Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is an historic day. It has been a great privilege to be the Minister for the Bill, and I thank our officials for moving with lightning speed to get it to this point, only five months from when the process commenced. I also thank Members in all parts of both Houses for their co-operation and their collegiate approach to the Bill, including the Opposition Front Benchers, who have provided great support, which we greatly appreciate. I thank the Justice Secretary, my Department’s Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—the Bill would not have been possible without their support.

This is an historic day because, as a result of the Bill, convictions will be overturned on Royal Assent. With His Majesty’s agreement, that means they will be overturned tomorrow.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a very good point. I am happy to look at the concerns that she raises. We will look at the concerns raised by all stakeholders, Members of this House and people further afield to ensure that, when we carry out this review, we get to the right place.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) seems to think EU legislation is stronger than ours. Let me point out that appeal standards consider the merits across the piece in the European Union; they do not in the UK, as they are confined to a very small element of it.

Finally, I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) supports the Bill and very pleased that she supports freedom of speech. Digital inclusion is very important. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) is working very hard on social inclusion and social tariffs of broadband through the cross-ministerial group. We are very keen to ensure that reminder notices for subscriptions are very clear for all our consumers.

To conclude, I urge all Members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the amendment that I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. I hope that all Members will feel able to support our position.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Taylor Swift seems to be everywhere, even in the House of Commons, doesn’t she?

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

The Post Office scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history, shaking people’s faith in the principles of equity and fairness that form the core pillars of our legal system. I am very pleased that last week’s excellent ITV drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” has brought an understanding of the Horizon scandal to a much broader audience. I have received much correspondence about the scandal and the emotional impact that the dramatisation has had. Those of us who have been campaigning and working on the issue for some years were already well aware of what happened.

I pay particular tribute to Alan Bates and his fellow postmasters, including Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton, to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), the hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), to Lord Arbuthnot and other members of the Horizon compensation advisory board, and of course to key figures in the media. They played a key role in seeking justice and compensation for the victims. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his continually constructive approach, as well as my ministerial predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

Watching last week’s ITV programme has only reinforced our zeal for seeing justice done as quickly as possible. We are already a long way down that road. Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is doing great work in exposing what went wrong and who was responsible. Full and final compensation has already been paid to 64% of those people affected. I have previously said to the House that my main concern now is regarding those still waiting for full and final compensation, and the slow pace at which criminal convictions related to Horizon are being overturned by the courts. Before Christmas, the advisory board published a letter that underlined exactly that.

This is not just a matter of getting justice for those wrongly convicted. Overturning their convictions is also key to unlocking compensation. Each person whose Horizon conviction is overturned is entitled to an interim compensation payment of £163,000. They can then choose whether to have their compensation individually assessed or to accept an up-front offer of £600,000. That offer is already speeding along compensation for a significant number of people.

In the light of the advisory board’s letter about overturning convictions, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and to Lord Arbuthnot. I have also had a very positive meeting this afternoon with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. All of us in the House are united in our desire to see justice done, and we have devised some options for resolving the outstanding criminal convictions at much greater pace. The Lord Chancellor will, rightly, need to speak to senior figures in the judiciary about those options before we put them forward, but I am confident that we should be able to implement measures that address the concerns expressed by the advisory board. I hope that the Government will be able to announce those proposals to the House very shortly.

Of course, there is clearly great concern about the role of the Post Office in prosecuting these cases. The Post Office rightly decided to stop undertaking private prosecutions in 2015. If we are to make sure that a scandal such as this can never happen again, we need to look at the way in which private prosecutions such as these have been undertaken. Any company can bring private prosecutions in this way: this is not a special power of the Post Office. I know that the Lord Chancellor wants to give this issue proper and thoughtful consideration, and I am sure that he will report to the House about the issue in due course.

Getting justice for the victims of this scandal and ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again is my highest priority as a Minister, as it has been throughout my 15 months in office. When we talk about compensation, we have to remember that the lives of the postmasters and their families caught up in this scandal have been changed forever. They have faced financial ruin, untold personal distress and a loss of reputation that no amount of financial compensation can fully restore. The Government recognise that we have a clear moral duty to right those wrongs to the best of our ability. To support those whose lives were turned upside down by the scandal, we have provided significant funding for compensation. We have also been clear that it should not be the taxpayer alone who picks up the tab. We will wait for the inquiry to report to make clear the extent of any other organisation’s culpability for the scandal and any individual accountability.

Our aim is to ensure that every victim is fully recompensed for their losses and the suffering they have had to ensure. To date, more than £148 million has been paid to 2,700 victims across all compensation schemes, 93 convictions have been overturned and, of those, 30 have agreed full and final settlements. Just over £30 million has been paid out in compensation to those with overturned convictions, including interim payments. Of course, we want to ensure that the process for agreeing compensation is fair, transparent and open to independent assessment. That is one of the reasons why I am today announcing that retired High Court judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom has agreed to chair an independent panel that will assess the pecuniary losses of those postmasters with overturned convictions where disputes arise. That will bring independent oversight to compensation payments in a similar way to Sir Ross Cranston’s oversight of the group litigation order scheme and the independent panel in the Horizon shortfall scheme.

Of the original 555 courageous postmasters who took the Post Office to court and who first brought the Horizon scandal into the public eye, £27 million has been paid out to 477 claimants in addition to the net £11 million received through the December 2019 settlement. Forty-seven members of the original GLO group have also received compensation following the overturning of their convictions, totalling more than £17 million. We have received full claim forms from 59 of those postmasters who are eligible for the GLO scheme and issued 43 offers. There have been 21 full and final settlements paid and a further seven full and final settlements accepted. That brings the total number of accepted full and final GLO settlements to 28. I would encourage claimants’ lawyers to continue to submit GLO claims, because my Department stands ready to review them and turn them round quickly.

It is worth noting that the 2,417 postmasters who claimed through the original Horizon shortfall scheme have all received offers of compensation. Around 85% have accepted those offers, worth over £107 million. In total, over £91 million has been paid out through the scheme, with the Post Office now dealing with late applications and with cases where initial offers were not accepted.

However, this is not just about compensation; it is about restoration—the restoring of people’s good names and the restoring of the public’s trust, both in our postal service and in our justice system. It is therefore only right that we get to the bottom of what went wrong and of who knew what and when. Although the scale of the problem is immense, the Government are unwavering in their resolve to tackle it, to compensate those affected and to leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of justice. We owe that to the victims, to their families, to the memory of postmasters who have died since this tragedy first came to light and to those who, tragically, took their own lives after being accused of awful crimes they never committed. We owe it to everyone who has been caught up in this tragic miscarriage of justice.

I thank all Members across the House who are supporting us in this effort. Together we stand united, not just in memory of those who have suffered, but in shared purpose to ensure that such a tragedy can never, and will never, happen again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support, and for the manner in which he delivered his response to the statement. We share an ambition to see exoneration, and I am very happy to work with him over the next few days to make sure that we are getting to the right place.

He raises a very important point about people who were involved in a pilot scheme for Horizon—an issue that has also been raised by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). We want to make sure that every single victim is properly covered by the various schemes, and I have asked everybody who has evidence of any kind, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, to furnish me with the details. I will make sure that we pick up anybody who is left outside the schemes.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned Fujitsu, and I concur with his points. Anybody who is shown to be responsible for this scandal should be held accountable, including by making payments into the taxpayer’s fund. I accept what he says about the honours system, as I have said before on a number of occasions. I speak as a former CEO. This is not to direct responsibility for any specific thing that happened—the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry is there to identify responsibility—but, as a former CEO, I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to ask the CEO who oversaw the Post Office during a critical time, when things went so badly wrong, to voluntarily hand back their honour. However, that is a matter for the person concerned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the article in The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice by M. R. McGuire and K. Renaud, entitled “Harm, injustice & technology: Reflections on the UK’s subpostmasters’ case”.

First, page 444 shows the graph of the prosecutions, which rose from 10 in 1997 to nearly 80 in 2001. The people responsible should have noticed that we were not going to get ordinary, decent people—sub-postmistresses and sub-postmasters—suddenly going crooked on that scale. Secondly, the article talks about the bugs that were named after the sub-post offices where they were discovered: the Dalmellington bug and the Callendar Square bug.

I also refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the article in The Sun about my constituent Cheryl Shaw, who gave up in 2008. Having lost £400 week after week, she brought in the Post Office investigators, who claimed that they could not find anything to explain what was happening. She had to sell out, she lost her home and she took on work as a carer. She is illustrative of those who were convicted and those who gave up before they were prosecuted.

Many people now believe that the Horizon system was set up for one purpose and adapted to another, for which it did not work. When people started entering things twice, there was apparently a loss where the Post Office did not actually lose any money. If the Post Office did not lose any money, how could people have been properly prosecuted? The titanic error was the belief in technology.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I totally agree that people should be held responsible where, following an inquiry and investigation, they are shown to have wilfully neglected their duties. He raises an important point about the courts’ attitude towards computer and technology-based evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is looking at that issue too, it having been brought to his attention by Paul Marshall, one of the leading barristers involved in this scandal.

I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent, Mrs Shaw. I take it that she will have applied to the Horizon shortfall scheme, which should compensate people like her. If my hon. Friend would like any help or assistance to make sure that has happened, either for himself or for Mrs Shaw, I am very happy to provide it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair when we last discussed the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill on 19 December. I do not think any of us who knew about the TV drama would have believed the impact it has had. It is bittersweet that it is had such an effect. It is really telling that MPs, peers, the media and many others tried to bring this issue into the public consciousness, but none of us managed to do so as effectively as a TV drama.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Today I have been contacted by local sub-postmasters who want to meet me. They were never prosecuted, but they had shortfalls and paid money back to the Post Office. Many of them just walked away and retired, and they now have no evidence of what happened. When a sub-postmaster walks away from a post office, all the financial documentation goes back to Post Office Ltd. Can we have a thought on that, Minister?

Will the Minister confirm that all the money that went back to Post Office Ltd enhanced the profits on which, over the years, many bonuses were paid to Post Office executives? Will pressure be put on those people to repay those bonuses? I disagree with very little of the Minister’s statement, and I think there is consensus across the Chamber on this, but some words sprang out at me: “very shortly” and “in due course”. Can we please have fixed timelines for the reports?

I commend Sir Wyn Williams, whom I first met when he took on the inquiry before it became statutory. It sounds ridiculous for me to say that I was impressed by him, but I really understood that he was going to get to the bottom of what happened. He has done that in spite of grievous failures on behalf of Post Office Ltd.

There must be accountability for everyone in Post Office Ltd and Fujitsu who prosecuted and persecuted sub-postmasters over the years. I pledge that SNP Members will continue to put pressure on Governments of any colour to keep the momentum going to ensure that real justice is served, even if that involves more pressure on the former CEO and on the people who received honours because of their work for Post Office Ltd. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding and know he agrees with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words and for all his work in the campaign for justice for postmasters. I also congratulate him on his recent knighthood; the whole of Yorkshire was rejoicing at his award.

I can assure my right hon. Friend on all four counts. Yes, we want a more rapid means of overturning convictions. Yes, we want to make sure that the Post Office does not challenge unfairly any attempt to overturn those convictions. Yes, too, on making sure that the investigatory process happens more quickly. Of course, some of these matters are outside our control, as he is fully aware, because of the separation of powers, but in terms of the policing of cases I am happy to talk to him after this statement about what precisely he means by that. There is an independent element to the way all the compensation schemes are running. They are not being policed or restricted by the Post Office; there are independent panels and independent assessments as part of all those processes, but I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend in detail about what we can do in those areas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Justice delayed is justice denied but 85% of the convictions have still not been overturned despite the Select Committee warning last spring that the process was rolling much too slowly and having made recommendations for speeding it up. Many of those recommendations were rejected, yet tonight the Minister has told the House that only now is the Lord Chancellor exploring with the judiciary a way to speed things up. Will the Minister tell us tonight his timeframe for delivering justice to those who have been unfairly convicted? Can those who are still waiting for their convictions to be overturned expect justice to be done this year? Or must they wait until many more of them have, tragically, passed away without justice?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 23B and 23C.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 151B and 151C, Government motion to disagree, and Government motion to insist on amendment 151A.

Lords amendment 161B, Government motion to disagree, manuscript amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to insist on amendment 161A.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is always a pleasure to speak with right hon. and hon. Members on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which they will know is close to my heart and contains many vital measures for which I have long campaigned. The Bill will give us the powers we need to crack down on those who abuse our open economy, while ensuring that the vast majority of law-abiding businesses can grow and flourish.

I am grateful that both Houses have reached agreement on several issues, including those relating to the register of overseas entities and on removing the extension of the failure to prevent offence to money laundering. However, we are here today as agreement is still outstanding on a handful of remaining issues. I urge this House to accept the Government amendments, to settle those remaining topics and ensure that we can proceed to Royal Assent and implementation of these important reforms without delay.

I will now speak to those remaining topics. In the other place, the Government tabled two amendments on nominee shareholders—amendments 23B and 23C, in lieu of Commons amendment 23A, and in response to Lord Vaux’s amendment 23 on this topic from Report stage in the other place.

The Government’s amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to make further provision for the purpose of identifying persons with significant control in cases where shares are held by a nominee. This will allow the Government to work with relevant stakeholders to target the regulations in an effective and focused way that does not impose disproportionate burdens. Members of the other place agreed with the Government’s proposal and I trust that Members of this House will therefore agree with it today.

Lords amendments 151B and 151C would apply the exemption from the failure to prevent fraud offence to micro-entities only, rather than the Government’s position of excluding all small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government appreciate that Lord Garnier has moved closer to the Government’s position in agreeing to the principle of applying a threshold. However, our position remains that such an amendment would still incur significant costs to businesses. Reducing the exemption threshold to only micro-entities would increase one-off costs for businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. The annual recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to over £192 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are very clear that we believe we have the right threshold. Larger companies clearly have the capacity and the human resources and risk compliance departments to mitigate these kinds of risks, whereas small and medium-sized enterprises are rightly much more focused on driving their business forward, which is very important to the economic health of our country. I think we have it right. My hon. Friend made a similar point in our previous debate on this issue, and he makes it very strongly. The fact that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) have made that point today counterbalances some of the arguments on the other side for extending the threshold further.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke about my previous comments. I think I have been pretty consistent in everything I have said in the House, unless she can point to anything different I have said from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), laughs, but I have always been a champion of the “failure to prevent” offence. If Members look back to the original Bill, which I think was 260 pages long—it is now nearly 400 pages long—they will see that I have been very keen to make sure that we listen to hon. Members on things like the “failure to prevent” offence and the identification doctrine, which both now feature in the Bill. All the cases I dealt with on the Back Benches, and indeed the information I have seen as a Minister, show that the kind of fraud the law enforcement agencies have not been able to prosecute is happening in larger companies, not smaller companies.

We believe that these circumstances are different from unexplained wealth orders, for which we obviously put cost-capping measures in place. Of course, unexplained wealth orders are not a process for taking somebody’s assets from them; they are a process for freezing assets. Lords amendment 161B is entirely different. In my view, there is definitely a civil liberties issue in terms of the power of the state versus the power of the individual. This measure potentially delivers an imbalance of power between the state and the individual. I would be keen to have a conversation with the very learned Members in the Chamber, but they must understand that the state is powerful and well resourced compared with the individual. Obviously there are some individuals who are very well resourced, but we still operate on the presumption of innocence in this country, and we have to be very careful. That is why we want a review to look into this and report back to Parliament within 12 months.

We have communicated with the National Crime Agency to ask for evidence on where it feels these measures are needed. All law enforcement agencies want more power and more provision, of course, but I have seen no clear, significant evidence from the enforcement agencies that cost-capping orders would be needed in this situation.

I, too, have spoken to Bill Browder, and I have spoken to officials about whether this measure is needed in the UK regime. Members will be aware that Mr Browder principally looks at the parallels with the US situation, where adverse costs do not apply across the system. Members have talked about the chilling effect of such provisions, but there is potentially a chilling effect on the other side of the equation.

Yesterday I met a barrister who defends people against such actions, and he was very concerned about the imbalance of power that would result. I have not seen any significant evidence, and I am very interested in the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gave to the Cambridge crime symposium, at which I have spoken in the past, on whether this is needed. However, I am not aware of anything the Justice Committee or the Law Commission has done in this area. It is important that we look at that kind of evidence before we implement these kinds of measures.

The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) accuses me of being party political. I am surprised she takes that view. I have worked on a cross-party basis from the Back Benches and, as she knows, I do the same from the Front Bench, and I will continue to do so to make sure that we get this legislation right.

In conclusion, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have worked hard to get the balance right between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach, and I therefore urge Members on both sides of the House to support them.

Lords amendments 23B and 23C agreed to.

After Clause 180

Failure to prevent fraud

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 151B and 151C and insists on its Amendment 151A.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 6, 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 21, 30, 32 to 34, 54, 68, 115, 117, 120, 124, 125, 173, 174 and 178 to 201. If those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 46

Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it

6.50 pm

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

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 151, and Government amendment (a).

Lords amendment 153, and Government amendments (a) to (c).

Lords amendments 115 and 117, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 159, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 161, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 1 to 22 and 24 to 55.

Lords amendment 56, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendments 57 to 114, 116, 118 to 150, 152, 154 to 158, 160 and 162 to 229.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. It is crucial in ensuring that we can bear down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, while also strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. I am pleased to say that the Bill is now in a better place and there is a great deal more of it than when it left for the other place back in January. When introduced, the Bill ran to some 239 pages; it is now closer to 400. That reflects the spirit of genuine collaboration across both Houses and the fact that the Government have listened and taken many sensible proposals on board. I take this opportunity to thank Members of both Houses for their collaborative and cross-party approach.

The Government made significant amendments to the Bill in the other place. It is now unquestionably a milestone piece of legislation that takes the UK’s fight against economic crime to an entirely new level. I will summarise a few key changes, starting with the game-changing reforms to corporate criminal liability. As the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), committed to, the Government tabled amendments to introduce a new failure to prevent offence, which will drive cultural change towards improved fraud prevention in organisations and, failing that, hold organisations to account with prosecutions if they profit from fraudulent actions.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

That is exactly the same point. Let us just move on please. We have got a lot to deal with today, and it is six hours of protected time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In answer to the point from the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), negotiations need to continue, and they need to be fair to workers, but also to the taxpayer, which I will touch on in a second.

I reject the characterisation of this Bill by the Opposition, who clearly put their relationship with their unions over the interests of this country. This is not a radical Bill. What we are doing is not even new. We are taking reasonable, proportionate and balanced steps and aligning ourselves with many of our European partners, such as France and Spain.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

3rd reading
Friday 20th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is correct.

My hon. Friend also talked about my personal tipping. Do I tip? Yes. By standard, if there is no service charge, I would usually tip 10%, or sometimes more, based on performance. Sometimes I will tip nothing, if I do not feel that the service has been at that level. Do I tip if I do not pay for the meal? I normally pay for the meal as well actually, but I have offered to on occasion. I think that covers all his questions, but if he has any more, we can deal with them by separate means.

To respond to the shadow Minister, I again refer to my earlier comments about an employment Bill. The key thing is that we are getting on with key legislation that we think is important. It is not just this legislation; there are other pieces of legislation addressing flexible working, carer’s leave and other issues. She talked about enforcement, which is hugely important. Legislation without implementation is pointless. One of the most effective parts of our regulatory system in the UK, in my view, is employment tribunals. There is no pan-employment regulator in the UK, which, when we think about it, is quite a surprise—there are some in some sectors. There are 30 million people employed in this country, and employment tribunals do a fantastic job, at a fraction of the cost of other regulators. It is ex-post regulation, and I think a more effective means of doing that is through employment tribunals, which are principally a mechanism for enforcement.

The hon. Member talked about zero-hours contracts. A very small proportion of people in this country are on zero-hours contracts—2% to 3%. Many of them are on a zero-hours contract for good reasons and want to be on one, but she raised an important point. This is something we are looking at and determined to tackle. There are some abuses of the system, and we are keen to bring forward new regulations to make sure we tackle that area.

In conclusion, bringing forward the new rules will protect more than 2 million workers from bad bosses and give them an avenue to seek remedies. Businesses will be assured they are not being undercut by companies where bosses keep tips for themselves and consumers will have increased confidence that their tips go to the workers they are intended for. The new rules are backed by Government evidence and analysis. The Government are therefore pleased to reiterate their support for this private Member’s Bill. It has been wonderful to see the support for it in the House during today’s debate.

If I may, I would like to list the civil servants involved, and there are a number of them: Flora Strange, Lucy Allatt, Yasna Reynolds, Mary Smeeth, Tony Gordon, Joe Giles, Simi Bhamra, Bex Lowe, Richard Lewis, Abigail Bridger, Rachel Senior—I can see the Whip moving closer to me; oh no, it’s not, it is the next Minister. I will conclude very shortly!—Anthony Morris, Cora Sweet, Nadine Othman, Laura Matthews, Clara Thiel, Patrick Day and Harry Ravi. Finally, I very much look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and stakeholders to support the passage of these measures as the Bill moves to the House of Lords. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If the Minister was ever to invite us all out for dinner one night, I think we would like to see his tipping style in action, wouldn’t we? Fascinating.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

No, we still have another two and a bit minutes to run, so I am using my discretion not to accept that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In response to questions regarding the consistency of this legislation with the UK’s—

Economic Crime: Law Enforcement

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you. On that basis, only if it can be proven that the directors had a guilty mind and were actually participating in the fraud can they go to jail. That is the wrong approach, and is not what the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 said. The Act said that those who fail to prevent accidents in their workplace could go to jail, and construction deaths dropped in the following year by 90%. We need to put in place an offence such that those who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent and clamp down on fraud can go to jail, without it also being necessary to prove that they deliberately facilitated the fraud. That would make a fundamental difference.

We must support whistleblowers, too. Most of the information on these offences will come not from our enforcement agencies or investigations by regulators, but from people within the organisations. Currently, those people are not protected—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the mover of the motion that the guidance says they have up to 10 minutes, and the hon. Member has now spoken for longer than that times two. Perhaps, with a bit of focus, he will now bring his remarks to a conclusion.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have so much to say on this; I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Finally, as well as beefing up the numbers, we should consider doing what we have done on unexplained wealth orders. Welcome Government legislation that was brought forward in the last Session capped costs for UWOs, and we should consider capping costs for all prosecutions of economic crimes to stop very wealthy individuals preventing our enforcement agencies from taking them to court merely because they have huge financial firepower that is much stronger than ours.

On that, I will conclude. I am very sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have taken so long, but, as I said, I could talk for much longer on this given the chance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I remind the hon. Member that, at the end of the debate, he will have two minutes to conclude, not four. [Laughter.]

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

After the previous debate, I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity to sit down and look at an amendment that might work, in concert with the Government.

The other difficulty with the amendment is that it would put the onus back on a building’s freeholders. Many people would say that that is fine—that it is better than the leaseholders having that responsibility—but I do not think it would put the leaseholders in a better situation, because the freeholder would simply close down the company and hand back the responsibility, which would fall back on to the leaseholders. I simply do not think the amendment works.

I have a couple of general comments. I was a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee at the time of the Grenfell tragedy, and the first thing for which we campaigned—straightaway, like many Members in this House—was a complete ban on combustible cladding. That is exactly what the Government stepped in to do. Of course, that ban is prospective, and it left a retrospective issue. The Government have clearly stepped in on the retrospective issue of cladding on high-risk buildings, which is exactly what the Select Committee campaigned for—those 1,700 high-risk buildings that were over 18 metres. That is what the £5 billion of funding remediates.

Many people in this debate have asked about the other elements, such as the missing fire breaks. It is of course absolutely right that we cannot expect leaseholders to take on a debt of tens of thousands of pounds; that is simply not right. We need to take a risk-based approach to the issue. Lots of buildings, particularly lower-rise buildings, can be safely remediated without necessarily replacing cladding: sprinklers, fire alarms and other systems can make those buildings just as safe.

We need to form a coalition of people right across the sector—be it building owners, contractors, managers or manufacturers—to find the best risk-based solution to the problem while minimising the cost for anybody, not least leaseholders. Of course developers should pay, and in many cases they have—Persimmon has just put £70 million to one side to remediate some of its buildings—but the difficulty is that we are often trying to deal with developers that are no longer there. The levy that the Government have introduced is absolutely the right solution, and I urge them to extend it to materials manufacturers and in particular insulation manufacturers, which I feel are principally responsible for the scandal of the situation in which we find ourselves.

On leaseholders, we of course do not want to see anybody go bankrupt as a result of these costs. There is a cap on costs for lower-rise buildings; it may well be that there should be a cap on the costs of remediating these issues for any leaseholder in any building. We should look into that, along with the possibility of the Government top-slicing the risk to make the insurance costs much lower. There are solutions and we all need to work together to provide them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Sir Robert Neill, who must resume his seat at 8.55 pm or before.

Levelling Up

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

For the record, the shadow Secretary of State said, “I always have a pudding.” Very wise.

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

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place on the Front Bench. He has made a great start.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the levelling-up fund will welcome applications from rural areas, such as Ryedale in my constituency, which may look prosperous from the outside but whose average earnings are below the regional average, partly because of a past lack of infrastructure investment? The situation could be reversed if funds were provided to important projects such as the improvement of railway stations in Malton and in Thirsk.