Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very keen to make sure it is a UK-wide scheme, both in terms of compensation and people’s access to it. We have already had conversations with the Scottish Administration—I think they happened yesterday evening—so that they fully understand our intentions. Clearly, these matters are devolved in Scotland, so there are different routes to make sure that there is one scheme across the UK. I am keen to continue those conversations and make it as easy as possible for postmasters to overturn convictions or access compensation.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

We all welcome the fact that, at long last, postmasters can finally expect full justice and restitution for the devastation that they and their families have suffered. However, does the Minister share my concern that, notwithstanding restitution and justice for postmasters, the Post Office, once a most trusted brand and institution, has been forever and irreparably tarnished by those who presided over this scandal having prosecuted and persecuted so many decent people who were serving their communities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not quite agree with that. Clearly, it has not been the Post Office’s finest hour by a long chalk, but the Post Office brand itself is revered around the country. The reputation of Post Office Ltd—the central organisation—has been tarnished, and we are keen to move on and help the Post Office to rebuild that relationship. It has, for example, recruited 100 area managers to try to improve its relationship with sub-postmasters, which I think is helping. But there is work to do to improve the relationship between the centre and the network. As a constituency MP, my experience is that my constituents very much appreciate, value and revere the post offices in their community.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I engage with the NFSP, Calum Greenhow and others. I think there is a better relationship now between the network and the NFSP, but it is important that it is a representative relationship. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend raises a very important point. There is nowhere that the statutory inquiry cannot look to identify responsibility. He points it in a certain direction that I am sure it will be aware of, but it may well listen to his comments on the Floor of the House today and look at it as a consequence.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Only last year, when the sheer scale of the scandal had already been uncovered, the CEO and senior Post Office leaders were awarded tens of thousands of pounds in bonuses for their work on the inquiry into Post Office failings. Meanwhile, some of the victims of the scandal have died while waiting for compensation. This has outraged my constituents, constituting as it does incompetence and insensitivity on stilts. The Minister has today committed to ensuring and expediting justice for the victims of this scandal, and that is widely welcomed, but what steps is he prepared to take to ensure the recovery, in full, of all bonuses paid to Post Office leaders?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Certainly in terms of what the hon. Lady regards as the sub-metric—the work of the Post Office contributing towards the inquiry—we accept that should never have been the case. All the people who received bonuses at senior leadership level have voluntarily returned the bonuses that were attached to that sub-metric.

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the number of people who have passed away while waiting for compensation. That is a tragedy in itself. We are keen to deliver compensation as quickly as possible and make sure that the families of those individuals who have passed away get access to compensation as quickly as possible.

Rural Postal Services: Sustainability

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

Does the Minister think there is a case for giving greater UK Government support to rural post offices, which, by definition, cannot compete on footfall because they serve smaller populations, so that our island and rural communities can keep hold of our post offices, even during these difficult times?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said earlier, I am bound to stand up for rural areas, just like the hon. Lady and others in this debate, but there is a limit to taxpayers’ money, and we are talking about £2.5 billion over 10 years and significant funding requirements now, in terms of the needs of both the network and the compensation schemes, which I will refer to in a second. We do not have a bottomless pit of money. However, there are other measures we can take, which I will mention, to make the Post Office sustainable and make individual branches profitable, which is the key to this conversation.

Returning to specific branches, I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referenced the Balintore post office, which reopened at the Seaboard Memorial Hall last year, thanks to the efforts of the post office and the hall’s committee, and indeed Maureen, the postmaster. However, we are in no way trying to pretend that the rural network is not facing challenges—not at all. As I have said before, the Post Office works with communities to ensure that services are maintained, and the Government’s access criteria ensure that however the network changes, services remain within local reach of all citizens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) rightly references post boxes, which are another key part of this matter. Royal Mail is there to ensure that there is a post box within half a mile of the premises of at least 98% of users of postal services. If that is not the case, I am very happy to engage with my hon. Friend to get answers for him and change in his local area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) challenges the Government on what more we can do to ensure the sustainability of post offices. It is important we take into account that many of the challenges facing post offices are because of the changes in consumer habits—just like the rest of the high street, which is seeing those changes too. That is also related to Government services such as driving licences, passports and other similar services, mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who does a fantastic job as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. Many consumers now want to access such services online, which can be done very efficiently. I do not think it is for us to dictate to those citizens how they access those kinds of services if they can do so more quickly and efficiently online. That would be the wrong thing to do.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kevin Hollinrake

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I put on record my thanks to the hon. Lady for her work on this Bill, particularly during Committee stage. Earlier, she said that we had worked together to improve this Bill. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) were delighted that the Government were willing to accept her amendment on stillbirth. That is a clear sign of how cross-party working can improve legislation as it goes through the House. That particular amendment will always be attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the hon. Lady.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. What the Bill has shown, across this House, is the best of what the House of Commons can be. It is unfortunate that we cannot work in a more consensual manner on many more issues. On an issue such as this, when it is about human beings, compassion and feelings for our fellow man, this House has come out today looking much better than it often does. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words.

To face the death of a son or daughter with no entitlement to paid leave under the law is a terrible injustice that generations of people before us have suffered. I am proud to say that, today, we will correct that. The Bill sets out a minimum leave period of two weeks. I know that that is not very long, but given that currently there is no entitlement at all, it offers a start and provides legal recognition that the response to such a life-changing event can no longer be—and should no longer be—a matter of discretion for employers. This is one of those days when, whatever criticism people make of the House of Commons, either justified or unjustified, we can feel that we are making a real and practical difference to people’s lives as they face the worst circumstances imaginable—the death of their child.

Let me turn to amendments 22 and 23. We know the trauma that accompanies the death of a child. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. For some parents, going on as far as possible as though the death is not “real” will be a reaction that helps them cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term. People cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, there is no right or wrong way to do this. That is why the amendments are important. If they are passed, they will provide a signal to bereaved parents. The Bill is saying, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and we recognise its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that date.” I do not believe that that is really what we wish to do; it is not the message that we want to send out, which is why flexibility is so important.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Patricia Gibson]

I wish to speak in support of amendment 10, because it is important that there be flexibility on when parental bereavement leave is taken. The loss of a child, if it is anything, is hugely traumatic. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. Going on as far as possible as though the death is not real will be a reaction that helps some parents to cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term.

Other people cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. There is no right or wrong way to do so. I fear that if the amendment is not accepted, we will in effect, even if we do not wish to, be saying to bereaved parents, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your bereavement leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that, as set out in the Bill.” I honestly think we can do better.

It is not appropriate or desirable to set an early timeframe as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need of leave only some months later, when the enormity and the reality of the loss have truly sunk in. Others may prefer a phased return to work instead of taking the leave in one set block.

Much of the discussion that I have seen on the Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness, and it is true that far too many children are lost in that way. Far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by an unforgiving disease against which the child has few or no resources to defend itself. There is no doubt that to watch a child go through that—to watch your own child go through that—is beyond heartbreaking and beyond horrific, but we cannot forget that many children also die in a variety of other circumstances.

The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic when the parent had no idea when they last saw their child that that would be the last time they saw their child alive. There may be a car accident or some other horrific accident. A child is knocked down perhaps, and in a moment a family is destroyed by grief and the random cruelty of events.

I therefore believe that flexibility is needed not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way and in their own time, but because, depending on the circumstances, there might be a fatal accident inquiry following the death or, in England, a coroner’s inquiry. There might be a court case and perhaps even a trial. There might be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. It should be remembered that not all bereaved parents will necessarily take any or all of this leave, but they must have the option, and the option must be flexible. I fear that if it is not, bereaved parents who work for the minority of employers who are not as sympathetic as we might wish them to be might face losing their job as well as their child. Bereaved parents need the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully, as we try to put on the statute book the best Bill possible for parents.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument on making leave arrangements more flexible and I have much sympathy with it. Certainly, we heard such arguments from many different sources, including people who have been bereaved who contacted us through social media. Many charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care, Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives and the National Bereavement Alliance also made the point that the period of 52 days was too short and they wanted longer. That was for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Lady outlined, such as autopsies and inquests, which can often happen well beyond those first 52 days.

There are substantive reasons why we might want to look at a longer timescale. We need to strike a balance, of course, between the needs of the employee and the understanding of the employer. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that we expect these to be the minimum standards that employers might follow. It would be sensible to consult further on those measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman brings me back to earth with a bump; as everybody knows, nobody wants to be responsible for signing this Bill’s death warrant. I do feel strongly about this issue, but I will not do anything to jeopardise the Bill: the important thing is to get it on the statute books—if we have to have a bunfight later, we can.

I urge everybody to reflect on the value of this issue. I am an eternal optimist: if every single one of us agreed to the amendment, I would hope that the Treasury would look at it and say, “Well, this is the right way to go,” because of the weight of that agreement. Maybe I am an eternal optimist. I am walking on glass; I will not do anything to destroy the Bill. However, I would be very sad if the measure was not in the Bill—if not today, then at the end of the process. That is all I have to say.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Like everybody in the room, I was moved by the fine speech and impassioned words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. A family that includes one of my closest friends lost their daughter, sister, niece and granddaughter in the most horrific of circumstances only a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time with them through that process. Their child was 30, and their grief was no different from how it would have been at any other point in that child’s life. I quite understand what the hon. Lady is saying.

I have children either side of the line: a 21-year-old and 20-year-old, and a 14-year-old and 10-year-old, so I can see it from both sides. If I look at my own children—I would never want to contemplate the circumstances—there is a slight difference in dependency; I feel more responsible for the ones under 18. The hon. Lady spoke about everyone in the room, and we were all moved by what she said, but it is not just everyone in the room we have to consider. It is sad to say, because these things are not about money, but we have to consider the taxpayer.

The hon. Member for North West Durham cited some interesting figures that I was not aware of, but on a raw calculation the amendment would increase the cost to the taxpayer five or sixfold—the cost would go from £2 million up to about £12 million. Despite the fact that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the statutory pay, there is a cost to employers because they have to cover the time off for the person. That is £1.4 million or £1.5 million, and it would go up to £15 million. Members may well argue—I might well agree—that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the grief that might be mitigated by the changes, but the amendment would mean going back to the drawing board and talking to the Treasury. It would fundamentally and fatally stop the Bill in its tracks, and we might not have time to bring it forward again.

I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that the Bill is a signal to employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said. That is key. The Bill does not do everything we would expect. I would expect any employer to give someone as much time off as they needed on full pay. That is what we have done in our business. With the Bill, we are trying to send a signal to the small minority of employers that are not compassionate, fair or understanding.

We have had a lot of engagement already with charities. None of them has said, “There should be no limit.” Some have suggested a slightly higher limit in certain circumstances, but no one has suggested having no limit, although we should not take that as read. That is an interesting point on some of the feedback we have had.

We have to consider employers in terms of cost and logistics. Members have understandably tabled a number of amendments. The hon. Member for North West Durham has tabled one on lifelong disability, and there are many different ways in which the legislation could be changed to improve it or to cover different circumstances. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talks about children in full-time education. There are problems with the cut-off point and how the legislation would cater for that. The amendment would complicate the legislation.

I understand why Members have tabled the amendments, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of them, but given the fragility and complexity of taking a private Member’s Bill through this House and the other place, I politely and respectfully ask them to withdraw their amendments so we can move the Bill forward.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all members of the Committee for their wonderful contributions. I am delighted to see cross-party support for this very important Bill, and I am keen to move on to the substance of the Bill at the earliest opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Parental bereavement leave and pay: review of extension of entitlement

‘The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act being passed, lay a report before Parliament reviewing the extension of entitlement to parental bereavement leave and pay to people who are self-employed or are employed on zero-hours contracts.’—(Patricia Gibson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the extension of parental bereavement leave and pay to self-employed people and those on zero-hours contracts.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patricia Gibson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Parental bereavement leave is a contributory benefit. As set out, those bereaved parents who are envisaged to be eligible for leave under the Bill will need to meet the minimum requirements relating to continuity of employment—they will need at least 26 weeks with their current employer. During that leave, earnings will be paid at the statutory flat rate, which is set at £140.98 a week or 90% of average earnings, whichever is lower. Later, under other amendments, we can have a debate about how far short those provisions fall of what we want, but I urge the Minister to consider how these entitlements for bereaved parents will be extended to those in precarious work, such as those on zero-hours contracts.

That is important because, as we have all agreed, the Bill is about supporting parents who suffer the awful experience of having to bury their own child. This surely cannot and should not be reduced to a matter of work contracts. Our starting principle is the loss of a child, so I urge Minister to include as many bereaved parents as possible within the Bill’s remit. Remember, many people on precarious contracts are on them because it is so difficult for them to find the permanent, secure employment that we would all wish to have. Many of them are struggling because there are too few employment protection rights anyway. If they do go through the awful nightmare of losing their child, they will continue to lose out.

I remind the Minister that the loss of a child can often lead to the complete breakdown of a marriage. Sadly, in the ordinary course of events, 50% of marriages end in divorce, but some studies show that the death of a child makes the bereaved parents eight times more likely to divorce than other couples. There is a social cost to divorce, and it is often borne by the state as well as the families. Bereaved parents are more likely to develop depression and other mental health issues. Some turn to drink or other forms of self-medication; some even drop out of the workplace altogether and become economically inactive. I say that to the Minister because apart from the compassion that the Bill should show to bereaved parents who might be excluded from it under its current terms, from a purely financial perspective—leaving the compassion behind—it makes sense to offer that monetary support during the critical early days following a bereavement.

I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to including these provisions in the Bill, so that parents who are doing their best and working hard, but do not enjoy the security of a permanent contract and all the rights that it confers, do not miss out should they face this awful tragedy. We should extend the rights to them as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the hon. Lady’s arguments. The world of employment is changing rapidly. We are in a new world. Although I have been self-employed virtually all my life and I see self-employment as a wonderful opportunity for people to get on in life, there is no doubt that some companies are using another kind of opportunity to circumvent the employment laws that have been developed over centuries, so that it is easier and cheaper for them to employ people. The concern is that that is also being done to avoid the other obligations that employers have to employees, which is the point the hon. Lady was getting at.

Truly self-employed people tend to have more flexibility in their work, so they have other means of taking the time off that is required in these tragic circumstances, but we do not want future employers to use that to circumvent legislation. We need to look at that, and the Government are looking at it in the form of the Taylor review, which considers modern working practices. In July, as the hon. Lady knows, it reported on the overall context of legislation, including its impact on self-employed people and whether the gig economy is being abused to get round employment rights. The provisions in the Bill generally mirror other parental entitlements. The Taylor review may well recommend that some other parental provisions apply in these circumstances, which may affect this legislation in future. We need to look at the difference in entitlement between employed and self-employed people.

Throughout the process, we were keen to engage with charities and to listen to how we might improve the legislation based on their experiences. I mentioned some of them in my opening remarks. They include Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives, the National Bereavement Alliance, the Rainbow Trust and Bliss. Other bodies such as Unison have submitted points to consider; people will be familiar with many of them. Charities suggested that we look at the issues around self-employment. We and the Government should consider that in the context of wider employment legislation.

Another matter that I do not have much influence over in this Committee, and which would complicate things in a way that none of us wants, is the impact on the Exchequer. It is important to state that we are spending taxpayers’ money. The financial context is that under the new clause, the Exchequer would pay the statutory pay for people in these circumstances. We have to take that into account. That amount has not been calculated, so that could cause more delays.

[Patricia Gibson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there may well be a social cost if people do not get the support that they need. The statistics around bereaved parents do not make for comfortable reading.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I would not argue against that for a minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talked about the impact of the employer treating his workforce properly and how that can lift morale, or certainly does not damage morale, and how treating people with consideration can get people back to work more quickly. I am sure that that applies in a wider social context.

My point was that for any legislation, we look at the impact assessment, including the obvious hard-cash impact. In this case, that would require a revisitation of the assessment, which could cause delays in the Bill process. At this point, it is probably fairer to let the Minister have his say, because he is best placed to respond to those points.