The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday
26 February. “With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement
to update the House on the progress that has been made to support
victims of the Horizon scandal. Since this terrible miscarriage of
justice was first exposed, the Government have been working
tirelessly to put matters right for postmasters. We have set up an
independent inquiry and funded various redress schemes that we
have...Request free trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 26 February.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement to update
the House on the progress that has been made to support victims
of the Horizon scandal.
Since this terrible miscarriage of justice was first exposed, the
Government have been working tirelessly to put matters right for
postmasters. We have set up an independent inquiry and funded
various redress schemes that we have continuously improved to
speed up compensation for all affected. That work has been taking
place for many months, and long before ITV aired the excellent
programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. The work included our
announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award
for those who have been wrongfully convicted. We continue to
develop our response to the scandal, and on Thursday I made a
Written Statement detailing the way that we plan to legislate to
overturn Horizon-related convictions en masse. We expect to
introduce that legislation as soon as possible next month.
My Statement set out that the new legislation will quash all
convictions that are identified as being in scope, using clear
and objective criteria on the face of the Bill. Convictions will
be quashed at the point of commencement, without the need for
people to apply to have their convictions overturned. The
criteria will cover the prosecutors, extending to prosecutions
undertaken by Post Office Ltd and the Crown Prosecution Service,
as well as offence types, ensuring that those align with offences
known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office. That means that
only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be
in scope. On offence dates, a set timeframe will ensure that
convictions are quashed only where the offence took place during
the period when the Horizon system and its pilots were in
operation. The criteria will also cover the contractual or other
relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd, so
that only sub-postmasters, their employees, officers or family
members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within
the defined class of convictions to be quashed. On the use of the
Horizon system at the date of the offence, the convicted person
will need to have been working, including in a voluntary
capacity, in a post office that was using Horizon system
software—including any relevant pilot schemes—at the time that
the behaviour constituting the offence occurred.
Such legislation is unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive,
but this scandal is unprecedented too. I am clear that this
legislation does not set a precedent for the future, and nor is
it a reflection on the actions of the courts and the judiciary,
who have dealt swiftly with the cases before them. However, we
are clear that the scale and circumstances of the miscarriage of
justice demand an exceptional response. We are also receiving
invaluable support from the Horizon compensation advisory board
in this effort. Once again, I thank the right honourable Member
for North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues on the board,
including Lord Arbuthnot. The board met on Thursday. We were
joined by Sir Gary Hickinbottom and Sir Ross Cranston, who will
be the final arbiters of claims in the overturned convictions and
GLO schemes respectively. At the meeting, the board strongly
supported the proposals in my Written Statement for legislating
to overturn convictions. They also proposed sensible measures to
accelerate compensation for those impacted.
One of the biggest constraints on the speed of redress for those
who choose to take the full assessment route is that it takes
time for claimants and their representatives to gather evidence
and develop their claims. To encourage early submission of
claims, once the Post Office receives a full claim from someone
with an overturned conviction, it will forthwith top up their
interim redress to £450,000. Of course, if they have opted for
our £600,000 fixed-sum award, they will get that instead.
Similarly, on the GLO scheme, where claims are typically smaller,
we have implemented fixed-sum award offers of £75,000, helping
claimants to move on with their lives. Those who are not
satisfied with this fixed offer can continue to submit larger
claims, and they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We
have committed to provide offers on a fully completed claim
within 40 working days in 90% of cases. If initial GLO offers are
not accepted and independent facilitation is then entered, we
shall forthwith pay postmasters 80% of our initial offer, to help
ensure that they do not face hardship while those discussions are
completed.
We have always been clear that our first offers of compensation
should be full and fair. It is early days, but the numbers
suggest that in the GLO scheme we are achieving that. More than
70% of our offers in that scheme are accepted by postmasters
without reference to the independent panel. We will also ensure
that postmasters are kept regularly up to date with the progress
of their claims.
The advisory board has made a number of other helpful proposals.
Those are set out in the report of the meeting, which my
department is publishing today. I have undertaken to give them
serious consideration. I will advise the House when we reach
decisions about those proposals, and I will doubtless return
again with further updates as part of our unceasing determination
to deliver justice for everyone caught up in this long-running
and tragic scandal. I commend this Statement to the House”.
4.10pm
(Lab)
My Lords, victims of the Fujitsu Horizon scandal have lacked
justice for more than 20 years now. Lives and livelihoods were
taken away, victims were told that it was only them and were not
believed, and little progress has been seen until recently.
Better late than never is little consolation, especially when, in
numerous cases, the victims are no longer with us. Nonetheless,
the Government’s progression of the legislation to rightly
exonerate those wrongly convicted is welcome and I commend the
work that has been done to get us here. I also appreciate the
regularity with which the House has been updated, and the
Minister has come here to answer our questions. The legal work
needed to make this legislation happen will require cross-party
work and support, so I urge the Government to continue in the
manner that has brought us here.
I turn to the Statement. What further details can we expect on
the legislation being tabled, and when? Do the Government have a
timeline for the exoneration to be fulfilled and for full
compensation to be delivered to all those who deserve it?
Our legal system played a huge part in this scandal. Time and
again, the courts believed the Fujitsu computer rather than the
individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. As my noble
friend has asked on many
occasions—and I am sure he will again today—when will His
Majesty’s Government look at overturning the premise that it is
for the individual to prove that the computer was wrong rather
than the opposite?
Many postmasters and postmistresses have waited far too long for
redress. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.
Dealing with that point, will the Minister tell us whether there
will be an opportunity within the legislation for the 66
postmasters who have died, and the four who have committed
suicide, to have their convictions overturned and quashed? Surely
it is only fair for their families to also have justice and
closure.
Looking at the reach of the legislation, is there a specific
reason why it does not cover Northern Ireland? As we know, the
Northern Ireland Justice Minister has said that she supports the
Government’s line of approach, calling it the fastest and most
equitable legislative solution. Would it not make sense to apply
it directly across Northern Ireland? On a similar note, would the
Minister update your Lordships’ House on conversations that the
Government have had with their Scottish counterparts regarding
overturning convictions that took place under the Scottish
jurisdiction?
I would also be keen to hear whether any prosecutions were made
using data from the precursor to Horizon, Capture? Did any
sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses lose money due to Capture
failings? If so, surely these should also be included in the
scope of the legislation.
I turn to the legal ramifications. The Statement makes it clear
that a precedent will not be set for the future regarding the
relationship between the judiciary and the legislature, but that
is easier said than done. In future, what is to stop this case
being treated as a precedent where Parliament can pass law to
overturn judicial decisions?
In the case of other similar scandals, would not the Government
consider taking a similar approach, especially as some people are
asking whether we consider that this example could be relevant in
other historic or other worthy causes? I would be particularly
keen to hear what specific safeguards the Government are putting
in place to protect this stance, and what advice they have
received to provide them with the appropriate assurances
regarding their approach.
On a slightly separate note, the Government have now confirmed
with the Post Office that no investigators involved in this
horrendous scandal remain working for the Post Office. This is
progress, but can the Minister provide us with an update on
progress not on the Wyn Williams statutory inquiry but on the
Government’s own investigations?
Finally, last Monday the Business Secretary told the other place
that
“while Mr Staunton was in post, a formal investigation was
launched into allegations made regarding his conduct, including
serious matters such as bullying”.—[Official Report, Commons,
19/2/24; col. 474.]
Today, Mr Staunton told the Commons Business and Trade Select
Committee that it was Nick Read, not him, who was the subject of
the misconduct inquiry. Can the Minister confirm that that is
correct and, if so, where it leaves the Secretary of State?
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing this Statement to be
debated in your Lordships’ House. We welcome its direction of
travel.
Everything that could be said about the horror and unfairness of
this scandal has been said, but we need to remind ourselves, as
the noble Lord did, of the crushed human lives that sit beneath
this issue. The move to quash these wrongful convictions at the
point of the forthcoming Act’s commencement without the need for
people to apply to have their convictions overturned is welcome,
and the fact that it is being designed to reduce or eliminate the
bureaucratic application process is promising. But clearly we
need to understand it.
To qualify for this, as I understand it, there is an
understandable list of criteria that have to be met, including
the offence, the contract that people had, the timings, their
exposure to Horizon, technology and other things. Here I have
concerns. Can the Minister confirm that it will not be Post
Office Ltd that will be sifting through who qualifies to have
their conviction overturned? Experience has shown that it cannot
be trusted; it has neither the good faith nor the processes to do
this effectively and efficiently. But even if it is removed from
this part of the process, it is Post Office Ltd that owns and
controls most of the documentation and information that is needed
to decide who qualifies for exoneration. As such, the upcoming
legislation must include a duty on POL to provide documentation
within a timeframe, with sanctions if they do not.
There is an overall communications issue that needs to be engaged
with around those victims—what is happening to them, and how is
the process going forward? If people who believe that they should
be on the exoneration list are not on it, we need to know what
the appeals process for them will be.
Of course, once their convictions are quashed, then we move into
the compensation zone. Minister Hollinrake agreed yesterday that
compensation has been delivered too slowly—I think we can all
agree with that. We welcome the Minister’s comments about
attempts to speed up payments, but it is clear that having three
separate schemes and five different classes of victims has been a
nightmare for those victims when it comes to getting through the
system, and they have not been helped by Post Office Ltd—quite
the opposite.
The chair of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, Professor
Chris Hodges, speaking on the radio today made it clear that in
his view POL should be completely removed from the role of
processing and setting compensation payments. We agree, so can
the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s intention? Of
course, as the noble Lord said, this announcement covers only
England and Wales, so we need to know intentions in respect of
the two remaining countries. As the noble Lord asked, what is
happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland? We understand the
issues around devolved authorities, but what is the timing going
to be and when could we see it?
There is also the issue of those who have been convicted in
relation to the Capture system. MP has been very clear on this,
and we would like to know where that is going to go and how fast
it is going to move, as with people who paid back sums to avoid
the scandal that the Post Office was hanging over their heads.
How will they move into the compensation zone? It is still not
clear.
When will the legislation happen? The Minister talks about a July
Royal Assent, which was my understanding. Given the sell-by date
of this Parliament, that is running things a little fine. If
possible, we need to move much faster.
As the noble Lord said, this legislation is unprecedented, and we
will need time to get into the detail of what the Government are
proposing. Your Lordships’ House needs time properly to assess
both the effectiveness of the legislation and its constitutional
implications. That is not to hold it up, but it is to do our job
properly. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when it
will be tabled in the Commons and when we are likely to see it
here? We need time for proper scrutiny, but let us get on with
it. Victims are dying, victims are in financial need and victims
need closure.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade () (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for participating in all these debates
and of course my two opposite numbers for their comments in their
opening statements. Without me going through a great
grandstanding point, it is better if I address each individual
point, because that will allow me to clarify the situation as it
stands.
I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol,
about the cross-party support: we have all come together to
ensure that these people are properly compensated, and we have
come up with an extremely bold and unique mechanism for
exonerating those who were wrongfully convicted. I am very
grateful to my colleagues, and I think I speak on behalf of my
noble friend in this House and Minister
Hollinrake, who has done an exceptional amount to progress this
entire process. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to
him.
The further details of what needs to be worked out following the
quashing of convictions Bill that we hope to introduce as soon as
possible cover a range of issues, some of which have been raised
today. The details of eligibility are certainly something that we
need to ensure we get right. The noble Lord, , raised the principle of linking
the appeals process to people who feel they should be on this
list but are not included. I can say that it will be the
Government who, in effect, compile the list of people who are
eligible, according to the criteria. We set out the criteria very
clearly in the Written Statement yesterday and they seem to me
entirely logical. Clearly, you have to have been prosecuted by a
certain prosecutor, such as the Post Office or the Crown
Prosecution Service; you clearly have to have worked for the Post
Office between certain dates; and I believe the evidence has to
be linked to the Horizon scandal and to certain specific crimes,
such as theft or fraud. I have looked carefully through the list,
and it seems to cover key areas that we are trying to cover.
However, there may be individuals who feel that they should be
eligible for their convictions to be quashed but who may not
necessarily fulfil the specific and very narrow criteria, so
these are the sorts of details that I believe we will have to
work on. We look forward to developing those as the time
comes.
The principle around the devolved nations was raised and is very
relevant. As noble Lords will understand, they are different
legal systems, certainly in Scotland. I know that my colleague,
Minister Hollinrake, met his counterparts yesterday, or over the
last few days certainly, to progress what we believe will be a
logical replication of this concept. I am not aware of any
decision on the part of the devolved nations to change the
principles that are operating, but of course it is up to them. We
very much hope that they will follow our suit.
I agree that the situation of the postmasters who were convicted
and have since passed away is indeed terrible, but the
convictions will be quashed automatically through the Bill and by
the sheer nature of the individuals’ eligibility. This is not the
same as applying for compensation; postmasters will not have to
apply to have their conviction quashed. The whole point about
this sweeping Bill and why it requires, as both noble Lords have
said, considerable scrutiny is that all convictions will be
quashed en masse at the moment it becomes an Act. That is an
important point; the families of anyone who is deceased will know
that their conviction has been quashed and they will have that
relief.
I agree that the entire tone regarding the speed of compensation
has changed dramatically over the past two and a half years. I am
very grateful to Minister Hollinrake for the work he has done to
ensure, most importantly, that interim payments can be made
before final payments. He recently increased the payments for
those who have been convicted to £400,000, which gives people the
immediate payment they need before they decide to take the next
step. There are also substantially increased fixed offers; the
record so far is quite significant: 78% of claims have now been
paid and there is a clear focus on ensuring that all offers are
fully completed within 40 working days in 90% of cases for the
GLO scheme.
The comment was rightly made about the number of different
compensation schemes. As a Minister answering questions on this,
I want to get the facts right. It is clear that there are many
different pools and mechanisms for making sure that people are
fully compensated. There is a great historical tale as well,
which further complicates things. The Government are very aware
of this; we have been doing a huge amount to make sure that
people have interim payments, that there is no playing with the
detail when it comes to compensating them, and that we are
forward-footed in assisting postmasters in making claims. We are
reviewing how the payments processing is operated, particularly
in those cases operated by the Post Office. As I said in
Questions, this is not a decision to be taken by me, but it is
obvious that all these points remain under constant review. We
want people to be compensated; the Government have allocated an
enormous amount of money to ensure that they are so that there is
no discussion about quantum and people can be properly
compensated. As soon as the Bill goes through, I would expect a
significant number of new compensation claims to be made. To
claim their compensation, people will have to sign a form saying
that they are eligible and have not broken the law, which is a
sensible measure to take.
Finally, this is a significant and wholly unprecedented move. I
am grateful to be joined by my noble and learned friend , who is a greater legal
expert than me and is keen to make sure that his wise counsel is
included in this process. This House will have the opportunity to
debate in detail this unprecedented and unique situation.
However, it is absolutely the right thing to do, given the
historic tale, the sheer quantum and the clarity around the
falseness of these convictions in so many cases. I hope that all
noble Lords will agree and support the Government in executing
this crucial move.
4.28pm
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory
board, which is now meeting not exactly in continuous session but
every few days.
The Post Office itself is under investigation by the police. Is
it not quite inappropriate for the Post Office to express any
view as to the correctness of overturning convictions and is it
not quite wrong, coming back to the point made by the noble Lord,
, for it to have any position or
play any part in the compensation process?
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend and pay tribute to his work. The
Post Office will not play a role in deciding the correctness of
the overturned convictions in the Bill; that will be a matter for
the Government. The statement about the Post Office paying
compensation is well heard. I am grateful for that and I hope I
have made the point that the Government continue to look into it.
Having said that, the Post Office has paid a very large quantum
of compensation payments—several thousand, I think. It would be
extraordinary if the team there were not completely aware of the
need to ensure that they get this right, I hope including
significant cultural change. There has been a wholesale change of
individuals on the board of directors since 2021 and 2022.
Currently, the important thing is to get the compensation
payments paid and, in parallel, review how the process is
working.
(Lab)
My Lords, because of the moral imperative, when I was Secretary
of State for Defence, in 2006 I amended the Armed Forces Act with
two clauses to pardon 309 of the 346 shot at dawn for cowardice.
The evidence suggested that most of them were suffering from PTSD
and the records for the rest were poor. I was told that this
would be a slippery slope and that I would undermine military
justice by so doing, and historians told me that I was changing
history. Military justice has survived and is just as robust as
before, and on the “Today” programme I said to a historian that I
was not remaking history but making it. Ministers are making
history now, absolutely rightly, because of the moral
imperative.
The Post Office’s lawyers, who were responsible for a number of
these convictions, have tried to influence Ministers. I have not
seen the letter, but I understand from the way in which it has
been reported that they said
“it is highly likely that the vast majority of people who have
not yet appealed were, in fact, guilty”
because there were
“clear confessions and/or other corroborating evidence of
guilt”.
From what I have seen of the way in which these interrogations
were conducted, it is no wonder that some of these people
confessed. They had this evidence from the Horizon system rammed
down their throats and were told what the consequences would be
if they did not confess. It seems to me that these confessions
are pretty poor and I cannot think of any other evidence that
could corroborate the false information that this system was
producing. I do not see the argument here.
The Government should look very carefully at these cases before
exoneration or quashing the convictions. As I understand it, the
Minister said that they will ask people whose convictions are
quashed to sign a statement that may later cause them to be
prosecuted for fraud. We should not leave anyone with that
hanging over them. We should check all these cases and see
exactly what Peters & Peters is talking about, because I
cannot think of anything that was not poisoned by Horizon.
Finally, my noble friend raised this crazy presumption that
computers always produce the truth. When will we do something
about this in the laws of evidence in this country?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those points. I was reminded of his
making of history in an unprecedented and wholly unique way only
a few years ago. I think he will agree that that was the right
thing to do then and that this is the right thing to do now. It
does not set a precedent; these are truly specific circumstances.
I agree with him about the principle around the confessions. The
excellent and important TV series powerfully demonstrated the
relevance of this point; in a number of cases, people seem to
have been given ultimatums to accept an admission of guilt for a
lower level of penalty. It is right that this legislation, when
it becomes an Act, will exonerate all those who fulfil these
criteria.
I push back on the principle that each of the cases should be
reviewed in the detail that the noble Lord suggested, because the
whole point is that we want to move with a sense of pace. It has
been widely reported—and, I am sure, discussed among everyone who
has been following the case—that it is certainly possible that
some people who have committed a crime will be exonerated. It is
the Government’s view—I call on the legal experts in this House
in saying this—that the clear uncertainty on which the evidence
was based would impact the retrials. I would have assumed that,
if there was a retrial for each case, the baselessness of the
evidence being used would mean that, even if those people were
guilty of committing a crime, they would probably be exonerated
in many instances. It is not simply around the technical element
of the necessity; it is the fact that we want to move fast, and
we want to exonerate these people who are aging—in many
instances, sadly, some have already passed away. It is the right
thing to do, and it sends a very clear message that this country
and our two legislative Chambers want to redress a significant
wrong.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that this is unprecedented, which of
course it is in many respects. However, we are seeing a number of
examples at the moment of the state finding it very difficult to
deal with its failures, so I wonder whether we can be reassured
that some lessons are being learned. In May of this year, we will
see the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s report, which
will be devastating. It would be even more devastating if the
victims of those events experience the same problems that we are
debating today and that we have debated around Windrush and
Grenfell. Can the House be reassured that discussions are taking
place in government to ensure that that does not happen?
(Con)
I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord for that point. I agree
in many instances. Governments—or the state, as he rightly said;
this is not party political or individually associated —and large
bureaucratic machines find it difficult to accept fault. I think
that there are fears of precedent-setting and financial
conversations. Indeed, for those in the wrong, quite rightly
there are the principles we are debating today—with significant
cost to the citizenry of this country, as well as the
reputational damage and other issues we have inflicted on the
individuals, both those involved and those who have suffered the
consequences.
Unquestionably, there will be—and rightly so—a significant
discussion about how arm’s-length bodies of this nature are
managed by government departments and Ministers, and how those
Ministers are then called to account by Parliament. The issue,
probably over the last 30 years or so, has been a culture of
creating more and more arm’s-length bodies, the virtue of which
seems to be their so-called independence. At a time when there
should have been higher degrees of scrutiny, the culture was the
issue, not necessarily the governance processes, because the
governance is there in many instances. In the case of the Post
Office, the Government is the only shareholder, so they were
clearly in the line of slight; of course, the Post Office was
also being heavily subsidised by the Government. In many
instances, the structures are there, but the culture around the
so-called ability for Ministers to interfere or take a greater
degree of scrutiny, interest and responsibility has been reset. I
think there is a significant view that a review of how those
governance processes work in a cultural sense is absolutely
right. We should be aware of the chilling power of bureaucratic
indifference—we certainly are; it is something I take very
seriously in my own role.
(Con)
My Lords, I speak from the experience of a former MP who
represented a number of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses.
There were two in particular in my constituency who, with
hindsight, we know were wrongly accused, but they simply handed
their leases in and left. Their lives were turned upside down and
ruined. Across the whole country, there must be many more in that
position who have not appeared on the department’s radar screens.
Can the Minister say what can be done to help that cohort? How
can we find ways of stopping them being ignored? Can he find a
way of including them in the scheme?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend. Absolutely, we can compensate only
people who come forward. In the different pools, a large number
of people who have been identified have not submitted claims for
compensation yet. That makes some of the data look as though we
have not been responding, when that is not in fact the case. We
are here to respond, we are keen to respond, money has been
allocated to respond, and we want to make sure that we do the
right thing and redress those cases.
My ask to all Members of this House, if they have former
constituents, neighbours or people of their association whom they
believe should be entitled to compensation, is to ask them to
come forward. There is no final date. The closing date has been
removed— I think there was supposed to be a closing date in
August this year. Clearly, we do not want this to go on for ever;
we want people to come forward and get the compensation that is
right. I press people to spread the word.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, notwithstanding what I said at Question Time, the
Minister has been really helpful in all his replies. I wonder
whether he can help me with another. When I was a lot younger,
the Post Office and the railways used to run extremely well and
they were run by people who had been in the industries all their
lives; they knew everything about the Post Office, how it worked,
the problems and so on, or about the railways or others as
well.
These people were paid reasonable salaries but not hugely
differently from the people who worked on the ground. What we
have now is chief executives or chairmen who move from industry
to industry and then to something else—if you look at Nick Read,
he has been at Tesco, Vodafone, HBOS, Lloyds and Thomas Cook.
They are supposed to bring the experience from one into the other
but they are entirely different kinds of organisations. Then they
get paid a salary of £415,000 and a bonus of £455,000. Something
has gone wrong. I heard Nick Read give some evidence today and it
was not very impressive. We have these people—mostly men, by the
way—who move from company to company, getting bigger and bigger
salaries and bonuses. Should something not be done about
that?
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to carry on in my
position, at least until the end of this Statement. I am glad he
has such halcyon memories of the railways when he was a younger
man; I am not quite sure when that was.
We need to be aware of something which has struck me in the
discussions around this. There is naturally a sense of reflection
over the salaries paid to senior executives in an organisation
such as the Post Office which is going through such a traumatic
time, and the view that we want to punish the current executive
leadership. While that is a very natural instinct, we want the
best people possible running the Post Office today. It is an
intensely complex situation, not just in terms of compensation
and the issues around the Horizon scandal but running 11,000-odd
Post Offices around the country and all the issues around that.
What is important is that we get value for money; if the Post
Office was making a great profit, everyone was happy, all the
staff were delighted and we were not in this situation, we would
be extremely pleased, probably, to pay the chief executive more
than he is currently paid.
It is not necessarily about the quantum; the point is the
governance around how salaries and bonuses are fixed. There was a
question earlier in this House about long-term incentive plans
compared with short-term ones. In the financial services sector,
where I come from, you are paid your bonuses over three, five and
often more years, which is considered to be quite onerous but I
think it has resulted in changes in behaviour. It is absolutely
right that we should look at these sorts of plans for these
highly paid executives in these public corporations.
(Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest
as UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. Can my noble
friend update the House on the prospects of securing a
significant contribution to the financial redress from Fujitsu?
Of course, Fujitsu is a Japanese company but in this context this
is consequential upon its acquisition of ICL during the
1990s.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that point. I think it has
been widely publicised that Fujitsu has apologised for its role
in this —as one would expect and hope—but has also accepted a
moral responsibility. It has also suggested that it will look to
see how it will participate in this process and my colleague Mr
Hollinrake has been very clear that this overall envelope of
compensation to postmasters is not to be borne solely by the
Government. Clearly, there is an ongoing inquiry. This is an
extremely complicated process to comment on at this stage but the
tone of what my noble friend is suggesting chimes completely with
the Government’s view.
(LD)
To build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in
his reply the Minister talked about the remuneration of the
executive team, but actually the sharp end of the Post Office is
the people working behind the counters—who we all see when we are
getting service from the Post Office. This can be nothing but a
demoralising series of news for those people. Their morale within
that business is really important, as they work for a company
that has been so vilified publicly and hauled through the mud.
Does the Minister think that the executive team, the evidence of
which we saw today, is the team that can rebuild the morale and
the spirit within the Post Office, which will be needed to
deliver the sort of turnaround that the Minister was talking
about?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord, , for those comments. I should say
that the Government have full confidence in the CEO and in the
board whom we have appointed over the last two to three years. I
am told they are extremely grateful for the services of the
government representative and the UKGI representative. There are
two postmasters, who I think are elected to the board, so it is a
diverse board that represents the interests of the Post Office.
Its members are not tarnished, as it were, by previous
activities, and they have been doing a good job in responding to
what can be described only as a crisis.
I echo the noble Lord’s points. The Post Office personnel are the
absolute core of the business, of many communities and of this
country, and it is agonising to see them put through so much
distress. I agree with the comment made, I think by a colleague
of mine, that in some respects the sheer greatness of our Post
Office staff around the country has been magnified by this event,
and I am sure that more of us will use our local services when we
get the opportunity. This has also drawn a lot of attention to
the needs of the postal service around the country, the
conditions that its employees work in and the opportunity to
improve them, with more recruitment and more people entering the
Post Office service. I totally support the noble Lord’s aim; it
is a magnificent organisation in its principal core ambitions of
delivering great service to communities. The people who work
there should be celebrated, and we certainly do that.
(Con)
May I come back on a point that was raised by the noble Lord,
Lord Browne, about the declaration that is to be signed by those
whose convictions are overturned? I am not sure that I understand
this declaration. If you have signed accounts which you know to
be wrong and yet you have had your conviction for false
accounting overturned by the Court of Appeal on the basis that it
is an affront to justice, do you sign something saying you have
not committed false accounting when maybe you have? I do not
understand this declaration.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that point. The signing of
the form saying that you are innocent is not to do with the
conviction being quashed but is in order to receive compensation.
The Government do not think that it is unreasonable, and I hope
noble Lords would not think it is unreasonable, that there is an
element of a threshold for people to say that they were not
guilty of a crime and that they deserve their compensation. The
nature of the application alone should probably cover that. It is
a very sensible move to make, and I do not think it distorts the
process. However, clearly, these are live conversations and we
will have them in more detail.
(Lab)
Just to be clear on that as we go into the last few seconds, with
regard to the quashing of the convictions, is it the case that
the individual postmasters or postmistresses who received
judicial sanction will not need to do anything for their
convictions to be quashed, as the signing is purely to do with
compensation?
(Con)
Absolutely. In conclusion, the Bill will immediately exonerate
everyone whose conviction is being quashed. It is not a
requirement to apply to have your conviction quashed; the
Government will draw up their list. Detail has been raised about
how people could appeal if they feel they should be on the list
and are not, and there are clearly some details that need to be
worked out about how that process will work. It will happen the
moment the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It is absolutely
the right thing to do, it is our intention that it will happen
before the end of the Summer Recess, and I very much look forward
to all sides of the House supporting us in that move.
|
