Post Office Management Culture

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

May I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing this debate and her fine work as always on the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, and to the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this debate? I also pay tribute to all Members of this House and the other place for their work on this issue. I promise the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), that I do not need anybody to hold my feet to the fire, but it is good that we have this momentum. I very much appreciate the work that has been done by many.

There have been many kind words from contributors about my work, but it is a bit part compared with that of many others who have campaigned long and hard on this issue, as have people outside this place, including members of the legal profession and the media, many of whom we are familiar with for their great work on bringing this scandal to light.

On the governance issues, I am fond of a quote by Emerson, who said:

“An institution is the lengthened shadow of a single man.”

I am keen to ensure that the Post Office’s management culture is in the right place. A positive management culture is paramount to the health of any organisation, so I very much welcome the opportunity the debate brings to consider that point. The Post Office scandal is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in living history, and the victims must get the justice they deserve. I do believe that today’s Post Office is different from the past, but restoring trust will take time. That does not mean that we are satisfied with the current situation. This will never be about quick fixes; it will be about fundamental changes in every part of the organisation, and that change will not occur overnight.

When the current chief executive of the Post Office, Nick Read, started in September 2019, he made it clear that as well as delivering the essential services that we value across our constituencies, the Post Office needed to apologise for the events of the past and fully address them. On the point made by the shadow Minister about the current board, no one serving on a day-to-day basis on the current board was there at the time of the scandal. As I said, Nick Read joined in 2019, and only one member of the board was there at the time, but they are on extended leave on health grounds and do not work on the board on a day-to-day basis. No members of the senior management team were there at the time.

Post Office is taking steps to right the wrongs of the past. However, it is also important to highlight what it has done with a view to the present and future of the business to improve the culture and ensure that a similar situation can never arise. Crucially, Post Office is taking steps to restore trust between itself and postmasters. That is so important, because, as I have said many times, without postmasters, there is no post office network.

In December 2019, the parties to the group litigation in Bates v. Post Office Ltd took part in a mediation session and issued a joint statement confirming Post Office’s commitment to resetting its relationship with postmasters. Since then, Post Office has improved the board’s structure by ensuring that two non-executive director postmasters nominated and elected by other postmasters have a seat on the board. That is intended to ensure that postmaster voices are being heard at the highest level and that senior management are aware of the impact that decisions will have on those on the frontline delivering services.

Post Office also created a postmaster experience director role, which is filled by a serving postmaster. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, it is held by Mark Eldridge, who is a serving postmaster at Great Massingham. He is seconded to the role, so he may no longer be in that post office on a daily basis, but he is nevertheless a serving postmaster. He leads the day-to-day relationship with postmasters. Alongside those senior appointments, the Post Office has reformed operational matters to improve culture and trust between senior management, staff and postmasters. Improved training packages and the hiring of more than 100 new area managers to provide dedicated local support are all examples of positive changes. At my meeting yesterday with Voice of the Postmaster and Communication Workers Union national postmasters, they spoke highly of the support and engagement provided by those area managers.

Post Office has also strengthened how it listens to postmasters, with two postmaster conferences and a nationwide postmaster consultation conducted each year to provide the foundation of Post Office annual priorities. I experience at first hand how postmasters in the network today can challenge Post Office leadership on various issues when I chair a regular working group between the Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I know that, according to various commentators, past experience of that group has been mixed, but my experience from working with them on an ongoing basis has been that the challenge they provide is constructive but robust.

I know that branch profitability is the top priority for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office is committed to increasing the share of income going to postmasters. That has been stressed on every occasion we have met. We have also very much stressed the need to control central costs—indeed, to reduce them—so that we see more of the remuneration heading towards postmasters. The clear strategy for the Post Office to do that and ensure that the highest share of income goes to postmasters is through parcels and banking services, which are key; we have discussed that regularly when we have met. That point was raised by the hon. Members for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I have been clear that the banking framework, which is negotiated between the Post Office and the UK banks, should be as ambitious as possible. Banks have saved about £2.5 billion a year through closure of branches, and in our view a greater percentage of that should go to postmasters directly. I am pleased that the shadow Minister likes our policy on banking hubs, which came principally as a result of our legislation on access to cash. Thirty are open already, and another 70 are in the pipeline, so we will be at 100 and we anticipate that about 500 will be rolled out across the country. Clearly there is more to do to strengthen the relationships with postmasters, but I believe that the Post Office has made and is making some positive steps forward.

Members rightly raised compensation, which speaks to the current management culture at the Post Office. Getting compensation to those impacted by the scandal has not been as swift as we would have hoped. I can assure Members that my Department has been working hard on compensation, alongside colleagues in the Post Office who were recruited specifically for that purpose. As the Secretary of State said recently, we continue to look for ways to speed things up, and we work closely with the Horizon compensation advisory board to ensure that we deliver faster compensation, and that compensation is seen to be fair and is fair.

Recently, we introduced measures such as fixed sum awards of £600,000 for overturned convictions, and £75,000 for the GLO. To be clear, a fixed sum award is an option for people who believe that it will provide sufficient redress. People who believe that their claims are above that level can go down the full assessment route, but the fixed sum award route has the benefit of speedy resolution of claims and reducing the number of people in the queue who want to go down the full assessment route. That should mean faster resolution of claims for all parties involved in the compensation process.

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The Minister has been given credit for the assiduous way that he is righting the wrongs. Members in all parts of the House have been contacted by those affected, such as sub-postmasters who have been prosecuted or have suffered in other ways. Is there a constituency breakdown of the numbers affected? Some people will be more familiar with how to avail themselves of opportunities than others. If we can make ourselves available to those affected —not just those prosecuted—that may provide some assistance, albeit at a late stage, and some solace to them as they try and right the wrongs that he has rightly outlined.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and his work on this matter. It is interesting that more people are coming forward, through colleagues, to the compensation processes, which is very welcome. Some colleagues have written to all their postmasters in their area, asking them to come forward. That is a positive step. I was not aware that I had a postmaster in my area who had been affected—Sam Harrison of Nawton, near Helmsley, who sadly passed away last May. She was one of the 555 members of the GLO scheme. Sadly, she has passed away. New cases come to light all the time. I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend to see what information we might provide him, so that he can take forward those actions.

As I said, we are aware of concerns about the Horizon shortfall scheme, which was the first scheme set up. We are looking at ways to ensure that that scheme’s compensation is fair and seen to be fair. More than £160 million has been awarded already to 2,700 victims, and 64% of all claimants who made their claims prior to the ITV series—more will come forward as a result, which we welcome—have had full and final compensation. Much work has been done by me, my predecessors and many officials, who do a tremendous job trying to right the wrongs of the past, but there is more that we can and have to do.

As of 6 February, more than £35 million has been paid out to those with overturned convictions. There have been 42 claims submitted already for the 101 convictions that been overturned; 36 offers have been made and 32 have been accepted. A very significant proportion of those have taken the fixed sum award. £27 million has been paid out to 479 claimants among the original 555 postmasters who took the Post Office to court. A total of 58 completed claim forms have been received, and 52 claimants have received offers. Of those, 41 people have accepted those offers without going to the next stage, the independent panel. That indicates that people feel that the offers they are receiving are fair, because there are two further stages in that process if they feel that they are not getting fair settlement of their claims. Some £98 million has been paid out through the Horizon shortfall scheme.

There were 2,417 claimants who claimed prior to the original deadline, which has now been extended for late applications, so there is no final date for applications in that scheme. Some 2,417 offers have been made and 2,051 have been settled, meaning that 84% of claims have been settled. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw raised the total compensation amount—I think she mentioned the figure of £2 billion. The maximum budget set thus far is £1 billion. That is the number we are working to at the moment. However, we have always been clear that that is not a cap and it will not stop people getting fair compensation for their claims.

On the matter of more people coming forward, we are absolutely united with the Post Office in calling for anyone impacted by the scandal to bring forward their claims as soon as possible. I welcome the fact that the ITV drama has helped to uncover people who had not previously come forward.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked about ongoing shortfalls. There may be instances of that, although not all shortfalls occur as a result of software problems. I am happy to look at any cases of that that the hon. Lady has, but I have to say that it has not been raised with me thus far in my conversations with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Voice of the Postmaster and the CWU. However, I am happy to look at that as we proceed.

Compensation is one part of providing justice; the other is truth and accountability, which the Post Office has told us it is fully committed to. The Post Office Horizon inquiry has been established to uncover what went wrong, and the chair, Sir Wyn Williams, continues to make good progress.

The Post Office is co-operating fully with the inquiry. While the recent disclosure issues have been disappointing, they were the consequence of a failure of process rather than a reflection of the management culture. We do not regard them as a deliberate obfuscation, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said. Nevertheless, it is a serious and unacceptable matter, and we certainly want to ensure that they do not happen again.

It was reassuring to hear Sir Wyn Williams’s comments on Friday that he was “impressed” that the Post Office’s new lawyers have a

“grasp of the scale of the disclosure exercise”,

and that he currently has no reason to doubt that the Post Office will continue to assist the inquiry by disclosing relevant material. The inquiry will also look at the future of the Post Office itself from September this year.

On governance, strong and effective leadership of the Post Office is essential. As is set out in the Post Office articles of association, the Business Secretary appoints the chair and approves the appointment of directors of Post Office Ltd. It is a role that the Government take very seriously. As Members will be aware, following a conversation with the Business Secretary in late January, Henry Staunton agreed to step down as chair of the Post Office. We judged that the current chairmanship was not proving effective and had a difficult decision to make between changing course or waiting and hoping that it improved.

The shadow Minister referred to ministerial scrutiny, and I think all Ministers should learn the lessons of the past in terms of their approach to concerns that are raised. Of course, we as a Department have learned from this ourselves. We will continue to look at governance arrangements and make sure they are fit for purpose. We are not planning any further changes at this time. Members of the House and others have looked at different models of governance of the Post Office, such as mutualisation. As I said, I met with the Voice of the Postmaster and the CWU yesterday, and I am happy to have further conversations with them about that potential route. We are confident that our representative at UK Government Investments, Lorna Gratton, is doing a good job to ensure that the Post Office’s governance is fit for purpose.

The hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Motherwell and Wishaw asked about the surpluses and where they ended up—whether they went into a suspense account, into profit and loss, or into bonuses for directors. We are currently conducting an exercise to find out where that money went and how much it was, and we will report accordingly.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) talked about the role of Fujitsu. We welcome the admission from Fujitsu that it holds moral responsibility for the scandal and a responsibility to contribute towards the compensation bill. We will certainly take that up in due course, but it is right for us to ensure that we understand the extent of the bill. The inquiry is looking at other matters surrounding Fujitsu and it is right that we wait for the outcome of that. He mentioned the role of Ofcom. Ofcom does not regulate the Post Office; it regulates Royal Mail. There is a distinction there.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck talked about who knew what. That is something we very much want to know. The inquiry’s purpose is to find exactly that. He made the absolutely correct point that no amount of redress could ever make up for what has happened to some people in this scandal. People have taken their own lives and people have been made bankrupt. The least we can do is try to make that good by providing them with full and fair compensation.

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to Janine. I am very happy to look at that case with the hon. Gentleman, as he asked me about it offline the other day. It is certainly the case that if an employee suffered financial detriment, their employer should be able to claim on their behalf. There may be other cases we need to look at, including that case, so I am very happy to have that conversation with him.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about non-disclosure agreements and raised the tragic case of Martin Griffiths in that context. As I said to her in an intervention, it is absolutely right —the Post Office has said this and it is also our position—that no NDA should prevent somebody speaking to relevant individuals, including their Member of Parliament. It is the case, in whatever part of our system and wherever an NDA is signed, that no NDA can ever prevent somebody speaking out—going to the police or other authorities—about a crime. That is the case in any circumstance. The Official Secrets Act only covers the confidentiality of mail and it is no longer signed by postmasters. Again, I am very keen that the gentleman she referred to passes on his evidence to the inquiry, because I think it might find it very useful.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for his very kind words. Understandably, many people are still affected by the scandal and in terms of my performance as a Minister—whether I am the right person or whether I am fit for purpose—I guess the jury is out. I quite understand that. People will judge me at the end of the process, but while I am here, I am very keen to make sure that the full and final settlements are made as quickly and as fairly as possible.

To conclude, I have outlined some of the progress the Post Office has made to improve its culture and its relationship with postmasters, and its determination to right the wrongs of the past. Despite the positive progress made since 2019, there are clearly still improvements to be made. Where the Post Office makes mistakes, I will continue to challenge the leadership. Where action is needed, I will not hesitate to act decisively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I am considering the recommendations very carefully, and will respond shortly.

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

Given that 40% of crime is now economic crime, it is disappointing that the Law Commission has recommended restricting corporate criminal liability for failing to prevent economic crime to fraud, and leaving out key crimes such as money laundering and false accounting. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss the benefits of a review with a much wider scope?

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Yes, we will look across the board at the defendants in these SLAPP cases. We in this House, because of the privilege that Parliament affords, have the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that, come what may, those abuses are not swept under the carpet and that the issues that need to be aired, whether through authors, academics or journalists, are not muzzled.

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

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I was lucky enough to meet Tom Burgis recently, who, alongside other journalists such as Oliver Bullough and others, does an incredible job of highlighting the dirty money, corruption and general economic crime. The other cohort that does that most effectively, and has been involved in every case that I have been involved in in those circumstances, is whistleblowers. Will he, with his Home Office colleagues, seek to put protections and compensation for whistleblowers into a future economic crime Bill? Those people are critical in identifying this stuff and bringing those guilty of it to justice.

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend makes good points both on SLAPPs and more widely on whistleblowers. I will make sure we have that angle in mind and speak to our Home Office colleagues on the legislation it is looking at.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The Justice Secretary is working with the Law Commission on bringing forward a new corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime. There are concerns that the offences will be downgraded to regulatory offences, rather than those involving criminal sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be criminal sanctions if we are to have a true deterrent against this terrible crime?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He has been following it for some time, and I have worked with him on it in the past. We will make sure that we have the right combination of toughness and robustness and send a clear message that these are not victimless crimes.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the concerns he has expressed. I do not think he should personally feel bad about the commitments he made; we all shared the hope that China would live up to those responsibilities. We are making it clear that, even if China fails to live up to its responsibilities, we as one United Kingdom, including the hon. Gentleman, will live up to our responsibilities to those BNO passport holders. I take his point about the wider threat from China. Of course, given its size and the economic asymmetry, we need to think very carefully with all our international partners about how we proceed. We do not want to have a poor relationship with China; we want a positive relationship with China. However, one thing is clear: we will not duck issues such as human rights, our values or issues that touch on a vital national interests.

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

As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said earlier, a recent poll by the China Research Group expressed strong support for extending the rights of BNO passport holders to come to the UK, and I welcome this statement in that regard. It also expressed very strong support for sanctions: 80% of the people who expressed a preference felt there should be travel bans and asset freezes for the Chinese officials responsible for this legislation. Is that under consideration?

Covid-19

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she asked her question and for complimenting the FCO consular advice. She is right—I talked about this with the Transport Secretary and the Prime Minister this morning—about the importance of not only keeping freight flowing, but ensuring that we safeguard the workers who are doing that. I want to give some reassurance in relation to the recommendations announced by the President of the European Commission yesterday, which will be considered by the European Council today, in relation to the 30-day travel ban for all but essential travel: medical staff and transporters of goods would be exempt, as well as UK nationals.

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

My constituent, Kate Jackson, is currently aboard the Silversea cruise liner that has been refused entry to a number of ports. It is now headed to Darwin, Australia, where it is expected to be able to dock, but there are no available flights back to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to repatriate Kate Jackson and her fellow British citizens?

[Dominic Raab]

I am aware of that case and we are working actively on it. As with all the cruise ships, the challenge has been to find a place for them to dock and then, not least given the international component of these cruise ships, to get international commercial flights home. We are very much focused on it, and I hope to be able to say more about that particular cruise ship shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his new appointment as an adviser at the Home Office on counter-extremism and counter-terrorism—a role that I know he will perform very effectively.

We do not comment on operational matters, as the hon. Gentleman will know. We welcome the removal of Baghdadi, but there is a much broader counter-Daesh strategy that we need to pursue. We need to keep all our partners together—which is why, frankly, some of the latent anti-Americanism that is preached by Opposition Front Benchers is deeply unhelpful.

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

T6. It is great to have a no-nonsense northerner in the Chair, Mr Speaker.

Google turns around over £10 billion in the UK, making a typical profit margin of 22%, so it should pay about £420 million in corporation tax, yet it pays only about £70 million due to profit shifting. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to press for international action to end this kind of disgraceful tax avoidance?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I should certainly be very happy to receive any submissions from her. I think it is right that we increase the trend making authorised sites available and, at the same time, ensure that, through both local authority and police powers, enforcement and the rule of law apply to all members of our communities.

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

The draft national planning policy framework largely closes the loophole of viability assessments, which developers often use to avoid the requirement for affordable housing. Would the Minister consider introducing stronger compulsory purchase order powers, so that local authorities can step in and purchase sites when developers continue to refuse to meet their obligations?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know how interested my hon. Friend is in this matter. CPO powers certainly have a role to play, although they must be exercised proportionately. The review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will enable us to look at the issue in the round.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

T8. A recent report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England says that viability assessments favour large developers over small developers and cut the number of affordable homes by 50%. Will the Minister take the strongest possible action to make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises compete on a level playing field with large developers, and that developers provide homes for those most in need?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and through our planning reforms we are putting far more rigour into the system so that plans are clear about the obligations expected for infrastructure and affordable houses, and also so that developers can be properly held to account in meeting those aspirations and commitments.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have listened carefully to the many esoteric legal arguments that have been advanced this evening. I am afraid that my comments will be far more prosaic and practical. I was on the remain side of the referendum debate, but, like most of my colleagues, I am now focusing on trying to secure the best possible deal, and that deal must centre on what a meaningful vote would be.

What does “a meaningful vote” mean? If it means “deal or no deal”, I think that that is a recipe for securing the best possible deal, but if it means “deal or no deal, or go back to the negotiating table”, perhaps indefinitely and with no time limit, I think that that is counterproductive. It would be detrimental, and would undermine our negotiating position. I am not suggesting for a second that that is the desire of those who promote a meaningful vote of that kind, but I think that that would be the effect.

Rather than looking only at the legal context, we need also to look at the political, economic and financial contexts. Of course the negotiations were always going to be difficult after 44 years of integration with the European Union, but they will also be difficult because of the European Union’s position. The EU clearly does not want us to leave, which is understandable for some of the reasons that I have given, but also, primarily, it does not want others to leave, and that must be its priority during the negotiations. If this were a marriage of equals and therefore a divorce of equals, that meaningful vote with those three different options would be fine, but that is not where we are. Of course, the EU also recognises that 75% of Members of Parliament were on the remain side of the argument.

We have to look at the EU’s perspective as well as that of the UK, which is why I think that the Prime Minister was not only right to offer a fair deal in her Florence speech, but right to say that we would not be afraid to walk away with no deal. That gives the EU one chance to get this right, whereas a meaningful vote-plus would give the EU many, many chances to get this right—to give the worst possible deal to get it right. Its incentive would be to put the worst deal on the table initially, knowing that Parliament would reject it and keep going back to the table. That cannot be the right negotiating position.

None of us wants to leave on the basis of no deal. WTO rules would clearly not be in the country’s interests, and it would not be in my own interests outside Parliament either. Nevertheless, I do not want to be locked into an organisation that simply will not let us leave other than on disadvantageous terms.

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Let me say to him that—reflecting the mood of the Committee, having taken advice, and, in particular, having listened very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—the Government are willing to return on Report with an amendment on the face of the Bill clarifying the undertaking and assurance that I gave in my speech that statutory instruments under clause 9 will not come into force until we have had a meaningful vote in Parliament.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I hope that the Minister’s intervention will satisfy some of my colleagues.

Let me end by saying that I will be supporting the Government this evening. In my view, it is time for us to grit our teeth and simply get on with it.

Legal Guardianship and Missing People

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the problem with which we are grappling. I understand that people want to hear assurances today, and I will do my level best. Of course, we acknowledge people’s predicament, and we want to do everything we can to help the families of missing people address the administrative problems that can make life even more piercingly difficult at such a traumatic time. It is estimated that there are a significant number of cases of disappearance each year in which there are sufficiently serious problems to make the appointment of a guardian a worthwhile option to have on the legislative table, so to speak.

The coalition Government consulted on the proposals to create a status of guardianship, and the response was published shortly before the 2015 general election. I reassure all Members that the Government are committed to pursuing the measure and getting it into law.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will give way briefly, and then I need to make some progress.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important debate. I understand that some 2,500 people could be helped by the proposals. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Lawrence—Mrs Lawrence is a constituent of mine. They have kept hope alive for Claudia and they hope to help thousands of other people, and today they are hoping for a clear timetable. I know it is a question of finding time, but it is now time to make time for Claudia’s law.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has been a steadfast campaigner for this reform, and it is because of efforts such as his and those of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that I believe we will be able to make progress.

I have mentioned the Government response to the consultation proposals, and the Government are committed to pursuing the measure. It is not, however, solely about creating a new status in law. We also need to be sure that, when the new system is introduced, there is a judicial and supervisory structure to support it. Putting someone in control of another person’s property is a significant and sensitive legal step that is not to be taken lightly. I am sure there is acknowledgment on both sides of the House that we need to get the detail of the proposals right, accurate and tailored in the right way to protect the interests of those directly affected—the families, first and foremost—and to preserve the integrity of the law as a whole. We need a framework in which the interests of the missing person, the families left behind and the third parties who deal with them are correctly calibrated and balanced.

It is wrong to say that progress has not been made. We are making progress, and I will briefly outline some of the key features of the proposed scheme on which we are actively working. First, guardians would be required to act in the best interests of the missing person. In that respect, there would be fiduciary-style duties. Secondly, guardians would be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and required to file accounts in much the same way as a deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Thirdly, guardians would be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest. That is important, because the appointment may be general, in which case the guardian would be able to do what the missing person could have done—they would effectively have a free hand, for want of a better technical term—or it could be limited in certain respects. It is right to have those options on the table.

Fourthly, anyone should be able to apply for appointment as a guardian, provided that he or she has a sufficient interest, which obviously would need to be carefully defined. We are looking carefully at that. We would also need to make sure that their interests did not conflict with those of the missing person. I suspect that we would envisage close family members, or professionals such as a solicitor or an accountant with the requisite familial support, being able to apply.

Fifthly, we envisage that a person should have been missing for a period of, say, at least 90 days before such an application could be made. I am interested in other thoughts on that, but we think 90 days is probably a broadly reasonable period. Finally, the appointment of a guardian should be for a period of up to four years, with the possibility of applying for an extension of another four years. That is a significant period but, ultimately, it would be a temporary provision.

There is obviously a lot of technical detail buttressing the bones of the proposals, and we will need to define in further detail the scope of the guardian’s responsibility, the imposition of appropriate duties on him or her, and the appropriate court procedures for the appointment of the guardian and for redress if the guardian’s conduct falls short of the required standards. There will need to be an adequate supervisory regime over the whole structure, capable of commanding public confidence as well as the confidence and buy-in of the families affected.

As has already been mentioned, there are precedents for such a status and model in legislation in other countries, including in Canada and Australia. Ireland is also currently considering legislation in this field, and we are carefully considering the different models on offer. Obviously, we want to tailor the proposals to ensure that we have the right regime for the legal system, the particular nature of the problems and the administrative aspects in this country. Our development and drafting work is not yet complete, but we are working to complete it as soon as practicable. Given the details that I have talked about, it is important to get it right. We are consulting parliamentary counsel, and we would not go down to that level of detail unless we were serious. I hope that gives some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the campaigners and the Lawrence family.

We understand the importance of completing the legislation and getting it right, and it is worth saying that guardianship status is not the only measure that we are proposing to help those affected by the disappearance of an individual who is close to them. The Government are also reviewing the missing children and adults strategy, which was originally published in 2011. We are engaging with stakeholders, including Missing People, to update the guidance on cases of children and adults who go missing. That updated strategy will be published later this year and will include measures to help prevent people from going missing in the first place and to improve the response of all the relevant agencies.

Although I am sorry to disappoint anyone here today, I cannot give a specific date that is firmly etched in stone for introducing the legislation. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and the whole House will recognise that the Government are committed to delivering the reform and are actively working to that end. It is vital to get the reform right, given that it creates a legal power over another’s assets. We are committed to proceeding as swiftly as we can, never forgetting for a moment the scope that it offers to ease, if only by a modest degree, the pain and suffering endured by the families who have lost loved ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

The Government have given strong support to the idea of creating a new legal form of guardian, to help with the property and affairs of the 3,000 people who go missing every year in the UK. Will the Minister confirm when that might be brought into effect?

[Mr Raab]

I know that my hon. Friend has a family in his constituency who have been through the ordeal he mentions. We are absolutely committed to helping families of missing people to deal with the administrative problems they face over and above the heartache that is involved. We are working on creating the new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person, and we will introduce measures to the House as soon as parliamentary time permits.