Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I beg to move, 

That this House has considered coal tip safety and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences. 

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

Just as coal ran in rich veins beneath the Welsh valleys and mountains, it also runs deep through the history of the people of Wales. Around this industry, thriving and vibrant communities developed all across the south Wales valleys. Miners’ institutes, public libraries, trade unions and public healthcare all bloomed in the Welsh coalfields. Those institutions were founded and funded by miners, laying the foundation for the modern welfare state. Despite this dynamism, we should not forget that those communities were exploited, with vast amounts of wealth from coal profiting Westminster, not Wales. Mining was also dangerous work and took a terrible toll on the health of far too many men and young boys.

When Margaret Thatcher began closing the mines in the 1980s without replacing those jobs, she destroyed livelihoods and left communities that once powered the world bearing economic and social scars that would pass on through generations. Thatcher’s decision to kick-start deindustrialisation in Wales—and the acceptance of this decline by both Labour and Conservative Governments—means that west Wales and the valleys are now among the poorest parts of Europe.

The economic legacy is compounded by a physical one, too. The valleys are now littered with coal tips—black monuments from the past that cast long shadows over the present. Also known as spoil tips or slag heaps, these are the waste materials removed from the mines and left abandoned above ground. Today, over 50% of all coal tips in the UK are in Wales, despite our nation making up just 8.5% of the UK’s total land mass.

Of the 2,590 coal tips, many are considered dangerous to the public. There is a risk that a significant number may collapse due to increasingly extreme weather, and that is not hypothetical, as history has shown us. Today’s debate is taking place just a day after the 59th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which involved the collapse of a colliery spoil tip in 1966, killing 28 adults and 116 children.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster; it is the same day as the anniversary of the flooding of Capel Celyn. Both were terrible reminders to communities in Wales of how little say they had over the fate of their communities, and of how little effect Westminster had, naturally, on amelioration and making people’s lives better. Those terrible incidents—the terrible deaths in Aberfan, as well as the flooding of Capel Celyn—reminded people where they stood, sadly.

[Ann Davies]

That is true. It is ironic that the two incidents happened on exactly the same date—a few years apart, but on 21 October. We must never forget either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely, but we need £600 million to make these tips safe. The Government responded to my written question in June that the Labour Welsh Government had not asked for the full amount of the estimated £600 million needed to make all tips in Wales safe. Plaid Cymru believes it is a grave injustice to the people of the valleys that the full cost is not covered by Westminster. I reiterate our call on the Government to fully fund remediation work to make coal tips safe in Wales.

Without full funding from Westminster, it leaves the door open to a new generation of mining companies waiting to mine these coal tips under the guise of remediation. That is because the new Welsh Disused Tips Authority will require landowners to make the coal tips safe, and they will likely seek to avoid that extra cost. There is a real risk that mining companies will offer to carry out remediation work on behalf of landowners for free, in return for the commercial rights of any coal that they extract. These companies have proven to us that they cannot be trusted with the stewardship of our environment.

The local authority area of Carmarthenshire has 170 coal tips. My constituency borders some of the largest tips in Wales, one of which is the waste from the East Pit open-cast coalmine, a prime example of where a company has betrayed the trust of the community. In that instance, the company, Celtic Energy, continued to mine coal from the site beyond the expiry of its planning permission. It then failed to restore the coalmine and remediate the local coal tip, abandoning the site and the community with the task incomplete. We cannot allow this to become a pattern by letting the coalmining industry of Wales’s past return to carve open our countryside once again. Making coal tips safe for our communities should be the priority, whether that is through flattening, removing or reprofiling them.

The UK Government have pledged to ban new coalmining licences, but they have confirmed their belief that re-mining coal from the tips does not require a licence, meaning that such activity falls outside the scope of the proposed ban. Although the Welsh Government believe that their own planning policies will prevent re-mining, a loophole allowing coal extraction in “wholly exceptional circumstances” has raised concern among campaigners such as the Coal Action Network. I thank Anthony, who is here today, for his help in preparing for this debate. I also congratulate him on his wedding anniversary—when he should be home, he has come to support us here.

The loophole can be resolved by amending the Coal Industry Act 1994 to require licensing for the re-mining of coal tips, and ensuring that that is included in a UK-wide ban. We must prevent a new industry of commercial coal tip mining from taking root and perpetuating fossil fuel pollution. I urge the Government to extend their coal licence ban to cover the re-mining of coal tips.

Tomorrow is the Senedd by-election in Caerphilly—a local authority area with 207 coal tips, 56 of which are deemed a clear threat to public safety. As we know, voters will get to choose between two different visions for the future of Caerphilly. The vision of Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is one of reopening the coalmines in Wales. He wants to send our people back down underground to slave away in the dark for hours, developing pneumoconiosis from inhaling toxic dust—all to exploit the people of Wales yet again.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

My hon. Friend is being kind with her time in giving way. She draws attention to the policies of another party. It is striking that Reform Members are conspicuous by their absence. They once again took part in Prime Minister’s questions only from the Gallery, and when they could be talking about coal and the future of communities blighted by the remains of the coal industry, they are not here to stand up for the communities of Wales. I am sure that a number of hon. Members will join us in our dismay at their lack of presence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing the debate.

As the hon. Lady outlined, the debate comes the day after the 59th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in my constituency—an event that illustrates, more than any other, the need to ensure the safety of coal tips. As I joined community members and civic leaders in Aberfan yesterday, it was heartbreaking and humbling to see at first hand, yet again, the true price of coal in our communities.

For many years, coal extraction built wealth right across the UK. It powered the Welsh and UK economies for decades. However, the previous UK Government failed to support any costs associated with the remediation of coal tips, owing to the fact that it is a devolved area. This Labour Government recognise that the legacy of coal and coal tip safety is very much a shared responsibility, and I welcome the £25 million that the Government provided in the first Labour Budget in 14 years last October. They then built upon that with a further £118 million in the spending review to support the vital work to keep our coal tips safe.

The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin mentioned calls for further investment, at a full cost of £600 million. Perhaps, in her reflections, she could be clear on how much less money would be available for public services in Wales if her party ever pushed its Welsh independence fantasy, which could cost every adult in Wales something like £11,000 per year.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It has now been shown that the £11,000 is based on the present state of the economy, and not the potential if Wales were to be independent. It is very important that we use statistics and figures with some care and show their sources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The ending of coal-fired power stations was incredibly welcome, but the reality of the transition is that just turning things off overnight does not work. In the example of the steel industry, had we opened the coalmine in Cumbria and delivered cheaper, less carbon-emitting coal from our own shores into the blast furnaces operated by British Steel, the Government may not have had to nationalise it. We now see an industry that will only have electric blast furnaces that cannot produce virgin steel, leaving us incredibly vulnerable, particularly on domestic security and defence infrastructure.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is time for the UK to follow in the footsteps of nations such as Norway that are looking at alternative technologies, such as hydrogen, for the blast production of steel, and that we should be directing our energy there rather than resorting to fossil fuel, which is only temporary.

[Greg Smith]

I do not think that the right hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart on this. I am suggesting that those great technological innovations that are coming on board but are not ready right here, right now in 2025 need time to develop and become commercially viable, and that in the transition we will still need coal for certain functions. Simply turning it all off overnight is not the responsible thing to do.

Coal tip safety is an incredibly serious issue and deserves resource, engineering expertise and local accountability. Communities across Wales and England in particular live with the physical remnants of our industrial past. Those sites must be monitored and maintained responsibly. When tips are abandoned and left unmanaged, they become dangerous, as we have seen in past tragedies.

Cutting off the licensing regime entirely risks creating more orphan sites with no responsible operators to maintain them. We should be modernising the licensing system, not abolishing it. A well-regulated extraction framework would provide both the revenue and the oversight needed to ensure tip safety for generations to come. By banning new coal extraction licences, the Government have not reduced demand for coal; they have simply exported that demand abroad. That is exactly what we have seen with the approach to the North sea and to British industry more generally.

The Times recently reported comments from the industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who warned that the UK faces a “chemical breakdown” if Ministers continue ignoring the realities of domestic energy and feedstock production. His message was blunt: if we keep shutting down energy-intensive industries here, we will just import the same materials from countries with far higher emissions, fewer safeguards and lower labour standards.

The Government are just lost. To give an example, even the GMB’s general secretary, Gary Smith—no relation—rightly called this strategy “catastrophic” for not just jobs, but the environment. He warned that importing coal, gas and manufactured products from overseas is far more carbon intensive than producing them domestically. He went further, saying that the Government’s net zero drive is “bonkers”—his word—because it undermines the workers who will be essential to any genuine green transition. When even the trade unions are pleading for common sense, it is a clear sign that Labour has lost touch with not just the science, but the people they apparently represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I cannot give an exact date, I am afraid, partly because bringing forward legislation is not in the gift of any one Minister, but I can say that it is entirely still our aim to bring forward that ban. To pick up a point made by a couple of other hon. Members, it is also our aim to bring forward a ban on fracking across the country; we will do so as soon as we are able to introduce legislation. We had a Bill in the King’s Speech, and we still intend to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible, but that is dependent on parliamentary time.

I will conclude by addressing the wider context. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made the point about phasing out coal; the shadow Minister reflected on the same point. To me, one of the great sadnesses of the past year is that we have moved away from a consensus that was so incredibly important for this country. We were a leader on tackling climate change under different Governments, and that was reflected across the world in some of the strongest possible ways, by driving other countries towards ambitious targets of their own.

In September last year, I was at the closure of Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the last coal-fired power station in Britain. I had the privilege of being in the control room with the workforce who had been there for decades, as they were switching off coal for the last time. It was a huge achievement, under Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and, briefly, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Government. That consensus allowed us to move forward as a country, recognising that the future of our planet is important. It saddens me greatly that that consensus does not now exist. We now have a script that is, frankly, one of climate denialism. It also misses the point about the economic opportunity that our country faces.

A few weeks ago, for the first time ever, we powered this country without any fossil fuels at all. That is a huge milestone for us. It is an example of how we can be climate leaders, but also build legacies and communities right across Wales and the UK with good, sustainable jobs—the jobs of the future, not a harking back to a bygone era. It is about securing jobs; as the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) said, it is about renewal, not nostalgia. That is an incredibly important point about building the economic system of the future.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I must come to an end, so that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has some time to wind up.

We will deliver on our manifesto commitment not to grant new coal licences. We will continue to build the energy system of the future. We will create good, well-paid jobs across the country. We will be forward-looking—not just delivering for people now and dealing with the legacy of what we built in past decades, but ensuring that we can pass our country and our world to future generations. We need to be safe for the future, with an economic and energy system that is built for the future as well.

All those things come together in our clean power mission and in what we are trying to do. Those who oppose that should recognise that they are against the economic opportunity of the century and against the climate action that is necessary now, not in the future. Together, we can rebuild this consensus. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House on how we deal with this specific issue, but also on how we rebuild the wider consensus on the future of our planet.

Employment Rights Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I agree that such powers need to be used wisely. The House will notice that many clauses provide for guidance in primary legislation during the implementation phase, and consultation with the businesses affected. Members will have their voice heard, as will businesses and workers affected by the Bill. During the passage of the Bill through both Houses, there have been improvements to the legislation, and I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their tireless work.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The vast majority of the Employment Rights Bill is very much to be welcomed. Amendment 61, which relates to heritage railways and heritage tramways, would allow people under the age of 16 to volunteer on those heritage railway lines. It has been so narrowly worded as to be specifically for those sectors, and it would give young people fantastic opportunities to learn about technology, to work across generations, and to contribute to their communities. Will the Government please consider it again?

[Peter Kyle]

I know that this is something that affects the community that right hon. Lady represents, and that she is a tireless champion for her community here in Parliament, via the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I will come to that amendment specifically, so I think it is best that I leave the answer until then. If she wants to come back to me once she has heard the explanation as to why we will not support amendment 61, I will happily take another intervention.

I will start by speaking to the amendments that the Government made in another place. The majority of them reinforce and strengthen existing measures in the Bill by making technical adjustments. They close loopholes to safeguard policy functionality, resolve uncertainty and ensure that measures are comprehensive and effectively deliver the policy as intended, as set out by the plan to make work pay. Some of the substantial amendments follow excellent campaigning by Members of this House and the other place, and demonstrate that the Government are listening and taking action, where appropriate.

The Government’s amendments on zero-hours contracts strengthen and clarify provisions that were already in the Bill when it left this place. Our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts is the culmination of years of campaigning by Labour MPs, trade unions and the wider Labour movement. For too long, these contracts have been used to replace full-time jobs. The Government amendments tabled in the other place reflect our commitment to getting the detail right, and were informed by extensive engagement with a wide range of businesses, trade unions and other expert stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to make some progress.

We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide a less onerous approach for businesses to follow in order to dismiss someone during the statutory probation period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. The Government are committed to undertaking a public consultation to get the details of the statutory probation period right, to keep it light touch and to get the standards right. Most employers who use contractual probation periods operate them for six months or less. The Government’s preference is for the statutory probation period to be nine months long. That will enable an employer to operate a basic six-month probation period, with an option for extension where employers wish to give their employees further time to improve their performance. We will consult on the duration, which is why the Government will not agree to Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

Lords amendment 48 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for seasonal workers when making regulations. The Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already reflects the realities of seasonal work. For example, it allows guaranteed offers for limited-term contracts where appropriate, such as for task-based or time-bound roles. This Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, as the approach taken in the Bill already protects seasonal jobs while ensuring fair rights for workers, which is why the Government decline to support this amendment.

Lords amendment 49 seeks to require a consultation on the effects of provisions in part 1, and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized businesses are included in the consultation. SMEs are the backbone of the British economy, and their insights are vital to shaping policy that works in practice. That is why our approach to the implementation of the Bill includes 13 targeted consultations, running through to 2026. We think it is more effective and proportionate for us to engage extensively with SMEs, as planned through the consultation that we have described in our road map, and to ensure that SMEs’ views help shape the implementation. Given the comprehensive process, the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 46 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months to extend the circumstances in which an employee is automatically considered to have been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. It would require certain employers to take responsible steps to investigate whistleblowing claims. The Government do not support the amendment. We recognise that the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996 may not be operating as effectively as it should be, but we believe that any reform should be considered as part of a broader assessment of that framework. That is why the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 47 would insert a new clause into the Bill that relates to workplace representation. The amendment would allow workers and employees to be accompanied at grievance hearings by a certified professional companion. The law already guarantees workers the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a fellow worker, a trade union representative or an official employed by a trade union. Employers may allow other companions to attend formal meetings on a discretionary basis. The current law has served workers and employees for well over two decades. It strikes the right balance between fairness, flexibility and practicality, and we believe it should remain this way.

Lords amendment 60 seeks to remove the restrictions on young people aged 14 to 16 working on a heritage railway or a heritage tramway from the meaning of

“employment in an industrial undertaking”.

The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The benefits of youth volunteering in heritage railways cannot be overestimated and, with proper health and safety management, it already works well. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 does not ban youth volunteering in appropriate roles on heritage railways. Well-run schemes, such as the one in Swanage, show that young people can still take part safely and legally.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I politely remind the Secretary of State that he is therefore advising heritage railways to in effect break the law, because that is how the law stands. If parents or a local authority were to bring an action against a heritage railway, it would find itself in such a position. If he cannot change that in this legislation, I really urge him to discuss with me how to bring this forward in another way.

[Peter Kyle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

When the blast furnaces in Port Talbot closed down last September, this Government could have taken exactly the same legislative action as they have chosen to take today. We will endeavour to amend the Bill to include Wales, because there is still the opportunity for this Government to make a real difference to the community of Port Talbot and the 2,800 jobs that have been lost there.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Lady, but the blast furnaces have already closed at Port Talbot. They are not available to be saved —that situation has moved on. Let me stress again: Port Talbot is in a stronger position because it has that long-term future in place and the potential additional investments through the green steel fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It does not apply to Wales.

[Stephen Flynn]

The right hon. Member from Plaid Cymru corrects me to clarify the fact that the Bill applies only to England. The important consideration is: why is this not being extended to Scotland? Why is Grangemouth not being included, why is the smelter up at Lochaber not being included and why are the Dalzell steelworks not being included? The answer to why they are not being included is that Westminster is only interested in Westminster; it is not interested in Scotland. [Interruption.] I will not be shouted down by Labour Members, because they need to hear the truth. Scotland’s interests matter, and the people of Scotland are watching.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd.

Today’s legislation to safeguard the UK’s last bastion of primary steelmaking capacity is of course to be supported, but what my party cannot support is this Government’s approach to steel in the UK, which deems that steel in Scunthorpe is worth saving but steel in Wales is not. Today is a bitter day for the people of Port Talbot, where the blast furnaces have been extinguished because Labour let that happen. Job losses there will take an estimated £200 million from the local economy in lost wages. People in south Wales have been loyally voting for Labour for decades. Do this Labour Government feel proud that those votes have been paid back by Tory-style deindustrialisation in Port Talbot?

Plaid Cymru has called consistently for nationalisation, but the Labour First Minister of Wales rejected our calls and described nationalisation as “pipe dreams”. Labour in Wales was quick to mock our proposal, which we made 21 times—over and over again—in Cardiff and here in Westminster. Now it is UK Labour policy.

The Government must set out how much of the £2.5 billion steel fund will be allocated to securing Scunthorpe, and how that compares with the amount given to support laid-off workers in Wales.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The right hon. Gentleman’s Government did not intervene in Wales.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

rose—

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I will take no interventions. His Government did not intervene in Wales. Under his Government, Scunthorpe gets security; Port Talbot gets a pittance. Plaid Cymru believes that Port Talbot should and could have received equal treatment alongside Scunthorpe. That is why we have tabled an amendment to include Wales in the terms of the Bill, and to highlight that the measures we are debating today could have been used to save the blast furnaces at Tata Steel in Wales. We will not let Labour hide from the fact that it owns the decision not to intervene to save Welsh steel when it had the opportunity to do so.

Workers and communities must be at the heart of any long-term solution for the steel industry. So far, Labour in Westminster and Labour in Cardiff have worked in partnership to dispatch thousands of Welsh workers to uncertainty and hopelessness. People in Wales will not forget today. It is a day of bitter disappointment for Port Talbot.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We have talked about not reliving the arguments of Brexit; my hon. Friend has brought up the corn laws—it is about time we had that one again. He will know that if we go back to arguments from the past, such as those around imperial preference, and look at the stance the Labour party took, it was always for free trade. That is because free trade makes food and other goods and services cheaper for the people we represent. That has always been our history and our commitment. What we are announcing today and how we are seeking a way through these difficult and disappointing sets of announcements is entirely consistent with our own history in the Labour party and our commitment to internationalism.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Some commentators are fawning over a 10% tariff simply because our nearest neighbours have been hit worse. Let’s get real: the 25% tariff on steel and aluminium will hit Wales’s biggest export to the US—machinery and transport equipment. The EU is Wales’s greatest trading partner, with Welsh exports valued at £11.2 billion. In the face of the American President’s obsession with international economic revenge, does the Secretary of State recognise that it is economic common sense to accelerate the scrapping of trade barriers with Europe?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful for that question. Again, the right hon. Lady can see that no one in this Government is fawning over the relative position we find ourselves in. That is why we are so determined to find a better way through. She is right to say that the announcement on steel and aluminium is a real danger to us, particularly the potential for derivative tariffs—that is, on a product that is not the raw steel or aluminium but is produced from them. That is why we are taking this so seriously.

We have an ambitious commitment to the EU reset. We need a partner on the other side. There has been some relative political instability in some key European partners, and they have to be in a position to have that conversation. But I say again that this is not a choice between the US and the EU—we can tackle this together. We can improve our trading relationship with both partners and with India, the Gulf and other parts of the world, and it is the commitment of this Government to do so.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and recognise her contribution on this issue over many years. She is right to say that the appeals process I am announcing today will be run in-house by the Department for Business and Trade. Obviously, information will need to be provided by the Post Office, but an in-house scheme will be delivered. On redress, we are all following Sir Wyn William’s inquiry closely. We will need that to conclude and essential information will come out of it. After that, there will need to be a way to ensure that those findings, whatever they may be, are honoured in full and that we learn from them. In a number of cases, there is a need to hold people to account for their actions throughout the scandal.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Dewi Lewis of Penrhyndeudraeth is a former sub-postmaster who endured four months of imprisonment and had to wear a tag for another four months for a crime he never committed. He has not wanted me to raise his case in the Chamber before, because he said that to have his hopes raised and then dashed would destroy him: two weeks ago, he got a letter, I am glad to say, to say that his convictions were quashed. But the damage that has been done to the reputation of the Post Office in rural Wales is now so immense that people are no longer prepared to work in post offices. I welcome that the Secretary of State says that he believes the business model is no longer fit for purpose, but how can we be sure that we will have strategic planning to serve those communities that were once served so well by people like Dewi Lewis?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I recognise very much what the right hon. Member is saying. I have had personal friends who were directly affected by this issue. Even though I was their MP as well as their friend, they did not feel able to tell me about it because they were so concerned about the impact on their reputation—they could not even tell a friend who was a Member of Parliament, even though the issue was clearly affecting their lives very significantly. I am sure that, like me, she has had situations where there is one provider of postal services in a relatively rural area—I represent Greater Manchester as it gets out towards rural Derbyshire—and people want the service to continue, but for various business reasons the provider is moving on. It is sometimes hard to find someone willing to take that business on, not just because of the scandal, but because of the business model. I assure her that the work we are already doing is about the future and recognising that, and making sure we have people in charge who recognise that that has to change. It is going to be a substantial piece of work for me and the Minister, but it is essential. We could not just provide redress for this scandal, without looking to the future and making sure we get this right.

Post Office Ltd

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I can confirm that there was no severance payment. I do not think it is fair to say that we do not think the arm’s length model works. Clearly, we have the right to terminate the chair’s position, which is what we have done.; that is part of the current governance process. Of course, individuals are important, and having the right individual leading the board is very important. We did not think that was the case prior to this weekend, which is why we took the action that we did. We are very keen to appoint the right person to help make the cultural changes within the Post Office that we all want to see.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. The effects of the Horizon scandal and Post Office business practices are still hurting our communities. The post office in Nefyn closed partly because staff no longer trust the computer systems, which I bet is happening in countless communities. I have asked the Post Office to provide an outreach van in Nefyn if no business at all is willing to provide that service—as appears very likely, because I have asked businesses; last week, the Post Office said no. Will the Minister guarantee the people of Nefyn that this, the oldest and second largest town in Llyn, will again have post services in the town?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to take that point up with the right hon. Lady, and to meet her to discuss it. It is very important that our citizens—our consumers—have confidence in the Post Office. That has certainly been the experience in my patch: people have been outraged when there is a closure, so the general public definitely have some confidence in the service. The Horizon system is being replaced. As far as I know, there has never been a case of a customer losing out because of the Horizon system, but I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady to discuss her case in Nefyn.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his question. I am pleased that Paula Vennells has handed back her CBE. It was absolutely the right thing to do. As part of the inquiry, at some point we will of course identify who was responsible—individuals and organisations. In terms of corporate fraud, the beneficiary to some extent was the Post Office. Of course, the Post Office had to be funded by the Government to make the payments, so it is difficult to see how we would get the money back from the Post Office. There are other organisations, such as Fujitsu. I have talked about that previously, and we will look at that once the inquiry has concluded.

On scrutiny, many Ministers and officials will ask themselves questions about what happened. It is our job to ask the key questions at the right time and not necessarily to take the first answer we are given. We should push back and ensure that we get to the bottom of the issue. There is no question but that there were failures. I will not identify who failed, but many people will be asking themselves serious questions. The inquiry may well identify where we could have done things better.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Former Plaid Cymru councillor Noel Thomas’s 16-year quest for justice has had enormous repercussions for him and his family. He faced imprisonment, bankruptcy and the loss of his home. He describes his nine months in prison as “hell on earth”. Noel’s story has also had repercussions throughout north-west Wales. I know of people who will not work on post office counters. That has meant that some communities have lost their post offices. Not only have individuals suffered agony, but communities have lost essential facilities. What assessment has the Minister made of the loss of post offices following the scandal, and the effect on communities, particularly rural communities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On behalf of the Government and the Post Office, I apologise for what happened to Mr Thomas, who obviously featured very heavily in the programme. It was such a moving story, and anybody watching would have been moved to tears by what happened to him and others.

Individual sub-postmasters lost their reputation, and they can get compensation for that, but the right hon. Lady is right to say that the post office network itself may have suffered some loss of reputation. I still believe that our post office network is hugely valued, and that citizens and constituents hold it in very high regard. To make sure that we have suitable post office provision around the country, the key thing is to ensure that post offices are financially viable and sustainable. We are working very hard on that. For example, we are encouraging the Post Office to take a firmer line in negotiations on the banking framework, which is a significant revenue opportunity for the network, and on parcel hubs. We see a bright future for the network, but it is vital that we draw a line under this scandal before we secure that future.