Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) (Urgent Question): To
ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make
a statement on the removal of Henry Staunton as Post Office Ltd
chair and wider governance issues within the organisation. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
(Kevin Hollinrake) Following a conversation with the Secretary of
State for Business and Trade over the weekend, Henry Staunton
agreed to step down...Request free
trial
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and
Trade if she will make a statement on the removal of Henry
Staunton as Post Office Ltd chair and wider governance issues
within the organisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
Following a conversation with the Secretary of State for Business
and Trade over the weekend, Henry Staunton agreed to step down as
chairman of the Post Office. An interim chair will be appointed
shortly, and a recruitment process for a new chair will be
launched in due course, in accordance with the governance code
for public appointments. I will update the House when we have
further details.
The current chairmanship was not proving effective, and we had a
difficult decision: change course, or wait and hope that it
improves. Given the challenging context for the Post Office and
the importance of the role of chair, the Business Secretary took
decisive action. I understand that Members would like more
details around the decision, especially considering that the Post
Office is rightly under heightened scrutiny at this time. I can
confirm that there were issues beyond the handling of the Horizon
scandal, but as hon. Members would expect, I am not able to
comment on the specifics of individual human resources cases.
As the Business Secretary has said, Post Office governance is a
priority for the Government. The Post Office is a public
corporation; as such, the Post Office board has responsibility
for the strategic direction of the company. While there was a
clear need for new leadership of the board, we continue to have
confidence in the other board members, who are experienced
executives with a range of business expertise across the legal,
financial, insurance, asset management and pensions sectors;
there are two elected postmaster non-executive directors,
too.
The Post Office faces unprecedented challenges. It needs to work
at pace to deliver compensation to the thousands of postmasters
who fell victim to a faulty IT system, as well as to continue the
essential work to implement the necessary operational and
cultural changes needed in the business. As such, strong and
effective leadership of Post Office Ltd is a necessity.
I thank the Minister for his response. It is concerning that the
Secretary of State’s move towards clarity and better governance
at Post Office Ltd begins with the Government being on a
different page from Post Office Ltd on whether Staunton was fired
or left by mutual consent. Will the Minister clarify that? Is it
possible that Mr Staunton is being made a scapegoat to take the
heat away from this Government, and those who came before, the
Government being the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd?
Back in July, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small
Business said in a debate on POL’s management culture:
“Through the shareholder’s representative on the board, the
Government oversee the Post Office’s corporate governance,
strategy, performance and stewardship of its financial and other
resources.”[—[Official Report, 13 July 2023; Vol. 736, c.
180WH.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=736&ColumnNumber=180WH&House=1)
That is not the same as the chairperson. Are the Government
satisfied that the UK Government Investments board representative
has adequately fulfilled his oversight role? Indeed, has Tom
Cooper, who stood down in May, been replaced? That is not clear
from Post Office Ltd’s website.
It is clear that the governance model simply has not worked. The
arm’s length approach used by successive Governments has allowed
scandal after scandal to fester. The post office network is in
disarray. Financial redress to postmasters is far too slow and,
in some cases, wholly inadequate. The remuneration package for
sub-postmasters means that many are working for below the minimum
wage, and services are continuously being stripped away. Does the
Minister have confidence that the removal of Mr Staunton will
speed up financial redress for victims and bring about change in
the management culture of Post Office Ltd?
Back in July, Mr Staunton appeared in front of the Business and
Trade Committee over the bonusgate scandal. In a debate at the
same time, I asked the Minister if he had confidence in the
current management of Post Office Ltd. I received no meaningful
answer, so has it taken a TV drama for the Government to take
action? How is that acceptable?
I thank the hon. Lady for her work; the all-party parliamentary
group on post offices does a tremendous job. The phrase used in
the statement was “mutual consent”, but it is fair to say that
the Government exercised their right to remove the chairman; the
hon. Lady can deduce from that what she will. This is not a case
of allocating responsibility for the past problems of the Post
Office; we are simply saying that we need new leadership going
forward. There were specific circumstances around the chairman
that meant that we felt that he was not the right person to lead
the organisation of the board at this time.
The shareholder representative on UKGI, as the hon. Lady was
right to say, is not the chair; it was Tom Cooper, but is now
Lorna Gratton. Do I have confidence in her? Yes, I do. I meet her
regularly and have a high degree of confidence in her.
Compensation is too slow—we accept that. A number of measures
were introduced prior to the TV drama, as the hon. Lady puts it,
including the fixed-sum award of £600,000 for overturned
convictions. We have also introduced a fixed-sum award for the
group litigation order to expedite compensation. That is
something on which I am absolutely focused on a daily basis.
I accept what the hon. Lady says about the remuneration of
sub-postmasters around the country. Part of that, of course, is
about consumer habits—where we shop on the high street. We are
keen to identify new sources of revenue, including through the
banking framework, which is a potential lucrative opportunity,
and parcel hubs.
On the issue of confidence in the individuals, let me say that,
having been a board director myself for 30 years, you are only as
good as your last game, so it is fair to say that, at this point
in time, we did not feel that Henry Staunton was the right person
to lead the board.
(Witham) (Con)
Given the Government’s role as the sole shareholder in the Post
Office, and the associated liabilities and responsibilities that
go with that, when will the Secretary of State for Business and
Trade make public all the associated papers related to Horizon
and this entire scandal, so that the victims as well as the
country can see where the responsibility for all this lies? By
doing so, the Government will be able to take the right kind of
action and support the victims as they seek compensation.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and the work that
she has done on this. We set up the inquiry in 2021 to undertake
that work. Those documents are public and subject to public
scrutiny. She may have watched some of the inquiry sessions,
which were very revealing about some of the conduct that happened
at the Post Office. That inquiry is due to conclude by the end of
this year and then report probably sometime next year. We will
have a much clearer understanding then of who is responsible,
and, as is often said at this Dispatch Box, that is the time to
hold those individuals to account.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious
injustices in our country. It has robbed innocent people of their
livelihoods, their liberty and, all too sadly, their lives. At
least 60 postmasters have died without seeing justice or
receiving compensation and at least four have taken their lives.
Twenty years on, sub-postmasters and their families are still
suffering from the consequences and the trauma of all that they
have been put through.
The scale of the scandal is so vast that getting the right
leadership in place at the Post Office is of paramount
importance. However, to decide to eject the chair during the
weekend with no real opportunity to get the details of the
decision on the public record is unusual, to say the least.
People need to know that removing Henry Staunton was a
substantive, evidence-based decision if we are to have confidence
in that decision. Can the Minister assure us that this decision
was, indeed, substantive and not just the result of a personal
falling out between Mr Staunton and the Secretary of State?
The Minister has talked about setting a timeline “in due course”
for replacing Mr Staunton. In the context of what has happened in
the Horizon scandal and the big challenges facing the Post
Office, strong leadership is vital at this point in the process.
I hope that he will be able to share as quickly as possible
further information about the timeline and when the post will be
filled.
What confidence can the Minister provide that this change will
lead to the wholesale culture change that is desperately needed
to make sure that this never happens again? Mr Staunton was not
in the Post Office during the Horizon scandal—he has only served
in the position since 2022—and this scandal has never been about
the actions of one single individual.
Finally, the priority for us all in this House is the
fast-tracked exoneration of all remaining convictions and the
delivery of rightful redress or compensation to all the affected
sub-postmasters as quickly as possible. Will the Minister provide
an update on when we will see more progress on those matters to
make sure that we take urgent steps to fix the seismic damage of
this scandal?
It certainly was not something that we wanted to do on a weekend.
There was a chance that it would come into the public domain by
other means, which is why a conversation had to take place over
the weekend. We did not think that it would be right for the
individual to hear about the potential course of action by other
means than the Secretary of State speaking to him. I think that
was the right thing to do. I do not know why the hon. Lady would
feel, or whether she any evidence, that there was some kind of
falling out, as she put it; this was about very serious
governance issues related to the person who headed the board of
the organisation, which are obviously confidential human
resources issues.
On the timeline to replace Mr Staunton, as I said, we will do so
as quickly as possible. We are looking at recommendations as we
speak, and we will report back to the House as soon as possible
on an interim and a permanent replacement. This was not about
holding somebody responsible for past problems in the Post
Office; it was about the governance of the Post Office going
forward. That is why a mutual agreement took place for Mr
Staunton to step down.
We are working at pace to deliver the blanket overturning of
convictions. We are keen to update the House as quickly as
possible, and should do so in the coming days.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I was deeply
concerned by the inability of Mr Read, the chief executive
officer of Post Office Ltd, to answer an array of very simple
questions. In fact, he appeared not even to have done his basic
homework when it came to looking back at the Horizon scandal.
Although he was not the CEO at the time of the scandal, what
confidence do the Government have in Mr Read as chief executive
officer to turn it around, and has he yet made public the board
minutes that show when the matter was brought to the board’s
attention for the very first time? If any board member was
complicit in hearing that information and not acting upon it,
what steps will the Government take with lawyers to ensure that
they are held accountable?
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee. I
was present for his line of questioning during that session. The
chief executive committed to providing responses to the
Committee; I am not sure whether they have been provided thus
far. A number of questions needed to be addressed, and it is
right that those answers be provided. As far as the Government
are concerned, our primary means of achieving that is through the
inquiry, which is hearing important evidence right now, and will
conclude its work by the end of the year and report shortly
afterwards.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Gordon) (SNP)
Surely if ever there was a time to consider removing Mr Staunton
from his post, it was after it emerged last year that bonuses
were being paid to Post Office executives simply for doing what I
think we would all expect them to: co-operating fully with the
Horizon inquiry. I think that people will be forgiven for having
the suspicion that, when it comes to Horizon, Ministers have been
a bit like the Japanese moon lander, suddenly bursting to life as
soon as a bit of light is shone on them, in this case by an ITV
programme.
I have two questions. First, Fujitsu’s representatives told the
Business and Trade Committee a fortnight ago that Fujitsu had a
“moral obligation” to contribute to the financial redress for the
victims. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions yet with
Fujitsu about how and when that might happen, as well as about
the size of the contribution that it might make? Secondly, with
regard to the continued unexplained shortfalls in Horizon, will
the Government commit to revealing how much in excess the Post
Office claimed back from staff, resorting to forensic accountancy
if required?
The bonuses were returned voluntarily by anybody who received
them for that sub-metric, and the chief executive returned his
bonuses from across the entire inquiry.
On the point about the Government picking up the pace because of
the ITV drama, I would say a couple of things. We were putting a
number of measures in place already. We had put in place the
Horizon compensation advisory board, which has as one of its key members. A
fixed-sum award was introduced last autumn. We were looking at
advice on overturning convictions. Things were happening at pace
in this area prior to the dramatisation, but of course we are
public servants and members of the public. Of course we want to
expedite things, and the impetus behind them is at a raised level
because of the public outcry.
Conversations are ongoing with Fujitsu. In my view, the best
point to negotiate is when we have all the evidence at our
disposal, which will not be until the inquiry concludes. We
welcome the fact that the company has taken and accepted some
moral responsibility to contribute towards the compensation and
we will take it at its word, but negotiating at the right point
is the right way to deal with that.
The question of any excess moneys that came back from postmasters
effectively into Post Office accounts is an important one, which
we are asking now, and we hope to get answers in the near
future.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
I spoke recently to a couple of my constituents whose parents
were wronged by the Post Office Horizon scandal. Now they are
being asked to provide invoices from more than 20 years ago to
prove that they bought the Horizon system—records the Post Office
itself admits it does not keep. Does my hon. Friend agree that it
is right that we focus on those who have been wronged, and that
the benefit of the doubt must be with those postmasters who were
completely wronged?
That is absolutely right. It should not be the case that a
postmaster has to evidence a document that does not exist. The
benefit of the doubt should be with the postmaster. Of course it
is fair to ask, “Do you have documentation to support any claim
you are making?”, but if the evidence is not there, the benefit
of the doubt should be with the postmaster.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
Leaving the Post Office rudderless now, when people are literally
dying before they get redress, is not a situation we can put up
with. The key question for the Minister is this: where is the
Bill to expedite redress for those who were wrongfully convicted?
Will he commit this afternoon finally to making sure that we have
pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill so that it is as strong as
it can be, and will he commit to a hard deadline enshrined in law
in the Bill to make sure the payments are made as rapidly as
possible? Frankly, Mr Bates and the other sub-postmasters who
have been wronged for so long should not be made to wait a moment
longer.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not
accept his premise that the Post Office is rudderless. The chief
executive is still there and I spoke to him a few moments ago,
prior to the urgent question. As I have said, we are looking to
appoint an interim chair as soon as possible and a permanent
replacement shortly after that, and meanwhile the daily work of
the board will continue.
On our commitment to overturn convictions on a blanket basis, I
appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s previous constructive
collaboration and engagement with our Department, and I hope that
continues. I am keen to engage with him on our approach. These
are legal matters that need to be considered carefully and we had
a number of meetings last week on this very issue, so I am keen
to engage with him, but in a way that does not slow down the
process of bringing the legislation forward. He will find us
contacting him and knocking at his door in the coming days to
talk about how we will go forward with that legislation.
I should point out that Mr Bates’s compensation is not related to
the overturning of convictions, because he was never convicted.
That is not what is getting in the way of Mr Bates’s
compensation, although it is getting in the way for something
like 900 other people, and we are keen to resolve that as quickly
as possible.
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to look at the Post
Office’s reported practice, under the former chairman, of making
payments of just £5,000 under the Horizon shortfall scheme for
distress and inconvenience to people it falsely accused of theft,
when a similar claim made at an employment tribunal, in the most
exceptional cases, is 10 times that amount?
To be clear, those schemes are run independently of the Post
Office. There are independent processes all the way through, and
an independent panel assesses the loss. I think my hon. Friend is
talking about the Horizon shortfall scheme, but it is clear that
any tariffs that might go with payments are not a ceiling—they
tend to be a floor. People should of course be fully compensated
for both their financial and their non-pecuniary loss; that is a
principle we have adhered to all the way through the process. We
are looking at the recommendations of the advisory board on how
to make sure people who have been through those schemes have
received fair payments. In the group litigation order scheme,
there will effectively be a minimum £75,000 fixed-sum award. We
are keen to ensure not only that we get the money out of the
door, but that that compensation is fair and seen to be fair.
(St Albans) (LD)
The Post Office bullied, threatened and lied to sub-postmasters
and, as we have heard, there is huge frustration that throughout
the entire compensation process it has tried to minimise
payments, or used extra-long and complex forms to avoid making
payments to them. Is the Minister confident that the compensation
programme is truly independent and that sub-postmasters will get
the full and fair payments they deserve?
I do not accept that premise. I do not see any evidence of the
compensation schemes trying to minimise payments. The independent
panel for the Horizon shortfall scheme included , for example, and seven or
eight KCs—very reputable people seeking to do the right thing—so
we must be careful in our rhetoric. Of course we want to ensure
that people get their full and fair compensation. That is why we
implemented the Horizon compensation advisory board, which
includes , the right hon. Member for
North Durham (Mr Jones), Chris Hodges and Professor Moorhead.
They are decent people who want to ensure that people get treated
fairly, and full and fair compensation is what people will
get.
(Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, in the wake of the Horizon scandal, there is a need for
massive change in the culture driving Post Office management,
particularly in its relationship with sub-postmasters, who are,
after all, running private businesses under contract with—not
owned by—the Post Office. Will the Minister ensure that whoever
is appointed chairman commits themselves thoroughly to that
culture change, and, if necessary, will he change other board
members to ensure that we get the change that we all want to
see?
That is a good point. In the past, the relationship between Post
Office Ltd and sub-postmasters has not been where it should have
been. It is important that that changes. There has been much work
on this: 100 area managers have been appointed to help build that
relationship, and some of the past conduct and culture of the
Post Office has changed. However, we know that it needs to change
further. That is the job of the board; we need the right leader
of the board in order to do that—hence the action that we took
over the weekend.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
Poor leadership and governance of the Post Office led to the
badly designed Horizon shortfall scheme, which other Members have
referred to. I have to say to the Minister that there has been
massive under-compensation of sub-postmasters, including my
constituent Mr Pennington. For 10 years, he was forced to find
shortfall amounts totalling a possible £100,000 because of the
Horizon system. He and his wife had to use their own savings,
sell shares and even jewellery, and remortgage their house
twice.
The stress and worry of finding those shortfalls over 10 years
was immense, and Mr Pennington had a mini-stroke shortly after
selling the business in 2012 because he could not stand paying
the shortfalls any more. Yet the Horizon shortfall scheme has
paid out a paltry £1,500 for those 10 years of stress and worry,
and has compensated only half the shortfalls. Even the tax top-up
promised in November has not yet materialised. I have written to
the Minister about that case, but what action can he promise now
to ensure that my constituent is finally compensated for those
years of distress to him and his wife?
I am very happy to work with the hon. Lady on that particular
case. We are clear that people should get full and fair
compensation for financial loss and other impacts, including
reputational loss—[Interruption.] I am setting out the position
as it is. Of course, we are all concerned to hear about people
who do not feel that they have been properly compensated. That is
why we have the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which
sits and to which I have
referred a number of times. We are keen to ensure that all those
people get, and can see that they have got, fair compensation. We
are looking at the recommendations for an appeal mechanism, for
example. I am very happy to look at this particular case in that
context. It is absolutely the case that people should be fully
compensated for financial loss and other impacts on their
lives.
(North East Hampshire)
(Con)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. By taking this action,
the Government have accepted by default that the arm’s length
body model for the Post Office does not work, so will he look
again at the structure of Post Office Ltd, and will he confirm on
the record that the former chairman, having left by mutual
consent, did not receive or accept any severance payment?
Yes, I can confirm that there was no severance payment. I do not
think it is fair to say that we do not think the arm’s length
model works. Clearly, we have the right to terminate the chair’s
position, which is what we have done.; that is part of the
current governance process. Of course, individuals are important,
and having the right individual leading the board is very
important. We did not think that was the case prior to this
weekend, which is why we took the action that we did. We are very
keen to appoint the right person to help make the cultural
changes within the Post Office that we all want to see.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. The effects of the Horizon scandal and
Post Office business practices are still hurting our communities.
The post office in Nefyn closed partly because staff no longer
trust the computer systems, which I bet is happening in countless
communities. I have asked the Post Office to provide an outreach
van in Nefyn if no business at all is willing to provide that
service—as appears very likely, because I have asked businesses;
last week, the Post Office said no. Will the Minister guarantee
the people of Nefyn that this, the oldest and second largest town
in Llyn, will again have post services in the town?
I am very happy to take that point up with the right hon. Lady,
and to meet her to discuss it. It is very important that our
citizens—our consumers—have confidence in the Post Office. That
has certainly been the experience in my patch: people have been
outraged when there is a closure, so the general public
definitely have some confidence in the service. The Horizon
system is being replaced. As far as I know, there has never been
a case of a customer losing out because of the Horizon system,
but I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady to discuss her
case in Nefyn.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
Shepherd’s Bush Crown office closed in 2017, and Hammersmith
Crown office closed in 2020 after 100 years. Four sub-offices in
my constituency have been temporarily closed for up to 10 years.
With queues at the remaining offices stretching around the block
at times, and a lack of competition thanks to multiple bank
closures, will the Minister investigate why Post Office Ltd lacks
commercial sense as well as integrity?
I am happy to look into any cases that the hon. Gentleman refers
to. There are clear set criteria: the Post Office has to maintain
11,500 branches nationwide, and 99% of the population has to be
within three miles of a post office. The Post Office is
maintaining its requirements under those criteria, but I am very
happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the issue. Of course,
we are looking at how to ensure that the network of individual
post offices is sustained over the long term with new revenue
streams, including through the access to cash legislation that
the Government have put in place and things like parcel hubs. We
think there is a bright future for the Post Office, but I am very
keen to work with the hon. Gentleman to make sure of that in his
particular cases.
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
I recently raised serious concerns with the Minister that the UK
Government are not putting enough effort into making sure that
post offices have a sustainable future—something that was of
concern before the ITV drama shone a light on this issue. It is a
challenge, and I do not feel that I really got an answer, so I am
coming back to the topic again: we really need to know that we
have a clear, proper plan for ensuring that there is no further
deterioration of the network and to help build it back up. People
in places like Neilston in my constituency, whose post office
closed two weeks ago, or Clarkston, whose post office closed on
Saturday, need those services. Those closures are billed as
temporary, but they are only temporary if someone has the
confidence to take up the opportunity to be a postmaster—who
would feel that way now? What is the Minister’s plan to address
the issue and make sure we have post office services for all our
communities?
I agree with the hon. Lady. We need sustainable post offices, and
that is about revenue. There have been changes in consumer habits
and business levels, which have caused difficulties for
postmasters. As I said, the Government have legislated for access
for cash, which is a new opportunity for post offices. The
banking framework delivers more revenue into those post office
branches; we are keen to see that enhanced and for the Post
Office to be more ambitious about that relationship, with that
money flowing straight into the profit and loss accounts of
individual postmasters’ branches. There are many other
opportunities, including parcel hubs and foreign exchange. I am
happy to discuss the matter offline, if that would be
helpful.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
The reputational damage to the brand of the Post Office as a
direct consequence of the Horizon scandal has been massive—as the
Minister knows, my constituent Della Robinson was one of the 555
litigants who had their convictions quashed a couple of years
ago. Looking to the future, what is the Minister’s vision for
reinvigorating the Post Office as a great British brand?
I thank the hon. Member, and I thank Della Robinson for her work.
She was one of the trailblazers who were so important in getting
to where we are today and to our getting compensation to the
people affected. As I said in response to earlier questions, I
believe the Post Office brand is not damaged; it is the centre of
the Post Office—those who ran it from the centre—that is damaged.
I think we should all get behind our post offices, and of course
support them wherever we can. This is not about the brand itself.
As I say, when I hear about any closures from colleagues or in my
constituency, I know that the local populations are opposed to
them, which identifies the high esteem in which people regard
their post offices. I am very happy to have a conversation with
the hon. Member, if necessary.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
It has been very concerning over the last few days to read that a
senior UK Government civil servant colluded with the Post Office
to shut down the independent investigation by forensic
accountants back in 2014, and that he did so with the full
knowledge of the coalition Government. Now that the Metropolitan
police are finally investigating possible criminality on the part
of the Post Office and high-up employees, does the Minister agree
that they should also be looking at the possibility of
misfeasance in public office?
That is certainly of concern to the Government as well. The
inquiry is there to ascertain exactly who did what, or who did
not do anything when they could have done something. The Met
police will conduct investigations and take forward prosecutions
wherever they choose. That is not something we seek to influence,
although as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, I would
welcome somebody being charged or criminal charges being brought
against somebody for what has happened in this horrendous
scandal.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
The family members of a terminally ill constituent came to my
surgery in Corkerhill on Friday; that person was a shopkeeper in
the highlands who, like so many, were caught up with unexplained
shortfalls in Horizon totals, and although that did not lead to
criminal action, they paid up to avoid trouble—often borrowing
from other sources to do so. Can the Minister tell us whether
work will be done to ensure that we know exactly how much in
excess the Post Office claimed through all Horizon errors? Can he
also tell me in general terms how he will ensure that those who
are terminally ill get the justice and compensation they richly
deserve?
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s particular case. The
most important thing we can do is to get compensation to those
people as quickly as possible. We have the first scheme that was
implemented, which sounds as though that is the right one for his
constituent—the historical shortfall scheme. I assume they have
made an application to that scheme, and they should be
compensated accordingly. About 2,400 people applied on time; 100%
have received offers and 84% have accepted those offers. That is
a route to compensation. On the excess, we are very keen to find
out exactly where that money went, and how it was dealt with when
it did appear in some kind of suspense account. That is something
we are working on, but we are certainly keen to make sure people
are compensated. It is the most important thing we can do right
now.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When considering the governance of Post Office Ltd, will the
Minister bear in mind the demoralising impact of the Horizon
scandal on current and potential sub-postmasters, as well as on
the people who were victims of the scandal itself? In our
communities, we are fighting to return post offices to Shap and
to Hawkshead—as he knows, because he kindly met me to discuss
them recently—and to maintain a post office in Staveley, but we
are being hampered by apparent inertia and administrative
hurdles, in Shap especially, which are the last things we need.
We need encouragement, not red tape. Is there a plan to
proactively support current and potential postmasters, so that we
can maintain and expand our vital post office network in
Cumbria’s communities and across the country?
Yes, it was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member, and I am happy to
meet him again to try to expedite matters if he is experiencing
delays. Of course, checks and balances need to be gone through
with any new postmaster application, but it is good to hear that
people are coming forward, and I am very happy to work with him
to make sure that that situation is resolved as quickly as
possible.
|
