Points of Order

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a slightly unusual point of order, but one that it is important to deal with now as it may become more of an issue going forward. Last week, it was claimed I had participated in a Westminster Hall debate on digital ID, where I allegedly not only spoke but voted in favour of digital ID. Of course, as we know, we do not usually hold votes in Westminster Hall; I was also actually in the Chamber at the time, speaking on the Employment Rights Bill. On further inquiry, it transpired that Google AI had claimed that I was in Westminster Hall at the time, speaking in favour of digital ID. As I know many more constituents will seek to use these devices to understand our positions on various matters, I wonder whether there is any way that I could correct the record, and in fact whether the House could give some advice to these tech companies on using Hansard as the authoritative source for positions on various subjects.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. As he acknowledges, external AI services are not a matter for the Chair. However, he has certainly put his accurate position—and his presence in this Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall—on the record.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I received a notification via the Facebook page of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) that the planning for the Universal UK theme park, which is located wholly within my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, has been approved. The hon. Member for Bedford shared a letter that he had received from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Subsequent to notifying the Secretary of State about this point of order, I received a letter. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise whether it is appropriate for Ministers to provide notification of a planning approval in a Member’s constituency to the neighbouring Labour MP but not to the Member themselves?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and for informing the Secretary the State that he intended to raise this matter. There is no specific rule or convention of the House that I am aware of relating to notification of planning consents, but as a general principle, if a Minister is informing hon. Members of a development of any kind, as a courtesy they should include the hon. Member in whose constituency the development is to take place.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It sounds like there was an error made by the Department, and for that I sincerely apologise. I will discuss this with Ministers and officials to make sure that it does not happen again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that apology.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords Message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before we commence consideration of the Lords message, I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 23

Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.

To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that

“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”

I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place.

There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs.

This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher.

This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Members will be aware that the debate has to conclude by 8.24 pm, so there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. Of course, if Members did not feel obliged to use all five minutes, that would help their colleagues.

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

May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again.

Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate.

I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work.

I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.

[Justin Madders]

I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point.

Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight.

The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights.

It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026.

Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Today we are debating the fourth round of consideration of Lords amendments to this Bill, and this long and protracted process says a lot about the way the Government have approached this legislation. The Bill was initially put together at great speed, missing much of the detail; there was a long series of Government amendments late in the process; and now a major last-minute change on the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has been sprung on businesses and Parliament. Regardless of what one makes of the different measures in the legislation, I think most of us would agree that the process followed in designing it has been less than ideal. Having said that, let me reiterate what has always been the Liberal Democrat position on the Bill: we support many of the aims of this legislation.

We welcome expanding access to statutory sick pay, improving parental leave and taking steps to address the massive pay gap facing social care workers. We agree with giving those on zero-hours contracts more certainty, even though we proposed what we view as a more practical and balanced way of doing so, and we are pleased to see a unified Fair Work Agency, which we also called for as a way of empowering employees to exercise their rights without fear of any negative consequences. However, we have made it clear that we have significant worries about the specific way in which some of those measures would be implemented, and we have repeatedly raised our concern that crucial detail was being left for secondary legislation.

By far our biggest concern was the complete lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods, which is why we have worked in both Houses to secure a vital concession setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal at six months. We are proud that when some tried to brush aside the concerns of the business community and others sought to frustrate the process, it was the Liberal Democrats who secured this vital provision. It is the role of any responsible Opposition party to engage constructively and achieve substantial improvements for the good of our country. It could not be clearer that this fair and sensible shift will equally benefit businesses and workers. So many businesses I have spoken to have said that this is the single most meaningful change that could have been made to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power.

Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We are not debating hereditary peers; we are debating the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

[Mark Sewards]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The votes in the other place serve only to strengthen my resolve that we must get the Bill through Parliament and strengthen the rights of workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that his Government are yet to abolish the hereditary peers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We are not having a debate on hereditary Members of the House of Lords. We are debating the Lords message on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

[Laurence Turner]

If the Lords amendment were not rejected, it would have two immediate effects. First, it would collapse the agreement between employers and union representatives. It is not some reasonable call for a review; it strikes out the changes to the compensation cap, which was a key component of that agreement. The Conservatives know that it is a nonsense to call for a review if the legislation that would give it effect is not carried—[Interruption.] Secondly, the amendment would so delay the Bill that April’s extension of statutory sick pay and parental leave for millions of people—some on the very lowest incomes—falls into doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that is disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman is literally implying corruption. I made it very clear in my speech what the basis of our change in support in the Lords was for, and I think it is intolerable that we are being accused.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let us move to Lords amendment 120N. This is a major new policy. We do not have to argue about whether a £118,000 cap is a good or bad idea. I think the cap is a good idea, but the amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Government have decided to impose this measure in the Bill. It was not part of the manifesto. It was not part of the Bill or discussed in the Bill Committee. It has just been inserted at the last moment in ping-pong. There has been no risk assessment, no impact assessment, and no consultation. The amendment does not put the Government off course. All it asks the Government to do is, within three months of Royal Assent,

“conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded”.

That consultation only has to consult employers’ organisations, trade unions—one would think Labour Members would be in favour of that—and

“organisations representing employment law practitioners, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

If the Government choose to implement policy on the hoof, the least they can do is undertake a consultation that they should have carried out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Kate Dearden]

I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and throughout the passage of the Bill. When there is a finding of unfair dismissal at tribunal, it is important that the claimant is fairly compensated for the loss they have suffered. We also believe that the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal incentivises claimants to construct complex cases that allege both unfair dismissal and discrimination so as to access uncapped compensation, as I stated in my introductory remarks—perhaps Conservative Members did not hear that. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, that incentive will be lessened.

By removing the cap, the Government will also deter employs from treating the cost of dismissing employees unfairly as part of business as usual, instead ensuring that employees who face significant losses as a result of being unfairly dismissed are fairly compensated. Compensation for unfair dismissal is awarded only where a tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. Claims that do not have merit will not secure any compensatory award with or without a cap.

Lifting the cap will not mean that compensatory awards start from a blank sheet of paper and become impossible to anticipate. Tribunals have well established ways to calculate the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for her support. As she referenced, and as Members will have heard in my introductory remarks, we will publish an economic assessment in due course, and I am always available for further discussion.

Conservative Members have opposed this Bill at every stage, and no matter what the issue was today, they would oppose it again. Businesses and unions have shown leadership, and Conservative Members and Parliament should respect their voice. The tripartite agreement was forged through dialogue with those who live the realities of our workplaces every day. That agreement included a package conducted in good faith and with good will, and I thank them for it.

This Government’s aim is clear: to conclude the passage of the Bill so that millions of British workers gain new rights while businesses can prepare for change with certainty. Labour Members send a clear message to the other place to now let the Bill—a Bill that delivers on multiple manifesto commitments and has a clear electoral mandate—pass. Any further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity. We now strive to conclude this process and deliver the change that Britian needs to make work pay. We cannot build a strong economy with people in insecure work. We are strengthening the foundations of our economy and improving living standards. The Bill, and all our work across Government, is the foundation for building an economy that works for everyone.

Question put.

Seasonal Work

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member knows better than to refer to Members by name.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor were to disappear, all confidence in the Government would collapse. It seems that the Prime Minister has as much faith in his Cabinet as the rest of us have in him. It is unfortunate that the Government are comprised almost entirely of people of public sector, academic or union backgrounds. Precious few have ever operated a business. They do not understand how running a business works, and it shows.

There is another path that the Government could take, and it is not too late. I call on them to withdraw their Employment Rights Bill, to get rid of their “Benefits Street” Budget, and to lower taxes for hard-working people and businesses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were

“More than when the Conservatives left office”.

The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. While the Chair is not responsible for the content of contributions made by Ministers, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments this afternoon and, if an error has been made, I am sure it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I intervened on the Minister earlier, I should have declared an interest with regards to my support from the trade union movement, of which I am extremely proud. For that, I humbly apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for having corrected the record and for putting his interests on the record.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to focus on the workforce. Earlier today, I sought and was given reassurances by the company on the support that it will give to the workforce. Its expectation is that, of the 179 permanent employees, 50 of those will remain in employment until at least 2027-28 to support the safe decommissioning of the plant, and a further 50 will be offered relocation to its Fawley plant. I have also made inquiries about apprentices.

On her specific request for a taskforce, that would be usual in this situation. I absolutely support it, and I think a new and distinctive taskforce is required for this plant to address the very specific areas, not only for the plant but for the Fife community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?

Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites?

We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities?

Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Lady points out that the plant is not in her constituency, but clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency concerned, particularly for a plant of this size, and we need to think carefully about the impact on the supply chain. I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government are mentioned towards the end of the statement. That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government have not been or are not involved. There have been meetings at the highest level in the Scottish Government. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been involved in discussions with ExxonMobil, as we have tried to find any possible measure to avoid this decision. Ultimately, it was a decision for the business, and our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife. As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity to bring new investment to that site in the future, and that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement this evening. I share the concern of colleagues, particularly those based in Fife, about the effect the closure will have. The news that contract workers were locked out of the plant this morning is a major concern, as is the news that staff—many of whom have worked in the company for many decades—have not yet been given information about what redundancy packages may be available. That is very worrying. What engagement is the Minister having with trade unions on this troubling development, and does he believe the trade unions have been properly consulted, as they should be in a situation such as this?

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I cannot help but notice that none of the SNP MPs is in the Chamber for this statement, so they are not defending the ideological objection that they seem to have. My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, is absolutely right to highlight the Scottish Government’s playground politics; this is holding back investment right across the country, as well as the necessary energy security.

We know that nuclear power stations across Scotland have delivered generations of well-paid, skilled and sustainable jobs. I recently met people in Torness who had started out as apprentices and who are still there, 20 or 30 years later, working in the nuclear industry. There will be jobs in Scotland in the supply chain for the SMR programme and Sizewell C, but it is a great shame that the Scottish National party is holding back the full potential of Scotland to be part of this nuclear story. I hope that the people of Scotland will vote for a different Government in May, so that we can get on with delivering the jobs and investment in communities right across Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It will not surprise the House that I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but he is right on two fronts. First, it is all fine and good to promise to do things and to talk big and to consult and consult, but at some point money has to be put on the table to deliver it. The previous Government failed to do that. Almost £20 billion of investment has now been brought forward by this Government to make these projects a reality. That is how we deliver a new golden age of nuclear in the United Kingdom, rather than just publishing lots of documents and thinking that is the end of it.

My hon. Friend’s second point is also right. Investment in the UK in the clean power transition is hugely important. We have had more than £50 billion of private investment since we came to power last year. That is because of the certainty and the policy confidence that investors have in the UK. That would be put at risk by the policies of the Conservatives, Reform and others who talk about the future energy mix, but miss out the detail and put that investment at risk. That puts at risk jobs and investment in supply chains across the country, too. We are delivering the energy policy of the future for energy security, for climate leadership and for good jobs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses this afternoon.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 66, 88, 90, 91 and 101 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 22

Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination

4.43 pm

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 22.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 22 and Government amendment (b).

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 21, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 107 to 120, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 46 to 49, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 60 to 62, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 121, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169.

[Peter Kyle]

It is a pleasure to make my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Business and Trade to deliver the biggest improvements in workers’ rights for a generation, as part of the Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which formed a key plank of my party’s manifesto commitments.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his work on the Bill and, more widely, in supporting our country to get to growth. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her tireless fight for the rights of working people. Without her, this Bill would simply not exist. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who worked so hard to get the legislation to this point, and to my dear friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, whose indefatigable work in the other place has ensured that this Bill was steered through the legislative process with a very steady hand. To many who have worked on this Bill, it has been a life’s work, and the culmination of an enormous amount of effort on their part, for which I am extremely grateful.

This is a landmark Bill. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objectives of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

This matter has been the source of a lot of consternation and examination in my Department. I assure the right hon. Member that we have looked very closely at it and believe that the existing law is fit for purpose in this case. We will proceed on that basis, but as she will have found during the time we have both been in this place, I am always happy to sit down with her, and especially, being so new in the job, so to learn about that specific case. However, we will proceed in that way because the advice is very clear on this matter.

Lords amendments 61 and 72 seek to remove clause 59 relating to trade union political funds from the Bill. Clause 59 reverses the changes introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, reinstating arrangements whereby union members are automatically opted in to contribute to political funds, unless they choose to opt out. This is a key step in lifting the burden of the 2016 Act and returning to a long-standing precedent that worked for 70 years. Removing clause 59 would break a clear Government commitment, which is why the Government consider that Lords amendment 61 should be rejected.

Lords amendment 62 seeks to remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, the effect of which would be to retain the 50% turnout threshold requirement for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. The Bill brings union democracy into line with other democratic mandates, including votes in this Parliament and elections for each and every one of us. Clause 65 is a step towards fairness and consistency in how we respect collective voices, which is why this Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 121 is another duplicate amendment. We agree that the school support staff negotiating body should not block employers that wish to go further than the minimum terms and conditions, but that is already stipulated in the Bill. The amendment duplicates the effect of proposed new section 148M(6)(b), which is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.

I urge Members to support the Government amendments before the House, including the amendments in lieu in relation to the extension of rights to time off for special constables. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage, and we have made meaningful changes where needed, including on bereavement leave and non-disclosure arrangements. We will continue to listen in relation to the further work to be undertaken when implementing the Bill.

The Employment Rights Bill is a major step forward in modernising protections and delivering on our commitment to make work pay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I will now allow others to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as

“an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.”

Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward.

In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and to hear his passion for the Bill; I wish him every success. I also welcome the new Secretary of State for Business and Trade to his place. I look forward to opposing him.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the Bill’s aims. We have long called for employment rights to be strengthened in several ways, including by boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle, and that moves the country in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about how many of the measures will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business. Some of our worries arose from the extent to which crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, or will be subject to consultations. That does not facilitate stability and certainty for business or workers, and it precludes long-term planning. That will particularly impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those businesses looking to grow. That is why we are supportive of, for example, the amendment that sets the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months; that would create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, which provide employment. Those reforms include reform of the broken business rates system, a removal of trade barriers, and proper reform of the apprenticeship levy.

I am in favour of Lords amendment 1, which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. The Liberal Democrats have long stood for giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many zero-hours workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing caring responsibilities alongside work value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.

Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might just help Members if I explain that because the debate started early, we have time for them to make speeches without having asked the Member in charge or the Minister for permission to do so. The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) is right to say that there is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.

Future of the Post Office

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Green Paper that we are publishing today on the future of the Post Office.

Post offices have stood as a cornerstone of British national life for generations, serving constituents in every part of the UK. They are a lot more than just places to send letters or collect parcels; they are hubs of economic and social activity. They are a lifeline to small businesses, provide access to essential services, including everyday banking services, and are a critical part of our high streets. They also have a unique role in rural areas, particularly permanent branches, and act as the beating heart of communities.

In recent years, however, the need for change has become clear. Twelve months ago, we inherited a Post Office in crisis—declining financial sustainability, unstable leadership, a network struggling to maintain services, and a reputation shattered by the Horizon scandal and its appalling treatment of sub-postmasters, as Sir Wyn Williams’s first report last week underlined only too clearly. This Government are determined to strengthen the Post Office network, and today’s Green Paper begins a national dialogue on the future of the Post Office so that we can create a modern, resilient and financially sustainable organisation.

We recognise that the Post Office, just like other postal services around the world, faces significant challenges that are driven in no small part by changing consumer habits fuelled by the digital transition, changing high streets and a changing economy. We want a Post Office network that the public uses, values and, above all, trusts. We want branches to be visible on the high street, in rural and urban areas, and in all communities, offering a wide range of in-person services.

I do not believe that people are ideologically wedded to a smaller or bigger Post Office; they just want a Post Office that works for them, their businesses and their communities. Our preferred approach is for the overall size and shape of the Post Office network to remain the same so that we minimise the impact on communities. We want to strengthen branches to modernise them and expand what they do. There are, though, a range of strong views on the Post Office network, so we will carefully consider all the views put to us about its future.

We need a Post Office that not only preserves its role in providing vital services to communities, but embraces the needs of modern Britain. The challenges are significant. Many branches are not profitable for the postmasters running them. Average weekly customer sessions have declined by 34% since 2007, and the shift to online services continues. While some services, such as parcel drop-offs and banking transactions, are growing, others, such as Government services, have seen significant decline. But we are also seeing innovation across the network. Drop and collect branches are being rolled out to meet the growing demand for parcel services. Over 160 banking hubs are now operational, with a commitment to roll out 350 by the end of the Parliament. As the banks continue to close branches, we are keen to support the Post Office to improve and develop the banking services it provides. Working with our Treasury colleagues, we will host joint discussions on this issue with the Post Office and the banking sector in the coming months.

Above all else, we know the Post Office needs stability, which we are committed to providing. We are backing that commitment with over £500 million investment during this Parliament, including up to £136 million in this financial year to invest in new technology and replace Horizon. Horizon should have gone long ago. Instead, it will be many months yet before it is replaced. Fujitsu should only be part of the Post Office’s grim past, not its current and immediate future. We are determined to end the use of Horizon and draw a line under Fujitsu’s involvement with the Post Office. The task of replacing Horizon is hugely complex. It has been embedded in the Post Office network for more than two decades and remains critical to the delivery of the essential services that many of our constituents depend on from the Post Office. Never again must we allow the Post Office to put blind faith in its technology.

We will support the implementation of the Post Office’s transformation plan, which aims to make the company more efficient, enabling it to continue offering cash and banking services in the coming years. We will also fund innovative equipment for postmasters to help customers beat the queues. Indeed, this plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030 and includes a commitment to boost annual postmaster incomes by £250 million by the end of the decade. Already, a £20 million uplift has been delivered in 2024-25, with £66 million planned for this financial year.

After all the Post Office has put its people through, it is now essential that it reorientates its culture towards postmasters, involving them in central decision making. The first steps have been taken with the creation of a consultative council and the election of postmaster non-execs. I am acutely aware that there are those who say that more is needed and, indeed, that is why in this Green Paper we are exploring options for further strengthening those structures.

In the longer term, we are open to more fundamental reforms. Two ideas that have been put to us include the potential mutualisation of the Post Office—giving postmasters and communities a much greater stake in the organisation—and a charter model that separates the Government’s role in setting the purpose from the board’s role in running the business. We will assess other suggestions for the Post Office’s long-term future, including on its future commercial direction, such as closer working with Royal Mail. These are perhaps not decisions for the moment, but we want to begin the debate and conversation now, so we are ready to act when the time is right.

The Green Paper is an important step towards rebuilding trust in the Post Office and embedding a culture of transparency, accountability and compassion. It is important to stress that no decisions on changes to governance arrangements will be made until after the inquiry’s final report to allow us all to consider Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations on governance issues together with Green Paper responses.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the Post Office. The Green Paper is ambitious but grounded in reality. It asks difficult questions about how we ensure long-term sustainability while protecting essential services. We want to hear from everyone with a stake in the Post Office’s future. The Post Office must be modern, resilient and trusted. The Green Paper will be, I hope, the first step in delivering that vision, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the even greater role that banks could play on our high streets by working with the Post Office. It is one area that Post Office senior management has identified as key to the Post Office’s commercial future. We have set aside significant sums of money to invest in new technology to make it easier to work with the banks and do even more. I hope that banks and the financial services community will recognise that they have a considerable opportunity to do more in providing services to all our constituents by working with the Post Office. I look forward to sitting down with the Post Office and the financial services industry, alongside Treasury colleagues, to see whether we can take advantage of that opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome today’s announcement about putting local post offices on a more sustainable footing.

Post offices are an important part of our communities, providing a number of critical services on our local high streets, from community banking and foreign exchange to the provision of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. Often their services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, those with limited transport options and those in areas without reliable access to online services. Currently 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 high street bank branches have closed across the UK, resulting in local post offices being the only place where local communities can access banking services.

As the Government bring forward their necessary reforms, it is vital that essential local services and post office jobs are protected. Will the Minister assure me that under this proposal no post office will be closed until a consultation with each local community has been undertaken? Although we welcome the increased digitisation of services, which will boost accessibility for those who cannot use face-to-face services, as well as productivity across the public sector, how will the Government ensure that post offices remain financially viable?

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Sir Wyn Williams has today released the first volume of his report into the Horizon scandal, which caused so much harm to so many innocent people. The fearless and diligent work of his inquiry has, I believe, won the trust and admiration of postmasters. The inquiry has asked penetrating questions of a large number of witnesses and has scrutinised more than 2 million pages of evidence. I know that the whole House recognises the bravery of the postmasters who fought against enormous odds to see their cause recognised.

Sir Wyn’s report reminds us that blameless people were impoverished, bankrupted, stressed beyond belief, and lost their jobs, marriages, reputations, mental health and, in some cases, their lives. I am sure that the whole House shares my gratitude to Sir Wyn and his team for their work so far. This is only the first volume of their final report, spelling out the scandal’s human impact and looking at the redress schemes that have been put in place in response. The second volume will in due course deal with the causes of the scandal and how repetition can be avoided.

To be clear, I am very sympathetic to Sir Wyn’s 19 recommendations in the volume published today. Clearly, a number of them require careful consideration. We will respond to them promptly, as some concern the ongoing delivery of Horizon redress schemes. Sir Wyn has set us a deadline of 10 October, and we will meet it.

The House will see that Sir Wyn has accepted that

“the Post Office, the Department and Ministers continue to adhere to the aims of providing financial redress, which is full, fair and prompt.”

He also concludes that the majority of people who have accepted offers under the group litigation order scheme

“will have done so because, for them, the offer was full and fair.”

That said, Sir Wyn makes some understandable criticisms, especially of the Horizon shortfall scheme, which we will need to study closely and address.

We inherited a compensation process that was widely seen as too slow, adversarial and legalistic. Well over four years after the first High Court case exposed the scandal, only 2,500 postmasters had had final settlements. There were clearly significant gaps in the compensation process, and many victims had not come forward. Indeed, there was no compensation scheme in place for those postmasters whose convictions had been overturned by Parliament.

A year ago, the Government had paid £236 million in redress. We have now quadrupled that to nearly £1.1 billion. We have launched a compensation scheme for postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—the Horizon convictions redress scheme—and have merged the Post Office’s compensation arrangements for overturned convictions into it. Through the Post Office, we have delivered a £75,000 fixed-sum offer to over 4,200 victims who opted for it.

We have also launched an independent process to allow people to appeal their HSS settlements or offers. That should provide, as Sir Wyn says in his report,

“an opportunity to put right any failures to deliver redress which is full and fair”

for HSS victims.

We have also begun discussions with Fujitsu on their contribution to the costs of the scandal. As the House knows, and as Sir Wyn’s report underlines, there is still a lot more to do. I know that the postmasters who have yet to agree final compensation are frustrated with the delay; so am I.

We have consulted regularly with the Horizon compensation advisory board and others on what more we can do to improve redress. Sir Wyn’s recommendations are very helpful in that regard. Two of his recommendations address issues that we have already been working on across Government and with the advisory board. I can confirm that we accept Sir Wyn’s recommendation that claimants should be able to bank the best offer that they get from the GLO process and that it should not be put at risk if they choose to go to the independent panel.

Secondly, we will provide redress for family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal. I have met the group Lost Chances for the Children of Sub-postmasters, which has campaigned with considerable courage on this issue. Sir Wyn rightly recognises that designing a suitable compensation scheme for family members raises some very difficult issues. None the less, we want to look after those family members who suffered most—meeting Sir Wyn’s recommendation that we should give

“redress to close family members of those most adversely affected by Horizon.”

Given those challenges, we will now discuss the details of how a scheme should be run with claimants’ lawyers, the independent advisory board and the Lost Chances group. It will be open to close family members of existing Horizon claimants who themselves suffered personal injury, including psychological distress, because of their relatives’ suffering. Other than in exceptional circumstances, we will need contemporaneous written evidence of that personal injury.

There are some fundamental lessons to be learned, to which Sir Wyn points, about how compensation following wrongdoing on this scale should be delivered in future. In particular, the Post Office should never have been allowed to run it, decisions on funding should have been made much more quickly, and it should not have needed an ITV drama to stimulate action to overturn hundreds of unjust convictions. We cannot now turn back the clock to fix those fundamental mistakes. We must instead address two challenges.

The first challenge is to make sure that if there is ever another terrible scandal like this one—we all sincerely hope there is not—the victims do not need to bring a traumatic court case to expose it. The second challenge, if another such scandal happens, is that the Government must be set up to offer trusted redress from the very start. Sir Wyn argues that there should be a standing public body to deliver redress in any further scandal. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with that argument, but clearly we need to analyse the options fully before we commit to it. We will reflect on how to address those twin challenges and will bring back our conclusions to the House.

We can never properly recompense a person for being wrongly denied their freedom, for the humiliation of being wrongly accused or for seeing their loved ones in profound distress or worse, and neither can we recompense them for their good reputation being taken from them. I cannot assuage the anger of the victims, nor will the anger that I feel on their behalf ever be assuaged, but we are determined to do more on redress and beyond, and to do it quickly, to give more of the victims of this appalling scandal at least a measure of the peace that they so rightly deserve. I commend Sir Wyn’s report to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and questions. She was right to say in her opening remarks about this being the greatest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. The responsibility is therefore on us all to do everything we can to make sure the victims receive full and fair compensation, and to ensure that there is never a repeat.

The hon. Lady specifically challenges me on the question of the 10 October deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has put in place. I can confirm that we are determined to meet that deadline. It is particularly important that we do so, as some of his recommendations concern the ongoing delivery of the Horizon compensation schemes and we do not want, inadvertently or not, to delay or hold back any of those claims.

The hon. Lady rightly gives me the opportunity to again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work when he was the Post Office Minister. Without question, we would be even further behind without the considerable amount of work and effort that he put in. There are many others in the House who have campaigned long and hard on behalf of the sub-postmasters, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who I see in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee.

The hon. Lady asked who and how will those responsible be held to account. She knows that Sir Wyn Williams is due to publish the second part of his report, which focuses on those very questions. We will consider carefully what he has to say about that when we receive his report. I suspect that she already knows that the Metropolitan police is leading an investigation into whether criminal responsibility is at play. More than 100 police officers are working on that investigation and they have identified a number of individuals of interest. We will see what they do with regard to those individuals in due course. As the hon. Lady and the House will understand, Ministers are not in any way involved in such decisions.

What further steps have we taken to deliver and speed up compensation? The hon. Lady will be aware that we have issued the opportunity for sub-postmasters who apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme and who want to accept a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 to do so. We have put in place an appeals process to try to give those who feel they have not received a fair offer to date a chance to get full and fair redress.

There are particular challenges in the Horizon shortfall scheme. If I am honest, it is the scheme that I worry about the most, not least because there are 1,700 cases in which there does not appear to be any evidence of shortfalls. That does not mean that there were no shortfalls; it means that, at this stage, we do not have evidence of what those shortfalls were. As the House would expect, I have gone back to the Post Office and made it clear that we want it to reinvestigate, to see whether evidence can be found in as many of those cases as possible. We are looking very carefully at what we can do about the rest.

On Fujitsu, we will need to see Sir Wyn’s final report to understand fully the degree of Fujitsu’s culpability. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that we think it should bring forward an interim compensation payment, and I hope that it will see the report today and recognise the need to do that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the Green Paper. We hope to publish it very shortly. One of the issues that it will consider is the future of the Post Office’s IT systems, because we certainly need to move on from the past and Horizon. We will set out in a bit more detail at that point what work we are doing in that regard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

On behalf of our Committee, I welcome this report from Sir Wyn Williams. As Jo Hamilton has said, it unmasks the full horror of what was done to the sub-postmasters, including the truth that at least 13 suicides resulted from what the Post Office did to innocent people. Sir Wyn Williams echoes almost all the recommendations our Committee has now made three times to Ministers. There are 3,000 claims still outstanding, and there are, in Sir Wyn’s words, “egregious delays” at every stage of the claims process, so does the Minister now accept that, as we have recommended and Sir Wyn has recommended, up-front legal advice needs to be provided to victims?

Does the Minister also accept that we must now, once and for all, strip the Post Office of any role in the Horizon shortfall scheme? Will the Minister commit to a date for getting rid of the Post Office altogether from that redress scheme? Today’s report makes it clear that at least 160 people in the Post Office knew exactly what was going on, and some of them came to this House and misled Members of this House not once but twice, so is it now the moment for us to commence contempt of Parliament proceedings against the leaders of the Post Office who misled us so badly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I want to take this opportunity again to pay tribute to the work of the Business and Trade Committee under my right hon. Friend’s chairmanship. As he has said, there has been a series of recommendations from his Committee, and I recognise that we have not always agreed with all those recommendations. For me, the question about whether to offer legal advice to Horizon shortfall scheme claimants has always been a finely balanced judgment. I say that because it has always been clear that the victims wanted a fast route to secure compensation without the involvement of lawyers, and the fact that so many have accepted the fixed-sum payment is an indication of that appetite. Nevertheless, I recognise that Sir Wyn Williams has given us a clear steer on that particular question, and we will consider that extremely carefully and very quickly.

On the question of whether the Post Office should be stripped completely of responsibility for the Horizon shortfall scheme, there is no doubt that if we were starting afresh, the Post Office would have no responsibility for any of the compensation schemes. When I looked at the question of whether to start over again in the delivery of the compensation schemes and at who should be responsible for their delivery, I recognised that to change completely the processes as they had been set up would see further delay in getting compensation to the victims. I say gently to my right hon. Friend that Sir Wyn Williams has not said today that the Post Office should not be involved in the Horizon shortfall scheme’s delivery. We have been clear that we need to take away responsibility for the most complex cases, and we have set up the appeals scheme to do so. Given the numbers who have come forward with appeals on the Horizon shortfall scheme, I hope that we will be able to give confidence to those people that they will have a chance to get full and fair redress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Horizon scandal was an appalling miscarriage of justice, and today’s report highlights the extent of the human suffering that it has caused. Reading the stories of some of the victims in this report was truly heartbreaking, and it could not be clearer that far too many people’s lives have been irreparably affected. No scandal of this kind can be allowed to happen ever again. We warmly welcome the publication of the first volume of the independent inquiry’s report, which has the full support of the Liberal Democrats, and I sincerely hope that it will focus Ministers’ minds in getting victims the compensation and justice that they deserve as soon as possible. It is shocking that victims of this scandal have had to wait this long for their rightful compensation and justice. The Government need to move at speed and bring an end to this unacceptable delay.

Although we welcome the promise of full compensation, the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government to account in order to ensure that victims get the payments they deserve as quickly as possible, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will implement the recommendations of today’s report in full? Will they set out a timeline for when all victims can expect to receive full and fair compensation? What conversations have the Government had with the Post Office and Fujitsu about restorative justice in the light of Sir Wyn’s recommendations? Lastly, when will the Government finally introduce legislation on a full duty of candour, for which sub-postmasters and the victims of so many other scandals and disasters have so long called?