Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce
legislation to quash the convictions of, and compensate, those
sub-postmasters and post-mistresses prosecuted and convicted of
fraud by the Post Office as a result of faulty Horizon
software.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business and Trade and Scotland Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has announced today in the other
place that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to
overturn the convictions of all those convicted in England and
Wales on the basis of Post Office evidence during the Horizon
scandal who have not yet had their cases considered by the
courts. Following measures to prevent fraud, the person will
become eligible for compensation—this includes the upfront offer
of £600,000—or to claim more through the individual claim
assessment process.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that, but forgive me for being even
more grateful to Mr Bates and his colleagues, the noble Lord,
Lord Arbuthnot, who is now in his place, and the dramatists and
broadcasters who captured the imagination and sense of righteous
indignation of the decent people of this country. What might we
learn from this? Why did it take a prime time TV drama to cause
the Government to leap into action? What might we learn about the
appropriate relationship between Ministers and arm’s-length
agencies, about the unthinking reliance on new technologies,
about using public inquiries to kick scandals into the long
grass, and about government procurement and corporate greed?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those sentiments, which are shared
on all sides of the House. The Post Office scandal is one of the
biggest miscarriages of justice in living memory and the victims
must get the justice they deserve. It is important that everyone
knows the truth about what happened and that steps have been
taken to right the wrongs of the past. Truth and accountability
are one part of providing justice; another part is the
compensation, which we are dealing with in this House next week.
It is crucial that lessons are learned. I also pay tribute to our
noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, who has acted tirelessly on behalf
of the victims. He has been in the other place as well, to hear
my colleague the Postal Minister give the Statement this morning,
and has now taken his place in this House. He is a member of the
advisory committee which will be a key part of the process as we
work through this terrible chapter in our legal history.
(DUP)
My Lords, I join everyone in this House in recognising the
appalling scandal that has been placed before us and the
appalling position sub-postmasters have been put in. Any quashing
of convictions is to be welcomed, but what is the position as
regards prosecutions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are
under a different system? The Minister made reference to the
quashing of convictions in England and Wales. What action are the
Government taking to ensure that all victims across the UK, from
whatever jurisdiction, are able to have their convictions
quashed? Justice has got to be for all, across the UK.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his point. There have been 983
wrongful convictions, of which 24 are in Northern Ireland and 76
in Scotland. We in this House know well that we have separate
legal systems in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Conversations
have begun with the devolved Administrations; formal discussions
are going on now between the justice department in Scotland and
the Lord Chancellor. The compensation remains a reserved matter,
and will be paid by the UK Treasury, but due process must take
place in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Those discussions are
under way, to make sure that all are treated equally in all parts
of the United Kingdom.
(Con)
My Lords, I will say two things. First, I give my thanks to my
noble friend the Minister, to the Minister in another place,
, and to noble Peers
across this House for helping to produce a solution which, while
difficult and inevitably a compromise, resolves the vast majority
of the issues in this dreadful case. Secondly, does my noble
friend the Minister agree with Sir William Blackstone, of a
little time ago, when he said:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer”?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend again for being so dogged in his pursuit
of these matters. We are absolutely indebted to him for
continuing his role on the advisory committee; my colleague in
the other place, Minister Hollinrake, is meeting actively with
that committee. The William Blackstone principle has been around
for 250 years, and it could not be said better than in this
House.
(CB)
My Lords, following the debacle of the failed prosecution of
Matrix Churchill in the 1990s, the role of Customs and Excise as
an independent prosecutor was brought to an end and supervision
passed to the Attorney-General. In the light of what has
happened, should not the same thing happen in the case of the
Post Office? Is it not wrong in principle that a public body
should have independent powers of prosecution when it has a
financial interest in the success of that prosecution?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He highlighted exactly
the anomalies that this case has thrown up; the Lord Chancellor
in the other place and the Ministry of Justice are looking very
carefully at them. In fact, the Post Office has not pursued any
private prosecutions since 2015—thankfully —and there is a debate
to be had as to whether this power should be withdrawn. We know
that, in the Scottish jurisdiction, private prosecutions are not
capable of happening; perhaps the English and Welsh system will
follow the Scottish system.
My Lords, this awful situation highlights so many of our
inadequacies in focusing our attention on the right things at the
right time and within the right timescale. It is obviously far
too early for restorative justice processes to be put in place,
but could the Minister offer assurance that attention is being
given to mental and emotional support, as well as financial, for
all who have lived with the consequences of this injustice for so
long?
(Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. The consequences of this are
absolutely wide-ranging and beyond just the immediate financial
matters. Our Government are working hard to make the process
full, fair and quick. Interim payments have already been made to
GLO members, and those with lower-term convictions are having
their full claims processed. The emphasis now is on speed and
supporting the victims with the immediate issue of compensation.
The second issue is getting to the bottom of this awful matter;
that is where the Williams inquiry will do its detailed work, and
we will get detailed answers to these questions.
(LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that
primary legislation will be brought forward, but we still would
like to have some more details. Given the speed with which this
has been moving, I understand that it is difficult to be
specific, but it would help if the Minister could tell your
Lordships’ House whether it is the intention that the pardons
will come en bloc or still have to be pursued individually. Will
these people actually receive pardons? They have been publicly
humiliated for years, so the process of exonerating them has to
be more than just the stroke of a pen. It is very important that,
more than just receiving a pardon, they are seen to be
pardoned.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that very important question. I can
clarify that this is not a case of being pardoned; these
convictions are being overturned. The primary legislation will
take account of all of these convictions en bloc; it would take
too long to go through each individual case and it would be too
stressful. Of the 983 convictions, only 20% of the victims have
actually come forward—so many people are just scunnered with the
situation that they are in. Therefore, this will be a blanket
overturn of convictions.
(Lab)
My Lords, we on the Labour Benches welcome the Government’s
Horizon announcement, although more details would be appreciated,
especially on the timescale. I hope there will be more detail in
the Statement. Given the emergence of new pilot scheme victims
since the ITV drama, how confident are the Government that they
are aware of everyone who has been affected? What steps are they
taking to make sure that all those affected are identified and
fully compensated—surely Fujitsu has that data?
(Con)
When it comes to data, there are all sorts of confidentiality
requirements that need to be kept. We know that a considerable
number of claimants have come forward—more than 100—since the TV
programme. We think that the total number of postmasters involved
is about 3,500. We have compensated 2,700 of those already, and
we will leave no stone unturned to make sure that we reach
everybody affected by this scandal.
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 8 January.
“The Post Office scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of
justice in our nation’s history, shaking people’s faith in the
principles of equity and fairness that form the core pillars of
our legal system. I am very pleased that last week’s excellent
ITV drama ‘Mr Bates vs The Post Office’ has brought an
understanding of the Horizon scandal to a much broader audience.
I have received much correspondence about the scandal and the
emotional impact that the dramatisation has had. Those of us who
have been campaigning and working on the issue for some years
were already well aware of what happened.
I pay particular tribute to Alan Bates and his fellow
postmasters, including Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton; to the
right honourable Member for North Durham, Mr Jones; to my right
honourable friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, Sir
; to my honourable friend the
Member for Telford, , and the honourable Members for
Jarrow, , and for Motherwell and
Wishaw, ; to the noble Lord, Lord
Arbuthnot, and other members of the Horizon compensation advisory
board; and of course to key figures in the media. They played a
key role in seeking justice and compensation for the victims. I
also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the honourable Member
for Stalybridge and Hyde, Jonathan Reynolds, for his continually
constructive approach, as well as my ministerial predecessors,
including my honourable friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam,
.
Watching last week’s ITV programme has only reinforced our zeal
for seeing justice done as quickly as possible. We are already a
long way down that road. Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is doing
great work in exposing what went wrong and who was responsible.
Full and final compensation has already been paid to 64% of those
people affected. I have previously said to the House that my main
concern now is regarding those still waiting for full and final
compensation, and the slow pace at which criminal convictions
related to Horizon are being overturned by the courts. Before
Christmas, the advisory board published a letter that underlined
exactly that.
This is not just a matter of getting justice for those wrongly
convicted. Overturning their convictions is also key to unlocking
compensation. Each person whose Horizon conviction is overturned
is entitled to an interim compensation payment of £163,000. They
can then choose whether to have their compensation individually
assessed or to accept an upfront offer of £600,000. That offer is
already speeding along compensation for a significant number of
people.
In the light of the advisory board’s letter about overturning
convictions, I have spoken to the right honourable Member for
North Durham, Mr Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. I
have also had a very positive meeting this afternoon with my
right honourable and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. All of
us in the House are united in our desire to see justice done, and
we have devised some options for resolving the outstanding
criminal convictions at much greater pace. The Lord Chancellor
will, rightly, need to speak to senior figures in the judiciary
about those options before we put them forward, but I am
confident that we should be able to implement measures that
address the concerns expressed by the advisory board. I hope that
the Government will be able to announce those proposals to the
House very shortly.
Of course, there is clearly great concern about the role of the
Post Office in prosecuting these cases. The Post Office rightly
decided to stop undertaking private prosecutions in 2015. If we
are to make sure that a scandal such as this can never happen
again, we need to look at the way in which private prosecutions
such as these have been undertaken. Any company can bring private
prosecutions in this way: this is not a special power of the Post
Office. I know that the Lord Chancellor wants to give this issue
proper and thoughtful consideration, and I am sure that he will
report to the House about the issue in due course.
Getting justice for the victims of this scandal and ensuring that
such a tragedy can never happen again is my highest priority as a
Minister, as it has been throughout my 15 months in office. When
we talk about compensation, we have to remember that the lives of
the postmasters and their families caught up in this scandal have
been changed for ever. They have faced financial ruin, untold
personal distress and a loss of reputation that no amount of
financial compensation can fully restore. The Government
recognise that we have a clear moral duty to right those wrongs
to the best of our ability. To support those whose lives were
turned upside down by the scandal, we have provided significant
funding for compensation. We have also been clear that it should
not be the taxpayer alone who picks up the tab. We will wait for
the inquiry to report to make clear the extent of any other
organisation’s culpability for the scandal and any individual
accountability.
Our aim is to ensure that every victim is fully recompensed for
their losses and the suffering they have had to endure. To date,
more than £148 million has been paid to 2,700 victims across all
compensation schemes, 93 convictions have been overturned and, of
those, 30 have agreed full and final settlements. Just over £30
million has been paid out in compensation to those with
overturned convictions, including interim payments. Of course, we
want to ensure that the process for agreeing compensation is
fair, transparent and open to independent assessment. That is one
of the reasons why I am today announcing that retired High Court
judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom has agreed to chair an independent
panel that will assess the pecuniary losses of those postmasters
with overturned convictions where disputes arise. That will bring
independent oversight to compensation payments in a similar way
to Sir Ross Cranston’s oversight of the group litigation order
scheme and the independent panel in the Horizon shortfall
scheme.
Of the original 555 courageous postmasters who took the Post
Office to court and who first brought the Horizon scandal into
the public eye, £27 million has been paid out to 477 claimants in
addition to the net £11 million received through the December
2019 settlement. Forty-seven members of the original GLO group
have also received compensation following the overturning of
their convictions, totalling more than £17 million. We have
received full claim forms from 59 of those postmasters who are
eligible for the GLO scheme and issued 43 offers. There have been
21 full and final settlements paid and a further seven full and
final settlements accepted. That brings the total number of
accepted full and final GLO settlements to 28. I would encourage
claimants’ lawyers to continue to submit GLO claims, because my
department stands ready to review them and turn them round
quickly.
It is worth noting that the 2,417 postmasters who claimed through
the original Horizon shortfall scheme have all received offers of
compensation. Around 85% have accepted those offers, worth over
£107 million. In total, over £91 million has been paid out
through the scheme, with the Post Office now dealing with late
applications and with cases where initial offers were not
accepted.
However, this is not just about compensation; it is about
restoration—the restoring of people’s good names and the
restoring of the public’s trust, both in our postal service and
in our justice system. It is therefore only right that we get to
the bottom of what went wrong and of who knew what and when.
Although the scale of the problem is immense, the Government are
unwavering in their resolve to tackle it, to compensate those
affected and to leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of
justice. We owe that to the victims, to their families, to the
memory of postmasters who have died since this tragedy first came
to light and to those who, tragically, took their own lives after
being accused of awful crimes they never committed. We owe it to
everyone who has been caught up in this tragic miscarriage of
justice.
I thank all Members across the House who are supporting us in
this effort. Together we stand united, not just in memory of
those who have suffered but in shared purpose to ensure that such
a tragedy can never, and will never, happen again. I commend this
Statement to the House”.
3.51pm
(Lab)
My Lords, in preparing for today, I had a look back over previous
Statements, debates and Written and Oral Questions that we have
debated in your Lordships’ House. What shocked me the most was
just how repetitive it all is: the same interventions, the same
problems, the same people and the same lack of solutions. I have
raised questions and spoken in debates on this issue many times
since 2019, and I am just a newcomer. We have all known about the
scandal for years, thanks to some great campaigning by individual
sub-postmasters and by parliamentarians across the political
divide and across both Houses. They include the noble Lord, Lord
Arbuthnot, and MP in the other place, to name
just two.
The scandal is an absolute disgrace on so many levels:
financially, judicially and on a human level. Most worryingly, it
is a governmental oversight failure as well. We all know the
details: thousands of sub-postmasters sacked or prosecuted in the
space of 16 years and wrongfully labelled as thieves and
fraudsters by the Post Office, Fujitsu and our judicial system.
Their lives were made hell, and all because of an IT glitch in
the system. What makes this so shameful are the lengths to which
Post Office Ltd went to cover it up. The fact that it spent £32
million denying these claims and bullying those wrongfully
accused into false guilty pleas is bad enough. But what makes
this story even worse is that we got the national moral outrage
not when the cases went to the highest court in the land and were
won, three years ago, but only when ITV produced a drama on the
scandal. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked earlier, where
has the moral outrage of the state been in the last two
decades?
Many postmasters and postmistresses have so far received only a
fraction of their costs and expenses. Can the Minister guarantee
that compensation payments will immediately follow any
exonerations under the terms of the scheme as they stand today,
and can he indicate any sort of timescale for this? We have
waited so long. I know that he, like his predecessors,
appreciates that victims cannot continue to wait for years for
payments. Sixty sub-postmasters have died since the scandal, four
of them taking their own lives. The final compensation is
critical, but so too is overturning the convictions. Justice must
be served for those workers and their families, which is why
Labour has called for all sub-postmasters to be exonerated in
full. As my colleague said in the
Commons,
“I extend our support for any actions that may be required to
overturn these convictions as quickly as possible”.—[Official
Report, Commons, 8/1/24; col. 84.]
One of the lessons we have learned—the Minister touched on
this—is the trauma and lack of trust that the whole process has
caused for the victims. We want to ensure that no victim has to
re-enter litigation and relive the traumas that they have
experienced. We also welcome the announced review into private
prosecutions, because the public want assurances that nothing
like this can ever be allowed to happen again. One of the most
alarming and shameful aspects of the whole scandal is the failure
of our courts and our judicial system. In all the cases of the
sub-postmasters being wrongfully found guilty, the courts
believed the computer. There were originally 640 legal cases,
although I think there are more now. How did that not ring alarm
bells at the time? I hope the inquiry will also look into the
legal processes that exacerbated the problem.
In conclusion, I will press the Government on a few of the key
matters. First, can the Minister confirm the timescale on the
overturning of those wrongly convicted so that they can carry on
with their lives? Secondly, this is not just a Post Office issue;
Fujitsu as the provider has its share of culpability. What plans
do the Government have to hold Fujitsu to account for its
actions? Thirdly, how much money has the Post Office spent on
prosecuting the sub-postmasters and then on defending itself
against them over the last 20 years? Fourthly, have the
Government made any assessment of the impact of the 2014 law
changes on the ability of people wrongly convicted and imprisoned
to claim compensation in a scandal? Fifthly, are there any plans
to seek redress from the chief executive, the Post Office board
and the senior management at the time who oversaw this scandal?
Finally, why did it take a TV drama for the Government to act so
decisively when parliamentarians in this place and others have
been raising this scandal for more than a decade?
(LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, it has taken a television drama to
set light to what has been smouldering for a very long time. I
suppose that all those associated with that drama should be
congratulated, because they have managed to do what we failed to
do: to ignite public indignation to such an extent that the
Government had to move. In that respect, they deserve a great
deal of congratulations. Of course, the script has been played
out here and, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, at the
start, and others, we are very familiar with it.
I have a few questions about where we are now. First, we welcome
the news that Scotland Yard is looking into potential offences in
relation to the Post Office overall, but can the Minister confirm
that this will be able to progress in a speedy way in a
twin-track approach alongside the public inquiry? It is very
important that both these things can happen as fast as possible.
We do not want one to impede the other, so can the Minister
assure us that this twin-track approach will be pursued?
Turning to compensation, in the case of individual assessment,
can the Minister please enlighten your Lordships’ House on the
role of retired judge Gary Hickinbottom’s panel? This was
announced only on Monday and, according to the Minister then,
this panel is apparently going to assess the pecuniary losses for
those with overturned convictions if there is a disagreement. Is
this now obsolete, or will it still be operating? If it is still
operating, why does it deal with only pecuniary issues when the
Secretary of State has on a number of occasions said that this
harm goes way beyond simply those? How is this to be incorporated
into the two announcements spread over three days?
In the Commons, the Father of the House, , said that
“the titanic error was a belief in technology”—[Official Report,
Commons, 8/10/24; col 86.].
It was that belief, coupled with zero faith in the decency of the
sub-postmasters, that set the problem going. In that, the role of
Fujitsu was central, and it is clear that the failure of its
technology was at the heart of the issue. It remains to be seen
how it perpetuated the myth of its technology, and that is what
the public inquiry will address; but however you look at it, it
continues to benefit from UK consumers’ and taxpayers’ money. It
is still operating Horizon for POL, and benefiting as a result to
the tune of tens of millions of pounds annually. That is not all:
further government contracts have been issued. Is this right? Is
it appropriate that this should continue?
Speaking yesterday, the Work and Pensions Secretary, , is quoted as having stressed that not only the
taxpayer will be on the hook for this compensation. The spirit of
that was reiterated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, , today. So, does this now
signal that the Government are going after Fujitsu for money to
support the compensation of these people?
It is a terrible saga, but it has demonstrated characteristics of
other sagas we have seen. For example, the process of
compensating the victims of the Windrush scandal has been
achingly slow. The contaminated blood scandal has dragged on and
on. Another terrible example is the way the Hillsborough tragedy
victims have been denied justice. There is a pattern of denial,
cover-up, and then redress being delivered at a very slow pace.
Does the Minister agree that there appear to be institutional
problems that we ought to try to address?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business and Trade and Scotland Office () (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Nicol and , for their contributions and
detailed questions. It is worth reminding ourselves of the
timeline of this sorry story. The Horizon accounting system was
introduced in 1999, and between 1999 and 2013—a 14-year
period—the 700 postmaster direct prosecutions in England were
brought. In 2017, the group litigation order was got together and
in 2019 the High Court judge discovered that the case was flawed
and the judgment was made, whereupon 75% of the settlement money
had to go to fund the litigation.
In 2020, the then Prime Minister committed to holding an inquiry
into the Horizon scandal, so that starts the clock on government
action. The Criminal Cases Review Commission then began its work
and referred the initial 39 cases to the Court of Appeal. In
2020, the Horizon shortfall scheme was set up, designed on the
understanding that compensation was going to have to be made. So
at that moment, there was an understanding that there was a major
problem.
In 2021, the High Court quashed the 39 convictions in a landmark
judgment, and the Government announced funding for Post Office
Ltd to pay the compensation. On 19 September, my predecessor, my
noble friend Lord Minto, made the announcement in this House on
the £600,000 upfront offer, so that pre-dates the TV series.
My DBT colleague in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, was
vocal on this issue when he was on the Back Benches, and now, as
a Minister, he has committed entirely to getting justice. He has
come up with the £600,000 scheme, which is saying to people, “You
don’t need to go through any more trauma or see any more lawyers.
Here is an interim payment of £163,000, and you can get up to
£600,000 without seeing another lawyer, get your conviction
overturned and be done and dusted”. Yes, it is clear that the TV
series brought this to light and to public attention. However, it
has been acknowledged in government that this is a big problem
that needs to be sorted. I commend my colleague, Minister
Hollinrake, for what he has done so far.
In the process going forward, time is of the essence. The
timeline will involve a triple track. First, there is overturning
the convictions, which will require primary legislation. This
breaks a lot of precedents in terms of legal procedure;
ordinarily, convictions are given by a court and should then be
overturned by a court on an individual basis. It is possible that
in respect of some individuals, an otherwise safe conviction in
another matter will be overturned. We do not have the time to
dwell on that. We talked about the Blackstone principle: it is
better that we get justice for the many as fast as we can. That
process will be immediate.
The second part of that process is accountability. We need to
know what happened; we need the facts and to get to the bottom of
this. We cannot repeat the mistake the Post Office made, which
was to go half-cocked, without evidence, against people who
cannot then defend themselves. We need to go through a process to
understand who is accountable; people are innocent until proven
guilty. We will take this on with the Williams inquiry, which is
determined to report through the rest of this year and will get
to the bottom of the accountability issue. The third track, as
the noble Lord, , mentioned, is the police making
their own inquiries. It is fair to say that, post the TV series,
this is uppermost in all minds, and the timeline will be
expedited considerably.
Going back to accountability and culpability, there are a number
of players in this: the Post Office management, Fujitsu and,
obviously, the role of various Ministers. That is why the
Williams inquiry must do its work and get to the absolute bottom
of this, in order to understand what we are dealing with. In the
case of Fujitsu, are we dealing with rogue employees, corporate
malfeasance, or was the Post Office instructing its client to do
what it wanted it to do? We do not know the answers to these
questions, so we must get to the bottom of that. That process
will run through and when we have that, we can then discuss
accountability. As the noble Lord has said, Fujitsu has been
involved in many government contracts across many departments for
the last 20 years and continues to do its business according to
the contracts it has with the Government. I am sure that there is
heightened awareness now around some of its performance. But this
process will continue until such time as we find evidence to
suggest that it has been outside of its contract, and if so, the
consequences will follow.
We have to separate out the payment of compensation, speeding
this process up and making it as painless as possible. Today, my
colleague in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, announced that
the 2,100 postmasters who were not convicted and who were not
part of the GLO 555 have already had a compensation scheme, which
is running though; 80% of those claims have now been met, and we
see that process continuing. Retired judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom
is there to deal with those sub-postmasters who feel despondent
at being back in dialogue with this thing called Post Office
Limited: “Why is the compensation being done by Post Office
Limited?” Therefore, to give assurances around that relationship,
with Post Office Limited paying compensation through the HSS, the
presence of Sir Gary Hickinbottom ensures some level of
independence and an appeal process, which will come through.
So I believe that everything is being done now to expedite the
process on the compensation side. In terms of accountability—as
was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and the noble Lord,
Lord Fox—we will let the Williams inquiry move through. As far as
the timeline is concerned, this has to happen with all speed and,
again, we are very grateful that we have my noble friend Lord
Arbuthnot and MP, who are so vital to this
and have the trust of the sub-postmasters. That advisory
committee will be clear in making sure that everything is done as
fast as possible.
4.10pm
(Con)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister a follow-up question to the
question from the noble Lord, . What happened to the
sub-postmasters and how long it has taken to deal with these
issues is, of course, absolutely outrageous, but there are other
scandals that we know about as well, such as infected blood,
Hillsborough, Windrush and Grenfell. These too involve people who
have been badly affected by what has happened to them and they
have caused significant harm and distress to those individuals
and also to their families. Can the Minister say what the
Government are doing to ensure that, once we know a scandal has
happened, we deal with it quickly and in a very timely fashion so
that it does not take almost a generation?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. We must recognise the
common interest of people impacted by the Horizon scandal and
those affected by, for example, the infected blood scandal and
Hillsborough and other tragedies. It is important to recognise
that each of those circumstances was different and unique and
unprecedented; each case is a personal tragedy.
In the infected blood case, the Government have already made
interim support payments of £100,000 to individuals and bereaved
partners, and the cost of that will be £400 million in terms of
interim compensation. That compares with a likely figure of £1
billion for the Horizon postal scandal. I cannot speak with any
great authority on the wider picture, but it must surely be the
case that, as the Government look at this case, there will need
to be a wider conversation and look at the broader picture on all
these issues.
(Lab)
My Lords, I accept that with this particular scandal the
priorities should be the exoneration and compensation of those
who have been so badly damaged by it, the exposure of the reality
of the corruption that led to the scandal in the first place and
accountability for those who have been acting so corruptly.
However, at the heart of this, the biggest miscarriage of justice
in terms of scale that this country has ever seen, there is
another issue that needs immediate attention: a faulty legal
presumption that requires immediate re-evaluation. In England and
Wales, there is, as a matter of law, a presumption that computers
are working properly, unless there is evidence to the contrary,
and therefore that what they produce is reliable. If it were not
for the group litigation, the fundamental unreliability of the
software in the POL Horizon system would never have been
revealed. That is because challenging that computers are not
working properly is far outwith the resources of most people in
this country and, unless they work together in this way, they
have no chance of doing this in our courts. It is time now to
re-evaluate this and replace this presumption with a requirement
that those who rely on computer evidence should justify to the
court that it is reliable and not the other way around. We could
do that relatively quickly and easily, and the onus would then
lie on the people who are relying on that evidence to show that
it is reliable and that the computer is working properly. In the
Horizon case, without perjury, nobody would have been able to do
that.
(Con)
The noble Lord highlights perhaps one of the most cynical aspects
of this terrible case: each of the sub-postmasters was told that
they were alone and that this was happening only to them. We have
all seen the programme and we all know the people in our
communities who do these vital jobs. They work alone in small
shops in small towns and villages and do not necessarily have the
support that they need. That was perhaps one of the most
invidious parts of the drama series and, at the end of the day,
perhaps the help given by one or two constituency MPs was to
believe these folks and get them together, which resulted in the
group of 555 coming together. It is very relevant to say, “Why
does the little guy have to keep convincing the big guy? What is
going on?” Again, I know that the Lord Chancellor and the
Ministry of Justice are now very focused on this issue and that
they will come out of this with some serious questions that need
to be answered. That will be part of the follow-up to the
Williams inquiry. Let us find out exactly what happened. Out of
this, I think that some serious questions will be asked about
future processes and that this House will come back to this issue
more in the coming years.
(Con)
My Lords, nothing that is done at this stage can even get close
to putting right these terrible wrongs, which will be a dark
stain on our polity for a long time. The whole House will welcome
what is now being done, which is the best that can be done at
this stage. I will focus on the issue of the company, Fujitsu. In
2010, we found that it was deeply entrenched across the whole of
central government. Its performance in many of these contracts
was woeful, and the procurement system regulations then in place
made it impossible—although we tried—to prevent it getting
further contracts. Does my noble friend agree that, if that
company has any sense of honour, let alone a concern for its
reputation, it should come forward very quickly, without waiting
for the results of these inquiries, which we know will take some
time, and make a big ex gratia payment towards the compensation
that is rightly being paid?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. He speaks with great experience
of the inner workings of Whitehall, obviously, and has seen the
way that these anomalies arise. The public would be entitled to
say, “Why has this company been so embedded for so long and made
so much money out of the taxpayer?” So, with emotions running
high at the moment, we understand the calls for compensation. It
has been made very clear in the other House that the cost of this
should not fall solely on the taxpayer. If there are other
sources of compensation, there must be access. I must say that,
if I were the chief executive of a company in this situation, I
would be thinking about that matter very carefully.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s approach so far to
this very difficult subject. He has spoken very clearly of
exoneration and compensation, which it would seem could be
achieved by primary legislation fairly swiftly. He is right to
say that accountability may take longer, because that is about
due process, investigations and, we hope, prosecutions and quite
possibly restitution, including in relation to Fujitsu. In a
previous answer, I believe he said that government involvement
had started around 2021. What about the fact that Governments
were represented on the Post Office board? What about the
question of what these arm’s-length entities, including
privatised entities such as Post Office Ltd, do to the concept of
ministerial responsibility? What will we do about that precious
constitutional principle going forward?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. This is another area that
will demand further consideration. Within the system of
government now, we have a lot of quangos, third-party agencies
and off-balance-sheet activities. The question that must always
arise is what the relationship is between those and the
shareholders, who are effectively the taxpayers. What is the role
of Ministers to sit in between them, and what is the
accountability of Ministers to make those decisions? A large
number of noble Lords in this House have been Ministers and
understand how that works and that we have conservations with
officials. But we also need to have a sniff test, do we not,
about what sniffs right and what sniffs wrong. There is a
requirement to look at this again, so as to not be in a position
where we just always take what officials tell us, and a need to
actually be a bit more canny about the questions we ask.
(CB)
My Lords, the enormity of this seems so appalling that, even when
the sentences have been overturned, the compensation paid, and
the committee inquiry taken place and blame apportioned, we will
need some great public, symbolic act to recognise that something
terrible has gone wrong and that hundreds of people who were
wrongly accused have now been clearly and publicly vindicated.
Will the Minister think about the possibility of doing something,
perhaps in Westminster Hall, on behalf of the state and in a
public and symbolic way, to express the sorrow of the state and
the clear, public vindication of these hundreds of people?
(Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for that intervention;
it is a very insightful comment. Ironically, when the management
were asked in court what they felt one of their core duties was,
they said it was to protect the reputation of the Post Office.
But what of the reputation of the Post Office today? I would
argue that, funnily enough, the reputation of the Post Office has
in some ways gone up, in that people now understand the value of
sub-postmasters. Are they not what the Post Office actually is?
Those who have suffered reputational damage have been the
management of the Post Office, and rightly so, but has not this
sorry saga perhaps brought to our attention just how valued the
sub-postmasters must be in our community? What the noble and
right reverend Lord has called for is a demonstration of that. It
is a very good idea, and one that I will take back to the
department.
(Con)
My Lords—
of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords—
The Deputy Speaker () (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, following on from what the Minister said, could he
explain the role of the audit committees, at any level, and the
National Audit Office? Where were they in this scandal? There are
audit committees and they had a role to play. The elementary
precaution used by all firms of accountants is that, when a new
system is put in place, you run a parallel system for a few
months to make sure there are no errors. Why was that not
done?
(Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise these points. This is
what the Williams inquiry will be looking at in fine detail. My
understanding of the situation is that there was no shortage of
committees all over this terrible saga, but there was a shortage
of good judgment, inquiring minds, sympathy and common sense.
These questions will all be answered. They need to be run through
the Williams committee, and we need to know the answers to all of
these. I know that he will do his work in great detail.
(Con)
My Lords, can I comment as follows? There was a most sad
interview this morning on the “Today” programme; it was really
upsetting, to say the least. On following up with Fujitsu, could
I suggest that the Prime Minister ring the Prime Minister of
Japan, who was elected to bring back the standing of Japan in
world terms? In practice, trust and respect is a key factor to
them. It is not impossible that, in the case of wanting that
recognition, trust and respect, the Prime Minister of Japan would
quietly ring the chairman of Fujitsu and that, in a charitable
form, they could arrange something which would suit us. They
would consider it generous while we would not. Nevertheless, it
is something to try; it would just be a phone call.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that idea, which is a good one. With
his permission, I will take it back to the department.
(Lab)
My Lords, in the other place today, Minister said that engagement with
the Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations would take
place. How will that happen in Northern Ireland whenever there
are no political institutions up and running? Who will the
Government actually engage with, since post offices are very much
the financial hub, and have been over the last 20 years,
particularly in rural communities?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that point, which is well made. We
have to work with the situation we find ourselves in, and this
has to be moved along at great speed. I am happy to write, as I
do not know the exact answer to that question in detail, but I do
know that conversations and dialogue happen between the MoJ and
those in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am happy to find
out more about the precise mechanics of that.
(Con)
My Lords, further to the question which was asked earlier this
afternoon by a right reverend Prelate, the BBC is reporting that
Paula Vennells was shortlisted to be the . The media are very much
focused on her, but there was a board and there were successive
chief executives, all of which seems to be being ignored. It is
really important that accountability is clear. We cannot wait for
the inquiry. Does my noble friend not think that something is
desperately wrong with our procedures, and with the judicial
system, when it takes 20 years for this to be established, and
where the net beneficiaries have been the lawyers? They have
earned millions and millions of pounds, while ordinary people
have been bankrupted and unable to defend themselves. Does he
accept that this requires, as has been pointed out, a
root-and-branch assessment of how these systems operate and the
arrangements with agencies, where Ministers—far be it for me to
defend the leader of the Liberal Party —are held to account for
bodies with which there are arm’s-length relationships and where
they are unable to execute responsibility, although they are held
accountable for it?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution. On the lawyers,
that is certainly a point well made—it is quite extraordinary how
much has been made out of this so far by the lawyers. That is why
my colleague, Minister Hollinrake, has been so assiduous in
coming up with a plan which allows for compensation to be paid
immediately—whether that is the £75,000 minimum to the GLO group
or the £600,000 for those who are having their convictions
overturned—without the need to have any more legal input. That is
a very important part of the process. If any claimant feels that
they want to make a bigger claim than that, they will need to
interact with lawyers again to do so; again, we have given a
tariff and a certain cap, which will at least minimise that. On
the wider point from my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I completely
agree that this highlights serious flaws in the corporate
governance of the Post Office, and in the role of the board and
its interaction with government officials of whichever colour and
creed. We need to have a serious look at this. Once we have gone
through the Williams inquiry, I believe that this will be worthy
of much further consideration in this House.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords—
(Con)
Can we let in the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from the
non-affiliated Benches, please?
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the reasons this has resonated so widely is not
just because it was a brilliant drama but because so many
ordinary people recognise what it feels like to be fighting the
establishment and getting nowhere. We have all spent hours
shouting at the phone on those helplines on the computer—that is
in relation not just to HMRC but to the NHS and everything you
deal with—but people were also treated as though they were
criminals, not believed, and gaslit by these experts who know
what they are talking about.
Anyway, there is an issue here. The whole establishment, not just
the Post Office but the judiciary, seems to have a lot to answer
for. I therefore ask, if the judges believed the computer, how we
feel about the fact that the police national computer is
maintained by Fujitsu. Britain’s criminal records database is run
by Fujitsu. It has all the details of convictions, cautions,
fingerprints, DNA data and—something I have been banging on about
for a while—non-crime hate, when you have not committed a crime
but you are on a database run by the police. Fujitsu has it. I do
not feel safe in these circumstances, and I identify with the
little man against the establishment.
(Con)
I completely concur with the noble Baroness’s sentiments.
Emotions run high at this moment, and quite rightly because we
have seen a lot of very decent innocent people treated very badly
over such a long period; it is quite extraordinary. We are now at
a point where we are facing this issue. We are going to move fast
to get compensation into place. Let us get the inquiry under way,
and out of that will flow a lot of further debate.
