(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and
Trade if she will make a statement on what steps are being taken
to restore public confidence in the Post Office board and
governance following evidence taken at yesterday’s Business and
Trade Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
I sat there for five hours listening to all the evidence that was
given to the Select Committee yesterday. Several serious
allegations have now been made against the Government, my
Department and its officials by Henry Staunton. His most recent
revelation is that there is an ongoing HR investigation that
involves both him and the Post Office CEO Nick Read. I have to
say as a former chair that I clearly found that statement to the
Select Committee highly unprofessional.
The fact that Nick Read is being investigated is evidence that no
one is untouchable and the Post Office culture is changing. An
investigation is of course not evidence that allegations are
accurate. While Nick Read has co-operated fully, Mr Staunton
tried to block the investigations looking at his conduct. It was
this action, as well as his attempt to bypass the formal process
to appoint a new director to the board, which led the Secretary
of State to lose confidence in Mr Staunton. As was said in the
Business and Trade Committee yesterday, board members felt so
strongly about Mr Staunton’s conduct that they were going to
resign. It was right that the Government decided to act.
Mr Staunton has now made a series of allegations which we
strongly reject. He is using the Nick Read investigation to
divert attention from the issues the Select Committee was
discussing about his dismissal. The allegations made are also
proving to be a further distraction from the victims of this
injustice. His central allegation is that the Government told him
to slow down compensation payments. Not a single person backed
him up on this claim. My officials are clear that they have never
been instructed to do this. Post Office executives are clear that
such an instruction was never passed on to them. We have provided
a letter from June 2023 from my Department to Mr Staunton telling
him the opposite. His only evidence is a note of a conversation
which is clearly about operational financing of the Post Office
business; this is entirely different from compensation to sub-
postmasters. The permanent secretary wrote recently to give her
truthful account of what happened. We also released her office’s
contemporaneous notes of that meeting.
Mr Staunton alleged that the Secretary of State refused to
apologise to him after he learned of his dismissal from Sky News;
this was not the case. He claimed there was pressure on Nick Read
to send a letter to the Justice Secretary; this was not the case.
He claimed the Secretary of State told him that someone has got
to take the rap for the Horizon scandal and that was the reason
for his dismissal; this was not the case.
The Post Office faces unprecedented challenges and needs to work
at pace to deliver compensation to the thousands of postmasters
who fell victim to a flawed IT system as well as continue the
essential work to implement the necessary operational and
cultural changes needed within the business. As we have
repeatedly said, Post Office governance is a priority for the
Government; that is why we acted swiftly to remove a chair about
whom there were serious concerns and allegations and why we are
working at pace to appoint an interim chair.
We of course recognise the seriousness of an investigation into
individuals at the Post Office. I also recognise parliamentary
and public concern and the need to ensure there is confidence in
the Post Office leadership. I will therefore ask the Post Office
to provide me with the findings of the investigation once it is
completed. However, it is right to wait for this investigation to
conclude before making any further judgment.
I am really disappointed that the Secretary of State herself is
not here, but I thank the Minister the hon. Member for Thirsk and
Malton () for everything he does
for post offices and am happy to work with him going forward.
Prominent Horizon victims are still saying financial redress is
far too slow. Legal representatives of victims said yesterday
that redress schemes are not working for victims—too much
“lawyering” going on, too much obfuscation. Lawyers say complete
claims might have settled for less than they were entitled to and
might need to be revisited. Neil Hudgell suggested that August
deadline target will not be met and the current compensation
impasse could continue for another one or two years.
Henry Staunton’s claims persist. Why has the Prime Minister
refused to back up the Secretary of State, refusing to repeat the
claim that Staunton lied? This is the third time we have been
here to find out about the circumstances of Mr Staunton’s
departure. The last time the Secretary of State mentioned
investigations into Staunton but failed to reveal an 80-page
investigation into current CEO Nick Read. With all we have seen
about the Secretary of State’s past assurances being undermined,
how can we trust her firm assurances now?
Does the Secretary of State have faith in the Post Office board,
which is clearly in total disarray? There were even claims that
the chief executive officer, Nick Read, had threatened to resign
over pay. Victims and the public have lost faith in the Post
Office board and governance. When more than £1.2 billion of
public money is being spent on financial redress, the taxpayer
ought to have confidence that costs will not be driven up further
by mismanagement. The evidence from yesterday’s Business and
Trade Committee shows that the public and victims have no reason
to be confident, as incompetence and obfuscation has marred the
process until now. Sub-postmasters say that redress schemes are
not working. Victims agree. The lawyers say that they are not
working and the former chair of the Post Office says that they
are not working. Why should we trust the Government, and what
will the Minister do to fix this?
I should say that the Secretary of State is abroad at a World
Trade Organisation conference.
I thank the hon. Lady once again from this Dispatch Box for all
that she does on behalf of postmasters. Interestingly, in his
evidence yesterday, Mr Staunton said that he had no concerns over
the speed of compensation, which I think astounded both the hon.
Lady and me. We have been fighting for years to try to improve
the speed of compensation. That is just one more concern that
people might have with Mr Staunton’s evidence, but it was clearly
stated in one of his responses.
It is right that we constantly seek to improve the speed of
compensation and to make sure that it is full and fair and is
seen to be so. One reason that I spent all day listening to the
evidence yesterday was to make sure that we are doing everything
possible to accelerate compensation. I heard some interesting
conversations in the evidence session, including ideas from Mr
Hudgell and others on how we can accelerate compensation, which
we are very keen to do.
The hon. Lady will know that the latest figures were quoted
yesterday at the Select Committee hearing. On the group
litigation order scheme, for example, 106 full claims have been
submitted, 104 offers have been made, and 80 have been accepted
without reference to the independent panel, which would tend to
indicate that the offers being made are fair. The hon. Lady will
also recognise from the announcements that we made on Monday
during the statement that we have introduced a £450,000 interim
compensation figure for when people submit their full claim for
the overturned convictions. When an offer is made, we will
provide 80% of that initial offer to claimants in the GLO
scheme.
Interestingly, Henry Staunton seemed to think that the biggest
concern with the compensation schemes was around the overturned
convictions—he clearly said that yesterday—when the hon. Lady and
every Member of this House knows that we announced legislation on
Monday, and previously, that will overturn the convictions en
masse, which is unprecedented. Obviously, that is the key to
unlocking compensation. For all those reasons, we should not take
Henry Staunton’s evidence at face value.
(Hertford and Stortford)
(Con)
Mr Staunton continues to insist that he was told to delay
compensation for the postmasters, but at the Select Committee
hearing yesterday he said that, unlike his own notes, the
published notes of the meeting with were not contemporaneous. Can
the Minister undertake to provide a contemporaneous note of that
conversation to put this accusation to bed once and for all?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her work on the
Select Committee. It is one thing to criticise Ministers, but
entirely another to sully the good name of a civil servant.
has been very clear in her
letter that she published on this matter that Mr Staunton is
wrong. She has also been very clear that she has contemporaneous
notes of that meeting, and we will be publishing those notes that
will clarify and back up the fact that Henry Staunton is wrong
and that is right.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
What we saw yesterday was unedifying and, at points, a fiasco.
Sub-postmasters watching will have rightly been dismayed and will
have felt that, if anything, they were moving further away from
justice. The ongoing conflict at the top of the Post Office and
the failure of the Government to get a grip is helping no one and
is only further eroding trust in this process. The Secretary of
State should reflect on how her approach to the news of recent
weeks has only exacerbated that. We, and especially victims, have
all had enough of the “He said, she said”. Does the Minister now
recognise that the best way to end this is by fully clarifying
what the Government have or have not said, through an independent
Cabinet Office investigation?
May I also pick up on some very worrying evidence given yesterday
by Carl Creswell, the director of business resilience in the
Department for Business and Trade? When talking about the
financial provisions set aside for Horizon compensation, he
said:
“I personally think we will end up spending more money on
compensation overall than that £1 billion figure, which was
modelled at an earlier stage.”
That is incredibly serious. Does the Minister share that view
held by one of his senior civil servants? If so, what
conversations has he had with Government colleagues and will we
see that reflected in next week’s Budget?
Will the Minister clarify whether he or the Secretary of State
were aware that Nick Read was also under investigation, as was
allegedly stated in the 80-page document referred to by Henry
Staunton in yesterday’s Select Committee hearing? In response to
me during an urgent question on 29 January, the Minister said
that Henry Staunton’s sacking was not due to a falling out, but
that it was
“about very serious governance issues related to the person who
headed the board of the organisation, which are obviously
confidential human resources issues.”[—[Official Report, 29
January 2024; Vol. 744, c.
612.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=744&ColumnNumber=612&House=1)
Will the Minister confirm whether he had sight of the
confidential human resources report referred to in yesterday’s
Select Committee hearing? If so, why was he selective in his
update to the House?
Finally, it is very important to make sure that we restore trust,
by urgently bringing forward legislation. I hope that, unlike
yesterday’s unseemly events, our focus can return to making sure
that we exonerate the sub-postmasters and deliver the recompense
that they rightly deserve.
When the hon. Lady says that I was “selective” about what I said,
is she accusing me of being economical with the truth? If so, I
would take exception to that. It would be absolutely wrong for
anybody in this House to disclose information about an
investigation that has not concluded and where the presumption of
innocence must apply for the individuals concerned. If she thinks
I should come to this House to talk about those kind of
sensitive, confidential matters, she does not understand how the
corporate world works.
rose—
I will not give way, as I am answering the hon. Lady’s
question.
Mr Speaker
This is not a debate.
I did find what happened yesterday unedifying, but that was about
one person; everybody else who gave evidence yesterday was clear
that there was no sense ever of trying to slow down compensation.
Neither do I think the hon. Lady is right to say that postmasters
are further away from getting compensation; it is quite the
opposite. To imply that and so raise questions about the
compensation scheme could lead to people not coming forward. We
welcome the fact that 1,000 more people have come forward since
the ITV series. People are closer to compensation, not further
away, and the actions we are taking, through the compensation
advisory board, the overturning of convictions, the Horizon
shortfall scheme, which is nearly completed, and the GLO scheme
are all moving on. If she wants to end the, “He said, she said”,
perhaps she should end it, because we want to move on and pay
compensation.
As for the figure of £1 billion, is the hon. Lady saying it is
serious if we have no cap on compensation? I do not think that is
serious at all; of course we have no cap on compensation. The £1
billion is a maximum budget, but if that needs to be increased,
it should be. If she is saying that we should not increase it if
people deserve more, she should put that on the record. It would
be an entirely irresponsible thing to do. Every time I have dealt
with this matter over the Dispatch Box with shadow Ministers, it
has been constructive and collaborative, and I resent the tone
she has taken in this case.
Mr Speaker
Let me say, in fairness to the Minister, that he has come here on
more occasions than anybody else I have known. He has absolutely
ensured that the House has been kept informed—he goes without
question on this.
(Rugby) (Con)
I commend the Minister, not only for the consistent and
compassionate approach he has taken to this matter, but for his
attendance at yesterday’s session. It lasted for five hours and
he was there for the greater part of it. He is right to say that
much of what we heard yesterday was a real distraction from the
key objective of the Government and the Committee of making sure
there is speedy compensation for our postmasters. It was clear
that the former chairman and possibly the chief executive
exhibited limitations in their roles and were perhaps unsuitable
for the roles to which they were appointed, so are there any
broader lessons we might deduce on how we go about recruitment
for publicly owned organisations such as the Post Office?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work on the
Select Committee. He is a doughty champion in this area and many
others relating to the Committee’s work. There are some lessons
we need to learn; the Post Office certainly requires the right
kind of skills and the right kind of person to turn it around.
That is clearly a work in progress and I do not think people will
be confident that that is happening until it has actually
happened. Words are no longer enough; we need actions, be it on
the turnaround of the Post Office or on the compensation
schemes.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for joining us for most of the five
hours of hearings yesterday, but he will know as well as I do
that what we saw yesterday was complete chaos at the top of the
Post Office, when what we needed was a clarity of purpose about
paying redress fast and fairly. Not a single witness yesterday
said that they were satisfied with the speed of any one of the
three processes. In fact, the lawyers for the claimants said that
it may now take one to two years in order to complete the payment
of redress, and we heard evidence of offers being made that were,
frankly, insultingly low. That is true across each of the three
schemes.
Most worryingly, we heard that the Post Office chief executive
had not had regularly meetings with the Secretary of State or
received a clear written instruction to accelerate every one of
the three schemes; there were no deadlines and no targets, and
there are no incentives to get the redress schemes done and
dusted. That is not good enough. Will the Minister again reflect,
when he brings his Bill before the House, on the need to
eliminate the Post Office from this process to the maximum
possible extent and ensure that there are a legally binding set
of timescales under which claims are given the information they
need and processed, with offers made and offers settled? I say
that, because we cannot go on like this.
I do think the chaos was caused by one individual. I sat through
the whole session; for the bit I was not in the room with the
right hon. Gentleman, I was watching on television. It is right
for people to be able to say that they are not satisfied with the
speed of compensation. I have said that time and time again from
this Dispatch Box, and we are keen to accelerate the process and
make sure it is fast and fair.
We are aware of the recommendations from the right hon. Member
for North Durham (Mr Jones) on an appeals mechanism for some of
the schemes where people feel the compensation is too low. We are
looking and will continue to look at that. Every compensation
scheme I have dealt with, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland
global restructuring group scheme and the Lloyds-HBOS scheme, has
been too slow, because of some of the complexity involved. We
heard some good suggestions yesterday about how we might remove
some of that complexity, which I am very keen to do. We heard
some positive remarks from the individuals concerned, for
example, from some of the solicitors, and from the Post Office on
the fixed-sum awards—the £650,000 for the overturned convictions
and the £75,000 for the GLO scheme. We heard how that was
reducing the amount of disclosure that was required—that is one
of the limiting factors. This should mean that the timescales
that some people put on the table of one to two years should be
rapidly reduced, and I am very keen to build on that work.
As the CEO confirmed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham,
Hodge Hill () yesterday, I meet him every
month, and we speak about the need to accelerate compensation
every single time. We have targets for when to pay the
compensation by: August for GLO cases, and for all cases ideally
by the end of the year. As we heard yesterday, 1,000 new
claimants have come forward since the ITV series, which makes it
difficult to put deadlines on payment. I am aware that the right
hon. Gentleman wants a legally binding target. I am happy to
discuss that with him, but we have just removed one legally
binding target because not everything within the process is
within our gift.
(Watford) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend has a passion to get this right, and
to right the wrongs of the past. Does he agree that we must do
all that we can to ensure that sub-postmasters who were victims
of the awful Horizon scandal are exonerated, and compensated
fully, fairly and with haste?
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue as one of my
predecessors; I know that he was as keen as I am to ensure that
full and fair compensation is paid to all individuals. As I said,
there is no limit to the amount of compensation that we will set
aside to ensure that people are compensated properly for this
horrendous scandal.
(Gordon) (SNP)
In the week that we heard that more than 250 postmasters whose
lives and reputations were damaged by Post Office Ltd died before
they could get justice, yesterday we found another layer of Post
Office Ltd’s organisational dysfunction. On 19 February, the
Secretary of State informed the House of bullying accusations
against Mr Staunton, only for us to find out yesterday that those
accusations related to another individual entirely. Could I first
ask the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect—not just
for the manner in which he goes about his business with regard to
the Horizon scandal—whether the Secretary of State misled the
House by telling Members that Mr Staunton was under wider
investigation for bullying? Secondly, will the Minister now
respond positively to requests from the Scottish Government and
the Northern Irish Executive to reconsider introducing
legislation that could lead to a swift UK-wide exoneration for
the postmasters affected?
To be clear, we terminated Mr Staunton’s role as chair of the
Post Office not because of bullying accusations. There was an
80-page report, which he referred to yesterday, and which I have
not read. He freely admitted in yesterday’s evidence session that
he was named in that report. To what extent, I do
not—[Interruption.] Well, that is what Mr Staunton said; he said
that it was to a very minor extent. I do not know that, I do not
think the hon. Gentleman knows that, and I think we should wait
for the investigation to conclude before we make a judgment on
that. The point was not about the allegation itself; the point
was that, as Mr Staunton admitted yesterday, he interfered with
the investigation. That is unacceptable, and if we had not acted
in the way that we did, I think that the hon. Gentleman and
others would be calling us to account for why we did not act when
somebody had tried to suspend or interfere with an investigation
into his own conduct.
I am aware of the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments’
position on legislation. Of course we will continue to discuss
that with them. There are some separate devolved issues around
the judicial systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is
the reason we have done it differently. We are happy to continue
our dialogue on it.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
From my time as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the
Department, I know the determination of the Minister and the
Secretary of State to get compensation to these wronged
postmasters as quickly as possible. In yesterday’s Select
Committee session, Mr Staunton spoke about lobbying for a pay
rise for Mr Read, which I know must have been quite galling to
many of the sub-postmasters. The Minister reportedly refused to
grant that pay rise. What sort of pay rise did Mr Staunton think
would be a fair, equitable agreement at that time?
I think on two occasions Mr Staunton lobbied for a pay increase
for Mr Read. He sought to double the overall package of Mr Read
on those occasions.
(Wansbeck) (Lab)
Yesterday’s Committee meeting was bizarre in many ways. It was
five hours long and, as happens only rarely, the people in front
of the inquiry had to swear on the Holy Bible. That is how bad it
was. The recently dismissed former chairman revealed a number of
things that were quite alarming. First, he revealed that the
current chief executive is under investigation. Perhaps the
Minister can explain why we were not aware of that. Secondly, he
revealed that the current chief executive had threatened to
resign on more than four occasions, not because of the lack of
progress on any financial redress for postmasters and
postmistresses, but because he said his wages were too low. The
chief executive also said that he was proud that he had a
hardship fund for workers in the Post Office. Can the Minister
clarify whether there has been an approach by anyone on behalf of
the current chief executive for a pay rise, and what the response
was?
First, may I correct the record? In response to the Chair of the
Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for
Birmingham, Hodge Hill (), I said that the fixed sum
award was £650,000; it is £600,000.
It would be wrong to disclose an investigation into somebody’s
conduct before that investigation had concluded. It would be
extraordinary to do that in any work context, be it in the public
or private sector. I am happy to have a conversation with the
hon. Member for Wansbeck () about the hardship fund. If he is talking about the
Post Office paying salaries to postmasters, most postmasters are
self-employed, not paid a salary directly, and have a number of
different streams of income into their business. These are
businesses in their own right, of course, but there is a hardship
fund for certain postmasters in certain situations.
(North East Hertfordshire)
(Con)
I echo the comments about the Minister and his assiduous work on
this issue, both as a Back Bencher and now as the Minister. Does
he agree that perhaps it is necessary to look at how many people
are working on the compensation scheme on the Post Office’s side?
I have raised the matter with him before. A lot of it is expert
work, but if anything can be done to build the resource, that
would be helpful, particularly for my constituent, whom we have
discussed before. On disciplinary and grievance procedures, is it
not normal that they are private until the point when a decision
is made?
On the last point, my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely
right; he clearly understands these situations very well. They
should of course be kept confidential, which is why it was highly
unprofessional of Mr Staunton to say what he said yesterday. On
my right hon. and learned Friend’s first point—I cannot remember
what it was now.
Resource—getting more lawyers in.
We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the
resources available to settle compensation claims quickly.
Certainly, a file note that I took away from yesterday’s session
was about the number of individuals looking after compensation
from Addleshaw Goddard’s end, although it is turning around the
offers increasingly quickly. Responses to full claims now happen
within 40 days in 85% of cases. There has been an improvement. We
are keen to ensure that every part of the process has the
resources it needs to pay the compensation fairly and
quickly.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Surely what we saw yesterday was a glimpse of senior management
in the Post Office who are now completely dysfunctional. As such,
it is difficult to see how anyone can have confidence in their
administration of the various compensation schemes. Would it not
be a sensible first step to restore confidence in that most
important national institution—the Post Office—to take all role
for them out of the administration of the compensation schemes
and appoint an independent commissioner? Nothing starts to get
better for the Post Office until the schemes are successfully
delivered and wound up.
I think what we actually heard and saw was a dysfunctional former
chair of the Post Office; that is what we saw. Interestingly, to
the right hon. Gentleman’s point about compensation schemes, the
former chair said at one point during his evidence that he had no
concerns about the speed of delivery of the HSS—which was
extraordinary, because I have many concerns about it.
I hear loud and clear calls from across the House about the role
that the Post Office is playing in compensation schemes. These
are sensitive matters, because people in the Post Office are
employed to manage and administer the compensation schemes. I
hear the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and
Shetland (Mr Carmichael) loud and clear. We are looking at it,
but I reassure him that all three schemes have independence in
them: an independent panel in the HSS; an independent panel and a
reviewer, Sir Ross Cranston, on the GLO scheme; and the
independence on the overturned convictions in Sir Gary
Hickinbottom. Both latter people are retired High Court judges,
which should give claimants and the right hon. Gentleman, I hope,
some confidence that the schemes will operate properly.
(Christchurch) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister has referred to Mr Staunton, who it
seems had serious character defects. How was he ever appointed in
the first place, and who provided the character references and
oversaw that appointment process? May we have an inquiry into
that?
Thankfully, not me. I have nothing against Mr Staunton
personally. He had a strong track record as the chair of various
large organisations, as he said yesterday. I think we would all
agree that the Post Office is a specific organisation with
specific challenges. Yesterday’s evidence from Ben Tidswell, the
senior independent director, was interesting. He felt that Mr
Staunton’s behaviour changed in November last year and became far
more “erratic”—his word. I do not know the reasons for that
specifically, although Mr Tidswell suggested some yesterday.
Whatever the reason, Mr Staunton’s recent conduct is not
consistent with remaining chair of the Post Office. That is why
we decided to act.
(Middlesbrough) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for his work in this area. He has been
assiduous in his attention to detail—I cannot say the same of the
Secretary of State. Nevertheless, yesterday was unedifying, and
we are sick to death of the “He said, she said” business—we are
not interested, except that two witnesses yesterday took the oath
and spoke to the same issue: as to whether Mr Read had ever
tendered his resignation or threatened to. It was totally
conflicting evidence from the two people; they both cannot be
right, so I suggest that one might have been a little economical
with the truth. From Dr Neil Hudgell, though, the message came
loud and clear: these schemes are way too “over-engineered” and
far too “bureaucratic”, and that has led to the delay in getting
the money out of the door. I have to correct the Minister—only
20% of the fund is out of the door as yet. We have to speed it
up.
Finally, I ask him to take on board the words of the predecessor
Select Committee, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Committee, in February 2022, which said that the best way through
this was to remove the Post Office from the system. Now, it may
be too late to do that, but my goodness, was not the Committee
right to say that? Can we find ways to relegate the role of the
Post Office, because that is the only way we will get justice for
postmasters? Ultimately, that is what this is about—getting them
compensated.
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s final point, and a
number of the points he made. It is fair to say that on the
compensation schemes, we could use the old phrase, “If you were
going there, you wouldn’t start from here.” I think that Sir Wyn
Williams has said that, but the best way now is to say, “When
you’re going through hell, keep going.” We have to improve the
schemes we have got. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point
about the Post Office, and he will have heard what I said
earlier. I think the fixed-sum awards do take the Post Office out
of the schemes completely, because no disclosure is required for
them.
On tendering resignation—again, I thought it was extraordinary
that a chair would disclose confidential and private
conversations that he has had with the chief executive. I have to
say for the record that Mr Read has never tendered his
resignation to me or to the Secretary of State. Others would be
better than me to comment on the nature of those conversations,
but I do not think that it was right for Mr Staunton to comment
at all.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State has given
me 100% support in everything I have done in trying to address
these matters. I accept what Neil Hudgell said—I spoke to him
afterwards, and we have spoken before about the schemes being
over-engineered—and he suggested some ways to try to accelerate
compensation. We are of course looking at those to see what the
best way is to ensure that they are not over-engineered, but
deliver rapid and fair outcomes as quickly as possible.
(North Antrim) (DUP)
My primary interest is in compensation payments being made
expeditiously across the entire United Kingdom, and in Northern
Ireland in particular, where I have been lobbied directly by a
number of the sub-postmasters who have been treated so vilely.
After the statement of 10 January, I asked whether the Minister
would ensure that no delays would be allowed whatever, and he
affirmed from the Dispatch Box that that was exactly the
Government’s intention. Will he reaffirm that no delays will be
allowed, irrespective of the devolution settlement in Northern
Ireland? No devolved Minister or devolved court was involved at
that time. Will he reaffirm that the payments will be made, and
that our sub-postmasters will not have to wait a day longer than
anyone else?
I will be very pleased to ensure that that happens. I met the
Northern Ireland Justice Minister virtually a few days ago to
discuss these matters. I know that the Northern Ireland
Administration’s preference is for UK-wide legislation; we do not
think that is the right approach, but we will continue to work
with the Administration to ensure that they can deliver the right
legislation or process to make sure that the compensation is
paid. Clearly, once convictions are overturned anywhere in the
United Kingdom, people enter exactly the same compensation
scheme—they can get rapid compensation through the fixed-sum
award of £600,000, or go through the full assessment process. We
are determined to make the process quicker, easier and fairer. I
am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that that is
the case.
Dame (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on the Horizon scandal, and for
answering my letter concerning a constituent. In that answer, he
confirmed that former post office clerks and those working for a
franchise who lost money, jobs and reputation through the Horizon
scandal are not eligible for compensation under the current
scheme. Will he look into ways to include them in a compensation
scheme?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for representing her
constituents so effectively. I am keen to have continued
conversation with her. All the schemes that have been established
thus far require a contractual relationship between the Post
Office and the individual, and I know that was not the case for
her constituent. A number of Members of this House have addressed
the issue, and we will continue to look at it.
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
Whether we are talking about my constituent Roger, a former
postmaster whose case certainly needs review, constituents in
communities such as Clarkston and Neilston, who have experienced
the most recent post office closures in East Renfrewshire, or the
brilliant postmasters operating locally, none of them deserves
this mess. This is turning into a regrettable circus to all
looking in from the outside. What assurances can the Minister
give me today that that will not be allowed to divert or distract
from a genuine focus on the swiftest possible resolution, and on
delivering a sustainable future for the Post Office?
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point and for representing
her constituents so well. Yes, absolutely, we understand that
this is distracting, or could distract, from work to ensure not
just that we make right the wrongs of the past, but that the Post
Office has a strong future, as she put it. I totally agree. We
think that the Post Office does have a strong future. Revenue
streams have been affected by changes in how and where people
acquire certain things or access certain services, but the
banking framework—we encourage the Post Office to be more
ambitious in its negotiations with the banks on the remuneration
that flows from the framework to postmasters—and the parcel hubs
are an opportunity for the future. We believe that the Post
Office has a strong brand and strong future. We are keen to
support its efforts to ensure that the future is bright for all
postmasters.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon advisory board.
Welcome back to the Minister. He should bring in his sleeping
bag—he is here that often. I was at the five-hour marathon
yesterday, and I was totally unconvinced by Henry Staunton’s
accusations, and his allegations about delaying compensation.
Like the hon. Member for Christchurch ( ), I wonder why Mr
Staunton was appointed in the first place—to any board, for that
matter. However, to come to the point, Mr Staunton did raise the
point that the chief executive is under investigation, following
an 80-page report. I accept that the Minister cannot talk about
that individual—that would be wrong—but he knows that the culture
at the Post Office is rotten, and it is important that the cloud
be lifted quickly. When the Secretary of State came to the House
on 19 February, did she and the Minister know that Nick Read was
under investigation? Is it true that the former HR director who
wrote that report has left the Post Office with a settlement, and
does that settlement include a non-disclosure agreement?
I am very happy to come to the Dispatch Box any time I am
required to, or feel that there is a need to, which, as the right
hon. Gentleman says, is quite often at the moment.
I was aware of the investigation relating to Mr Read and Mr
Staunton. That was not the reason why the Secretary of State
decided to part company with the chair; that was about
interfering with the investigation. The right hon. Gentleman asks
about the HR director. I do not know about those matters, but I
am happy to look into them and come back to him.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister will agree that everything we are
seeing and hearing about the Post Office inquiry is further
undermining the confidence of those who were affected by the
Horizon scandal. As the Minister says, 1,000 more people have
come forward; they have no more confidence than anyone else in
the governance of the Post Office. One of them, a constituent of
mine, had been with the Post Office for almost 20 years, and was
about to be offered redundancy. She was asked to take over a
sub-post office for two months to make up the 20 years. During
those two months, she became embroiled in the Horizon scandal.
She was not charged, because her Post Office managers pleaded on
her behalf, but she lost her redundancy, and she is now
completely confused about where she stands, and has no faith in
the governance to fix the problem. Is the Minister prepared to
meet me to discuss that case, so that I can assure my constituent
that it is being dealt with?
Yes, of course I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and
her constituent. Given what the hon. Lady has said, the place for
her constituent to go is the Horizon shortfall scheme, which will
be happy to look at that particular situation. Of the 2,417
people who applied to the original scheme, 100% have had offers
and 84% have accepted those offers, so she can be assured that
there will be fairness. We are looking to ensure that the scheme
is fair and is seen to be fair.
The other schemes are also delivering outcomes more quickly than
they were. There were 106 claims in the group litigation order
scheme; 80 offers have been accepted, and compensation for
overturned convictions is a fixed-sum award of £600,000. The fact
that 1,000 people have come forward for compensation since the
ITV series indicates that people do have confidence that they
will be compensated fairly, but I absolutely understand that we
have work to do to ensure that people feel that way across the
board.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has been incredibly honest and forthright in all his
answers, and we have every faith in him, given his conduct and
all the information he has brought to the Chamber, for which I
thank him. As locally elected representatives, we are accountable
to our electorates. How will the Minister ensure that those who
are paid from Government funds are accountable in the same way?
What more can be done to hold those decision-makers to
account?
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. On the
point about Government funds, I guess that he is referring to
executives in the Post Office. Clearly, that is the Government’s
responsibility as the single shareholder. We have a
representative on the board in Lorna Gratton from UKGI, in whom I
have a great deal of confidence. I think it fair to say that my
Department and its officials have learned a lot from the process
and from what has gone on, and that is right. We should be clear
that mistakes have happened, and apologise for the way that they
have contributed to the scandal.
I am very keen to ensure that there is continued accountability.
We have, at significant expense to the taxpayer, set up the
public inquiry, which was called for by Members across the House.
It will take evidence in public, so that the public can see what
is happening, and will conclude by the end of this year and
report next year. We will then have a lot more answers to the
hon. Gentleman’s question, as well as accountability not just for
Post Office executives in future, but for Post Office executives
of previous years.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
That concludes proceedings on the urgent question. I thank the
Minister for his now daily appearance, as well as the Opposition
Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow ().
