Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the
Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a
statement on financial redress for sub-postmasters and outstanding
issues relating to the Post Office Horizon scandal. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
(Kevin Hollinrake) As a Back Bencher, I first spoke on the matter
of compensation for victims in March 2020, which is obviously long
after the right hon....Request free
trial
(North Durham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and
Trade if she will make a statement on financial redress for
sub-postmasters and outstanding issues relating to the Post
Office Horizon scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
As a Back Bencher, I first spoke on the matter of compensation
for victims in March 2020, which is obviously long after the
right hon. Gentleman first campaigned for it. I pay tribute to
his campaigning on this subject, which remains undiminished. My
appetite for compensation for postmasters is equally
undiminished, although I accept the need to increase the pace of
delivery.
As of this month, £160 million has been paid in financial redress
to more than 2,700 victims affected by the Horizon scandal. More
than 78% of eligible full claims received have been settled as
follows: 102 convictions have been overturned, and 42 full claims
have been submitted, of which 32 have been settled; 2,793
applications to the Horizon shortfall scheme have been received,
and 2,197 have been settled; 58 full claims have been submitted
to the group litigation order scheme, and 41 have been
settled.
Our top priority remains ensuring that victims can access swift
and fair compensation. We have introduced optional fixed-sum
awards of £600,000 for victims with overturned convictions and of
£75,000 for group litigation order members as a swift means of
settlement, and 100% of original applicants to the Horizon
shortfall scheme have received offers of compensation. Today we
are discussing what other measures can be taken to speed up
compensation with the Horizon compensation advisory board, on
which the right hon. Gentleman sits.
Since the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 January, officials
in the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of
Justice have been working at pace to progress legislation for
overturning convictions related to the Post Office’s
prosecutorial behaviour and Horizon evidence. I will provide a
further update to the House very soon.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. I draw
the attention of the House to my interest as a member of the
Horizon compensation advisory board.
I like the Minister. He campaigned on this issue before he was a
Minister, and he has been a very good Minister, but a lot of that
good work was undone on Monday by the performance of the
Secretary of State for Business and Trade. I am disappointed that
he has not taken the opportunity today to talk about the
overturned convictions. I understand that later today, at 12
o’clock, there will be a written ministerial statement on the
subject. I do not think that is the way to do it, as the House
needs an opportunity to discuss the overturned convictions.
I will ask the Minister a few questions. It is quite clear now
that Nick Read, the Post Office chief executive, wrote to the
Lord Chancellor basically opposing the overturning of all
convictions, saying that up to 300 people were “guilty”. It is
not yet clear who instructed him to do that. On Monday, the
Secretary of State said it was done off his own bat. I would like
to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
If there are to be overturned convictions, they cannot just be
about Horizon; they should also be about Capture. Evidence that I
have put to the public inquiry and sent to the Minister yesterday
clearly indicates that the scandal predates Horizon. Those
affected need to be included in both the compensation scheme and
among those with overturned convictions.
The board is meeting this afternoon, and we have made
recommendations to the Minister on how to simplify and speed up
the compensation scheme. Will he give an assurance to the House
that once the recommendations are agreed, we can announce them
quite quickly, primarily to restore to the sub-postmasters some
faith, which was wrecked by the performance of the Secretary of
State on Monday?
If the Minister’s written ministerial statement at 12 o’clock is
about overturning convictions, will he give a commitment to come
back to the House on Monday to give an oral statement, so that
the House can interrogate him and discuss that issue?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The overturned
convictions are a key priority for me and my Department. I am
always keen to update the House whenever I can. There always has
to be a sequence to ensure that we follow proper process. What we
are doing potentially affects the devolved Administrations, so it
is really important that we engage with them properly. That is
one of the reasons why we need to make the written statement
later today. I have never been unwilling to come before the House
and report on what we are doing. I will, of course, continue to
do that.
On the letter from the chief executive to the Justice Secretary,
I am aware of the allegations by Mr Staunton. They are very
serious allegations that should not be made lightly or be based
on a vague recollection. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the
letter from the former permanent secretary, it is clear that she
believes the allegations are incorrect, and that there was never
any conversation along the lines referred to by Mr Staunton. I
think it is pretty clear that those allegations are false.
The right hon. Gentleman has regularly brought up Capture. We are
keen to continue to engage with him on that to ensure that those
affected are included in any compensation where detriment has
occurred. I note his point about an oral statement. As I say, I
am always keen to give such statements whenever possible, and to
be interrogated on our plans. I do not think he will be
disappointed by what we announce later today.
(Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Now that the then permanent secretary has outlined that she did
not implicitly or explicitly tell the then chairman of the Post
Office to slow down compensation, I hope we can spend time less
time talking about someone who has lost his job and more time
talking about postmasters who have lost everything. Will the
Minister, who is doing great work in sorting this out, recommit
to August as his target date for getting
compensation—life-changing compensation —out of the door as soon
as possible?
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter; as my
predecessor, he did a tremendous job. The most concerning
allegation we heard over the weekend was about the delay in the
payment of compensation. In her letter, which is publicly
available, the permanent secretary wrote:
“It is not true that I made any instruction, either explicitly or
implicitly. In fact, no mention of delaying compensation appears
in either note.”
So I agree with my hon. Friend that we should move on from that
and focus on what really matters, which is getting what he
rightly described as life-changing compensation to postmasters as
quickly as possible. That is his, and will remain our, No. 1
priority.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Slough) (Lab)
Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for
North Durham (Mr Jones) for securing the urgent question, and
indeed for all the work he has done over many years, along with
other Members, in trying to secure justice for
sub-postmasters.
The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious
injustices in our country’s history. It has robbed innocent
people of their livelihoods, their liberty and, all too sadly,
their lives. At least 60 sub-postmasters have died without seeing
justice or receiving compensation, and at least four have taken
their own lives. More than 20 years on, the victims and their
families are still suffering from the consequences and the trauma
of all that they have been put through. They have been trapped in
a nightmare for too long. We all want to see the exoneration of
all who remain convicted, and the delivery of rightful
compensation to all affected sub-postmasters, as quickly as
possible. Labour wants to see a swift and comprehensive solution
to this insidious injustice, and we are willing to work with the
Government to ensure that happens.
Will the Minister please provide an update on the timeline to
which he is working to amend the seismic damage that this scandal
has caused, and will he please give an assurance that he is
acting with the appropriate speed that is required for necessary
legislation to go through? Victims have already waited too long
for justice, and we must act now, with the speed and urgency that
this awful scandal requires.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached
this matter. There was nothing in his remarks that I disagree
with. As I said earlier, 78% of claimants have received full and
final compensation, but we fully share his wish, and that of his
party, for a swift resolution and a swift end to this, and we
have engaged significantly and extensively with his colleagues on
the Front Bench. As for how we overturn convictions, the measures
that we are taking are clearly unprecedented, but this is an
unprecedented situation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timeline. We have always said
that it is weeks, but it is fewer weeks now than it was. I do not
think he will be disappointed— I said this to the right hon.
Member for North Durham as well—by what we will say, hopefully,
later today, but this has taken too long. We are working daily to
resolve these issues, and the overturning of convictions, the
legislation and the compensation cannot come too quickly.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done a great job, but I am conscious that
there are still many people waiting to settle. Much of that is
due to the fact that the Post Office is not releasing information
that has been requested by my constituents or, indeed, their
solicitors. I hope that my hon. Friend can put across to the
chief executive of the Post Office how critical it is to regain
trust by releasing that information, because I fear that other
sub-postmasters, or people who might otherwise have been
interested in dealing with the Post Office, will start either to
move away or not to take up those business opportunities, which
would also damage communities—and that is already happening in my
constituency.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and for making that
point; she is absolutely right. Disclosure both to the inquiry
and on individual cases, which is required to be able to compile
claims, has been too slow. If Post Office Ltd and its management
team are going to rebuild trusts with claimants and the wider
public, it is absolutely incumbent on them that this is done
properly and that the governance around it is done properly. That
is part of the reason why the Secretary of State acted as
decisively as she did, but I absolutely concur with my right hon.
Friend. Alongside her, I urge Post Office Ltd to deliver
disclosure more quickly.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
Documents published this week by the BBC reveal that the Swift
review, dated February 2016, noted that Post Office Ltd “had
always known” about the balancing transaction capability that
allowed transactions to be addended remotely, which is what
happened. The lawyers for Post Office Ltd did nothing about that,
and many people still do not trust it. A letter has been
circulated, and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)
deserves all the praise we can give him today. I have a copy of
his memo, which says that anyone can write to him on any issue
and get advice on how to pursue claims.
The Minister has given us a list of percentages and so on, but it
is still not fast enough. It is still not good enough, and one of
the reasons is that Post Office Ltd is still not trusted; people
want nothing to do with it. I cannot fix that, but I do not think
that the spat between the Secretary of State and Henry Staunton
this week did anything to increase sub-postmasters’ confidence,
and we really need to get this sorted. Yes, the Horizon shortfall
scheme has been well managed in some regards, and claims are
going through and being paid, but how much is being paid? So many
sub-postmasters are getting derisory offers—not just people in
the GLO scheme, but normal, everyday sub-postmasters who have
been putting in money for years. We need to get this sorted. I
appeal to all sub-postmasters affected to put in a claim.
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on that point and on a number
of other points she raised, and I thank her again for the work
she has done in this area for many years. I, too, am concerned
about some of the information that came to light this week, and
the public inquiry is there to examine any allegations relating
to who knew what and when. It would be wrong of us to duplicate
the inquiry’s efforts, because it is a public inquiry that has
the powers to summon witnesses to give evidence and to carry out
other forms of evidence gathering, which is the right way to do
this. I agree with the hon. Lady that compensation cannot come
fast enough and that Post Office Ltd has to rebuild trust not
just with the wider public; key to this are the postmasters.
Yes, of course we want to make sure that people get fair
compensation. May I point gently to the performance so far of the
group litigation order scheme? Fifty-eight full claims have been
received, 48 offers have been made and 41 have been accepted
without going to the next level, which is the independent panel.
That tends to indicate that those offers are fair, because people
have recourse to the appeal process. I am aware of one or two
high-profile cases where people say they have not been offered a
fair amount. I cannot talk about individual cases, but we urge
any of those individuals to go to the next stage of the process,
which is the independent panel. The whole scheme is overseen by
Sir Ross Cranston, who has a very good reputation both in this
House and further afield. We absolutely believe that the process
will offer fair compensation, but we urge people to return to the
table and ensure that their claim is properly considered by all
means available.
(Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on this
issue—not only on the Front Bench, but on the Back Benches. No
amount of compensation can compensate the victims of this
complete scandal. However, it does help, and speeding up the
process is obviously important. Will he, during the passage of
the legislation that the Government have promised to introduce,
ensure that innocent victims are not only compensated, but
completely exonerated? In their communities, they have suffered
the stigma attached to all this, and they need to have their
names cleared and their reputations restored.
I thank my hon. Friend for his regular contributions on this
subject, which he frequently raised prior to the ITV series. I
appreciate his work.
My hon. Friend is right to say that no amount of compensation can
make up for what happened to many people’s lives. We want all the
innocent people to be exonerated. We know there is nervousness,
with some victims not trusting the process—they have simply had
enough. We met Howe & Co., one of the solicitors, to talk
about this issue yesterday, and its contention is that around 40%
of the people who received a letter saying, “We will not oppose
an appeal,” still will not come forward. We need a process that
does not require people to come forward if we are to have a mass
exoneration of those affected by this horrendous scandal. We hope
to announce that later today.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
I associate myself with the words of praise for the Minister’s
speed and attention on this issue. I think a legally binding
instruction for the Post Office and the Department to deliver at
speed is a necessity in the new Bill. The Minister has told us
today that about £160 million has been paid in compensation, but
there is provision for about £1.2 billion, which means that only
13% of the money has been paid out. He updated the House on the
number of claimants, and there were 555 people in the GLO group
and 700 who were convicted. As the Minister told us, only 73
people have had their final compensation fully paid, which is
only 6% of the two groups.
The confusion at the beginning of the week about who said what to
whom shows there is confusion about the instruction to deliver at
speed. When the Bill comes before us, will the Minister reflect
on the necessity for a legally binding deadline under which the
Post Office must make information available in 20 to 30 days and
an offer must be made to settle within 20 to 30 days, with a
legally binding deadline for final resolution? Otherwise,
frankly, I worry that the ambiguity will still cause delays. He
knows as well as I do that justice delayed is justice denied.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for paying regular attention to
this issue. I know that the Committee has a session next week and
will be asking some of those questions.
We are keen to get compensation to victims as soon as possible.
We are somewhat at the mercy of claims, and we cannot offer
compensation if claims do not come in. Like others, I am very
keen for people to come forward to submit a claim. One of the
reasons why we put forward the fixed-sum awards of £600,000 for
overturned convictions and £75,000 for members of the GLO scheme
is to try to accelerate the payment of compensation, which
contradicts the claim that people are trying to slow things
down.
I am meeting the Horizon compensation advisory board this
afternoon to look at its recommendations for accelerating
compensation. We have taken nothing off the table, and I remind
the right hon. Gentleman that the House recently voted to extend
the compensation deadline from 4 August, on the recommendation of
Sir Wyn Williams, because we do not want people to be timed out
of compensation. The maximum budget for compensation has, thus
far, been set at £1 billion.
One of the issues we are trying to resolve urgently is the fact
that people are reluctant to come forward to have their
convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal, which is one of
the reasons why we have not compensated enough people with
convictions. We cannot compensate them until we overturn their
convictions, which is exactly why we have proposed the
legislation. Once we have done that, the door will be opened for
compensation to flow freely. That is exactly what the right hon.
Gentleman and I want to see.
There has never been any confusion in our mind about the need to
deliver this quickly. I have focused on that every single day,
both since I have been in office and before. I have never been
resisted by anyone in my Department or in other parts of
Government. There may be confusion, but I promise that there has
been no confusion in Government.
(Warrington South) (Con)
I add my thanks to the Minister for his work in helping me to
advise my constituents who have come forward asking many
questions about the situation that they found themselves in. I am
very pleased that the Government are working to compensate
postmasters who were convicted in a court of law, but there are
many individuals who worked for the Post Office and faced
disciplinary proceedings who did not end up in court. However,
their professional reputations were trashed, they had no ability
to find jobs when they were dismissed, and they were
significantly out of pocket. The Post Office must know whom it
disciplined; it must have records through the disciplinary
procedure. Will the Minister outline what steps the Post Office
has taken to contact those individuals so that they can get the
compensation that they rightly deserve?
I thank my hon. Friend for so ably representing his constituents
who have fallen victim to this scandal. People do not need to
have gone before a court of law to be compensated. A postmaster
with a contract with the Post Office can access either the
Horizon shortfall scheme or the GLO. A prosecution of any form is
not required to be able to claim through those schemes. I think
he raises a point about somebody who worked for a postmaster or
for the Post Office. That is separate and I am very happy to talk
to him about that point, which has been raised by a number of
Members. The Post Office would not necessarily know whether a
postmaster who is working independently and runs an independent
business had disciplined their members of staff, so it might not
be as straightforward as he sets out. Nevertheless, I am happy to
engage with him on that.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
The problem for many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses is
the quantification of what they are due to be repaid under the
shortfall scheme, because payments were made out of their own
pocket on several occasions over a long period. It is difficult
in those circumstances for the claimants to know that they have
been properly compensated, because the Post Office cannot tell
them how much it should be repaying. To take a step back, is it
not apparent that we cannot continue to leave the Post Office to
mark its own homework and that the independent elements of
scrutiny need to be strengthened? Somebody independent of
Government and the Post Office must be put in charge of not just
sorting this out, but doing so at speed.
I agree with the right hon. Member’s points, and he is right that
quantification is very difficult. These situations are complex.
It is about not just financial loss, but the personal impact,
including the impact on mental health, physical health,
reputation—all those things. In those situations, we should give
the claimant the benefit of the doubt where this cannot be
evidenced. In many cases, the records are no longer
available.
We have independent people in all parts of the process. Members
of the Horizon shortfall scheme include eminent KCs, such as
from the other place. We have
Sir Ross Cranston overseeing the GLO scheme, and in the
overturned convictions scheme, we have Sir Gary Hickinbottom—they
are eminent retired High Court judges. I have great faith in
their holding our feet to the fire and getting the right quantum
of compensation to the right people at the right time. Indeed,
the Horizon compensation advisory board, with the right hon.
Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and , is also holding our feet to
the fire, making sure that we do the right thing and deliver the
right amounts of compensation. I will meet it again later
today.
(South Shields) (Lab)
I know that the Minister means well and that he also understands
that my affected constituents have had enough of being told that
the Government are working hard to get them the justice they
deserve and promises of swift compensation. One of my
constituent’s claims was submitted in October. She heard the
Minister say in January that all claims would have offers within
40 days, but she still has not had an offer. She is right to
conclude that the allegations of delaying payments to benefit the
Treasury are true, is she not?
I am sorry that the hon. Member has taken that tone, but that is
not true. As I set out, I think Henry Staunton has got this
completely wrong. It is not the case, and there has never been
any situation while I have been in this role—my predecessors have
said the same—where we have tried to delay compensation. If the
hon. Member wants to write to me, I am very happy to look at an
individual case. Our commitment on the GLO scheme is that once we
have received a full claim, we will respond to 90% of cases
within 40 days. Some cases are more complex, but I am very happy
to look at her specific case, as I have for other Members when
people have contacted us directly. I am very keen to make sure
that we get a resolution to her constituent’s case as quickly as
possible.
(Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his tenacity in relation to this
issue. When does he expect the inquiry to be completed? It seems
that Fujitsu is hiding behind that inquiry and is unwilling to
commit itself to compensating the taxpayer for the compensation
the taxpayer will be paying.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The
inquiry is due to conclude by the end of this year and to report
some time—early, I hope—next year. At that point, we will know
more about Fujitsu’s exact role and the amount of the final
compensation bill. I welcome the fact that at the Select
Committee Fujitsu acknowledged its moral obligation to the
victims and the taxpayer in contributing to the compensation
bill, and we will hold it to its promises in that regard.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
The Minister is a perceptive man: he must see the problem of his
reassuring the House from the Dispatch Box on a Thursday, after
the Secretary of State’s reassurances at the Dispatch Box on a
Monday. The House and the country’s patience is wearing thin.
Many of the sub-postmasters, who are the victims in all this,
including my constituents, have had their lives blighted and
scarred for well over a decade. The delays to the compensation
scheme are only exacerbating the pain and the problem. The public
can see a pattern, whether it is the Horizon compensation scheme,
the infected blood compensation scheme or the vaccine harm
compensation, and it does not reflect well on the Government.
I will be the first to admit that we want to deliver compensation
more quickly than has happened in the past. As I said, 74% of
claimants have received full and final compensation. It is
absolutely right that the remaining 26%— as well as any more who
come forward, and I am pleased that more are coming
forward—receive that compensation too. It has never been a case
of our trying to delay compensation. I do not believe there is a
pattern here. These issues are complex but we are doing much to
accelerate the process.
We did much to accelerate compensation payments prior to the ITV
series, which is critical. The £600,000 fixed-sum award, which
has been very effective in delivering rapid compensation, was
brought in last October. We were looking at a blanket overturn in
convictions some months before that series. We are trying to
deliver the scheme at pace. It is not always straightforward to
do that, but the hon. Gentleman has my commitment that we will do
everything we can to deliver that compensation as quickly as
possible.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Post Office Horizon scandal is now commonly called one of the
greatest miscarriages of justice in British history—so many lives
devastated, some lost. An inevitable consequence of that is to
undermine public confidence in the Post Office, in technology, as
misrepresented by the Post Office and Fujitsu, and in the
Minister’s Department, particularly following the
performance—that is the right word for it—of the Secretary of
State on Monday. What is he doing to restore public confidence in
the Post Office, in technology and in his Department? Does he
recognise that swift payment of compensation is an important part
of that?
Yes, it is the most important part of that. It is right that the
Secretary of State responded to the serious and false allegations
in the newspapers over the weekend. I hasten to add that those
allegations were not about the Secretary of State but about a
senior civil servant, who has been very clear that the
allegations are false. The No. 1 way we can give confidence to
those who might be submitting a claim, or have done so, is the
fact that the processes do work for the vast majority of
claimants. Of course, we want to improve the processes but we
also want to reassure claimants that there is independence
running through every single part of them. The No. 1 message we
can give from the House is that if people come forward, they will
be treated fairly and receive compensation as quickly as
possible.
(Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
(SNP)
How can the public have trust in the Government to stand up for
whistleblowers when, by her own account, the Secretary of State
attempted to cover up the departure of Henry Staunton?
I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of events at all. I
am very happy to talk to the hon. Member about that particular
issue. It was decided that Henry Staunton was no longer the right
person to lead the Post Office. He then decided to make some
allegations about what happened during his tenure, which have
proven, in my view, to be completely false. I do not believe that
Mr Staunton is a whistleblower. He spoke out, but I think the
allegations he made have been clearly demonstrated to be not
accurate. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is not an
accurate portrayal of events. The No. 1 thing we should all focus
on now is ensuring that people are properly compensated, that the
inquiry is allowed to do its work and identifies those
responsible, and that those responsible—be they individuals or
corporates—are held to account.
(North Shropshire) (LD)
I have a constituent who was part of the group litigation order.
They were not convicted, because the process was paused in 2015,
but they have pretty much lost everything, having borrowed
substantial amounts of money to make up the shortfall over a long
period of time. They have now been told that the £75,000 up-front
payment would be net of any interim payment that they have
received. They are not confident to go forward with the full
assessment, because of some of the highly publicised very
low—derisory—compensations that have been offered. Can the
Minister offer my constituent any reassurance that it is
worthwhile pursuing that extensive and independently assessed
claim? My assessment is that they have lost significantly more
than £75,000.
If that is the case, they should definitely submit a claim. I am
very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about her particular
constituent. I am aware that some individuals have come forward
and said that they received derisory offers. We urge them to
engage with the rest of the process, which has not yet happened.
There is an independent panel for the GLO scheme. Again, I would
direct her to the actual performance of the GLO compensation
scheme so far: 58 full claims received; 48 offers made; and 41
offers accepted without reference to the independent panel, which
would tend to indicate that the offers being made are fair.
However, I do understand that the people affected by this will
not be satisfied by my assurances until they have gone through
the process. I urge her to tell her constituent to do exactly
that.
(Strangford) (DUP)
May I also add my thanks to the Minister for his very dedicated
response to all the questions that we have asked and for his
energy in trying to make this scheme a success for those who have
been victimised? On those who have had to take out loans to repay
moneys that they never owed anyway, will calculations be carried
out to allow repayment of not simply substantive amounts but
moneys borrowed from family, friends or banking institutions, and
the interest that they have had to pay them?
I thank the hon. Member for all the work that he has done in this
area. I think he has spoken in every single debate that I have
responded to in the House on this particular matter. [Laughter.]
And every single debate across this House as well. That was also
the case when we were working together, fighting for justice for
banking victims. I pay tribute to all the work that he has done
in this House in all these different areas.
On the hon. Member’s question, the key principle is that somebody
is returned to the position that they would have been in
financially prior to the detriment taking place. That could take
into account, for example, consequential losses, pecuniary
losses—financial losses—as well as non-pecuniary losses, which
are other impacts such as those on reputation or on health. The
short answer to the hon. Member’s question is, yes, absolutely.
|
