The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about Post Office
governance and the Horizon compensation schemes. Over the weekend,
several serious allegations were made against the Government, my
Department and its officials by Henry Staunton, the former chair of
the Post Office. The allegations are completely false, and I would
like to make a statement to the House so that hon. Members and the
British...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about Post
Office governance and the Horizon compensation schemes.
Over the weekend, several serious allegations were made against
the Government, my Department and its officials by Henry
Staunton, the former chair of the Post Office. The allegations
are completely false, and I would like to make a statement to the
House so that hon. Members and the British public know the truth
about exactly what has happened. I would like to address three
specific claims that Mr Staunton made in his Sunday Times
interview—claims that are patently untrue.
First, Mr Staunton alleges that I refused to apologise to him
after he learned of his dismissal from Sky News. That was not the
case. In the call he referenced, I made it abundantly clear that
I disapproved of the media breaking any aspect of the story. Out
of respect for Henry Staunton’s reputation, I went to great pains
to make my concerns about his conduct private. In fact, in my
interviews with the press, I repeatedly said that I refuse to
carry out HR in public. That is why it is so disappointing that
he has chosen to spread a series of falsehoods, provide made-up
anecdotes to journalists and leak discussions held in confidence.
All that merely confirms in my mind that I made the correct
decision in dismissing him.
Secondly, Mr Staunton claims that I told him that “someone’s got
to take the rap” for the Horizon scandal, and that was the reason
for his dismissal. That was not the reason at all. I dismissed
him because there were serious concerns about his behaviour as
chair, including those raised by other directors on the board. My
Department found significant governance issues. For example, a
public appointment process was under way for a new senior
independent director to the Post Office board, but Mr Staunton
apparently wanted to bypass it and appoint someone from the board
without due process. He failed to properly consult the Post
Office board on the proposal; he failed to hold the required
nominations committee; and, most importantly, he failed to
consult the Government, as a shareholder, which the company was
required to do. I know that hon. Members will agree with me that
such a cavalier approach to governance was the last thing we
needed in the Post Office, given its historical failings.
I should also inform the House that while Mr Staunton was in
post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made
regarding his conduct, including serious matters such as
bullying. Concerns were brought to my Department’s attention
about Mr Staunton’s willingness to co-operate with that
investigation.
It is right that the British public should know the facts behind
the case, and what was said in the phone call in which I
dismissed Mr Staunton. Officials from my Department were on the
line; the call was minuted, and a read-out was sent after it took
place. Today, I am depositing a copy of that read-out in both
Libraries of the House, so that hon. Members and the public can
see the truth. In those minutes, personal information relating to
other Post Office employees has been redacted. For all those
reasons, an interim chair will be appointed shortly, and I will,
of course, update the House when we have further details.
Finally, Mr Staunton claims that when he was first appointed as
chair of the Post Office, he was told by a senior civil servant
to stall on paying compensation. There is no evidence whatsoever
that that is true. In fact, on becoming Post Office chair, Mr
Staunton received a letter from the permanent secretary of the
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, , on 9 December 2022, welcoming
him to his role and making it crystal clear that successfully
reaching settlements with victims of the Post Office scandal
should be one of his highest priorities. That letter is in the
public domain. The words are there in black and white, and copies
of the correspondence will be placed in the Libraries of both
Houses.
The reality is that my Department has done everything it can to
speed up compensation payments for victims. We have already made
payments totalling £160 million across all three compensation
schemes. That includes our announcement last autumn of the
optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who had been
wrongfully convicted. It is the strongest refutation of those in
this House who would claim that we acted only after the ITV
drama, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, was shown. British people
should know that a dedicated team of Ministers and civil servants
have been working around the clock for many months to hasten the
pursuit of justice, and bring swift, fair redress to all those
affected.
To that end, I am pleased that all 2,417 postmasters who claimed
through the original Horizon shortfall scheme have now had offers
of compensation. The Post Office is dealing promptly with late
applications and cases where the initial offer has not been
accepted. My Department has also established the Horizon
compensation unit to ensure that money gets to the right people
without a moment’s delay. Last autumn, we announced an additional
£150 million to the Post Office, specifically to help it meet the
costs of participating in the Post Office-Horizon inquiry and
delivering compensation to postmasters. In all, we have committed
around £1 billion to ensure that wronged postmasters can be fully
and fairly compensated, and through forthcoming legislation, we
are taking unprecedented steps to quash the convictions of
postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal.
In short, we are putting our money where our mouth is, and our
shoulders to the wheel to ensure that justice is done. It is not
fair on the victims of this scandal, which has already ruined so
many lives and livelihoods, to claim, as Mr Staunton has done,
that things are being dragged out a second longer than they ought
to be. For Henry Staunton to suggest otherwise, for whatever
personal motives, is a disgrace, and it risks damaging confidence
in the compensation schemes that Ministers and civil servants are
working so hard to deliver. I would hope that most people reading
the interview in yesterday’s Sunday Times would see it for what
it was: a blatant attempt to seek revenge following
dismissal.
I must say that I regret the way in which these events have
unfolded. We did everything that we could to manage this
dismissal in a dignified way for Mr Staunton and others. However,
I will not hesitate to defend myself and, more importantly, my
officials, who cannot respond directly to these baseless attacks.
Right now, the Post Office’s No. 1 priority must be delivering
compensation to postmasters who have not already been
compensated. There were those who fell victim to a faulty IT
system that the Post Office implemented, and that it turned a
blind eye to when brave whistleblowers such as Alan Bates sounded
the alarm. We said that the Government would leave no stone
unturned in uncovering the truth behind the Horizon scandal, and
in pursuing justice for the victims and their families. We are
delivering on that promise, while looking for any further
possible steps that we can take to ensure the full and final
settlement of claims as quickly as possible.
It is right that we reflect, too, on the cultural practices at
the Post Office that allowed the Horizon scandal to happen in the
first place. It was a culture that let those in the highest ranks
of the organisation arbitrarily dismiss the very real concerns of
the sub-postmasters who are the lifeblood of their business and
pillars of the local community. Although the Post Office may have
failed to stand by its postmasters in the past, we are ensuring
that it does everything that it can to champion them today, and
to foster an environment that respects their employees and their
customers. That is how we will rebuild trust and ensure that the
British public can have confidence in our Post Office, now and in
the future. I commend this statement to the House.
4.26pm
(Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab/Co-op)
I firmly agree that the revelations in The Sunday Times at the
weekend could not be more serious. In particular, if true, the
claim that the Post Office was instructed to deliberately go slow
on compensation payments to sub-postmasters in order to push the
financial liability into the next Parliament would be a further
outrageous insult in a scandal that has already rocked faith in
the fairness of the British state. If that is the case, it cannot
be allowed to stand, and if it is not, it must be shown to be
false in no uncertain terms. We have two completely contrasting
accounts: one from the former chair of the Post Office, and one
from the Secretary of State. Only one of them can be the truth. I
hope that we are all in agreement that Parliament is the correct
place for these matters to be raised and clarified. What we need
now is transparency and scrutiny.
Will the Secretary of State categorically state that the Post
Office was at no point told to delay compensation payments by
either an official or a Minister from any Government Department,
and that at no point was it suggested that a delay would be of
benefit to the Treasury? Will there be a Cabinet Office
investigation to ensure that no such instruction or inference was
given at any point? Crucially, is the £1 billion figure for
compensation, which the Secretary of State helpfully just
repeated, already allocated, and sat in the accounts of the
Department for Business and Trade, ready to be paid? If it is
not, will compensation payments be specifically itemised in the
upcoming Budget?
The Secretary of State will also understand that following the
story at the weekend, victims of other scandals—especially of the
contaminated blood scandal—feel that they need to ask whether
they have been the victims of deliberate inaction. Will the
Government provide assurances that no such obstruction has been
placed on any payments of this kind? If so, can they explain what
the delay is in some cases? In the full interests of
transparency, and to fully ascertain the veracity of any
allegations for sub-postmasters and the general public, will she
publish all relevant correspondence, and minutes of meetings
between the Department, the Treasury, UK Government Investments
and the Post Office during this time? Finally, when can we expect
the legislation on exoneration that was promised by the Prime
Minister?
I cannot stress enough that the last thing that was needed in
this scandal was any further allegation of cover-up or
obfuscation at the very top of Government. People’s faith in
Government, already damaged by scandals such as Hillsborough,
Bloody Sunday and Windrush, is hanging by a thread. This
miscarriage of justice has shown the devastation that can occur
when institutions are allowed to operate without oversight or are
shrouded in secrecy. We should all agree that that secrecy must
end, and that the full sunlight of public scrutiny should be
brought to bear. If everything the Secretary of State has told us
today is correct, surely there will be no objection to that
happening fully.
I welcome the tone that the shadow Front-Bench spokesman has
taken. There is often a tendency for political point scoring, but
I think we both agree that this is very much about the
postmasters. That is why I ensured that I was at the Dispatch
Box: so that people would know the truth. That is what builds
trust.
The shadow Minister asked whether I would categorically state
that no instruction was given to delay payments. Yes, I can. We
have no evidence whatever that any official said that. If such a
thing was said, it is for Mr Staunton to bring the evidence. It
is very hard to refute a negative. People making wild, baseless
accusations and then demanding proof that they did not happen are
making mischief, in my view. As far as I have seen, all the
evidence points to the fact that no one gave that
instruction.
It is also important to look at whether it would even make sense
to do so. There would be no benefit whatever to our delaying the
compensation, which has no significant impact on revenues. It
would be a mad thing even to suggest. The compensation scheme,
which Mr Staunton oversaw, has been completed. My understanding
is that 100% of payments have been made, so clearly no such
instruction was given. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the infected
blood inquiry. This is a good example of how people lose faith in
the system because of misinformation. That is why I am here to
correct the record.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the £1 billion allocation. We give
monthly reports that show exactly what payments are being made.
He also asked whether we will publish correspondence. No, we will
not publish in full all correspondence between Departments, UKGI
and the Post Office. That is because we set up the statutory
inquiry, which will examine the important issues related to the
Horizon scandal, as well as current governance arrangements. We
are fully co-operating with the inquiry, but the inquiry was set
up by Parliament specifically to look at that. In addition to the
read-out of the true content of my telephone call with Mr
Staunton, we will consider publishing correspondence between
Departments and Mr Staunton in accordance with freedom of
information rules, so that people will know exactly what
happened, contrary to his account. The hon. Gentleman asked about
legislation. That is something that we are actively working on. I
expect that we will be able to deliver on that imminently.
(Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
When I was the postal affairs Minister, the officials in my team
not only shared my drive to get the money out of the
door—life-changing money for postmasters—but were energised and
empowered to do so. I cannot believe for a minute that just a few
months later they would be doing and thinking the polar opposite.
Clearly, they cannot defend themselves in public, so will my
right hon. Friend confirm that conversations about colluding to
slow down the compensation did not happen? It is important that
we double down and get more money out of the door as soon as
possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his fantastic work as the
postal affairs Minister, and I can confirm that. My officials
have looked through all the correspondence, and all the minutes
of the conversations that Mr Staunton had with the Department.
They found absolutely nothing, and he did not raise the matter in
his call with me. If it were something that officials had said to
him, surely he would have mentioned it to Ministers—either myself
or the postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for
Thirsk and Malton (). The fact that Mr
Staunton did not do so shows that it is quite likely something
that he is making up.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
I am at a loss today: another Monday, another Post Office
scandal. I have tried very hard to pull together my thoughts on
the statement, what was said in The Sunday Times, and what was
said in this place less than two weeks ago when I led a Backbench
Business debate on the culture of Post Office management.
I will ask the Secretary of State a few questions. Will she place
on the record whether Nick Read wrote to the Justice Secretary
last month defending the convictions, saying that some
postmasters were guilty? That is a serious allegation, and I
would really like to have an answer.
There has been talk all morning about damaging confidence in the
compensation schemes. If there is confidence in them, can the
Secretary of State explain why so many leading sub-postmasters
affected by the scandal were given such derisory offers, months
and months late? That is just not on. The Secretary of State
cannot say that Henry Staunton damaged the compensation schemes;
it was down to the Government and Post Office Ltd.
Is the Secretary of State aware that Post Office Ltd still
employs 40 investigators who secured convictions? I agree with
what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde () said: exoneration must
be hurried up and compensation must be paid sooner rather than
later. I have said that every month for the last nine months.
The hon. Lady asks multiple questions. The first is about a
letter written by Nick Read, Post Office’s chief executive, to
the Justice Secretary. What I can say is that UKGI and Post
Office Ltd have both vehemently denied that Nick Read was put
under any pressure to write the letter she refers to.
On the risks of making a decision on blanket exoneration, the
postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and
Malton (), has said repeatedly
that we have been faced with a dilemma: either to accept the
present problem of many people carrying the unjustified slur of
conviction, or to accept that an unknown number of people who
have genuinely stolen from their post offices will be exonerated
and perhaps even compensated. That is the case, and it is
certainly what the Government believe. What she says about people
being put under pressure to write a letter is something that UKGI
and Post Office Ltd have both vehemently denied.
The hon. Lady repeats Mr Staunton’s allegations, but I have
already given a statement saying that they are completely false.
She asks about individual cases of people who have been paid. I
cannot comment on individual cases, but I would like to clarify
that the main scheme in place under Henry Staunton’s watch was
the Horizon shortfall scheme. Some 2,417 people were made offers
within the original deadline. One hundred per cent have received
offers, but 84% have accepted offers. I just wanted to clarify my
previous comments.
On the 40 prosecutors still working for Post Office, I have had
multiple people giving different bits of information. The inquiry
is looking at that and will get to the bottom of it.
(Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State review the governance of UKGI? How
did it manage to preside over the Post Office with its dreadful
treatment of sub-postmasters? How did UKGI allow senior Post
Office managers to rack up and accumulate losses of £1,390
million, effectively bankrupting the Post Office so that it can
now trade only if it has the reassurance of massive cash
infusions from the Treasury on a continuing basis? Surely this
body has done very badly, and we need a better answer.
That is one of the reasons why we have been making personnel
changes in this area. It goes back to the point I was making in
the statement: Post Office needs an effective chair. Until the
day I had the conversation dismissing him, I never had any
correspondence from Mr Staunton about difficulties that he was
having with UKGI. If he was having difficulties, he should have
told me, rather than give an interview to The Sunday Times
effectively stating that he had no control over the organisation
that he had been appointed to run.
(North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says we have to accept that Henry
Staunton’s accusations are completely false. The letter that Nick
Read wrote to the Lord Chancellor about overturning convictions
mentioned that about 300 people are possibly going to be
“guilty”. She has just told the House that the investment body
did not instruct him to do that. Henry Staunton said he did not
tell Post Office to write the letter, and the board did not know
about it, so who did? For the sake of openness and transparency,
she should produce all correspondence between UKGI and Post
Office. The Secretary of State has accused Henry Staunton of
lying in public. The only way we can judge whether she is telling
the truth is if we have all the information out there.
Can I just say to the Secretary of State, in relation to her
obsession with tweeting, that although she says that people are
jumping “on the bandwagon”, some of us have been involved in this
for many years on a cross-party basis, including through work
with her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Business and
Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (), so that is quite
insulting. What message will the Secretary of State’s tone today
send to sub-postmasters? I will tell her: more cover-up and
obfuscation. Get the information out there and explain what is
going on. Otherwise, she will not have their trust. It will just
be more of the same that we have seen over many, many years.
I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assertions. This
is the political point scoring that I talked about earlier, which
we just need to stop. Rather than focusing on the issue, he is
talking about my tweeting. Maybe he should get off Twitter and
actually listen to what I am saying at the Dispatch Box. He is
talking about a letter that UKGI says it did not ask Nick Read to
write. The only possible answer is that Nick Read himself decided
to write that letter. I did not ask him to write it, the Post
Office says that it did not, and UKGI did not. These are the
sorts of things I am talking about—continuing to make aspersions
about Ministers. We have made the Post Office an independent
body, we have an independent inquiry, and the information will
come out in due course.
Sir (Bournemouth West) (Con)
There is no doubt that there was a bad culture in the Post Office
for a very long time. It misled a significant number of
Ministers, who, to put it gently, could have been more inquiring
over the years. Has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect on
the words of the non-executive members of the board representing
the postmasters, who say that only days before she sacked the
chairman, there was still a culture in which they were viewed as
guilty and on the take? If that sacking has brought compensation
to those people, who were traumatised and misled by the Post
Office, and who had their lives destroyed, her decision will go
down as a very welcome one.
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The comments by the members of
the board who are former postmasters are very interesting. They
are saying exactly what I am saying: that Henry Staunton was not
doing a good job as Post Office chair. That leads me back to the
point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones),
who is more interested in attacking the Government than in
looking at what even the members of the board are saying. It is
important that we continue to give confidence to people that
those organisations are run properly. That was the reason for the
dismissal.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Having supported constituents in negotiations in relation to the
historical shortfall scheme, I can tell the Secretary of State
that, whatever the reason for it, the conduct of the Post Office
and its agents was characterised by delay and obstruction. That,
in turn, led to the view taking hold among sub-postmasters that
there was no point in making claims. Since the ITV drama aired, I
have heard of several constituents making belated claims. What
more are the Government doing to ensure that everybody out there
who may have a claim is able to receive compensation?
The right hon. Gentleman’s question is a good one. The fixed-sum
awards show that we are taking the matter very seriously. I
became Business Secretary in February last year, and my one
priority was to ensure that people got their compensation as
quickly as possible. I did everything that I possibly could, with
the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office, my hon.
Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (), whom I thank for his
tireless efforts. He had been looking at the portfolio before I
got the job as Business Secretary, and I knew that the work was
in safe hands. We have worked together as a team, fought
cross-departmentally to ensure that people got the compensation
that they deserved, and brought in legislation just before
December—well before the ITV drama. The cases that the right hon.
Gentleman raises are important, as they show that there is still
a lot of work to do, and we will continue doing it.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
Given the Post Office’s track record with accuracy, I am very
glad that we have heard from the Secretary of State—I would
rather take her assurances at the Dispatch Box than anything from
a disgruntled, sacked former employee of the Post Office. Even
during last week’s recess, I still had constituents coming to me
saying that they were affected by the Horizon scandal, so can the
Secretary of State assure the people watching that the process is
very quick and simple? People who still feel that they lost money
during that horrendous period need to keep coming forward,
because there is an easy process: they can fill in a form to make
sure their voice is heard and that they get compensation.
My hon. Friend is quite right. I thank him for raising this
issue, and also for the work he has done—as a former postmaster,
he knows quite a lot about what has been going on. I reassure all
of the people who have been affected by this scandal that it is
something we take very seriously. When I became Business
Secretary, I was absolutely horrified by the sheer scale of
trauma that people had been going through. We want people to
continue coming forwards; where they are not happy with the
process, we will look at it again, but there is a formal process
in place to ensure that all postmasters can be treated fairly,
equally and equitably.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
The allegations of limping towards the general election in
relation to delaying compensation payments to postmasters mirror
the Government’s behaviour towards the infected blood scandal.
They have had the final recommendations for that compensation
since April 2023, with no action having been taken, so it seems
to me that there is a pattern of behaviour: the Government act
only when they are forced or shamed into doing so. With the
infected blood scandal, we have been told repeatedly by Ministers
that the Government are working at pace. What that really means
is that they are limping at pace, are they not?
No, no, and no. It is a shame that the right hon. Lady stands up
in the Chamber and says that the Government acted only when we
were forced to do so, because she knows that we brought
legislation to this House well before the ITV drama. She knows
about the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order
payments and the overturned convictions. She is trying to mix
this issue up with the infected blood inquiry, knowing that I
have just proved that the allegations made by Mr Staunton are
completely false. I have said that minutes will be put on the
record showing that this is not an issue that Labour wants to
look at beyond political point scoring. I will not stand at this
Dispatch Box and allow that to happen.
(Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
At the weekend, leaks to newspapers appeared to show really poor
embedded practices at the Post Office board, using language about
our postmasters being “on the take” or “guilty”. What is my right
hon. Friend doing to clean up the act?
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is why we need
effective leadership at the Post Office; and it is why I took the
decision to dismiss Mr Staunton, among the other issues I have
covered in this statement. We need people who care, and one of
the things that worries me is that because Mr Staunton has
decided to have revenge in the papers, it is going to be even
harder for us to find people who will come in and do this very
difficult job. I hope they will not be put off by the
misinformation that has been in the papers.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for her prompt statement, and for
laying out her version of events about the dismissal of Mr
Staunton, the Post Office chairman. We have to accept her
statements from the Dispatch Box, but I take exception to one
point she made. She said that there was no evidence of stalling
on compensation, but that evidence comes from the experience of
my own constituents, Mr and Mrs Rudkin—their evidence to me was
fundamental in unravelling this whole Post Office Horizon
scandal. Susan Rudkin’s criminal conviction was overturned in
December 2020—she was one of the first nine. When I spoke to Mr
and Mrs Rudkin only a few weeks ago, over three years after that
conviction was overturned, they still had not received their
compensation. If that is not evidence of stalling, what is?
I cannot comment on that specific case, because I do not have the
details, but a fixed sum award is available should Mr and Mrs
Rudkin wish to take it. There is a process and we will move as
quickly as we can. I cannot speak specifically about why there
has been that delay, but we are doing everything we can to get
the money out to the postmasters as quickly as possible.
(South Dorset) (Con)
I have a once-proud former postmaster in my constituency, who ran
the post office in Swanage. He fell foul of this scandal and was
sacked, not prosecuted. His life was utterly ruined and he repaid
the money that was owed. That was many years ago, but his wife is
now very ill and he has still not had compensation. May I make
two points? First, his lawyer tells me that the compensation
scheme is taking too long. Secondly, may I ask the Secretary of
State for an assurance that he will not be brushed off
financially simply because he was not prosecuted? The lives of
this man and his wife have been utterly ruined.
I know exactly the sort of people my hon. Friend is talking
about, and it is really awful to hear about everything they have
been through. I have a constituent who has talked to me about how
this scandal has ruined her life. We owe it to them to do
everything we can to ensure that they are fully compensated, and
I can assure him that Ministers and officials are working on this
every day. I know it is not always as quick as people would like,
but we want to ensure that it is done properly and that there are
no issues following that. I do not have the specific details of
that case, but they can apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme,
and if my hon. Friend brings it to the attention of the postal
affairs Minister, we will look at it specifically.
(Jarrow) (Lab)
Ministers have promised that the Government will bring in a new
law to swiftly exonerate and compensate victims, so can the
Secretary of State tell me why my constituent Chris Head has been
offered only 13% of his compensation claim? How can
sub-postmasters trust the Government or the Post Office to
deliver full and fair compensation when they are still facing so
much pushback on their compensation claims and receiving offers
that go nowhere near financial restoration, let alone
compensation for the injustice? Can I quickly add that the
Secretary of State’s suggestion that the Government would have
acted in the same way had the ITV drama not been shown is thought
to be completely unbelievable by most, and none more so than by
the sub-postmasters themselves?
The fact is that when we took the legislation through the House
in December, the Opposition Benches were empty. Opposition
Members are the ones who decided to take a more keen interest
after the drama; we have been working flat out. I do not have the
specific details of her constituent’s case, as she knows, but I
will continue to repeat what I have said, which is that where
people have not received compensation, we can look at that. There
is a process, and there is also an independent panel they can
appeal to, but the vast majority of people who have been getting
offers are taking them.
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
Too often, quango bosses are rewarded for failure and can walk
away with big payouts, and it would be a disgrace for the man who
has done so little to get compensation for postmasters to get any
himself. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will block
any such payments?
There will be no payments to Henry Staunton.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I think the public squabble at the weekend further undermines
people’s confidence in what is going to happen and in the
Government’s assurances about compensating the people affected by
the Post Office scandal. I tend to believe the view of the
Secretary of State, simply because the record of Post Office
officials trying to cover up, pass the buck and cause confusion
is on the record, and we know what they are doing. However, the
fact remains that there are still people who have not had any
offer of compensation, there is still £1 billion that has not
been spent in compensation, and there are still people whose
cases have not even been considered. Is not the best way of
answering Henry Staunton for the Government to get on with the
job and ensure that compensation is paid quickly, and for people
to get the compensation they deserve?
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. As I said earlier, 64%
of people have received compensation, and we want to get that to
100% as quickly as possible. However, we want to ensure that
people get the right amount and are compensated fairly, and that
is why we have the process, including a point of appeal if they
are unhappy with the offer.
The point the right hon. Gentleman made right at the beginning of
his question is correct. The points made in the newspapers do
undermine the work that we are doing. It was very disappointing
to read those statements. It was also disappointing because I had
done everything I could to try and keep this out of the news and
do it behind closed doors, properly. I made sure when I gave
public statements that I said I would not do HR in public. When I
found out that it had been leaked to Sky News, I even called Sky
News and asked—one of my assistants asked—for that not to be put
out in the public domain before I had had a chance to speak to
Henry Staunton. I did the same with the Daily Mail, which
thankfully did listen. We also need the media to help us in this
and not publish false allegations.
(Ashfield) (Con)
I am absolutely staggered that the Labour party now seems to be
coming out in support of the disgraced Post Office management
team—the same management team that oversaw the wrongful
imprisonment of postmasters across the country, with hundreds of
convictions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when push
comes to shove, that lot over there would take the side of the
grifters, not the grafters?
As my hon. Friend says, the Post Office leadership oversaw
wrongful convictions. That is one of the reasons why we have had
multiple changes, and this is just the latest to ensure that we
get the right leadership in place. [Interruption.] I know that
some Opposition Members are dealing with this properly, but we
can see from the heckling that many of them came here thinking
that they could score political points, and I am not allowing
that to happen.
Sir (Rhondda) (Lab)
Many Members are of course angry and impatient about trying to
get compensation and exoneration for all of the postmasters as
soon as possible. If we are all honest, we as a whole Parliament
should have been much more impatient much earlier. There are some
rare exceptions to that, including my right hon. Friend the
Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who spoke earlier, and
obviously Members on the Government side of the House as well.
May I just clarify something about the process of Mr Staunton’s
dismissal? As I understand it, he found out about it from Sky
News. I think the Secretary of State just added a piece of
information, which is that she then rang Sky News, before ringing
him I think, to try and get them to stop running it. So she knew
that this had already been leaked to Sky News, presumably from
somebody in her Department. What investigation did she go through
to find out who leaked it, and is that person still in post,
because otherwise one might just worry that it might have been
she herself who leaked it?
I knew that someone would ask that question. I in fact have
evidence to show that I asked Sky News not to run the story. Of
course I did not leak it—because if I had, that would have
created legal risk if Mr Staunton had found out on the news
before I had had a chance to speak to him. We have no idea how
Sky News found out the information—several thousand people work
in the Department for Business and Trade, and many more work at
the Post Office and UK Government Investments. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir ) is heckling, but the point I
am making is that leaks are incredibly damaging and harmful; they
create legal risk for the Department. I did not do so; I made
multiple efforts with at least two media outlets to make sure
that they did not create problems for Mr Staunton, and it is one
of the reasons why it was very disappointing to see what he did
in The Sunday Times at the weekend.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
To be honest, I am afraid I do not think that the Business
Secretary and her statement have helped us to get closer to the
truth in this situation; it is a question of the Secretary of
State’s version of events and the former chairman’s version of
events. For clarity, and to try to draw a line under this and get
to the truth, is the Secretary of State willing to refer herself
to the ethics adviser?
I think that is a ridiculous assertion, and from someone who
clearly did not listen to the statement. The difference between
what I am saying and what Mr Staunton is saying is that I have
officials who will back me up, I have members of the Post Office
board who will back me up, and I have newspaper and media outlets
that know that I tried to stop the story. The fact is that the
hon. Lady just wants to believe Mr Staunton’s allegations because
that helps Labour politically, but they are not true. They need
to listen to the truth and stop hoping for lies; that is not what
our job is in this House.
(Eltham) (Lab)
If Henry Staunton is guilty of what the Secretary of State has
accused him, it beggars belief that he was appointed only two
years ago by this Government. May I ask her about Post Office
investigations? I have yet another constituent who has come
forward who was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement by the
Post Office and who has not been fully compensated for what they
lost when they lost their business. Is it acceptable for the Post
Office still to be involved with investigations, given how
discredited those are? How can the victims of this scandal have
any confidence whatever in the process that the Post Office is
involved with?
The way we have been dealing with this issue at the Dispatch Box,
the work that the inquiry has carried out and our commitment to
look at individual cases and ensure that the process is working
out properly is how the postmasters will have confidence in the
system.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
In recent weeks, I have met with a number of constituents who are
former sub-postmasters and who have explained the terrible impact
that this scandal has had on their lives. Although they were not
convicted by the Post Office, they had to pay large sums of money
for shortfalls that frankly did not exist. Can the Secretary of
State confirm that the Government’s expectation is that those
people will be compensated not only for the money they paid, but
the financial and personal harm that this scandal caused in their
lives?
That is definitely what we are trying to do. No one should be in
a worse position than they were in before the scandal happened.
Where we can provide additional compensation, we will be able to
do so, and that is what the process is set up to do.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us will be concerned about the Department that oversees
employment rights being one where thousands of people know that
somebody is about to be sacked before they do. We would agree
with the Secretary of State that the process is about giving the
public confidence that when wrongs come to light, they will be
righted. The challenge she faces is that the track record of
recent decades is not good. It is not just about the Horizon
scandal, but the nuclear veterans, Windrush, the Women Against
State Pension Inequality Campaign, the infected blood scandal and
Grenfell. Time and again, it is the compensation schemes that
become the story and a source of injustice. Rather than taking to
Twitter, would it not be the right rejoinder for her to become
the first Secretary of State to say, “We should put the
management of compensation schemes involving Government out to an
independent body so that everyone can have confidence”? I am sure
she would find support from Opposition Members for that.
First, I have not said that thousands of people knew that Henry
Staunton was being sacked; I said that there are thousands of
people who work in the Department, and it could have been anybody
who put that out there. It is important that we stick to what has
been said on the record. The hon. Lady mentions that these
scandals go over decades, and I remind her that the Horizon
scandal started under a Labour Government; it is this Government
who are beginning to fix it.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
On the shortcomings of the Horizon scheme, I raise with the
Secretary of State the case of my constituent Mr Pennington, a
sub-postmaster for 20 years, who went through 10 years of
financial distress paying back shortfall amounts generated by
errors in the Horizon system. The poorly designed Horizon scheme
has paid back only part of the shortfalls of possibly
£100,000—and only a paltry £1,500 for 10 years of financial
stress and worry. I wrote to the postal affairs Minister four
weeks ago and have not had a response. When will the shortcomings
of the Horizon scheme be reviewed, so that sub-postmasters such
as Mr Pennington receive full—not part—compensation for all those
years of distress?
The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. We are aware of the
problem. We are working with the advisory board to see how we can
fix it and ensure that people get proper compensation. I have
just been told by the postal affairs Minister that the letter she
is expecting should be with her shortly.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She will be
aware that many post office branches have closed in recent years,
including the Clapham Common post office in my constituency,
which is due to close on 6 March. In her statement, she said:
“Right now, the Post Office’s No. 1 priority must be delivering
compensation to postmasters”.
Does she agree that millions of pounds spent on the Post Office
trying to pay innocent sub-postmasters would have been better
spent on ensuring that we keep our vital post offices up and down
the country?
I thank the hon. Lady for her tireless work campaigning to save
Clapham post office; I know she has had many meetings with the
postal affairs Minister. We should be able both to keep post
offices open and to compensate.
(North Down) (Alliance)
As this is a genuine national scandal, the exoneration of
sub-postmasters with criminal convictions requires that they be
treated equally, with a shared speedy and common approach, across
the UK. Both I and the recently reappointed Justice Minister in
Northern Ireland have written to Ministers asking for Northern
Ireland to be included in the forthcoming legislation. However, I
understand that the Government are currently not minded to do
that with the devolved Administrations. Will the Secretary of
State confirm that Northern Ireland will be part of that
legislation, which I hope will be brought forward soon?
The hon. Gentleman will know that Stormont is now up and running,
and that we will be having conversations with devolved
Governments on the best way to resolve this. We do not have an
answer now, but we are aware of the issue and are working on
it.
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
(Lab)
The reports on the weekend were extremely alarming, given how
sub-postmasters have been treated in recent years. On the obvious
question, can the Secretary of State give any assurance or
guarantee that the compensation will be paid and taken forward
before the general election is called? That surely is what
sub-postmasters would ask for, and it is the least that they
deserve.
That is absolutely the right thing to do. I thank the hon.
Gentleman for his question, because it gives me another
opportunity to restate that the very idea that compensation would
be delayed until after the election is complete nonsense. It does
not even make political sense. We want to ensure that people get
their money as quickly as possible.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her positive answers. Across
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
hundreds of postmasters and postmistresses are still awaiting
compensation for these wrongdoings. While it is understood that
this is a sensitive subject for many, will she provide an update
on the expected timescale for compensation of everyone who is
entitled across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland? The fact of the matter is, some people have waited two
years, three years and longer, and it really cannot go on.
The hon. Gentleman is right: it cannot go on. I want to see
everyone get their money as quickly as possible. By the end of
this year, everybody should have received it. That is certainly
what I am working towards.
|
