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 “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.

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.

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.

Deaths of Homeless People

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I am absolutely happy to meet my hon. Friend and perhaps hold a roundtable with his local authority to ensure that we are all working together to tackle this issue. There is no getting away from the difficulty of today’s news and today’s figures, and I will work with anybody who can help bring this scourge to an end.

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

Since 2010, homelessness in Newcastle has risen dramatically, visibly and tragically, with deaths in our city centre. Under the Minister’s Government, rough sleeping has been normalised, but it will never be normal to us. I have spoken extensively to Northumbria police, local housing associations, charities and public health officials, and it is clear that the cuts to public services are a prime cause. Will he acknowledge that austerity has caused this problem, and does he agree that it must be reversed?

[Luke Hall]

First, let me put on the record my thanks to Crisis, which I know does so much work in Newcastle, and highlight the success so far of the rough sleeping initiative, which is in the hon. Lady’s constituency and where we saw a 19% reduction in rough sleeping. She is right to highlight the importance of health services and other services available to people who are rough sleeping and homeless. This is why we have committed £30 million from NHS England to address rough sleeping over the next five years and £2 million in health funding to test models of community-based provision.

Building Safety

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend on that issue. We have already published updated advice notes on fire doors. It is an important issue that we want to take forward.

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

Two years after Grenfell, buildings in Newcastle remain with this dangerous cladding, so will the Secretary of State admit that the privatisation of building safety, in effect, with building owners able to pick and choose who inspects them, has failed? Will he review the system generally and give local authorities more control, oversight and resource, as Newcastle City Council has requested?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady can see that we are doing a root-and-branch reform of the building safety system, both in the interim and in the long term with the building safety Bill that will come forward as soon as possible. I am working very closely with local authorities, and today of course I have announced £14 million of additional funding that will help to support them to use their existing powers robustly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful to him for highlighting the evidence that he rightly raised. We are working with the Department for Education on the review of relative needs and resources, including by jointly funding specific research on the need to spend on children’s services. We want to champion good practice and to ensure that it is there to drive change and improvement in children’s services. My hon. Friend is right that it is about delivery and not simply looking at the funding.

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

The Secretary of State says that he is working desperately hard to give certainty, but does he recognise that officials in Newcastle City Council are also desperate to ensure that the children in our city receive adequate care from next April, and they cannot do that job if they do not know how much funding will be available to support children in Newcastle?

[James Brokenshire]

The point that the hon. Lady makes is one that I recognise and one that I did address at the Local Government Association conference. We are approaching a spending review—a new period for the overall funding for local government—and I want to ensure that we give certainty as early as possible. That is what we are working to achieve, so the planning that she and others want for councils is absolutely what I want, too, and it is why I am doing all I can, within my powers, to see that that happens.

Leasehold Reform

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the Select Committee on its report. The fact that in 2019 so many British people owe their homes to a feudal property relationship is absolutely astonishing. I am proud that the Labour party has announced that it will end this ancient and anachronistic practice and ensure justice for leaseholders.

I want to use the brief time that I have to highlight the ongoing misery of constituents whose case I raised in my Adjournment debate of 1 November 2017; one is watching here today. As you know, Mr Speaker, the St Thomas area of Newcastle is one of the most beautiful parts of what is a very beautiful city. It has a large number of fine houses that anyone would be proud to call home, but for some they have become a prison—the families with children uncertain whether they can afford to pay mortgages that they cannot change; a refugee whose family have outgrown their home but who cannot sell it; a pensioner who wants to move to be near her grandchildren but cannot do so; and a couple in their 70s faced with six flights of stairs and rising maintenance costs. The charity that owns the freehold, the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, refuses to extend their leases or sell the freehold. The trust was formed to support the Freemen of Newcastle, who also date from feudal times and the ancient guilds of our city. Today they are not generally considered to be among the poorer members of our society.

Section 172 of the Housing Act 1985 restricts the 1967 legislation to exempt charities from selling or extending the lease of houses on their land. The National Trust is in a similar position and, in response to the Committee’s consultation, offered to buy back properties whose freehold it did not want to sell. In the past, the Mary Magdalene Trust has offered to sell the freehold, but more recently it has changed its position, apparently to maximise its land assets. In so doing, it is causing misery.

The Minister is familiar with the situation and in the past has reassured me that a solution was in the works. My constituents had their hopes raised when it was reported that the trust was willing to sell the freehold, but in fact it was willing to charge residents thousands of pounds just to consider the option of perhaps allowing them to extend their leases for tens of thousands of pounds more. I hope the Minister will condemn that behaviour by the trust.

I also hope that the Minister will condemn the Charity Commission, which, in some disgraceful correspondence with me, said that it would be wrong for the trust to forgo the income that it could receive—presumably when the leases expire and my constituents are dead or on the streets. This is an organisation whose chair, Baroness Stowell, recently said:

“Charitable aims cannot justify uncharitable means”,

and:

“All charities, not just the big ones, have to recognise that they have to demonstrate charitable behaviour and charitable attitude.”

Does the Minister view what I have described as charitable behaviour? Will she ensure that the trust follows the example of the National Trust and offers to buy back leases at market value? Will she press the charity to allow the option of enfranchisement, as committed to the Minister previously? Or will she leave the residents with no option but to await a Labour Government and justice for leaseholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and all the other members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on such a powerful report, and I thank the 700 or 800 people who got in touch with the Committee to give their views. We have heard this afternoon how powerful the feelings are across the country. I thank the APPG, of course, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, of course, and the National Leasehold Campaign, of course, all of which have done extraordinary work in this area. I also pay tribute to all the Members who have spoken today, but I give particular thanks to the Conservative Members on the opposite side of the House. It is not necessarily comfortable for an MP to stand up and call for action from their own Government, but they have done that well and with dignity and great conviction.

We have all heard some of the stories many times, and the time has come to act. One in four homes in this country are leasehold homes, which means that up to 6 million people have basically bought homes that they think they own when they do not. We have heard horrific cases of people trapped in homes they cannot sell, people being ripped off with extortionate service charges, and people being threatened with eviction for absolutely no good reason.

No other major economy has this feudal-style system. Every other major economy has moved away from leasehold and towards fairer, more transparent systems of ownership. Scotland has abolished leasehold, transferring all properties held on long leases to outright ownership, and action has been taken in Northern Ireland. Other countries have demonstrated that alternative models of ownership can work. There are co-op models, and the Australian system has spread to other countries—Canada, New Zealand and Singapore. This is being done everywhere else, but not in the UK.

This week, the Labour party announced a policy that will bring leasehold into line with every other major economy, and I brought a copy of the document with me today. We do not have many printed copies, but I have one here for the Minister, because she will hopefully appreciate reading it. We talked to the Law Commission. We spent a lot of time listening to the debates, reading the Select Committee’s report, and listening to the APPG and the campaigners, and we talked to property lawyers. Our policies are comprehensive and sensible, and worth being looked at by the Government. There are two parts, and the first is what we do with new leasehold properties going forward.

Of course, there is no argument at all for new leasehold houses. We should be looking to abolish new leasehold flats, too. The second part of the package, of course, is to help the up to 6 million people living in leasehold homes by giving them new rights and saving them thousands of pounds.

The Government have paid lip service to this. They know the system is broken and they have acknowledged the problem, but they have failed to act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) said, they have made over 60 announcements on leasehold since 2010, but none of their proposals is aimed at helping the 6 million people trapped in leasehold homes right now and none of their proposals has led to any legislation.

Going beyond that, as has already been mentioned, the Government are actually propping up the system. The number of leasehold homes is increasing and £1 billion of Help to Buy money has gone directly to new leasehold homes, which is nothing less than a scandal.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, Labour proposes to end the sale of new leasehold houses, with direct effect, and to legislate to end the sale of new leasehold flats. We want existing leaseholders to be able to buy the full freehold ownership of their home for no more than 1% of the property’s value. Where does the 1% figure come from? It was suggested by the Law Commission; it is well evidenced; and we think it could work.

Labour would end ground rents for new leasehold homes, and as has been said, we would cap them for existing leaseholders at 0.1% of the property’s value, up to a maximum of £250 a year. Again, where does that come from? It comes from the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) has tabled the Ground Rents (Leasehold Properties) Bill, too. Again, the proposal is well evidenced and sensible.

Labour would give new rights to empower leaseholders to hire and fire their managing agent, or to take over the management of their home themselves. Importantly, we would crack down on unfair fees and contract terms by publishing a reference list of reasonable charges, not dissimilar to that which the Government introduced in the Tenant Fees Act 2019. We could have a similar system. We want to see transparency, which we would introduce on service charges, and we want to give leaseholders a right to challenge rip-off fees. As we have heard, such fees are complex, difficult and expensive.

We think the formulation of acting “whenever parliamentary time allows,” after nearly 10 years of Conservative government, is unacceptable. As the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said at the start of the debate, this feudal system has been in place for around a thousand years. After a problem has existed for a thousand years, parliamentary time should allow for us to act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, Labour Members and Conservative Back Benchers would support such legislation if it were introduced by the Government.

I end with a series of questions, which I would be grateful if the Minister answered. Does she recognise that we are the only developed country in the world that has failed to move away from the feudal leasehold model? Does she accept that the number of leasehold homes has gone up, and is still going up? Does she accept that 100,000 people are trapped in unsellable homes because of the leasehold scandal?

[Chi Onwurah]

Some of them are my constituents.

[Sarah Jones]

Exactly. If the Minister does not accept that 100,000 figure, what work is her Department doing to understand what the number is? What possible reason can she give, after the 60 announcements and the body of evidence we have heard of today, for legislation not having been introduced? When will the legislation be introduced? Can she confirm that none of the Government’s proposals will help the up to 6 million people who are currently leaseholders, and what will she do about it? England is the only place in the world that has failed to move away from this system, and it is time we caught up.