Post Office: Capture System

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. There is a difference between Horizon and the Capture system. The Capture system was not networked to a central system like Horizon was, which meant the data in Capture could not be accessed or manipulated from elsewhere. However, notwithstanding that, we are looking at whether there have been miscarriages of justice. I am sorry to say this, but perhaps the noble Baroness should wait for the report we will produce next week. I feel frustrated saying this today, but I know noble Lords will understand how the machinery of government works. I hope to come back with clearer news next week.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

More broadly, can the Minister tell us what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that no authority, public or private, can act with unchecked power similar to that exercised by the Post Office during the Horizon case?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this; it is an issue that relates not just to the Post Office and Horizon. We are very aware of that and are looking at whether other actions should be taken on a more general basis. It is at the top of our list of concerns, and I hope we will be able to come back with more information on that.

Future of the Post Office

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. Like my honourable friend Andrew Griffith in the other place, I am pleased that the Government are building on the work of my right honourable friend Kevin Hollinrake to hasten the payments to the victims of the Horizon IT scandal. I am grateful to the Minister for this important update. Will she commit to regular updates going forward?

We learned with regret last week that the Post Office feels that it has no choice but to make radical decisions, announced by the chairman in the transformation plan, to reduce costs. We are told that this potentially threatens 115 branches and 1,000 jobs. This news prompts a variety of questions to the Minister. First, the Statement makes it clear that the Government expect the Post Office to consult postmasters, trade unions and other stakeholders. How disappointing that the communities that rely on these services have not been specifically mentioned. Surely the Minister agrees that the Post Office’s customers are an important group that should be consulted. Can the Minister therefore reassure the House that where closures are threatened, local communities are fully involved in the consultation process? Can she also assure the House that this will not herald another front in the Government’s current assault on rural communities, as epitomised by the family farm tax, and that the Government will review the family farm tax and other measures that affect rural communities to see how we can better support them?

In announcing these plans, the chairman of the Post Office said that the changes to national insurance in the Budget have made business more difficult for post offices. Can the Minister tell the House whether an impact assessment on the changes announced in the Budget for the Post Office was prepared and, if not, why not?

Business rates and national insurance contributions are going up. The threshold for paying them is going down, and obligations around the minimum wage are going up. It is impossible to conceive that, taken individually, these measures have not had some impact on all small businesses, but collectively they are devastating. As I do not believe that the Government would have been irresponsible enough to make these changes without assessing their likely impact, can the Minister commit to publishing all impact assessments?

The Post Office chairman made clear that his plans are subject to government funding. Can the Minister make a commitment that such funding will be forthcoming? Business rightly hates uncertainty.

Finally, it is welcome that the chairman has committed to increasing the number of banking hubs to 500 by 2030. We welcome that but, as my honourable friend in the other place noted, the devil is in the detail. I will repeat his question: has the Minister engaged with colleagues in the Treasury to discuss the impact of last week’s news on the banking framework negotiations, which are essential to underwrite this rollout of hubs?

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new Front-Bench role. The Post Office organisation is another problem area left by the previous Government. The Horizon compensation payments are still moving too slowly; there is confusion over the new IT systems in the Post Office; and the Post Office has been suffering from a lack of leadership for an organisation dealing with severe competitive pressures. Now we face, in recognition of high overhead costs, the announcement of the possible closure of 115 Crown post offices, with further damage to our high streets.

I have two initial questions. First, are the Government looking at simplifying the Horizon compensation process and speeding up decision-making? Secondly, is the expectation that many of the Crown post offices will be replaced by sub-post offices and franchise operations? On high streets and in rural areas, long-term sustainability of the post office network is vital to many communities, not least for those who cannot currently use digital alternatives to the post office services for cash, banking and financial services. Liberal Democrats have put forward proposals for the mutualisation of the Post Office. This would also give sub-postmasters more independence and control. It is welcome that the Government have announced broader reforms for the organisation and will publish a Green Paper next year. Can the Minister assure the House that this will include consideration of how mutualisation could ensure that the Post Office is fit for the future?

Will the Government also take this opportunity seriously to consider how to strengthen the role that post offices play in our communities so that they can offer more local services, from community banking to government services?

During many of the Horizon debates, when the Government were on the Opposition Benches, speakers often reminded us that then Ministers were the owners of the Post Office. The Secretary of State has levers to pull, so the fundamental question is how the Government choose to use this leverage now. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will use this ownership to ensure that, whatever happens, local communities will continue to have long-term access to Post Office offerings—all the services, including DVLA and passport services, that currently are on offer?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A.

151A: In subsection (1), after first “body” insert “which is a large organisation (see sections ((Failure to prevent fraud): large organisations) and (Large organisations: parent undertakings))”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Motions F, G, H and H1. We cannot agree to the proposed amendments for practical reasons, not least that the burdens they would place on business would not just be justified. It is for this reason, and not because of any intransigence or party-political reason, that we are unable to agree with the proposed Lords amendments. I will now talk specifically to the Motions in this group.

Motion E would reinsert the SME exemption for the failure to prevent fraud offence. I have of course noted Motion E1, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. I appreciate that he has moved closer to the Government’s position on this issue, creating his own threshold that would exclude microentities from the failure to prevent fraud offence. However, the Government remain extremely mindful of the pressures on companies of all sizes, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and therefore do not feel it is appropriate to place this new, unnecessary burden on more than 450,000 of them.

The analysis on this issue remains clear: even reducing the exemption threshold to only microentities would increase the one-off costs on businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. Further, the annually recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to more than £192 million. Those costs would still be disproportionately shared by small business owners.

I know some noble Lords have expressed scepticism about the burdens, but the fact is that when a small business person hears that they may be liable to a new offence and significant fines if they are judged not to have taken action on something, they will worry. They will take time out of their business to scrutinise the guidance and, whatever it may say, there could be widespread overcompliance. Furthermore, they may well have to pay their accountant or lawyer to do it for them. While this burden is eye-watering in its own right, the issue cannot be taken in isolation. We must be aware of the cumulative compliance costs for SMEs across multiple government requirements or regulations. Furthermore, I can assure noble Lords that 50% of economic activity would be covered by the organisations in scope of this new offence with the Government’s threshold in place. It is of course already easier for law enforcement to attribute and prosecute fraud more easily in the smaller organisations that fall below the threshold.

I hope that noble Lords who feel strongly on this issue will be reassured that this is not the end of the debate. The Government have future-proofed the legislation by including a delegated power to allow them to raise, lower or remove the threshold altogether. Of course, as with all legislation, the Government will keep the threshold under review and will make changes if there is evidence to suggest that they are required. I therefore urge noble Lords to support government Motion E, rather than Motion E1.

I now turn to government Motion G, which disagrees with Lords Amendment 158. This was also tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and seeks to introduce a failure to prevent money laundering offence. I am pleased that no amending Motions have been tabled for today, as I fear this amendment is entirely duplicative of existing regulations. Much like my noble and learned friend’s other amendment, it would therefore impose yet further unnecessary burdens on UK businesses. The UK already has a strong anti-money laundering regime in the form of the money laundering regulations, which require regulated sectors to implement a comprehensive set of measures to prevent money laundering. Corporations and individuals can face serious penalties, ranging from fines to cancellation of registration and criminal prosecution, if they fail to take those measures. What is more, those penalties will apply even if no actual money laundering has occurred. No knowledge of or intention to commit an offence has to be proved.

The money laundering regulations and the money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act are directly linked and can be seen as part of the same regime. A failure to prevent money laundering offence would therefore be highly duplicative of the existing regime. This is not just the view of the Government: in our conversations with industry, it has been very clear that duplication would create a serious level of confusion and unnecessary burdens on businesses. We should support legitimate businesses, rather than hamper them with overlapping regimes. I therefore hope that noble Lords will agree with the government Motion to disagree with the amendment from Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we have been pleased to support the legislation, which overall we think is very good, and we have said that to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Indeed, the Government have listened, as have all the Ministers on the Bill, and made significant changes. Now we are left with just two amendments, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which deal with two issues that remain outstanding but are of significant importance and deserve our support and consideration.

I want to reference one or two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, because he made them particularly well. It is a proportionate and reasonable amendment to ask of the Government. There are all sorts of regulations and legislation—the noble and learned Lord referenced them—to which we say small businesses should be subject to, because we believe that it is the right thing to do and the right climate in which those businesses should operate. When it comes to the failure to prevent, the Government point out that 50% are covered by their legislation, which of course leaves 50% that are not.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, many of us have sought to ensure that the failure to prevent—which is a good step forward—applies, as far as possible, to as many businesses as it possibly can. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked why we would exclude many small businesses when they are not excluded from other legislation that may be seen as a burden. The argument is hollow and does not cut through. For that reason, and because the noble and learned Lord has put forward an amendment that takes into account what was said in the Commons, it deserves our support. Should he put it to a vote, as I think he suggested he would, we will support him.

Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, notwithstanding the correction he made to the amendment, brings forward a very important point indeed. One of the great criticisms that is often made about dealing with fraud is that somehow law enforcement agencies are frightened of taking on the people who are committing fraud. I always thought it should be the other way around; the fraudster should be frightened of the law enforcement agency. Yet, for some bizarre reason, it is that way around—that cannot be right. It is not something that any of us want to be the case. Through his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has tried yet again to push the Government to do better and to do more than what is currently in the Bill. His amendment says to the Government, “Surely we should do better”. Indeed, the Treasury itself should be confident in the work of the law enforcement agencies. Some have suggested that those agencies should be indemnified against any costs they may incur.

I go back to two simple points. First is the point in the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier: why should small businesses be excluded from this legislation, other than the micro-businesses to which he referred, when we do not exclude them from other legislation that we think is important? Small businesses adhere to that legislation in the same way as other businesses. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gives us an opportunity to turn the tables and ensure that, rather than the law enforcement agencies being frightened of costs they may incur in ensuring that fraudsters are brought to book, the fraudsters are frightened. That is why, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, put their amendments to a vote, we will certainly support them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will respond relatively briefly; I think I have rehearsed the majority of the arguments widely and frequently, and there is not much point in saying more to some of them. However, the precise point I was trying to make in my opening remarks is, in essence, about proportionality. My noble friend Lady Noakes referred to that extremely eloquently.

My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier oftens points out that 99.5% of business is exempted, but I repeat that this is very much a judgment call because 50% of economic activity is captured. My noble friend Lady Noakes referred to the opportunity cost and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, suggested that perhaps this is about businesses not checking whether they in some way have the right procedures in place to prevent fraud, but it is not about that. It is about many other factors that do not involve the business at hand, as my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to. Those other burdens are obviously partially financial, but not fully.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 153A, 153B and 153C.

153A: In subsection (1), after “(Failure to prevent fraud)(1)” insert “and (2)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 159, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 159A.

159A: Because the law already makes sufficient provision in relation to the prevention of money laundering.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 161 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu—

161A: Page 172, line 44, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Report on costs orders for proceedings for civil recovery
Report on costs orders for proceedings for civil recovery
(1) The Secretary of State must assess whether it would be appropriate to restrict the court’s power to order that the costs of proceedings under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are payable by an enforcement authority and, if so, how.
(2) In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the assessment by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) In this section “the court” means the High Court in England and Wales.”