The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
(Kevin Hollinrake) 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 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
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 hon. Member for
North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues on the board,
including . 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.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Opposition spokesperson.
4.33pm
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
May I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement? The
Horizon scandal has rightly left the public outraged by the scale
and shocking details of the injustice that has been committed.
The scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in
British history. It has robbed innocent people of their
livelihoods, their liberty and, sadly, in numerous cases, their
lives. More than 20 years on, the victims and their families are
still suffering the consequences of the trauma of all that they
have been put through. Until recently, there has been little
progress and delays at every turn, which has caused even further
distress.
Victims and their families have been trapped in a nightmare for
too long. We all want to see the exoneration of all the remaining
convictions, and the delivery of rightful compensation to all
those affected sub-postmasters as quickly as possible. On the
Opposition Benches, the Labour party has made it clear that we
want to see a swift and comprehensive resolution to this
insidious injustice, and we are committed to working with the
Government to ensure that happens.
I recognise the important work that the Minister has done, both
on the Back Benches and in his current role. The unprecedented
scale of the legal work being carried out will be possible only
with cross-party working and cross-party support. I want to take
the opportunity to thank the advisory board for its tireless work
in supporting the Government in getting this right, as well as
hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other
House.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to progressing the
legislation. Labour is committed to working with the Government
to deliver rightful exonerations, but I know that many Members
will have had questions following last Thursday’s written
ministerial statement, so I welcome the Minister returning to the
House. I have a series of questions to pose to him. First, in the
light of what he has said today, what further details can we
expect on the legislation being tabled? Will he further clarify
why convictions prosecuted by the Department for Work and
Pensions are excluded from the legislation and what steps he will
take to get the Department to deliver exonerations as soon as
possible?
The Minister’s proposals set a very difficult precedent, as he
said, on the relationship between the legislature and the
judiciary. Will he outline what conversations he has had with the
Lord Chancellor about this matter and his views on it, which
might alleviate some people’s continued concerns?
As the Minister mentioned, there are also issues around precedent
that could be exploited in the future for less appropriate
purposes. Although I appreciate the assurances that he has
provided on that, it would be helpful to understand and get
clarification on what specific safeguards will be put in place to
avoid this becoming a precedent. The cross-party nature of this
work is critical to ensure that happens. However, some people are
asking whether he considers that this particular example could be
relevant in the future for other worthy causes.
May I also ask the Minister about the pre-Horizon system,
Capture? Will he confirm whether prosecutions were made using
Capture data and whether any sub-postmasters lost money due to
Capture failings? If so, will he commit to those convictions
being in the scope of the legislation and compensation
schemes?
I thank the hon. Member for her collaborative comments. I am keen
to work with her going forward, as we have every step of the way
on this issue. I do not accept that we have made little progress.
Let us be clear that 78% of all full claims that have been
submitted have been settled—that is 2,700 claims that have been
settled. Nor do I accept that there have been delays at every
turn. That is not a correct characterisation of the
situation.
With regard to our next steps, as I said, we expect the
legislation to be tabled next month, which is as quickly as
possible. I am working on this on very much a daily basis. On the
differences between Post Office and CPS cases—those we are
seeking to overturn with this legislation—and DWP cases, I think
it is fair to say there was a different standard of evidence.
Those DWP cases relied on evidence independent of Horizon such as
the surveillance of suspects, collation and examination of cashed
orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, handwriting
comparisons and witness statements. Those cases were very much
not simply relying on Horizon evidence.
My engagement with the Lord Chancellor has been extensive, and
our engagement with other stakeholders—including the hon.
Member’s shadow Front-Bench colleagues—has also been extensive.
We decided that was the right thing to do. Having said that,
these are unprecedented steps. I think that again speaks to the
fact that we are keen to make as much progress as possible,
rather than as little.
The hon. Lady mentioned safeguards. The standard of evidence is
critical to get to this point. It is fair to say that the
trailblazing 555, who successfully took their case to the courts
in the first place, set a high bar for anyone to emulate or
replicate. We will be clear in the legislation that convictions
will be overturned based on objective criteria, as another way to
deal with this. That speaks to the hon. Lady’s last point on
Capture, which I am very aware of and I have discussed with the
right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on several
occasions, including immediately prior to this statement. We need
to ensure that we have the right evidence base. I am happy to
continue the dialogue on that, but it is important that we do not
include cohorts where we do not have the evidence base, as we
have for the cohorts that we have set out—where the CPS and the
Post Office prosecuted cases. We are taking very serious measures
to overturn the convictions. We should never resort to this kind
of approach lightly.
(Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister take UK Government Investments out of its role
of controlling and supervising the Post Office? It has allowed
these gross injustices to go on for too long, allowed the Post
Office senior managers to rack up huge losses of £1,391 million
to last March, with more to come this year, and given the
executives bonuses for losing us that much money. It has left the
Government with a great financial black hole. Would it not be
better to change the Post Office management, to have it report
directly to the Minister, and to make its No. 1 task giving
justice to the sub-postmasters?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had
serious conversations about the future of the Post Office, which
I am keen to continue to engage on. The current UKGI
representative who sits on the Post Office board is Lorna
Gratton, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect.
Clearly it is important that the inquiry does its work to
determine who did what in the past. As we look to the future,
there are different opinions on how the Post Office should be
governed. I am happy to keep those discussions ongoing with my
right hon. Friend.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Under
successive Labour, Tory and Liberal Ministers, Post Office Ltd
has overseen the largest miscarriage of justice in UK history.
The Horizon scandal is just appalling. Unusually, both the
Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have written to the UK
Government, calling on them to rule on devolved affairs. It is
vital that the UK Government work to ensure that exonerations in
Scotland and Northern Ireland take place at the same time as
those in England and Wales. [Interruption.] I do not find this
amusing at all, but obviously the right hon. Member for Wokingham
() does.
(East Dunbartonshire)
(SNP)
Utterly shameful.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order.
The devolved Governments have no power or locus in the UK Post
Office, so we really need to get this together. When will the
legislation for both the exoneration and the redress schemes be
published? The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have
written to ask for UK-wide legislation. We need the UK Government
to act, because otherwise we cannot guarantee simultaneous
legislation that is compatible and comparable with UK Government
schemes. When will there be a response to the Scottish
Government? This is really important.
There were reports yesterday that Post Office Ltd has only now
brought in external investigators to investigate its internal
investigators. Does that not seem quite late to the Minister? Why
was that not done earlier? Is it just to avoid the appearance of
continued cover-ups in Post Office Ltd?
I thank the hon. Lady for her work and for her points, including
on the devolved issues around Scotland and Northern Ireland which
she is right to raise. We considered that very carefully. When we
originally set out to legislate, we were very clear that it would
be for England and Wales only, but that we would work with our
counterparts in the other parts of the United Kingdom on what
they might do. Indeed, we have responded to them already. We met
them last week before we announced the legislation in this
statement to the House. We decided to legislate for England and
Wales only, because justice is a devolved matter. As she said,
the Post Office is UK-wide, but justice is a devolved matter in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of course they have different
legal systems in those areas and different prosecutors. Taking
action to interfere with the independent judiciary is a very,
very serious thing to do, of course, but we believe that it is
the right way. We are working closely with our counterparts in
the devolved Administrations to ensure they understand our legal
approach and we are very happy to assist with any legislation
they may seek to undertake in their own Parliaments.
On redress, there is a single UK-wide scheme, so once somebody’s
conviction is overturned they can access redress in exactly the
same way as anybody in England and Wales. On the investigation or
investigators, that is initially a matter for the Post Office but
also for the inquiry to see what happened in the past. There is
little point in the huge expense of setting up a public inquiry,
as Members called for, and then seeking to do the inquiry’s work
ourselves. We need to see exactly what the inquiry makes of that
and of many other issues.
(Rugby) (Con)
I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for the firm
and consistent approach the Government are taking to getting
justice for the affected sub-postmasters. We heard earlier about
precedent. The Minister will know that many of us have concerns
about precedent in bringing forward special legislation in this
case, although we know, of course, that many hundreds of innocent
sub-postmasters have suffered the most serious miscarriage of
justice. The Minister just said that the scale and circumstances
of the Post Office’s actions in this case rightly require an
exceptional response. Will he set out how using that mechanism
will ensure that the people we are bothered about, the
sub-postmasters, benefit speedily and accurately from those
measures?
I thank my hon. Friend for his point and for his work on the
Select Committee. He is right that we will take those steps very
carefully and very much as a last resort. He concluded his
question on exactly the right point. This is about
sub-postmasters and the speed of overturning those convictions:
the speed to justice. We looked at doing that through other
means, but did not feel that they would achieve the same level of
speed. He may be aware that hundreds of people have passed
away—there was a report in the newspapers over the
weekend—waiting for compensation and justice. That is just not
acceptable. We made the difficult decision to deal with this
situation in this particular way. As we have often described it,
this is the least-worst option but it is still the right
option.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
May I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for the speed
and attention he is paying to this issue? The bottom line,
however, is that redress is too slow and the offers are too low.
Papers that the Select Committee is publishing this afternoon
show that at the core of the problem is a toxic culture of
disbelief of sub-postmasters, which still persists at the top of
the Post Office. Indeed, the board minutes for March last year
show that board members lamented that the board was tired and
constantly distracted by historical issues and short-term crises.
I am afraid that that is not good enough when only 40% of the
allocated budget for the Horizon scheme has been paid out and
only 4% of the budget for the overturned conviction scheme has
been paid out. When the Minister brings forward his Bill, will he
make sure that the Post Office is now taken out of every single
one of the compensation schemes, and that a hardwired instruction
to deliver, with a fixed, legally binding timetable to deliver
compensation agreements, is written on the face of the Bill?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, his kind words
earlier, and his work on this matter. I know that he will be
chairing a Select Committee session on it tomorrow, and I look
forward to his recommendations.
I agree that compensation has been delivered too slowly. We are
trying to accelerate its delivery every single day, and we are, I
think, doing good work with the advisory board to ensure that
that happens. I do not accept that the offers are too low,
although I am not saying that there are no exceptions; no
compensation scheme will be 100% perfect. In respect of the GLO
scheme, for example, 58 full claims have been submitted and 41
have been accepted without reference to the next stage of the
process, involving the independent panel, which would seem to
indicate that the offers that have been made are fair. Of course
people will not take my word for it—they will only accept it when
those cases have been resolved—and there are bound to be
high-profile cases, as indeed there have been, in which people
say that the offers are too low. However, we are determined to
ensure that everyone has full compensation that is also fair to
the individual, fair to the other individuals within the schemes
and, of course, fair to the taxpayer.
As for the people who are running the scheme, as the right hon.
Gentleman knows, the Horizon shortfall scheme was set up as a
scheme run by the Post Office, with an independent panel
including eminent KCs such as . I have met its members, as
has the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and we
have confidence in it. Nevertheless, we are looking at
recommendations from the advisory board for an independent appeal
process. The GLO scheme is independent of the Post Office; it is
within our Department, and we are working to ensure that the
offers are fair. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we are
considering bringing the overturned conviction scheme back
in-house, and we will have more to say about that in due
course.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 40% of the budget. We set a
maximum budget of £1 billion—not a cap, but a maximum budget at
this point. Part of the reason why only 4% of overturned
convictions claims have been settled is the fact that the
convictions have not in fact been overturned, which is why we are
legislating in this way. Once those hundreds of convictions have
been overturned, en masse, people will have access to rapid
compensation via either the fixed-sum award, whereby compensation
takes only days, or the full-assessment route, which takes
longer.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a legally binding route, and
of course we will look at all the various suggestions that are
made. We have just legislated to extend the timescale for GLO
compensation because we did not want to be bound by an arbitrary
date, and I think he supported our legislation. I would therefore
caution him against suggesting a legally binding date, because
not everything is in our gift, in terms of when we receive a
claim and how fast it can then be processed.
(Witham) (Con)
The Minister will be aware from my correspondence of the case of
my constituent Mr Graham Ward—one of the 555 in the GLO. He has
been in touch with me in the last week, and I think it fair to
say that he has expressed his deep frustration about the
processes that the House is currently discussing in respect of
redress and access to compensation. The £75,000 fixed-sum offer
is less than the impact that he has experienced. In his
statement, the Minister referred to the 40-day process that
people might wish to go through rather than accepting the lump
sum. May I suggest to him that that should be looked into? Graham
is having to undergo medical assessments and various doctors’
appointments, and all this is a terrible ordeal that continues
for him, but so many others have also been part of this. I urge
the Minister to bring a human element to his considerations, and
to recognise that £75,000 does not even scratch the surface when
someone has lost their business, their livelihood, the goodwill
and their reputation. That is what we must restore sooner rather
than later.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her constant correspondence and
engagement with Mr Ward. I wrote to her recently about the case,
and asked to be kept updated on his progress.
The £75,000 is one of two routes that people can take. If they
feel that their claim is below £75,000, they do not have to
submit any evidence and can simply opt for the £75,000, take that
money off the table, and move on with their lives. If they feel
that their claim is significantly higher than that, they can opt
for the full-assessment route, which inevitably takes more time
because assessing someone’s loss is a complex process. The
submission of a claim for financial loss will require forensic
accountants on behalf of the claimant, and other assessments of
the type that my right hon. Friend mentioned will also be needed.
All the compensation schemes with which I have been involved
during my time in this place have been complicated, but we are
trying to simplify this one. Only last week we discussed with the
advisory board measures to accelerate the process, but the
fundamental principle is that claimants such as Mr Ward should
always be given the benefit of the doubt.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation
board, and I thank the Minister for his statement. It is welcome
to see him, rather than the Secretary of State, present today’s
statement. I welcome the approach that the Government are taking
on overturned convictions, but I note that it includes
pilots.
I have given evidence to the Minister and the public inquiry
about the Capture system. Those affected need to be included in
any overturned convictions and to get compensation. I am slowly
getting the evidence out of the Post Office and from individual
cases, and it comes back to a point that the Chair of the Select
Committee just made about the role of the Post Office. The
Minister wrote a letter at the weekend to the Select Committee,
saying that the culture at the Post Office has changed, but it
clearly has not; the toxic culture is still there. Until the Post
Office is taken out of this process altogether and forced to
regurgitate the information, nothing will change. The Minister
knows that one of the advisory board’s recommendations is to do
exactly that. Until we do it, postmasters will not have any faith
in the process.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his tireless work over
the years and, indeed, for his work in recent months on the
advisory board. It is hugely important for accelerating this
process.
We have discussed Capture on a number of occasions. It is
important that we have the right body of evidence on that, and I
am keen to work with the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that
we do. Clearly, intervening in matters that were independently
decided by the courts is a step we take very rarely—it is
unprecedented in this context—but I am happy to discuss that
further with him and to help him seek evidence from the Post
Office where he needs more evidence on this issue. We discussed
it last week, and I am keen to make sure that we have the process
running as independently as possible.
I can assure colleagues, any claimants out there and the wider
public that every single process—not least the GLO scheme and the
overturned convictions scheme—has an independent reviewer. It is
Sir Gary Hickinbottom for the overturned convictions scheme and
Sir Ross Cranston for the GLO scheme. These are very highly
regarded individuals, who will make sure that postmasters who
come forward are fairly treated and get the redress they
deserve.
(Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the care that has been taken to set out how
extraordinary this circumstance is and the fact that we are not
leading ourselves into setting any precedents. I also welcome
scrutiny of the Bill as it comes forward.
On compensation, it is right that evidence is checked and that we
are thorough, but I am concerned that the Government’s payment
clock will start to run only when they are satisfied that they
have all the information on individual cases. It is very
difficult for some postmasters to collate documents covering 20
years, some of which have been destroyed or damaged. This is
causing a lot of stress, in a similar way to what my right hon.
Friend the Member for Witham () described. Will the Minister
explain the Government’s position regarding evidence? Given the
process of trying to speed up the payments, are we able to get to
the point at which we are taking a view on claims, so that we can
kickstart the 40-day process and get the money out the door?
I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with this issue and for
her work on behalf of her constituent, whose case I am very aware
of. Yes, we absolutely should be taking a view where evidence is
impossible to obtain. Of course, it is fair to request certain
bits of information to support a claim, but where such
information is not available because it pertains to 20 or 25
years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect that as the basis
for a claim. As I said earlier, where there is an absence of
evidence but a broader claim that is compelling, there is no
doubt that the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, and
I am very keen to make sure that her constituent gets
compensation as quickly as possible.
(Middlesbrough) (Ind)
I thank the Minister and his predecessor for their work on this.
I know that he has been paying a lot of attention to it. On the
issue of full and fair compensation, may I express a worry about
the £600,000 option? It has been said that this is a complicated
process, but it does not have to be. Schedules of past and future
loss are regular events when calculating these matters, and if
ever there were a case for aggravated and exemplary damages,
surely this is it. My fear is that people who are up against time
limits and perhaps getting older will want to accept the
£600,000, which will be a vast undersell of the true value of
their claim. What mechanisms is the Minister putting in place to
ensure that people do not undervalue their claim and take that
easy option to bring the matter to a close?
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Full and fair compensation
lies at the heart of this matter, and we do not want people to
feel that the £600,000 is the only option for getting
compensation in quick time. It is there for those who want to
take the money, walk away and draw a line under the matter,
particularly where they think their claim is below that figure.
As the hon. Gentleman might have heard me say earlier, on the
recommendation of the advisory board and others involved in the
process, as soon as a full claim is received, individuals in the
overturned conviction cohort will get their interim compensation
of £163,000 topped up immediately to £450,000. That will ease the
financial pressure and reduce what he suggests might be an
incentive for people to take a lower amount than they deserve. A
significant amount of money will be paid forward on that basis
while the remainder of the compensation claim can be properly
assessed.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
I echo some of the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member
for Bethnal Green and Bow (). I had an email overnight
from a lady in Australia whose father was prosecuted by the DWP.
He had been extremely ill, and he was given a six-month prison
sentence for a crime he did not commit. From the statement this
afternoon it is clear that the scope of the Bill will apply only
to prosecutions from the CPS and Post Office Ltd. Those who
received a sentence from the DWP will therefore be outside the
scope of the new law. That cannot be right, Minister.
We have looked at this very carefully. In all the appeals based
on DWP cases, the convictions have been upheld thus far. Clearly
it is rare that we take the kind of route that we are taking now,
in summarily overturning convictions. We see that the evidence
bar was much higher in those cases. As I said earlier, there was
surveillance of suspects and collation and examination of cash
orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, so there is a
significant evidence base for these convictions. I would point
out that people can still technically appeal their convictions.
They can go through the normal Court of Appeal route. I would be
happy to have a discussion with my hon. Friend afterwards to
discuss this further if that would be helpful.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
After 14 years of campaigning on behalf of my constituents, Mr
and Mrs Rudkin, and the other sub-postmasters who were victims, I
welcome our now having almost a weekly update on the compensation
scheme. I also welcome the Minister’s announcement of more
generous interim payments for the victims, but I have to disagree
when he says that the sub-postmasters Horizon scandal is
unprecedented. I am thinking of the infected blood scandal, the
so-called Gulf war syndrome repayment scandal and the banking
fraud scandal, and of course the House will have the vaccine
deaths and vaccine harms scandal to look forward to, which will
overshadow everything that has come before. Does the Minister
think that those would benefit from a docudrama?
The hon. Gentleman outlines particular scandals, but my
responsibility extends only as far as the Post Office in that
regard. As he knows, I come to the House quite often and I
probably have enough on my plate in dealing with this issue right
now. I thank him for all the campaigning he has done from the
Back Benches on this issue and I very much hope that Mr and Mrs
Rudkin get the compensation they deserve as soon as possible.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
The Minister often comes to the Chamber to discuss this scandal,
and I just wish that Ministers in other Departments, dealing with
other scandals, came as often as he does, for which I compliment
him. Will he Minister confirm that all those with overturned
convictions will be compensated before the general election?
I thank the right hon. Lady for all her work on this subject and
on the infected blood scandal. I contributed to that work as a
Back Bencher, and I understand that £400 million has been paid
out in interim compensation, but I know she will not rest until
all the people she represents get full and final
compensation.
On overturned convictions, not everything is within our gift. We
are summarily overturning convictions en masse, and we hope to do
that very quickly. We plan to table legislation next month, and
we hope to overturn all the convictions by July. That will open
the door to compensation through the two different routes. We are
somewhat at the mercy of claims being submitted, which can take
time. The £600,000 route is much quicker. I cannot say when the
general election will be, so I cannot answer yes to the right
hon. Lady’s specific question, but I very much hope we will do
so. Our original date was August, and we hope to get everybody
compensated by the end of this year. We will do everything we can
to ensure that is the case.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
We understand why the legislation to overturn convictions must be
limited, but we have heard today from the right hon. Member for
North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk
() about convictions that were
secured through other systems and other prosecutors. What
assessment has been made of the likely number of people who have
been wrongfully convicted outside the boundaries that have been
set? What might be made available for people who want to bring
their own appeals against wrongful convictions but who cannot
make use of the forthcoming legislation?
It is fair to say that we can all now see a significant body of
evidence showing that these were wrongful convictions, which is
why we are acting in this unprecedented way. If the hon. Lady is
referring to the Capture cases, we do not have that body of
evidence thus far. We think the DWP cases are a different cohort
because of the evidential standard. We are acting in this way
because we do not think the evidential standard for Horizon was
of the right level, and clearly a number of different factors
were involved in these convictions. The DWP cases are different.
There are around 70 to 100 cases in the DWP cohort, which means
that the vast majority of the 983 convictions will be overturned
by this legislation.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
I want to raise again with the Minister the shortcomings of the
Horizon shortfall scheme. My constituent, Mr Pennington, was a
sub-postmaster for over 20 years, and for 11 of those years he
had the stress and worry of continually having to pay back
shortfalls generated in error by the Horizon system. He has not
received back all that he was forced to pay in, and he was
offered only a derisory £1,500 for 11 years of stress and
financial distress. I wrote to the Minister about this case five
weeks ago, and I have still not received a response. Last week,
the Business Secretary said that I will receive a letter very
soon. How long will Mr Pennington have to wait for answers to his
questions after so many years of financial stress and worry?
I will chase that correspondence as soon as I leave the Chamber.
I thought I had signed the correspondence, and I apologise if the
hon. Lady has not received it. I will ensure that she receives it
at the earliest possible opportunity.
I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s case, having read about it and
about the times she has raised it in the House and elsewhere. I
am keen to look at this. The advisory board made recommendations
about how we can make sure everyone feels that their settlement
is fair. We are looking at those recommendations, and I will get
the letter to her as soon as I can.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the urgency he has brought to trying to
resolve this terrible injustice. It seems that this has been
against resistance from within the Post Office, where an attempt
is still being made to cover up the negligence and incompetence
of the management. May I take him back to the points he has made
about this legislation applying to Northern Ireland? I am not
convinced of the reasons he has given: first, that this is a
devolved issue; secondly, that the justice system is different in
Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that he does not want to step on
the feet of the judges in Northern Ireland. In the past,
legislation has gone through this House that has related to the
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, with Northern Ireland
being included as the result of a legislative consent motion. Has
he explored that opportunity with the Minister and the Executive
in Northern Ireland? Has there been resistance from the
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland or is it willing to
co-operate if Northern Ireland were to be included?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I believe he has
contributed to every debate in which I have been involved in this
House on this matter, so I thank him for his work. Clearly,
justice and the judicial system are devolved to Northern Ireland.
The difference here is that this is not simply legislating for
general matters across the piece; it is about overturning
individual cases, which I understand is unprecedented—it
certainly is in my experience. We have engaged with the
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to
continue to do so and to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about
the points he has raised. These are difficult decisions to make.
This was the decision we have taken but, as I say, I am happy to
have a further conversation with him.
(Jarrow) (Lab)
The sub-postmasters have no trust or faith in the compensation
processes being handled by the Post Office or the Government.
Today’s commitments will still not deal with all the inequalities
in the schemes or the undue influence that the Post Office still
has on the process. Echoing the sentiments of some of my hon.
Friends, may I ask the Minister to agree to place the
compensation schemes into an external independent body,
completely outside the influence of the Post Office? I asked the
Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green
and Bow () has asked, about the
timescales for the legislation to overturn the convictions, but
we still have not got an answer. If it is not before the general
election, will it be before the summer recess? Finally, when will
people be held to account for this miscarriage of justice, be it
within the Government, the Post Office or Fujitsu?
I thank the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue. Again,
she has been a key part of the campaign to ensure that people
receive justice. Let me deal with the point about fair
compensation. As I say, on the GLO scheme, 41 of the 58 full
claims that have been submitted have been accepted without even
going to the next stage. That would tend to indicate that those
first offers are fair. I am aware of some people who feel that
their offers are not fair, but I think it is wrong to look at
individual cases in this context; it is right that we look to
make all the schemes fair. As for undue influence, let me be
clear that every part of this process has an independent element
to it. Under the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions
schemes, that is provided by retired judges, Sir Ross Cranston
and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, in order to ensure that those schemes
are independent of any “undue influence”, as she puts it.
Clearly, the GLO scheme is not being run by the Post Office; it
is run by my Department. We are looking at recommendations from
the advisory board about what we do with new cases of overturned
convictions. On timescales, we have been clear today that we will
table the legislation in March and we hope it completes its
passage through both Houses by July at the latest. Again, that is
not entirely within our gift.
(North Down) (Alliance)
Around this time last week, I reiterated my call on the
Government to include Northern Ireland in this legislation, so I
was disappointed to see that it applies only to England and
Wales. There is a cross-party consensus in Northern Ireland for
this House to take the legislation forward, and that includes my
colleague the Justice Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy
First Minister. The Executive has just been restored and they
have a large work programme to get through. We have a small
number of cases in Northern Ireland. Doing our own legislation
would require disproportionate effort and would involve
considerable delay, which would remove equity across the UK. Let
me reinforce the points made by my colleague the Justice Minister
and ask: will the Minister reconsider the position as regards
Northern Ireland and include it in the legislation? I understand
that that is relatively straightforward to do.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and I am sorry to
disappoint him. I understood last week that he might be
disappointed in what we were about to announce later that day. I
spoke to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland that day, as I
wanted to talk to her before I informed the House of our
intention. I will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and
the Justice Minister, as will my colleagues and officials, to
ensure there is no delay for the people affected in Northern
Ireland. Of course I am happy to have a continued conversation
with him about that.
(East Dunbartonshire)
(SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his continued
dedication to the victims of Horizon. Will he apologise to my
constituent Louise Dar, former sub-postmistress in Lenzie, for
the devastating damage that Post Office Ltd and Horizon did to
her and her family’s life and livelihood? Will he ensure
compensation is swiftly given to Louise and all other
sub-postmasters?
I apologise without hesitation. What happened to Louise and her
family is a disgrace. It should never have happened, and we
should not be in this situation, but we are where we find
ourselves. We now need to do exactly what the hon. Lady has set
out: seek to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. If she
would like a conversation about that case, I am happy to help
where I can.
(Eltham) (Lab)
I come to the House virtually every time we have questions on
this subject, or it is before the House, and I am taken in by the
Minister’s mellifluous bromides about the compensation scheme.
However, a letter from the chief executive of the Post Office,
Nick Read, suggests that over half the convictions are safe and
that the Post Office would defend them. Furthermore, he says that
the Post Office is taking on expert police investigators to
investigate the investigators, which is pouring even more good
money after bad. How can the sub-postmasters who have been
convicted and those who have been wronged by the Horizon scandal
have any confidence in a scheme that is influenced by the Post
Office in any way? In making decisions, how much are the
Government relying on information from investigations by the Post
Office?
The hon. Gentleman does contribute virtually every single time
the issue is discussed, and I thank him for that. It is hugely
important for postmasters in his constituency and further afield
that his voice is contributing to those calling for the remedies
needed. I am aware of the letter on this issue from the Post
Office’s chief executive officer, and what he says; it was his
choice to write that letter. Today’s statement, and the one on
Thursday, illustrate that the letter had no influence on us; we
think that introducing legislation is the right thing to do. We
have always been clear that some guilty people will be made
innocent through the process. We think that is a risk worth
taking—the least worst option. As for the influence on
compensation and other matters for individuals, we have ensured
that there are independent processes running right through the
compensation schemes. The advisory board is holding our feet to
the fire very effectively, and I welcome its work.
(Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his efforts. He will
be aware of correspondence from the Northern Ireland Executive
and the Department of Justice; my Northern Ireland colleagues
have alluded to it. It is a rarity for three parties in Northern
Ireland to agree on something, but I believe it is outrageous
that Northern Ireland is being excluded from the legislation.
Will the Minister redouble his efforts and rethink that? This
Parliament is sovereign. Time and again, this Parliament has
intervened with laws and legislation on devolved matters in
Northern Ireland, so will he go away and urgently relook at this
situation?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I can assure her that I
will continue to engage with her on this matter, along with the
relevant representatives from the Department of Justice in
Northern Ireland, as will our officials. I understand her
disappointment. I understand her preference, and the preference
of some Ministers in the Justice Department, but we will continue
that engagement and try to make sure that compensation in
Northern Ireland is not denied or delayed; we do not want that in
England and Wales, either.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the update. He referred to officers,
family members and direct employees. I wish to ask this on behalf
of family members. The news over the weekend indicated that 250
victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal have passed away; some
of them had no knowledge whatsoever that their name would ever be
cleared, or that compensation would come. Will the Minister say
that every one of those people will have their family members
compensated, that help and advice will be available, that they
will receive an apology on behalf of their loved ones, and that
this will be done as soon as possible?
I certainly apologise to all those people to whom the hon. Member
refers. I read the reports this weekend about the number of
people who have passed away. Indeed, one of my constituents, Sam
Harrison of Nawton in Helmsley—one of the original 555—passed
away last May prior to receiving compensation, which was
devastating for the family. Just to be clear, those claims can
still go forward and their estates will be compensated to the
same degree. Nevertheless, that is slim comfort in that
situation. “Family members” are those who have been directly
affected by someone being convicted or prosecuted by the Post
Office or the Crown Prosecution Service. Other family members can
be compensated under the wider process—for example, where a house
has been lost or a bankruptcy has happened. They can benefit
through routes for compensation to the family in general. I am
happy to have a discussion about everything that we need to look
at in that area.
|
