The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
(Kevin Hollinrake) With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a
statement about Post Office legislation and the Horizon redress
schemes. I am very pleased to be able to announce that today we are
introducing a new Bill that will quash the convictions of
postmasters in England and Wales affected by the Horizon scandal.
As set out in my written statement last month, this legislation
will quash all convictions...Request free trial
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about Post
Office legislation and the Horizon redress schemes.
I am very pleased to be able to announce that today we are
introducing a new Bill that will quash the convictions of
postmasters in England and Wales affected by the Horizon scandal.
As set out in my written statement last month, this legislation
will quash all convictions that meet a clear set of conditions.
Those in scope will have their convictions quashed on the day
that the new legislation is brought into force. Subject to
parliamentary passage, our aim is for Royal Assent to be received
as soon as possible before the summer recess.
We accept, and have always been clear, that the legislation may
overturn the convictions of some people who are guilty of genuine
wrongdoing, but we believe this is a price worth paying to ensure
that many innocent people are exonerated. However, the Government
will seek to mitigate the risk of people receiving financial
redress when they have not been wronged.
The Government also accept that this legislation is
unprecedented. It is an exceptional response to a factually
exceptional situation. I want to be clear that this does not set
a precedent, and neither is it a criticism of the judiciary or
the courts, which have dealt swiftly with matters brought before
them. The fact remains, however, that three years after the first
convictions were overturned, only around 100 have been quashed.
Without Government intervention, many of these convictions could
not be overturned, either because all the evidence has long been
lost or because, quite simply, postmasters have lost faith in the
state and the criminal justice system, and will not come forward
to seek justice.
The legislation will apply to England and Wales only. However, we
are fully committed to working with the Scottish Government and
the Northern Ireland Executive through regular, weekly
official-level engagement to progress their own approaches. I
have met my counterparts in the Scottish Government and the
Northern Ireland Executive to offer support and address their
concerns, and I will have further meetings. The financial redress
scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, once
convictions have been overturned.
I thank the Business and Trade Committee, which recently
published a report that includes some recommendations for the
Government regarding Horizon redress. We will respond to them in
the usual way, but today I would like to address two of the
Committee’s recommendations. The first is that responsibility for
redress should not lie with the Post Office, as it should be
subject to independent oversight—something that has also been
recommended to us by the Horizon compensation advisory board. I
can announce today that the Department for Business and Trade,
rather than the Post Office, will be responsible for the delivery
of redress for overturned convictions. Final decisions on redress
will be made by independent panels or independent
individuals.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall return to the House at
a later date to provide details on how we intend to deliver
redress for those who have their convictions overturned by the
Bill or via subsequent measures taken in Scotland and Northern
Ireland. We are discussing the details with the advisory board.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the
Member for Mid Worcestershire (), will introduce
legislation to make any payments made via the new scheme exempt
from tax.
Secondly, the Select Committee recommended that the Government
introduce legally binding timeframes to deliver redress for
sub-postmasters, with financial penalties for non-compliance. I
strongly support the Committee’s desire to speed up redress, but
we feel that its proposed regime would have the opposite impact.
It would potentially mean imposing penalties on forensic
accountants or others who are helping postmasters to prepare
their claims. Doing that would probably cause some of them to
withdraw from this work, which would slow down the delivery of
redress. Furthermore, we do not want to be in the position of
rushing postmasters into major decisions about their claims and
the offers they receive, which would possibly mean that some are
timed out of redress altogether. The advisory board has said that
its “strong view” is that
“this would be a backward step”,
which is why we passed legislation less than two months ago to
remove the arbitrary deadline from the group litigation order
scheme. We do not want to reverse that change.
However, the Government are acting to ensure that redress is
delivered as quickly as possible. First, we are working with
claimants’ lawyers to reduce the number of cases that require
expert evidence—for example, from forensic accountants—or medical
evidence, which delays claims. We will pilot that approach and,
assuming that the pilot succeeds, we hope to expand it
rapidly.
Secondly, the advisory board and I have asked for monthly reports
on each scheme. They will come from schemes’ independent case
managers, where such managers are in place. We will publish the
reports, which will give us the best basis on which to assess
measures for speeding up redress.
Finally, we are introducing optional fixed-sum awards. In
January, the Government announced that they would offer an
optional fixed-sum award of £75,000 to those in the group
litigation order scheme. As of 5 March, 110 offers have been
accepted, and over 100 people have taken the £75,000 fixed
payment. Of those who have accepted the fixed payment, three
quarters are new claimants, so the fixed offer has already meant
that over 100 claims have been resolved promptly. In some cases,
those people will have got more than they would have asked for.
The fixed offer has also had a helpful effect on other claims,
because it substantially reduces work on small claims by
claimants’ lawyers, making more resource available to progress
larger claims more quickly.
I am pleased to announce today that the £75,000 fixed-sum award
offer will now be extended to the Horizon shortfall scheme, to
ensure that everyone is treated fairly across all the schemes.
Those who have already settled their claim below £75,000 will be
offered a top-up to bring their total redress to that amount;
over 2,000 postmasters will benefit quickly from this
announcement.
We are mindful that claims are not being submitted to the GLO
scheme as swiftly as we would like. We have already announced the
optional fixed-sum award of £75,000, but to ensure that we get
help to claimants more quickly, I can announce today that anyone
who chooses not to take that offer, and instead submits a full
claim for individual assessment, will have their interim payment
topped up to £50,000 straight away.
Many postmasters’ lives have been ruined by the Horizon scandal,
and we are working hard to deliver redress. We have set up the
Williams inquiry, which will discover the truth. We will provide
fair financial redress as promptly as we can, and we will
exonerate those who were so unjustly convicted of crimes that
they did not commit. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
1.17pm
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Before I
respond to it, I would like to put on the record my deep
disappointment at the Minister’s comments this morning on “BBC
Breakfast”. He failed to categorically condemn the Tory party
donor Frank Hester’s horrific and racist remarks about the right
hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Despite No. 10 finally, after much delay, describing the remarks
as “racist and wrong”, the Minister appeared to contradict that
position this morning.
(North West Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a statement on Post
Office legislation. May I respectfully say that what the hon.
Lady is saying is irrelevant to this statement?
Mr Speaker
The shadow Minister will be moving on.
I will move on. I simply hope that the Minister will reflect on
the reversal of the statement he gave this morning, in which he
took the position that he would take a donation from that donor.
I hope he reflects on the impact that the issue is having on many
of us.
I turn to today’s crucial statement. The Horizon scandal is truly
shocking, and is one of the most devastating miscarriages of
justice in British history. The scandal has brought devastation
to the lives of hundreds of falsely convicted sub-postmasters.
Over 20 years on, they and their families still suffer from the
consequences and the trauma of all that they have been put
through. I pay tribute to them for their determination in
pursuing justice, and to Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters who
pioneered the campaign and worked tirelessly to seek justice.
Without their bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be
where it is today. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the
Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work, to for his campaigning on this
issue for many years, to others in this House and the other
House, and to members of the Business and Trade Committee and its
Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill
().
We of course welcome the legislation that is being laid before
Parliament today, but before giving a full verdict on it, we will
need to properly scrutinise the details and analyse its potential
impacts. In the first instance, the legislation leaves a series
of outstanding issues, and the question of when justice and
compensation will be delivered, and to whom. First, I will
address the territorial scope of the legislation, which currently
applies only to England and Wales, even though the Post Office is
not devolved, and the Horizon system and the impacts of the
scandal are UK-wide.
Approximately 30 cases need overturning in Scotland and Northern
Ireland, but a series of outstanding questions remain as to when
sub-postmasters in Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland
will receive justice and compensation. I welcome the Minister’s
assurance that there will be regular dialogue with the devolved
Administrations, but I would be grateful if he provided more
detail on how that will work in practice, given the different
legal processes.
As we know, 80% of the redress budget is yet to be paid out.
There remains considerable uncertainty about when sub-postmasters
will receive their compensation. I am sure that we can all agree
that they have waited long enough, and the delays are causing
further financial distress and suffering. We note the Business
and Trade Committee’s recommendation that there be a legally
binding timeframe for the period between an offer being first
tabled and a settlement being reached. If those legally binding
targets are not adopted, what assurances can the Minister give
that he will meet his target of ensuring that all compensation is
out of the door by the end of the year? What mechanisms will he
put in place to ensure that there are no further delays? I know
that he is committed to ensuring that there are no further
delays, but sub-postmasters will want to know that this will
actually happen.
Given the recent chaos in the Post Office’s leadership, we
welcome the decision to take the Post Office out of the redress
process. As the Minister said, redress must have independent
oversight. The Post Office is in disarray, and we need focus and
efficiency in ensuring that compensation is paid to the
sub-postmasters as soon as possible.
Financial redress alone cannot come close to repaying
sub-postmasters for their suffering, though it is so important
that we get it right. The very least the Government can do is
ensure that sub-postmasters receive fair compensation and
exoneration as soon as possible. There are those impacted by the
scandal who have sadly passed away, and did not live to see their
innocence proven or to receive the compensation that they
deserved. It is vital that the Government act with the urgency
and speed that is needed to correct this terrible injustice.
The shadow Minister’s comments are on the record, so I shall deal
with them briefly. I think this is the second time she has made
comments at the Dispatch Box that have been unfair or factually
incorrect, and I hope that she will correct the record. If she
had actually watched the interview I gave, she would know that I
absolutely did condemn the words of Mr Hester. I said they were
wrong. I said they were racist, and I think it is absolutely
right that he has apologised. She should watch the full
broadcast, and I hope that she will apologise to the House and
correct the record.
The points that the hon. Lady raised pertain largely to the
Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved Administrations. I quite
understand the concern around those issues, and I am very keen to
ensure that we get this right across the United Kingdom. As she
acknowledges, there are different legal processes in those areas,
and we think it would be inappropriate for us to legislate for
parts of the United Kingdom that have different legal processes
and different prosecutors. Justice is devolved, although the Post
Office is a UK-wide organisation, as she rightly says. That is
why we think the legislation should allow devolved
Administrations to legislate for themselves, if they choose to.
We will work closely with them. Officials meet them weekly to
assist wherever we can, so that compensation can be delivered
UK-wide; that is how the scheme operates.
I think the hon. Lady said that 80% of compensation was yet to be
delivered. I may be wrong there, so I will check the record.
Across all the schemes, in around two thirds of cases, full and
final compensation has already been received. That being the
case, about 2,000 people will be topped up to £75,000, as I
announced earlier, but it is not right to say, as I think she
did, that the majority of people are waiting for
compensation.
The hon. Lady asked whether we wanted to deliver the compensation
by the end of the year. Absolutely we do, but as I said, not
everything is in our gift. We cannot compel a claimant to submit
a claim, or know when that will happen. If somebody puts in a
claim right towards the end of the year, for example, it may not
be possible to deal with it before the end of the year. Not
everything is in our gift, but we are keen to expedite anything
that is.
It is absolutely critical that we have independent oversight; all
schemes have it. In the overturned conviction scheme, we have
retired High Court judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom, and the £600,000
fixed-sum award; but on Mr Hickinbottom’s advice, we have also
introduced the £450,000 payment as soon as a full claim has been
submitted. We are doing everything we can to make sure that
people are compensated as quickly as possible.
(Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the pragmatic way that he
has looked to speed up claims, and to take this in-house as best
he can. I also welcome the proposed legislation, and the
extension of the £75,000 to those in the historical shortfall
scheme. I point the Minister to an article in The Times this
morning about people who may reportedly be excluded from the
legislation. Can he give any assurances that people who have gone
through this process and whose original conviction was based
substantially on the Horizon problems will indeed be exonerated
and therefore able to get compensation?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for his tireless
campaigning in this area, and for his tireless work as my
predecessor in this role. He did some great work to help us get
where we are today. He is right to say there are some people who
are not exonerated through this process—for example, people who
have been before the Court of Appeal—but they will be able to
appeal again in the light of our legislation. Of course, they had
the right to do that anyway, but we will support them where we
can in bringing forward their case to the Court of Appeal, and we
very much hope that innocent people who follow that process will
be exonerated.
Mr Speaker
We come to Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for being slightly late. I
thank the Minister for giving me prior sight of his statement. I
welcome the announcement of the legislation. It will hopefully go
a long way to speeding up full and fair financial redress for a
large number of Horizon victims, and will bring them closer to
justice. Furthermore, I welcome the enhanced financial redress
for those who experienced Horizon-related shortfalls, and the
fact that those who have already settled for less than £75,000
will have their redress topped up.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his hard work on this, to the
Horizon compensation advisory board for its sterling work, and to
Sir Wyn Williams and his inquiry for their ongoing work. Most of
all, I pay tribute to the victims, following the unimaginable
pain that they have been forced to endure at the hands of Post
Office Ltd and successive UK Governments. I hope that today’s
announcement can give them some hope, and that there is an end in
sight to this sorry chapter.
I welcome the administration of financial redress schemes being
taken out of the hands of Post Office Ltd —not before time. Post
Office Ltd has demonstrated obfuscation and incompetence at every
stage. From a Scottish perspective—I am sure my Northern Irish
colleagues will agree with me—I am deeply disappointed that the
legislation is confined to England and Wales only. That needs to
be addressed. We should include Scotland and Northern Ireland to
ensure parity. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign, but the
Scottish Parliament can be challenged on its legislation, and
this needs to be looked at.
The devolution process also risks slowing things down. Will the
Minister guarantee today that any relevant orders under section
104 of the Scotland Act 1998 will be processed quickly by his
Government? Scotland has no direct equivalent Minister for postal
affairs, as only Westminster and his Department have a remit for
the Post Office. Will he ensure that the Bill contains provisions
requiring Post Office Ltd to fully co-operate with the Scottish
Government and to supply all needed materials? It is vital that
victims in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not have to wait any
longer for justice than their English and Welsh counterparts.
Victims across these isles suffered enormously at the hands of a
wholly reserved institution, so complete parity is essential.
I thank the hon. Lady again for all her work in this area. She
has been a tireless campaigner. We would all like to be further
along, but she has made an important contribution to our
work.
The hon. Lady is right to say that victims should be front and
centre when it comes to compensation, which must be delivered
fairly and as quickly as possible. Some of the changes I have
announced today, including in my statement, have been brought
forward on the basis of feedback from victims and their legal
representatives. We are listening to them, and we will make sure
that we deliver any changes where we can.
I fully understand the hon. Lady’s point about Scotland and
Northern Ireland, and she will understand the constitutional
sensitivity of this area. These are tough decisions, and I
understand that Scottish Ministers will have to make similar
decisions. They can decide to do what we are doing and, if they
do, we will support them in how they legislate. Given the
sensitivities, we thought that, where justice is devolved, the
devolved Administrations should make the decision. I again commit
to making sure that we work across the piece, wherever we can, to
deliver the consistent compensation that she requires, without
forgetting that the redress schemes are UK-wide. As soon as
people’s convictions are overturned, they will be able to access
compensation, just as they can in England and Wales.
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Everyone wants to see the sub-postmasters’ suffering brought to
an end as swiftly as possible, and I welcome what the Minister
has said about simplifying and speeding up the compensation
scheme. He will know that claimant lawyers such as Neil Hudgell,
who gave evidence to the Business and Trade Committee, have real
expertise in this field, and I hope he will work very closely
with the sector to maximise that expertise in designing the
scheme.
I sound one note of caution. The Minister says this is
exceptional, and it is constitutionally unprecedented to
overturn, through legislation, convictions imposed by our courts
in good faith, based on the evidence before them at the time.
Frankly, it is most undesirable that we should ever go down that
route.
Some of us will need to see the detail of the legislation and
what evidence the Government have that it will be quicker and
more comprehensive to quash convictions via this constitutionally
unprecedented route, rather than leaving the courts to deal with
it, with assistance. As the Minister knows, this could have been
dealt with via a presumption in favour of sentences being quashed
where they depended on Horizon evidence, rather than this
wholesale measure. In particular, will he look at what impact it
will have on rehabilitation of offenders legislation, and at
whether convictions quashed by this Bill will be removed
effectively so that people can, for example, travel to the United
States or other foreign jurisdictions where they may need a visa,
for which they need to show that they do not have an outstanding
conviction?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and all his work on this
subject. Our engagement with him throughout the process has been
very important. He has much expertise in this area.
We agree that this is unprecedented and undesirable, but we
believe it is the least worst option. We want to see this
delivered more quickly as, of the 790 or so sub-postmasters whom
we believe this legislation will affect, only around 100
convictions have so far been overturned. We think that situation
is untenable, which is why we decided to take this route. Of
course, I will continue to work with him and listen to his wise
advice.
I think I am right in saying that, for convictions overturned by
the Court of Appeal, the record is marked “Overturned by the
Court of Appeal”. We foresee these records being marked in a
similar way—“Quashed by Parliament” or something along those
lines. Again, I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend to make
sure we get it right.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for the
collegiate way in which he is working across the House to try to
secure justice for those who have suffered.
This is a welcome step forward. I am glad to see the Minister
taking on board some of the recommendations made in the Business
and Trade Committee’s report last week, setting out how we can
deliver fair, fast and independent redress. The Government have
today proposed how they will overturn convictions. They have
taken the Post Office out of some, but not all, claim processing
and, crucially, they have increased the number of people who can
apply for fixed-term remuneration. However, the Post Office is
still handling the claims of at least 100 people with overturned
convictions when it is patently not fit for purpose.
For those who seek to contest their claim, the Minister says
there will be no legally binding timeframe between the submission
of a claim and an initial offer being made by his Department,
which is a problem. There is no standard tariff proposed for
compensation under key heads of terms, such as loss of
reputation. That, too, is a problem. The Bill is far more than a
half measure, that is true, but it is not yet a full
solution.
I leave the Minister with the words of Jo Hamilton, who messaged
me last night to highlight the plight of the GLO litigants, in
particular, and the way in which they
“have to justify every last penny even if some of their claim is
for actual monies stolen from them by the Post Office… Why can’t
the Government do the right thing before even more victims
die?”
Those words need to ring in our ears as we seek to perfect this
Bill.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and
collaboration. It is important that we listen to his Committee’s
recommendations and its very informative evidence sessions—I sat
through all five hours.
At this point, we believe the Post Office should continue its
work on the 100 or so cases before it. We currently have no
capacity in the Department to handle those claims, although we
clearly will by the time the Bill comes into effect. We do not
want to pause between the Bill coming into effect in July and
compensation payments being made. We think we can get those
payments to people in August using that route.
There may be some people left in the first tranche of overturned
convictions, for people who have been through the Court of
Appeal. We will certainly look at the Committee’s recommendations
on whether we should bring those cases back in-house or leave
them with the Post Office. We will keep an open mind on that.
We already have fixed timescales to respond to offers or service
level agreements in the GLO scheme. We commit to responding to
90% of full claims within 40 days of submission. I am happy to
look at how we might put some benchmarks in place to make sure
the new scheme has a similar speed of response. I am sure the
right hon. Gentleman heard what I said about our new pilots under
which lawyers can submit claims without forensic accountants and
medical reports. That may do something along the line he says,
and I will happily have an ongoing conversation with him.
Thus far, 128 of the 490 claims have been submitted to the GLO
scheme, and 110 of them have been settled. To my knowledge, only
one claim has gone to independent dispute resolution before going
to the independent panel, which hopefully indicates that,
generally, the offers are fair and have been accepted almost
straightaway.
I understand what Jo Hamilton says, and I met her to discuss some
of the processes she had to go through to prove her claim. We are
determined to reduce those frictions and evidence requirements,
certainly for things that are not essentially material. There are
three things that we have to get right in delivering
compensation: we have to be fair to the individuals and families
affected; we have to be fair to all the other sub-postmasters to
make sure there is consistency across the scheme; and, of course,
we have to be fair to the taxpayer. There is no cap on what we
will pay people, as long as it is fair.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statement to the House, as
it clearly moves things in the right direction for closure. I
have talked many times in this House about similar issues. The
Government have put £1 billion aside to deal with all this,
despite the fact that the Post Office has taken millions upon
millions off postmasters—innocent people. We have never had the
figure of what was taken, although I have asked for it before. I
want a second figure, because Fujitsu has said on the record that
it would help to compensate victims as well, by adding to the
remuneration pot. What progress have we made on making Fujitsu
pay also for being culpable in this fiasco?
I thank my hon. Friend for his regular contributions in this
area, as it is always good to have the views of the only former
serving postmaster in this House. We are looking to try to
identify the figure he refers to and we hope to come back to him
at some point; it is complicated, as a lot of these records go
back a long way. However, that is a body of work we are
undertaking with the Post Office. The Secretary of State had a
conversation yesterday with the global chief executive of
Fujitsu; we are keen to make sure that Fujitsu contributes and it
has already said that it will—it said it has a moral
responsibility to contribute. My hon. Friend mentions a figure of
£1 billion, but we do not know the final figure for compensation.
However, we would expect a significant element of it to come from
Fujitsu.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Like others, I thank the Minister for advance sight of his
statement but, novelly, I also thank him for advance sight of the
Government “top lines to take”. That latter document includes
this passage:
“So far we have identified up to around 800 cases that are
potentially in scope [Note: if we use this number in public we
are going to get held to it. There is a risk that we may deliver
fewer overturns or award redress”—
to—
“fewer individuals, we will then have to explain that]”.
If it is the view of officials in the Minister’s Department that
accountability and transparency are some sort of problem, does he
really think that they are best placed to exercise oversight of
the compensation scheme? Should that not be put now in the hands
of someone who is independent of both Government and the Post
Office?
The figure the right hon. Gentleman uses and the document he
references, which I was unaware he had, are interesting. Me being
me, I had not read that line, although my previous comments might
indicate that I had because I mentioned that exact figure. I am
not afraid to be transparent or accountable for any of the
delivery of these compensation schemes.
(North West Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all that he is doing, working
night and day to bring this painful issue to a conclusion for the
many postmasters and their families who have suffered so much
over so many years. Where people do not accept the fixed offer
but wish to pursue an individual claim, may I seek his assurance
that such claims will be treated expeditiously, and that
resources will be made available to deal with those claims
quickly and efficiently? Will he also give an assurance that
claimants will have a named individual responsible for their
file, rather than whoever happens to pick up the file on a
specific day?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and can absolutely
give him the assurance he seeks. A fixed-sum award is only one
route; it is not right for everybody. Some people have higher
levels of claims, and we will support them where we can. In my
remarks, I announced new measures we are using to do that,
including a pilot scheme where expert reports are not required.
That should significantly abbreviate the timescale between being
able to submit a claim and getting a response. As for expediting
in this area, in the GLO scheme we set a target that in 90% of
cases we would respond to a final claim within 40 days.
Currently, we are on 87% against that measure, so we are
delivering this more quickly. He makes an interesting point about
a named claim manager or something along those lines, and, if I
may, I will take that away with me.
(Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, the legislation and the removal of the
Post Office from the process to the extent that we have seen so
far. However, I do not think the Post Office is able to deal with
any claims credibly. I wrote to the Minister on 12 February about
my constituent who came forward after the TV programme. She had
had problems with Horizon, had agreed compensation with the Post
Office, which was way below what her losses were, and had signed
a non-disclosure agreement. At the time she had been dealing with
a terminally ill partner, who has since passed away, and so was
in no fit state to take on the Post Office. She is seriously out
of pocket, so I would expect her to be able to fall under the
Horizon shortfall scheme. I hope that the Minister will confirm
that in the letter he will doubtless send me.
I have not seen the letter the hon. Gentleman mentions yet, but I
look forward to it and I understand his points about the Post
Office handling claims. I am responding personally to every
letter I get on this matter from colleagues; we always do that,
but I am doing so even more on this occasion. I am sorry to hear
about his constituent and the situation she is in. If she has
accepted less than £75,000, she will get an automatic uplift to
£75,000. We are determined to ensure that, across every scheme,
people are treated fairly and feel that they are being treated
fairly, and I am keen to look at the hon. Gentleman’s letter and
make sure that is the case for his constituent.
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
I welcome this important new Bill. I know that the Minister and
his team have worked exceptionally hard to make it happen. Will
he join me in thanking Mr from Llanfair P.G., who worked
as a sub-postmaster in Llanfairpwll for 47 years, with a post
office service record of 60 years, for bringing together
sub-postmasters and those on Ynys Môn affected by this gross
miscarriage of justice to ensure that they receive the correct
support, compensation and, importantly, exoneration?
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this, and I
absolutely thank Mr Evans. We are here now because the victims of
this scandal are supporting each other, led of course by Alan
Bates. So I welcome Mr Evans’s work, and if I can assist him or
his group at all to make sure that they get compensated fairly,
whatever their circumstance within these schemes, I am happy to
do that.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
My constituent Mr Ennion ran the post office in Llandovery in
Carmarthenshire between 2000 and 2018. In a recent BBC interview
he estimated that he had lost about £75,000, and said that, in
addition, his health has deteriorated severely. He said he had no
faith in the Horizon shortfall scheme and making an application
to it, because he has not kept any records and because he just
does not think he is well enough to take on the Post Office for a
second time. I know that the Minister is working extremely hard,
and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done, but what more
can he do to encourage people such as Mr Ennion to make an
application through the scheme?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for
representing his constituent so effectively. I hope that what we
have announced today will be absolutely the right route for his
constituent, as it means he would not have to go through what can
be a complex process of submitting a detailed claim; he can
simply opt for the £75,000 fixed-sum award and walk away. There
is no claim form to be filled in—a simple letter needs to be
signed and that is it. If he feels he should be compensated for
more than that, he can go through the Horizon shortfall scheme.
That takes a little longer, but he will still end up with
compensation both for the financial impact and the impact on his
health. I am happy to help, wherever I can, with his case.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He promised the House that he
would bring forward legislation quickly, and he has done so.
However, I must express the disappointment of all Northern
Ireland representatives that Northern Ireland is not included in
the Bill, and the reasons that the Minister has given for that do
not stand up.
The Minister has argued that this is a sensitive constitutional
issue—it is not. The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister
and the Justice Minister have all made it clear that they would
be quite happy for Northern Ireland to be included in the
legislation. He has argued that the systems are different. There
have been many occasions when Northern Ireland has been included
in legislation here even though the judicial system is different.
This Bill is about exonerating people, not about interfering with
how the system works. The last thing he said was that including
Northern Ireland might slow down the legislation. Since the
legislation is going to go through the House following the normal
process, there is absolutely no reason why, as has happened on
previous occasions, he could not include a Northern Ireland
clause at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill.
I ask the Minister to look again at the arguments he has made,
because I do not think they stand up. There is a way forward to
ensure that those affected in Northern Ireland are treated in the
same way, and at the same time, as those in England and
Wales.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his contributions, and for
representing his constituents, and others in Northern Ireland,
who have been affected by the scandal. I understand his point and
am very sympathetic to it. We took a very difficult decision.
Clearly, we are happy to work with the authorities in Northern
Ireland. As I said in the statement, I have spoken to my
counterpart in Northern Ireland. We are today introducing a
10-clause, 10-page Bill, and we hope we have put together a
relatively straightforward piece of legislation. We are happy to
lend our support so that Northern Ireland is able to do the same
as we are doing, if that is the choice that is made. As he has
outlined, that is the political consensus in Northern Ireland,
which I welcome.
(North Down) (Alliance)
This is a national scandal that requires a national solution. As
has just been stated, the political leaders in Northern Ireland
are unanimous that they want Westminster to act in this sphere.
The Minister will not be stepping on anyone’s toes
constitutionally if he proceeds on that basis. The Justice
Minister advises me that what is required to include Northern
Ireland is relatively straightforward. It is not complicated in
any shape or form. The stark reality is that the newly restored
Executive does not have the capacity to pass such legislation at
the same time as Westminster, so there will be an iniquity across
the UK on this reserved matter. Can I ask the Minister one more
time to listen to the voices from Northern Ireland? I understand
that he says he will work with the Executive, but will he take on
board what the Executive are saying and include Northern Ireland
in the Bill?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. To reiterate what I
said in response to earlier questions, we are very sympathetic.
We are keen to lend support, and not just moral support but help
in drafting the Bill. Of course I will continue to listen to him
and others with similar views about the involvement of the
devolved Administrations. We are keen to make this work UK-wide.
The redress schemes will be available UK-wide, if we can get
those prosecutions quashed on a UK-wide basis.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister and pay tribute to his perseverance in
bringing about a legislative change. It is fantastic to hear that
the legislation will quash convictions relating to the Horizon
scandal. This has been a long time coming and those affected must
be praised for their long journey to justice. However,
unfortunately there are many who have not lived to see this. What
steps will he take to ensure the legacy of those who were
affected but have passed away will live on, and that their
families are supported through the redress payment scheme, to
lessen the years of pain that they have endured?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the issue, and for his
regular contributions on this and many other matters. The
legislation has taken too long, as he rightly says, and sadly
some people have passed away, which is terrible for the families.
Those people will never live to see their convictions quashed and
names exonerated. The redress schemes work for the estate, so if
somebody has passed away, the family can come forward and submit
a claim, or they can choose a fixed-sum award and pursue their
claim in that way, which is a quicker process. That happens for
families in the sad situation the hon. Gentleman outlines. I am
happy to work with him to ensure that we deliver for his
constituents.
|
