Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mary Robinson

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to encourage sub-postmasters who were affected by the failure of the Post Office Horizon system to claim compensation.

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

Over £153 million has been paid to 2,700 victims. We encourage anyone impacted to use the three compensation schemes available. We have already published the details of the up-front £75,000 fixed-sum offer for group litigation order postmasters on the gov.uk website, created a new claim form, and written to all eligible members of the GLO scheme to explain the offer further.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I apologise on behalf of the Government to Kym Ledgar for what she has been through. It is absolutely our intention that everybody gets full and fair compensation, and that is not only for financial losses but for non-pecuniary losses. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that the compensation is fair and delivered swiftly, including by establishing the independent advisory board, on which the noble Lord Arbuthnot sits. We will continue to work with the board and consider what further action is required, but yes, I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters further.

[Mary Robinson]

The Post Office Horizon scandal has made clear to us all what happens when whistleblowers are ignored or silenced. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as ensuring that victims are properly compensated, we need better legislation to protect whistleblowers? As the Government’s whistleblowing framework review draws to a close, will he meet me to discuss how the outcome of the review can be used to support the Whistleblowing Bill that I presented to the House yesterday?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work. At one point we were co-chairs of the all-party group for whistleblowing, and she does a tremendous job in raising this issue time and again in the House. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework in meeting its intended objectives. Every scandal that I have talked about in this House over the years, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches, has come to light because of whistleblowers, who are hugely important. We are reviewing that frame- work. The research for the review is near completion, the Government will set out the next steps in due course, and yes, of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that.

Whistleblowing Awareness Week

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mary Robinson

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No? I thought the hon. Gentleman was.

In law, NDAs cannot be used to prevent a worker from blowing the whistle, so there are some protections in law in that respect. I believe the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, also brought out that point.

[Mary Robinson]

On NDAs being used to prevent a worker from blowing the whistle, the Minister is quite right to make that point, but of course another point to consider is when a person blows the whistle, an employment dispute might arise that could be the subject of a case that goes to law, or lead to that person being dismissed from their job. At that point, the person might accept an NDA, so the harm that was being reported and brought to light in the first place is thereby effectively covered up.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That brings me to my next point. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but the employment tribunal is there to settle compensation. It is the regulators in the various sectors that are there to look at the problem, the detriment, and to consider the whistleblowing concerns and act on them. That cannot be restricted by an NDA in that kind of compensation settlement, I think.

What I regard as the key point in my hon. Friend’s contribution today is the proposal for an office of the whistleblower. I quite understand that the intent is to provide one central place for whistleblowing and to make sure that we have best practice across the piece. Such an office would provide consistency in standards for regulatory investigations triggered by whistleblowing information. I am also interested in the issues that dealing with whistleblowing disclosures might raise for the prescribed persons, and vice versa.

I know there are concerns, not just in Government but in wider circles, about how such an office would interact with the role of regulators, who are experts, of course. It is important that we look at the arguments for and against the proposed office, and I am keen to look at international examples. My hon. Friend referred to the USA. The numbers of disclosures there are interesting. According to my figures, there were 50,000 protected disclosures in the UK in 2020-21. I think my hon. Friend said that 20,000 were dealt with by the Office of the Whistleblower in the US, which is obviously a much bigger country in terms of population and potential whistleblowing. I am interested in the gap.

One point to make is that a UK office of the whistleblower would of course need extensive resources to be able to handle or to oversee 50,000 protected disclosures, and significant expertise to ensure that it fully understood the nature of the problem and was able to work alongside the regulators, which I think is what my hon. Friend envisages, rather than replace the regulators in terms of their functions. Clearly, regulators themselves, be it the FCA or the regulators in the NHS, would have a responsibility to ensure that the issues were addressed properly and whistleblowing guidelines and processes were followed. It is a question of understanding the interaction between the two and what resources would be needed to fully and properly fund an office of the whistleblower.

All these matters need to be taken into account in deciding how to proceed. The review, as I have said, is something that we want to bring forward very quickly, and we want hon. Members on both sides of the House to be able to input into it.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mary Robinson

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It sounds like a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority, which does not directly relate to my portfolio, but that would be my first call as a constituency Member of Parliament. The case the right hon. Lady raises sounds very distressing for her constituents. If I can help in any way I will of course be happy to do so.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this Bill forward and welcome him to his place. He knows of my concern that whistleblowing is not mentioned in the Bill, yet whistleblowers are key to exposing the type of crime we are talking about. In the implementation of the Bill, will he reconsider the role of whistleblowers and recognise how important their role is in this space? Will he also look at examples of good practice from around the world because existing whistleblowing laws—I know he agrees—are not fit for purpose?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That may not be part of this Bill, but it is part of my portfolio, I am pleased to say. My hon. Friend and I have worked together to further the cause of whistleblowers on many occasions. I am keen to bring that forward quickly. We have work under way now that will lead to a review. I am keen to complete that work quickly and come up with some firm recommendations. I am also keen to look at international examples of best practice. She is keen to have an office for the whistleblower, for example. It is right to look at other jurisdictions to see how that is working elsewhere, which can inform our work. I am keen to make significant changes as quickly as possible.

I shall draw my comments to a close and listen to the rest of the debate. I am interested to hear about the amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House. I am sure today’s debate will be as well considered and beneficial as those on the Bill thus far. I hope Members on both sides of the House will continue to support the measures in parts 1, 2 and 3, so that we can deliver these much-anticipated and much-needed reforms. They will help to protect our constituents and the country, and ensure that the UK remains a great place for legitimate businesses to thrive.

Land Registry

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mary Robinson

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who made some very good points, and to congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this important debate.

I absolutely support the principle behind this proposal. One of the Treasury’s principles is to maximise capital receipts, and we must not forget that this country is about £1.6 trillion in debt. In the right circumstances, it makes absolute sense to sell off assets to pay off liabilities; that is a sensible economic policy. Of course, the Government since 2010 have halved a deficit that was running at £153 billion—now it is £75 billion—and simultaneously grown the economy. We have one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world. Day after day, we debate how we will balance the books and how we will pay off the rest of the deficit or reduce it, and the Opposition oppose every single cut that we suggest. At the same time, they complain about the lack of deficit reduction. It simply does not stack up.

We have talked recently about a new politics. I had the great pleasure of serving on the same Committee as Jo Cox, who really set the tone for the future. I hope that we will take forward the sentiment that we should have challenge, but it should be a constructive challenge. We should not be sanctimonious. The majority of people who come into the House do so for absolutely the right reason: to improve the lot of the less fortunate in society and those who have the least opportunity. Members on both sides of the House should recognise that.

Many Labour Members have made the point about the Land Registry’s important role in providing secure title for people, but in the same breath they bring forward policies such as the mansion tax, which would take away the security of that title. It is a complete contradiction.

Nevertheless, I have concerns about this privatisation, because we may create a new private sector monopoly. We absolutely cannot have that. The Treasury’s criteria for sale of these assets—it is absolutely right to pay down our debt—are to maximise capital receipts, to provide better customer service and to reduce Government control. We would all agree with those principles, but may I add another: not to create any private sector monopolies? There is no effective competition in prospect if the Land Registry is privatised. We all encounter problems in our surgeries with a company called BT, which is a de facto private sector monopoly, certainly in the case of superfast broadband.

I believe that that business suffers from a culture of corporate obfuscation in pursuit of maximising profits and minimising investment, while maintaining desperately poor customer service. We must not let that happen in another private sector context, although privatisation is of course positive if it encourages competition in that it drives innovation, it drives investment and it should in itself drive great customer service.

Another of my concerns, which has been repeated many times, is the likely amount we would get for the Land Registry. The figure is around £1 billion to £1.5 billion, but it consistently produces a surplus of over £100 million a year. That represents a return of 8% to 10%, but the Government can borrow money at about 1%, so it does not make financial sense to sell it.

The Government have another very important role, which is to be a facilitator or enabler, and there are so many opportunities for open-source databases. Ordnance Survey has recently provided open-source data that could enable many technology companies to develop applications. One of those involves broadband because Ordnance Survey data are hugely important in allowing fixed wireless providers to provide remotely—at desktop level—superfast broadband in communities.

The Government have done such work in other areas. They have opened Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs databases to provide a free flow of information to enable the development of new technologies and applications. We are on the verge of what is called the fourth industrial revolution—the fusing of physical, digital and biological technologies—which could have huge benefits to the economy and to mankind. Given those real opportunities, the Land Registry should be kept in public ownership.

We should provide a more long-term and strategic approach in the public sector, rather than look for short-term profits. Our very own Tim Berners-Lee, a member of the Open Data Institute, has said that the sale

“could undermine the government’s bid to make more data publicly accessible”.

On that basis, it absolutely should not be considered.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) said, the Land Registry does need reform. It has a relatively new chief executive officer. The average tenure of the 4,500 staff is about 25 years, so it probably needs a bit of a shake-up if it is to make the best use of some of these opportunities.

Another point is about underpinning property rights, which are a fundamental component of economic success. The Land Registry has been in operation since 1862, and the average person in the street might be surprised to learn that it no longer has any paper deeds, but keeps everything digitally. I think the average person would be very concerned about that combination—the fact that the information is held digitally and that it would be kept by a private sector company.

The Land Registry does not only provide an administrative function. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West keenly observed, the staff also use their knowledge and judgment. They are often asked difficult questions, and they need to be experienced and knowledgeable to provide a proper service.

The Government have introduced new initiatives on beneficial ownership, including consideration of a public register to make sure that foreign companies disclose the true ownership of UK property. That is revolutionary in that it is trying to tackle money laundering, corruption, crime and tax evasion. Those are all reasons why it is better for the Land Registry to be in the public sector than the private sector.

I am involved in the property sector. You must excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for neglecting to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just about all the people in the property sector to whom I have spoken are against this move, whether they are members of the Conveyancing Association, or solicitors, house builders or property agents. Indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority has said that a private sector provider may fail to

“maintain or improve access to the monopoly data; and…weaken competition to its own commercial products.”

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

The Government are committed to the ambitious target of providing 1 million new homes by 2020 and increasing home ownership. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should avoid any disruption to the Land Registry that might jeopardise its service to home buyers in the future?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I totally agree. As we have heard, the Land Registry service is regarded as a very high-quality service and the housing market is such a critical component of our economy, particularly now that economic markets such as the housing market are looking a little more fragile.

I have significant reservations about the privatisation of the Land Registry, and—supportively and gently—I ask the Government to think again about these proposals.