Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

It has been a privilege to sit here listening to the amazing contributions from the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State—I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for his kind words—and all the other Members whom we have heard from and will hear from after my own short contribution.

As we have just been reminded by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), we have been coming here time and again for years and years, often repeating ourselves—but we have to repeat ourselves: that is the point. The shadow Secretary of State talked about that powerful ITV drama, “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, and how it prompted a public outcry. I became a Minister in February 2020, shortly after the group litigation order case that was featured towards the end of that drama, and I am pretty sure that the email Alan Bates was typing to send to the postal affairs Minister was sent to me. He was sending quite a large invoice, which I politely declined to pay at the time.

I had pages and pages of Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment to look at and reflect on. I was in a different position from my predecessors, who maybe should or maybe should not have sat there and read the runes and seen what was going on—why there were so many people involved, and why the number of prosecutions was going up and up over 20 years. What I did have were those pages of damning judgment from Mr Justice Fraser.

I think that the public outcry that arose from the ITV programme has given power to the current postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has been working tirelessly. He has read out a timetable showing the incredible amount of work that he has been doing since I left that role. I know that he is a man who understands what justice and fairness look like following his experience of financial scandals such as the miscarriage of justice at HBOS Reading. He was a constant “come to me” in that role. If anyone was going to delve into this work, it was always going to be my hon. Friend. I think that the documentary helped him to pull some of the levers that junior Ministers sometimes need to pull in order to be heard, and to enable us to swim through the treacle in other Departments in order to get things done, so more power to his elbow.

That brings me to why we are doing this in the first place. The central issue is often seen as a software failure. Even in the documentary it was a deliberate dramatic plot device to show a computer sitting in the corner of the post office, blinking away like a slightly alien life force that was draining the money away. But it was not a software failure; it was a human failure. We all know that software goes wrong—we remember the millennium bug—but the problem here was group-think and people doubling down for reputational management, which was pushing back and making sure that the postmasters believed that they were the only ones experiencing these issues. We know now, and we quickly came to know, that hundreds of people were in the same position.

The fact that this was a human failure means that we need a human solution. We have to be humans first and politicians second. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke of watching grown men trying not to cry. I am not the best at doing that myself, although I am not directly involved. I recently attended the presentation of the GG2 Asian awards round the corner from here, and to my surprise I saw Hasmukh Shingadia, Vijay Parekh, Vipin Patel and Seema Misra. Members may remember Seema’s story in particular; she was pregnant at the time when she was charged in West Byfleet. Those people were receiving awards and recognition, and it was lovely to see the outpouring of support for them in the room.

[Shailesh Vara]

Those are the people who received the awards, but does my hon. Friend agree that an award is due for every single sub-postmaster?

[Paul Scully]

For sure. We cannot do enough for these people. They have been cast out as pariahs in their communities. They have been charged, they have been put in prison, they have lost houses, families and health, because of a body that is ultimately owned by the state. We, as a collective body, have destroyed these people’s lives. There is not enough that we can do for them.

We are looking at what is in the Bill and at all the other compensation schemes as well, but we have to act. We are having to conduct this mass exoneration in the first place not just that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but because these people are so triggered, whether by PTSD or simply by total mistrust of the system, that they do not want to go through another process with someone in authority saying kind words, warm words, and then letting them down for the second time—or worse. It is actions, not words, on which we will be judged. When I stood up at that Dispatch Box, I knew that whatever I talked about, I could not expect the postmasters to trust me. I knew that they would trust me on the basis of my actions, and I know that my hon. Friend the current Minister feels the same way.

I welcome the Bill. It is important for us not to let perfection be the enemy of the good. Let us get this done, because we cannot come on to the second Bill and these people’s compensation until they have been exonerated—not pardoned, for they have done nothing wrong. Let us make sure that we accentuate that as well. That is why I am keen for us to rush this legislation through. Yes, we need to scrutinise it, but it is a short Bill, so we can do that quickly, and then we can get on to that life-changing money that I—that we—keep talking about, and try to restore some semblance of their lives to those whose lives have been destroyed.

This is Second Reading, and we will get into the specifics in Committee and on Report, but let me offer a few possible solutions. The solution that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) talked about earlier—bringing back judges—would at least add capacity to the system. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is no longer in his place, previously said something similar when he said that we do not necessarily need this kind of law, which is, frankly, trampling quite a lot on the independence of the judiciary. That is why the Government had to move really carefully, which is one reason for some of the concerns raised by the Business and Trade Committee about the people who have not been able to go to appeal, or who will not be included because they have been refused leave to appeal or have failed in their appeal.

There is still more that we can do for victims of this scandal. They will be able to appeal at another time, but maybe there is something we can do, in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested in their contributions, to accelerate their cases and not just let them have to go through the same situation that they would otherwise have done. May I respectfully suggest that that may be the case for Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland? I am not an expert or a lawyer, and it is not for me to give advice, but it occurs to me that if the proposed amendment does not go through and the territorial extent stays as it is—that is for this place to judge in other stages of the Bill—perhaps there are other methods that we can use to make sure that postmasters in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not receive compensation more slowly.

We all want this to be done as quickly as possible. The postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, has talked about getting the majority of the compensation delivered by August. Clearly, that is not going to happen, because we have only just got this Bill through, so we will have to exonerate the postmasters. However, if we can get the Horizon shortfall scheme and the rest of the GLO largely done by that time, and restore these people’s lives to some sense of normality, then we can do the rest of it. We still have not finished, because we have to get Sir Wyn Williams’s report back and get the investigation done.

Some previous contributors to the debate said that it might take weeks or months to deliver the compensation, and that there might be complications. I remember speaking to the solicitors who represented the 555 people involved the GLO. I said, “If we gave you lots and lots of money and you distributed it, how long would it take?” The answer was about 18 months. It is about how we apportion the money and work it through—the same kinds of things that the advisory committee has been wrestling with—and the solicitors would have to do that internally. It is not a matter of giving people life-changing sums of money in one block and then everybody is okay; it is about making sure that we can work through the system, which will inevitably take time.

When I made Sir Wyn Williams’s investigation non-statutory, it was to get speed into the system to make sure that we did not have to “lawyer up”, as it was described. I always wanted money to go to the victims, not to lawyers talking about the same things again. As I say, if we can get the compensation out, we have to get the answers. We keep on talking in this place about the Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal and any number of scandals, and I keep hearing people say that it must never happen again. Do you know what? It usually does. Why? Because we talk and talk about it, but we do not learn the true lessons or get the answers.

[Sir David Davis]

One of the things we need to consider, both now and later, is how we stop this happening again. I reiterate the point I made in my speech: when the inquiry looked at it, there was systemic failure right across the board. My hon. Friend is right to say it was a human failure, a system failure and an organisational failure. The Post Office is an arm’s length department. What we are finding with this and other cases is that arm’s length departments are disasters when it comes to correcting mistakes and delivering accountability. Does he agree that we should think about that when we are doing this?

[Paul Scully]

As usual, my right hon. Friend is absolutely on point. In our Department, we had a number of arm’s length organisations, which is true of other Government Departments as well. They are representatives of the Government, and we elected politicians or the Government will inevitably be held accountable; if there is no direct relationship, it is very difficult to speak from the Dispatch Box with enough authority and information to be able to take that accountability.

[Shailesh Vara]

I commend my hon. Friend for a very passionate and committed speech. The point about learning lessons is crucial. I fear, as do others in this Chamber, that in the old times we would say that the file is sitting on a shelf, collecting dust; nowadays, it would be archived and just stay there. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious attention needs to be paid to ensuring that we learn from this episode and the countless other occasions when things go wrong? There needs to be some sort of set-up to make sure that other bodies—voluntary organisations or those at arm’s length—actually take on board what has been said.

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely; that is a really good case in point. I hope my right hon. Friend will be in the next Parliament to help drive this through. I have said I am stepping down, so I will not see Sir Wyn Williams’s final report—not from these Benches, anyway. I hope the House takes it to heart and drives through the lessons learned.

I recommend a book by Matthew Syed, called “Black Box Thinking”. He compares accidents in the NHS with accidents and near accidents in the airline industry. With aircraft, even just a near miss gets learned from not only by the airline in question; it has to be passed on to every airline in the world. There is a collective sense of learning in the industry.

[Chris Stephens]

I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s considered speech so far. When he was a Minister, did he have a potential solution for what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned: the Asda employees in Scotland who have been caught up in this scandal?

[Paul Scully]

I did not, but the issue is worth looking at. This is a human scandal, and it is not just about the postmasters who were directly affected. I am not sure how we start to unpick that as it gets wider and wider, but I hope and trust that the Government will reflect on it as we do the wider learning.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was tempted to intervene on two of the interventions I heard, but that is impossible here. It is certainly possible that the person who had the contractual relationship with the business concerned, such as a small post office, could submit a claim to the Horizon shortfall scheme, which could include amounts that should be paid to individuals who worked for them so that they can be compensated through that route.

Given that we are looking at public sector or quasi-public sector organisations, it would be dangerous to assume that there is a problem with governance. As my hon. Friend said, from the Back Benches I dealt with a number of scandals that involved private sector organisations, such as Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland—we saw years of obfuscation around similar kinds of problems. We should not jump to conclusions. We should probably let the inquiry report first, and have a debate from there.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. To follow on from the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, it is difficult for us as parliamentarians, and doubly difficult for Government Ministers, to speak with authority on behalf of a public organisation—rather than the private sector, which we do not speak on behalf of—without necessarily having all the facts, because there is only so much we can drill into.

Obviously, we want to right the wrongs of the past and make sure as best we can that the people’s situations are restored so that they can have a future for themselves and their families. There is also the case of the Post Office itself. The Post Office still has more branches than the banks and building societies put together. I know that there have been closures in certain areas—that is a whole other debate, perhaps for Westminster Hall—but none the less, the Post Office has a massive impact on people’s lives, especially in rural communities. We must not forget that when we are looking at the Post Office, its brand and its overall aim. This is not a reflection on the current management or anything like that. We have to give the Post Office a future.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this issue and other issues protecting local post offices and looking at the range of services they can offer to the community. Has he had any further reflections about the role of post offices in communities? I also want to thank him specifically for the work he did to support my constituency. Perhaps, now that he has left the Government, he can tell the House his own thoughts on post offices as part of the local community and the potential for new services to be based in them.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind words regarding when we worked together on his constituency issue. We ask the Post Office to do a lot of work of social value and economic value, and those often conflict. It is difficult to get that right. We cannot ask the Post Office to turn a good profit as if it was just another bank, as well as to do the things we sometimes expect as parliamentarians, especially when we talk about our own constituencies and those in more rural areas. That is something we have to give careful consideration to. My original point is that while we are righting the wrongs of the past, we have to remember that this is an important organisation for our country and our constituents and we have to give it a future as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

People might think that because the system is not Horizon, the Bill does not apply to them, but the cases I am dealing with show that there was an injustice. I have spoken to individuals who went to prison. The computer systems were not same, but the Post Office showed the same attitude in the way it went at individuals. It did not believe the postmasters—they were going to be found guilty, come what may.

[Paul Scully]

That approach to the investigation and the presumption of guilt was what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) was referring to in relation to her constituents and Royal Mail, as it was before ownership had transferred. The case did not get as far as prosecution, but investigation officers, the same kind of people that we have seen at the public inquiry, made that presumption.

Post Office Legislation

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The shadow Minister’s comments are on the record, so I shall deal with them briefly. I think this is the second time she has made comments at the Dispatch Box that have been unfair or factually incorrect, and I hope that she will correct the record. If she had actually watched the interview I gave, she would know that I absolutely did condemn the words of Mr Hester. I said they were wrong. I said they were racist, and I think it is absolutely right that he has apologised. She should watch the full broadcast, and I hope that she will apologise to the House and correct the record.

The points that the hon. Lady raised pertain largely to the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved Administrations. I quite understand the concern around those issues, and I am very keen to ensure that we get this right across the United Kingdom. As she acknowledges, there are different legal processes in those areas, and we think it would be inappropriate for us to legislate for parts of the United Kingdom that have different legal processes and different prosecutors. Justice is devolved, although the Post Office is a UK-wide organisation, as she rightly says. That is why we think the legislation should allow devolved Administrations to legislate for themselves, if they choose to. We will work closely with them. Officials meet them weekly to assist wherever we can, so that compensation can be delivered UK-wide; that is how the scheme operates.

I think the hon. Lady said that 80% of compensation was yet to be delivered. I may be wrong there, so I will check the record. Across all the schemes, in around two thirds of cases, full and final compensation has already been received. That being the case, about 2,000 people will be topped up to £75,000, as I announced earlier, but it is not right to say, as I think she did, that the majority of people are waiting for compensation.

The hon. Lady asked whether we wanted to deliver the compensation by the end of the year. Absolutely we do, but as I said, not everything is in our gift. We cannot compel a claimant to submit a claim, or know when that will happen. If somebody puts in a claim right towards the end of the year, for example, it may not be possible to deal with it before the end of the year. Not everything is in our gift, but we are keen to expedite anything that is.

It is absolutely critical that we have independent oversight; all schemes have it. In the overturned conviction scheme, we have retired High Court judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom, and the £600,000 fixed-sum award; but on Mr Hickinbottom’s advice, we have also introduced the £450,000 payment as soon as a full claim has been submitted. We are doing everything we can to make sure that people are compensated as quickly as possible.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the pragmatic way that he has looked to speed up claims, and to take this in-house as best he can. I also welcome the proposed legislation, and the extension of the £75,000 to those in the historical shortfall scheme. I point the Minister to an article in The Times this morning about people who may reportedly be excluded from the legislation. Can he give any assurances that people who have gone through this process and whose original conviction was based substantially on the Horizon problems will indeed be exonerated and therefore able to get compensation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for his tireless campaigning in this area, and for his tireless work as my predecessor in this role. He did some great work to help us get where we are today. He is right to say there are some people who are not exonerated through this process—for example, people who have been before the Court of Appeal—but they will be able to appeal again in the light of our legislation. Of course, they had the right to do that anyway, but we will support them where we can in bringing forward their case to the Court of Appeal, and we very much hope that innocent people who follow that process will be exonerated.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The overturned convictions are a key priority for me and my Department. I am always keen to update the House whenever I can. There always has to be a sequence to ensure that we follow proper process. What we are doing potentially affects the devolved Administrations, so it is really important that we engage with them properly. That is one of the reasons why we need to make the written statement later today. I have never been unwilling to come before the House and report on what we are doing. I will, of course, continue to do that.

On the letter from the chief executive to the Justice Secretary, I am aware of the allegations by Mr Staunton. They are very serious allegations that should not be made lightly or be based on a vague recollection. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter from the former permanent secretary, it is clear that she believes the allegations are incorrect, and that there was never any conversation along the lines referred to by Mr Staunton. I think it is pretty clear that those allegations are false.

The right hon. Gentleman has regularly brought up Capture. We are keen to continue to engage with him on that to ensure that those affected are included in any compensation where detriment has occurred. I note his point about an oral statement. As I say, I am always keen to give such statements whenever possible, and to be interrogated on our plans. I do not think he will be disappointed by what we announce later today.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Now that the then permanent secretary has outlined that she did not implicitly or explicitly tell the then chairman of the Post Office to slow down compensation, I hope we can spend time less time talking about someone who has lost his job and more time talking about postmasters who have lost everything. Will the Minister, who is doing great work in sorting this out, recommit to August as his target date for getting compensation—life-changing compensation —out of the door as soon as possible?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter; as my predecessor, he did a tremendous job. The most concerning allegation we heard over the weekend was about the delay in the payment of compensation. In her letter, which is publicly available, the permanent secretary wrote:

“It is not true that I made any instruction, either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, no mention of delaying compensation appears in either note.”

So I agree with my hon. Friend that we should move on from that and focus on what really matters, which is getting what he rightly described as life-changing compensation to postmasters as quickly as possible. That is his, and will remain our, No. 1 priority.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I welcome the tone that the shadow Front-Bench spokesman has taken. There is often a tendency for political point scoring, but I think we both agree that this is very much about the postmasters. That is why I ensured that I was at the Dispatch Box: so that people would know the truth. That is what builds trust.

The shadow Minister asked whether I would categorically state that no instruction was given to delay payments. Yes, I can. We have no evidence whatever that any official said that. If such a thing was said, it is for Mr Staunton to bring the evidence. It is very hard to refute a negative. People making wild, baseless accusations and then demanding proof that they did not happen are making mischief, in my view. As far as I have seen, all the evidence points to the fact that no one gave that instruction.

It is also important to look at whether it would even make sense to do so. There would be no benefit whatever to our delaying the compensation, which has no significant impact on revenues. It would be a mad thing even to suggest. The compensation scheme, which Mr Staunton oversaw, has been completed. My understanding is that 100% of payments have been made, so clearly no such instruction was given. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the infected blood inquiry. This is a good example of how people lose faith in the system because of misinformation. That is why I am here to correct the record.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the £1 billion allocation. We give monthly reports that show exactly what payments are being made. He also asked whether we will publish correspondence. No, we will not publish in full all correspondence between Departments, UKGI and the Post Office. That is because we set up the statutory inquiry, which will examine the important issues related to the Horizon scandal, as well as current governance arrangements. We are fully co-operating with the inquiry, but the inquiry was set up by Parliament specifically to look at that. In addition to the read-out of the true content of my telephone call with Mr Staunton, we will consider publishing correspondence between Departments and Mr Staunton in accordance with freedom of information rules, so that people will know exactly what happened, contrary to his account. The hon. Gentleman asked about legislation. That is something that we are actively working on. I expect that we will be able to deliver on that imminently.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

When I was the postal affairs Minister, the officials in my team not only shared my drive to get the money out of the door—life-changing money for postmasters—but were energised and empowered to do so. I cannot believe for a minute that just a few months later they would be doing and thinking the polar opposite. Clearly, they cannot defend themselves in public, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that conversations about colluding to slow down the compensation did not happen? It is important that we double down and get more money out of the door as soon as possible.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his fantastic work as the postal affairs Minister, and I can confirm that. My officials have looked through all the correspondence, and all the minutes of the conversations that Mr Staunton had with the Department. They found absolutely nothing, and he did not raise the matter in his call with me. If it were something that officials had said to him, surely he would have mentioned it to Ministers—either myself or the postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). The fact that Mr Staunton did not do so shows that it is quite likely something that he is making up.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to my remarks. I appreciate his offer to work with us and to stand with us to deliver compensation and the overturning of convictions. The first step will be legislation; again, we are happy to work with him on that. That may take some weeks to deliver, but the sooner, the better. The introduction and passing of that legislation will be a matter for both Houses, but our intention is to get on with that very quickly.

From there, it should be a simple process: a statement needs to be signed, as the hon. Gentleman and I both referred to. We will work with the advisory board to ensure that the statement is appropriate. Following the signing of that statement, if people choose the detailed assessment route, that will be more complex because it will look at not just financial loss but personal impacts, such as on health or on other livelihoods, and consequential losses. If people choose the fixed sum award route of £600,000, that process can be very quick, which is one of the reasons why we have managed to complete 30 full and final settlements already, many using the fixed sum route.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people using the pilot version of Horizon, of which we are cognisant. Every postmaster around the country has been written to and should be aware that the compensation scheme is available. We believe that these schemes cover that pilot period for Horizon. I am very happy to work with him and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) to ensure that the people they have identified have already been contacted. The good news is that, following the excellent ITV dramatisation, we have seen a good number of new cases come to light. We are keen for people to come forward, whether they have suffered convictions or financial detriment through shortfalls. We are keen to ensure that those people get access to compensation as quickly as possible.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and the Lord Chancellor for their work. It has been longer in the making than the drama series, but they met their promise over two days by coming up with the first stage of the solution. Too many victims want nothing to do with the British justice system, the Post Office or Government. They have had enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no perfect solution? The best we can aim for is one that is fast and provides life-changing money to restore these people’s lives as best we can.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the sterling work he did as my predecessor in this job. Many people recognise the incredible work he did following the outcome of the court case with the compensation schemes that he instigated. He is right that there is no perfect solution, but we have worked across Government to try to find the best possible one. If we want a fast solution that, as he said, provides life-changing compensation to people who have been deprived of that in recent years, we believe that this is the best one.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her work on this issue. On Mrs Skinner, I should say that all people on any of the three schemes get access to an interim payment. If Mrs Skinner’s conviction has been overturned, she is entitled to an interim payment of £163,000. From then, she can take two routes. She can go for a full assessment, which takes more time as the issues are complex, assessing financial loss and detriment relating to things such as health. Our commitment is that 90% of those who go down a full assessment route will have an offer made back to them within 40 working days; that is our target. The alternative is that she can pursue the fixed-sum award of £600,000. There is no need to compile a claim to do that—the money can be paid out pretty much instantly. That is not a route for everybody, but it has been a route for a significant number of the 30 people with overturned convictions who have decided to settle.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Four hours of compelling storytelling has brought a fresh wave of interest, anger and frustration to people around the country and indeed in this Chamber—it is great to see so many people supporting the sub-postmasters’ plight. The Minister has been working diligently on the issue for 18 months now, so he needs no reminder that, as the episodes start by stating, this story is true.

Will my hon. Friend diligently build on his work to make sure that the judiciary allow a blanket quashing of all the convictions, so that they can get to the Treasury to make sure that the funding is there for full and fair compensation and that the Post Office adheres to his timetable of August 2024? Sir Wyn Williams needs no reminder about getting those answers as part of his excellent work on the inquiry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to do this is to remind all those people that we are all human first and politicians second? This is about human cost.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend. He talked about building on my work. Can I say that I am building on his work? He did a tremendous job in his role when this issue first came to light. We share the ambition to do something that expedites the process of overturning convictions. The time for quibbling is over; it is now a case of action this day and delivering that overturning of convictions. Clearly, we want to do that in a way that does not cause us any constitutional or legal problems across the system. We believe we have a solution and we should be able to give more details in due course—very shortly. Sir Wyn Williams’s work is also playing a key part and I thank him for establishing the statutory inquiry, which is going to lead to so many answers that people rightly demand.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Paul Scully Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ease my way back on to the Back Benches and speak about this issue and a number of others. After nearly four years of dealing with covid and its effect on the hospitality sector, the Online Safety Bill and gambling harms, nothing has kept me awake at night more than the plight of the sub-postmasters who fell within the Horizon scandal and the biggest miscarriage of justice in British court history.

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for all his work in trying to rectify the situation. It is horrendously complex, with many strands of compensation and a lot of different competing needs and demands. It is lovely to see on the officials’ bench some familiar faces of those who have worked tirelessly over many years, including preceding my time as Minister.

This provision is not just to extend the time available and ensure that we are ahead of the process for August next year, but is important in itself to keep this issue in the public eye. Mention has been made of “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, which I am looking forward to seeing in the new year. With all the competing interests of what is happening in the middle east, in Ukraine, and in people’s personal lives here in the UK, it is important that we remind ourselves of what can happen if one corporation oversteps its reach. We must always remind ourselves of that, and we must drive our way through to solving this issue, getting the answers that the postmasters need and, importantly, restoring their financial situation as best we can to where they were before the detriment occurred.

I remember how we pulled levers when I was a Minister and used the fact that the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, stood at the Dispatch Box and said, in answer to a question, that he would happily look at a public inquiry. That gave me carte blanche to lean in and ensure that we used that authority, and with the backing of officials and my Department, we started what was originally a non-statutory inquiry that then became statutory. It had to become statutory after we heard from the judge in the Court of Appeal. At the time I genuinely wanted it to be non-statutory, not because I wanted to resile from anything that was happening, but purely and simply for speed and ease. It was so that we could concentrate on getting the postmasters compensation and the answers they wanted, rather than having a layer of lawyers—frankly we are seeing that at the covid inquiry at the moment—looking at other things outside the narrow term of reference. We clearly had to have a statutory inquiry once the judge at the Court of Appeal outlined his thoughts.

Despite the complexity, when I first spoke to Sir Wyn when appointing him at the beginning, we were hoping that the inquiry would be wrapped up by now, and it is frustrating that by necessity he is still going through the deliberation, taking evidence and working through a hugely complex situation. It is disappointing but understandable that compensation is taking so long to get out, for reasons that the Minister has already described regarding how we work through such complexities.

The shadow Minister talked about how the Minister might use the extra time beyond August. I hope we do not need that extra time and that it is there to get ahead of the process, rather than saying that we will extend the process because we have carte blanche permission to go beyond 24 August and kick it into the long grass. As we have heard, people cannot wait. People are dying, people are taking their own life, people have been forced out of their villages. Indeed, the constituent of one hon. Member was forced out of the country for fear of the shame of something they had not done in the first place.

With hindsight, if I were back at the start of the process I would like to run the compensation all in one go from the Department. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is nodding his head, because he asked about that at the time. I very much take on board the work he has done not just as a campaigner but on the advisory committee. I put a lot of weight both on his words in the Chamber and on those he said to me informally outside it, when we could talk in more depth about what was happening with his constituent and the other people we were speaking about. If we had run the compensation as one process within the Department, it could have helped to narrow the focus of what needed to be done. I am not asking the Minister to go down that line, but whatever happens in the months to come, I hope he will always look at providing flexibility and at what more we can do to keep the pressure on. There is a phrase in the civil service and in government about doing things “at pace”. It is a phrase I never really hear outside government—I always heard it in government—and the problem is who defines what pace something is. What we mean is quickly, or “more haste less speed”, as my old teacher used to say.

As I have said, this is the best thing I will ever do in politics, and the officials in the Department, many of whom are here today, have repeated that. It has become very liberating, because I think we are all on the same page. We all want to get this done now, not only so that we can get people compensation, but so that we can get answers and justice, and put on the hook those who should be on the hook, rather than the taxpayer.

It is also important to do that for the future of the Post Office. I see the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the chair of the all-party group on post offices, in her place. If this was any other type of corporation or company, the chances are that it would have gone to the wall and gone bust by now as the reputational damage would have been too big. The Post Office is too important for the fabric of our society to allow it to go by the wayside. To address its the future, we have to tackle the past as well. Making sure that those two strands are running together is so important.

I will leave it at that. I do not want to keep the House too long, but I remember Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner, Seema Misra, Christopher Head, Lee Castleton and other people, some of whom still keep me in touch with what is happening, usually on Twitter, or X.

I wish everyone in this House a merry Christmas. I hope that we all have a good rest and a happy new year, but I want those postmasters affected to have as good a Christmas and new year as they can. I want to make sure that Christmas 2024 is an even better Christmas and new year for them, because by then, I hope we will have sorted the compensation as best we can and brought this to a close, so that they can move on, and so can the Post Office.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. I rise to welcome the Bill and the reasoning behind it, as outlined by the Minister. I must say that the Minister is committed to ensuring that we make the scheme as fair and equitable as possible. As he said, it would have been unjust to have left the sword of Damocles that was the arbitrary deadline of next August hanging over the heads of potential claimants. It is right that the Bill is brought forward. I echo the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) that we do not want to see delays in compensation, but, because of the trauma that individuals are involved in and the complexity, some cases may take longer than others.

May I, at this point, put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam? Having dealt with the issue for more years than I care to remember—and, I must say, having dealt with a succession of useless Ministers who literally accepted what their civil servants said and continued to parrot that, even when they knew that the Horizon system was at fault—it is a credit to him that he was the only one who grasped the situation and got to understand its complexities. I also welcomed the private chats we had on some of the issues. He is right that the scheme is not easy to implement, but he was willing to question things that were clearly wrong and to put it through. I would not want to make the Minister blush, but if people want an example of a Minister doing his job and having something to look back on and be proud of, they should look at his response to this matter. I do not want to downgrade the present Minister, who has picked up the baton and, as the poacher turned gamekeeper that he is, is following through to ensure that the scheme and justice are delivered for those individuals affected by Horizon.

As has been mentioned, I first got involved because of a constituent called Tom Brown, who came to my surgery. I say to any new Members in the House that if they ever get a case in a constituency surgery and think, “This sounds complex, but it just seems wrong,” they should dig into it and stick with it. Tom was a sub-postmaster in North Kenton in Newcastle. He had worked at other post offices before that, but he and his wife had bought a sub-post office in North Kenton for £150,000, which he saw as an investment not only for him but for his family’s future. He ran it with his wife; they had a convenience store, and it was successful until the Horizon computer system came along. Like many victims, he was given initial training on the system, but it came out in the inquiry that it was completely inadequate.

Not long after Horizon was installed, Tom started having shortfalls. If they were small, many people just made them up, but in his case they got to £85,609.03. He could not reconcile it, despite going to the helpline and saying, “Look, something’s wrong here.” The helpline just ignored him. In November 2008, two Post Office employees came along to do a branch audit, which is when the nightmare for Tom and his family began. He was accused of stealing the £85,000. Despite his efforts to explain the shortfalls in the system, no one listened, nor did they listen in the many other victims’ cases.

Tom had invested in property: he had his business, investment properties and his own house. He had the indignity not only of his name being in the local newspapers as someone who had stolen £85,000 but of having his home searched by the Post Office, looking—strangely enough—for the £85,000, as though he had it stuffed under the bed. The indignity of that is remarkable. We must remember that these individuals were pillars of the local community; people looked up to them and respected them in their communities—and that was suddenly all torn away.

In his witness statement to the inquiry, Tom describes the sensational media wildfire, which was disturbing for him and for his family. He is open in his statement that he considered suicide—sadly, we have heard that at least four people have taken their own lives. He did not because of his strong family. The irony of his situation is that when the Post Office prosecuted him, the case went to Crown court only to be withdrawn on the day it was heard. He was found not guilty of false accounting because no evidence was put forward. The judge said in his summing up:

“I’m sure you’ll be taking this further, Mr Brown”.

By that stage, Tom was left bankrupt. He was accused of stealing £85,000, his name sullied. That led to hardship not just for him but for his family. He had to sell his properties and his business, after it floundered. His son had to take him in and also got into financial difficulty, borrowing money to support his father, and they ended up in social housing in my constituency. The family were completely broken. I want to stress this aspect: we talk about the individual victim, but the effect on their families must be highlighted and compensated. Some family members need counselling because of the effects on them, and Tom’s witness statement to the inquiry sums that up well.

Sadly, Tom did not live to see the compensation he deserved, nor to see his name cleared and those involved in his case brought to justice; he passed away a few weeks ago. I add my condolences to his family. His name is still there with Alan Bates, who has been mentioned, and the others who fought this case.

Would we have got to where we are today without those people? No, we would not, because even when the Post Office knew that the system was flawed, it spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending the indefensible in court as a result of the litigation brought by Alan Bates and the rest of the 555. The tactic of the Post Office was very clear: it was to use public money—our money—to outspend the postmasters who had taken it to court. That was outrageous, given that it subsequently came to light, during the inquiry and also in court, that the Post Office knew that it did not have a leg to stand on. It was forced to settle out of court because it had run out of money, which was the intention of the Post Office and the Department that was in charge at the time.

Do we need to get this system moving? Yes, we do. Having been on the advisory board, I understand the complexities of the scheme. Would we start where we are starting now if we were starting afresh? No, we would not—but 60 people have already died, including Tom, and it is imperative now for us to try to get this compensation paid to their families and to the other postmasters. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said that we would not have started here. We now have the group litigation scheme, the historical shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. Is it too late to try to pull those three into one? I personally think it is, and I do not know what the Minister’s civil servants would do if we suggested it. In any event, I do not think that it is the way forward.

One thing that I do welcome is the appointment of Sir Ross Cranston as the final arbitrator in the process. If people are not happy about the levels of compensation they receive, there will be that final independent arbitrator. There has always been this point about independence. Do any of those involved trust the Post Office? No, they do not. Do I trust the Post Office? No, I still do not trust it, given the way in which it has handled this matter.

[Paul Scully]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a great speech, and he has got to the crux of the situation, by talking about trust. The postmasters have had plenty of words—20 years of seemingly reassuring words—that they cannot trust, and it is incumbent on all of us to act.

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree, and I think that that is how the hon. Gentleman helped—in trying to cut through the words. But whatever I say, he says or anyone says, are these people ever going to trust the Post Office? In his statement to the inquiry, Tom said:

“I think the Post Office are the most corrupt organisation around.”

I have to say that I do not disagree. This was not about people making mistakes; in public administration, people do make mistakes. This was clearly a cover-up conspiracy and, I think, downright criminality on the part of certain individuals. I will return shortly to how we are to get justice in respect of those individuals, but the Bill is about compensation, and I think it important that we take this step forward.

I want to pay tribute to some of those who have kept the fire burning over the years, including Lord Arbuthnot —James Arbuthnot, who has been a tireless campaigner on this issue since he was in the House of Commons—Nick Wallis, and Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly. They have done great work in pushing the issue forward, and they need to be thanked for it.

I also want to raise an important point in respect of the schemes we have now. I did not think that new developments could come about, but they have. This is relevant to amendment 1, which I tabled but which was unfortunately not selected for technical reasons. Lo and behold, a few months ago I learned that there had been another scheme, which could almost be described as a son or daughter of Horizon but which preceded it. It was trialled in the north-east of England. The only reason I knew about it was that I was contacted by the son of a lady somewhere in the north-east—she does not want any publicity—who wanted me to come and see her. When I went to see her, I thought, “This sounds like a Horizon case but it can’t be because the dates are wrong.” Lo and behold, we now learn that 300 trials were done, mainly in the north-east, before Horizon. That lady will not get compensation. She was prosecuted and I understand that another case has now been found. This also came out at the inquiry. When all the publicity came out about Horizon, why did no one come forward and say, “By the way, do you realise we had another system on the go at the beginning and we prosecuted people under that system?”

I know the Minister is on to this, and I am certain that the advisory board is as well. There are potentially other people who were prosecuted because of another failed system that was not Horizon. That needs addressing as matter of urgency because there are people out there who are clearly innocent. I think the lady I have just mentioned could be described as having post-traumatic stress disorder. She was completely mentally scarred by the episode. If we can get justice for that individual and others, we should certainly do so.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Paul Scully Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

In the economic impact assessment for this Bill, we do not see how the Government intend to deliver on promises made by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who promised to write last Tuesday about the resources that will be allocated to Citizens Advice, but he did not. The Government are saying that in order to get redress from this legislation, Citizens Advice will be able to provide consumer advocacy. There is no resource attached to supporting Citizens Advice to do that, although Citizens Advice has said that it is under the biggest pressure it has experienced in its 80-year history. It simply does not have the capacity to take on an additional task that the Government say it can and will do without resourcing any impact assessment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

I can confirm that the letter went out yesterday morning.

[Neil Coyle]

Maybe it is still in the internal post. I thank the Minister for the letter; it would be nice to know what it says. The point is that the Bill does not make clear how customers will secure redress. It presents a convoluted route of multiple agencies and potential court action that people simply will not want to take.

My amendment does not go as far as some have suggested. It is a moderate suggestion. There have been suggestions that there is full and shared liability for platforms for any product sold and that some of the measures should be retrospectively implemented so that there should be penalties on those who have sold goods that they know to be counterfeit or dangerous going back for years. I hope that amendment 121 in particular, but also other amendments in this group, are useful to the Government in delivering their aims and defending customers and businesses.

The wording of amendment 124 is crucial; I hope that the Minister will come back to this when he responds to the debate. It would “require the removal”. It is not a request to remove a product; it is a requirement to remove a product. It could be put in the hands of all the bodies in clause 143, with penalties and timely action to prevent a fatality if this is not done quickly enough. The use of the word “require” is deliberate, because the power to request is in other legislation. For example, the police can request the removal of video footage from YouTube that is incitement to violence or hatred, is homophobic or is incitement to violence between gangs. One meeting I had with the Met revealed that more than 300 requests to take down videos had been ignored by YouTube. They included calling for revenge and the murder of specific individuals in revenge attacks between gangs in London. The police should have a stronger power than that, but as with this legislation, the power to request that something is removed is insufficient; it must be the power to compel the removal, similar to—for those familiar with local authority powers—a cease and desist order by a planning body. That would be a comparable power if the Government are keen to have something stronger than that offered in the current legislation.

I hope that amendment 124 helps British businesses, jobs, standards and customers and helps the Government —that is why I am here today. Ministers claim that they want to make the UK the “safest” place in the world to be online, and here are the means to deliver that laudable aim.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Third sitting)

Paul Scully Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q I have a question to you, Mark, from Match Group. A lot of your products and offerings were traditionally on desktop providers, rather than apps. How can we ensure that the Bill is adequately future-proofed to ensure that that does not happen and it will not hinder businesses like yours?

Mark Buse: We believe the Bill has the flexibility to be future-proofed. When we look at how our users access our services, it is almost exclusively via an app. Desktop has no role. You can use our products, such as Tinder, cheaper if you go to the website and download it, but nobody does. The user behaviour is that they all use apps. Our fastest growing brand in the UK is called Hinge; Hinge does not even have a website. It was not worth the time or money to build one, because nobody uses it.

When I say nobody, I mean that less than 1% of Tinder’s users go to the website. That is also partially because Apple and Google have restrictions that they impose on us contractually. They do not allow us to tell our users that they can subscribe cheaper if they go to the website. In an ideal world—we think the Bill will go a long way in creating an open market—somebody who wants to subscribe to our product will have those options right there in front of them. They will be able to subscribe using our service, PayPal, or whatever else is available, and get it cheaper.

Apple, Google or big tech say, “This is all a myth. You are not going to have cheaper products”. Match has stated emphatically and publicly that we will drop our prices if we do not have to pay an artificially imposed 30%, which is what occurs today. We will drop our prices. We have also pledged that we will put more money into research and development, the hiring of employees and online safety, which we believe is crucial. By the way, the monopoly power that both Apple and Google exert over the store hinders online safety. That also has a negative pejorative impact on consumers today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

Q Thank you for those really powerful testimonies. Before I come to Tom, could I ask you, Mark, to elaborate on the online safety that you just talked about?

Mark Buse: Sure. There are a couple of issues when we look at safety. One is keeping bad actors off our platforms—for example, entities or individuals who intend to do harm. Another is under-age users; they do not intend any harm, but our platform is limited to 18 and over only. We do not allow people under the age of 18. We do not want them there and our users do not want them there. In both cases, we have a limited pot of data to try to assess whether somebody is a bad actor or under age. There is a lot of data that exists that could inform us about that. I am going to use this little device—my phone—when I fly home on Saturday as my boarding pass. I am going to pay my bills on it. I am incentivised to put truthful information into my phone, which is the most powerful computer that most people own. I use it for a multitude of services.

For us, 98% of our revenue is from subscriptions; ads have virtually no impact. When you look at our companies, when somebody subscribes to Tinder, we do not know who they are, because they do not actually have a subscription with us. That also has a pejorative consumer impact. Consumers cancel their subscriptions for perfectly good reasons, such as, “I have a three-month Tinder subscription and I met the love of my life. Neither of us want me on Tinder any more, so I am cancelling my subscription”.

As the consumer, I go to Tinder and say, “I have a Tinder subscription that I want to cancel. Tinder, cancel it”. We have to inform them, “You don’t actually have a subscription with us. You have a subscription with Apple or Google”, who artificially put themselves in the middle of this situation because they can—because they have a monopoly and they can demand and force it. As a result, they know who I am. They have my credit card and real address—all those identifiers that we could use at Match to keep a bad actor off our platform.

This Bill would change all that dynamic. The positive impacts, as I say, go much further than just increased competition; they go directly to lower prices and increased online safety.

[Paul Scully]

Q Thank you for that. These two panels are getting right to the heart of the Bill. Obviously, Kelkoo had financial damage that held it under water some time ago. Match is obviously a successful company. You started to talk about data. Tom, this comes to you and Gener8. I have spoken to all three of you over the past few months and heard your stories. Gener8 is a relatively new company going great guns, and data is at the heart of your business plan. Could you tell us your story and where the risks are to Gener8?

Tom Fish: Absolutely. Before I dive in at the deep end, it is worth recognising that these big tech companies play an essential stewardship role within their ecosystems, but the flipside of that is they are operating as the de facto regulator for millions of businesses up and down the country in a whole range of important public policy areas, including advertising standards, consumer protection and data protection. One thing we know is that the commercial incentives of these companies are not perfectly aligned with the optimal outcomes that we would hope to see in those areas, regardless of how hard they say they are trying. In many cases, they are operating as the rule maker, the referee and the player in that game. As a result, there are, of course, conflicts of interest. It is undeniable that some degree of growing oversight and scrutiny will be needed if participants like us in those markets are to believe that there is a level playing field and that they will get a fair crack of the whip.

When it comes to the challenges that Gener8 is facing, we struggle with unpredictable and opaque review processes. We miss out on a potential revenue stream for our browser as a consequence of Google’s dominance in search. We lose users of our browser in Windows because Microsoft disrespects our users’ choices. We suffer from surprisingly confusing and random rejections of our ad campaigns by Meta, which makes planning our user growth and acquisition strategy impossible. We observe insurmountable barriers to entry in the mobile browser market, leading to us putting development of that product on ice. When it comes to data and your question, we face unnecessary friction at every turn as we try to access our users’ data on their behalf and earn money on it for them.

Collectively, these issues cause real harm to our business—they have consequences. We face increased costs and we divert resources away from product development to fight these fires. Missing out on revenue means our users missing out on gift cards and charity donations. It makes us a less attractive investment proposition. We have a drag placed on our ability to attract and then retain new users. Most alarmingly, in my opinion, is the way I have been witnessing it filtering through into internal discussions and thinking about what we should invest in and which innovations we should bring forward to market. From our perspective, the Bills urgently need to establish this regime and address these issues.

[Paul Scully]

Q Obviously, the risk of harm is predominately due to what your business is. Could you say a bit about Gener8 to bring it to life for people who have not heard of it and about what you are trying to do on freeing up people’s data?

Tom Fish: Gener8 is a personal information management service. Essentially what we do is we enable our users to access their data from third-party services, bring it into the app and visualise it. If they want to, they can choose to earn from it, and we then put that data to work for them, just like a bank does with people’s monthly income. The crux of this issue is we need to be able to act as an agent for our users and to access that data. Unless that is possible in a streamlined, efficient way, users quickly get turned off. What we need is really for the companies that are hoovering up all this data to enable the data owners—the consumers—to be able to access it, and then ultimately share in its value.

[Paul Scully]

Q It is essentially the premise that if something is free, it is because you are giving away your data. You are actually saying either you can go private, or you can actually be rewarded and paid for the data that those companies you are giving the data to would otherwise be commercialising themselves.

Tom Fish: That is right. I think the excess profits of these companies, year after year, is an illustration that consumers are not necessarily getting a fair deal, even though it might look like it.

[Paul Scully]

Q Finally, when the founder, Sam, founded it, he was working for Red Bull. When he first pitched and created the business, it was because of what he was seeing coming back about the value of data.

Tom Fish: Exactly. He was being pitched to on the basis of these companies having astronomical levels of granularity and detail about what people are up to online. That is filtering through in the advertising market to vast profits. He had the idea that people should be able to take a share of that value themselves.

[Paul Scully]

Q So when we are looking at that commercial strata, individual consumers will ultimately be harmed if we do not act.

Tom Fish: That is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister Scully, do you want to come in on any of the points that have been made?

[Paul Scully]

Q There was a brief point that someone raised—I think it was you, Tom, when you talked about the fact that you guys have put your heads above the parapet and come in front of us. Can you talk to us about why some other companies that you have spoken to would not want to put their heads above the parapet, and so it is you guys at the forefront?

Tom Fish: I certainly am aware that other companies I have spoken to are reluctant to speak out publicly about the issues they face and the concerns they have. They are concerned about the risk that they might be penalised in the search engine, the app store or the marketplace. I will not name them, naturally, but those concerns are real. From my perspective, there is no choice. Unless this Bill is introduced, and the regime comes through and starts to address these issues, we will not be able to reach out for potential and the markets that we want to operate in will not be open and accessible. From our perspective, there is really no choice but to take this step.

[Paul Scully]

Q Because of the ongoing relationship with those companies.

Tom Fish: Exactly.

Richard Stables: I could give a bit of colour to that. When we started being hit by Google, we thought that it was just us. Eventually we realised that the whole market was suffering. We started talking to the commission. We were absolutely paranoid. We said, “Don’t tell Google because we think we might get the traffic back. If they know that we’re talking to you, that’s going to hurt us.” Eventually, they hurt us so much that it did not matter. I have spoken to so many firms—big firms as well as small firms—that have turned around and said, “We’re really glad about what you’re doing. I can’t come out and say this.” The power that these companies have is phenomenal. Companies can literally be put out of business overnight if one of these companies decides that that is what is going to happen.

Mark Buse: They believe in retribution. When we tried to offer Korean citizens in Korea a discounted price, Apple, instead of rejecting our app build, put every app build on hold. If you are not familiar with the concept of a build, it is where you update and change your app. You always get messages on your phone saying, “You need to update.” For 35 days, Apple froze every app build for every brand that we have that operates anywhere around the globe. We were unable to bring new products out, but more importantly we had bug fixes in all those builds. We have white-hat hackers: people we pay to show us what is wrong. We learned bug fixes internally. There were people who could not use the product right.

All those bug fixes sat on hold, so for UK citizens using our products, with no connection to Korea, those fixes did not take place for 35 days because Apple refused to let us move any builds. When we withdrew the build that would have given us the right to use alternative payment authorities, Apple then approved everything within 72 hours.

Tom Fish: On that point, it is important not always to get drawn into a polarised debate on these issues. It is not necessarily black and white—that big tech is good or evil. You can be a supporter of the Bill and the new regime without wanting to break up big tech. All that I am really asking for is a bit more scrutiny, oversight and transparency where obvious conflicts of interest exist.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Briefly, you were saying that the app subscriptions that you might have will be through Apple, so the relationship is between the customer and Apple. We will look at the issue of subscription traps as the Bill progresses. Will the renewal relationship be between you and the customer or Apple and the customer? How will that end up working?

Mark Buse: We believe that the relationship should be between us and the customer—that Apple should not intermediate between us and the customer. Then we will, rightly, have the responsibility to ensure that there are not subscription traps or any other issues around subscription. At this point, generally what happens is that we are still blamed but the subscription is actually with Apple. We do not think that in an ideal world it should necessarily be just us. If some of our users want to subscribe via Apple, we are more than happy to let them use our service and continue to subscribe through Apple. If they believe that that is a safer, more private way to do it, great. We want to bring as many people as possible into our business. It is not about excluding; it is about different ways to include.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (First sitting)

Paul Scully Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

Q The Government have not taken forward the recommendations from the CMA on tackling consumer detriment in the secondary ticketing market. Do you think that that was a mistake and that that should be in the Bill? Finally, huge new powers are going to the CMA. Do you think that the accountability mechanisms have the right balance? That will be a concern for Parliament. Mr Lusty and Mr Hayter might want to come in.

Sarah Cardell: If I quickly take accountability, George might come in on secondary tickets. Accountability is key. The Bill gives us greater responsibility and power, and with that must come greater accountability. That comes in a number of forms. Parliamentary accountability is critical. We are accountable to Parliament. We do that already through a number of appearances and engagement with Committees, but I am sure that there is more that we could do in the design of that, and we are very keen to work with colleagues in Government and across Parliament to ensure that that happens. Accountability for our decisions through the courts is another important element, and accountability to stakeholders, going back to the previous point, is key as well.

George Lusty: On secondary tickets, the CMA has taken a lot of action in this area. It has taken Viagogo to court. We found ourselves up against some of the inherent weaknesses in the existing consumer protection toolkit when we did that. We effectively had to initiate an attempt to start contempt of court proceedings to get Viagogo to comply with the court order that we had secured. We think that many of the changes in the Bill will address those weaknesses directly by giving us civil fining powers for the first time. We set out specific recommendations back in August 2021 about other things that we think could be done, but ultimately it is a matter for the Government to decide what they want to include in the legislation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

Q How will the enforcement powers accelerate your enforcement action in particular? Remediation needs to come quickly in digital markets, especially with the appeals process, which has been a topic of conversation. Why do you believe that judicial review is sufficient to give proportionatality for people to push back and for keeping the speed up?

Sarah Cardell: On digital markets, the design works very well, because you have an engaged approach where we will work with businesses to secure compliance with the conduct requirements. We hope that that will be a constructive engagement, and that much of that compliance will be achieved without any enforcement activity. That is the aspiration and the goal. Of course it is important to have enforcement as an effective backstop and that that enforcement happens rapidly for the reasons that you stated. The Bill envisages a six-month time limit for enforcement, which is important so that everybody knows that that timing is ringfenced.

On appeals, let me take a minute to talk through the JR standard and why I think that it is effective, because there has been a lot of debate about that. It is critical that the CMA faces effective judicial scrutiny for our work. That should go on the record. We think that the JR standard achieves that. The JR standard applies to much of our work already, including our merger control and market investigations. It applies to a number of regulators for their regulatory work already, so there is an established approach for JR.

What JR is not, certainly in our experience, is a very light-touch procedural review. It looks at process questions, but it also looks fundamentally at whether we have applied the right analytical approach, the kind of evidence that we have reviewed, how we have weighed that evidence, and the rationality—the reasonableness—of our decision making. Take the example of the Competition Appeal Tribunal review of our merger decision, which was a review of the acquisition by Meta of Giphy. We had 100-plus pages in that judgment, with 50-plus pages looking at our analytic framework, how we looked at the effect on competition, the kind of evidence that we took into account and whether we weighed it effectively. It was a very detailed critique of our assessment.

What JR does not do is start a full merits from first instance court process. It does not say, “Back to the drawing board—we are going to set the CMA’s decision to one side and then conduct the process all over again.” That is much more similar to the full merits review that we have at the moment on Competition Act 1998 cases. Our experience there is that it results in very protracted litigation—we often have cases that are in court for five or six weeks. But, fundamentally, it also changes the incentives to the parties that we are engaging with, because all eyes are on that litigation process. That means that, in our process and our own investigations, it is a lot harder to reach constructive, collaborative outcomes, because every point that we are investigating is thrown into an adversarial contest. It means that we have to turn every stone, check every piece of evidence and make sure that every point is covered, which means that our investigations themselves are more protracted and the litigation is much longer.

The benefit of judicial review in this process is that it provides absolutely robust and effective scrutiny, but it also supports an environment that is aligned with the aspirations of the Bill more broadly—to encourage engagement early on and to encourage constructive, collaborative outcomes. Then, of course, parties absolutely have the right to challenge and appeal our decisions and, where they do so, that is resolved effectively through a JR process.

[Paul Scully]

Q So you believe this is the right balance between being robust enough for those with strategic market status and being speedy enough for remediation for challenger tech.

Sarah Cardell: Absolutely.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. We have talked a lot this morning about accountability to Parliament. That was highlighted quite heavily on Second Reading by Members from across the House. One of the other things that we have already discussed is the need for the CMA’s strategic priorities to be directed and advised by Parliament. Could you expand on your thoughts on that point? Also, where do you see the priorities for the Digital Markets Bill? That is not intended to be a loaded question.

Sarah Cardell: I will give a high-level response, and Will might come in on some of the specific priorities for the DMU. It is really important to highlight the difference between accountability and independence. The CMA is independent when we take our individual decisions, but, as you say, it is absolutely accountable for those decisions, both to Parliament and to the courts. That is accountability for the choices that we make about where we set our priorities, accountability for the decisions that we take when we are exercising our functions, and accountability for the way that we go about doing that work. I think it is important to have accountability across all three areas.

On the strategic priorities, since I came into the role as chief executive and our new chair, Marcus Bokkerink, came into post, we have put a lot of focus on really setting out very clearly what our strategic priorities are, looking at impact and beneficial outcomes for people, businesses and the economy as a whole. We see those as a trio of objectives that are fundamentally reinforcing, rather than in tension with one another.

We also take account of the Government’s strategic steer. That is in draft at the moment. You can see that there is a lot of commonality between our own strategic priorities that we set out in our annual plan and in the Government’s strategic steer. That sets a very clear framework for our prioritisation.

Will might want to come in on how we will set the priorities for the DMU.

Will Hayter: We are obviously thinking very carefully about where to prioritise action under the strategic market status regime. We cannot jump too far ahead with that, because Parliament is going through this process now and we have to see where the Bill comes out, but, as Sarah says, we will be targeting our effort very firmly at those areas where the biggest problems and the biggest current harmful impacts on people, businesses and the economy are likely to be.

You can get a bit of a sense of what those areas might be from the areas we have looked at already, particularly the digital advertising market, search, social media, interactions between the platforms and news publishers, and also mobile ecosystems. We did a big study there, where we see a range of problems stemming from the market power of the two big operating systems.

We will continue to update our thinking as we go through the next year-plus, building on our horizon-scanning work and understanding of how developments in the markets are shaping up and what that might mean for where the problems are.