Post Office - Horizon System

Debate between Peter Bone and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

Training is carried out as a matter of course when new postmasters join the network. That can vary between a little over two weeks to three weeks. The Post Office is now ensuring that it visits new sub-postmasters after one month, and again after three months for the new local and main operating models, to deal with any teething issues or further questions that have arisen from their working the process for a few weeks.

Improvements to the helpline are also important, so that it does what it says on the tin and is actually helpful to people who call it. One thing that has improved the helpline is making it available for extended hours. As other Members have mentioned, sub-postmasters work very hard for long hours, so assistance needs to be available to them when they happen to be doing their reconciliation at the end of the day. That is not likely to be within office hours, so the service needs to be available after branches have closed. Those are just some of the improvements that the Post Office has been making.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making today’s statement. She is an excellent Minister, but on this occasion she has got it wrong. Indeed, I think she got the mood of the House wrong. The House is concerned about a very small number of people who have had their lives ruined. It is no good saying, “Oh, they can appeal,” or that they can do this or that. We need proactive action from the Government. I suggest that she talk to the Attorney-General to see whether he can look into those cases and review them.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his kind words. I accept that this is a serious issue for the individuals involved, and it is absolutely natural that their constituency MPs are putting their cases. However, we have to be careful about going from the understandable sympathy for individuals in a difficult position to an assumption that all these issues are therefore unsafe and the result of problems in a way that is not borne out by the evidence in the report. That is why it is important to have a continuing independent review process in which people can have confidence, but it is also important to go by the evidence found in the report.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Debate between Peter Bone and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 19 November 2012 (Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme)), be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

I hope that this will be the second day in a row when I can speak to a Bill on which there is broad agreement across the House. The programme motion allocates three hours for debate before we move on to Third Reading, which we think will allow us plenty of time to consider any issues that might be raised on what is—let us remember—quite a narrow and tightly focused piece of legislation, and one that enjoys considerable cross-party support.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am always worried when a Minister starts by saying that Front Benchers and the usual channels have agreed on a Bill, because that means the legislation is almost certainly wrong. My specific point is that we had a programme motion that we agreed after Second Reading, so why is it being overruled? Why are we shortening scrutiny when the House and Parliament thought that we would have a whole day for it?

[Jo Swinson]

I gently point out to my hon. Friend that I did not say that this was something the usual channels were all okay with; I said that there has been a great deal of positivity across the House for the content of the Bill itself. It follows on from previous private Members’ Bills, and on Second Reading and in Committee it was generally welcomed by a large number of Members.

We believe that the programme motion allows sufficient time for scrutiny, because we rigorously tested the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. Indeed, what we did not know when we passed the original programme motion was that consideration in Committee would finish early, so it was well scrutinised and the time that had been allocated was significantly more than ample.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bone and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I shall be brief, because under the programme motion we have only half an hour left to discuss the whole of the remaining stages of the Bill. The programme motion has been proved to be hopeless, as we will not even get to the next group of amendments.

I refer the House to my entry in the register. I cannot quite relate to the supermarket industry, but I can relate to the travel industry, where the margins are similar and the competition levels are as great, and there are a number of big suppliers who put pressure on smaller suppliers. In my day, I was one of those smaller suppliers, but I did not come across the practices that have been described as happening in the supermarkets, where there have been nasty attempts to force the use of the hauliers demanded by the supermarkets. I did not come across such things, so I accept that this is a very different case.

The whole House supports the small producers, who are unfairly penalised by the actions of very large supermarkets. However, the House should not be united in giving support to companies that may be even greater than the supermarkets. I am attracted by and minded to support new clause 2, unless the Minister—and a very fine Minister she is, too—can persuade the House that there is some fundamental reason not to support it. It is possible that having listened to arguments from all parts of the House, she will say that the Government accept new clause 2.

That is the sort of thing that I would like to see more often in Parliament when reasoned cases are made which do not in any way affect what the Government want. In fact, new clause 2 enhances what the Government want. If big companies are excluded from being able to use the adjudicator, that will allow the adjudicator more time and allow the adjudicator to reach decisions more quickly on the small suppliers that matter. That is why I intervened on the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I wanted to see whether there was a reason why we should not adopt new clause 2. I see no reason why we should not go ahead and accept it. I hope the Minister will do that, but if not, I am minded to support it in a Division.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on this series of amendments and for tabling the amendments, through which we have discussed and probed various issues.

It might be helpful to recap briefly on why we are here, which relates to the reasons why I may have to disappoint hon. Members and not be able to accept their amendments—that is, the purpose of the groceries code adjudicator and how we have come to the Bill before us. That relates to the Competition Commission report, which found that although the market was functioning effectively in delivering low prices to consumers, some practices by large retailers could have an anti-competitive effect.

The Competition Commission found that, through buyer power, the large retailers were engaging in practices that transferred excessive risk and unexpected costs to their suppliers, and that this in turn could reduce the incentive of suppliers to invest and innovate, which would act against the long-term interests of consumers. It is worth noting that all six members of the Competition Commission group who undertook the market investigation into groceries agreed that the transfer of excessive risks or unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers is likely to lessen suppliers’ incentives to invest in new capacity, products and production processes. If unchecked, those practices would ultimately have a detrimental effect on consumers. Paragraph 11.375 of the commission’s report states clearly that all but one member of the investigation panel considered the adjudicator essential for the monitoring and enforcement of the code and that the code on its own would not be enough. That relates to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised earlier.

The Competition Commission’s report is absolutely key. It created the groceries supply order and the code is derived from it, and that is what needs to be enforced by the adjudicator. That is why the Government will resist the amendments that would encourage the adjudicator to deviate from the report.

It is worth mentioning that creating the adjudicator was in all three major parties’ manifestos. It has been endorsed by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is appropriate at this moment to report to the House that, following our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee and other representations, pre-appointment scrutiny by the Select Committee will now happen. I am delighted that the Government have been able to accommodate that request, because such scrutiny from a Select Committee is welcome, leads to better legislation and strengthens Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

The Minister is quite wrong on that. I am not coming from that position; I came to that view after listening to the debate. Does she not fear that there is a danger that allowing large suppliers to go to the adjudicator will clog up the system so that it cannot look after small suppliers, which is what it is supposed to do?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not believe that is the case. The adjudicator will obviously be able to make their own assessments. The industry is confident that there will be very few complaints, and I wholeheartedly hope that will be the case, but if we find that there are many breaches of the code, and if the evidence comes from a variety of sources, the adjudicator will need to look at that and be empowered to make recommendations and requests, and they will need to be properly and adequately resourced in order to do so. Therefore, an arbitrary restriction on who can complain would actually make the adjudicator’s life harder and, indeed, could increase the risk of judicial review, so we will reject the new clause and encourage hon. Members to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.

The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that the provision would cost consumers more money, but all the supermarkets that gave evidence on the matter said, when asked, that complying with the code had not caused them to raise prices, so his concerns are misplaced. This will not cost consumers. Indeed, surveys have shown that 84% of consumers support the adjudicator, and I am sure that hon. Members will be well aware from their mail bags that there is a great deal of public support for the adjudicator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely give that assurance. If a body such as the OFT receives information, particularly from a respected public servant, we would expect it to respond appropriately as part of its general duty, but we do not want to be overly prescriptive in how we set that out in legislation. I hope that that reassurance is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and I urge him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 28 would require the adjudicator to set out in guidance which laws will apply to arbitration and where it will be conducted. The amendment is superfluous, because it would duplicate information that is already in the groceries supply order. We discussed arbitration in Committee, as did the other place when it debated the Bill. Article 11 of the order sets out the rules that will apply and the fact that

“the seat or legal place of arbitration will be London…or such other city within the United Kingdom as the Supplier nominates.”

Of course, the adjudicator may choose to publish guidance on arbitration, but we do not believe that it is necessary to make that a requirement under the Bill.

[Mr Bone]

Is my hon. Friend at all contrite about the fact that we will not reach the second and third group of amendments?

[Jo Swinson]

No, I am not. We have had an interesting debate, although I suspect it could have been more concise; nevertheless, we are where we are.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) tabled amendment 27 on commencement. I am happy to make a commitment that the Government intend commencement to take place two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is, however, usual procedure not to set that out in legislation, but to allow the Secretary of State discretion to commence an Act by order.

Finally, I cannot accept, in fact or in spirit, new clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. I agree that we do not want statutory offices to continue when they are not needed, and the Government have been working according to that principle. Indeed, in accordance with our general policy on sunsetting, the Bill’s sunset clause—clause 15—means that the Secretary of State must review the adjudicator every three years and may decide, if appropriate, to abolish the office. However, proposing an arbitrary end to the Act is not appropriate. If, in seven years’ time, the problems with large retailers that have led to the creation of the Bill and the adjudicator persist, we would not want the Act to be repealed automatically. I reassure Members that the Secretary of State will be rigorous in reviewing this matter. I believe that that is a much better way to ensure that statutory offices do not continue unnecessarily.

I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with my assurances and explanations, and that they will not press their amendments. If that is not the case, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments before us.

Overseas Voluntary Sector

Debate between Peter Bone and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for—I will try to say it—Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) on securing a debate on what is undoubtedly an important issue. I am glad that the Minister has expressed his willingness to listen and perhaps to find an innovative solution. There is general agreement that all organisations—even those working in the international development sphere—need to spend money more efficiently and to reduce their reliance on public funds, but it is important that that transition should be managed in a way that does not unduly damage the great projects that organisations are running abroad.

I would like to share the experiences that I had this summer, and I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As I said, I undertook a VSO placement in Nigeria. There is a level of competition about the various bugs that Members have had to put up with. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) had Ed the cockroach, while the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) had the tarantula that was keen to get into his bed. I am thankful that I did not experience cockroaches or tarantulas, and that was down to the gecko that lived in my bedroom. I think that it was eating everything else, so I am quite pleased that my cute little gecko was there.

I worked alongside the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development, which does essential work, particularly on climate change. One thing about going to other countries is that we find out things that we had no clue about before. For example, the third biggest killer in Nigeria after malaria and tuberculosis is poisoning by fumes from cooking stoves, which kills 79,000 people every year. Never in a month of Sundays would it have crossed my mind that that would be such a huge problem. One of ICEED’s projects involves improving the efficiency of cooking stoves, which obviously has a health benefit. However, it also has a massive benefit in terms of climate change and emissions. Furthermore, if stoves are more efficient, the amount of deforestation can also be reduced. In a country where most cooking is still done on a stove, that makes a big difference.

The VSO office in Abuja, where I was, had projects on education and HIV, but I was working very much on the climate change projects, as I said. For a country such as Nigeria, climate change is an absolutely vital issue. The north is already experiencing the impact of increased desertification and a reduction, therefore, in agricultural effectiveness. In the south, one just needs to look at a map to see that the former capital, Lagos, with its 38 million people, is very vulnerable to any sea level rise. For such a densely populated city, that is obviously a great concern. Furthermore, the country is blessed with massive energy reserves, but it has frequent blackouts. It also has no proper gas network, so when the oil is extracted, the gas is flared. There are therefore many challenges in tackling the important problem of climate change.

The project I was involved in worked with a network of climate change organisations that was trying to pass a Bill. The Bill is somewhat similar to our Climate Change Act 2008 and would set up a commission on climate change to provide cross-departmental expert advice to the Government. That would perhaps be done with a little more force than has been the case under the Ministry of Environment on its own. Although the Bill had been through both Houses of Parliament, the problem was that it needed to be harmonised, much like when we have ping-pong in this Parliament, and then signed off by the President. A very real deadline is approaching in April, when elections will take place. If the Bill is not signed into law by then, the whole thing will fall, and the process will have to start again from scratch.

I was giving advocacy and lobbying advice to the network of organisations involved. I ran a workshop to share some of the experience that we have had in this country of campaigning on issues such as climate change. I am pleased to report that since my visit in September, the Bill has been harmonised. The final hurdle involves getting the President to sign it off, and I hope that some of my suggestions to the youth organisations involved about a Facebook campaign—President Goodluck Jonathan is indeed on Facebook—might help to raise the issue up the agenda as the elections approach.

When I was in Nigeria, I was also able to see examples of best practice. Often, we in western countries think that we know best, and we go out and preach to people in other countries about what they should do. I was keen not to do that on my visit, so I did some research as preparation before I went and arranged to visit Cross River state, which has 60% of Nigeria’s forests. As Members will know, deforestation is a major factor in climate change.

In 2008, the state’s forward-thinking governor, Governor Imoke, introduced a moratorium on logging for two years while a UN process was put in place to decide how to bring in money for the forest, other than through deforestation. Those moves have been incredibly successful, and they are important for the unique habitat in the forests. I was able to meet the governor and to give some support to his work. Furthermore, Odigha Odigha, who has a long track record on campaigning to protect the lifestyle in the forest, has been put in charge of the forestry commission.

Experience outside the project is another of the real benefits of VSO, because we get to see the true country in a way that does not happen on a normal parliamentary visit. At ICEED, I worked alongside the volunteer Emily Bullock from the UK, who has a lot of experience in renewables.

I went down to the market to buy food and met a young lady called Chizoba, who was a tailor. She has worked hard to get her skills and to buy a little sewing machine, which she sets up in a corner of the market. She wants to build a business and, ultimately, to rent her own little shop in the market—I say shop almost in inverted commas, because these things are in the open air, where it is very busy. Dickson the driver was trying to save up the money to go to college to get his education. Meeting real Nigerians and being able to understand their lives was a huge benefit.

Taking part in the VSO parliamentarian scheme gave me a window, in a short time, through which to see the great value that organisations such as VSO provide. That value is not only in the projects in the countries that receive volunteer support. There is also great value for the volunteers, because of the skills and experiences in relation to life abroad that they bring back to this country.

Volunteering raises awareness that most people in the world do not have the home comforts, which we are all used to, of inside toilets, clean hot running water and electricity that continues throughout the day. It is easy, in our cocooned lifestyles, to think that life is the same everywhere, but that is not true. I hope that the Minister will be positive, and that some innovative solutions can be found to the funding concerns of VSO. I am delighted to have taken part in the debate.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I thank Back-Bench Members for keeping their comments relatively brief, which meant that they could all contribute.