Post Office: Compensation for Horizon Scandal

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for keeping the House informed of progress. The Horizon scandal is perhaps the greatest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. Its victims have waited for justice for far too long. I pay tribute to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance for its tireless work and acknowledge the work of colleagues on both sides of the House who have gone to considerable lengths to highlight the plight of their constituents. In particular, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), whose commitment to the cause has been unwavering, and to Lord Arbuthnot in the other place.

I also pay tribute to the Minister—and I do not say that lightly. Successive Conservative Governments have sat on the scandal, but he has made real progress in moving us to a place where we can see that justice is in sight. I acknowledge that. I also welcome the update on the March announcement that, as Labour has repeatedly called for, the 505 litigants will receive the compensation payments that they are entitled to. However, I emphasise that, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, it is unacceptable that it has taken so long when the right course of action was always clear. There really was no need for victims to have spent so long in limbo.

At the core of this unforgivable scandal is the belief that workers were dishonest and technology was infallible. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the Government’s track record on defending the rights of working people. Decent, honest people have had their lives torn apart, been put in prison and been made to wait years for justice. For some, that wait has been too long. We must not forget those who are not with us and will not see the justice to which they were so entitled.

As I have previously done in the Chamber, I implore the Minister to act quickly and decisively to draw a line under this horrific miscarriage of justice. There can be no further delays in providing the compensation that will go at least some way in helping to right this wrong. As such, will he provide a timescale for when all compensation payments will have been made? Will he confirm that the compensation will not affect the Post Office’s core funding, day-to-day operations or viability in—I stress this—any way? Given the vital role that post offices perform in our communities—we all acknowledge that—it is essential that today’s communities are not made to pay for the unacceptable mistakes of the past. Labour has called for all those involved to be held accountable. Will he therefore update the House on what investigations are ongoing into the role of Fujitsu and others involved in the technology that led to the failure?

The Minister spoke about learning the lessons from this horrific scandal. The Government were, and remain, the only shareholder in the Post Office. They have a financial responsibility and a moral responsibility to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words, and I totally echo her thanks and congratulations to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) and others sitting behind me have also worked tirelessly on this for so long, as has the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on post offices.

It is not possible to listen to the stories and fail to be moved. There is always something else that comes out and brings a tear to the eye and, frankly, anger that this was ever allowed to happen. The Government have moved to do something about it, but we are all doing something, because this is about a human cost. We are humans first and politicians second.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) talked about the timing. There is an application form for the 555 to fill in. It is comparatively simple and Freeths will work with each of them and walk them through the process, because the last thing we want to do is put hurdles in their way. We want to make sure that within a few weeks the money goes out of the door to them. They need the money now. In parallel with that, the compensation scheme has started. We want informal consultation with the 555, to make sure that they are happy with the scheme and have faith and confidence that the funding will be delivered. As I have said, we want the historical shortfall scheme to be wrapped up and to at least make offers to each person by the end of the year.

I think we will be able to start moving quickly on overturning criminal convictions as soon as Lord Dyson has responded through his early neutral evaluation, but that also depends on the flow of cases via the solicitors. I have been working closely with Hudgells and other solicitors who represent the groups, to make sure that it is as speedy as possible.

I can confirm that this will not affect the Post Office’s core funding. We want to make sure that the Post Office has a future, but we cannot have that future until we have rectified the mistakes of the past.

The hon. Lady also talked about Fujitsu, learning the lessons and holding people to account. The next stage of the statutory inquiry starts next week, when the Government, the Post Office, Fujitsu and others will go in front of Wyn Williams. That will start the process of making sure that we know exactly who knew what, who did what and when.

Sub-Postmasters: Compensation

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done on behalf of her constituent Tracy Felstead and the 554 other postmasters. I will not comment on the Post Office, purely and simply because having instigated the independent inquiry, I want it to remain independent. I do not want to put undue pressure on it. Clearly the Post Office has apologised, and I suspect it will not be the last time that it does so. We absolutely want to get answers. I also thank Nick Wallis, who has done amazing work—his life’s work in journalism—in setting out the stall of the 555 and telling their story.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for securing this urgent question and for his tireless efforts in standing up for all those affected by the Horizon scandal. I pay tribute to all the postmasters who fought for justice, and especially to the efforts and determination of the 555 litigants whose civil case paved the way for convictions to be quashed and compensation finally delivered.

Labour has consistently called for all those affected by the Horizon scandal to be able to access the compensation they deserve. It was simply unacceptable that those who led this slow march to justice had been excluded from the historical shortfall scheme. In a week in which we have had plenty of warm words from the Government on their commitment to British workers but little by way of action, it is vital that the Government get this right. Hard-working, honest people had their lives torn apart because of a misguided belief that workers are dishonest and technology infallible.

Today’s announcement is warmly welcomed on the Labour Benches. I thank the Minister for his work on this issue; his commitment has been unquestionable throughout. However, I do want to press him in saying that speed is now vital. The Government have delayed far too long in getting to this point, and there can be no further delays for all those affected to get the compensation that will go some way towards making amends for this appalling injustice. As such, will he say how many are affected and provide a timescale for when all compensation payments will have been made? Labour has called for all those involved to be held accountable, so will he update the House on what investigations are ongoing into the role of Fujitsu? Will he commit to regularly updating the House on the progress of the scheme? This has been one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. Every day’s delay only compounds that injustice. I hope the Government can finally start to right these wrongs for good.

[Paul Scully]

I hope I can show by my actions that I will keep the House updated as we go along. On where we are with the compensation, I can announce that as of 11 March, 45% of people in the historical shortfall scheme had already received offers. That amounts to 1,067 individuals. The Post Office reports that it is firmly on track to make 95% of initial offers by the end of the year. The historical shortfall scheme started slowly, as it first worked through the cases and benchmarked those that would help inform future payments, so that we know so much more about the 555. Dovetailed with the HSS information that we have gained, I want to ensure that we can start delivering that compensation very quickly. I am still aiming for the end of the year for the HSS. We need to establish, once we know what the process is, an exact timescale agreed with the JFSA.

Professional Qualifications Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I will not detain the Committee for long, but I will speak briefly in support of the new clause in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, who made some excellent comments.

I declare a slight interest as having a professional qualification myself—that of a chartered engineer. That qualification is not part of the list of qualifications that will be subject to the legislation, but professional qualifications are an important part of many sectors, such as engineering, in our economy and our public realm. They are a significant factor in the protection of service users. Think of the many professions that have such an impact on service users, from the legal profession to chartered engineering, medical professions and nursing. It is important that those professions are well regulated, and the Bill is important to all our constituents. Newcastle, for example, has many professionals who benefit from the recognition of their qualifications.

We want the UK to be the best place in the world to live and work. That means being able to attract those with professional qualifications. We must recognise the importance of the autonomy of the regulators, provided for by Labour amendments during the passage of the Bill, and the importance of appropriate guidance, for which the new clause seeks to provide, for professional qualification regulators, particularly when it comes to the impact of trade deals. Many of us in this House—I bow to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central with his extensive experience, however—might find the intricacies of the many trade agreements somewhat difficult to master, so it is critical that the regulators of professional qualifications have the support and guidance that the new clause seeks.

I note, for example, that in the EU-UK trade agreement we have not achieved any reciprocity of professional qualification recognition, so we are in a worse position than we were before leaving the European Union. For many with professional qualifications in this country—lawyers, engineers—being able to work abroad is an important part of their training. I myself worked in France, the US and Nigeria for some time, bringing skills back to this country. Not having reciprocal agreements in many areas leaves us worse off with regard to, say, the European Union, where there is a system of automatic recognition of professional qualifications for seven sector professionals—nurses, midwives, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, architects and vets—and a general system that enables workers to have their professional qualifications recognised.

Given the challenges of negotiating a mutual recognition agreement, surely the Minister understands that many of the professional qualification regulators could benefit from the advice and guidance of his Department and, more broadly, of the Government, with all their experience. Therefore, in providing for an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide guidance to regulators concerning mutual recognition—specifically under the European Union-UK trade and co-operation agreement—and in supporting regulators, the new clause would protect all our constituents by ensuring the quality and professionalism of the services that they very much enjoy now and hope to continue to do so.

[Paul Scully]

I thank hon. Members for the new clause, which seeks to place the obligation on the Secretary of State to provide additional support, co-ordination and guidance to regulators on mutual recognition agreements under the trade and co-operation agreement. Noting the importance of regulatory recognition agreements in supporting professionals who are qualified in one jurisdiction to work in another, I will also explain the benefits of the clause standing part of the Bill.

On the new clause, the hon. Member for Sefton Central was right to acknowledge that, since the end of the transition period, the process by which UK-qualified professionals seek recognition in the EU has changed. Professionals are now subject to the relevant rules in EU member states.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about the negotiations and about mutual recognition and reciprocal arrangements. The UK proposed ambitious arrangements on professional qualification recognition during the negotiation of the TCA, but regrettably the EU did not engage with them at that point. Instead, we agreed provisions based on existing EU precedent. The TCA provides a mechanism for the UK and EU to discuss the potential for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, where that is in both parties’ interests to do so.

Regulator recognition agreements can make it easier for professionals to navigate that landscape, as we heard, and agreements can be reached independently between regulators or under the TCA. Article 158 of the TCA provides a framework for the UK and the EU to agree arrangements to facilitate recognition of professional qualifications. Using that process, regulators and professional bodies may develop joint recommendations for professional recognition arrangements to be adopted. Annex 24 to the TCA contains guidelines to help them to do so. My officials are holding discussions with their counterparts in the European Commission to clarify the detailed process for making the best use of this framework.

I turn to the support available for regulators. Last year, BEIS established a dedicated recognition arrangements team to provide the support, guidance and co-ordination to regulators of professional bodies that the hon. Members have asked for. There is considerable experience there. That team supports them to pursue recognition arrangements through the framework of the TCA and other trade deals, and on an independent, regulator-to-regulator basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

To clarify for the record, the team has taken steps forward, because there is already advice and guidance on gov.uk and a pilot grant programme is working. As I said, I will write to the hon. Member for Sefton Central with the specifics that he asked for.

Clause 5 revokes the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015, which implemented the EU’s general system to facilitate the recognition of professional qualifications from the EEA and Switzerland, as set out in the EU directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The regulations were retained temporarily to provide certainty to businesses and public services at the end of the transition period, but the time has come to change our approach now that the UK is an independent trading nation, free of the obligations of the EU single market.

Several such modifications will be made to various pieces of legislation, and the most practical means to make those changes is by taking the power to do so through regulations, rather than by attempting to amend various regulations through the Bill.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister spoke about revoking the European Union provisions. With regard to mutual recognition for qualifications, does he think that British professionals are in a better position now than they were before?

[Paul Scully]

Many regulators will continue to be able to make their own determination in those areas, but the Bill will create a wider framework. The Architects Registration Board and the General Dental Council, for example, will be able to take wider views as a result of the Bill.

The Government remain committed to international agreements, including the EU withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement, and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, all of which the Bill upholds. We gave effect to those agreements in regulations in 2019 and 2020, and there are protections in place for existing recognition decisions, which the Bill upholds.

Clause 5 does not affect those agreements or professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised in the UK, who will continue to be able to practise, provided that they continue to meet any ongoing practice requirements. The clause simply ends the legacy of EU qualification recognition in UK law.

Question put and agreed to.         

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Revocation of other retained EU recognition law

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Draft Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Monday 29th November 2021 General Committees

[Paul Scully]

That is a good question, and I will come back to it in a second. We have worked together to come to this point, and businesses support what we are doing here. The regulation has been a long time in the making. Local authorities face a lot of challenges in interpreting at pace the regulations made under part 2A to reduce the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, as well as the associated burdens experienced by businesses in trying to comply with all of that. Business stakeholders, local authorities and trade associations have offered strong support for bringing part 2A within the scope of the scheme. In November 2020, the British Retail Consortium, which represents more than 170 major retailers, wrote to the then Business Secretary—now the COP26 President —to request that part 2A be brought within scope. The context for that request was that, in 2020, around 46,000 businesses with an existing primary authority partnership received informal advice on coronavirus regulations made under part 2A.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for making excellent progress in explaining the legislation. First, can he clarify that the regulation is about businesses that have locations or sites in multiple primary authorities, and would therefore be subject to competing advice? Secondly, does the regulation allow the businesses to choose the primary authority they receive advice from, or is that designation—on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South—made by somebody else?

[Paul Scully]

It is exactly as the hon. Lady describes: the regulation concerns businesses that operate in different areas. The Secretary of State will designate the primary authority.

I can give one example of where the provisions have previously helped simplify the enforcement and interpretation of regulations, which concerns the primary authority for supermarket health and safety—the covid expert panel—which is made up of several primary authority officers and their business partners. The panel promoted active engagement with local authority enforcement teams and external bodies under health and safety legislation, which is in scope of the primary authority scheme, and remained at the forefront of their commitment to compliance in order to ensure that consistency.

Yes, the Secretary of State will designate the primary authority, but it gives businesses that are operating in multiple areas the confidence to know they will have a single set of rules to follow that are consistent, and enforcement will be consistent as well. That is what I mean about the fact that 46,000 businesses with an existing primary authority partnership are getting informal advice—that is about as consistent as it gets. That is why the British Retail Consortium and other business stakeholders are keen to ensure in any future public health emergency that businesses can get that primary advice, rather than having to rely on different interpretations across the board. We know the current pandemic is unlikely to be the last public health emergency that the country will face. It is therefore important that the order ensures primary authority advice can be given in respect of legislation made under part 2A in the event of future public health emergencies.

In conclusion, as I have said, the order widens the scope of the existing scheme, enabling businesses to receive primary authority advice on meeting regulatory requirements introduced by regulations made under part 2A through a single local authority. It reduces the regulatory burden on businesses in England when complying with regulations brought in to control and contain a public health emergency, with the result that the public are better protected and local authorities can regulate more efficiently and effectively. I urge the Committee to approve the order.

Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021 Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Wednesday 20th October 2021 General Committees

[Paul Scully]

As I said, there is a voluntary notification process, and the investment security unit in the Department will be able to offer advice and give forewarning. With this measure, while protecting security and our citizens, we want to give certainty to business. We certainly do not want to be deterring investment in this country; it has been a success story for the UK for so many years. Again, I think we have got that balance right.

These are really important changes to the UK’s investment screening system. Sectoral expertise has been vital for ensuring that the mandatory notification is proportionate and targeted, and we have taken great care and time to get that right.

Alongside the introduction of the NSI Bill in November 2020, the Government launched and ran an eight-week public consultation on the proposed descriptions in the 17 areas of the economy referred to in the draft regulations. After that, we published revised definitions in March. We undertook further targeted engagement with stakeholders in key sectors such as communications, synthetic biology and suppliers to the emergency services to develop further the proposed descriptions to provide businesses and investors with further clarity. I place on the record my thanks for the extensive input we have had from cross-sector organisations in getting the definitions right.

The regulations strike a careful and appropriate balance between ensuring that our national security is safeguarded and keeping the number of businesses caught by the mandatory notification requirement to a necessary and proportionate level. Furthermore, to monitor the impacts on business investors, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have chosen to include a shorter three-year post-implementation review in the regulations instead of the more standard five-year period.

The Government intend to publish extensive guidance across all 17 areas of the economy specified in the regulations to assist parties further in understanding the requirements. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, that will help give that certainty to businesses pre-acquisition. My Department will continue to engage daily with businesses to help them understand the Act’s requirements.

These are detailed and technical statutory instruments that give effect to the purpose of the NSI Act. They have been carefully developed and tested to ensure that they give maximum clarity to businesses while allowing us to protect the UK’s national security. I commend them to the Committee.

2.39 pm

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George, to consider these two pieces of legislation.

As the Minister said, these regulations are made under the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I thank the Minister for setting out some of the background to that Act. During the passage of that legislation through Parliament, I was clear, as were colleagues, that the Government need new powers to deal with evolving national security threats in corporate transactions. Labour supported the legislation because it was legislation demanded by Labour, and we support these SIs too, as they are critical to the effective functioning of the new investment-screening regime.

I will say something about each of these SIs in turn, starting with the turnover of a business regulations. As the Minister has set out, this relates to the civil monetary penalties that the Secretary of State can impose under the new regime. Section 41 of the Act sets out the maximum fixed penalty and, where applicable, the maximum daily rate penalty that may be imposed. Where a business commits an offence, the maximum fine is the higher of 5% of global turnover or £10 million. I do not recall intellectual property or other assets being referenced in the Act.

Section 41 also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying how the maximum penalties applicable to business should be calculated and to amend the maximum penalty amounts or percentage rates. The SI is made under section 41(8) and 41(9) of the Act and does three things: it clarifies that, for the purposes of penalties, businesses include sole traders; provides a statutory definition of where one business controls another; and establishes the test for determining the turnover of a business for the purpose of calculating maximum penalties.

We support the principle that the new regime should be underpinned by robust enforcement mechanisms, and it is important that the Secretary of State has the relevant powers to punish and deter non-compliance with the regime. However, such penalties make the need for clarity and certainty even more important.

During the Committee stage of the Act, I asked whether the monies received by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy from the payment of penalties could be put towards a specific purpose, rather than going into the general Consolidated Fund. I urge the Government to think about that again. Would it not be fantastic if this money was, for example, spent on supporting our great innovators and start-ups to further build on our domestic resilience in these sectors?

I turn to the specification of qualifying entities regulations, which establish descriptions of qualifying entities for the purposes of section 6 in the Act. In other words, this SI defines the sectors that will fall under the scope of the mandatory regime. A notifiable acquisition takes place when a person gains control of a qualifying entity of a specified description. As Members will know, a buyer must give notice to the Secretary of State before making a notifiable acquisition in one of the 17 sectors, so the responsibility falls on the buyer to understand whether the acquisition it is contemplating is notifiable.

As the Minister set out, the definitions contained in the 17 schedules have been refined in response to stakeholder feedback following earlier consultations on the scope and definitions of the 17 sectors from November 2020 to January 2021. This led to important changes in all 17 sectors. For example, the scope of the mandatory regime within the artificial intelligence sector has been significantly narrowed to focus on only three higher-risk applications: the identification of objects, people and events, advanced robotics, and cyber security.

We welcome the fact that the Government have continued their consultation with business and wider stakeholders to refine the mandatory sector, but there is a lack of transparency in who has been involved and what the impact has been. I think it would benefit the Committee if the Minister described how the key changes made by this statutory instrument differ from the draft definitions published in March 2021, and why those changes have been made. For example, the reference to “Critical Suppliers to the Emergency Services” sector in the March proposals has become “Suppliers to the emergency services”, and the definitions of goods and services used by the emergency services have also been amended. Can he set out why those changes have been made? We see that changes have been made, but we do not know who has been consulted. It would be helpful to understand what changes have been made and why.

The Minister will know that there remain concerns about the definitions. The BioIndustry Association, which focuses on synthetic biology, has said most recently, so after the consultation, that:

“Synthetic Biology is defined too broadly in the legislation, meaning companies developing medicines and technologies with no national security implications will be captured. This risks imposing a long, unnecessary process for biotech to receive funding and could deter investment in the sector, and subsequently the development of medicines for patients.”

The Minister spoke about the level of consultation without giving specifics on how many businesses had been consulted. The BIA goes on to say:

“It is important that the new regime works well and is effective. Even once the regime commences, the BIA encourages the Government to listen to industry about how it is being perceived.”

I would be grateful if the Minister gave some indication of how he intends to continue engagement with industry and business on these issues.

There is a lack of transparency on the consultations that have led to these amendments, so can the Minister confirm what engagement he has had specifically with small businesses and organisations that represent small and medium-sized enterprises? As he will know, the Act’s impact assessment notes that 80% of transactions within the scope of the mandatory regime will involve SMEs. SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy, and it is from the growth of SMEs that we hope to build back not only better but more sustainably and fairly. That is why Labour has consistently called for SMEs to be consulted by the Government, listened to and provided with comprehensive guidance on how to navigate this new regime.

Staying with the question of guidance, I note that to date the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published only one piece of sector-specific guidance, for the higher education and research-intensive sector. In the Bill Committee, I and my hon. Friends repeatedly highlighted the importance of prompt and accessible guidance so that firms operating in the relevant sectors understand whether their businesses are affected.

I say to the Minister directly that, based on conversations I have had with stakeholders—including university research departments and university start-ups, but also investment and equity finance organisations, and indeed law firms—there remains significant confusion as to who may be impacted by these regulations, and indeed by the Act. That is seen as having a chilling impact on foreign direct investment in this country and—something we raised in the Bill Committee—as a job creation scheme for lawyers. Many legal firms are already setting up workstreams to address that but, as we all know, small and medium-sized enterprises do not have the benefits of large legal firms, so not to provide the kind of guidance that we have asked for is putting such enterprises at a huge disadvantage.

Will the Minister therefore confirm what wider sector-specific guidance will be published, and according to what timetable, in advance of the regime coming fully into effect on 4 January? If the regime is to operate effectively, it is critical that businesses understand how to interpret whether their activity falls within the scope of the regulations. I suggest to the Minister that he needs to do more on this over the next 12 weeks, if we are to ensure—as I emphasise yet again—that small and medium-sized enterprises are not unduly and negatively impacted by the regulations.

Before concluding, I want to say something about the important context of the draft SIs. Owing to a weak pound and lower equity prices on the FTSE when compared with other international markets, private equity firms are acquiring UK companies at the fastest rate since 2008. Unprecedented levels of dry powder mean that that is only set to continue.

The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to call in transactions across the economy, not just in the 17 mandatory sectors where that decision has given or may give rise to a national security risk. Clearly, however, the success of the new regime in protecting our national security interests, such as in the supply chain, is dependent on the Secretary of State’s willingness to use his new powers. The indications are not good.

To take Morrisons, for example, it is a much loved British company, which has been rooted in communities up and down the country for more than 100 years. It is the second-largest fresh-food manufacturer in the UK, supporting thousands of farmers across the country. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others have been clear for months that Morrisons is also of strategic importance to the country’s food security. Labour is clear that food security is an essential part of national security, and yet there is no indication that the Secretary of State has considered the impact of that transaction on the country’s food security.

Labour supports the two draft SIs, which will play an important role in shaping the scope of the new regime and the consequences when the rules are not followed. Labour is calling for greater transparency and greater guidance to support our small and medium-sized enterprises. We are aware that the public will be watching closely how the Government use their powers under the Act to protect our vital national interests.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.

The amendments made in the other place concern what is in effect a reporting requirement to the Intelligence and Security Committee in respect of the national security and investment regime. They incorporate the text of Lords amendments 11 and 15, which were considered in this House on 26 April. In addition, they would end the reporting requirements on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided for by Lords amendments 11 and 15 should the memorandum of understanding that governs the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee be amended to bring the Secretary of State’s activities under clause 26 into the scope of ISC scrutiny.

This House has already offered a view on the substance of amendments. It is disappointing that the other place has not heeded the clear and carefully considered message from this Chamber that the amendment to provide for a reporting requirement to the ISC is neither necessary nor appropriate. I welcome the Lords’ continuing attempts to find compromise, but I respectfully disagree with them. The Secretary of State has written to confirm plans for scrutiny with the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The ISC remains able to scrutinise the work of the intelligence services where it falls within the memorandum of understanding and in accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013.

As we rapidly approach the end of this Session, it is essential that this vital Bill on the UK’s national security does not fall as a result of our failure to agree that the BEIS Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 11B an 11C from the other place and reiterate its message about the will of this democratically elected House, to help ensure that the Bill becomes law without delay.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I again thank colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve the Bill.

Labour is the party of national security and has long called for a new regime to deal with the evolving national security threat arising from mergers and acquisitions, as the Bill seeks to do. The Bill was much improved in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged in Monday’s debate; however, as Members from all parties highlighted then, it still lacks an appropriate level of oversight for critical national security decisions. Labour believes that Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditionally lacking in national security experience.

On Monday, as the Minister indicated, the Government rejected Lords amendments 11 and 15, stating that

“it is appropriate and sufficient for oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS to be conducted by their departmental select committee”—

that is, the BEIS Committee. The Lords have responded with amendments 11B and 11C, which would allow the Government to add the Investment Security Unit into the Government and ISC memorandum of understanding, thereby removing the obligation to provide the ISC with a confidential annexe.

We maintain our position: that the BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny. In Monday’s debate, the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said clearly that the Committee

“does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 164.]

As the Minister indicated, the Secretary of State has said that classified information could be shared with the BEIS Committee on a case-by-case basis, but the retaining, recording, discussing or reporting of that information after the fact would constitute a security breach, somewhat limiting the Committee’s actions.

In this afternoon’s debate in the other place, the Government said that they will “carefully consider” ways in which classified information could be provided so that the Committee can do its job. Why do we need careful consideration when we have, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, an existing and functioning mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny on issues of national security? Earlier this afternoon, the Government were again defeated in the other place, this time by an even greater margin, showing that, despite the Minister’s efforts, support for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight is growing. I feel that it is becoming an issue of intransigence and stubbornness—or, as former Conservative Health Secretary Lord Lansley put it today, “arrogance”—by a Government refusing to prioritise national security in the National Security and Investment Bill, and determined to overturn common sense for reasons that are unclear to us all.

It is clear to us that there is a need for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight. Indeed the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said:

“The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS”—

a function of this Bill—

“is…precisely the situation that the Government assured the House”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 157.]

would mean that there was ISC oversight, under the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Today’s amendment provides for ISC scrutiny until an amended MOU resolves the confusion that appears to exist—on the Government’s part, at least.

If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s national security through this Bill, they will not force through legislation with such a significant blind spot. Labour, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, many Government Back Benchers and cross-party consensus in the other place all agree that the ISC is best placed to provide national security oversight. Why are the Government determined to stand alone in risking our national security in this case?

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

On Friday 23 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. This is a landmark judgment, and I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming the court’s decision to quash those convictions. I will turn to what more needs to be done to address the wrongs of the past and to ensure that injustices such as this do not happen again, but I will begin by setting out the context to the judgment.

Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in post office branches. The Post Office at the time thought that they were caused by postmasters, and that led to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. A group of 555 of those postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2016. In late 2019, after a lengthy period of litigation, the Post Office reached a full and final settlement with claimants in that group.

It is clear from the findings of the presiding judge, Mr Justice Fraser, that there were real problems with the Horizon IT system and failings in the way that the Post Office dealt with postmasters who encountered problems or raised complaints in relation to Horizon. The findings of Mr Justice Fraser led the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the convictions of 51 postmasters for appeal: eight to the Crown court and 43 cases to the Court of Appeal. The Crown court quashed the convictions of six postmasters back in December 2020, and 42 further appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal in late March.

The Court of Appeal was asked in late March to decide whether the convictions of those postmasters were safe based on two grounds of appeal, namely whether the prosecutions were an abuse of process either because of the postmaster being unable to receive a fair trial or because of its being an affront to the public conscience for the postmaster to be tried. On Friday, the Court of Appeal announced its judgment. The Court decided to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the Horizon cases an affront to the conscience of the court. In the remaining three cases, the convictions were found to be safe.

In response to the Court of Appeal judgment, the Post Office has apologised for serious failings in historical prosecutions. Tim Parker, the Post Office chair, has said that the Post Office is

“extremely sorry for the impact on the lives of these postmasters and their families that was caused by historical failings.”

The Government recognise the gravity of the court’s judgment in those cases and the hugely negative impact that the convictions have had on individual postmasters and their families, as has been highlighted on a number of occasions in this place. The journey to get to last Friday’s Court of Appeal judgment has unquestionably been a long and difficult one for affected postmasters and their families, and the Government pay tribute to them for their courage and tenacity in pursuing their fight for justice. The Government also pay tribute to colleagues across the House who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf.

However, while the Court of Appeal decision represents the culmination of years of efforts by those postmasters, it is not the end of the road. The Post Office is already contacting other postmasters with historical criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 to notify them of the outcome of those appeals and provide information in respect of how they could also appeal. The Post Office’s chief executive officer, Nick Read, is also leading a programme of improvements to overhaul the culture, practices and operating procedures throughout every part of its business. The Government continue to closely monitor delivery of those improvements. The changes are critical to ensure that similar events to these can never happen again.

Last week, the Post Office announced the appointment of two serving postmasters, Saf Ismail and Elliot Jacobs, as non-executive directors to the Post Office board. I wholeheartedly welcome those appointments. Their presence on the Post Office board will ensure that postmasters have a strong voice at the very highest level in the organisation. As part of the 2019 settlement, the Post Office also committed to launch a scheme to compensate postmasters who did not have criminal convictions who had suffered shortfalls because of Horizon, and who were not party to the 2019 settlement. The Post Office established the historical shortfall scheme in response.

Applications to that scheme were much higher than anticipated. Consequently, in March 2021, the Government announced that it would provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the scheme could proceed, based on current expectations of the likely cost. Payments under the scheme have now begun, and the Government will continue to work with the Post Office to see that the scheme delivers on all of its objectives, and that appropriate compensation is paid to all eligible postmasters in a timely manner.

While those are positive steps in the right direction, the Government are clear that there is still more to do. Postmasters whose convictions were quashed last week will also now be turning to the question of appropriate compensation, which I know will again be of great interest to the House. The judgment last week will require careful consideration by all involved. The Government want to see all postmasters whose convictions have been overturned fairly compensated as quickly as possible, and we will work with the Post Office towards that goal. I commit to keep the House informed on this matter going forward.

Finally, it is essential that we determine what went wrong at the Post Office during this period to make sure a situation like this can never happen again. To ensure the right lessons have been learned and to establish what must change, the Government launched an independent inquiry led by ex-High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams in September last year. The inquiry has made swift progress already, having heard from a number of affected postmasters and a call for evidence has recently closed. The inquiry is now planning public hearings. The Horizon dispute has been long-running. For the benefit of everyone involved, it is important that the inquiry reaches its conclusions swiftly. I look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report later this summer. As the Prime Minister said, lessons should and will be learned to ensure that this never happens again.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

This is the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history: 900 false prosecutions, each one its own story of persecution, fear, despair, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed, lives lost, and innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I want to congratulate each and every postmaster and their families who withstood this onslaught of false accusations and fought back. I want to congratulate the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union who campaigned to get at the truth for over a decade. I want to congratulate hon. and right hon. Members across this House who fought for justice for their constituents.

I wish I could congratulate the Minister and the Government, but I cannot. I am pleased to see the Minister here making today’s statement, but the Government have consistently failed to stand with the postmasters in their quest for justice: investigations delayed, claims denied and not one word of explanation or apology as to why the Government let it take so long to clear these innocent victims.

Now, to add insult to injury, the Government are failing to deliver the proper statutory public inquiry that postmasters, their families and the British public deserve. Let us be clear: Friday’s judgment vindicates the postmasters, but to deliver justice we need a statutory inquiry with genuine subpoena and witness compulsion powers, and a specific remit to consider compensation claims. We have the greatest respect for Sir Wyn Williams, but his inquiry has no real powers and key questions about compensation, the criminal prosecutions of postmasters, and the responsibility of civil servants and Government, are outside its remit. As such, the inquiry is toothless and may even lead to a whitewash. Postmasters have been clear that they will fail to recognise and participate in such an inquiry. How can the Minister stand there with the wreck of hundreds and hundreds of lives before him, and say that this scandal does not warrant a statutory inquiry?

The sad truth is that this horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade now, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. Given the long litany of Government failure, there are a number of urgent questions for the Minister. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and time again the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the court. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today?

The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that and what are the implications for algorithmic management? The faulty software was provided by Fujitsu. What steps are the Government taking to hold it to account? Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE. Is it right that she continues to be so honoured? The Minister referred to what he described as a full and final settlement for some postmasters with the Post Office. Their compensation was largely taken in lawyers’ fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation? Finally, does the Minister agree that actions should have consequences, and that it is therefore essential that there is a thorough criminal investigation into any potential wrongdoing?

In recent weeks, we have heard about the special access and power that millionaires and billionaires have with the Government, Ministers and the Prime Minister personally. Compare and contrast that with how the postmasters have been treated. They did not have the Prime Minister’s personal phone number. They did not have a former Prime Minister lobbying for them. They were not millionaires looking for tax breaks. They were ordinary working people. This speaks to a broader question of whose voice the Government hear and whose justice they deliver. On behalf of the working people who have had their lives ruined, I urge the Minister to apologise, own the Government’s mistakes and commit to a real public inquiry so that justice, for far too long delayed, can finally be delivered.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady makes some important points about the length of time and the egregious nature of the situation that the former postmasters have had to suffer. She talks about the time it takes to get justice, and that is one of the core reasons why we set up the inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams. The average length of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is nearly three and a half years, which is a long time. We want to get answers now for the postmasters so that we are able to answer questions about who knew what, who did what and at what point, and learn lessons.

The hon. Lady asked about the Government’s role in this. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working well with Sir Wyn Williams, and we are participating fully in the inquiry, as are the Post Office and Fujitsu. Sir Wyn Williams clearly feels that he is getting the support, answers and participation that he needs from the relevant organisations. If that changes, clearly we can review that.

The hon. Lady talks about Fujitsu. As well as the inquiry, there are ongoing investigations with the police into wider aspects of the case. She talks about Paula Vennells. People will talk about Paula Vennells’ positions and awards—there is an independent forfeiture committee to consider awards—but I am particularly pleased that, having stepped back from her other roles, she has committed to participate fully in this inquiry. It is to be welcomed that the former chief executive of the Post Office is doing that.

Finally, the hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister not being on speed dial, or however she described it, for the group of litigants and the other postmasters. I can confirm that the Prime Minister is incredibly interested in and exercised about the situation, as we all are. He wants to make sure we work with the sub-postmasters to get them the justice they want and compensation for the prosecutions, through discussion and dialogue and by working with them and the Post Office in the first instance.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s explanation.

I believe that the Bill as amended by the other place through amendments 11 and 15 would require the Secretary of State to provide a confidential annexe, to be provided to the ISC. I am advised by my noble Friends Lord Callanan and Lord Grimstone that there is considerable strength of feeling in the other place about ensuring that the operation of the regime receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and I welcome the passionate and expert debate that this question has already received. It has been proposed that the ISC is better placed than the BEIS Committee to scrutinise the Investment and Security Unit, despite the Secretary of State for BEIS having responsibility for the unit. The implication of the amendments is that the Select Committee responsible for holding the Secretary of State to account across their responsibilities is insufficient in that regard. It is also suggested that the ISC would have inadequate access to information to carry out its duties.

In essence, the amendments would require sensitive details to be provided to the ISC regarding the Secretary of State’s decision on final notifications given and final orders made, varied or revoked, but the ISC is already able to request such information as soon as is appropriate from the security services where it forms part of its long-established scrutiny responsibilities under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and, as I hope I have made clear, its accompanying memorandum of understanding. In addition, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must publish details of each final order made, varied or revoked, and clause 61 already requires the annual report to include the number of final orders made, together with a number of other details. Indeed, that clause was amended in the other place to include further such information in the annual report.

We do not disagree that further information may be required for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Where that is the case, the Government will follow existing procedures for reporting back to Parliament, but that should be done primarily through responding to the BEIS Committee as it goes about its work of ably scrutinising the work of the Department. We will ensure that the BEIS Committee is able to access the material it needs.

It is of course right that the ISC continues its excellent scrutiny of the work of the security services. The work of the security services on investment security in support of the ISU clearly falls within the remit of the ISC. That does not require any statutory change to be made. As I said, the memorandum of understanding pertains to the continuing work of the ISC, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that Committee. As such, and with the BEIS Committee having appropriate assurance that it will be provided with the information necessary, there is no need for these changes made to the Bill by the other place to stand.

In summary, with the exception of amendments 11 and 15, I believe that this House is today presented with an improved set of measures to safeguard our national security. The ISC will not have its powers—existing powers —diluted through the discussion of the memorandum of understanding, as we have already said. Therefore, I commend the amendments, with the exception of amendments 11 and 15, to the House.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

Let me start by welcoming the Minister to the National Security and Investment Bill, and I would like to wish his predecessor well in his work on the vaccine roll-out. I would also like to thank colleagues in the other place who have worked so hard to improve this Bill, and the Members of both Houses who scrutinised its important provisions.

Labour is the party of national security, and has long called for a new regime to deal with evolving national security threats in corporate transactions. A robust takeover regime is also essential if we want firms in our key sectors to grow and provide good jobs here in the UK. So we support this Bill, which allows the Government to intervene when mergers and acquisitions could threaten national security. Unfortunately, the Bill in its original form lacked certain provisions, and particularly the oversight necessary to ensure it was successful in protecting our national security and national interest. So we have sought to improve the Bill along the way, and we are pleased that the Government have adopted some of our suggestions.

Members across party lines raised concerns over the capacity and capability of the new Investment Security Unit to deliver on the Bill’s ambition. We are pleased that the Government have acted on this, and Lords amendments 12 to 14 to clause 61 are based on Labour’s original amendment 31 during the House of Commons Committee stage, and a later amendment tabled by Labour at Lords Committee. Reporting the aggregate time taken for decisions will help to ensure that the new regime works more efficiently for small and medium-sized enterprises, and I was pleased to hear the Minister quoting my remarks to that effect.

We are also pleased to see that the Government have taken steps to address concerns regarding the 15% threshold for a notifiable acquisition. This follows Labour’s probing amendment 16 during Lords Committee stage and Cross-Bench concern. The Wellcome Trust labelled the 15% threshold as a

“regulatory burden for those that may not be able to afford it”.

With Lords amendment 3, the Secretary of State will still be able to call in acquisitions across the economy at or below 25%—and, if necessary, below 15%—where they reasonably suspect that material influence has been or will be acquired. But this amendment will bring the notifiable acquisition threshold in line with our allies in France, Australia and Canada. We are pleased the Government have listened to Labour and made a change that will be beneficial to small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is also welcome to see that the Government have now committed to issue public guidance, which Labour called for with our amendment 17 at the Commons Committee stage. This is good news for transparency. Our approach has been to ensure that our small and medium-sized enterprises have clarity, and that those investing in the UK understand what the rules are and how they will work. The publication of guidance will boost confidence in the new regime for national security screening.

But we are here today because of Lords amendments 11 and 15, and to vote on the Government motion to disagree. Labour believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditional lacking in national security experience. The BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny, and the confidential briefings to the Chair described by the Minister will not change that.

Draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Wednesday 4th November 2020 General Committees

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Member for her considered comments and for agreeing that these regulations are the way forward. As I have said, they are needed to give effect to the provisions that we have already agreed in the withdrawal agreement, so they very much relate to a specific set of cases. I will try to cover the areas that the hon. Lady talked about. We have the Penrose review into the competition regime in the UK. As soon as that comes back, we will consider it and come up with the changes and improvements that we need. We both agree that healthy markets need to function well together to ensure a fair deal for other competitors, and consumers as well. It is really important that consumers are at the heart of what we do.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister indicate when the Penrose review will be completed?

[Paul Scully]

The review is working at pace. I cannot give a timescale at the moment, but as soon as the review comes back we will consider it quickly, because we want to make sure that we have the best competition regime. As the hon. Lady stated at the beginning of her speech, UK competition specialists were at the heart of the EU regime. We are leaving the regime, but we are leaving with our competition experts, so they will be at the heart of what we do. We have made it clear in our published proposal for the comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU that we intend to maintain international co-operation on competition enforcement. The EU has expressed a desire to maintain UK-EU co-operation on competition law matters in its own proposals as well. We want to make sure that the CMA continues to participate in multilateral networks such as the international competition network and the OECD.

Without the regulations the UK would fail to implement its obligations in competition law under the withdrawal agreement. Inconsistencies between the withdrawal agreement and competition law would cause significant uncertainty for UK businesses, the CMA and UK courts. The changes that I have described today are required to complete the process of preparing the UK statute book for the transition. I hope the Committee approves the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT STATE AID (REVOCATIONS AND AMENDMENTS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 General Committees

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations and the valuable contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to this important debate.

I have talked about the fact that the EU state aid rules were created to meet the needs of the EU, but, with us leaving the EU and the single market, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whether for the Japan deal or for our future deals, we want to have a system, controls and regulations that fit the UK economy and our objectives, which can be enforced and administered by the UK as an independent sovereign nation.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about certainty for businesses and I totally agree with her. This is a specific, technical statutory instrument that does not look at our future subsidy control regime beyond the WTO. Clearly, we will want to build on that and work out where we need to go with businesses. It is important that we involve businesses to develop any future additions, should we choose to build on the WTO. In terms of the certainty that businesses require now, we will publish guidance as soon as possible on the international commitments that will apply in the UK on 1 January 2021. That will cover WTO rules and subsidies and any commitments that we have made in the free trade agreement to date.

Our approach will have implications for businesses and all public authorities that grant subsidies with taxpayers’ money, including the devolved Administrations. It will take time to listen closely to those voices and design a system beyond 1 January that promotes a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the whole UK.

[Chi Onwurah]

Can the Minister give more clarity about the timescale he envisages to develop the state aid regime, given that we will have left the European Union and the existing state aid regime will no longer be applicable?

[Paul Scully]

Clearly the timescale will involve two things: our negotiations with the EU and other countries in terms of free trade agreements, and our discussions with businesses and government at every level, including the devolved Administrations, to ensure that we get it absolutely right.

We can be sure that on 1 January 2021 we will be leaving with the subsidy control, as outlined by the WTO. The guidance for businesses at that point will be there for them to see. We need to ensure that with anything to do with the transition—whether it is changes to company administration, organisation supply chains or subsidy control of state aid—it is important that businesses look at gov.uk/transition website. Whether we have a deal with the EU or not, companies will have changes to make. It is important that they are on top of that, especially small businesses that do not necessarily have available the big resources to work on those matters at such extraordinary times, as they work on a day-to-day basis.

The objective today is to revoke the retained EU state aid law, rather than looking forward beyond that—that is appropriate and necessary—and to ensure that consequential amendments to other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refers to state aid rules continue to operate appropriately for businesses and Government after the end of the transition period.

In conclusion, I confirm that we are revoking the retained rules that have been preserved through the withdrawal Act. The regulations will provide the legal certainty for businesses and aid-granting authorities. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to get to the bottom of who knew what and when. That is why I am determined that, under Sir Wyn Williams’ chairmanship, we can seek evidence to complement what is already available from Mr Justice Fraser’s findings by speaking to the Post Office and Fujitsu, who have agreed to comply fully with this inquiry. I also hope that sub-postmasters will, through conversation with Sir Wyn Williams, agree to get involved so that they can share their evidence and stories and so that we can get to the bottom of this, exactly as my hon. Friend says.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with 900 prosecutions, innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed and lives lost. I pay tribute to the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance and all who campaigned with them, including Members on all sides of the House, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who secured this urgent question.

For decades, the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, imposing huge stress and legal fees on the victims and spending tens of millions of pounds in the process. Friday’s announcement is a welcome relief for so many, but can the Minister tell us why, as its only shareholder, the Government allowed the Post Office to continue to oppose the appeals for so long? Far from it being merely an operational matter, as the Minister has said, will he admit that this represents a gross failure of oversight, and will he tell us how much this has cost the Post Office and, ultimately, the taxpayer? What is the estimated cost of the compensation that will now need to be paid to those prosecuted, and what of those who were pursued, harassed and bankrupted, but not ultimately prosecuted? It is right that the Government have finally announced a judge-led inquiry into this scandal, which Labour called for months ago, but despite this House having expressed its concerns forcefully, the terms of reference deliberately exclude compensation. Will the Minister amend the terms of reference to include compensation and deliver true justice for the victims?

A miscarriage of justice on this scale undermines confidence in the justice system. Is it right that the Post Office has the power of independent prosecution, and is the Minister reviewing it? The victims need justice, not more unanswered questions. The taxpayer needs to know just how much this failure of oversight has, and will, cost. Finally, the Government need to take responsibility for this debacle and ensure nothing like it can ever happen again.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question—there were a number of questions in that. In terms of the Government’s involvement, as I say, the Post Office’s decisions are operational decisions for it and its board. What happened when—whether there was any Government involvement in terms of the Government shareholder, the board’s appointee, as well as the Post Office—will come up in the independent inquiry, and it is right that they are questioned so that we find out what happened and when.

On the issue of compensation, if the sub-postmasters get involved in this inquiry and share their evidence, they will be able to share their stories and the losses that they have made, both directly and indirectly. However, an inquiry cannot direct compensation; ultimately, that has to be done through the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and her continued highlighting of the sub-postmasters’ situation. I hope to announce the chair of the review very soon so that we can start on it at pace in September.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our times: 20 years of reputations ruined, families torn apart and lives lost. Sub-postmasters were betrayed by a Post Office that so persecuted them that what compensation they have won has largely gone on legal fees, and they have now turned to the parliamentary ombudsman to investigate the full costs of a Government that failed

“to undertake its statutory duty of oversight”.

As we break for our summer holidays, will the Minister finally do the right thing and commit to a full, judge-led inquiry that will get to the bottom of the wrongs suffered and deliver both justice and compensation?

[Paul Scully]

The chairman or woman of the review will be announced in due course so that we can start the review of this injustice in September at pace. It is important that we speak to the Post Office, the Government, the sub-postmasters and other people, including at Fujitsu, to get to the bottom of this matter so that we can learn the lessons and move forward for the sub-postmasters of the future.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is so important that we work with all parts of the nation and all the devolved Administrations, which we do regularly. My colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has regular conversations from our Department, and other Departments liaise closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that local economies are protected, as well as looking at the overall national picture.

The measures that the Bill introduces will give our businesses the vital support they need to keep afloat, preserving jobs, maintaining productive capacity and enabling the foundations to be laid for the country’s economic recovery. Saving lives and livelihoods is at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve. Measures such as the new moratorium and restructuring plan, together with a prohibition on contractual termination clauses, will help more businesses in future to survive rather than become insolvent. Many of the permanent measures have been improved through scrutiny in the other place, and I will set out some details of the amendments that the Government have brought forward to ensure that the measures work as intended.

I turn first to the financial services super priority amendments.  The Government want to prevent firms gaming the system through a moratorium. Our amendments seek to disincentivise financial services creditors from seeking to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt solely to benefit from super priority should the company fail, or to obtain protection from compromise if a restructuring proposal was put to them. The amendments exclude pre-moratorium financial services debts from having super priority status in a subsequent administration or liquidation where the financial services debt has been accelerated for payment during the moratorium. That ensures that the correct incentives are in place for the moratorium to work effectively and not be brought to an end prematurely.

On amendments relating to pensions, the aim of the measures in the Bill is to rescue a company, which is ultimately the best outcome for its pension scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have been alive to the concern that the new procedures could result in a pension scheme being disadvantaged as an unsecured creditor of the company. As a result, we agreed that there is a need to build in specific protections. Amendments made in the other place ensure that the pensions regulator and the Pension Protection Fund get appropriate information in the case of both a moratorium and a restructuring plan and that the PPF can challenge through the courts, the directors and the monitor of a company in a moratorium. There is also a regulation-making power, which will allow the PPF to be given creditor rights in both procedures in certain circumstances. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that these are important and fair amendments to the Bill.

We have also made amendments to the temporary measures in the Bill. These temporary measures allow businesses to focus on what is important for their survival through this extraordinary period, rather than having to respond to aggressive creditor actions, or struggle with statutory filing or meeting requirements during the disruption. The amendments to the temporary insolvency provisions in the Bill extend the life of those provisions beyond what was proposed when the Bill first came to the House. They will now expire, as I have said, on 30 September.

It is already clear that businesses will need these measures in place for longer than we first anticipated, and we brought forward amendments in the other place to take account of that. The provisions retain the capacity to be extended further through a regulation-making power should it be required, and the affirmative procedure will apply to such regulations.

Amendments have been made in the Bill in relation to pre-pack sales in administrations. Pre-packs are a valuable tool for saving businesses and jobs. However, concerns have been raised about the lack of scrutiny of them. The amendments reinstate a power that had elapsed earlier this year for the Government to regulate pre-pack sales in administrations to connected parties. The Government will look carefully at pre-packs and I can inform the House that a commitment was made by my ministerial colleague, Lord Callanan, to review current practices in the summer before making any decision on regulatory changes.

Finally, a number of technical amendments have been made to the Bill where it was judged necessary. These include changes that will restrict the period for which certain powers have been given in the Bill that will be available to Ministers, changes to clarify the intended effect of the legislation, and changes which place a condition on the use of some powers. We have ensured that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulation made under the Bill, as well as appropriate safeguards on these powers. Where they relate to powers for a Scottish or Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland Department, the corresponding change has been made to ensure equal scrutiny for all the Parliaments of the UK.

This Bill has been improved by the scrutiny of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as well as by the incredible work of the Government’s own parliamentary counsel and their legal advisers. I hope that the House will agree that making good, accurate, appropriately balanced and clear legislation is very much in the interests of all, not least of businesses that rely on this legal clarity. I am confident that we have now achieved that in this package, which we have, nevertheless, brought forward as quickly as possible to respond to the covid emergency. Taken together, these amendments improve this important and much-needed Bill. The debates and discussions in this House, as well as in the other place, have shown quite what this Parliament can achieve, even if socially distanced, when we share that common aim to save and support businesses in this emergency context. I therefore call on Members to support all the Lords amendments.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I want to start by echoing the constructive tone of the Minister and thanking everyone, both in this place and the other place, who has been involved in the scrutiny of the Bill. I also want to thank the Minister specifically for how he and his colleagues have engaged with us on this Bill and listened to the concerns we have had as it has progressed. We on the Labour Benches welcome the amendments that the Government have brought forward, which improve and strengthen the Bill in some important regards. As we have said previously, this is just one of the measures that we hope will safeguard businesses and livelihoods through this crisis. Our objective as the Opposition is to be constructive and to ensure that businesses get the support they need now and in the longer term, and that the number of insolvencies over coming weeks and months is as few as possible. We back this Bill, but we are clear that it is a last resort for many businesses and that there is much, much more for the Government to do now—now—to support businesses, safeguard our economy and protect jobs and livelihoods, so that the measures passed today only have to be used in a limited number of companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The Post Office is obviously made up of small businesses, which are subject to the same problems as any, and Scotland, with its rural nature, has been affected. That is why we look to temporary post offices and outreach. But clearly, going forward, the Government will reflect the value of postmasters and the post office network in all their deliberations.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Last week, the House united in calling for a judge-led inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal—hundreds of lives ruined and innocent people imprisoned by a trusted public institution—except the Minister, who proposes a forward-looking independent review, which will not mention managerial or ministerial accountability, Fujitsu’s responsibility or the key question of compensation. Now the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance is refusing to co-operate, saying it does not believe that the review will get to the bottom of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice of our times. After all that those people have endured, will the Minister not listen to them and commit to a judge-led inquiry?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady is mistaken if she believes that the review does not look at the managerial responsibility of all the people responsible for what has happened, and we need to listen to the postmasters’ rebuke. Indeed, yesterday I discussed the matter in a meeting with chief executive Nick Read and Calum Greenhow, chief exec of the National Federation of Subpostmasters. Nick Read committed fully to the review, leaving no stone unturned, which is why I hope that with everyone coming together I can encourage postmasters to engage in the review so that we can get the answers they and the hon. Lady are looking for, to secure the redress and the answers that they need.

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Debate between Chi Onwurah and Paul Scully

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy what steps the Government are taking to support sub-postmasters wrongly convicted in the Post Office Horizon scandal.

I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and many happy returns.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Happy Birthday, Mr Speaker. I have listened to a number of postmasters’ stories personally, and I saw the recent “Panorama” programme. It is impossible to ignore the negative impact that the Horizon dispute and court case have had on affected postmasters’ lives, livelihoods, financial situations, reputations and, for some, as we know, their physical and mental health.

Convicted claimants’ seeking to overturn their convictions are going through a further process with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal to consider whether any of the convictions are unsafe. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, it is important that the Government do not seek to influence this process or comment on any individual cases. I can confirm, though, that the Post Office is co-operating with the CCRC to the fullest extent and the Government are monitoring this. Forty-seven of the 61 CCRC cases have now been referred to the Court of Appeal, and it is for the courts to decide whether the convictions are unsafe.

Let me acknowledge the strength of feeling on this matter on both sides of the House, which was evident in the debates I participated in earlier this year and in the correspondence I have had from many Members. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an independent review to consider whether the Post Office has learned the necessary lessons from the Horizon dispute and court case, and to provide an independent and external assessment of its work to rebuild its relationship with its postmasters. Full details of the terms of reference for that independent review are set out in a written ministerial statement that I laid in the House this morning. We are keen to see that review launched as soon as possible, and we are in the process of identifying a chair to lead the work of the review.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history. Nine hundred prosecutions, each one its own story of dreams crushed, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed and lives lost—innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. Does the Minister agree that Monday’s “Panorama” adds to the sense of a cover-up on a grand scale in the Post Office, a trusted national institution? And all because of the failings in the Post Office Horizon system.

For over a decade, the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance campaigned to get at the truth, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Mr Justice Fraser’s High Court ruling in December paved the way finally for justice for some, but the mediated settlement means the truth remains hidden. Does the Minister agree that there can be no justice without truth?

So many questions remain unanswered. When did the Post Office know that the Horizon system could cause money to disappear, and what responsibility did the developer, Fujitsu, have? What did Ministers, to whom the Post Office is accountable, do, and what did they know? Who was responsible for innocent people going to jail? Have they been held accountable? Will all the victims be properly compensated?

Three months ago, the Prime Minister committed to a public inquiry, but we now hear that that is to consider whether the Post Office has learned the necessary lessons. We need an inquiry not simply to learn lessons but to get to the truth. Only a judge-led inquiry can do that, with the Post Office compelled to co-operate. Will the Minister now agree to the judge-led inquiry we need? It is the very least the victims deserve.

We need answers, not more delay. We will not rest until we get that and justice for all those wronged in this scandal.

[Paul Scully]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, and I appreciate her comments. A public inquiry, according to Jason Beer QC, one of the leading experts on this, talks about what happened, why it happened and who is to blame, and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. This independent review, chaired by someone independent of both the Government and the Post Office, will indeed look to do that—to understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to the Horizon system by drawing on the evidence of those people who, as we have discussed, have been wronged in this situation, using both Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment and words and his own evidence that he will call upon.

The Government want to be fully assured—I want to be fully assured—that the right lessons are learned for the future and concrete changes have taken place at Post Office Ltd to ensure that this is not repeated. We want to be sure that, through this review, there is a public summary of the failings that occurred at Post Office Ltd, drawing on the judgments and, as I say, listening to those who have been most affected. That is the purpose of the independent review we are in the process of setting up.