Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) (Urgent Question):
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will
make a statement on compensation and outstanding matters relating
to the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
As the Prime Minister indicated a few minutes ago, I will inform
the House about the further steps the Government are taking to
address the Horizon...Request free
trial
Sir (Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and
Trade if she will make a statement on compensation and
outstanding matters relating to the Post Office Horizon
scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
As the Prime Minister indicated a few minutes ago, I will inform
the House about the further steps the Government are taking to
address the Horizon scandal.
The Government are taking measures to speed up the flow of
compensation. We have already set a target of issuing initial
offers for 90% of group litigation order cases within 40 days of
receiving a completed application. I announced in November that
we would be introducing a £600,000 up-front offer for claims with
overturned convictions, which people could choose to take rather
than going through the detailed assessment process. This has
already made a real difference. Before my announcement, only five
of the relevant people had reached full and final settlements; I
can now report that, with the help of the minimum payments, we
have finalised 30 cases. This has obviously speeded matters along
for those who have taken this up-front offer. It has also helped
those who have chosen individual assessment, because resources
can be concentrated on those cases.
I can announce today that we are taking similar measures in
respect of the group litigation order scheme. We will now make
people in that scheme an up-front offer of £75,000, which will
save them having to go through a full assessment. However, as
with overturned convictions, if they believe they are entitled to
more, they are welcome to continue with the full assessment. Not
only will this allow the Department to focus its resources on the
larger cases, but it will allow claimants’ lawyers to do the
same. The pace at which we can get claims into the scheme is the
key constraint on how quickly we can settle them. The up-front
offer is smaller for the GLO scheme than for the overturned
convictions because the claims tend to be smaller. We estimate
that perhaps a third of GLO claimants may want to consider this
route. I am sure the House will welcome this measure.
When I made my statement on Monday, I heard Members from all
parts of the House share my desire to ensure justice for
postmasters who have been convicted of offences as part of the
scandal. The whole House is united on this, and in the light of
last week’s excellent ITV series, I believe the whole nation is
united on it, too. We have all been moved by the stories of
postmasters who have been unjustly convicted and the terrible
effects over the period of two decades on their finances, health
and relationships. Indeed, we have seen whole lives ruined by
this brutal and arbitrary exercise of power.
Hundreds of convictions remain extant. Some of those convictions
will have relied on evidence from the discredited Horizon system;
others will have been the result of appalling failures of the
Post Office’s investigation and prosecution functions. The
evidence already emerging from Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry has
shown not only incompetence, but malevolence in many of their
actions. This evidence was not available to the courts when they
made their decisions on individual cases. So far, 95 out of more
than 900 convictions have been overturned. We know that
postmasters have been reluctant to apply to have their
convictions overturned—many of them have decided that they have
been through enough and cannot face further engagement with
authority. Many fear having their hopes raised, only for them to
be dashed yet again.
The Horizon compensation advisory board has recommended that we
should overturn all the convictions of the postmasters who were
prosecuted in the Horizon scandal. I think its motivation for
doing so is absolutely right, and we will work with it to speed
up the process. May I put on the record my thanks to , who is in the Gallery
today, and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for
their work on the campaign generally and on that advisory
board?
Following the recommendation would involve unprecedented action
by Parliament to overturn specific verdicts of the courts. The
Government completely recognise the importance of an independent
court system and judiciary, so the recommendation raises
important issues of constitutional principle. This is therefore
not a decision we can take lightly. It also creates the risks of
a different sort of injustice.
I am sure that a great many people were wrongly convicted in the
scandal, but I cannot tell the House that all of those prosecuted
were innocent or even that it was 90%, or 80%, or 70%. Without
retrying every case, we cannot know. The risk is that instead of
unjust convictions, we end up with unjust acquittals, and we just
would not know how many. The only way we could tell would be to
put all cases through the courts, further dragging out the
distress for many innocent people.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important issue, so I will allow the
Minister to continue, but that means the time of the Opposition
spokesperson will also increase, as does Sir David’s. It is too
important an issue to curtail the Minister, but officials ought
to be aware that when they provide speeches, they are for three
minutes. However, I want the Minister finish his speech, because
the issue is far too important.
I apologise, Mr Speaker, for the length of this response to the
urgent question, but the matter is, as you say, of vital
importance.
We have been faced with a dilemma: either accept the present
problem of many people carrying the unjustified slur of
conviction, or accept that an unknown number of people who have
genuinely stolen from their post office will be exonerated and
perhaps even compensated. I can therefore announce that we intend
to bring forward legislation as soon as we can to overturn the
convictions of all those convicted in England or Wales on the
basis of Post Office evidence given during the Horizon scandal.
The Government will in the coming days consider whether to
include the small number of cases that have already been
considered by the appeal courts and had convictions upheld.
We recognise that this is an exceptional step, but these are
exceptional circumstances. As the House knows, people with
convictions that have been overturned are offered a choice
between having their compensation individually assessed or
settling on an up-front offer of £600,000. As far as possible, we
want to avoid guilty people walking away with hundreds of
thousands of pounds of public money, but we cannot make the
provision of compensation subject to a detailed examination of
guilt. We have concluded that to ask the court to do that again
would be unfair to individuals.
We cannot turn this into an administrative exercise. All we ask
is that as part of their claims for compensation, postmasters
sign a statement to the effect that they did not commit the
crimes of which they are accused. Anyone subsequently found to
have signed such a statement untruthfully will be putting
themselves at risk of prosecution for fraud. I do not pretend to
the House that that is a foolproof device, but it is a
proportionate one that respects the ordeal that these people have
already suffered. It means that an honest postmaster will have
his or her conviction overturned and, just by signing one
document, can secure compensation.
No one should take our decision as a criticism of the judiciary.
The original decisions were taken in good faith in the
understanding that prosecutions were properly conducted and that
assertions about the robustness of the Horizon system were true.
But, as I said earlier, these are exceptional circumstances and
we need to act quickly and decisively. Time is one thing that we
and the convicted postmasters do not have. Our arrangement will
apply to all those convicted in England and Wales based on Post
Office investigations, including those prosecuted by other bodies
who relied on the product of those investigations; the fruit of a
poisoned tree.
We have plenty more work to do on the solution. We need to
prepare the legislation, and I want to discuss our solution with
the advisory board, which I am meeting later this afternoon. Some
prosecutions have been undertaken in Scotland and Northern
Ireland, where justice is devolved. We are, of course, engaging
with the Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations in respect
of wrongful convictions in their jurisdictions. We will do those
things as quickly as we can and keep the House informed.
The House will have heard that we are well aware of the
imperfections of the solution. I am sure that that will attract
some critics, but when they criticise I invite them to say what
they would do otherwise. Would they leave many people suffering
under the burden of unjust convictions for many years—perhaps
forever—with no access to compensation, or would they create some
administrative process for deciding innocence, which would be
more onerous for the victims? I very much hope that the whole
House will stand with the Government to deliver rapid justice to
convicted postmasters who have been waiting much, much too
long.
Mr Speaker
I will extend the time. It was so important to get all of that on
the record. I believe that the Minister wanted to make a
statement but was overruled. At least we have certainly had that
statement now.
Sir
As the Minister said, earlier this week many of us across the
Chamber called for this appalling injustice to be solved in
months, not years. It looks as though the Government have
responded correctly to that call, ensuring swift justice. But
there are undoubtedly difficult constitutional and legal issues
involved, as he laid out in detail.
Some of the victims that I have spoken to say they need an
individual exoneration rather than a grand pardon because they
are understandably concerned about being bracketed with the very
small number of people who will actually not be innocent. Will
the Minister undertake to continue looking into this matter and
address the quite proper concerns of the legitimate victims?
I would also welcome further elaboration on compensation.
Fujitsu, which has played a central role in the scandal, is still
at the heart of Government IT systems. Will Fujitsu will be
required to meet some of the costs of the undoubtedly enormously
expensive compensation that we are paying out? Finally, will the
Government accelerate the investigations to convict those who are
really guilty of causing the scandal by perverting the course of
justice?
I thank my right hon. Friend for the urgent question and for his
collaboration with us on these matters. We have looked carefully
at the issue of individual exonerations and did not see any way
possible to do that without an exhaustive and time-consuming
administrative process, which would add further burdens to those
that people have already suffered.
The other issue is getting people to come forward again, which
has been one of the major problems in getting people to appeal
their convictions. We see the solution that we have adopted as
very much the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, we are keen to
discuss mitigations and safeguards with other Members of the
House. I set out one earlier on—the requirement to sign a
statement of innocence—and I am keen to work with him to look at
other mechanisms that we can use to ensure that those people who
get their convictions overturned and access compensation are
actually innocent of the charges.
My right hon. Friend made the important point about Fujitsu,
which has been raised many times. As he knows, part of what the
Government did was to put in place a statutory inquiry, chaired
by Sir Wyn Williams. It is due to complete by the end of the
year, and, hopefully, it will report soon after. At that point in
time, we will be able to assess more clearly who is actually
responsible. Many people may have already formed a view on that,
but we think it right that we follow a process to identify
individuals or organisations who are responsible for the scandal.
Of course, we would expect those organisations to financially
contribute. There are financial and legal measures that we can
take.
As regards individuals, it may be that there is sufficient
evidence for the authorities to take forward individual
prosecutions, and I think many in the House would welcome
that.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
(Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question; I
congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden
(Sir ) on securing it. This issue has
rightly left the public outraged at the scale and shocking
details of this injustice. As I said on Monday, Labour believes
the Horizon scandal to be one of the greatest miscarriages of
justice in British history, where people lost their livelihoods,
liberty and their lives; then, when trying to find justice, they
were delayed at every turn.
It is unconscionable that, despite the landmark legal rulings,
several years on people have still not been able to access the
compensation that they are entitled to. We are all united in this
House in wanting the sub-postmasters to be exonerated in full—it
is important to say exoneration and not a pardon, because a
pardon implies guilt that is forgiven—and for them to receive
compensation with urgency. We recognise that that is not
straightforward and the result may be imperfect, but this is an
unprecedented scandal that requires an unprecedented response.
The alternative of not acting is even less desirable. Labour
stands ready to work with the Government to deliver a solution
that achieves that long-awaited justice and compensation at
pace.
May I thank the Minister for the ongoing conversations we have
been having on this matter? Can he guarantee that compensation
payments will immediately follow any exonerations under the terms
of the compensation schemes as they stand today? Could he
indicate a timescale for that? I know he appreciates that victims
cannot continue to wait years for payments.
Given what the Minister said about the implications of a blanket
exoneration, we will need to consider what safeguards might be
necessary, to ensure that, as best as possible, public money does
not flow into the pockets of those who are not entitled to it. He
mentioned that people may be asked to sign a statement. Will that
be drawn up consistently with the work of the advisory board?
Crucially, we discussed on Monday the cases that have now been
identified from the pre-Horizon pilot scheme, which are identical
to those coming out of Horizon. Will those cases be covered by
any proposals that the Government bring forward? Any plan that
does not cover all convictions will rightly not command the full
support of the House.
As the sub-postmasters—they must surely get the credit for these
extraordinary measures—have repeatedly said, what matters now is
getting compensation to people swiftly. The whole House is united
in its determination to deliver the justice, truth and
compensation that has been denied and delayed time and time
again.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to my remarks. I
appreciate his offer to work with us and to stand with us to
deliver compensation and the overturning of convictions. The
first step will be legislation; again, we are happy to work with
him on that. That may take some weeks to deliver, but the sooner,
the better. The introduction and passing of that legislation will
be a matter for both Houses, but our intention is to get on with
that very quickly.
From there, it should be a simple process: a statement needs to
be signed, as the hon. Gentleman and I both referred to. We will
work with the advisory board to ensure that the statement is
appropriate. Following the signing of that statement, if people
choose the detailed assessment route, that will be more complex
because it will look at not just financial loss but personal
impacts, such as on health or on other livelihoods, and
consequential losses. If people choose the fixed sum award route
of £600,000, that process can be very quick, which is one of the
reasons why we have managed to complete 30 full and final
settlements already, many using the fixed sum route.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people using the pilot
version of Horizon, of which we are cognisant. Every postmaster
around the country has been written to and should be aware that
the compensation scheme is available. We believe that these
schemes cover that pilot period for Horizon. I am very happy to
work with him and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr
Jones) to ensure that the people they have identified have
already been contacted. The good news is that, following the
excellent ITV dramatisation, we have seen a good number of new
cases come to light. We are keen for people to come forward,
whether they have suffered convictions or financial detriment
through shortfalls. We are keen to ensure that those people get
access to compensation as quickly as possible.
(Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I thank the Minister and the Lord Chancellor for their work. It
has been longer in the making than the drama series, but they met
their promise over two days by coming up with the first stage of
the solution. Too many victims want nothing to do with the
British justice system, the Post Office or Government. They have
had enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no perfect
solution? The best we can aim for is one that is fast and
provides life-changing money to restore these people’s lives as
best we can.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the sterling work
he did as my predecessor in this job. Many people recognise the
incredible work he did following the outcome of the court case
with the compensation schemes that he instigated. He is right
that there is no perfect solution, but we have worked across
Government to try to find the best possible one. If we want a
fast solution that, as he said, provides life-changing
compensation to people who have been deprived of that in recent
years, we believe that this is the best one.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir
) for securing this very
important urgent question. I am sorry that it was not a
statement, because then I would have had prior sight of what the
Minister was going to say.
When we stood here on Tuesday, I asked how long “some time” would
be, and I am glad that things are progressing quickly, although
with a note of caution—I totally understand the hesitation to
introduce any kind of blanket Bill or whatever. We need to move
things forward and keep up the momentum from the ITV series in
the press, here and everywhere.
We also still need to listen to the victims. Only this morning,
some of the postmasters said that we should all stop referring to
compensation, but refer instead to financial redress. This is not
compensation but money due to them, and we need to get it to them
as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam
() said that some people do not
want to go anywhere near justice or the Post Office. We must
encourage people to come forward. I am meeting constituents who
were involved who have not officially approached me yet, and I am
sure that many others across the House will be in exactly the
same position.
Scottish law is different, as the Minister is well aware. The
Cabinet Secretary for Justice made a statement yesterday, and
said that the Scottish Government were looking at Fujitsu
contracts, which is really important. I cannot speak for the
Scottish Government, but I know there will be no hesitation in
moving things forward. As chair of the all-party parliamentary
group on post offices, I will write to the Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland.
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and, once again, for her
work in the all-party parliamentary group for post offices. I am
sorry that I was not able to share a statement with her, and I
appreciate her welcoming what we have done today.
I am very happy to term this “redress”; it is only about putting
people back where they would have been, and trying to make good
what has happened to them. I understand what she says about
compensation, but this is there to compensate people financially
for losses and impacts on their lives.
I could not agree more that, as well as delivering compensation
more quickly and fairly, the No. 1 thing we would like to happen
is for more people to come forward. A simplified process that
does not require postmasters themselves to file an appeal will
mean that this is done more quickly. The routes to compensation
have been simplified, and we very much hope that people will come
forward. That seems to be our experience right now. We will
continue to engage with the devolved Administrations to ensure
that they have everything they need, as they may want to adopt
similar measures.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome this legislation, and I thank the Minister for the
amount of work he has done at such great speed. We are still at a
midway point in the journey. There are still criminal
prosecutions to come. One question that has never been answered
is just how much money was taken unlawfully from thousands of
innocent men and women. The Post Office took that money, and we
have never known that figure. Even the most basic accountant
knows that it will run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Could
the Minister force the Post Office to publish the grand scale of
the money it stole from people?
I thank my hon. Friend for contributing to these important
debates in the House once again. He brings first-hand experience,
as the only postmaster serving in the House. He is quite right to
say that money was taken, and someone must have noticed it. One
would think that the finance departments or auditors would have
noticed it, as it would have appeared in some kind of suspense
account and was presumably transferred out at some point. I will
endeavour to find out the number, as I do not have it. We do know
that prior to Horizon being installed in the post office network,
there were around five prosecutions a year. That suddenly jumped
to about 60 a year. We know that there were significant numbers
of prosecutions, and the fact that there are around 3,500
postmasters in the various compensation schemes illustrates the
scale of the problem. I will endeavour to find out a number for
him.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir
) for securing this UQ. I know
the Minister wanted to make a statement but was overruled by No.
10 so that the Prime Minister got the glory of making the
announcement. A serious point is that had we not got this UQ,
there would have been no debate today, which is a disgrace.
The Minister knows that the advisory board has been tied in a
Gordian knot for quite a few months, which is why we wrote our
letter to the Justice Secretary before Christmas. He is right
that this will be messy whichever way we do it, but it needs to
be done, because people are still out there with convictions that
need overturning. I welcome the advisory board having discussions
later this afternoon and in the next few weeks on how things
should take place, but I urge the Minister—I know he will—to
engage with all political parties in this House. If we can get
all parties’ support for the proposal, that will make it a lot
stronger.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and
Hyde () about the pre-Horizon
schemes is important. I welcome the changes to the compensation,
as they will speed things up for some victims, but in the case of
those who have died whose convictions are overturned, will their
estates be able to access compensation?
Once again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all his work on
this campaign over many years and for his work on the advisory
board, which has been an essential part of seeking a resolution.
I will of course continue to work cross-party, as I have done all
the way through on this matter, from the Back Benches and now
from the Front Bench. I appreciate the support and engagement we
have had from all political parties in this area, both Front
Benchers and Back Benchers.
Yes, we are cognisant of the pre-Horizon pilot scheme, and we
will keep working to make sure the people involved are included
in compensation. Yes, if people have sadly passed away—over 60
have passed away waiting for compensation and justice—the
compensation will go to their estate and therefore to their
family. That is an assurance I can give him.
(Witham) (Con)
The Minister has announced that approximately one third of the
555 individuals involved in the group litigation will benefit
from the up-front payment of £75,000. What other support will
there be for those in that group litigation who suffered losses
way in excess of that £75,000? How will the Government assess not
just the financial losses but the reputational damage they
suffered, the health impacts and the family breakdowns that many
endured? How will it work in practice? As the Minister outlined,
time is pressing. This is very difficult and there is no
one-size-fits-all answer, but individuals need recompense sooner
rather than later and to feel that justice for this institutional
state failure will actually act in their favour.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and for the number
of times she has raised this particular issue and set out her
thoughts, which have proved very useful. We think that 30% of
people from the group litigation order scheme have chosen the
£75,000 fixed sum award route. Clearly, that is an estimate. We
at least have some evidence from the other scheme on how
effective that is.
If people choose not to go down that route, and if they believe
their losses are in excess of that, they can go down the full
assessment route. We are trying to make that as rapid as
possible. It is a process of alternative dispute resolution.
Potentially, things can happen very quickly, but if that cannot
be agreed then it goes to an independent panel for assessment.
There is independence at every part of the process. People going
down that route can get interim payments if they are needed, so
that they do not suffer financial hardship. We are keen to make
sure not only that people get a fair amount, but that it is also
seen to be fair. Independence is an essential part of that
process.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir
) for securing the urgent
question, and I thank the Minister for the swiftness with which
he has acted, and particularly for his recognition of the need to
talk to the devolved Administrations and of the fact that the
situation in Scotland is slightly different, as the Post Office
was not able to prosecute there and that was done through the
official Crown services. With that in mind, and given the need he
expressed to encourage people to come forward—in Scotland, it is
very much more difficult to gauge how many people were
affected—it is not just enough for us to say, “Please come
forward.” We need a proactive campaign to encourage people to
come forward and reassure them that they will not face the same
sort of delays that the victims of Hillsborough and the infected
blood scandal have faced, but that this will be acted on
swiftly.
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. Although they were
prosecuted under different authorities in Scotland and Northern
Ireland, the cases were generally prepared by the Post Office
itself, so I do not think we have any greater confidence about
the status of those convictions than we have in those in the rest
of the UK. We are therefore very keen to engage with the Scottish
Administration on what we are doing. Hopefully, there will be a
consistent scheme across the UK.
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that we need to be proactive
in our message to people about coming forward, and in our message
from the House that we are working together and that this process
is now much more streamlined. It will not even necessarily
require sub-postmasters to make an application for their
conviction to be overturned. That will happen much more quickly,
and any access routes we have now for compensation will be made
swifter and more rapid. I think those things alone will mean more
people come forward. As I said, we have seen a good number of new
people come forward. Hudgell, one of the solicitors involved in
claims for some of the victims, have had, I think, 130 new people
contact them on the basis of the TV programme and possibly
because of the new actions we are taking to make sure
compensation is more smoothly and easily available.
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
The Minister, and indeed all of us in this House, will recognise
the desire to get the swiftest possible redress for the victims
of this appalling injustice, but does he also accept that
legislating to overturn convictions that were imposed by our
independent courts is constitutionally quite exceptional?
Therefore, in justifying that, will he set out in full what
consideration was given to the practicality of going down the
normal route of referring those convictions to the Court of
Appeal before the legislative route was decided upon? What
discussions were there with the senior judiciary about its
practicality? Given the novel and constitutional nature of the
legislation, will he seriously consider committing to the
Committee stage of any Bill being taken on the Floor of the House
and, because it is novel and constitutional, will he consider
that it is appropriate for a draft Bill to be given swift
pre-legislative scrutiny?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his willingness
to work with us. He and I have discussed the matter in the past
few days, and I appreciate his expertise and advice. Yes,
absolutely; this is a very significant step and not one that we
would take lightly. We fully respect the independence of the
courts. We set out very clearly the reasons why this is
different—that is important. We are setting a precedent, but it
is clear why we are doing so. The involvement of private
prosecutions is very relevant, and that also relates to work that
he has done on the Justice Committee. My right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for Justice has engaged with the people he
refers to in the judiciary, to ensure that they understood what
we were doing and why we were doing it. Those conversations were
constructive, rather than resisted, but I am very happy to take
up my hon. Friend’s offer to continue that engagement and to
discuss the draft Bill with him.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir
) for securing the urgent
question. I am very much looking forward to cross-examining the
Minister when he comes before the Business and Trade Committee
next Tuesday, when we will be hearing evidence from Mr Bates and
his colleagues. We will also be putting questions to Fujitsu. Can
I push the Minister on the point I made on Monday night? Three
years after the landmark case, 85% of convictions have not been
overturned, only 4% of the cases have resulted in a full and
final settlement, and we have heard evidence from victims this
week already that even when settlements have been made, the cash
has not yet been handed over. Can I ask the Minister again what
his target is? What is his goal, approximate or otherwise? When
will those wrongfully prosecuted have their full and final
settlement delivered, in cash?
I am very much looking forward to appearing before the right hon.
Gentleman’s Select Committee and hearing some challenging
questions, which I would welcome. To be clear, 64% of all those
affected by the scandal have received full and final
compensation. He talks about the smaller cohort who have come
forward in relation to convictions. Only 95 have had convictions
overturned. In order to try to expedite the payment of
compensation to those people, we have introduced the fixed-sum
award route, which is proving very successful. I am not aware of
his point about people not actually receiving the cash, but I am
very happy to engage with him on that, because there is every
intention that once a decision has been taken to go down the
fixed-sum award route, the sum is paid pretty much instantly. I
am very happy to find out what exactly is happening in those
cases. Where people have gone down a full assessment route, that
is understandably more complex, as various considerations about
loss, financial forensic information, health and reputational
loss—a key facet in most of these cases—will be taken into
account.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a date. We have always
intended to deliver all the compensation by August this year, and
that is still the case. We would like to do it more rapidly, and
for many people we will do it more rapidly, but not everything
within the timescales is in our gift, because people are required
to go down a full assessment route in order to compile a claim to
which we can then respond. However, we have set ourselves some
criteria relating to time and service levels to enable us to
respond to claims in a timely fashion.
(North East Hertfordshire)
(Con)
I thank the Minister for engaging with the concept of trying
something innovative in order to move this process on. I think it
right for the senior judiciary to be consulted, but I also think
it is probably the only way to make the process move speedily. I
also thank him for meeting me to discuss my constituent Mrs
Jasvinder Barang, whom I have been talking about for a long time.
She was one of the first to have a conviction overturned, more
than three years ago, but she is still waiting for her full,
individually assessed compensation. Can anything more be done to
enable her case finally to be dealt with, such as providing extra
legal resources or assessors, and can the Minister give me any
sort of timescale?
It was a pleasure to meet my right hon. and learned Friend
yesterday, and on other occasions, to talk about Mrs Jasvinder
Barang. As he is aware, people whose convictions have been
overturned can choose between two routes: the individual
assessment of claim or the fixed-sum award, the latter being a
much more rapid route because individual assessments can be
complicated. While I cannot speak about the point that a specific
case has reached, I will be happy to return to my right hon. and
learned Friend on the issue.
One of the benefits of the fixed-sum award route is that those
who choose it do not need either the resources required for their
own legal representation or the resources to be used on our side,
or the Post Office side, for the assessment of claims. I am happy
to continue to work with my right hon. and learned Friend and
with the advisory board to try to make the whole process more
streamlined and more rapid, which is a challenge that we will go
on trying to meet whenever we can.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
I welcome the announcement that all convictions of
sub-postmasters based on the flawed Horizon evidence will be
overturned, but given that the material facts of these cases have
not changed—and many have been known for over a decade—may I ask
why the Minister thinks it has taken the airing of a TV
docu-drama and the public outcry associated with it to force the
Government, and indeed the whole House, to belatedly do the right
thing for innocent victims of a huge miscarriage of justice? What
does that say about our democracy and about our judicial system,
and can the Minister think of any other issues that might benefit
from the same level of media scrutiny?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work; he has been a constant
campaigner on behalf of his constituents, and has contributed to
every debate I have seen on this issue. However, I think his
challenge is a little unfair. As he knows, I worked on the issue
as a Back Bencher, and as a Minister I have made it my No.1
priority for the past 15 months. This is not something that we
have just picked up, and he can see how much we have done.
Of course, during this process we have learnt things, and things
have happened that we did not expect. We did not expect it to be
so difficult for people to overturn convictions after the
overturning of the first convictions, and we did not expect it to
be so difficult to assess the damages and losses. We have tried
at every point to accelerate compensation. We introduced the
fixed-sum award last November, long before the TV series was
broadcast, and before then there were measures involving tax
treatments. We also started to look at different ways of
overturning convictions long before the TV series was aired. So
it is not the case that the series, excellent though it is, has
resulted in these changes.
I think it is fair to say that the whole House and the whole
country were shocked by what they saw on television, and that has
made it easier to push certain developments forward more quickly,
but I believe that we would have arrived at this position in any
event. Nevertheless, I am glad we are here today moving things
forward at this pace.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statements from the Prime Minister and from
my hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work, and I
am also grateful for the work of other Ministers, such as my hon.
Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (), in pursuing and dealing with
this injustice.
The key point to bear in mind is that, owing to the number of
people who have refused to come forward, Parliament has an
obligation to act. In the case of existing appeals, the matter
can be dealt with by the Court of Appeal in respect of the
quashing of any convictions, pursuant to an Act of Parliament,
but the key challenge lies in all the people who are not in the
court system. Will my hon. Friend work with me and others to
ensure that the system he envisages—I think he is talking about
statutory declarations, which would perhaps come under section 5
of the Perjury Act 1911—is got right in order to avoid further
disincentives for innocent people to clear their names and, in
the words of judges up and down the country, “walk from the court
without a stain on their character”?
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work and for his
advice over recent days. As he has said while we have been trying
to resolve this issue, there is no perfect solution and there are
going to be compromises. We are keen to reach out to the people
he has identified who have not entered the system because they
are deterred by the processes that they would have to go through
in order to gain access to compensation. I am keen to continue to
work with him on all the measures that we will need to put in
place over the next few weeks to ensure that we get this right,
and get it right first time.
(Knowsley) (Lab)
I join others in thanking the Minister for his statement, during
the course of which he acknowledged that people would worry about
the possibility that good intentions would not be backed by
action. To counter that, would he consider publishing some target
dates by which both the legal and the administrative matters
ought to be concluded, so that people might gain some reassurance
that this is not going to drag on for a very long time like, for
instance, the Hillsborough and contaminated blood scandals?
We hope to complete all the legal and administrative aspects of
the compensation payments by August, while Sir Wyn Williams’s
inquiry is due to conclude by the end of the year. We should see
the conclusions of that inquiry very rapidly and hope to publish
them as soon as possible, given that it is a statutory inquiry.
Following that, the authorities may well decide that there are
grounds for prosecution. We are certainly taking a keen interest
in who else might pick up the cost of the compensation, which is
significant and is currently being borne by the taxpayer. Where
we can identify others who are responsible, we are keen for them
to pay for their wrongdoing.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
I commend the Minister, the Justice Secretary and those who have
advised them for having to exercise the judgment of Solomon but,
none the less, coming up with a practical and, importantly, rapid
solution.
Fujitsu is a multimillion-dollar company with numerous Government
contracts, including a number with the Ministry of Defence. It
has persistently, for years, been reluctant to admit to the
weakness in its system. Does the Minister agree that Fujitsu now
has a moral duty, if not a directly legal one, to put right that
wrong? Should we not review all its Government contracts, and if
it will not do the right thing—which it should—should we not
consider suspending them?
We do see this solution as being practical and rapid, as my right
hon. Friend has described it. As for his point about Fujitsu,
which he has often raised, he is right to say that it has
significant Government contracts with, among others, the Ministry
of Defence and, I believe, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It
is right that we let the process take its course, and that the
inquiry looks at who was responsible for what between the Post
Office and Fujitsu, and who told who to do what. It is therefore
right to have a process whereby we set criteria and parameters
for who can access Government contracts. We should have those
conversations when we have identified exactly who was
responsible. We will not be able to do that for some months, but
we are keen to do it as soon as possible.
(North Antrim) (DUP)
This was an appalling travesty, which impacted the lives of so
many innocent people in all four corners of this kingdom. Our
hearts go out to them, and I welcome the swift action that the
Government are now taking to resolve the problem. I hope it goes
some way towards helping those people through a terrible
time.
Will the Minister assure me that he will not allow any delay in
implementing the proposals in Northern Ireland? Excuses are made
all the time, for example, that there is no devolved Assembly in
Northern Ireland. No devolved Minister had a role in this,
therefore there is no role for them with regard to the victims.
Will the Minister sort things out for them as quickly as
possible?
That is exactly our intention. We are keen to make the scheme UK
wide so that everybody knows exactly where they stand. As I have
said, despite the fact that the legal system is different in
Northern Ireland, the assembly of the vast majority of cases was
done by the Post Office, so the same issues apply. We do not want
any delay. We are keen to engage with the Northern Ireland
authorities as quickly as possible.
Dame (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome the announcement. The evidence is clear that hundreds
of victims have lost trust in the criminal justice system, so we
need an exceptional process that ensures that every miscarriage
of justice can be put right. However, the scandal involves more
than financial redress. There are reports that the Post Office
insisted on non-disclosure agreements, which silenced victims. In
particular, the family of former postmaster Martin Griffiths felt
forced to sign a settlement with the Post Office, with a
non-disclosure agreement, which hid events around Martin taking
his own life for almost a decade. Will my hon. Friend urgently
reconsider calls that I and others have made to ban the use of
non-disclosure agreements in all severance agreements? I am glad
to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Charnwood () on the Front Bench. I think
that both Ministers share my concern and want action.
That is a well-timed question, given that my right hon. Friend
the Justice Minister is sitting next to me. My right hon. Friend
the Member for Basingstoke (Dame ) is right to say that this is
an exceptional process. As she knows, non-disclosure agreements
cannot prevent somebody from going to the police—
Dame
That was not my point.
That was not the point my right hon. Friend was making. I
understand her point. She wants to ensure that non-disclosure
agreements are not used for the purpose she described or for
other purposes, such as sexual harassment and bullying. She is
running a fantastic campaign and we have heard what she has said.
We will continue to work with her.
(Kingston upon Hull East)
(Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question.
I thank the Minister for the heavy lifting he has done in the 15
months he has held his post. I also commend the Lord Chancellor
for his work behind the scenes. He will have taken advice and
guidance from the Lady Chief Justice. Will the Minister say what
her guidance was? It is an exceptional process, which we all
support, but we would like to know what her guidance was.
In 2006, I was instructed as a defence lawyer. We must never
again get ourselves into a situation whereby an organisation such
as the Post Office brings private prosecutions, and is the
complainant, the criminal investigator and, indeed, the
prosecutor. Will the Minister make a statement about when the
Government intend to prevent the Post Office from prosecuting any
matter ever again?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work. I am aware of his
involvement on behalf of his constituents. I also put on record
my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord
Chancellor—and, indeed, the Prime Minister—who cleared his diary
on several occasions to deal with these issues. Conversations
took place with the Lady Chief Justice, but I am not at liberty
to reveal their content. I was not at the meeting anyway, but we
do not tend to publish legal advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows,
there are quite a few lawyers in both Houses. They do not
necessarily share the same position on legal matters, and I have
no doubt that legal opinions will be made clear. However, this
case is exceptional. It is an exceptional situation, so we have
done the exceptional.
We want to ensure that this never happens again, and the hon.
Gentleman is right that private prosecutions played a part. He
asked for a statement and I am sure that my right hon. and
learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will make one at some point.
My right hon. and learned Friend has expressed an interest in,
and some concerns about, private prosecutions in the UK, as has
the Justice Committee. I am therefore sure that he will come back
to the House on that at some point.
(Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister
for gripping the matter as quickly as they have. I know that the
Minister and the Lord Chancellor were advocates on this matter
when they were Back Benchers. I also pay tribute to my hon.
Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (), who gripped the matter after
his election in 2015 and in his role as a Minister.
I was never Minister for the Post Office, but I remember being
asked, as a Minister in the Department, to cover for an absent
Minister. I refused to just read out the speech I had been given
and asked for a day of proper briefings from officials. When I
asked to meet Paula Vennells, I was told that she refused to meet
me without her lawyer.
The saga raises important issues about scrutiny, accountability
and responsibility in public office and public administration.
They are difficult questions that the House must tackle. Will the
Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor
and the Cabinet Office therefore look at the wider lessons from
this appalling scandal about the failures of accountability and
scrutiny in our system of government, and about this House’s
ultimate responsibility to the people of this country to ensure
that the Government serve the people, not the other way
round?
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk
() made, how much money was
stolen from the postmasters? Will the Minister consider some sort
of corporate fraud action to get the money back? The money was
taken off them and us, and we should get it back from the company
that took it.
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his question. I am
pleased that Paula Vennells has handed back her CBE. It was
absolutely the right thing to do. As part of the inquiry, at some
point we will of course identify who was responsible—individuals
and organisations. In terms of corporate fraud, the beneficiary
to some extent was the Post Office. Of course, the Post Office
had to be funded by the Government to make the payments, so it is
difficult to see how we would get the money back from the Post
Office. There are other organisations, such as Fujitsu. I have
talked about that previously, and we will look at that once the
inquiry has concluded.
On scrutiny, many Ministers and officials will ask themselves
questions about what happened. It is our job to ask the key
questions at the right time and not necessarily to take the first
answer we are given. We should push back and ensure that we get
to the bottom of the issue. There is no question but that there
were failures. I will not identify who failed, but many people
will be asking themselves serious questions. The inquiry may well
identify where we could have done things better.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
Former Plaid Cymru councillor Noel Thomas’s 16-year quest for
justice has had enormous repercussions for him and his family. He
faced imprisonment, bankruptcy and the loss of his home. He
describes his nine months in prison as “hell on earth”. Noel’s
story has also had repercussions throughout north-west Wales. I
know of people who will not work on post office counters. That
has meant that some communities have lost their post offices. Not
only have individuals suffered agony, but communities have lost
essential facilities. What assessment has the Minister made of
the loss of post offices following the scandal, and the effect on
communities, particularly rural communities?
On behalf of the Government and the Post Office, I apologise for
what happened to Mr Thomas, who obviously featured very heavily
in the programme. It was such a moving story, and anybody
watching would have been moved to tears by what happened to him
and others.
Individual sub-postmasters lost their reputation, and they can
get compensation for that, but the right hon. Lady is right to
say that the post office network itself may have suffered some
loss of reputation. I still believe that our post office network
is hugely valued, and that citizens and constituents hold it in
very high regard. To make sure that we have suitable post office
provision around the country, the key thing is to ensure that
post offices are financially viable and sustainable. We are
working very hard on that. For example, we are encouraging the
Post Office to take a firmer line in negotiations on the banking
framework, which is a significant revenue opportunity for the
network, and on parcel hubs. We see a bright future for the
network, but it is vital that we draw a line under this scandal
before we secure that future.
(Watford) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his work to bring this to the
Chamber with such speed. My first question is on mental health.
The victims of the Post Office’s awful Horizon scandal—and they
were victims—have been traumatised. We have heard awful stories
of individuals who sadly took their life through suicide, and I
am sure many others likely came close to that. I want to make
sure that the compensation schemes take into account the distress
and mental health pressures these people experienced over many,
many years, and still experience today.
My second question looks to the future. How do we stop this
happening again? I am very conscious of the big increase in the
use of artificial intelligence. It is possible to go back to the
Horizon system and see where these, in some cases, malicious
incidents took place but, with artificial intelligence, it will
be much harder to do that. Can the Minister assure me that checks
will be made in any Government systems, especially those using
artificial intelligence, to ensure that humans are not unjustly
blamed for artificial intelligence errors that could lead to a
similar scandal in future?
My hon. Friend is one of my predecessors, and I thank him for the
job he did. His tenure was all too short, but he did a great job.
I know he raised this matter when he looked after this part of
the brief.
We are discussing mental health support for individuals and,
potentially, families with the advisory board. The compensation
schemes very much take mental health into account, and assessing
those impacts is one of the reasons why it takes a while to make
sure people receive proper redress.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about AI, in which I
know he is keenly interested. We should look carefully at the use
of AI in prosecutions, and I am sure my right hon. and learned
Friend the Lord Chancellor is doing so.
(Eltham) (Lab)
I commend the Minister again for his excellent work. This is an
unprecedented situation that requires the solution he suggests.
May I ask him again about “no public interest” cases, including
my constituent’s case? The situation has changed since I asked
him about it on Monday, and new cases have come forward. The Post
Office must have a list somewhere. It must know who was held to
be in breach by the Horizon accounting system.
There may be people out there who are frightened to come forward
because they have signed non-disclosure agreements. Is it
possible for us to tell the Post Office, “Come on, cough up. Let
us know who has not been contacted”? Letters could then be
written to those people, perhaps by the advisory board, to invite
and encourage them to come forward. We need to give them the
confidence to do so, because they might be frightened about being
approached by the Post Office. I am sure that anyone who signs
one of the agreements that the Minister mentioned will want an
assurance that they will never again be pursued by the Post
Office.
The hon. Gentleman has been a regular contributor on this issue.
We are keen to include “no public interest” cases within the
scope. They are currently treated slightly differently in terms
of compensation. Not everybody has the same route to
compensation, but the advisory board has been very keen to make
sure that there is a single way forward for people who have
suffered from convictions.
Some people are nervous about coming forward. Various bodies,
including the Criminal Cases Review Commission, have written to
people with convictions. There is work to ensure that anybody who
might have suffered as a result of this scandal is properly
communicated with by someone they trust. I am very happy to talk
to the hon. Gentleman and the advisory board about whether we
have done enough and whether we could do more.
(Harrow East) (Con)
Hundreds of individuals have been wrongly convicted of crimes
they did not commit. I commend my hon. Friend for his work. In
his statement, he mentioned the malevolence that took place
during these prosecutions. How is it right that individuals who
gave false evidence are potentially still in post? Why are Post
Office managers still in post when they knew what was happening?
Should they not be brought to account and lose their livelihoods
and pensions, rather than those who were wrongly convicted?
The short answer is yes; people who are guilty of offences—ones
that can be prosecuted—should be brought to account. All kinds of
different routes might be available to make sure they suffer as a
result of their actions. We are keen to make sure that
happens.
We think the inquiry is the right route to expose the evidence.
Of course, our prosecutors can look at the evidence before the
inquiry at any point. Anybody can see what is happening in the
inquiry. We hope that the inquiry identifies those responsible,
and that suitable action is taken against those people and
organisations.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What a sorry tale this is. I am glad that a solution to his
scandal has been brought forward today, but the Post Office is
owned by the UK Government, who have a shareholder—usually a
senior civil servant—on the board. What did those Government
shareholders tell Ministers about this issue over the years? Does
the Minister think this arrangement provided sufficient scrutiny
of the Post Office for Parliament and the sub-postmasters?
It is fair to say that the answer is no, because this scandal has
occurred and there must have been a systemic failure in the
relationship, either in the Post Office or in different parts of
Government. We currently do not know where it failed, but we are
all keen to see the outcome of the inquiry, which should conclude
by the end of this year. A report will follow, and we are all
keen to see its conclusions. We can then identify who is
responsible and decide what might be done.
The Department for Business and Trade has learned lessons from
what happened, and I think there is now a much better oversight
and governance relationship between the Department and the Post
Office. That is too late for many people, of course, but it is
not too late to find the answers that the hon. Gentleman is
looking for.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
The entire House will welcome today’s announcement. The
Government have made exactly the correct decision, given the
balance of mischief. Can my hon. Friend say whether the
convictions to be quashed under the process he has announced
today will include not only those prosecuted by the Post Office
itself but those prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service? On
the latter, will the Ministry of Justice review the
decision-making process prior to the decision to prosecute?
Yes, absolutely, we believe that the overturning of convictions
would happen in respect of cases prosecuted by the Crown
Prosecution Service too, not least because, as we understand it,
the files were compiled by the Post Office, based on its
evidence. That would seem right and proper if the evidence was
not correct, and we know that to have been the case because of
what has happened with Horizon and because of the behaviour of
some individuals in the Post Office team—those responsible for
investigations. Clearly, there was inappropriate behaviour. The
answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes, and it is only
right that we look at what happened. As I say, the Lord
Chancellor is looking at the whole issue of private prosecutions
and how those cases were put together and prosecuted.
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
Many Members across the House have mentioned the ITV drama and it
may interest them to know that the director of “Mr Bates vs The
Post Office” is in the Gallery. He has been watching Prime
Minister’s questions and this urgent question closely, hoping for
some positive news. It is welcome that we have had some positive
news, but he has a few questions for me to ask the Minister. He
really wants to know: what are the timeframes for overturning the
convictions? I know that we have heard some answers on that, but
a bit more detail would be helpful. When will people finally
receive the full compensation they deserve? When will those
responsible finally be held to account?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I was not aware that the
director is with us today, but may I just put on record the
fantastic job that he has done in bringing this to the public
consciousness and raising consciousness of this matter within
this House? One thing that that has resulted in is today’s
statement; we would probably have got here at some point in any
case, but it is good to be here today, earlier than we would have
been had that dramatisation not been aired.
The hon. Lady is right to challenge us on the timeframes. The
timeframe for passing legislation in this House is always
somewhat uncertain, because that is not all within the
Government’s gift, as legislation passes through both Houses. We
are keen to legislate as quickly as possible, but it is likely to
take a matter of weeks, because there is some work we need to do
to make sure that that legislation is in the right place. As for
timescales for full and final compensation across all schemes, we
are hoping to do that by August. Again, we are not in charge of
all those timescales, because the process requires people who
want to go through the full assessment route to compile and
submit their claim. We will then be able to respond to it as
quickly as possible. As for the answers she is looking for, which
we all want to see, the inquiry is due to conclude by the end of
the year and we would expect it to report shortly after—that
should give us those answers.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his announcement and I
welcome this response from the Minister. I know that a lot of
work has gone into this issue, but the energy and attention he
brings is well received across the House. This is the right thing
to do.
Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst ( ), it occurs to me that
important information has emerged in evidence during the process
of prosecutions so far. The Minister, if I understood his
response correctly, referred to “malevolence” in behaviour. Will
he ensure that whatever process unfolds will contain a mechanism
by which information that would be useful for consideration in
further action will be gathered and collated, given that people
will not necessarily have the mechanism of a court case and a
legal testing of their situation?
I am keen to engage with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get
what he needs. Malevolence is the right word in this respect and
it is important that we learn the lessons from that, in terms of
both private prosecutions and the wider inquiry. We are very keen
to do that, but of course I am happy to engage with him to make
sure that we address any lessons he thinks we need to learn. This
is not just a lessons-learned exercise; we want to hold people to
account, but there are also lessons we can learn. It is important
that we learn them, and I am happy to talk to him about what he
thinks we should do, in addition to what we have set out
already.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
No one, particularly nobody in public life, should get away with
perjury, perverting the course of justice or attempting or
conspiring to do that. I am therefore glad to hear the Minister
say today, as he did in response to me earlier this week, that
the question of further prosecutions arising out of this scandal
should be carefully looked at.
On financial redress, does the Minister agree that it is
important that those who have been convicted should get legal
advice? If, as I suspect, those prosecutions were malicious ones,
the damages to which those people are entitled could be very
hefty and they would be unwise to accept an offer from the
Minister, generous as it might be, before they had received legal
advice about what they would be entitled to if they could prove
that the prosecutions were malicious.
I thank the hon. and learned Lady again for her remarks. Yes, I
would like to see prosecutions flow from this. The inquiry will
help with that of course, and other investigations by prosecution
authorities will be ongoing. Legal advice is hugely important and
the compensation schemes we are running do provide legal advice
to individuals thinking of taking an offer. That should be
carefully considered before people choose one route or another.
We are trying to make sure that the choice is as easy as
possible, and that where people have made that choice the
compensation is delivered as quickly as possible.
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
Noel Thomas, one of my constituents, was a former sub-postmaster
who was wrongly convicted. His conviction for false accounting in
2006 was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2021. How is my
hon. Friend ensuring that sub-postmasters such as Noel Thomas,
across the UK, are heard, supported, recompensed, recognised and,
most importantly, exonerated? Will the Minister meet Noel Thomas,
should he wish that to happen?
I would be delighted to meet Noel Thomas. A key part of the
excellent dramatisation “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” and of “Mr
Bates vs The Post Office: The Real Story”, which sits behind it
and which people can also watch, features Mr Thomas. His story
was incredibly moving and anybody who saw it would be moved by
it, so of course I will meet him. I am keen to ensure that he
gets not only the apology he deserves, but the redress he
deserves, and I am sure we can discuss that when we meet. The
Government are keen to make sure that the compensation schemes
work as effectively as possible, to make sure that Mr Thomas gets
the compensation he needs and he is able to move on with his
life.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
Following the excellent ITV drama, whose makers I congratulate,
there is a clear belief, expressed by my constituents, that
sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses must have their names
cleared and be fully compensated. There is also a view that those
responsible for this appalling miscarriage of justice should be
held to account, which is what we need to see unfolding in the
next months. One of my constituents has said:
“The whole affair has made me ashamed of the Post Office
hierarchy, the Government and the UK legal system.”
What are the Minister and the Government going to do to restore
public trust? Will he expand on the timescale of action to ensure
that justice and the fullest redress is given to all those
affected?
Having dealt with a number of different redress schemes over the
years, including those following some of the banking scandals, my
experience with victims—the same applies in respect of the Post
Office—is that they want two things: compensation and people
being held to account. That is not least because, if people are
held to account the chances of the same thing happening again
might be reduced, as everyone would know that they will be held
to account. That acts as a deterrent, in addition to its being
something that people want to see to make sure that justice is
served. Of course, the Government are not in charge of
prosecutions, which are done by the various people in charge of
prosecutions—the police and the CPS. I am sure they are looking
closely at the evidence that is already out there and will look
at the further evidence that comes to light through the inquiry.
It is due to complete by the end of the year and hopes to report
soon after. That deals with the inquiry side of things. As for
compensation, we are keen to deliver all compensation by August,
but we hope to do so sooner.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the clear commitment and perseverance he
has shown. He took this on and he clearly wants to have a result.
For the many families who have an empty seat at the table, the
compensation does not come close to cutting it, as we say in
Northern Ireland—they all want justice. What justice can be
delivered in terms of software producer Fujitsu, whose software
is still being used by Government agencies, to ensure that there
is accountability and some form of restitution?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constant contributions on this
subject and many others. It has been a pleasure to do this role,
to take on this huge issue, which he and I both spoke about as
Back Benchers, and to make the progress we have seen today. We
are helping people whose lives have been devastated, so it is my
pleasure to do this work. I thank Members from the Opposition
parties for their support to that end, and I thank the officials
who have done a tremendous job in trying to ensure that we get
justice and compensation as quickly as possible.
Yes, we should identify those responsible and hold them to
account, be they organisations, like Fujitsu, or individuals. The
significant compensation bill is currently funded by the
taxpayer, so it seems only right and reasonable that any
organisations or companies responsible for the scandal will also
contribute towards that compensation.
(Halifax) (Lab)
In my constituency, Mr Robinson ran the Illingworth Road post
office. When he had the Horizon software installed and could not
get the figures to add up he began, out of desperation, and
unable to get the Post Office to understand, to move money
between the DWP and Horizon software. He was then prosecuted by
the Department for Work and Pensions. He did not benefit from any
of the money it was alleged that he had stolen, but he has not
been eligible for compensation for the £43,000 he was forced to
pay back, or for the time he spent in prison, all because of the
flawed software. If I write to the Minister with the details of
Mr Robinson’s case, will he look at it and provide advice on how
we can finally clear Mr Robinson’s name?
I am keen to work with the hon. Lady on that. We are aware of CPS
and DWP cases, and I would be keen to find out exactly what
happened in that case. It is our intention that anybody who
suffered a conviction because of Horizon is properly compensated,
so I can give her that assurance. The case she raises illustrates
some of the complexities around isolating exactly what was
responsible for somebody’s conviction. When we considered
solutions, we looked at how people tried to compensate for a loss
suffered in one part of their business, resulting in a conviction
in another part of the business. That is how we arrived at the
solution to comprehensively overturn convictions.
(St Albans) (LD)
We all want to see swift financial redress and justice, and many
Members from across the House have talked about accountability.
Paula Vennells has, quite rightly, handed back her CBE, but many
sub-postmasters are asking why she was given it in the first
place and why she was given a role as a director of the Cabinet
Office. Will the Minister explain why in 2019, after the High
Court judgment was handed down exposing her full involvement in
the Horizon scandal, she remained in post as a director of the
Cabinet Office and was not sacked? If he is unable to explain
that today, will he write to me with an explanation of what
conversations were had at the time?
The hon. Lady asks some fair questions and I am happy to take
them away. It was right and proper that the former CEO, Paula
Vennells, handed back her CBE. I am a former CEO myself, and
people cannot expect to be honoured for services to an
organisation when that organisation failed so many of its key
people. The points the hon. Lady raises relate to a time prior to
my being in Government and I do not know the answer to her
question. With hindsight, many people would see that appointment
as a mistake, but I am happy to take her points away.
(Bolton South East)
(Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question. Several
of my constituents have been affected by this scandal. One of
them has written to me to say that when they successfully
appealed as part of the group action in 2019, they were told
their costs would be deducted from the compensation, which
therefore left a very small amount of money as compensation. I
tabled a question and talked to a Minister about this three years
ago, but I had, effectively, no response. Will the Minister give
an assurance that those people will now be properly compensated
and not have their costs deducted?
I thank the hon. Lady for her work on this issue. She is right to
say that the 555 sub-postmasters in the group litigation were
offered a £57 million settlement, £46 million of which was taken
by their legal representatives, leaving £11 million, which worked
out at around £20,000 each. As a Back Backbencher, I was keen to
ensure that there was a scheme for those people rather than only
for people who had not taken part in that action.
The group litigation order scheme was brought forward by the
Government and we have already settled 21 cases, in which people
have received full and final compensation. People can also get
interim payments through that scheme and, as I announced today,
rather than going down the route to full assessment they can
choose a fixed-sum award of £75,000. That scheme is available to
the hon. Lady’s constituent and they can take advantage of
it.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
The public outcry as a result of the ITV drama clearly indicates
the huge support for our sub-postmasters among the public. As
part of righting the wrong of the Horizon scandal, is it not time
to look at the remuneration of current sub-postmasters, including
the option of directly employing them, if they so wish, as
opposed to the independent contracting system we have at the
moment, so that their income reflects their huge contribution to
our communities?
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have to
improve the remuneration of sub-postmasters and the businesses
they run. We want to ensure we have a viable network going
forward. We have 11,700 branches around the country. We have set
a minimum number of 11,500, and a minimum of 99% of our
population has to be within three miles of a post office, so we
have already set access criteria. We are keen to ensure that the
network is viable going forward; the hon. Gentleman offers one
solution to that.
The Government already offer significant financing for the Post
Office—about £2.5 billion over the last 10 years—in addition to
other financial commitments we have made for other matters, such
as rebuilding the IT system. We feel that the post office network
has a bright future, particularly in areas such as access to
cash, the banking framework and parcel hubs, and we see the
remuneration opportunity improving in future years.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Lab)
On Monday, I asked the Minister how we can ensure that any system
is the same across the whole of the UK. In the past few days,
before today’s announcement, what discussions has he had with the
Lord Advocate in Scotland about the decisions? Has he given any
consideration to legislative consent motions so that this
Parliament could legislate to ensure that the same system is in
place across the whole of the UK—something the Scottish
Government are reportedly minded to consider? If that is not the
case and the Scottish Parliament takes a different approach, how
will the Minister ensure that the compensation regime is the same
across the whole of the UK, so that people who may not have their
convictions changed in Scotland in the same way still have access
to the same compensation?
I am very keen to make sure it is a UK-wide scheme, both in terms
of compensation and people’s access to it. We have already had
conversations with the Scottish Administration—I think they
happened yesterday evening—so that they fully understand our
intentions. Clearly, these matters are devolved in Scotland, so
there are different routes to make sure that there is one scheme
across the UK. I am keen to continue those conversations and make
it as easy as possible for postmasters to overturn convictions or
access compensation.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
We all welcome the fact that, at long last, postmasters can
finally expect full justice and restitution for the devastation
that they and their families have suffered. However, does the
Minister share my concern that, notwithstanding restitution and
justice for postmasters, the Post Office, once a most trusted
brand and institution, has been forever and irreparably tarnished
by those who presided over this scandal having prosecuted and
persecuted so many decent people who were serving their
communities?
I do not quite agree with that. Clearly, it has not been the Post
Office’s finest hour by a long chalk, but the Post Office brand
itself is revered around the country. The reputation of Post
Office Ltd—the central organisation—has been tarnished, and we
are keen to move on and help the Post Office to rebuild that
relationship. It has, for example, recruited 100 area managers to
try to improve its relationship with sub-postmasters, which I
think is helping. But there is work to do to improve the
relationship between the centre and the network. As a
constituency MP, my experience is that my constituents very much
appreciate, value and revere the post offices in their
community.
(Jarrow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for some of the detail around today’s
announcement regarding the convictions; it will come as a relief
to many.
As highlighted by the ITV show, the 555 worked tirelessly for
justice, and that, of course, opened the door for so many others,
but they feel they are being penalised for taking this litigation
forward, with compensation still not being paid to so many. As
well as others, the Post Office needs to be held responsible for
the part it has played in this scandal at every stage, including
the lies and the blocking of justice, yet it is the Post Office
and the Government’s expensive lawyers who are currently
litigating every case. I have to ask whether that is right.
Will the Minister look to remove the Post Office from all the
roles that it currently plays in relation to compensation
decisions and, instead, put in place a more independent arm’s
length body that will deliver full and fair compensation to
all?
I thank the hon. Member for her work. We have engaged with her on
this issue regularly, and she works very hard on behalf of her
constituents. We are keen to make the compensation available more
quickly. As announced today, her constituents, if they were a
part of the 555—the GLO—will have access to the fixed-sum award
of £75,000, which is a much quicker route. But if they go down
the full assessment route, which they have every right to do, we
have committed that, once a claim is submitted, the dispute
resolution process will respond to that claim within 40 days in
90% of cases.
The hon. Member is wrong to talk about the cases being litigated
against; the process is done by dispute resolution with my
Department, not with the Post Office. If that cannot be agreed,
it is sent to an independent panel, which will then recommend
what award should be given. The Post Office is not involved and
independence is at the very heart of this process, so I believe
that her constituents will get full and fair outcomes, but we
want to make sure that is done as quickly as possible, and we are
working on that on a daily basis.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
Russell Ward-Best from Ottery St Mary was accused of stealing
£17,000. He avoided prosecution by resigning, and another
sub-postmaster I represent paid the alleged shortfall to avoid
prosecution. Russell Ward-Best was declared bankrupt and died
before he was found innocent and cleared. Will the Minister
comment on financial redress for all sub-postmasters and their
families, including those who were not prosecuted?
I am very sorry to hear what happened to Mr Ward-Best. His family
should be able to get compensation through the historic shortfall
scheme. That scheme is there to put Mr Ward-Best, if he were
still with us, back to where he would have been had this
detriment not occurred, and that can take into account things
such as bankruptcy. That money would then be paid to his estate,
which would then flow through to his family. The same
compensation is available, despite Mr Ward-Best very sadly no
longer being with us.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
One sinister feature of this scandal has been how the Post Office
has tried to intimidate and scare people into compliance. While
researching this, I read that those receiving an historic
shortfall scheme offer had been erroneously told by the Post
Office that they were not allowed to talk about the terms of
their compensation. The Post Office had no right to do that, but
there will be a legacy of people who will be scared to talk out
about this, or cause a fuss, because they believe that they are
not allowed to do so.
Can the Minister put something on the record to give reassurance
to those people who have been deliberately and maliciously misled
by the Post Office into silence? The Post Office should not be
able to do that, and those affected should be able to have their
story told and to get justice.
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I am not aware of the
particular case to which she refers, but it is certainly our
position that we want to work closely with people who have been
through that scheme. The advisory board originally just covered
the group litigation order claims. We then expanded its remit to
cover all three schemes, so that it could ensure that they
provided fair outcomes to all those involved. We wanted to give a
level of consistency across the three schemes. The hon. Lady may
want to contact or the right hon. Member for
North Durham (Mr Jones) to discuss her concerns. I am happy to
discuss the matter with the advisory board to see what might need
to be done.
(Bath) (LD)
We can never right the original wrong or undo all the suffering;
all we can do is make sure that the misery is not ongoing. For
those who do not look for a grand pardon, what rights of appeal
exist other than a request to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission?
The hon. Lady is right to say that no amount of final
compensation can ever make good what has happened to many of
these people, whether it is loss of home, loss of business, loss
of livelihood, loss of reputation or loss of life. No amount of
money can ever compensate for that, but we are keen to make sure
that, wherever we can, people do get compensated across all those
different areas. Compensation schemes provide for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary losses, which are some of the things that, sadly,
have happened to people in their personal lives. That is exactly
what we have set out today. We are keen to make sure that, if
people are overturning convictions, there is no requirement to go
to the CCRC to do that. It is something that we can do through
legislation in this place, and we will be setting out exactly how
we will deliver that in the coming weeks.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Minister for again coming to the House and answering
so thoroughly a great many questions. It is very obvious that the
House is concerned about this matter.
|
