The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-02-05.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when the Public Sector Transparency Board last met.
Matthew Hancock
The Public Sector Transparency Board has been replaced with the Data Steering Group.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-02-23.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment (a) his Department and (b) Ofcom has made of the number of (a) business parks which do not have superfast broadband and (b) businesses based in business parks which do not have superfast broadband.
Mr Edward Vaizey
In its 2015 publication Connected Nations, Ofcom estimated that 68% of SMEs had access to superfast broadband in May 2015, and almost half (around 130,000) in certain business areas were unable to receive speeds above 10Mbit/s.
The Government is supporting investment to provide superfast broadband coverage to 90% of UK premises by early 2016 and 95% by December 2017. In addition, BDUK’s Connection Voucher Scheme issued around 55,000 vouchers to businesses to enable to access Superfast broadband. However, this does not include the provision of leased lines which offer an alternative connectivity option for businesses.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-04-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what progress he has made on reducing the number of robocalls received by consumers.
Mr Edward Vaizey
It is unacceptable for consumers to be harassed by nuisance calls, and this Government continues to make progress tackling this issue. The latest figures from the ICO show that reported automated calls accounted for approximately 42% of total calls reported to them – a drop of 3% since the start of the year. This is thanks to tougher enforcement against organisations making automated calls. The ICO recently imposed its largest fine ever of £350,000 on Prodial Ltd for making over 46 million automated nuisance calls. This is 70 times the amount of the maximum possible penalty issued before 2010 – when fines were capped at £5,000, and average fines were considerably less.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-04-28.
To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answer of 21 April 2016 to Question 34469, where the four portraits referred to in that Answer are located; and what proportion of all paintings and portraits in the Palace of Westminster those portraits represent.
Tom Brake
The four portraits are located in the following locations:
There are approximately 310 painted portraits in the Parliamentary Art Collection.
The majority of the painted portraits in the Parliamentary Art Collection are historical ones depicting members of the Royal Family and Parliamentarians pre-1900, of whom few were of black, Asian, or minority ethnic (BAME) origin.
The Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art is committed to reflecting the diversity of the House today, and to recognising those who have influenced Parliament and contributed to its development in a notable way through the Parliamentary Art Collection. The Committee has agreed to give further consideration to the matter in the current Parliament.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-05-19.
To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, with reference to the Answer of 21 July 2015 to Question 7713, what progress has been made on developing device independent applications for the distribution of select committee papers; and how many hon. Members have now been issued with (a) android and (b) iPad devices.
Tom Brake
Options for the distribution of committee papers are being explored. One option involves using a SharePoint based system to distribute committee papers and this is due to be tested with a select committee soon.
Documents for select committees are circulated to committee members electronically, predominantly in PDF format. The PDF format can be read on a number of different devices.
594 Apple iPads and 25 tablets of other makes have been purchased by or issued to Members’ offices in this Parliament.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-07-06.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which existing agreements on taxation jurisdictions of individuals will be affected by the UK leaving the EU.
Mr David Gauke
The UK has more than 120 Double Taxation Agreements, including Agreements with EU Member States. These Agreements include provisions allocating between jurisdictions taxing rights over the income of individuals who are resident in one jurisdiction and have income from sources in the other. Because each of these Agreements is a bilateral treaty between the UK Government and the partner jurisdiction, which exists outside the framework of the EU and its governing treaties, they will not be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-07-21.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will encourage technology companies to sign up to the Women in Finance Charter.
Simon Kirby
The government launched the HM Treasury Women in Finance Charter to take forward Jayne-Anne Gadhia’s recommendations following her review into the representation of senior women in financial services.
Firms that have signed the Charter are committed to implementing four key industry actions to improve gender diversity in financial services. On 11 July the government announced that 72 firms have signed the Charter, including a number of financial technology (fintech) firms. Together these firms employ over 530,000 people in the UK, with headquarters across the UK, USA, Europe and Asia.
Harnessing the talents of women in financial services is one of the government’s key priorities and we are committed to ensuring that as many financial services firms as possible, including fintechs, sign the Women in Finance Charter.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-10-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps she is taking to (a) support the development of an effective market in cyber insurance products for small businesses and (b) encourage the establishment of standards within that insurance industry.
Matt Hancock
The Government is committed to making the UK one of the safest places in the world to do business online and we recognise the role cyber insurance can play in helping to raise security levels in all businesses, including SMEs.
In March 2015 we published a report on joint initiatives between Government and the insurance sector to tackle cyber risk. The report is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cyber-security-insurance-new-steps-to-make-uk-world-centre
The Government also chairs an insurance industry working-group to look at key issues around supporting the development of the cyber insurance industry.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2016-10-21.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent progress his Department has made on its work on an open address register.
Chris Skidmore
The 2016 Budget announced that government would develop options for an authoritative address register that is open and freely available. It is critical that we make wider use of more precise address data and ensure it is frequently updated to unlock opportunities for innovation.
Since the Budget, officials from across government have been exploring a range of potential options for the creation of an Open Address Register and I will look to update the House once this work has been concluded.
The speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2022.
I welcome today’s statement and apology, which represent an important step forward in the delivery of justice following what may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. There have been 900 prosecutions. All the postmasters involved have their own stories of dreams crushed, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed, and lives lost. Innocent people have been bankrupted and imprisoned.
Let me start by paying tribute to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, the campaigning group, and to the hundreds of sub-postmasters whom no monetary amount can compensate for the injustice that they have suffered. This has been a long walk towards justice, and Members in all parts of the House have stood and spoken out in solidarity with the postmasters. I want to recognise, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot, who are rightly to be members of the independent advisory board.
I also pay tribute to the Minister who was previously formerly responsible for the Post Office, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). I do not do so lightly, but after successive Conservative Governments had sat on the scandal, he was the first to take hold of it and eventually—following much campaigning by Members of Parliament and members of the Labour party—to establish a statutory inquiry. Finally, I want to thank the journalist Nick Wallis, whose BBC Radio 4 series “The Great Post Office Trial” did much to bring this scandal to general attention.
While I am pleased that some kind of acceptable outcome for the postmasters seems finally to be in sight, I have some questions to ask. The press release refers to a compensation scheme for postmasters who helped to expose the scandal, but I remind the Secretary of State that it was his Government who spent years aiding and abetting the Post Office in targeting those self-same postmasters who were looking for justice. Nearly £100 million was spent by the Post Office to defend the indefensible as part of a campaign of intimidation and deceit. The Government are the only shareholder in the Post Office, so it is right for the Secretary of State to take responsibility.
At the core of this unforgivable scandal is the belief that workers were dishonest and technology infallible. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the Government’s track record on defending the rights of working people. Decent, honest people have had their lives torn apart, have been put in prison, and have been made to wait years for justice. Will the Secretary of State tell us how long he expects it will take for this scheme, and the other schemes, to pay the appropriate compensation, and whether the aim of these schemes is to return people to what would have been their original position had it not been for their involvement in Horizon? Will he also tell us which legal firm will be involved in the administration of this scheme, and whether that firm has previously advised either the Government or the Post Office on this matter?
Value for taxpayers’ money is a key consideration on this side of the House, even if the Government like to waste it. Having wasted tens of millions of pounds on persecuting postmasters, can the Secretary of State tell us where the money for the scheme will come from as we face a cost of living crisis made in Downing Street? Will post office services suffer, or will other budgets be cut? The press release does not mention the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance or Alan Bates, who led its efforts. Does the scheme have their full support?
I hope the Secretary of State agrees that those who were involved in this injustice should not benefit from their involvement. Will he tell us how he intends to hold Fujitsu to account, and whether it is still being given Government contracts? Will he also tell us whether he supports the continued retention of the CBE that was awarded to Paula Vennells—who oversaw the Horizon scandal—for services to the Post Office?
The Post Office is a national institution. It is part of so many of our lives. Its reputation has been hugely tarnished by this scandal, and I hope the Secretary of State will tell us how he intends to ensure that this never happens again and that the sub-postmasters receive justice as soon as possible.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments, although I rather hoped the House would come together today and debate this matter in a non-political, cross-party way, and she sought to make a number of, I think, somewhat inappropriate political points. I should gently point out that it was her party that was in power for the first 11 years of this scandal. I am pleased that we have worked across parties to fix it, and I think we should leave it there.
Earlier today I spoke to Alan Bates, the founder and leader of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, who is sitting in the Public Gallery. Obviously the members of the JFSA will speak for themselves, as they always have, about the extent to which they are satisfied with today’s statement, but we have been working closely together. The Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has been meeting them as well, and will be keeping a close eye on the operation of the scheme.
I reiterate the hon. Lady’s comments in thanking not just the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) —as I did earlier—but my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), Lord Arbuthnot, and others who have campaigned endlessly on this issue, including the BBC journalist Nick Wallis, who has played an important role in this long battle.
The hon. Lady asked about timescales. As I said in my statement, we aim to complete this part of the scheme by the end of 2023, or, I hope, sooner. The large number of documents that we are putting online this morning will enable people to get on with processing their applications before making formal applications early next year. Sir Wyn Williams, who is conducting the formal inquiry, will, I hope, be able to shed significant light on what went wrong and provide a set of recommendations to prevent it from happening again. I have no doubt that Members, certainly on this side of the House, will be anxiously awaiting those recommendations.