Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans) Before I call the Minister, I
will make a short statement about the House’s sub judice
resolution. There are relevant active legal proceedings relating to
Horizon before the courts. In December 2022, Mr Speaker exercised
his discretion in respect of matters sub judice to allow references
to those proceedings, as they concern issues of national
importance. That waiver is ongoing. However, I urge hon. Members to
exercise caution in what...Request free
trial
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Before I call the Minister, I will make a short statement about
the House’s sub judice resolution. There are relevant active
legal proceedings relating to Horizon before the courts. In
December 2022, Mr Speaker exercised his discretion in respect of
matters sub judice to allow references to those proceedings, as
they concern issues of national importance. That waiver is
ongoing. However, I urge hon. Members to exercise caution in what
they say, and to avoid referring in detail to cases that remain
before the courts.
6.57pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
The Post Office scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of
justice in our nation’s history, shaking people’s faith in the
principles of equity and fairness that form the core pillars of
our legal system. I am very pleased that last week’s excellent
ITV drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” has brought an
understanding of the Horizon scandal to a much broader audience.
I have received much correspondence about the scandal and the
emotional impact that the dramatisation has had. Those of us who
have been campaigning and working on the issue for some years
were already well aware of what happened.
I pay particular tribute to Alan Bates and his fellow
postmasters, including Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton, to the
right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my right hon.
Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir ), my hon. Friend the Member for
Telford (), the hon. Members for Jarrow
() and for Motherwell and
Wishaw (), to and other members of the
Horizon compensation advisory board, and of course to key figures
in the media. They played a key role in seeking justice and
compensation for the victims. I also thank the shadow Secretary
of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (), for his continually
constructive approach, as well as my ministerial predecessors,
including my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam ().
Watching last week’s ITV programme has only reinforced our zeal
for seeing justice done as quickly as possible. We are already a
long way down that road. Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is doing
great work in exposing what went wrong and who was responsible.
Full and final compensation has already been paid to 64% of those
people affected. I have previously said to the House that my main
concern now is regarding those still waiting for full and final
compensation, and the slow pace at which criminal convictions
related to Horizon are being overturned by the courts. Before
Christmas, the advisory board published a letter that underlined
exactly that.
This is not just a matter of getting justice for those wrongly
convicted. Overturning their convictions is also key to unlocking
compensation. Each person whose Horizon conviction is overturned
is entitled to an interim compensation payment of £163,000. They
can then choose whether to have their compensation individually
assessed or to accept an up-front offer of £600,000. That offer
is already speeding along compensation for a significant number
of people.
In the light of the advisory board’s letter about overturning
convictions, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for North
Durham (Mr Jones) and to . I have also had a very
positive meeting this afternoon with my right hon. and learned
Friend the Lord Chancellor. All of us in the House are united in
our desire to see justice done, and we have devised some options
for resolving the outstanding criminal convictions at much
greater pace. The Lord Chancellor will, rightly, need to speak to
senior figures in the judiciary about those options before we put
them forward, but I am confident that we should be able to
implement measures that address the concerns expressed by the
advisory board. I hope that the Government will be able to
announce those proposals to the House very shortly.
Of course, there is clearly great concern about the role of the
Post Office in prosecuting these cases. The Post Office rightly
decided to stop undertaking private prosecutions in 2015. If we
are to make sure that a scandal such as this can never happen
again, we need to look at the way in which private prosecutions
such as these have been undertaken. Any company can bring private
prosecutions in this way: this is not a special power of the Post
Office. I know that the Lord Chancellor wants to give this issue
proper and thoughtful consideration, and I am sure that he will
report to the House about the issue in due course.
Getting justice for the victims of this scandal and ensuring that
such a tragedy can never happen again is my highest priority as a
Minister, as it has been throughout my 15 months in office. When
we talk about compensation, we have to remember that the lives of
the postmasters and their families caught up in this scandal have
been changed forever. They have faced financial ruin, untold
personal distress and a loss of reputation that no amount of
financial compensation can fully restore. The Government
recognise that we have a clear moral duty to right those wrongs
to the best of our ability. To support those whose lives were
turned upside down by the scandal, we have provided significant
funding for compensation. We have also been clear that it should
not be the taxpayer alone who picks up the tab. We will wait for
the inquiry to report to make clear the extent of any other
organisation’s culpability for the scandal and any individual
accountability.
Our aim is to ensure that every victim is fully recompensed for
their losses and the suffering they have had to ensure. To date,
more than £148 million has been paid to 2,700 victims across all
compensation schemes, 93 convictions have been overturned and, of
those, 30 have agreed full and final settlements. Just over £30
million has been paid out in compensation to those with
overturned convictions, including interim payments. Of course, we
want to ensure that the process for agreeing compensation is
fair, transparent and open to independent assessment. That is one
of the reasons why I am today announcing that retired High Court
judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom has agreed to chair an independent
panel that will assess the pecuniary losses of those postmasters
with overturned convictions where disputes arise. That will bring
independent oversight to compensation payments in a similar way
to Sir Ross Cranston’s oversight of the group litigation order
scheme and the independent panel in the Horizon shortfall
scheme.
Of the original 555 courageous postmasters who took the Post
Office to court and who first brought the Horizon scandal into
the public eye, £27 million has been paid out to 477 claimants in
addition to the net £11 million received through the December
2019 settlement. Forty-seven members of the original GLO group
have also received compensation following the overturning of
their convictions, totalling more than £17 million. We have
received full claim forms from 59 of those postmasters who are
eligible for the GLO scheme and issued 43 offers. There have been
21 full and final settlements paid and a further seven full and
final settlements accepted. That brings the total number of
accepted full and final GLO settlements to 28. I would encourage
claimants’ lawyers to continue to submit GLO claims, because my
Department stands ready to review them and turn them round
quickly.
It is worth noting that the 2,417 postmasters who claimed through
the original Horizon shortfall scheme have all received offers of
compensation. Around 85% have accepted those offers, worth over
£107 million. In total, over £91 million has been paid out
through the scheme, with the Post Office now dealing with late
applications and with cases where initial offers were not
accepted.
However, this is not just about compensation; it is about
restoration—the restoring of people’s good names and the
restoring of the public’s trust, both in our postal service and
in our justice system. It is therefore only right that we get to
the bottom of what went wrong and of who knew what and when.
Although the scale of the problem is immense, the Government are
unwavering in their resolve to tackle it, to compensate those
affected and to leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of
justice. We owe that to the victims, to their families, to the
memory of postmasters who have died since this tragedy first came
to light and to those who, tragically, took their own lives after
being accused of awful crimes they never committed. We owe it to
everyone who has been caught up in this tragic miscarriage of
justice.
I thank all Members across the House who are supporting us in
this effort. Together we stand united, not just in memory of
those who have suffered, but in shared purpose to ensure that
such a tragedy can never, and will never, happen again. I commend
this statement to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
7.06pm
(Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the
advance copy of his statement.
The Horizon Post Office failure is a scandal to which we have
been responding for some time, but I welcome the way the recent
ITV drama has brought the story to a wider audience. It is a
powerful reminder of the way that art and culture can be used to
tackle injustice and to raise public awareness. I also pay
tribute, as I have before, to the sub-postmasters, to my right
hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), to and to all those Members
whose work has been integral in the progress to date to get
justice.
A lot has been done but, as we all know, there is a lot more to
do, because the Horizon scandal is quite simply one of the most
egregious miscarriages of justice in British history—something
that robbed people of their lives, their liberty and their
livelihoods. Driven by the misguided belief that technology was
infallible and workers dishonest, the Post Office prosecuted
innocent people, causing unimaginable pain and suffering, which
no amount of compensation can ever alleviate. To add insult to
injury, the journey to justice for those sub-postmasters has been
mired in a great many delays and barriers, and some of the people
affected have, tragically, passed away before having the chance
to see justice.
I recognise the attention that the Minister has given this
matter, including by responding positively to the campaign to
ensure that compensation payments are not subject to taxation.
However, it is still an urgent priority to get compensation to
all those affected, and it is unconscionable that convictions
still remain, where it is clear that no wrongdoing has been
committed. Justice must be served for those workers and their
families, which is why Labour has called for all sub-postmasters
to be exonerated in full. I listened carefully to what the
Minister had to say about that, and I extend our support for any
actions that may be required to overturn these convictions as
quickly as possible, while ensuring that no victim has to
re-enter litigation and relive the trauma they have experienced.
I appreciate the Minister’s acknowledgment that the public want
to know that that will happen as soon as possible. I also welcome
the review he announced into private prosecutions, because the
public want assurance that nothing like this can ever be allowed
to happen again.
It is right that the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry continues to
uncover the truth. However, just when it was felt that this
outrageous miscarriage of justice could not get any worse, more
allegations have come to the fore, which must now surely be
considered as part of that inquiry. It has emerged today that
there are potentially dozens more victims from a pilot scheme.
This afternoon, I learned from one of my constituents that they
were informed only very recently that they are a victim of this
scandal, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that
every victim is identified and encouraged to come forward?
It is clear that Fujitsu faces serious questions that demand a
response. Those questions must be answered in the evidence
sessions planned for the inquiry later this year. If it is found
that Fujitsu knew the extent of what was occurring, there will
have to be consequences that match the scale of the injustice.
Additionally, those involved in the running of the Post Office
who have received honours must be held to the high standard that
those honours demand. They will also have the opportunity to give
their side of the story in the inquiry, but if that evidence is
unsatisfactory, I would urge the Forfeiture Committee to consider
the propriety of those honours and to take any further
appropriate action.
For many people who watched the ITV adaptation, it will be hard
to believe that this ongoing tragedy is not a work of fiction, so
egregious and pernicious have the impacts been on people’s lives.
But this is not a TV show; it is very real and it has had
real-world impacts. Lessons must be learned, and justice must be
served. I have faith that the Williams inquiry will ensure that
those responsible are held to account. It is right that innocent
people have their convictions overturned not just so that they
can begin to turn the page on this scandal, but to ensure that it
leads to quick access to the compensation they rightly deserve,
as the Minister said. However, I believe that that is just one of
the many steps that will be required if amends are ever to be
made for this most insidious of injustices.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support, and
for the manner in which he delivered his response to the
statement. We share an ambition to see exoneration, and I am very
happy to work with him over the next few days to make sure that
we are getting to the right place.
He raises a very important point about people who were involved
in a pilot scheme for Horizon—an issue that has also been raised
by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). We want to
make sure that every single victim is properly covered by the
various schemes, and I have asked everybody who has evidence of
any kind, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, to
furnish me with the details. I will make sure that we pick up
anybody who is left outside the schemes.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde () mentioned Fujitsu, and I
concur with his points. Anybody who is shown to be responsible
for this scandal should be held accountable, including by making
payments into the taxpayer’s fund. I accept what he says about
the honours system, as I have said before on a number of
occasions. I speak as a former CEO. This is not to direct
responsibility for any specific thing that happened—the Sir Wyn
Williams inquiry is there to identify responsibility—but, as a
former CEO, I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to ask
the CEO who oversaw the Post Office during a critical time, when
things went so badly wrong, to voluntarily hand back their
honour. However, that is a matter for the person concerned.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Father of the House.
(Worthing West) (Con)
I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the article in The Howard
Journal of Crime and Justice by M. R. McGuire and K. Renaud,
entitled “Harm, injustice & technology: Reflections on the
UK’s subpostmasters’ case”.
First, page 444 shows the graph of the prosecutions, which rose
from 10 in 1997 to nearly 80 in 2001. The people responsible
should have noticed that we were not going to get ordinary,
decent people—sub-postmistresses and sub-postmasters—suddenly
going crooked on that scale. Secondly, the article talks about
the bugs that were named after the sub-post offices where they
were discovered: the Dalmellington bug and the Callendar Square
bug.
I also refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the article in The
Sun about my constituent Cheryl Shaw, who gave up in 2008. Having
lost £400 week after week, she brought in the Post Office
investigators, who claimed that they could not find anything to
explain what was happening. She had to sell out, she lost her
home and she took on work as a carer. She is illustrative of
those who were convicted and those who gave up before they were
prosecuted.
Many people now believe that the Horizon system was set up for
one purpose and adapted to another, for which it did not work.
When people started entering things twice, there was apparently a
loss where the Post Office did not actually lose any money. If
the Post Office did not lose any money, how could people have
been properly prosecuted? The titanic error was the belief in
technology.
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I totally agree that
people should be held responsible where, following an inquiry and
investigation, they are shown to have wilfully neglected their
duties. He raises an important point about the courts’ attitude
towards computer and technology-based evidence. My right hon. and
learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is looking at that issue too,
it having been brought to his attention by Paul Marshall, one of
the leading barristers involved in this scandal.
I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent, Mrs Shaw.
I take it that she will have applied to the Horizon shortfall
scheme, which should compensate people like her. If my hon.
Friend would like any help or assistance to make sure that has
happened, either for himself or for Mrs Shaw, I am very happy to
provide it.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair when we last discussed
the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill on 19
December. I do not think any of us who knew about the TV drama
would have believed the impact it has had. It is bittersweet that
it is had such an effect. It is really telling that MPs, peers,
the media and many others tried to bring this issue into the
public consciousness, but none of us managed to do so as
effectively as a TV drama.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Today I
have been contacted by local sub-postmasters who want to meet me.
They were never prosecuted, but they had shortfalls and paid
money back to the Post Office. Many of them just walked away and
retired, and they now have no evidence of what happened. When a
sub-postmaster walks away from a post office, all the financial
documentation goes back to Post Office Ltd. Can we have a thought
on that, Minister?
Will the Minister confirm that all the money that went back to
Post Office Ltd enhanced the profits on which, over the years,
many bonuses were paid to Post Office executives? Will pressure
be put on those people to repay those bonuses? I disagree with
very little of the Minister’s statement, and I think there is
consensus across the Chamber on this, but some words sprang out
at me: “very shortly” and “in due course”. Can we please have
fixed timelines for the reports?
I commend Sir Wyn Williams, whom I first met when he took on the
inquiry before it became statutory. It sounds ridiculous for me
to say that I was impressed by him, but I really understood that
he was going to get to the bottom of what happened. He has done
that in spite of grievous failures on behalf of Post Office
Ltd.
There must be accountability for everyone in Post Office Ltd and
Fujitsu who prosecuted and persecuted sub-postmasters over the
years. I pledge that SNP Members will continue to put pressure on
Governments of any colour to keep the momentum going to ensure
that real justice is served, even if that involves more pressure
on the former CEO and on the people who received honours because
of their work for Post Office Ltd. [Interruption.] I see the
Minister nodding and know he agrees with me.
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and, indeed, for her work
on the all-party group on post offices. In terms of the case she
raises of the postmasters who have suffered financially and in
which there will be difficulty in providing information because
of lack of evidence, the benefit of the doubt should clearly be
with the postmasters in this situation. The Horizon shortfall
scheme is there to compensate people in that situation. If she
needs any help with any of those cases I am very happy to
assist.
On whether people repay bonuses or whatever else people might be
held accountable for, in order to be fair we should wait for the
results of the inquiry. We believe in process in this House and
it is right that people have a right to reply and give their own
evidence. I agree with the hon. Lady’s confidence in Sir Wyn
Williams, who is doing a tremendous job.
I am sorry that I cannot be more precise on the timescales, but I
will be very disappointed if we go past the end of this week
without giving more information to the House. I entirely agree
with the hon. Lady about the accountability of individuals both
for all reasons of justice and to act as a deterrent to anybody
else who is ever tempted to do the wrong thing in such
circumstances. These corporate failures and corporate abuses
cannot continue and we need to make sure people realise that if
it happens, they will be held to account.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
I congratulate the Minister and his immediate predecessor for the
sterling work they have done in attempting to bring justice to
this problem. However, the Government need to do four things: to
stop the Post Office unnecessarily challenging the victims’
appeals and find a more rapid method to exonerate all the
innocent victims; to instruct the Post Office to stop hiring
expensive lawyers to challenge the compensation claims and
therefore to accelerate the payment mechanism; to strip away the
Post Office’s right to police its own cases; and to accelerate
the investigatory procedures prior to criminal prosecutions of
the real villains in this case—we know who they are. Does the
Minister believe that he can achieve those four aims in months
rather than years?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words and for all his
work in the campaign for justice for postmasters. I also
congratulate him on his recent knighthood; the whole of Yorkshire
was rejoicing at his award.
I can assure my right hon. Friend on all four counts. Yes, we
want a more rapid means of overturning convictions. Yes, we want
to make sure that the Post Office does not challenge unfairly any
attempt to overturn those convictions. Yes, too, on making sure
that the investigatory process happens more quickly. Of course,
some of these matters are outside our control, as he is fully
aware, because of the separation of powers, but in terms of the
policing of cases I am happy to talk to him after this statement
about what precisely he means by that. There is an independent
element to the way all the compensation schemes are running. They
are not being policed or restricted by the Post Office; there are
independent panels and independent assessments as part of all
those processes, but I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend
in detail about what we can do in those areas.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
Justice delayed is justice denied but 85% of the convictions have
still not been overturned despite the Select Committee warning
last spring that the process was rolling much too slowly and
having made recommendations for speeding it up. Many of those
recommendations were rejected, yet tonight the Minister has told
the House that only now is the Lord Chancellor exploring with the
judiciary a way to speed things up. Will the Minister tell us
tonight his timeframe for delivering justice to those who have
been unfairly convicted? Can those who are still waiting for
their convictions to be overturned expect justice to be done this
year? Or must they wait until many more of them have, tragically,
passed away without justice?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the
Select Committee, and I am very happy to be appearing before it
next week to answer more detailed questions on these matters. He
is right to say that most convictions have not come forward,
which is precisely why we are making this statement today—so that
more people with convictions have them overturned. One difficulty
is that some of them have not come forward. Also, about 50 people
who have come forward have not had their convictions overturned.
We are looking at both those particular issues and I am happy to
talk to the right hon. Gentleman about any of his
recommendations.
Yes, we absolutely want to see these issues resolved this year.
As we have said before, we want to see all compensation payments
done by August, which was the original timeframe. Not all these
matters are within our gift: we require victims and their
representatives to bring forward claims and, in the current
process, those seeking to overturn convictions to bring forward
applications for that. That is a process that we are trying to
expedite, and I hope to have some very good news for the right
hon. Gentleman in the coming days.
(Wokingham) (Con)
As one who for all too many years has urged faster compensation
and redress for those who have suffered in this scandal, I
welcome the new sense of urgency and united purpose across the
Floor of the House. When my hon. Friend is looking at the Post
Office’s right to bring private prosecutions, will he understand
that it was the fact that it was 100% Government owned and
accountable through this House to the Government that gave it so
much more seriousness and weight against the innocent who were
trying to defend themselves?
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and that definitely
played a part in the Post Office’s ability to take forward
prosecutions. That is something that my right hon. and learned
Friend the Lord Chancellor is looking at across the piece, not
least in connection with the Post Office, although, as I said in
my statement, it has not taken forward any prosecutions since
2015 and I think it is highly unlikely that it would try to, even
before things might be changed.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and declare an interest as
a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board.
I think we need more TV dramas, because it has had a remarkable
effect on attendance in this House tonight. The drama was
successful because it spoke about the victims. Many of us who
have been involved in this case for many years have met many of
them—I know the Minister and his predecessor have too—and know
the torment that those individuals have been through, and the
drama was excellent in showing that. The key thing now, as Alan
Bates said at the weekend, is to get the compensation out of the
door as quickly as possible.
I welcome what the Minister says on overturned convictions. The
advisory board made recommendations on that, and I think all 927
convictions need quashing. May I ask him whether we can consider
that on Wednesday at our next meeting, and what timescale he is
looking at? Can we also get the pre-Horizon scheme that has now
become evident, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge
and Hyde () referred to, bottomed
out very quickly to find out how many cases there are and how
many were prosecuted—I know of at least two—so that we can get
justice for those individuals as well? If anyone thinks there are
not still people out there, I had three people contact me this
afternoon, and I have spoken to them. There are people out there
who we still need to reach out to.
Absolutely. I think the programme not only captured the type of
people we are talking about here, whom people who have met the
sub-postmasters are already aware of, but perfectly highlighted
the Post Office’s brutal and desensitised approach in these
matters. That is part of the reason why the programme has created
the situation we have today, and we welcome that, because we are
keen to deliver the compensation scheme and get support for it
across the House and across the nation.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work on the advisory
board. I certainly hope to attend that advisory board meeting on
Wednesday and share some of our thinking at that time about what
measures we are proposing. He raised an important point about the
pilot scheme and people affected by the pilot version of Horizon.
We believe they are still covered by the compensation schemes—I
think he agrees with that as well—but we want to make sure that
those people have been reached out to. As I said when we spoke
about it this morning, if he shares the details of those people
with me, we will find out whether they have been contacted, and
if not, why not, because other people might be in a similar
circumstance.
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
I welcome the sense of urgency that there now is on both sides of
the House about this situation. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind
two points in taking this process forward? First, although it is
critical that we speed up the means by which these improper
convictions are overturned, will he bear in mind that that will
place exceptional and unprecedented strains on the appeal system
and the criminal justice system, and that that would, if we
followed the normal route, require unprecedented resources to be
put in? Will he work closely with the Lord Chancellor to take on
board the judiciary’s ability to cope with that volume of cases
being put forward?
Secondly, on private prosecutions, can I ask him perhaps to
revisit the Justice Committee’s recommendations from 2021—for
example, that all private prosecutors should be subject to the
oversight of His Majesty’s chief inspector of the Crown
Prosecution Service, to ensure proper standards of independence
and objectivity in dealing with cases, which were clearly lacking
in this situation?
I thank my hon. Friend for his work. Yes, we share the ambition
to speed up the whole process. I also thank my hon. Friend for
what he has done with the Lord Chancellor, who mentioned my hon.
Friend’s work during our meeting earlier today. We are aware of
the resources issue and the time scales around looking at
individual cases; we are very much taking those into account in
terms of the solution that we will hopefully arrive at. The Lord
Chancellor is equally concerned about private prosecutions. I
thank my hon. Friend for his work on that issue; again, our
conversations today very much centred around his work on the
Select Committee and its recommendations.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
The Minister referred to the brutal approach of the Post Office.
It struck me that this was another example of what Bishop James
Jones in the Hillsborough inquiry referred to as “The patronising
disposition of unaccountable power”. The conviction of my
constituent, Janet Skinner, has been quashed, but she has not
received any compensation to date. Can the Minister put a firm
time on when she will start to get that compensation paid to
her?
I thank the right hon. Lady for her work on this issue. On Mrs
Skinner, I should say that all people on any of the three schemes
get access to an interim payment. If Mrs Skinner’s conviction has
been overturned, she is entitled to an interim payment of
£163,000. From then, she can take two routes. She can go for a
full assessment, which takes more time as the issues are complex,
assessing financial loss and detriment relating to things such as
health. Our commitment is that 90% of those who go down a full
assessment route will have an offer made back to them within 40
working days; that is our target. The alternative is that she can
pursue the fixed-sum award of £600,000. There is no need to
compile a claim to do that—the money can be paid out pretty much
instantly. That is not a route for everybody, but it has been a
route for a significant number of the 30 people with overturned
convictions who have decided to settle.
(Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Four hours of compelling storytelling has brought a fresh wave of
interest, anger and frustration to people around the country and
indeed in this Chamber—it is great to see so many people
supporting the sub-postmasters’ plight. The Minister has been
working diligently on the issue for 18 months now, so he needs no
reminder that, as the episodes start by stating, this story is
true.
Will my hon. Friend diligently build on his work to make sure
that the judiciary allow a blanket quashing of all the
convictions, so that they can get to the Treasury to make sure
that the funding is there for full and fair compensation and that
the Post Office adheres to his timetable of August 2024? Sir Wyn
Williams needs no reminder about getting those answers as part of
his excellent work on the inquiry. Does my hon. Friend agree that
the best way to do this is to remind all those people that we are
all human first and politicians second? This is about human
cost.
I thank my hon. Friend. He talked about building on my work. Can
I say that I am building on his work? He did a tremendous job in
his role when this issue first came to light. We share the
ambition to do something that expedites the process of
overturning convictions. The time for quibbling is over; it is
now a case of action this day and delivering that overturning of
convictions. Clearly, we want to do that in a way that does not
cause us any constitutional or legal problems across the system.
We believe we have a solution and we should be able to give more
details in due course—very shortly. Sir Wyn Williams’s work is
also playing a key part and I thank him for establishing the
statutory inquiry, which is going to lead to so many answers that
people rightly demand.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
The Minister has heard from me previously about the difficulties
faced by the executors of my constituent, who was a victim of
this scandal and has subsequently died. Ultimately, the
difficulty with my constituent’s case was that she had been
putting in her own money to make up shortfalls and the executors
did not know how much they should settle for, because the Post
Office itself had no idea what the proper sum ought to be. In
such circumstances, what can the Government do to ensure every
victim of this scandal gets the full compensation to which they
are entitled?
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done
on behalf of his constituent and I am so sorry to hear she has
passed away. I have a similar situation in my constituency, as
Sam Harrison of Nawton, near Helmsley, sadly passed away last May
before she received compensation. It is a tragedy. As the right
hon. Gentleman knows, compensation will be paid to the executors,
who will probably be family members, so it is not about any
saving of money but nevertheless we still want to accelerate the
process. I totally agree with what he says about the lack of
evidence in some cases, which may be 20 years old. In those
situations, the benefit of the doubt should be with the victim,
ensuring that the settlement is assessed as generously as
possible and paid out as quickly as possible.
(Witham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement—he has said a great deal
already—and pay tribute to those sub-postmasters who fought for
justice, including one of my constituents who was part of the 555
who undertook the group-led litigation. Will the Minister give an
insight into the steps that will be taken to review the actions
and accountabilities of Fujitsu, as well as its culpability, as
it is still awarded contracts, week after week, across
Government? The entire scandal has demonstrated acute
institutional state failures that have to be acknowledged. What
review will take place of the corporate governance actions of the
Department that oversaw shareholder responsibilities towards the
Post Office during this period, and what changes can proceed
around the governance and accountability of the Post Office?
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I share her wish
to pay tribute to the sub-postmasters who campaigned so long and
effectively on the issue. I read with interest the piece she
wrote the other weekend about what she thinks should be done, and
I agree with much of what she said. As I said earlier, anybody
who is responsible, either at a corporate level or individually,
should be held to account, which may include payments to assist
with compensation and looking at the contracts that have been
awarded. It is right to let Sir Wyn Williams undertake his
inquiry, report properly and assign blame, and we should take
action, at a corporate or individual level, at that time, to make
sure both of those bodies are accountable.
(Brent North) (Lab)
The Minister said that this was about not just compensation but
restoration. That is true, but is it not also about misfeasance
in public office? Will the Minister confirm that the maximum
penalty for a public servant who willingly and knowingly acts in
manner that results in harm, injury or financial loss to an
innocent party is life imprisonment?
Well, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about
accountability. We have given Sir Wyn Williams the chance to look
at all these issues and determine accountability and individual
responsibility. I have dealt with a number of different scandals
over the years, from the Back Benches as well as in my
ministerial role. They happen at a corporate level too often for
us to simply carry on in the way we have done in the past, so I
am happy to take away the hon. Gentleman’s points about the
potential penalty for the offence he describes, which I will
discuss with officials and others.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
Anybody who cares about the interests of justice in our country
will be horrified not just at the nature of these miscarriages of
justice, but at the sheer scale of them. Does that not beg a very
important question? This is an unprecedented set of circumstances
and, in my judgment, it requires an unprecedented approach: there
should be legislation on the Floor of the House to deal with the
convictions of this huge class of people who are not just not
guilty, but victims. I urge the Minister and the Lord Chancellor
to look urgently at the question of legislation—I know that it
would be supported in this House—to create a presumption of
innocence that will cut the Gordian knot and support the victims
and their families who have been enduring this horror for too
long.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question and for
his work on this issue, and I appreciate the engagement that he
has had with the Lord Chancellor. As my right hon. and learned
Friend said, this situation is unprecedented. We certainly
discussed legislation on the Floor of the House at length today
in a meeting with the Lord Chancellor and officials. He will be
aware that the Lord Chancellor is speaking to the judiciary about
these matters. He may want to do the same and make his feelings
known to ensure that there is no barrier to making sure that we
can legislate in the way that he describes.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
Sometimes with hindsight it is possible to see that mistakes were
made and that an injustice was carried out, but it beggars belief
that, at the time, the Post Office, Fujitsu and Ministers
believed that people who were trusted pillars of society suddenly
turned into a mass group of thieves, plundering millions of
pounds from their employer. Surely those who were observing this
at the time must have known that something was wrong, yet they
spent hundreds of millions of pounds persecuting and prosecuting
people who were innocent and who have suffered intolerably. Will
the Minister assure us that those who were guilty of negligence
at that time or perhaps, even worse, cynical abuse of their
position, will be held to account?
I thank the right hon. Member; he has contributed to every debate
on this issue that I have been involved in as a Back Bencher and
as a Minister, and he has paid close attention to this all the
way through and demanded justice. As I said, the approach of the
Post Office was brutal, gratuitous and shocking. Should people be
held to account? Absolutely. I do not think we can start to
dissuade people from taking these wrongful, disgraceful actions
without a deterrent. Certainly, holding people to account by
whatever means possible, including potentially prosecutions,
would be a significant deterrent for people thinking of doing
this kind of stuff in the future.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s approach, but I also pay
tribute to the work that he did to raise the profile of this
issue before he took on that role. This is a scandal of historic
proportions and heads must roll, with or without gongs attached
to them. I am aware of only one sub-postmaster in my constituency
who was pursued by the Post Office and not convicted, but it
struck me that that is because I have very few sub-post offices
left. Are there grounds for investigating whether the Post Office
used this dodgy accounting to mismanage the profitability of
individual branches to accelerate the closure programme of many
of those branches, which left us, in many cases, with very few
post office branches left for our constituents to use?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work. He
raises a very important point. The motivation behind the actions
of the Post Office and executives and managers in the Post Office
is something that Sir Wyn Williams is looking at as part of his
inquiry, and I am very interested to see the results of that.
There is no sense that I am aware of that this was just another
method of trying to contribute towards the closure of a post
office. Despite the closures that my right hon. Friend has
experienced, that is principally about the general nature of the
impact on high streets of changing shopping habits, which is
causing difficulties for some of the network. We are determined
to try to ensure that the post office network is more viable and
more sustainable, including for individual businesses. A more
generous deal on the banking framework between banks and post
offices, in terms of the remuneration that they get to manage
access to cash, for example, is one of the ways that we can make
post offices more sustainable. We are fully committed to
maintaining a significant network across the country, and it is
currently set at 11,500 branches.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
It was referenced earlier that many people involved in this
terrible scandal are coming forward—more since the drama—but of
course a small proportion have not. The Minister and his
Department have been trying to track down those who are eligible
for compensation, including by writing to Members of this House.
What support will the Department provide in forensic person and
company searches to try to track down all those who are eligible
but may simply have become so exasperated or exhausted that they
walked away and wanted nothing further to do with it?
The hon. Member raises an important point. We have written to all
the people with convictions, for example, to say, “Please come
forward.” It is not about a lack of ability to identify
individuals; a lot of it is about the confidence of those people
to come forward after what they have been through. We hope that
making it easier to overturn a conviction and easier to access
compensation will encourage more people to come forward. As he
said, people have been coming forward—people have come directly
to me since the ITV programme was aired—so we think that what we
are doing and have done is helping with that, but we certainly
need to do more to convince people that coming forward is the
right thing to do and that they can be confident of good
treatment.
(Romsey and Southampton
North) (Con)
Many people who were running sub-post office branches were not
victims but were left demoralised by what they saw happening to
colleagues and people across their network and quietly gave up
what had been their living and, in some cases, their homes. Will
the Minister indicate whether there will be support to enable
those people to come forward, give their stories and ascertain
whether they might also be eligible for compensation because they
felt forced out by the lack of care shown by the Post Office?
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Certainly, the
Horizon shortfall scheme should compensate anybody who was
directly affected by the scandal—not just financially but through
other, non-pecuniary issues they faced and suffered from. I am
happy to take her point away and see what information we might
have in that area.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
Many of my constituents have emailed me over the past few days
because they, too, watched the powerful dramatisation that we
have all seen. What they want most is for the Post Office and
individuals within it to be held to account, as other hon.
Members have said. Does the Minister agree that looking to the
facts of what has happened, many of these people may well have
claims for malicious prosecution and that where evidence has been
withheld or lies told in court, the police should look at whether
there has been perjury and—seriously—a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice, which would of course carry with it an
extremely hefty prison sentence?
The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out malicious
prosecution, which forms part of the compensation package
available to those people who have convictions. In terms of
offences and things that happened that led to these issues that
people are or may be guilty of, we expect the police or other
enforcement agencies to look at that carefully. There is nothing
to stop them bringing forward prosecutions where they can see
that people would be guilty of a certain offence.
Sir (Maldon) (Con)
While applauding the extraordinary courage and resilience of the
sub-postmasters who have campaigned for justice for so long, does
my hon. Friend agree that the makers of “Mr Bates vs The Post
Office” and ITV represent public service broadcasting at its best
and that without that we would not be having this statement?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I entirely agree;
the programme brought the scandal into everybody’s living rooms,
and although many people were vaguely or even very aware of it,
they did not see its real effect in terms of the people it
affected or the brutal way in which they were bullied and forced
out of their businesses and livelihoods—and in 200 cases, I
think, put in prison. The programme has done a fantastic job. We
should pay tribute to ITV, its producers and the actors
concerned,0 as well as to the many journalists—not least Nick
Wallis, Tom Witherow and Karl Flinders—who brought these issues
to light and into the public consciousness, which I am sure
played a part in the producers’ decision to make the
programme.
(Eltham) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to the Minister, and to all the people he
mentioned in his statement, for their work. We must recognise and
accept that it is not sound to base any criminal conviction on
Horizon. My constituent was one of the original 555 in the group
litigation order scheme. His conviction was overturned, so he is
now seeking full compensation in the overturned convictions
scheme, but his is one of three cases that the Post Office says
there is no public interest in pursuing. It says that Horizon was
not intrinsic to his conviction, but the figures used in his
conviction were produced using Horizon. That is a Kafkaesque
situation and it cannot be allowed to stand. The Post Office
should not be anywhere near deciding who gets compensation and
what compensation they get. It should be removed from the
process. It has been shown to be untrustworthy and incapable of
dealing with the matter in an even-handed way. Does the Minister
agree?
The hon. Gentleman has contributed to virtually every debate or
statement on this matter, and I thank him for his work on it. We
agree with him, and indeed the compensation schemes agree with
him, that the Horizon evidence should not play any part in
whether or not somebody is found guilty. There are obviously
different schemes: the Horizon shortfall scheme, and the group
litigation order scheme, which people who were part of the group
of 555 sub-postmasters took forward. To clarify, the 40-day
target for a response to any claim is under the GLO scheme, not
the overturned convictions scheme, although we are equally
ambitious about providing rapid offers to people who bring
forward claims for overturned convictions. He raises an important
point about public interest cases. Again, we have discussed that
today with the Lord Chancellor. We want to ensure that everybody
affected gets fair compensation and that the Post Office has as
little influence as possible in those cases. Ideally, in terms of
overturning convictions and access to compensation, we would
deliver something completely outside the Post Office’s
jurisdiction.
(North East Hampshire)
(Con)
It is progress that £27 million of compensation has now been paid
to 477 of the 555, and that 47 of the GLO group have received
compensation totalling £17 million following the overturning of
their convictions, but my constituent Jo Hamilton tells me that
it is still far too difficult and that people are still being far
too easily messed around in the process. Will the Minister look
again at how he can make it even easier and clearer for people to
claim their full and final compensation?
That is exactly what we are attempting to do. I have met Jo
Hamilton. She is a wonderful and incredibly tenacious individual,
and one would never guess from her disposition that she had been
through the trauma that she has. We accept that, at the moment,
the processes for overturning a conviction or for compensation
are not as rapid as we would like. That is exactly what we have
been looking at for some time, not least over the past few days.
We have had good conversations today, and we hope to have clearer
and better news for my right hon. Friend in the next few
days.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his work on this
issue. Like so many Members, I represent people whose lives were
destroyed by this outrageous injustice, two of whom I have been
in touch with again today. On their behalf, I urge the Government
to provide swift and fair compensation, and call for the
immediate exoneration of all those who bear the crushing and
unjust shame of accusation and conviction.
This scandal has also created outrage and disgust among serving
postmasters who were not themselves victims and may post-date the
scandal but who simply do not wish to be associated any longer
with an organisation that can treat people in the contemptible
way that the Post Office has treated the victims. Does he
recognise that this is a moment of real crisis for the post
office network, such that one of my postmasters has already
resigned and another has threatened to do so for that very
reason? Will he instruct the Post Office to go above and beyond
to support the network, postmasters and potential postmasters, so
that we still have a post office network at the end of all
this?
I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. Swift and fair
compensation—absolutely. An immediate overturning of convictions
is something that we are looking to achieve as soon as possible,
if it is possible, clearly subject to the caveats I set out
earlier. Despite what the Post Office has done, most members of
the public still look at the post office network with great
admiration. It is greatly valued in our communities, so I do not
believe that it is a damaged brand, but it is right that
postmasters should have a much better relationship with the
central management at the Post Office and the network itself.
Much work has happened in that area, including the recruitment of
100 area managers to try to improve that relationship. That
relationship will also be improved by making individual post
office branches more financially sustainable, as the hon.
Gentleman and I have discussed. We are very keen to do things
such as the banking framework and the new parcel hub opportunity
for those postmasters. The post office network has a bright
future and a sound reputation, and we are keen to reinforce
that.
(Rugby) (Con)
We have already heard about the work of the Business and Trade
Committee, which looked at this issue for our February 2022
report. One of the most distressing features from our evidence
sessions was hearing about the many people who were affected but
were unwilling to come forward because it was too painful and
they wanted to put the matter behind them. As we saw in the ITV
drama, the Post Office was just not trusted. That led to the
Committee’s recommendation that there should be a trusted point
of contact for people to go to. Will the Minister join me in
welcoming today’s news that 100 new people have come forward?
Will he do his utmost to encourage everyone affected to come
forward and claim the compensation that they are due?
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on the Select
Committee, of which he is a long-standing member. We are very
concerned about the people who will not come forward for whatever
reason. The best way to tackle that is to make it easier to get
compensation. That is one of the reasons why we brought forward
the fixed-sum award route for overturned convictions—there is no
requirement to submit a detailed claim to access that
£600,000—and made it easier generally to overturn convictions by
making those two routes easier. We think that is the best way to
convince people to come forward. The message should go out loud
and clear from every Member of this House to the people affected:
“Please come forward, because you will be treated fairly and you
will be compensated quickly.”
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
I am raising points from constituents who have been moved by the
ITV drama on the Horizon scandal. I want to reiterate the points
made by my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government
Benches about the value of such a drama in bringing home the
extent of the scandal to a much wider audience. I congratulate
all those involved in making the drama, and the investigation
work that went into it. May I add my voice to that of my hon.
Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde () to support the review of
private prosecutions? That is the power that allowed the Post
Office to be a supposed victim, investigator and prosecutor.
Finally, my constituents are deeply concerned about the delay in
paying compensation to victims. Can the Minister expedite the
payments in any way?
I share the hon. Lady’s point that the dramatisation was
invaluable in raising awareness and in making sure that we bring
forward measures as quickly as possible—all things that she
mentioned. As I said, private prosecution is something that I
discussed with the Lord Chancellor today, and he is keen to look
at that in the general context. I am sure that he will report to
the House in due course. I agree with the hon. Lady entirely on
delays. We want to expedite this process of overturning
convictions and paying compensation, to make it much quicker and
easier. That is the best way to resolve these issues and ensure
that as many people as possible are confident to come
forward.
Dame (Basingstoke) (Con)
Following the ITV drama broadcast last week, I have been
contacted by many constituents, and they will welcome the
Minister’s focus today on justice for every single victim. But he
knows that, despite his efforts and those of many other
Ministers, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has said that
many of the 700 people who have had criminal convictions will not
take part in a further legal process, perhaps because of their
understandable collapse of trust in the Post Office, and also in
the judicial system. Now is the time for the Government to
consider how all convictions that relied on evidence from the
Horizon system, which must now be seen as unsafe, could be
quashed without victims having to endure further legal
wrangling.
My right hon. Friend raises important points. That is exactly the
experience so far: people will not take part—of course, the
Criminal Cases Review Commission can only do so much if they do
not—despite the fact that the Post Office now looks at every
single case and will write to people when it is not going to
contest an appeal. It is trying to be more proactive in ensuring
that people come forward, but I share my right hon. Friend’s
ambition. Ideally, we would like a process that does not require
a convicted postmaster to come forward—something that we could do
across the board. That is exactly what we are looking at, and I
hope to have some news for her in the coming days.
(East Dunbartonshire)
(SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and pay tribute to the
sub-postmasters who have led the campaign. Concerns over Horizon
have been in the air for at least 14 years. That is 14 years of
pain, injustice and uncertainty for the victims and their
families. Is it not time for the Government to take decisive
action both to identify victims of Horizon and to mass-exonerate
those convicted?
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is exactly what we
are trying to do, and what the statement is all about. As I said,
we have compensated 64% of victims thus far with full and final
compensation, and provided interim compensation to practically
everybody who has come forward with a claim. She is right that we
are disappointed that more people have not come forward to
overturn their convictions. That is exactly the problem that we
are trying to solve, and we are looking at innovative legal ways
to do that. As I said, we hope to have some news very
shortly.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister is asserting the principle of
ministerial responsibility, which has long been clear, ever since
the Crichel Down case. Even if the Minister is not personally
responsible, he is responsible for what goes wrong. When I was
Minister for the Post Office, that was made clear to me. It is
reprehensible that at least one of my successors is trying to
dodge the bullet and just say, “I was given the wrong advice.” If
we own the Post Office, the Minister is responsible. That is a
principle that we have to establish.
Looking to the future, I have often been in touch with the
Minister regarding the views of , who is the president of the
sub-postmasters north-east branch. What the branch wants now is
for a line to be drawn under this, for compensation to be paid,
for the reputation of the Post Office to be re-established and
for the Post Office management to treat sub-postmasters properly
from now on.
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. As Ministers, we must
bear responsibility for what we do, as well as expect people
within the Post Office, Fujitsu and others to bear
responsibility. As Ministers, we must serve a useful purpose. I
totally agree about drawing a line under this. That is exactly
what we want to do, in two ways: by overturning convictions and
by paying full and final compensation. I am pleased to say that
around 30 people with overturned convictions have been able to
draw a line under it by being compensated fully for what happened
to them. We should try to build on that, and make it happen much
more quickly. That is what we are working on right now, and we
hope to deliver solutions in the very near future.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the work that he
is doing to push the issue to a conclusion. I pay tribute to my
constituent, Della Robinson, who was the sub-postmistress at
Dukinfield post office in my constituency. She was convicted in
2013 of false accounting. Her conviction has been quashed as part
of the 555, but she lost everything. She lost her shop, she lost
her home, she lost her friends and she lost her reputation. Heads
have to roll, because people were in the know at Fujitsu and at
the Post Office. While I am not somebody who seeks retribution,
heads really must roll in this case because of the lives that
were destroyed. As a daughter of Denton, Paula Vennells really
ought to do the right thing and hand back her CBE.
On behalf of the Government and the Post Office, I apologise for
what happened to Della Robinson. These are tragic cases, as the
hon. Gentleman says, with people losing not just their shop and
their business but their home and the respect of their local
community. That must have been devastating for her. She clearly
has a route to compensation now, having overturned the
conviction. There is either an immediate route through the
fixed-sum award, or there is the detailed assessment. If it is
the detailed assessment, we are keen to ensure that it is
delivered as quickly as possible to put Della—Mrs Robinson, I
should say—back in the position she was in before the actions of
the Post Office.
I agree that people individually must take responsibility. Sir
Wyn Williams’s inquiry is there to identify who was responsible,
exactly what they did or did not do and how that contributed to
the scandal. Where possible, those individuals should be held to
account by any means, including prosecutions. Certainly, it seems
to be an obvious opportunity for those who have received honours
for service to the Post Office to return those honours
voluntarily.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
If individual employees of the Post Office face serious criminal
charges for malicious prosecution or criminal conspiracy, how
would the Minister feel if it turned out that the Post Office
proposed to pay for their legal defence costs, given how it
treated its own sub-postmasters?
I would not feel good about that at all. My right hon. Friend
makes an important point. I will take it away and take advice on
it. That would not seem to me to be an appropriate thing to do at
all.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
On 19 August 2008, my constituent Michael Rudkin, in his position
as chairman of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, visited
Fujitsu’s headquarters in Bracknell and inadvertently witnessed
IT engineers there secretly altering the accounts of
sub-postmasters in Horizon. When the managers at Fujitsu realised
what my constituent had seen, they ejected him from the building,
and he travelled back to his post office in Ibstock, where his
wife Susan was his office manager.
The next morning, Mr and Mrs Rudkin were subject to an early
morning raid by the Post Office’s inspectors, who declared that a
£44,000 deficit had appeared on their computer overnight.
Criminal convictions resulted. I never believed it was a
coincidence that the Post Office found this massive deficit
shortfall on my constituent’s computer the same day he uncovered
what Fujitsu was doing. When I challenged Fujitsu, it said that
Mr Rudkin had never been to its premises and it had lost the
visitors’ book for the day in question. My constituents want to
know who will be held to account for more than a decade of false
incrimination and humiliation suffered by my constituents.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work on this matter. He
has been a constant contributor to these debates to make sure
that we see justice for his constituents and other people
affected by this scandal. Mr Rudkin was one of the stars of the
show in the dramatisation, and I am so sorry to hear what
happened to him and his wife through the Post Office’s actions.
It seems incredibly coincidental that those two things
coincided—the visit to Fujitsu, what he discovered at that point
and then what happened the next day in discovering a £44,000
shortfall in his accounts. We all now know that Fujitsu and the
Post Office were able to amend the post office accounts. It seems
incredibly coincidental, but also, as I said, brutal and cynical
in terms of what might have happened. We should let Sir Wyn
Williams determine exactly what has happened and who is
responsible before we judge and blame. I am just as keen as the
hon. Gentleman to see individuals held to account for what
happened in this scandal.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
May I echo the point made a few moments ago by my right hon.
Friend the Member for Witham ()? The Horizon computer system,
which has been the cause of so much misery to so many postmasters
and their families—including my constituent, Mr Alan Bates—was
supplied by Fujitsu, which continued to be paid to maintain it.
Fujitsu is also the recipient of multimillion-pound contracts
from many public bodies, including Departments. Indeed, it has
recently had contracts awarded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs. Can my hon. Friend say why a company that has been the
cause of such distress to so many of our fellow citizens
continues to be the beneficiary of public sector contracts?
Once again, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s constituent,
Alan Bates, who was very much the star of the show, both in the
dramatisation and in reality. It is because of his tenacity and
his commitment that this has come to light. The Horizon system is
being rebuilt. Fujitsu is not rebuilding it, so the Post Office
will move away from the current Horizon system, but it needs a
system today to cover one of the largest retail networks in the
world. We need to make sure that it has a system it can use right
now, but it will no longer be Fujitsu’s responsibility.
As for other Government contracts, we are of course looking at
those. Whether it is contributing to compensation or looking at
access to Government contracts, our view is that we should let
Sir Wyn Williams complete his inquiries and report, and then make
a decision on what happened, who is responsible and exactly what
we will do about individuals or organisations at that point in
time.
(Jarrow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for recognising the
work that I and others have done to highlight this scandal over
many years. Of course, the recognition should go to the many
sub-postmasters, including my constituent, Chris Head, one of the
555, for their tireless campaigning for justice.
I want to pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for
Clwyd West (Mr Jones). Last October, I asked the then Minister
whether, in light of the Horizon and sub-postmaster scandal, he
would pause existing contracts with Fujitsu and undertake a
review. I am pleased to hear that that is happening. We should
pause existing contracts and stop awarding Fujitsu
multimillion-pound contracts. Fujitsu continues to take billions
of pounds in profits, including £10 billion a year in Government
contracts, while our sub-postmasters await compensation. Will the
Minister agree to stop awarding contracts to Fujitsu, and can he
tell me how many contracts have been given to it since this
scandal came to light?
Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her work on this, both in the
House and in her engagement with others who have taken a
particular interest in the scandal. I also thank her constituent,
Chris Head, who is a regular commenter on various points on
Twitter, and I read his contributions all the time. He gets his
message across very effectively.
Let me be clear that we think that the right process is that we
use Sir Wyn Williams’s statutory inquiry to identify exactly who
is responsible and what they are responsible for. At that point
in time, we will decide whether it is right to give any
organisation access to Government contracts. That is the right
process. Of course we have concerns about what has happened in
the past and about that particular organisation, but we have to
follow the process in order to make a decision about how we move
forward.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should create a special legal
process to more rapidly overturn these wrongful convictions, and
to accelerate compensation, including for those who have not come
forward? Will he take steps to stop the Post Office prosecuting
and fighting victims in court? Does he agree that it would be
right for Paula Vennells to hand back her CBE, given her role in
this disgraceful miscarriage of justice?
To answer: yes, yes and yes. Yes, we want a rapid legal process,
and that is exactly what we are discussing today. I am keen to
deliver that as quickly as possible. The Post Office has stopped
prosecuting—it has not prosecuted since 2015—but the Justice
Secretary will look at the wider aspects of private prosecutions.
My thoughts on Paula Vennells are exactly the same as my hon.
Friend’s. It is a perfect opportunity for her to hand back her
CBE voluntarily. Further down the line, if the Williams inquiry
is able to assign blame, other potential avenues could be
taken.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
One of the most chilling parts of the dramatisation revealed that
dozens, if not hundreds, of people were told, “This is only
happening to you. You are the only one who is reporting a problem
with this system.” It is safe to assume that someone, or some
individuals, oversaw and dreamt up that particular corporate
spin. May I push the Minister further, and ask whether he agrees
with many in the House that the Government now need to recover
the bonus payments made to the executives who oversaw that
corporate lie?
I agree with that description. The dramatisation was indeed
chilling, not least that part of it. It made you feel physically
sick to keep hearing those words spoken to individual
postmasters: “It is only happening to you.” That was very
disturbing, and it clearly must have been a corporate
position.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition when it comes to what he
regards as sanctions, and indeed other sanctions that are
applicable, but I think we need to follow a process, particularly
in respect of individuals. We believe that the best route towards
identifying who is responsible and holding those people to
account for what they did is Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry.
(Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and his hard work in this
area. Like many others, I have been written to by people who will
welcome the Minister’s comment that he supports the removal of
the CBE from the former chief executive of the Post Office, but
does he agree that removing a gong does not deliver justice, and
nor does compensation? It is not a question of retribution but a
question of justice, so does he agree that if Post Office
employees have erroneously accused others of wrongdoing—whether
negligently, recklessly or deliberately—they must feel the full
force of the criminal law that they wrongly imposed on
others?
Let me be clear about this. I am not taking the position that we
should remove the CBE, and that should not be our position,
because we have not yet assigned blame to individuals. However,
given that during that critical period the Post Office clearly
failed in so many areas and in so many shocking ways, it would be
sensible and reasonable for the former CEO to hand back an honour
that was given for services to the Post Office. There may be
other avenues, and my hon. Friend was right to identify some of
the potential avenues, but we think that Sir Wyn Williams’s
inquiry is the best way to identify who was responsible.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not about retribution
but about justice. I have spoken to some of the victims of this
scandal and others, and there are two things that they want.
Obviously they want compensation, but they also want people to be
held to account, and I entirely share my hon. Friend’s ambition
for that to be done.
Dame (Llanelli) (Lab)
We have all been appalled by the fact that the Post Office went
on and on, for so many years, prosecuting and ruining the lives
of sub-postmasters. It certainly makes us ask who knew what. As
the Minister said, we want to ensure that this type of scandal
can never happen again, so perhaps he will understand how
disappointing it was that in December the Government stopped
short of agreeing to introduce a Hillsborough law to ensure that
victims could secure the disclosure of crucial information and to
place a duty of candour on all public servants. Will he now talk
to ministerial colleagues about reconsidering that decision?
We are very keen to find out exactly who knew what, and Sir Wyn
Williams’s inquiry was made statutory so that people could have
access to all the information. There is nothing to which they
should not have access, and all the disclosures should be
available to the inquiry. That should lead to people being held
to account, and the exploring of other avenues in respect of what
might be done at that point and the evidence that is uncovered. I
am not aware of the issue that the hon. Lady raised about what
happened in December, but I am happy to take it away and look at
it.
(Moray) (Con)
The Horizon scandal is exactly that: an appalling scandal, which
could potentially be continuing today but for the commitment,
dedication and efforts of a small group of people who were
determined to get to the truth. I hope that one of those people,
Alan Bates, can finally accept the honour he deserves, but he
will do that only when Paula Vennells does the correct thing and
either hands back her CBE or is rightly stripped of it.
In the context of wider convictions, in Scotland the prosecution
of individuals rests solely with the Crown Office, and criminal
case reviews are a devolved matter. What discussions have the UK
Government or the Lord Chancellor had, or what discussions do
they plan to have, with the Scottish Government and the Crown
Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that Scottish
victims of this scandal secure the justice that they deserve?
My hon. Friend is right that Alan Bates has said he will not
accept his OBE until Paula Vennells’ CBE has been withdrawn. That
is another good reason for her to hand back her CBE, because it
would allow Alan to be recognised, quite rightly, through the
honours process.
My hon. Friend raised a good point, and we are keen to ensure
that anything we do is UK-wide, not just England-based, so I am
sure that those conversations will take place. The conversations
we have had with the Lord Chancellor have really only happened
today. We need to get to a position that would resolve this
situation and meet the requirements of the advisory board and
others across the House. I am sure that that conversation will be
going on between the Lord Chancellor and his counterparts in
other parts of the United Kingdom.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
In recent days, I have been written to by many constituents
expressing their horror at the extent of this injustice and,
indeed, their outrage that honest, innocent sub-postmasters such
as Mr Noel Thomas were not only convicted but imprisoned for a
crime they did not commit—indeed, a crime that had not in fact
happened. Those constituents will be glad to hear about some of
the actions the Minister has outlined to accelerate not only the
exoneration of those who were wrongly convicted but the payment
of compensation.
The Minister referred to those who are impacted by this scandal
but who might not have been convicted themselves. One
sub-postmaster in my constituency paid up for a shortfall that
had not actually occurred, because of the pressure and the fear
of conviction. Do we have firm information about, and a grasp of,
how many sub-postmasters and former sub-postmasters might find
themselves in that position? Is it not now for the Post Office to
reach out to those individuals to ensure that they come forward
for compensation?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. Yes, as I say, we are
keen to exonerate more people more quickly; that is exactly what
we intend to do and what we have been looking at today, and we
hope to give more information as quickly as possible. We want
there to be quicker, easier exoneration and also easier
compensation. That is exactly the opportunity that the scheme for
overturning convictions delivers. People can take a more detailed
assessment route, where it takes time to compile and respond to a
claim, or they can simply move past that system and take a fixed
award of £600,000, which is available to anybody who has an
overturned conviction. That should encourage more people to come
forward.
In terms of other people who had shortfalls but have not been
convicted, there is the Horizon shortfall scheme. Some 2,417
people applied to that scheme within the timescale. About another
500, I think, applied after time, but they have still been
accepted into the scheme. Anybody in that position should have
access to compensation. One hundred per cent of the people in the
original cohort—the 2,417—have had offers, and 85% have accepted,
so we are making significant progress. All postmasters should
have been communicated with and written to, but if the hon.
Gentleman is aware of any postmaster affected who has not been, I
am happy to work with him to make sure they can access
compensation.
(Kettering) (Con)
This is the worst scandal in the history of the Post Office since
it was first established in 1660. That was the year of the
restoration after the English civil war. In that same year,
Parliament passed an Act of Oblivion, which exonerated all those
who had previously opposed the Crown and which facilitated,
through Parliament, a blanket royal pardon. Might not that sort
of mechanism, together with swift compensation, be the most
appropriate way to bring justice to all the affected
sub-postmasters?
My hon. Friend’s knowledge of history is greater than mine, but
the essence of what he says is something we concur with. Whether
by means of the route he mentions or other routes, we are keen to
ensure that we make it easier to overturn convictions, ideally
without the postmaster having to do anything. That is something
we are looking at now but, again, we need to have conversations
with the judiciary and other elements of the system to make sure
that there are no unintended consequences from what we are
doing—in terms of precedents, for example. However, our ambitions
are exactly the same as my hon. Friend’s.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
Following on from what the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr
Hollobone) said, the chair of the independent advisory board,
Professor Chris Hodges, is also suggesting that a simple piece of
legislation could be introduced to the House, which would ensure
pardons en masse and quickly. Will the Minister speak in
particular about compensation for bereaved families where former
sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses took their own lives?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and again pay tribute to
the work of the advisory board, including the chair Professor
Chris Hodges, Professor Richard Moorhead, and the right hon. Member
for North Durham. It has done fantastic work and I hope to attend
its meeting on Wednesday, where we will discuss some of these
issues. It is a further tragedy, of course, for the bereaved
families. I have a family in my constituency in exactly that
situation. The same amount of compensation should be made
available to the family. I know that that is cold comfort for
many people in that situation, but it is the least we can do to
ensure that at least some compensation is paid to the family, who
will also have been affected by this scandal.
(Gloucester) (Con)
There is one aspect that has not been touched on yet: the role of
the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Mark Baker, a former
sub-postmaster, was elected to the executive council in 2001. He
later gave written evidence to the Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy Committee in March 2020, stating that the
NFSP had
“been aware of the issues with the Horizon system for many
years”,
but effectively successive CEOs have been compromised by a grant
funding agreement with Post Office Ltd. Will the Minister, whose
own determined persistence on this matter I much admire, confirm
that the role of the NFSP is being looked at by the Williams
inquiry? This should have been the union that spoke up for the
sub-postmasters. I suspect that there are many lessons to be
learned, as well as finding out who knew what in the NFSP.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I engage with the
NFSP, Calum Greenhow and others. I think there is a better
relationship now between the network and the NFSP, but it is
important that it is a representative relationship. Nevertheless,
my hon. Friend raises a very important point. There is nowhere
that the statutory inquiry cannot look to identify
responsibility. He points it in a certain direction that I am
sure it will be aware of, but it may well listen to his comments
on the Floor of the House today and look at it as a
consequence.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
Only last year, when the sheer scale of the scandal had already
been uncovered, the CEO and senior Post Office leaders were
awarded tens of thousands of pounds in bonuses for their work on
the inquiry into Post Office failings. Meanwhile, some of the
victims of the scandal have died while waiting for compensation.
This has outraged my constituents, constituting as it does
incompetence and insensitivity on stilts. The Minister has today
committed to ensuring and expediting justice for the victims of
this scandal, and that is widely welcomed, but what steps is he
prepared to take to ensure the recovery, in full, of all bonuses
paid to Post Office leaders?
Certainly in terms of what the hon. Lady regards as the
sub-metric—the work of the Post Office contributing towards the
inquiry—we accept that should never have been the case. All the
people who received bonuses at senior leadership level have
voluntarily returned the bonuses that were attached to that
sub-metric.
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the number of people who
have passed away while waiting for compensation. That is a
tragedy in itself. We are keen to deliver compensation as quickly
as possible and make sure that the families of those individuals
who have passed away get access to compensation as quickly as
possible.
(Guildford) (Con)
In April 2022, I was contacted by a former Guildford constituent,
sub-postmaster Abdul Sathar Abdeen, through his wife Vanessa,
both now located in Sri Lanka. Between 1999 and 2005, they spent
thousands of pounds settling shortfalls, including selling a
property in Sri Lanka. By the time news of compensation reached
them in Sri Lanka, the scheme had closed. Will my hon. Friend
confirm that those who have been impacted and now live abroad are
able to apply for compensation?
I am sorry to hear what has happened to Mrs Abdeen. I assume that
my hon. Friend is talking about the Horizon shortfall scheme, and
my officials and I are very happy to work with her to make sure
that any late applications are considered. It sounds like this
was a late application, and I am happy to work with her
offline.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work and for his constructive
statement. When can we expect Fujitsu to be held accountable and
to pay significant compensation to those affected?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. We should not prejudge
the outcome of the inquiry. It is a statutory inquiry, and we
should respect the processes it is undertaking. It is due to
conclude later this year, and we hope for a report very shortly
afterwards. At that point, we should be able to determine who is
responsible and what action should be taken to make sure that
their actions are properly dealt with in terms of individual
responsibility or corporate responsibility, which may include a
contribution to the compensation funds.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
The excellent TV drama brought home to millions of people what I
and many Members of this House already knew, which is the trauma
caused to individual people. On a wider scale, it surely means
that the Government must look again at the accountability of many
of these arm’s length agencies, which are operationally
independent. We need to look again at governance, management,
ministerial responsibility and how Members of this House can hold
them to proper account.
I agree that accountability is key. I think it is fair to say
that my Department has learned lessons on governance. I spend a
lot of time meeting the Post Office and, indeed, the Government’s
representative on the Post Office board, UK Government
Investments, to make sure that we have proper oversight of this
arm’s length body. My hon. Friend is probably referring to
something wider than the Post Office—other arm’s length
bodies—and he raises a very important point to which we should
certainly give consideration.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I understand how complicated it is to calculate compensation for
individuals. My constituent’s numbers disappeared off their
screen as transactions were being put through. Will the Minister
ensure that more resources are put into supporting the process so
that compensation can be paid more expediently?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. These are complex matters, and
there are two ends to the compensation journey. One is the
compilation of a claim by the claimant, which may include legal
advice and assessments of health conditions, for example, so it
can take time to compile a claim.
Under the GLO scheme, which is the most recent scheme, we have
committed to responding to 90% of claims within 40 days. We
believe we have the right level of resources at our end to make
sure we can respond fairly and quickly. The assessments are made
on the compensation side by independent individuals and panels.
We think it is a good process and we think it is resourced
properly but, of course, we will continue to give it proper
oversight.
(Waveney) (Con)
No current or former sub-postmaster in the Waveney constituency
had been in touch with me before today, but I have received two
emails today from constituents whose lives have effectively been
destroyed. This raises two questions. How many people were simply
bullied and intimidated into keeping quiet and paying up? And
what justice and recompense will be available to them?
Although it is tragic to hear that anybody has been involved in
these kinds of cases, it is good to hear that people are coming
forward. Again, one of the added benefits of the dramatisation is
that people are more willing to come forward, and we have seen a
good number coming forward. I am very happy to make sure that my
hon. Friend’s constituents are pointed in the right direction and
that they have access to the appropriate scheme to get
compensation, because they should be compensated to the degree of
both their non-pecuniary losses, for any impacts on, for example,
their health or any distress or reputational issues, and of their
financial situation, as we return them to the position they were
in prior to the episode taking place. We are keen that his
constituents get access to those schemes.
(East Lothian) (Alba)
As both a defence agent and as Justice Secretary, I was aware
that even a postie who failed to deliver the mail, let alone a
sub-postmaster who stole the mail, faced a custodial sentence.
That was viewed as correct and I accepted it, because there are
occupations where probity is essential and where exemplary
sentences are required to be imposed. But this is worse and it is
wider. This is a conspiracy to silence. It is a conspiracy by
those with reputational, financial and institutional interests to
bury the little person and to obtain convictions. They knew
convictions were coming. I believe that the integrity of our
justice system and indeed of our society requires that nobody is
above the rule of law and that, where such actions take place,
exemplary sentences are imposed. Will the Minister seek to ensure
that?
That is exactly what we want to do and that is why we set up the
statutory inquiry to try to identify culpability and
responsibility. Whether that leads to corporate sanctions, in
terms of contributions to compensation schemes, or individuals
who might face prosecution or other sanctions, that is absolutely
right. Of course there will be different agencies looking at
different things that the inquiry uncovers as part of its
process, including not only crime agencies, but the Honours
Forfeiture Committee. We are very keen to ensure that that
happens. The hon. Gentleman mentions financial incentives—as
Charlie Munger once said, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show
you the outcome.” I am sure that played a part in some of the
terrible mistreatments of postmasters.
(Watford) (Con)
As I have stated previously in this House, the Horizon scandal
was an absolute travesty. My thanks, as should all our thanks, go
to Alan Bates, for his relentless work to stand up for
victims—and they were victims of one of the worst miscarriages of
justice this country has ever seen. While I am very aware of the
legal complexities and the challenges around righting these
wrongs as we go through the various stages, will my hon. Friend,
who I know is passionate about getting this right, confirm that
he is working at the very highest level of Government to ensure
that any blockages, delays or stutterings in this process are
cleared through? Does he agree that every single current Member
of Parliament—all 650—and every Member of Parliament in the
future should make sure not only to watch the ITV drama series,
but to read “The Great Post Office Scandal” by Nick Wallis, which
originally helped to shine a light on this appalling scandal?
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work as one of my
predecessors. He was an excellent postal affairs Minister—for all
too brief a time, I think it is fair to say, but he did a great
job, and I know some of the things he put in place in this area
are important to the whole process. Of course we are working at
the highest level: the Prime Minister is taking a personal
interest in these matters, so I see no barrier in terms of
willingness to right these wrongs from anywhere in Government,
right to the highest possible level. I had a meeting with the
Justice Secretary today, who offered some positive ways forward
in the next few days.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we should all watch
that programme to learn lessons about not only this particular
scandal, but the potential for future scandals based on the same
kind of motivations. He mentions the “The Great Post Office
Scandal”, written by the excellent journalist Nick Wallis, who
has been such an important part of uncovering the truth of this
horrendous scandal.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
Harjinder Singh Butoy, my constituent, not only lost his
business, lost his home and was bankrupted, but had the agony of
being sentenced to 18 months in prison for something he knew he
had never done. Justice, for Mr Singh Butoy, is not just getting
him the compensation he still waits for; it is seeing those who
sat by, knowing that he was the victim of an injustice, and
watched him go to prison face justice themselves. While it is
absolutely crucial that the statutory inquiry takes on all the
information it needs to, it is important that we get justice as
quickly as possible. What can the Minister say about how we can
ensure that the importance of getting all the information does
not mean that this process goes on for years and years, as with
other miscarriages of justice we have seen in the past?
It is tragic to hear about what happened to Mr Singh Butoy; I
thank the hon. Gentleman for his work in drawing awareness to
that case. As I said, people in these situations want two things:
rapid compensation and the holding to account of the people
responsible. We are keen to deliver on those two key things. We
want to make it easier to overturn convictions and, once that has
happened—from what the hon. Gentleman has said, it seems that Mr
Singh Butoy’s conviction has been overturned—we want there to be
access to rapid compensation, which we can deliver through the
fixed-sum award or the full assessment route.
We also want to make sure that we hold people to account. Sir Wyn
Williams’s inquiry is responsible for identifying exactly what
went wrong and who was responsible. It is due to report later
this year; we do not want it to carry on for years, but we want
to give it the time and breathing space to do its job properly
and we do not want to put any artificial limits on its ability to
do that. We hope that the inquiry will end this year and report
shortly after. We are keen that any actions against organisations
or individuals can be taken at that time.
(Stroud) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows from meetings and debates, my
constituent, sub-postmistress Nichola Arch, moved me to tears
when she described the public shaming and abuse that happened in
our usually kind Stroud constituency at the time of the scandal.
Her grown-up child has only ever known her as the post office
lady fighting faceless corporations who lost jobs and her house
in the meantime.
Given how people were treated and their losses, there is no one
type of victim. That makes the issue hellishly complicated and it
is really difficult to compile evidence. Will my hon. Friend use
the national energy now behind this case to work with his
excellent officials, who have worked incredibly hard on this, to
simplify the schemes yet further? For example, could the £600,000
lump sum be done at levels that require limited and defined
evidence, so that people are not exhausted yet further?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her work on behalf of
Nichola Arch, whose case is one of the most prominent in this
scandal. She is right to say that assessing loss is complicated,
which is exactly why I work with officials. I agree with her
description of them as excellent; they are just as passionate
about delivering compensation as Members of this House. We are
working on a daily basis.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the fixed-sum award for
overturned convictions simplified things significantly. A
significant number of people have full and final settlements on
an overturned conviction—30 people have chosen that route so far.
But I hear what my hon. Friend is saying about a simplified
process in other areas of compensation. That is certainly
something we are working on and looking at wherever we can.
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
ITV and the power of drama deserve our praise for galvanising
Government action far faster than the questions I have been
asking here since 2020. As well as Mr Bates there was Mr Patel,
who was forced to give a false confession to avoid prison. He had
the humiliation of attending the graduation of his son, my
constituent Varchas, while electronically tagged. Despite Mr
Patel’s conviction having been quashed in 2020, he has had zilch
compensation and suffered huge ill health. Can the Minister sort
that, make sure that heads roll and make good on Paula Vennells’s
promise to me in 2018, when she pulled the plug on Acton crown
post office, that we will get a post office again? We are still
waiting.
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and work on behalf of Mr
Patel. If Mr Patel’s conviction was overturned in 2020, he should
have received £163,000 in interim compensation, which was made
available to anybody with an overturned conviction. He can also
access two routes: either a fixed-sum award of £600,000 or the
full assessment route. He can make a decision based on whatever
level of compensation he and his advisers think he is due. One
route is undoubtedly quicker than the other due to the complex
nature of assessing claims. I agree with the hon. Lady about
people being held accountable, as I said in my statement and in
response to other Members. Picking up her point about Acton post
office, Paula Vennells does not have much influence over that any
more, but we can ask questions about that on the hon. Lady’s
behalf.
(St Ives) (Con)
When I first became an MP, I met two constituents who had
suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal. I was struck by the
utter betrayal they felt. They had lost the job they loved and
that they had seen as a form of public service, serving their
community for many decades. I welcome everything that the
Minister has set out on future action, but may I push back gently
on his suggestion that the network is in a good place today and
that there was no reputational damage? In the town of Porthleven
and in Newlyn, a large village, we cannot get a business to touch
the Post Office. Can the Minister do more work to restore the
reputation of the Post Office, so that people have the service of
a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress where they need them?
My hon. Friend is right to point out the nature of the public
service provided by sub-postmasters. The great passion and the
store set by sub-postmasters, such as Jo Hamilton, about their
role in the community and the service they provided to that
community came across loud and clear in the ITV broadcast. It was
not just about losing a job, but about losing their place in the
community, so my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to
that.
It is important to resolve these situations quickly now, for the
reputation of the Post Office, overturning convictions and
getting compensation out of the door to everyone affected by the
scandal, and we are working towards that every day. The post
office network is still revered across the country, so I believe
it still has a strong reputation at an individual level, but we
must make the network more sustainable and viable. If the network
is more lucrative, that will attract more people into becoming
sub-postmasters. We are working on that all the time, through
initiatives such as the banking framework and other
opportunities.
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
Many constituents have contacted me looking for swift and
straightforward action. I am interested in what the Minister has
outlined, but it will be important to see further flesh on the
bones as we progress, and very quickly. I would like to hear more
from him about how we can best deal with those hard-to-reach
cases, such as people who may have walked away absolutely
scunnered and significantly out of pocket, who may not come
forward without the concerted action that they deserve.
The protracted nature of the issue has dampened people’s
enthusiasm for taking on a post office—we cannot shy away from
that and our communities deserve that we do not do so. In my
constituency, the post office in Neilston will close on Saturday
in what is known as a “temporary closure”, but it is only
temporary if someone will come forward to take it on. Too many
communities in East Renfrewshire and further afield do not have
post offices, which are essential. I take on board what the
Minister has said, but what more can be done, over and above what
he has set out? Much more is needed to make sure that people have
the confidence to take on the post offices that our communities
need so much.
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right that we need
to make the compensation schemes and the overturning of
convictions swifter and more straightforward, and she is right to
point to the fact that some people are reluctant to come forward
in the first place. We are keen to deliver a solution that does
not require sub-postmasters to come forward in order for us to
overturn a conviction, as has been called for by Members of this
House. We have been looking at that and we are working on it
right now.
I represent a rural constituency and the Government provide
significant financial support of £50 million a year for rural
post offices. We are determined to restore the reputation of post
offices through this work and make them more financially stable
generally, by increasing the remuneration opportunities for
postmasters. We think that is the route that will ensure people
will come forward and run post offices in rural locations, which
is as important to me as it is to the hon. Lady.
(Sedgefield) (Con)
I apologise because this will obviously be repetitive, but the
actions and governance of the Post Office have been
incomprehensible. Many people will only have realised what has
happened because they saw the ITV programme—I encourage them all
to come to me or to any other MP if they do not know where to go
to. I first engaged with this situation as a member of the
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee along with
colleagues in March 2020, and it shocked me then as it does now.
For me, the most shocking aspect, as has been repeated across the
House, was the number of people who were told they were the only
one. The obvious cover-up from people within the Post Office
delivering those statements is wrong, shocking and outrageous.
Can I encourage the Minister to do everything he can to ensure
that those people feel the full force of the law so that the
sub-postmasters, who are the real victims, feel like they have
got some justice at the end of this outrageous situation?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reassure him that
repetition is no barrier to contribution in this place, as he
will recognise. I also thank him for his work on the Select
Committee, which is hugely important. We heard the words “You’re
the only one” time and again in those dramatisations. It was
horrific. It was a blatant lie, and somebody must have known that
it was a blatant lie. Those lies led to some people going to jail
and others suffering other forms of financial detriment, and
detriment to their health and that of their families. Should
prosecutions flow from that wherever possible? I would say
yes.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
I share the thoughts of almost everyone—there has been almost
cross-party unanimity on this issue—but I am still worried about
the ongoing treatment of sub-postmasters and their liability. In
2018, my local post office was subject to an armed robbery. Those
who ran the post office were hauled up to the regional office,
where they were interrogated. They felt like criminals. They were
not allowed to bring their reps from the Communication Workers
Union; they were told they could bring reps only from the
National Federation of SubPostmasters, which they had no trust
in. In the end, although of course they were found not to have
given over the money willingly, they left and handed over the
post office to someone else. There is a problem with the
liability of sub-postmasters, and particularly the fact that the
Post Office has closed Crown post offices, which would not have
such liability. Will the Minister look again at how liability
works for sub-postmasters?
I echo the calls that we should look again at private
prosecutions. The CCRC said in its 2020 report that the private
prosecutions process is haphazard and the fact that the
Government do not even know what private prosecutions are going
on, because there is no central register, is detrimental to the
very reforms they might need to make. Will the Minister at least
look at having a central register of private prosecutions, and a
regulatory overview, possibly of the Crown Prosecution Service?
It was created for the very purpose of separating prosecutions
from the police, and we now need to do that for other public
services as well.
I thank the hon. Member for raising that troubling case, which I
am happy to look into on his behalf, if he would like. I think he
said that case was in 2018, since when I feel there has been a
change in relationship between the Post Office and the network—I
am not saying that it is universally good or universally
supported by the network, but there has been some
improvement—including the recruitment of 100 regional managers,
so there is more of a relationship-based approach between the
network and Post Office Ltd.
On private prosecutions, as I said earlier, we should look at
that in the context of this particular scandal as well as the
wider connotations of private prosecutions. The Justice Secretary
has committed to do that, and I am sure that he will report to
the House in due course and take on board the Justice Committee’s
important recommendations on this matter.
(Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister has today provided the House with what I see as
three key assurances: namely, that compensation will be paid
quickly to all victims; that wrongful convictions will be
overturned; and that those responsible, whether from the Post
Office, Fujitsu or elsewhere, will be held to account, ideally
with criminal prosecutions. Does he agree? Can he reassure my
constituents in Bracknell that a judicial system that presided
over so many wrongful convictions will also be reviewed?
My hon. Friend is right; rapid and fair compensation is exactly
what we are seeking to deliver. It has to be seen to be fair. We
also need an easier route to overturning convictions, and we are
determined to take that forward, as well as individuals being
held to account. He raises an important point on the judicial
system, and potentially the trust we place upon computer records
seems to have played a part in this case. That is a lesson we
potentially need to learn across the legal framework, and I know
the Justice Secretary has that in mind.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
The Minister is aware that this is not just about those who were
wrongly accused and convicted; it is also about those who were
falsely accused, were not prosecuted but who still experienced
consequences. I have a constituent who believes she was a victim
of Horizon false accusations. She lost her post office franchise
as a consequence, but the associated pressures led to her losing
her main business as well. Can the Minister confirm whether she
would be eligible for compensation? How does she go about
accessing compensation? For similar victims of false accusations
without prosecution who sadly have died, how does the deceased’s
family access compensation?
There are three compensation schemes for good reason—it is not
ideal to have three different schemes, but we are where we find
ourselves. We have the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group
litigation order scheme and the overturned conviction scheme, and
it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman’s constituent would fit
into the Horizon shortfall scheme and should be able to apply to
that. I am happy to make sure that he is aware of the route that
his constituent can take. In assessing financial loss,
consequential losses are a part of that assessment, and it sounds
as though there is a case for consequential loss in that
particular case. It can certainly be something that financial
compensation takes into account. With regard to the families of
deceased individuals, they can still claim to the same
compensation schemes and should be compensated in exactly the
same manner and to exactly the same degree.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
The building on Queens Road in Craig-y-Don in my constituency,
where Alan Bates served the community as sub-postmaster, is now a
charity shop. It is one small reminder of the damage that has
been done to lives and livelihoods across the country. I welcome
the Minister’s statement and his tone. I welcome the progress
that the Government are making, but I also know that he has seen
the interim report from the inquiry. He has heard the mood of the
House this evening, which is that a great scandal requires a
great response. Does he agree with me that, in addition to prompt
payment of fair compensation, now is the time to consider
legislation for the overturning of unsafe convictions, to
consider the powers of the Post Office and to consider Fujitsu’s
status as a framework provider for Government contracts? Does he
agree that we need to see justice where actual wrongdoing has
occurred, and soon?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on
this, and I share his ambition on delivering. This has been a
great scandal and we need a significant response to it. Our
discussions today with the Lord Chancellor were very much along
the lines of attempting to do something unprecedented in this
space, and we are working on that right now. I hope to give my
hon. Friend something more definite in that regard in the coming
days.
With regard to Fujitsu and individuals, we think it is right for
the inquiry to be given time to ascertain who did what, who did
not do what, and who is responsible for the scandal. When the
inquiry reports in due course—it should be concluded by the end
of this year, with a report hopefully soon after—we should be
able to make decisions on those areas at that point. Certainly,
our prosecution authorities should be able to make decisions with
clearer sight of the information and the evidence that has been
ascertained.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his clear commitment and
dedication to this issue. On both sides of the Chamber, we are
impressed that he wants to find a solution and a way forward. I
commend the ITV drama, which clearly illustrated the impact on
the ordinary, normal, wee people—as they said themselves—and the
brutality of the Post Office Horizon scheme on good people who
were so badly wronged. All of us in this Chamber are here as
elected representatives to speak up for those people who were
badly wronged.
Having seen some of the horrific effects—in particular, a
20-year-old girl was imprisoned because of the defective scheme
and had her entire life marred by that system—I seek clarity
about the possibility of the Minister overseeing not just a vital
and necessary reimbursement scheme but an official pardoning
scheme to have the records wiped in England, Scotland, Wales and
for us in Northern Ireland. As the only MP from Northern Ireland
in the Chamber at the moment, I wish to see the same justice and
compensation for those people as well.
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and his kinds words.
Even though I was very familiar with all the detriment that
postmasters had experienced due to the scandal, the most shocking
part of the dramatisation was the brutality shown by some of the
Post Office managers—it was inconceivable. I completely share how
appalled he is by what he saw in the programme. Anybody who has
not seen it should watch it.
Across the board, we are looking very closely at overturning
convictions. We are determined to do that not just for England
but UK-wide, and we are working with the devolved Administrations
to make sure that we do something right across the piece.
Although there are different prosecution authorities in different
parts of the UK—in Scotland, for example—the Post Office seems to
have been involved in the compilation of those files in every
part of the United Kingdom, so it makes sense to have a scheme
that covers every part of the United Kingdom.
(Penrith and The Border)
(Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for all his efforts on
this issue over a long period. I echo his tributes to all those
who have campaigned on this issue for many years. The Post Office
Horizon IT scandal was an outrageous miscarriage of justice,
affecting so many innocent postmasters and their families. Many
constituents have contacted me to express their concerns and
outrage over this miscarriage of justice. Will my hon. Friend
reassure me, the House and the country that this Government will
do all they can to compensate all the victims as soon as
possible, including by looking at exonerating them all
collectively, so that this wrong can be made right both swiftly
and compassionately?
My constituents have also written to me, appalled and outraged at
what has happened. Again, we should pay tribute to the people
behind the programme who have brought it to the public’s
attention. I agree; we are looking for a process where all
victims can be compensated quickly. We have compensation schemes
in place already, and 64% of those affected have been
compensated. On overturning convictions, we are looking at a
collective exoneration to see what is legally possible. That
would open the door to rapid, immediate compensation of £600,000
for people who choose that route. The full assessment takes more
time, and people would have to choose the right route for them.
It should deliver on all the ambitions that he sets out.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Lab)
This disgraceful scandal reached every single part of the
country, including in Scotland, where the Crown Office held
prosecutorial power rather than the Post Office. In 2020, the
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified 73 potential
victims, of whom only 16 have come forward to date. Clearly,
there is still work to do to get the message out to people that
they are entitled to have their conviction looked at. Of course,
the scheme only reaches the people who had a conviction in the
first place—many affected by the scandal never had their case
taken forward but still lost their reputation and their
livelihood.
Today, the First Minister of Scotland said that he will look at a
mass exoneration in relation to these convictions, and I think
that is the right approach. I wonder whether the Minister will
confirm that he and the Lord Chancellor will take that forward in
England, because across the whole of the UK, we need a system
where everyone understands what will happen next, so that no
victim anywhere in the country who was affected by this scandal
is left with justice not served.
Again, I share the hon. Member’s ambitions in every part of his
remarks. We, too, are disappointed that we have not had more
people coming forward to have their convictions overturned, for a
number of different reasons. Those people have been written to
several times by different bodies, including the CCRC. We are
keen to get the message out, but we do not think that that is the
whole problem. We think there is a confidence issue for some of
those people in coming forward after so many years, after what
has happened to them, so we are very keen to say to them, “You
will be treated fairly and dealt with as quickly as
possible.”
A mass exoneration scheme, as the hon. Member described it, is
something we are looking at. I cannot confirm that today on the
Floor of the House, but we certainly think that that kind of
blanket overturning of convictions, together with a rapid
compensation scheme, will mean that more people get access to
justice more quickly. That is something we are very keen on, and
to deliver it UK-wide would absolutely be the right thing to
do.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
As a former sub-postmaster, last week’s drama brought up many
emotions from my time serving from 2014 to 2019. I have mentioned
Fujitsu five times in this Chamber, asking five times about its
involvement. We now know, finally, that it had a back door into
the live system. Minister, when will Fujitsu face justice for its
utter incompetence in all of this? How can it be made to
contribute compensation for the many postmasters with claims,
instead of that being done the taxpayer, who is not responsible
for this scandal?
I thank my hon. Friend for being a constant contributor to these
debates. He brings real-life experience of these matters, which
we very much value and appreciate. I would be very happy to keep
up our regular engagement on these issues. He is not shy of
informing me of different things that I need to be aware of and I
appreciate that engagement.
Of course, the back door into the sub-postmasters account seems
to have been a key contributor to this scandal, and Fujitsu seems
to have had that back door. We are yet to establish how much of
that was Fujitsu doing it unilaterally or whether it was being
done on the instruction of the Post Office. The inquiry is there
to give us those kinds of answers. The inquiry is committed to
concluding by the end of this year and reporting shortly after.
At that point, we will know who was responsible for what, and we
should then be able to identify who can be made responsible
through potential financial contributions, rather than the
taxpayer alone having to pick up the tab for this very
significant compensation package. I am just as ambitious as my
hon. Friend is to make sure that those who are responsible pay
for what they have done.
(Tamworth) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to the ITV drama— many constituents have
written to me about how powerful it was—and to the BBC’s podcast,
“The Great Post Office Trial”, which I listened to a couple of
years ago. Horizon is accounting software, yet at every turn it
seemed that it lacked the very principles of accounting that
those who study the fundamentals in accounting recognise. Where
were the checks and balances in the system, and why did the
governance of the Post Office also lack the same checks and
balances? It appears that no reconciliations were done to
cross-check the software, and the principles of integrity,
objectivity, professional competence and due care were clearly
not applied to this critical software in the way that accountants
are held to them in the code of ethics. After many years, why are
we only now hearing that there was a failed pilot and that that
could have averted this disgraceful abuse of power and
miscarriage of justice?
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I, too, have had
many constituents contacting me who are appalled by what they
have seen on television. She is right to draw attention to the
fact that this was not the first time that this had been
publicised. There is Nick Wallis’s book, “The Great Post Office
Scandal”, and his podcast, which is well worth listening to. He
goes into these matters in even greater depth, and she is right
to pay tribute to those broadcasts and publications.
All the questions that the hon. Member asks are valid. When was
it established that this was going wrong? Where were the checks
and balances? Where was the duty of care? That is what the
inquiry is there for. The inquiry was established after the court
case and there was vigorous debate in this House about the type
of inquiry it should be. It was ultimately settled on that it
should be a statutory inquiry because of the greater powers that
a statutory inquiry has, so it should be able to get to the
bottom of the questions she rightly asks. Once we have got to the
bottom of those questions, we can start to identify who was
responsible specifically for what and make sure that those people
are held to account.
(Mid Bedfordshire)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on this really important issue.
It is a really heartbreaking story of injustice, and I am sure we
would agree that it has been allowed to drag on for far too long.
It was incredibly heartening for me that so many constituents
were moved by the powerful ITV dramatisation to write to me about
this injustice and ask what I will be doing about it as their MP,
but it is also tragic to see that it had to come to this, after
years of powerful and brave campaigning by some of the
postmasters affected. We owe it to them to act with the urgency
the situation requires.
While I acknowledge that the Minister has set out some challenges
in giving certainty about timelines today, can he at least
provide a timeline for when we will be able to say with certainty
that everyone affected will have received compensation and that
all those who were wrongfully convicted will have their
convictions overturned? Alongside that, accountability is such an
important issue here, and I would welcome some details from him
on how he will work with colleagues from different parties to
make sure that all those who are accountable, including Fujitsu,
are held to account.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I agree that it
has taken too long to get to this point. If it was not for people
like Alan Bates, some of the journalists who were referred to
earlier, , the right hon. Member for
North Durham (Mr Jones) and many others, this may have never come
to light, but it has taken too long. We need to act with pace and
as quickly as possible to expedite many things here, as we have
referred to already. We are keen to overturn convictions very
quickly. It may require legislation, and I am sure we will get
support from both sides of the House for any legislation we may
need.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire () is right to push us on
timelines. As we have said, we are keen to deliver compensation,
wherever possible, by August this year. We want to overturn
convictions as rapidly as possible. Ideally, we would like it to
take weeks, not months, to do that, but it will obviously be
dependent on a number of factors. The compensation will come
through all three schemes. The first scheme has practically been
delivered for the 2,417 people who applied within the appropriate
timescale. One hundred per cent of those people have been made
offers, and 85% of them have accepted. There are some people who
applied to the remaining schemes out of time, so we are working
on those applications right now and hope to deliver them as
quickly as possible. I think 75% of them have been made offers,
but we are left with the GLO scheme and the overturned
convictions scheme. We hope to overturn the convictions by August
this year, if not far sooner than that.
Mr Speaker
That was a very important statement and was much needed. I thank
the Minister for staying at the Dispatch Box for so long. I also
thank ITV, because it has certainly made the country aware of
this absolute scandal against innocent people.
|
