to pay her rent or take her kids to anything special.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) spoke powerfully about how insecurity in the workplace is linked to the health of the economy. When people’s incomes are hollowed out, it hollows out the centre of our towns and ends up in the empty high street shops that we see.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister makes a very interesting point about city centres being hollowed out, but the main thrust of this debate is about young people doing summer jobs before they go back to school or university in the autumn. They are the very young people who would ordinarily take those wages to buy a hot chocolate in Lorenzo’s, like I used to, or to go and buy the new pair of trainers that they have saved up for. If they do not have a job in the first place and do not come from a family in which their parents can subsidise all those things, they miss out on that opportunity. While I accept the point he is making, will he accept the point I am making? The very thing we are discussing this afternoon is part of that problem, and removing those young people from the market altogether will not help.
Blair McDougall
The reason I am responding to the debate by talking about the impact of zero-hours contracts is that Conservative Member after Conservative Member rose to speak in defence of those contracts. Of course, many people value flexibility in the workplace, but some employers have used that flexibility to take advantage of their employees, including young employees.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Summer jobs are really important, as are summer schools. Will the Minister join me in welcoming students from the Burnley summer school, who join us in the Gallery today, and will he perhaps include in his speech the fact that over the Tories’ time in power from 2010 to 2024, 7,500 pubs closed across Britain—many of them in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield—meaning that those jobs just did not exist for people?
Blair McDougall
I am very happy to welcome that summer school from the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that into Hansard. I also congratulate him on teaching those students a lesson about the hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, which they will get used to.
Many hon. Members spoke about seasonal workers as if the legislation was somehow going to force seasonal contracts to be permanent contracts. That is simply not the case—where people genuinely value that flexibility in the workplace, they will be able to continue to work in that way.
Douglas Lumsden
The Minister speaks about zero-hours contracts almost as if they are the devil’s work. Does he accept that those contracts give people the flexibility they want when they are doing a job? For a lot of people, a zero-hours contract fits in with their lifestyle; they do not want to be committed to working so many hours a week.
Blair McDougall
Where the workers that the hon. Member describes feel that way, they will not have to change their contracts. We are talking about the people who work for the same employer as their main job, week after week, without any certainty of income. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said that only 3% of workers rely on a zero-hours contract as their main job. That is one in 25 workers. [Interruption.] In his constituency, there are 60,000 people of working age, meaning that hundreds of people in his constituency do not have the right to regular hours.
Blair McDougall
I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention. Maybe he can say why he thinks those hundreds of workers in his constituency should not have the right to full-time employment.
Damian Hinds
I can tell the Minister that 3% is a relatively small percentage of 100%, and many of those people are students. The Labour party used to speak about zero-hours contracts as if they were taking over the entire economy, but that is simply not true—they are a perfectly legitimate form of employment that works for some people. I described the situation of my constituents who have one zero-hours contract at their term-time address and another at their home address. What is wrong with that? If it works for the employer and for the employee, why is Labour so against that flexibility?
Blair McDougall
Those people will still be able to have those contracts under the legislation, but we are talking about potentially hundreds of people in the right hon. Member’s constituency—that was his formulation—who rely on zero-hours contracts as their main form of employment, with no certainty of income from month to month. That cannot go on in this country; it is fundamentally unfair.
Several Conservative Members mentioned business rates, which the Government take incredibly seriously. The Conservative party began the revaluation without any plans whatsoever for any transitional support or relief for the people affected by it; Labour introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers from seeing large overnight bill increases because of that revaluation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) said, over half of ratepayers will see no bill increases this year, and 23% will see their bills go down. Plenty of arguments could be made about whether we have gone far enough and how far our continued reforms of business rates should continue, and my colleagues in the Treasury will do that, but for members of a party that had no plans for any relief whatsoever to be saying now that they will spend £4 billion on abolishing those rates altogether, without saying where it will come from, is frankly ridiculous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) mentioned the great British savings this summer, and made a very fair request for those in the Treasury, as they look at the overall impact of that, to look at the impact on individual young people as well.
Many Opposition Members rightly raised the impact of increased national insurance contributions. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we recognise that that was a big ask of business, but what it did was say to the international money markets that we were a serious country again. That has been seen in lower mortgages, and in lower borrowing rates for businesses. I understand the genuine concern expressed by Opposition Members about the impact on youth employment, but I would say that it is at best a partial explanation, given that employers of workers under the age of 21 and those employing young apprentices do not pay national insurance.
The hon. Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested that whenever a Government add to existing business costs, we should think about the cumulative impact rather than viewing it in isolation, and that is an entirely fair argument. Every time we ask something of businesses, that gives us in government a further incentive and, indeed, responsibility to do more to remove costs from them. That is precisely why, through the £2.5 billion youth guarantee package, businesses are being given a £3,000 incentive to employ 18 to 24-year-olds who are at risk of long-term unemployment, a £2,000 incentive to hire foundational apprentices, a further £2,000 to hire apprentices aged between 16 and 24, and fully funded costs for 16 to 24-year-old apprentices. That, of course, is on top of all the other work that we are doing to reduce the costs on business.
Rebecca Smith
I am glad that the Minister has brought up the subject of fully funded apprenticeships for those under 25. As soon as that was announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, “That is all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages.” Although such businesses are not paying national insurance, this is not as free, or as cheap, as the Government maintain. Will the Minister accept that it is not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships, because those businesses still have to pay increased salaries?
Blair McDougall
As was said earlier, we believe that people working full time should be able to afford the basics in life. My point is that we are dealing with the issue of youth unemployment by incentivising businesses to employ young people.
Many Opposition Members mentioned red tape. They will not have to wait terribly long to see the work that the Secretary of State and I have been doing to reduce the administrative burden on business. Many others spoke about additional costs being imposed on business. Let me remind them that our target to reduce that administrative burden by £5.6 billion is a net target, and they will not have to wait very long to see the progress that we have made in that regard.
David Reed
The Minister is coming out with these great plans. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) agrees with them, and will implement them when he becomes Prime Minister?
Blair McDougall
Of course he does. It is in the Labour party manifesto. He has spoken about backing our industrial strategy, and this is an incredibly important part of it.
The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke about how beautiful his constituency was. [Interruption.] Yes, I know—I am looking at him. Later this month I shall be on my way to a holiday in Cornwall, and perhaps I will stop off in his constituency with my family. So many Opposition Members spoke of our imposing a tourism tax on local areas, but there will be no such imposition. This is devolution, allowing local areas to decide whether they want to invest in that or not.
I can confirm that we will not move our amendment, but this Government are proud to be taking employment law into the 21st century, proud that we are rebalancing business rates for smaller businesses to help young people get jobs, and proud that we are backing our high streets. We have commissioned Alan Milburn to investigate the high level of youth unemployment, and we look forward to the publication of his final report in the autumn. The report will be backed by evidence and the real experiences of young people in a changing labour market. What it will not be based on is outdated, Dickensian ideas of getting 13-year-olds working late into the night before school. This Labour Government will act, and these reforms will deliver the national renewal that our country needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I put the Question, let me say that it is a shame that those at the Burnley summer school have left. The Minister will want to be careful about using the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital sector for island economies. Whisky exports were worth over £5.4 billion in 2025, supporting jobs and supply chains across Scotland. We are supporting distillers through UK Export Finance, DBT’s export support, trade promotion and direct engagement with the industry to help businesses, including small distilleries, to grow, invest and reach new markets.
Torcuil Crichton
Distilleries in my constituency—I count nine of them—overwhelmingly rely on kerosene heating oil to make their product. Since President Trump’s folly in Iran, they have seen costs rise by 18%. It is not just the distilleries; seaweed manufacturing, chemical processing at Callanish and the iconic Harris tweed industry all rely on kerosene heating oil to make their products. Domestic consumers in the islands are helped by generous support from the Government, but can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to help these energy-reliant industries that keep hundreds of jobs in Na h-Eileanan an Iar keep on going?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend knows that at this time of year, my heart is in Uist, and I wish I was there now sampling a gin cocktail from the Downpour distillery—my favourite of the nine distilleries he mentioned. We are determined to support energy-intensive industries such as his local distillers. The supercharger for British industry is being reviewed this year, and we are keen to hear from the whisky industry as we review that support. As he says, many distilleries are off-grid and heavily reliant on heating fuels, and are suffering from the Iran war. That is why we are considering the temporary suspension of tariffs on kerosene oil. The consultation on that ended a few days ago, and we will make a decision on it in due course.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Earlier this year in my constituency, the much-loved brand Slingsby Gin went into administration. A cocktail of different things added to the pressure on the business. Will the Minister wish the new owners of Slingsby Gin, Chris and Asma Williams, good luck in their new venture, and tell me what steps the Government are taking to support them going forward?
Blair McDougall
I absolutely wish the hon. Member’s constituents all the best. It is entrepreneurial spirit like that that drives the economy forward. I will give one example of the support: there is a big extension of UK export finance so that such businesses can find new markets, because the best way to become a more resilient business is for them to open up and diversify their markets. I will gladly put his constituents in touch with people at UK Export Finance to discuss that.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
This Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which closes down the equivalent of 38 businesses every day. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 May and had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 9 June. This legislation sets out stricter maximum payment terms, mandatory interest on late payments and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner to ensure that small businesses are paid on time. That will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
Mr Rand
Small businesses are at the heart of Altrincham and Sale West, and when I meet them, often alongside the Altrincham district improvement board, they tell me that one of the biggest problems they face is late payments. Can the Minister explain further how this Government’s action on mandatory interest rates and to force large firms to pay up within 60 days is a win for my high street?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend always fights hard for small businesses in his patch. This Bill will ensure that purchasers pay suppliers within 60 days and that mandatory interest is paid on late invoices. For too long, large businesses have used small businesses as a source of free credit. That will end under these plans. That will mean better cash flow for businesses in his constituency, more jobs, more economic growth and better high streets.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Of course, we recognise that this has been not just a tough time for small businesses, but a tough decade for those running one. That is exactly why our small business strategy is improving access to markets for small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, and cutting the regulatory burden on small businesses. We will of course keep doing more to make it easier, simpler and more profitable to run one.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
In early 2025, Rutland police caught a local shop owner red-handed with a carload of illegal fake cigarettes. Since then, I have reported this to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and trading standards, and nothing has happened. Will the Minister please haul in trading standards, because this individual runs two shops in my constituency, which are both still open, attracting in children and encouraging the sale of vapes? That is wrong, and such shops are clearly part of the black economy.
Blair McDougall
It is infuriating when we see bogus businesses forcing legitimate, valued, independent retailers out of our high streets. The hon. Member will be aware of Operation Machinize, through which we have put significant resources into tackling the type of crime she raises. That is becoming a permanent approach under this Government. For my part, I am constantly meeting Companies House and the Insolvency Service to talk about how we can improve our enforcement efforts to force these bogus businesses out of our high streets and create space for legitimate businesses.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub-postmasters to take over the businesses.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
These regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 1 June 2026, make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the transparency and operation of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE or the register from here. They also correct a separate technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs.
Hon. Members will be aware that the ROE was introduced in 2022 as part of the Government’s efforts to increase transparency in land ownership and combat economic crime. It is a public register maintained by Companies House that requires overseas entities that own or acquire land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers.
The register plays an important role in shedding light on complex ownership structures and in supporting action against illicit activity. Information on the register has been used by law enforcement, journalists and other parties examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals.
Appropriate safeguards are in place through a protection regime that includes the ability to apply to Companies House to have a home address removed from the register. As part of the application, individuals are required to provide supporting evidence to confirm that the address on the register is indeed their residential address. However, in most cases, the registrar is able to identify and verify that information internally. Furthermore, there is currently no requirement for applicants to provide a replacement correspondence address. This results in a gap in the information available on the public register.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?
Blair McDougall
Yes, I will come on to that. The hon. Gentleman will hopefully find reassurance shortly that that information will still be gathered.
Part 2 of these regulations streamlines the application process; applicants will no longer be required to provide supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address that appears on the public ROE. This removes an unnecessary administrative burden for applicants. The regulations also introduce a requirement for applicants to provide a replacement service address to be displayed on the public register, except in very limited circumstances. Taken together, these changes bring the ROE protection regime more closely in line with the approach taken with UK companies.
Part 3 of the regulations includes changes to the ROE’s trust disclosure service, which enables members of the public to apply to Companies House to access unpublished trust information held on the register. Under the current application process, individuals must provide their own details, as well as the overseas entity’s name and ID number. These details relating to the entity are publicly available on the register. However, applicants must also provide the name of the trust that they are requesting information on. The name of the trust is not publicly available on the register, and many applicants are therefore unlikely to have this information, which leads to rejected applications.
In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This is demonstrated by evidencing that the applicant is investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. However, currently, when that is not demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults, so those requirements can act as a barrier to accessing trust information and limit the effectiveness of the service.
The instrument therefore makes two targeted changes to the trust disclosure service to improve public access while maintaining appropriate safeguards. First, it removes the requirement for all applicants to provide the name of the trust when requesting access to trust information. This addresses a key barrier for making a successful application.
Secondly, the instrument makes a further change where trust information involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, the regulations enable Companies House to disclose trust information related to any individual over 18 years old. This ensures that access to information is not unnecessarily restricted because an individual under 18 years old is associated with the trust. Access to trust information relating to those aged under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest. Together these changes improve the transparency of trust information on the register and enable more effective scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protection for minors.
Finally, part 4 of the instrument makes a limited and technical correction to the LLP framework. The requirement to provide additional address information in certain circumstances was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule. The instrument therefore removes the requirement for LLPs to provide additional address information. However, this requirement will be reinstated once appropriate systems are in place to collect the information for companies and LLPs, and work is ongoing to achieve that. In the meantime, other address information is available on the public register for all LLPs.
Taken together, these measures improve the transparency and practical operation of the ROE while resolving a small but necessary technical issue relating to LLPs. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Blair McDougall
I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters.
Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency.
Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise—not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place—that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that.
On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Hodge, which looks at the wider issue of economic crime and our approach to transparency. Having responded to those questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Small Business Regulatory Taskforce
Blair McDougall Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
When regulation works for small business, it works for all. I am committed to ensuring the Government provide the best assistance to those brave enough to start a business and it is only right our regulatory environment supports entrepreneurs. It is for that reason that I am today announcing the establishment of the small business regulatory taskforce. The taskforce has been commissioned by His Majesty’s Government to develop recommendations that will target reducing regulatory burdens faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, including microbusinesses. The taskforce will first meet on 11 June.
These recommendations will drive forwards our work to reduce the administrative burden of regulation by 25% and build on commitments in our small business plan to make life easier to start, run and grow your business in the UK. Small businesses are central to the UK economy. Yet far too often they face disproportionate regulatory and administrative burdens. Evidence gathered by the Department for Business and Trade’s business questionnaire shows that complexity, duplication and inconsistent guidance across regulators can make it harder for smaller firms to comply and grow. This Government are determined to reduce unnecessary burdens on business while maintaining vital protections for workers, consumers, the environment and the wider public interest. The taskforce will seek to improve the clarity and usability of regulation in a way that looks to support and increase innovation, productivity and growth across the SME economy
I will co-chair the taskforce, in my capacity as Minister for Small Business alongside Tina McKenzie, Chair of Policy and Advocacy at the Federation of Small Businesses. It will bring together voices from business, industry and Government to identify evidence-based reforms that can improve the operation, clarity and proportionality of regulation for SMEs. The composition of the taskforce reflects a broad cross-section of the SME economy and will consult on members’ views and suggestions throughout the duration of the process. In doing so, it will build on the success of the 2025 licensing taskforce and help apply the lessons learnt from the John Fingleton-led nuclear regulatory review across the wider economy. The taskforce’s work is expected to include consideration of issues such as modernising regulatory submissions, embedding more SME-friendly approaches to guidance, exploring regulatory passporting initiatives, reviewing the impact of enforcement across regulators and local authorities as well as examining what more Government can do to support SMEs with the capability, resource and technology needed for compliance.
The taskforce is expected to run through the summer, with recommendations and a Government response to be provided in autumn.
[HCWS96]
Companies House Accounts Reforms
Blair McDougall Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 included measures to reform how companies report information and what information they report when filing their annual accounts with Companies House.
The reforms include:
Requiring small companies and micro entities to file profit and loss accounts with Companies House as other companies do;
removing the option for companies to file abridged accounts;
a strengthened eligibility statement for all companies claiming an audit exemption;
the ability for the registrar to require all companies to file accounts via software—using inline extensible business reporting language (iXBRL) format; and
requiring component parts of the filed accounts and reports to all be filed together.
We also plan to bring forward secondary legislation to reduce the number of times a company can shorten its accounting reference period and introduce annotations to the register where a company has not complied with a notice regarding compliance of its accounts with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.
ECCTA 2023 also included a requirement for small companies to file a directors’ report. However, as part of the Government’s modernising of corporate reporting programme, the Government announced that we will remove the requirement for any company to produce a directors’ report as part of their annual report and accounts. This change will therefore no longer apply.
The accounts reforms seek to improve the transparency, accuracy and reliability of data on the companies register, to inform business decisions, modernise practices in line with other countries, and tackle economic crime.
In June 2025, Companies House communicated that the reforms would be implemented in April 2027. This sparked some concern about the impact some of the reforms might have on businesses. As a result, we paused implementation to take time to engage with a range of stakeholders.
We have listened carefully to stakeholders’ concerns and after some consideration have taken the decision to proceed with the reforms, but with two changes.
First, we are proceeding with requiring small companies and micro-entities to file profit and loss accounts, but they will be able to opt out of having these published on the public register. We have taken this decision in response to concerns from the business and investment community around the commercial risks for smaller companies of disclosing this information, and the potential impact on investment opportunities.
Details of how smaller companies can opt out of publication will be confirmed in due course. Companies who wish to enjoy the benefits of publication, such as improved access to finance and enhanced transparency, can still do so.
Where a company opts out of publishing their profit and loss accounts, Companies House, law enforcement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will still have access to identify and tackle fraud, economic crime and tax evasion.
Second, to give companies and software providers more time to prepare, we will postpone implementing these reforms by one year, from April 2027 to April 2028.
We will also proceed with mandating accounts filing in iXBRL format from April 2028. This will improve the quality of financial data for register users and provide more opportunities over time for companies’ accounts data to be aggregated, compared and subjected to analysis in different ways for use more widely.
We will continue to engage with stakeholders as we prepare the necessary secondary legislation and proceed to implement these important reforms.
[HCWS94]
High Street Businesses: Government Support
Blair McDougall Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important and passionate debate, and I thank him for his own thoughtful and passionate contribution.
It was interesting to hear so many hon. Members name different local businesses in their areas without necessarily explaining what those businesses did—I am intrigued what Serendipity in Horwich or the Uniform Monkeys do. I would be remiss if I did not abuse my position by naming some of my favourites in my own constituency, including Bica in Netherlee; Wheataly in Clarkstown, which does the best Italian food in Glasgow; The Pad in Neilston; and Valentini’s ice cream in Giffnock.
What is encouraging about this debate is that it has placed the role of high streets in its proper context. Yes, they are full of businesses, which are about a bottom line, but as was said by the hon. Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), this is about more than just soulless economics; it is about how we feel about where we live. It is essential that we understand that.
We must also place high streets in the wider economic context. They are not only the engines of very local economies but a barometer for how the wider economy feels. We have to recognise that the reason why so many of our town and city centres sometimes feel so down at heel is that before we lost the shops on those high streets, we lost the industry at the edges of towns.
It is important to put this debate in the context of the Government’s wider efforts to reindustrialise the country, to create good work and a sense of economic pride and purpose in places. I disagree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith): yes, to tackle the insecure work and low incomes that left people without the money to spend in the neighbourhoods where our high streets are—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Whenever we talk about high streets, we think primarily about town centres, but there are smaller communities and sub-neighbourhoods, such as Bilton and Starbeck in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency—and even Kings Road, just a little further outside the town centre—that often miss out on support from the likes of the local chamber of commerce or business improvement district. Does the Minister think there should be additional measures for those that struggle because they are a little further from the town centre?
Blair McDougall
One of the hallmarks of our efforts through Pride in Place and other measures is recognition that there is not really a one-size-fits-all solution. In my constituency, we do not have one central high street; we probably have about a dozen separate ones, which sounds similar to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
It is clear from what everyone has said during the debate that high streets are facing real pressures, from changing consumer habits to crime and increasing costs. There is not a single quick fix—there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It will take determined effort and real strategy from the Government. A key part of that is our small business strategy, which was launched just short of a year ago and aims to cut red tape, cut costs and make things just a little easier in challenging times. We will build on the strategy later this year as we bring forward a cross-Government high streets strategy that aims to support the businesses that we have been talking about today and equip local authorities with the tools that they need to drive long-term regeneration. We are working really closely on that with businesses, representative organisations and, indeed, Members from across the House.
We have already started taking significant action through, for example, our high streets innovation partnerships—a £301 million package that aims to help local areas to reinvent and reimagine high streets, to make them more attractive places to live and put more services into them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned a Woolworths that had been replaced by businesses of lower value over the years. There is a challenge for all of us within our areas, working with local authorities and health authorities, to make sure that we locate more services in our areas and drive more footfall to them.
I will give an example of that type of action. I also oversee the Post Office, and as well as the Government making the decision to keep the Post Office network open at its current level, there are really exciting plans under way from the Post Office to create a new community hub model for post offices in towns across the UK. That will offer a place for commercial services and public services to be delivered, and enhance the role that post offices have as an anchor in the high streets.
I will turn quickly to some of the issues raised by hon. Members and outline the areas that the Government are focusing on within each of them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of payment providers. That issue was raised with me by Kadir’s, a chip shop in Barrhead in my constituency. The payment services regulator recently carried out two market reviews in this area to look at those cost increases and is currently looking at what action to take as a result.
Many hon. Members rightly raised the impact of business rates on high street businesses. They say that all of heaven rejoices more over one sinner who repents, so I welcome the acknowledgment by the shadow Minister that we inherited a system that was, frankly, a mess. It was chaotic; it kept changing. It did not give people any sense of stability. For high streets, we have to ensure that our business rates system is fair, stable and responsive to the changing economic situation that hon. Members have described. That is why, in the face of the cost of the first revaluation since the pandemic, we have put in the £4.3 billion support package.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) asked when we will take on the big online giants—the warehouses—and start to shift some of the burden on to them and away from high street businesses. That is exactly what we did with those lower multipliers. That was paid for by putting the burden on to the big warehouses. We are working in that area. Rather than tinkering, we are doing that big structural change.
Let me turn to jobs, and particularly youth unemployment and the link to high streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said that he was a Saturday boy. I was a Saturday boy as well in Beveridge’s fishmongers in Giffnock. It taught me everything about how to talk to people. It gave me confidence. Every time someone came into the shop, I had to re-find my confidence—remake myself. I do not think that I would be where I am now had I not had that experience.
Some Members raised national insurance contributions in that context. Businesses still have those reliefs for under-21s and for apprentices under 25. It is worth about £2.5 billion. In terms of national insurance, there is relief there for employing young people, but I absolutely take the point. Obviously, the Milburn review is working on the much bigger issue of the number of young people not getting that opportunity.
Daniel Francis
I spoke to Alan Milburn about this yesterday. Does the Minister accept that, although there is a clear job for Government in this matter, there is also a clear job for retailers? The kind of schemes the retailer I worked for had in the ’90s for young and disabled people have gone by the wayside for many large retailers. We need to bring them round the table and get them to bring back some of those schemes.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend will know from talking to Alan Milburn that he is very much of the view that this is not something the Government can do alone; it will need to be done in partnership with industry and, as my hon. Friend says, with retailers in particular.
Nothing in recent years has made people angrier than either experiencing retail crime or seeing videos and images of it on social media, in which shop workers are treated appallingly. Despite that, there are encouraging signs that our efforts to tackle retail crime are beginning to bite. Shop theft has started to fall, following really sharp increases under the previous Government. At the heart of that effort was the revitalisation of neighbourhood policing with 13,000 additional personnel being delivered, 3,100 of whom are already in place.
My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Bolton West spoke, rightly, with some anger at how organised crime—as they correctly named it—has impacted the way that our high streets feel. We are seeing legitimate, independent and valued businesses having to compete with businesses that are not real, and that is simply unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West was right to talk about his campaign and efforts, along with other Members, to deliver the high streets organised crime unit to bring about the system-wide response that he described—bringing together HMRC and local authorities, and working with Companies House, the Insolvency Service and the organisations that I oversee. As part of that, my officials have joined the Home Office in engaging with the Dutch Government to learn the lessons from their approach with the Bibob Act, highlighted by my hon. Friend, with a view to exploring whether a similar approach could be taken here.
The Home Office will shortly launch a consultation on strengthening closure orders, with stronger powers for local authorities being considered as part of our work on the high street strategy. Importantly, this is all backed by funding for the organisations that we rely on to do this. This is about fairness, but it is also about the way people feel about where they live. It is one of those issues on which our constituents have been ahead of us; they have noticed that there is something wrong on the high street, and we need to deal with it.
Finally on the point about that sense of where we live, many hon. Members referred to Pride in Place, and the nearly £6 billion invested to support hundreds of places around the country. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach and it is not directed from Whitehall; it is communities shaping for themselves how they want their high streets and local areas to be reimagined.
Alongside that, hon. Members mentioned the perennial problem of empty properties. They are one of the most visible challenges facing our high streets. High street rental auctions are now beginning to bite, not just in terms of the number that have gone through the whole process; the very ability of local authorities to have that conversation is letting them engage with landlords, changing the nature of that relationship and changing things on the high streets. This week, we announced £10 million of funding to support the expansion of high street rental auctions to help councils to identify opportunities, deepen engagement with landlords and get properties ready for use. That is a practical and important step forward.
Finally, hon. Members raised the issue of banking hubs and the loss of banking facilities in local areas. In Barrhead, a large industrial town in my constituency, we recently lost our last bank, so I get the frustration, particularly with the process of deciding whether an area gets a banking hub or not. As hon. Members will know, the Government commissioned an independent review into access to banking services. Alongside that, we are supporting the roll-out of 350 banking hubs, 235 of which are already open. That is alongside the work that we are doing to make sure that the Post Office network is sustained, invested in and able to provide the banking services that people rely on.
I thank again the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for securing the debate. As I have said in this room before, we sometimes talk about high streets as being an important part of the community, but for me, as many hon. Members from all parties have made clear today, they are not just a part of the community but where community happens. They are where people get services, meet their friends and have fun, and where those who are otherwise socially isolated find companionship and community. That is why we have to do far more to support them, to ensure that all the places that we represent thrive and have a sense of pride.
Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Fixed-sum Offer Appeals and Independent Senior Lawyer
Blair McDougall Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Government are determined that postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal receive the compensation they deserve.
The Government are today announcing further details about how postmasters who previously accepted the Horizon shortfall scheme fixed-sum offer will be able to request permission from an independent person to appeal their award. We are also providing an update on the recommendations from the Horizon shortfall scheme independent senior lawyer on cases where there is no evidence of a shortfall.
Permission to appeal
Volume 1 of the Post Office IT Horizon inquiry report recommended that postmasters who feel they may have under-settled their HSS claim by accepting the 75,000 HSS FSO
“should be afforded the opportunity to appeal against their acceptance of such an offer if they are granted permission to do so”
by an independent person. Being granted permission to appeal will not guarantee that a postmaster’s award will be uplifted when their claim is fully assessed in the HSS appeals process.
To implement Sir Wyn Williams’ recommendation, the Department for Business and Trade has developed draft guidance for the scheme and engaged with key stakeholders, including claimants’ representatives, the Horizon compensation advisory board and postmaster organisations. This is to ensure that the process will be fit for purpose and meets its aims.
The FSO permission to appeal process will open for registrations later this year. Postmasters who have already received an FSO will have three months from the launch date to register and seek permission to appeal. Those who receive FSOs in future will have three months from the date of the offer to seek permission to appeal. Once confirmed as eligible, they will then have a further three months to make their application by submitting a concise written narrative explaining why they believe that their claim was under-settled. Assessment of these requests will be undertaken completely independently of the Department and Post Office. A postmaster who is granted permission will be permitted to apply to the HSS appeals process.
DBT will fund postmasters’ reasonable costs of obtaining legal advice to understand the value of their potential claim and prepare their narrative on the basis of a tariff which was discussed with legal representatives and has also been published today. We will strongly encourage those considering seeking permission to appeal to take up this offer and only engage solicitors and firms that are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Law Society of Scotland or the Law Society of Northern Ireland. Additionally, postmasters should not engage any firm which offers a “no-win, no-fee” conditional fee or litigation funding agreement.
The Government have today published the draft fixed-sum offer permission to appeal process guide, which details the proposed principles, eligibility criteria, stages of the process and expectations for applicants. This provides the information which postmasters and their legal representatives will need to start submitting cases. We continue to welcome feedback from stakeholders on our proposals. This is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/horizon-shortfall-scheme-hss-fixed-sum-offer-permission-to-appeal-process .
DBT will work with the Post Office to ensure postmasters who previously received an FSO are contacted upon launch to make them aware that this process is available.
Horizon shortfall scheme
In December 2025, Sir Gary Hickinbottom was appointed to the HSS as the independent senior lawyer to review any generic issues arising under the scheme; and, if appropriate, make recommendations to ensure full, fair and prompt redress within the scheme and, as far as possible, across the Horizon redress schemes as a whole.
The DBT and Post Office referred the handling of cases without shortfall evidence to Sir Gary for review. He has reviewed this process and provided recommendations on it. He advised that, subject to implementation of those recommendations, the process is appropriate, robust and fair, and does not apply more than the necessary burden on claimants. The Government have today published the full report which is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-senior-lawyers-review-of-unevidenced-shortfalls-process . The Post Office and the Department are grateful for his advice and have accepted his recommendations in full.
In addition to the report, we have issued guidance outlining the procedures for managing and processing these cases to ensure claimants have a clear understanding of how their claims will be handled. The Post Office and the Department are committed to providing full and fair redress for those affected by the Horizon scandal. We consider that this revised process will ensure that applicants will obtain that redress in a manner that is fair to all claimants. DBT will continue to work with Post Office to ensure claims are processed as quickly as possible.
I will keep the House updated as this work progresses.
[HCWS45]
Companies House: Public Targets 2026-27
Blair McDougall Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2026-27.
Companies House will continue to score above average for the public sector, in the UK customer satisfaction index.
Digital services are available for a minimum of 99.5% of the time.
All incoming calls to our contact centre wait for no longer than five minutes in the call queue, on average.
Using the registrar’s powers, Companies House will take at least 225,000 actions to tackle abuse and improve the integrity of the register.
By the end of the financial year, all companies will have met identity verification requirements linked to their confirmation statement or be on an appropriate pathway to compliance or enforcement action.
Deliver 4% efficiency, in comparison to 2025-26 controllable spend.
[HCWS24]
Group Litigation Order and Post Office Process Review Schemes: Closure
Blair McDougall Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
In March 2023, the Department for Business and Trade formally launched the group litigation order compensation scheme to provide full and fair redress to the trailblazers who uncovered the Post Office Horizon scandal. I am pleased to confirm that, as of today, we have received full applications from over 95% of the 492 eligible claimants, and have settled nearly 90% of all claims. As we are nearing completion of the scheme, I am announcing today that any final applications must be submitted to the Department by 31 July 2026, ahead of the scheme formally closing on 31 December 2026. It is my determination to bring closure to this group for all the suffering they have endured, and I hope today’s announcement goes some way in achieving that. We have consulted claimants’ legal representatives and the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board about these deadlines and will continue to work with them if there are any claimants, for reason of vulnerability, who will need extra support to resolve their claim.
I am also announcing today that the post office process review scheme will close to new applications on 30 September 2026. This scheme is unrelated to the GLO scheme and to the Horizon system-related shortfalls more broadly; instead, PPR provides redress to postmasters for financial losses caused by other Post Office products, policies or processes. The scheme is run by Post Office Ltd and is open to all eligible former and current postmasters, the vast majority of whom should now have received an invitation to apply. Any postmaster who believes they are eligible but has not received an invitation should contact Post Office Ltd directly at: [email protected]. This follows the closure to new applications of the Horizon shortfall scheme and the suspension remuneration review on 31 January 2026.
[HCWS1527]
Post Office Network Transformation Programme: Independent Investigation
Blair McDougall Excerpts(6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Parliament was notified last year of the Government’s intention to commission an independent review into allegations surrounding the Post Office’s network transformation programme (2010 to 2019).
I can now update Members that the investigation has begun. Adam Tolley KC has been appointed to lead the investigation, supported by an independent legal team. The terms of reference for the investigation have been published online, and Members and their constituents are welcome to write to the investigation team at: [email protected].
I will update the House on the investigation’s findings once the final report has been produced.
[HCWS1512]