CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

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.

End of Eviction Moratorium

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I understand from my discussions with the National Residential Landlords Association that about 89% of tenants are paying their full rent; about 4% of tenants have agreed either rent holidays or rent reductions with their landlords; and about 7% are in arrears. My hon. Friend is right to point out that smaller landlords rely on their rents, which is why we have made it plain, through our introduction of the SI on 29 August, that where there are egregious rents, landlords should be able to move quickly to repossess their properties and rent them out again. If they do not, the likelihood is that the number of properties available to rent will fall away as landlords leave the sector. As I said, 21% of homes are in the private rented sector; it is an important part of our economy and we will support it.

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

Newcastle citizens advice bureau reports a massive jump in housing queries, and no wonder—for most people, after their family’s health and wellbeing, their home is what is most important to them, and the two are often related because, as we know, covid-19 feeds off bad housing, overcrowding and the respiratory conditions associated with that. The Minister is giving a lot of general reassurances, but can he say to me specifically that no one in Newcastle will face eviction, court action or bailiff action as a consequence of arrears due to covid-19?

Draft Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Extension of Time Limits for Legal Proceedings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 General Committees

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

I start by offering my unequivocal support to the Minister in welcoming the opportunity to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq; it is a real pleasure. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope the debate will be conducted with the same level of mutual support, although I am not sure about that.

Over 40 years of membership of the European Union, the UK has shared responsibility to protect the UK’s consumer rights with EU member states. An extensive body of law has grown up, with more than 90 European directives applying across the single market. The reciprocal rights enshrined in those directives enable UK consumers to seek redress for any poor service they receive anywhere in the EU. Indeed, the UK played a central role in negotiating many of those directives alongside the European Commission, including the alternative dispute resolution directive to which today’s regulations refer.

The ADR directive has made a valuable contribution to consumer confidence across the EU single market by reducing impediments to, and improving cross- border engagement with ADR organisations. The directive has helped UK consumers to avoid some of the more challenging issues about jurisdiction and applicable laws related to ADR that often arose before the directive came into play. That has saved UK citizens and businesses many hours of complex and costly court proceedings. In particular, the time extension provisions—the subject of today’s statutory instrument—have ensured that UK and EU consumers can enter into ADR processes in good faith, without fear of strict time limits to bring a case to court elapsing in the meantime.

We can therefore see that much of the EU’s consumer protection laws and UK national laws are interwoven in a complex and interconnected way. That harmonisation between our domestic and European law has provided us with the comprehensive protection UK consumers need to purchase goods and services with confidence, which has in turn bolstered trade across the single market, including here in the UK. While the Government’s withdrawal Act attempts to mirror in UK law the individual consumer rights that operate within the EU, it cannot guarantee the protection of UK consumers’ rights when they visit the EU27 after the transition period, nor can the UK Government assure UK consumers of continued access to the shared network of agencies, mechanisms and infrastructure that polices, secures, develops and underpins consumer confidence across the EU single market.

In short, the harmonised reciprocity of consumer protections we have enjoyed as members of the EU will come to an abrupt end once we leave the transition period, yet the Government are not clear about what comes next. We know that talks with the EU have been stalling, and as we move closer to the end of the transition period, it looks increasingly unlikely that the Government will be able to negotiate a post-Brexit relationship that continues to protect consumers’ rights for UK residents in the same way. That added uncertainty comes on top of the business interruption and drop in consumer confidence that we have seen as a result of covid-19.

Labour is concerned that without reciprocal obligations to investigate breaches of consumer law and progress with necessary enforcement actions between the UK and the EU, the Government will leave UK consumers unable to seek redress from EU-based traders in UK courts when things go wrong. There is every chance that divergence between UK and EU consumer law will become even more pronounced over time without proper oversight from the Government, which would have a significant impact on consumers and businesses and burden cross-border transactions and recourse processes with unnecessary red tape.

With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and an economy hit by covid-19, Labour calls on the Government to take a more proactive approach to protecting UK consumers by agreeing mutual recognition rules, underpinned by a standard equivalence principle, as a matter of urgency. The Government may say that they want high regulatory standards and robust domestic market surveillance after the transition period, but they have slashed funding to frontline trading standards services by more than 50% in just over seven years. That has led to potentially dangerous counterfeit cigarettes and unsafe toys and electrical products entering our homes. The UK’s largest market surveillance authority and regulatory service, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, recently said:

“Much has been made of maintaining the UK’s post-Brexit standards of regulation, but rules without resources for application, advice and enforcement are rendered ineffective and detrimental to the UK economy.”

The regulations remove all reference to the ADR directive from four pieces of EU-derived legislation. Of course, Labour accepts that it is a broadly technical instrument designed to ensure that EU law does not apply after the transition period has come to an end, but it excludes two key groups of people from the ADR-related time-limited extension: first, EU-based consumers buying goods and services in the UK and, secondly, UK-based consumers buying goods and services in the EU. It will ultimately mean that UK consumers are protected by the time-limited extensions only when working through ADR organisations. Will the Government seek to address that and ensure that all consumers are protected in the UK?

The Government estimate that the changes will affect about 131 ADR cases per year that are five years old or older, but it is not clear how those figures have been arrived at or what the total value of those cases might be. Can the Minister take this opportunity to show how the figures have been calculated? Can he outline clearly the Government’s plans to protect UK consumers when making purchases of goods and services in the EU, and vice versa, if the statutory instrument comes into force?

Labour has noted, and is grateful for, the European Statutory Instruments Committee’s intervention on the grounds that the diminution of rights to the time limit that the Government are proposing is significant, alongside the fact that the legislation being amended is mostly primary legislation. That Committee deemed it appropriate to upgrade the instrument to an affirmative resolution, and a debate will take place in Parliament after the recess.

Labour has always strongly supported giving consumers and businesses every opportunity they need to reach mutually beneficial dispute settlements. Mediation and conciliatory processes supported by third-party ADR organisations are informal, flexible, low-cost and user-friendly compared with court proceedings. The Government must make sure that UK consumers and businesses have an equally straightforward route to ADR and that any such access comes with similar provisions to ensure that parties are not caught out by time limits when entering into them in good faith.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I entirely endorse the point my hon. Friend is making, particularly with regard to pension schemes, because we have seen the tragedy of where this has gone wrong, such as the Allied Steel and Wire pensions scandal in my constituency, which is still affecting people today, years afterwards. Does she agree that we need to take some of the lessons from this process into protections for pension schemes and pensioners, who are expecting, having paid in, that they will get out in due course?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely constructive and to-the-point intervention. We absolutely need to learn from this process, and we also need to ensure that not only the mistakes but the injustices of the past are not repeated, particularly now, when the economy and so many workers and pensioners are so vulnerable.

First, I hope that Ministers will learn from the experience of passing this legislation in such a hurried manner, with a mixture of permanent and temporary measures. While we understand the need for speed with this Bill, it is clear that there have been problems in combining temporary changes with permanent reforms that have been a long time coming and the lack of time for proper scrutiny. That point has been strongly voiced in the other place, and we hope that Ministers will bear this in mind when introducing complex permanent changes along with temporary measures.

Secondly, the ranking of priority debts in insolvency cases has not been changed in a number of years and concerns have been raised that this is out of date. There is no mention of FinTech or some of the new complex ways in which firms finance themselves. If further insolvency changes are planned by Ministers, they must be relevant to where the world is now.

Thirdly, the interaction between pension funds and insolvencies is very complicated, particularly around defined pension schemes. That needs to be looked at afresh. Fourthly, the lack of mention of employees in the whole Bill is a complete oversight, which is why we argued for greater recognition of, and voice for, employees during the passage of the Bill. Any further changes to insolvency and corporate governance legislation must consider how workers can be better included. Finally, there are clearly issues, as the Minister has raised, around pre-pack. They will need to be resolved.

We are pleased that we have been able to work so constructively with the Government to pass this important legislation to support business through this crisis. We are grateful for the listening ear of Ministers. We hope that this legislation will save businesses threatened with becoming insolvent through this crisis. We will keep a close eye on how the measures are implemented, and we hope Ministers will do the same.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and in particular to my roles as a director of companies.

Like the Opposition, I welcome the changes that the Government are accepting in the Bill today. I have listened to a couple of interventions from the Opposition Benches, with their strong support for Government measures to support the economy, and that is emblematic of how successful they have been. However, I would just gently warn my hon. Friend the Minister that we have made great progress so far, but there are issues, as we emerge, about how those programmes are helping certain people, while other people are not receiving that support. We need to get the economy going back to normal business principles as quickly as possible, not seek to extend Government intervention unnecessarily or for too long.

This Bill is a very timely Bill and it is a good Bill. As the shadow Minister said, there is a mixture of short and long-term issues here, but getting this on the books is really rather important for the market. May I ask the Minister, building on some other comments about the changes in the role of the Pensions Regulator and the PPF, whether he sees this as part of a longer-term view of the Government about the role of pensions regulators in insolvency, and whether this is an indication of something that may outlast and be outwith any short-term changes? I would be interested in his perspectives on that.

I am not sure if the Bill continues to relate to the primacy of HMRC as a creditor in insolvencies, but I would be interested if the Minister has any observations on that. I know that, for many businesses when they are trying to seek resolution in insolvency, HMRC can prove to be one of the most difficult creditors to deal with—and that is putting it perhaps a little lightly. So do the Government have the intention of providing, or does the Treasury have any intention of providing, any guidance on how HMRC may be treating its obligations during this particular period? For many companies, that would be a welcome piece of information as they go through what may otherwise be very difficult periods.

May I ask the Minister about the extension to 30 September? That seems to be a very sensible change, but may I ask him about what happens in the event that there is a repeat lockdown that is a national lockdown? He has talked a bit about an affirmative decision here. That, it seems to me, is perhaps a bit more focused than that. Perhaps more tellingly, what happens in the instance where there is a localised lockdown in a particular county or a particular region that affects businesses there and they go insolvent? What happens to those particular businesses? I would be interested to see if the Minister has some thoughts on that.

My final observation, Mr Deputy Speaker—and you, with your great experience, may know this too—is that frequently measures that come into this House that are seen as short-term measures have a habit of sticking around on the statute book. So could I have, on the sunny-side view of the recovery of the economy, an absolute assurance from the Government that it is their intention, as these things sit, as the economy recovers, that they will implement the sunset clause, and they will come forward so that we can enable businesses to go back to the longer-term framework, some of which is in this Bill, for managing corporate insolvency?

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

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.

Draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of @0082Metre@0083 and @0082Kilogram@0083) (Amendment) Order 2020

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to take part in this debate. Our country has a proud scientific tradition, from Isaac Newton to Stephen Hawking, and from Ada Lovelace to Rosalind Franklin. Today we have Lesley Yellowlees, Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Newcastle-born Peter Higgs, who discovered the Higgs boson. Britain’s scientific giants have bestrode the world, and our science sector continues to lead the world, powering our economy in the process. Isaac Newton famously discovered gravity and, with Cavendish, identified the gravitational constant. He was one of the first fellows of the Royal Society and, like the Royal Society, I welcome these measures to redefine important constants —I say redefine, but in reality it is clarifying the definition in scientific terms.

Social distancing measures—and, at this very moment, parliamentary voting procedures—have ensured that the entire country is now expert in measuring 2-metre distances. I am pleased to note that this amendment will not send millions of us back out with our rulers to recalculate what we were once certain of. In fact, the amendment embeds scientific certainty and is a welcome example of following the science.

As shadow Science Minister, I am pleased to welcome this. Many may ask why or how these measurements are changing. The Minister said something on the subject. In the past, measurements were determined by physical standards, for example a foot or a finger’s width—body parts were a common method of measurements. As physical science developed, so did our measurements system.

As the Minister said, the latest definition of a kilogram goes by a piece of metal stored in a Parisian vault, Le Grand K. The problem is that if Le Grand K remains the fixed definition of a kilogram, damage to the cylinder in Paris would have knock-on effects on the value of a kilogram across the world. I do not want to be the one explaining that to wholesalers in my constituency when our markets are just re-opening.

Economics had the gold standard, and weights and measures had a physical standard. The new definition is based on a set of seven defining constants drawn from the fundamental constants of physics and other constants of nature. The kilogram is the last remaining measurement based on a physical standard. As the Minister outlined, scientific experts have spent decades researching and testing measurements. That research eventually led to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures adopting seven new base measurements in 2018. The new measurements were approved to come into effect a year ago. In the EU withdrawal agreement, the UK signed up to following EU member states in adopting the measures in 10 days’ time.

The statutory instrument is important because it will update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with the new definitions for metre and kilogram, as approved by the IBWM, which consists of 102 countries. A kilogram will now be defined based on the most precise measurement ever, the Planck constant, which scientists have spent decades measuring to 10 parts per billion. The Planck constant can be expressed in terms of the SI units kilogram, metre and second.

Since metre and second are already defined by constants of nature, the value of a kilogram can be obtained without relying on comparisons with a metal block. A metre is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to be 299,792,458 when expressed in the unit metres per second. It is very technical but accurate and rooted in scientific certainty.

The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, a world-leading metrology institute, played a key part in the redefinition of the kilogram. The changes ensure that units of measurement definitions are scientifically robust and globally accessible. I have spoken with the Royal Society, which in 2011 held an international meeting calling for change to the definition of the kilogram. It welcomes the news and applauds the contribution made by UK science.

If anyone is worried about what this draft order means for their lives, it is important to note that, as the Minister said, it will have no direct impact on businesses or consumers. The changes ensure uniformity across the world. Despite the changes, a kilogram will still have the same mass and a metre will still be the same length, so socially distanced outdoor exercise regimes can continue as successfully as they have been.

This is a useful technical instrument, but I have a couple of questions. The order’s explanatory memorandum states:

“It partly implements Commission Directive 2019/1258”.

If that is the case, what parts of the Commission directive are not being implemented, and why? Can the Minister reassure us that the UK will continue to reflect the European Union’s metrological definitions after the transition period? That is an important point for our scientists.

As the Minister outlined, part of the redefinition took place in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019. Having looked at those regulations, I am not clear why we are doing it in two separate instruments, or whether there will be any issues in their interaction in practice.

Overall, the measure is a positive move that I and the stakeholders in the scientific community I have spoken to welcome. I hope that it reflects the Government’s commitment to embracing internationally recognised standards and aligning with our European neighbours, rather than moving away from them. Scientific evidence and certainty are key to the UK overcoming coronavirus and building a post-Brexit future, but so is collaboration.

I am glad that we are committed to abiding by European Union regulations as set out in the withdrawal agreement, as will be the case on 13 June when we adopt the new definitions of metre and kilogram, as that will necessarily support ongoing collaboration. It is a shame that this could not have been done a few weeks earlier, on World Metrology Day, but I will not hold the Minister responsible for that.

The draft order will make UK legislation consistent and up to date, reflecting the new scientific definitions that underpin the legal and scientific metrology framework around the world, and Opposition Members are happy to support it.

Draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of 'Metre' and 'Kilogram') (Amendment) Order 2020

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to take part in this debate. Our country has a proud scientific tradition, from Isaac Newton to Stephen Hawking, and from Ada Lovelace to Rosalind Franklin. Today we have Lesley Yellowlees, Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Newcastle-born Peter Higgs, who discovered the Higgs boson. Britain’s scientific giants have bestrode the world, and our science sector continues to lead the world, powering our economy in the process. Isaac Newton famously discovered gravity and, with Cavendish, identified the gravitational constant. He was one of the first fellows of the Royal Society and, like the Royal Society, I welcome these measures to redefine important constants —I say redefine, but in reality it is clarifying the definition in scientific terms.

Social distancing measures—and, at this very moment, parliamentary voting procedures—have ensured that the entire country is now expert in measuring 2-metre distances. I am pleased to note that this amendment will not send millions of us back out with our rulers to recalculate what we were once certain of. In fact, the amendment embeds scientific certainty and is a welcome example of following the science.

As shadow Science Minister, I am pleased to welcome this. Many may ask why or how these measurements are changing. The Minister said something on the subject. In the past, measurements were determined by physical standards, for example a foot or a finger’s width—body parts were a common method of measurements. As physical science developed, so did our measurements system.

As the Minister said, the latest definition of a kilogram goes by a piece of metal stored in a Parisian vault, Le Grand K. The problem is that if Le Grand K remains the fixed definition of a kilogram, damage to the cylinder in Paris would have knock-on effects on the value of a kilogram across the world. I do not want to be the one explaining that to wholesalers in my constituency when our markets are just re-opening.

Economics had the gold standard, and weights and measures had a physical standard. The new definition is based on a set of seven defining constants drawn from the fundamental constants of physics and other constants of nature. The kilogram is the last remaining measurement based on a physical standard. As the Minister outlined, scientific experts have spent decades researching and testing measurements. That research eventually led to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures adopting seven new base measurements in 2018. The new measurements were approved to come into effect a year ago. In the EU withdrawal agreement, the UK signed up to following EU member states in adopting the measures in 10 days’ time.

The statutory instrument is important because it will update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with the new definitions for metre and kilogram, as approved by the IBWM, which consists of 102 countries. A kilogram will now be defined based on the most precise measurement ever, the Planck constant, which scientists have spent decades measuring to 10 parts per billion. The Planck constant can be expressed in terms of the SI units kilogram, metre and second.

Since metre and second are already defined by constants of nature, the value of a kilogram can be obtained without relying on comparisons with a metal block. A metre is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to be 299,792,458 when expressed in the unit metres per second. It is very technical but accurate and rooted in scientific certainty.

The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, a world-leading metrology institute, played a key part in the redefinition of the kilogram. The changes ensure that units of measurement definitions are scientifically robust and globally accessible. I have spoken with the Royal Society, which in 2011 held an international meeting calling for change to the definition of the kilogram. It welcomes the news and applauds the contribution made by UK science.

If anyone is worried about what this draft order means for their lives, it is important to note that, as the Minister said, it will have no direct impact on businesses or consumers. The changes ensure uniformity across the world. Despite the changes, a kilogram will still have the same mass and a metre will still be the same length, so socially distanced outdoor exercise regimes can continue as successfully as they have been.

This is a useful technical instrument, but I have a couple of questions. The order’s explanatory memorandum states:

“It partly implements Commission Directive 2019/1258”.

If that is the case, what parts of the Commission directive are not being implemented, and why? Can the Minister reassure us that the UK will continue to reflect the European Union’s metrological definitions after the transition period? That is an important point for our scientists.

As the Minister outlined, part of the redefinition took place in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019. Having looked at those regulations, I am not clear why we are doing it in two separate instruments, or whether there will be any issues in their interaction in practice.

Overall, the measure is a positive move that I and the stakeholders in the scientific community I have spoken to welcome. I hope that it reflects the Government’s commitment to embracing internationally recognised standards and aligning with our European neighbours, rather than moving away from them. Scientific evidence and certainty are key to the UK overcoming coronavirus and building a post-Brexit future, but so is collaboration.

I am glad that we are committed to abiding by European Union regulations as set out in the withdrawal agreement, as will be the case on 13 June when we adopt the new definitions of metre and kilogram, as that will necessarily support ongoing collaboration. It is a shame that this could not have been done a few weeks earlier, on World Metrology Day, but I will not hold the Minister responsible for that.

The draft order will make UK legislation consistent and up to date, reflecting the new scientific definitions that underpin the legal and scientific metrology framework around the world, and Opposition Members are happy to support it.

Draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to take part in this debate. Our country has a proud scientific tradition, from Isaac Newton to Stephen Hawking, and from Ada Lovelace to Rosalind Franklin. Today we have Lesley Yellowlees, Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Newcastle-born Peter Higgs, who discovered the Higgs boson. Britain’s scientific giants have bestrode the world, and our science sector continues to lead the world, powering our economy in the process. Isaac Newton famously discovered gravity and, with Cavendish, identified the gravitational constant. He was one of the first fellows of the Royal Society and, like the Royal Society, I welcome these measures to redefine important constants —I say redefine, but in reality it is clarifying the definition in scientific terms.

Social distancing measures—and, at this very moment, parliamentary voting procedures—have ensured that the entire country is now expert in measuring 2-metre distances. I am pleased to note that this amendment will not send millions of us back out with our rulers to recalculate what we were once certain of. In fact, the amendment embeds scientific certainty and is a welcome example of following the science.

As shadow Science Minister, I am pleased to welcome this. Many may ask why or how these measurements are changing. The Minister said something on the subject. In the past, measurements were determined by physical standards, for example a foot or a finger’s width—body parts were a common method of measurements. As physical science developed, so did our measurements system.

As the Minister said, the latest definition of a kilogram goes by a piece of metal stored in a Parisian vault, Le Grand K. The problem is that if Le Grand K remains the fixed definition of a kilogram, damage to the cylinder in Paris would have knock-on effects on the value of a kilogram across the world. I do not want to be the one explaining that to wholesalers in my constituency when our markets are just re-opening.

Economics had the gold standard, and weights and measures had a physical standard. The new definition is based on a set of seven defining constants drawn from the fundamental constants of physics and other constants of nature. The kilogram is the last remaining measurement based on a physical standard. As the Minister outlined, scientific experts have spent decades researching and testing measurements. That research eventually led to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures adopting seven new base measurements in 2018. The new measurements were approved to come into effect a year ago. In the EU withdrawal agreement, the UK signed up to following EU member states in adopting the measures in 10 days’ time.

The statutory instrument is important because it will update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with the new definitions for metre and kilogram, as approved by the IBWM, which consists of 102 countries. A kilogram will now be defined based on the most precise measurement ever, the Planck constant, which scientists have spent decades measuring to 10 parts per billion. The Planck constant can be expressed in terms of the SI units kilogram, metre and second.

Since metre and second are already defined by constants of nature, the value of a kilogram can be obtained without relying on comparisons with a metal block. A metre is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to be 299,792,458 when expressed in the unit metres per second. It is very technical but accurate and rooted in scientific certainty.

The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, a world-leading metrology institute, played a key part in the redefinition of the kilogram. The changes ensure that units of measurement definitions are scientifically robust and globally accessible. I have spoken with the Royal Society, which in 2011 held an international meeting calling for change to the definition of the kilogram. It welcomes the news and applauds the contribution made by UK science.

If anyone is worried about what this draft order means for their lives, it is important to note that, as the Minister said, it will have no direct impact on businesses or consumers. The changes ensure uniformity across the world. Despite the changes, a kilogram will still have the same mass and a metre will still be the same length, so socially distanced outdoor exercise regimes can continue as successfully as they have been.

This is a useful technical instrument, but I have a couple of questions. The order’s explanatory memorandum states:

“It partly implements Commission Directive 2019/1258”.

If that is the case, what parts of the Commission directive are not being implemented, and why? Can the Minister reassure us that the UK will continue to reflect the European Union’s metrological definitions after the transition period? That is an important point for our scientists.

As the Minister outlined, part of the redefinition took place in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019. Having looked at those regulations, I am not clear why we are doing it in two separate instruments, or whether there will be any issues in their interaction in practice.

Overall, the measure is a positive move that I and the stakeholders in the scientific community I have spoken to welcome. I hope that it reflects the Government’s commitment to embracing internationally recognised standards and aligning with our European neighbours, rather than moving away from them. Scientific evidence and certainty are key to the UK overcoming coronavirus and building a post-Brexit future, but so is collaboration.

I am glad that we are committed to abiding by European Union regulations as set out in the withdrawal agreement, as will be the case on 13 June when we adopt the new definitions of metre and kilogram, as that will necessarily support ongoing collaboration. It is a shame that this could not have been done a few weeks earlier, on World Metrology Day, but I will not hold the Minister responsible for that.

The draft order will make UK legislation consistent and up to date, reflecting the new scientific definitions that underpin the legal and scientific metrology framework around the world, and Opposition Members are happy to support it.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The Government must get serious now, at this stage in the attack by the virus. Therefore, sanctions are required, if necessary.

Workers must also be assured that, as has been said, 80% of wages will be paid and backdated, and that the interest-free loans are available without the onus of the guarantees that are being asked of some companies. They should be readily acceptable now to meet any short-term shortfall.

[Chi Onwurah]

My right hon. Friend may not be aware of reports that the Government have announced that they will make a statement on support for the self-employed tomorrow. Does he agree that the Government should come before the House today, while it is sitting, so that we can scrutinise that statement?

[John McDonnell]

A bit of practice that has crept into our politics recently is that announcements are made at press conferences, rather than to this House. Mr Speaker has made it perfectly clear that that is inappropriate behaviour. We have time left for a Minister to turn up in this House to take us through it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)]

I begin by offering the deepest thanks and praise of all of us in this House for all those working to deliver essential services to the public across the country. The way they have come together is nothing short of astounding. Equally astounding is the fact that the Prime Minister confirmed this afternoon that, in the past 24 hours, 400,000 Britons have signed up to act as volunteers to support our NHS, which is an incredible statement of the shared sense of purpose we all feel in this unique national endeavour.

I want to address directly every individual working to deliver an essential public service or a business, or to support their local community during this crisis, from NHS employees, local government workers, care workers and community volunteers through to those keeping our supermarket shelves full: you are keeping this country running and collectively helping to shoulder the burden, and we thank you. The whole House will want to join me in recognising the contribution they have already made and will no doubt continue to make over this period of crisis. We need the help of the British public to ensure that we beat the virus as quickly as we can and, above all, we need them to stay inside whenever possible.

This is the worst public health crisis in any of our lifetimes. The Government are responding, and we aspire to make our measures as comprehensive as we possibly can. A national crisis needs a national response and we are offering UK-wide support to ensure that people in all four corners of the country are receiving help.

Whatever resources the NHS needs, it will get. As an aside, today we have agreed with local councils in England to provide free parking for our NHS and social care workers as they fight coronavirus. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues across Government to ensure that public services receive the funding they need to get their residents through this crisis. That means supporting those on the frontline; those who are in a dispensable. Generous tributes have been paid to them in excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones)—I will return to some of the points she made—the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), as well as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), whom we are all glad to see back in his place after recovering from the virus, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), the right hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the latter an expert in all matters to do with the welfare system, and the hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I thank everyone who has taken part in this afternoon’s debate. I assure all hon. Members that the Government are absolutely resolved to do whatever is necessary to support public services and authorities through the response to the coronavirus.

In normal times, I am a convinced believer in an agile state supporting free enterprise, which delivers jobs and revenue for our public services. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central gave a paean to the power of the market, but she is right: these are not normal times. In this strictly limited period, we must all accustom ourselves to a relationship between the state and civic society that is unprecedented in peacetime.

[Chi Onwurah]

I have to correct the record. It was not a paean to the power of the free market; actually, I was identifying its critical failings when it comes to providing capacity for the state to respond to pandemics of the type we face.

[Mr Clarke]

I will of course take that point for the record. Let me in turn pay my own tribute to the power of the market.

In these unusual times, we have a shielding policy, for which my Department is responsible. Letters have been sent to 1.5 million high-risk individuals asking them to shield themselves and stay at home for the next 12 weeks. I think we all recognise the magnitude of what we are asking people to do. I emphasise to everyone who is in the process of becoming shielded that we are there for them and we will not let them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

If we were to sit tomorrow, no doubt somebody might wish to table an urgent question. I will leave it there.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that this is a time for the parties, and indeed the country, to come together, but that requires us to share information, which is also part of my role as a Member of Parliament. After the Prime Minister’s announcement on closing pubs and the lockdown, and the Chancellor’s announcement about support for jobs, I received hundreds of emails asking for clarification—indeed, I received hundreds of emails about help for the self-employed before any announcement. What is your advice, Mr Speaker, about how I can perform my role as a Member of Parliament and share information, if we do not have the Prime Minister here to share it with the House?

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

rose—

Horizon Settlement: Future Governance of Post Office Ltd

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on securing this incredibly important debate. I particularly commend my right hon. Friend for his work on this issue over many years and for his excellent opening remarks. Like him, I pay tribute to the hundreds of sub-postmasters who have faced unimaginable hardship as a result of this scandal, and I want to celebrate the work of Alan Bates, who has helped to secure some justice for 557 sub-postmasters.

As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, a truly shocking number of individuals and families have had their lives impacted by the shameful way that Post Office Ltd has conducted itself throughout this process. Hundreds of sub-postmasters have been accused of fraud and forced to pay back thousands of pounds. They have faced bankruptcy and conviction, and financial compensation alone will never repair the damage caused.

Speaking as a former software engineer myself, I am upset and truly disappointed at the way in which technology has been used as an instrument of torture. An IT deployment of this kind—one of the most expensive in the history of the United Kingdom—should have had users and people at its heart. It should not have been turned into a living nightmare—a living nightmare that continues for many sub-postmasters to this day.

Many MPs have told the stories of sub-postmasters from their constituencies. In Newcastle upon Tyne Central, sub-postmasters have suffered mental health problems brought about by this scandal. One young woman affected was still a teenager when convicted of fraud, and she has faced unemployment and financial ruin. As we have heard from other right hon. and hon. Members, she has been ostracised from her community and shunned by friends and neighbours. Sadly, her case is far from unique, and I want to pay tribute to all those who have suffered in this way.

In December, after a long trial in which the Post Office’s heavy-handed actions against its own staff came to light, it agreed to pay a £58 million settlement to the 557 sub-postmasters who had brought action against it. In his verdict, Mr Justice Fraser stated that the Post Office treated its sub-postmasters in

“capricious or arbitrary ways which would not be unfamiliar to a mid-Victorian factory-owner.”

He also described its long-standing defence of the Horizon system as

“the 21st century equivalent of maintaining the earth is flat.”

We appear to have a Dickensian, flat earth society running our precious network of local post offices.

On the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s review of the convictions of those affected by the Horizon scandal, such an extraordinary set of circumstances requires a bespoke response. The Government have parroted the Post Office’s line that those wrongly convicted must each bring their own individual appeal forward. However, it is simply not right to require those already in financial ruin to incur yet more costs in the fight to clear their name. Will the Government therefore consider giving the CCRC the mechanism it needs to assess the case for a group expungement of those convicted due to faults with the Horizon system?

This is a Government-owned company that has been found to have been at fault. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Government act to improve the corporate structure of the Post Office to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again. More should have been done to address the issue before it was allowed to develop into the scandal it is, but all we can do now is ensure that those wrongly convicted get justice and lessons are learned. Unfortunately, the close relationship that the Government have with the architects of Post Office Ltd’s vicious pursuit of sub-postmasters means that they are unable to create an environment that allows the necessary large-scale changes to happen.

I welcome the fact that Paula Vennells, the former chief executive of the Post Office who was so heavily criticised by Justice Fraser, appears no longer to serve on the Cabinet Office board, but why on earth did the Government allow that appointment to be made? Why did they not act sooner to distance themselves from those responsible for impacting the lives of so many?

As we have heard, on 26 February, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), appeared to commit to a full public inquiry into the Horizon scandal. When we hear from the Minister, I hope he will be able to provide more detail on the timescale and scope of that inquiry. Again, it is worth emphasising that litigation was brought to address the errors of a Government-owned company. A civil servant sits on the board of the Post Office. Its only shareholder is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so more should have been done to address the scandal before it was allowed to fester to this extent. Serious questions need to be answered about the relationship between the company and the Government.

The Government appear to be content to act as the Post Office’s parliamentary organ throughout this process, claiming that the December settlement was the end of the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth for the people who are still fighting for justice, and that is why we need a judge-led independent inquiry to take place as soon as feasibly possible.

I want to say a word about the Communication Workers Union, which identified flaws in the Horizon system back in 2015 and has worked hard to secure the inquiry. It has said that it is happy to work with us to ensure that it is timely and independent. So far, we have not seen any accountability for the lives and reputations that have been ruined. That is why securing this independent inquiry will be such a big victory for sub-postmasters, trade unions and justice. The Government failed to live up to their responsibility and prevent the scandal occurring. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to the excellent contributions from all parts of the House and will use his influence to ensure that justice is delivered for the hundreds of sub-postmasters wronged and to hold those responsible to account.