Post Office: Capture System

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord raises important issues of law. He will know that the Law Commission is already looking at the law relating to criminal appeals and is due to report next year. That review includes consideration of the CCRC’s role and the statutory tests it applies. The Government will carefully consider any recommendations.

To return briefly to the Capture system, the Court of Appeal is yet to overturn any convictions relating to the use of Capture. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is already considering five potential cases and it is right and proper, in these circumstances, that we let the CCRC and the SCCRC finish conducting those reviews.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is appalling that the key information for the Kroll report forensic investigation into Capture, which pre-dates Horizon, was provided only the day before the report was submitted to government; it did not change the report. Kroll has found that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that Capture had caused these accounting shortfalls.

Back in May, when we were discussing the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, I asked questions about Capture on three separate occasions. I was told that it was completely different and there was absolutely no connection. It now appears there is a connection. Regardless of the route to justice, will the Government undertake to move as speedily as they can, not just to overturn these cases but to provide redress to these postmasters and staff?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. There is a difference between Horizon and the Capture system. The Capture system was not networked to a central system like Horizon was, which meant the data in Capture could not be accessed or manipulated from elsewhere. However, notwithstanding that, we are looking at whether there have been miscarriages of justice. I am sorry to say this, but perhaps the noble Baroness should wait for the report we will produce next week. I feel frustrated saying this today, but I know noble Lords will understand how the machinery of government works. I hope to come back with clearer news next week.

Social Media: Catfishing

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am of course happy to meet the gentleman the noble Baroness mentioned. We are open to all suggestions about how we can improve this legislation. None of this is 100% secure—we absolutely know that—and we know that, as technology is moving forward, we need to move forward too. It seems that the criminals are always one step ahead of us, so we need to catch up and make sure that we take all the appropriate action we can with the new technology that is being used. The noble Baroness also made an important point about education. Ofcom already has an important media literacy strategy that it is rolling out, and that includes education in schools and with young people. But we all have a responsibility—every parent has a responsibility to say to their child, “What you see on your social media platform may not be what you think you’re seeing”. We need to make sure that they are made aware of those dangers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Naomi Long, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, has said that Westminster’s legislation on online crimes, including catfishing, is not strong enough, particularly on unverified social media accounts. Worse, 87% of those who report online crime to the police get an immediate response of “no further action”. What will the Government do to ensure that police forces and the CPS have the right information to make sure that that appalling figure is reduced?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are working closely with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of the existing legislation because, as I say, a number of pieces of legislation are already on the statute book. Some capture fraud offences —I note the Fraud Act—and others capture online frauds, including romance frauds on dating apps and so on, which, sadly, are all too widespread. Those actions are being taken. We are talking about this to the Home Office, which is also on a learning curve in relation to how it can tackle these issues more robustly. We are carrying on our dialogue with it.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for yesterday’s Statement. It does not need to be repeated today but our team appreciated seeing a copy of it in advance. We share the view of this whole House that compensation must be delivered promptly and with minimum friction. We all, I think, welcome the new appeals process for those who have historically settled their claim under the Horizon short- fall scheme set out in this Statement. Clearly, we also welcome the implementation of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board’s work. However, we have a few questions coming from this Statement; I am sure that some have them have been covered in the intervening period but I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten the House.

The new appeals process will, as we understand it, be open to claimants who have settled their claims but who have new information to present. However, all of us in this House know that these processes are cumbersome and complex. The question is whether the process can be open to all claimants and not just those with so-called new information—and of course the categorisation of new information is in itself complex. To clarify, if people choose the £75,000 top-up, can they still appeal? When will the appeals process be up and running, and can the Minister confirm that those individuals will be entitled to legal representation and general support? I appreciate that we may need to be written to in response to some of those questions.

On compensation payments, can the Minister comment on the fact that, as I understand it, only six claims have been offered through the Horizon convictions redress scheme? As I understand it, no full and final settlements have been reached, which is a bit extraordinary, and we should look very closely at this. I hope that the Minister does not mind the pressure that this House will bring to bear on her to answer that question.

I also understand that only 130 letters of around 700 quashing convictions have been sent. Can the Minister comment on this? Again, that seems an extremely low number, given that we were debating this issue three months ago and the Government then were very committed to sending the letters out as quickly as possible. I am sure that we fully understand that there are some people who may be hard to contact, or there may be specific issues around communication, but this is really the wrong way around. The last Government were working with Sir Gary Hickinbottom to be appointed across all schemes to expedite claims. I am not sure whether that has been confirmed; it may have been, but if the Minister could confirm that, it would be extremely helpful.

Finally, I am afraid that it is understood via my colleagues, and the extraordinarily strong work previously done by Kevin Hollinrake in the other place in communication with the victims of this situation, that the process is being slowed—as has historically been the case but really should not be the case now—by lawyers arguing with lawyers. Are we really moving fast enough, and do we have a proper culture among the public servants of the department, and in the Post Office and the various different organisations helping to expedite this process, to ensure that we are doing the right thing as rapidly as possible?

For all Members of this House, how we deal as a nation with this disgraceful scandal will be the mark to which we will be judged. No one party, Minister or official can carry the specific blame; it really was an entire system at fault—a statist culture of bureaucratic indifference of the worst sort. I hope that the Government will continue to look into the culture that allowed these sorts of situations to arise, and particularly into the role of various government departments, civil servants and the public prosecutor’s office. Who at the top of the tree should bear responsibility for these actions, and what are we going to do, very importantly, to change the culture and the lines of the reporting?

I very much commit this side of the House—the Opposition—to work closely with the Government to make sure that we are as supportive and collaborative as possible, supporting the Minister in making sure that we get redress for the victims of this terrible tragedy.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the Government’s Statement being very welcome and the attempt to try to unscramble some of the complexities of the scheme, but from these Benches too we are concerned about the low level of conclusion of cases, despite the process. I echo his questions about how this is being managed. Mindful that there are other inquiry redress processes that have hit problems and have had to repeatedly be redesigned, my first question to the Minister is to ask whether she is absolutely convinced that she has addressed all of them. I shall come on to a couple of specific points.

Chris Head, a former sub-postmaster who lost everything when he was wrongly accused of theft, has spoken up since the publication of the statements with some concerns, saying:

“The remit of the appeal process cannot be restricted to only those that produce new evidence. Many people have been materially disadvantaged by not having access to legal advice and interim payments that were only introduced in November 2022. This appeals mechanism must be available to everyone that has settled claims since the scheme launched in 2020 to ensure they are properly compensated back to a position they would have been in had the scandal not happened”.


Members of your Lordships’ House, including the Minister, I think, have repeatedly raised concerns about the difference between these various schemes for different sub-postmasters and staff. While it is good that the Government want to have an independent appeals process for the HSS, I remind her that the complex redress schemes arising out of other tragic scandals have had to be adapted. It took the work done on the Victims and Prisoners Act to create the infected blood compensation scheme earlier this year—with an enormous amount of energy—to untangle all the different parts of that redress scheme. Does the Minister recognise that Mr Head and others have valid concerns about inconsistencies between the schemes, and that trying to sort all this out now, at pace, as was done with the infected blood scheme, must be a priority?

I want to raise two other issues briefly. First, on the predecessor package to Horizon, known as Capture, I raised the issue of the postmasters and staff who lost their jobs because of Capture, some of whom were also prosecuted but many of whom were sacked. The Independent newspaper and ITN have given voice to these victims. When will the Government’s own investigation into Capture be published and when will they update your Lordships’ House on its findings? Should redress be due, will it be incorporated into the existing postmasters’ scheme, or will there have to be a brand-new one?

Finally, in July, my noble friend Lord Fox raised again the issue of those not included in the overturning of convictions because they had appealed their cases and lost in the Appeal Court. Both he and I had helpful discussions with the previous Minister. The concern was expressed that the judiciary, in particular, had felt it was wrong for this group of victims to have their cases overturned under the legislation in the summer, because there was some merit to other parts of the cases brought against them. Yet, that question was not asked of any other case whatever, only those that went to appeal. Are the Government prepared to reconsider that? What now exists in the redress scheme is a small group of people who have to have an exceptionally high bar of going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, hoping that it will refer their cases back to the Court of Appeal. This seems unfair and particularly long term, which means these victims will not get resolution for a long time to come.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords for raising these points on what is clearly a very important issue. I have to say that it upsets me greatly to hear of the harrowing experiences postmasters faced over so many years. I understand and have the utmost respect for their wish for full, fair, speedy redress, for answers from the inquiry about what went wrong and for people to be properly held to account for what has happened. This scandal represents one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our time, and it is crucial that we get redress for those affected as quickly as possible. This is what we are focusing on as a Government—fair and timely redress for postmasters—and we will continue to work with and support the Post Office Horizon inquiry as it carries out its vital work in establishing the facts about what went wrong in this scandal.

Before I turn to the specific questions raised, I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, to all the many postmasters who have championed this cause and to Sir Alan Bates and Lady Suzanne, whom I congratulate on their recent wedding. I also thank members of the advisory board, including the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, who are members of the Horizon advisory board. I thank them for their advocacy for postmasters affected by the scandal over many years and for their hard work in helping the Government improve the delivery of redress. We shall continue to listen to their advice.

Turning to the subject in hand and the questions the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked, we will look to establish the new Horizon shortfall scheme appeal process announced yesterday as quickly as possible. Postmasters’ stories are harrowing, but their resilience and steadfastness in seeking justice are inspiring. The Government’s priority is ensuring that the victims of the scandal receive the redress they deserve. We want to help bring some closure to postmasters as soon as we can. I cannot give an exact timeline today, but it is likely that it will be launched in the new year. We will keep postmasters updated on its development.

I can reassure noble Lords that legal advice will be available from the outset for those who enter the appeals process. We want the appeals process to be available to all those who are not satisfied that they received the correct amount of compensation. As in the case of the broader design of the process, we will engage with postmasters and the advisory board on the detailed approach before agreeing and setting out in due course details on eligibility criteria.

The appeals process is intended to support, in particular, those who have settled their claim but feel that they were unable to set it out in full in their initial application. There are a variety of reasons why postmasters may have been unable to do so, and these will be considered when designing the process and its eligibility criteria. It will also be open to more recent applicants who have not yet settled and are unhappy with the offer they have received from the Post Office. However, on the specific question from the noble Lord, those who have accepted £75,000 are not eligible for an appeal. They were told this at the outset, when they accepted the payment.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we support postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal to get the redress they deserve. We plan to continue to work in a cross-party way on this important national priority, which of course was highlighted so well by the ITV drama “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office” earlier this year, and in last night’s follow-up documentary.

The noble Baroness asked about the investigation into the Capture software. We expect to receive this report shortly, and the conclusion of this exercise will support the Government in determining whether postmasters faced detriment due to the Capture system and what steps should be taken based on the conclusions of the investigation.

The noble Lord asked how many payments have been made for the Horizon convictions redress scheme. As of 30 August, we have made six interim payments totalling £1.2 million. As of 6 September, 178 letters have been issued by the MoJ. On the issue of the MoJ letters, as the Secretary of the State said yesterday, the state of the records has, sadly, delayed the process. This is a real frustration, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that, after everything people have been through, we should not take the risk of sending out a letter incorrectly. The Government are grateful for the support of the HSS appeals mechanism.

To all those who think that this is not moving fast enough, I can reassure them that we are moving at speed on this issue. There are a huge number of technical and legal issues that we are still ironing out, but we understand the need to move and resolve these issues at speed.

In response to the noble Lord’s point about cultural issues, I agree they are important, and I hope they will come out in the final phase of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. Hopefully, we can follow it up and act on it.

Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who in his own way has made us think more deeply about the chemistry, which we often do not. The specific points he made about the chemistry would probably be covered by secondary legislation or below that in regulations from the OPSS.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Redesdale on bringing his Private Member’s Bill and on securing such an early Second Reading. His speech and the description of the clauses of the Bill have set the scene very well for us. I thank the organisations that have given us briefings, including the London Fire Brigade, Electrical Safety First, the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the House of Lords Library and the LGA. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA, and as vice-chair of the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue, which I have been for over a decade.

As an officer of the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue, I had a meeting with the Minister responsible for regulation and representatives of the Office for Product Safety and Standards in the Department for Business earlier this year, along with other officers from the APPG, on this issue of regulating lithium batteries and their safe disposal. I will come on to some of those details later.

The fire background is stark. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, that our fire services absolutely know what is happening, and the APPG has been seeking meetings with Ministers at, I think, four different departments and counting. Part of the problem is that there are many different areas to be covered, so it is wonderful that we now have a Bill which enables us proper parliamentary time to discuss it. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the London Fire Brigade told us that London alone had 143 fires last year, in which there were three deaths and 60 injuries. In the first eight months of this year alone there have been 127 e-bike and e-scooter fires.

Last year in Cambridge, Gemma Germeney and her children, Lilly and Oliver Peden, lost their lives when an e-bike bought online exploded and set their flat on fire. Her partner, Scott Peden, was in a coma for a month and has prolonged injuries as a result. He has demanded tougher regulations for such devices. He had no idea of the dangers of the item he bought online. Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the coroner to ask for better regulation of online sales of e-bike batteries. Although the inquest has been opened and adjourned, it has not yet come to its final conclusion, and it will be interesting to hear the coroner’s views on what should happen.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue has seen videos of lithium battery fires. The description of the fire by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was helpful, but actually watching that white explosive fire burning at 1,000 degrees gives a lasting impression of how dangerous they can be.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology provided a helpful focus on how regulation and development might work in practice. Thinking about building in safe design alongside assessing product risks is vital. If there are clear standards and firm regulation in design, the sector will work much better. The institution also suggests greater OPSS involvement with international alert systems for dangerous products —for example, Safety Gate—but this must be adequately funded and staffed. There has already been reference to global online markets these days, and it is really short-sighted to think that self-regulation could ever stop at our borders. I will return to that in relation to flying with lithium batteries.

The OPSS also has a role in raising consumer awareness levels and changing purchasing behaviours, which would thereby complement enforcement measures. That is the biggest thing that we need to do. Just having adverts saying these things might be dangerous is not enough. None of us is aware of how many lithium batteries we have around us every day.

The LGA forwarded the data on fires in waste trucks and waste sites, which is really shocking. Local government and large retailers, such as supermarkets, can and should help to raise awareness about the disposal of batteries, especially those that cannot be removed from small appliances, for example, electric toothbrushes.

Most people do not know that the act of crushing even a healthy battery is likely to cause a fire. It is the act of crushing that does it. Anything that goes into the waste could be compacted either in a truck—there have been fires in trucks—or on the waste site itself.

The London Fire Brigade suggests some possible strengthening of the Bill. That has been covered by other noble Lords and I will not repeat it. I shall move to the LFB’s concerns about Clause 4, which states that lithium-ion battery-powered vehicles must have a safety fire certificate. There has been mention of micromobility vehicles needing to be clearly defined. The LFB suggests that perhaps mobility scooters ought to be added to the list of registrations.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked to us about doing regulation properly, which relates to one of the problems that the all-party group faced. I want to come on to the details of why this is. We are thinking only about where there has been a fire, but we have not yet got to grips with how people’s lives can be affected by the poor regulation that we have at the moment, but not in a fire-safe way. I apologise for using personal examples, but scooters and wheelchairs with lithium batteries are a real problem for disabled people. We had a debate in your Lordships’ House last year where I said:

“The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra … talked about the ridiculous process we have to fill in for our wheelchair dimensions and battery details when booking the flight, then again when the airline confirms the booking, then again when you check in online to get your seat, then again when you arrive at check-in and again when you arrive at the departure gate”.—[Official Report, 23/11/23; col. 97GC.]


That is because everybody in the airport is worried about batteries. They cannot take the evidence that you have given them.

In an APPG meeting with the Fire Minister last year, we were told that there was a plan to produce wheelchair and wheelchair-battery passports. That seems to be really helpful because not only would it act as evidence that the battery had been bought safety and approved but there would be the numbers of the batteries in the passport and it could act as a logbook. I know I have to have my electric wheelchairs maintained at least twice a year to make sure that the batteries and other parts are safe, so that is important. However, I have had three experiences in the past year where there has been an issue with my wheelchair batteries. First, an airport refused to allow my wheelchair on a plane because it said, incorrectly, that the lithium batteries were too big even though they met the IATA regulations. Secondly, after I flew to Bucharest using not my lithium battery chair but my bus battery chair, the ground services manager told me that I personally had to physically lift out my two bus batteries and carry them on to the plane because I needed to have them with me in the cabin. Thirdly, I hit a problem when I got to Sweden: I had been allowed out there with the wheelchair with the lithium batteries but was refused a flight back. I persuaded the company that that would not look very good because they had flown me out three days earlier. We need to think about this sort of thing because if we start regulating only for safety, we will completely miss the way that all of us live with batteries in our lives. For those of us for whom lithium batteries make travel easier, if we are buying the right things, we should not be penalised.

I shall end a point about making sure that all departments are involved. It is right that the Department for Business and Trade and the OPSS lead on this. However, as far as fire is concerned, we already have a problem with where the dividing line is between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. There are other issues as well, particularly for disabled people, so there needs to be involvement from the Disability Minister too. Will the Minister ensure that, as the Bill progresses, the discussions that were beginning to happen between Ministers across departments in the previous Government continue, and that, particularly for issues affecting disabled people, the Disability Minister and disability organisations are kept informed as well?

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I shall speak to Amendments 2, 4, and 6, and to the question that Clause 3 stands part. I shall briefly touch on Amendment 1, which intended to include in the convictions to be overturned by this Bill those convictions that were secured by the Department for Work and Pensions. Although I have concerns about those convictions—I thank in particular a former sub-postmaster, Chris Head, for his tireless work on the subject—I do not think that those concerns have yet reached the extraordinary threshold required to ask your Lordships, as a legislature, to overturn convictions made by the courts.

However, I take a different view about those cases that have been before the Court of Appeal. We shall, I hope, decide today in Parliament to overturn the convictions of hundreds of sub-postmasters. We need to try to be fair. as between sub-postmasters. in choosing those whose convictions we overturn. The 13 cases which have been before the Court of Appeal in one way or another are not outstandingly wicked, compared with the hundreds of other sub-postmasters whose convictions will be overturned. Those 13 will not necessarily have the recourse of going back to the Court of Appeal because there may be no new evidence in their individual cases—new evidence which other sub-postmasters whose convictions are being overturned by this Bill are not required to provide. That is not fair, and I believe we should agree to Amendments 2, 4 and 6, and we should take out Clause 3.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 14 in this group, but just before I get to that, from these Benches, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, just said. Had we had a proper, usual style of Committee we would have debated this for much longer and perhaps even taken things to a vote, but we recognise that times are different.

I have tabled Amendment 14 because I had a bit of a debate with the Minister about the previous software, Capture. I am very grateful to him for the private meeting that we had, where we discussed my concerns in some more detail. I hope he will be able to give some more reassurance.

Because there is now an inquiry or an investigation into the Capture process, it obviously cannot be included within the Bill. However, should that inquiry discover that the same sort of faults happened, and the Post Office used the same sort of criminal investigation procedure, could the Minister please explain, hypothetically, what would happen to Capture? Would it require a similar Bill to remedy the position of those postmasters, should they be found to have been incorrectly charged and then convicted? This is important because although there are differences between Capture and Horizon the more that is revealed, the more there are some striking similarities, both in Fujitsu’s denial of glitches and bugs and in the way the Post Office investigation team prosecuted cases.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I remain extremely unhappy about this Bill and the way in which it has arisen, but I recognise the overwhelming importance of, at long last, doing justice to sub-postmasters. I assume that the evidence given to the Court of Appeal would have been similar to the evidence given to the original court. In those circumstances, it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is absolutely right and they should not be treated differently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for the confusion in proceedings this afternoon. I would like to deal with the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot in relation to Court of Appeal cases. Proceedings are progressing here at great speed and I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience. I express my deep personal sympathy with my noble friend on this issue. However, I confirm that, on Court of Appeal cases, the collective government position has not changed. I understand that my noble friend may therefore wish to test the opinion of the Committee on this issue.

I move now to Amendment 13 on post-Assent implementation, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. This amendment would require the appropriate authority to notify bodies other than the convicting court that a conviction had been quashed. The effect of this amendment would be potentially onerous. It is not clear what would constitute an appropriate body or how the appropriate authority would decide which bodies ought to be notified. The reason that the Bill currently requires that the convicting court be notified is to reflect what happens when the Court of Appeal quashes a conviction. This amendment would create a difference between the two purposes and it is unclear what purpose it would achieve. I therefore hope the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment.

I turn now to Amendment 17, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the power to bring private prosecutions. Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is examining all the failings that led to the Post Office convictions and it is important that we do not pre-empt the findings of that inquiry by publishing a separate review on this single issue. The Government have already committed to reviewing the Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report on the role of private prosecutions, and are in the process of doing so. The Government believe that this is out of the Bill’s scope and could detract from resourcing the implementation of the Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend to consider not pressing his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 18 on computer evidence, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes. I fully understand the intention behind this amendment, which is to highlight the role that computer evidence played in the prosecution of postmasters. I agree that we need to look closely at the wider question of how computer evidence is used in court proceedings. The failings of the Horizon accounting system are now well known. However, as was made clear in the Court of Appeal, and as continues to emerge from the ongoing statutory inquiry, faulty computer evidence was not the sole cause of this miscarriage of justice. Rather, the prosecutions relied on assertions that the Horizon IT system was accurate and reliable, which the Post Office knew to be wrong. This was supported by expert evidence that the Post Office knew to be misleading.

Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is examining all the failings that led to the Post Office convictions and it is important that we do not pre-empt the findings of that inquiry by publishing a separate review on this single issue. The use of computer evidence is much broader than purely Horizon-style accounting software. Indeed, computer evidence is now widespread in most prosecutions, with serious fraud offences typically involving millions of such documents. The Government recognise that a law in this area must be reviewed, but we need to tread carefully, given the significant implications that any change in the law could have for the criminal justice system.

I turn to Amendment 14, on Capture. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her continuing interest in this. We maintain the position that Capture should remain outside the scope of this Bill. We have not found sufficient evidence to date to conclude that Capture led to people being wrongly convicted. Given the limited information that we currently have about Capture and resulting convictions, there is not yet evidence that any miscarriages of justice took place. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are looking into what can be done on Capture. As soon as the Government found out about issues with the Capture system, we asked the Post Office to investigate. We are in the process of appointing an independent forensic investigator to look into the Capture software and how the Post Office addressed concerns about it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am sorry, but I am slightly concerned with the proposal that the Post Office could investigate. Will the Government consider providing someone slightly more independent, given some of the issues that have arisen recently?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My understanding is that, obviously, the first port of call will be the Post Office, as it administers these matters. However, I can confirm that we are in the process of appointing an independent forensic investigator to look into the Capture software and how the Post Office addressed concerns about it—that will be an independent review. I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that, once the investigator has reported, the Government will seek to return to this House to set out our plans.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow so many noble Lords in speaking at this Second Reading.

On these Benches, we too support the Bill. I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate pointed out that there is not one single party grouping or other grouping against it. That speaks to the highly unusual circumstances. While I am sure that will not entirely comfort the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Etherton, I hope it will give them some reassurance that the Bill is meeting the issues that they both raised about the potential for future totalitarian moves. If you read the progress of this Bill in another place, you will see that exactly the same happened there. There was much thought about the difficulties of the constitution and how this fits in while trying to balance that with the difficult circumstances the country finds itself in following this extraordinary miscarriage of justice.

I thank the Minister for our meeting last week. I also thank the House of Lords Library and the Law Society for their helpful briefings. I am speaking from these Benches today in the absence of my noble friend Lord Fox, who hopes to be able to join us for the next stage of the Bill.

For those of us who perhaps have been sad enough to sit and watch many of the hours of evidence in this phase of the inquiry, it is vital to remember that the lives of the sub-postmasters and other Post Office front-line staff have been ruined by Post Office Ltd and Fujitsu. Both of them convinced magistrates, juries and judges that the software package could not be accessed remotely. As the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, outlined and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also spoke about, Fujitsu will need to face justice, as will the management at Post Office Ltd. Evidence in recent weeks has now put into the public domain the fact that staff at both organisations knew many years ago that it was possible to access Horizon remotely, and that it was done to remedy glitches and errors.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, referred to the oral evidence of Rod Ismay as unimpressive. Helpfully, though, the written evidence presented to him from emails and reports during that period made absolutely plain who knew what and when. Despite that, since 2000, the Post Office has prosecuted some 730 individuals, many of whom were convicted and imprisoned on what appear to have been false evidence and assertions. Many were not only bankrupted but lost their homes, their businesses and the faith of their local communities when they served in their local Post Office branch, as the noble Lord, Sahota, rightly pointed out. As we have heard, some postmasters committed suicide.

As with other scandals, such as the infected blood victims, compensation and interim compensation schemes have been set up. Those whose convictions have not yet been quashed are ineligible to apply for them. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board has made a specific recommendation that all the affected sub-postmasters’ convictions are unsafe and should be swiftly overturned. As I have already outlined, what we are hearing in the inquiry reinforces this beyond any shadow of doubt. We must leave it to Sir Wyn Williams to present his report and his findings in due course, but it is evident that things have gone badly wrong.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, reminded me of a software engineer’s description of error-filled software. I am married to an engineer who is involved with software. A common phrase in our family is “garbage in, garbage out”. Yet, one of the problems of this case is that everybody believed that the software was invincible. Therein lay the miscarriage of justice.

It is public knowledge, through both the Court of Appeal judgment in 2021 and the evidence given under oath at the public inquiry, that the technical reason relied on for every single prosecution was that it was impossible for anyone, apart from the sub-postmaster, to access an individual’s account. We know that that was demonstrably untrue. Worse, POL and Fujitsu continued to rely on it, even when they knew it was not the case. That is an even worse miscarriage of justice. On these grounds alone, every single one of the remaining Horizon convictions should be overturned.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for saying that the judiciary could and should be able to proceed with appeals. There are real concerns about capacity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, also expressed concerns about the timescale. We know that there is a large backlog in cases coming to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, let alone the issue of finding time in the Court of Appeal. The one thing that we have heard from every speaker today is that these issues must be resolved at pace.

Some convicted postmasters are dying. Others are at retirement age, having lost everything decades ago as a result of these convictions. It is not just unfair that they cannot access justice swiftly; this is itself an injustice. I support the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, about DWP convictions between 2000 and 2006 being treated differently from CPS convictions. Will the Minister ensure that the DWP is required now to assess its prosecutions in this case? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for going into further detail on the question of DWP convictions being reliable. Given that Post Office Ltd has now given up its right to conduct prosecutions, I wonder whether the same should be true for the DWP.

I have questions for the Minister that I warned him about last week. First, in Clause 2, the relevant offence is defined by time, between 1996 and 2018, and by offence; Clause 2(6) specifically mentions the Horizon system, as does Clause 10; and Clause 8 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make further consequential provision. The Delegated Powers Committee supplementary memorandum confirms the narrow scope, and all this should give reassurance to the House that that is true.

However, there is a problem. The system prior to Horizon, Capture, is now revealed to have had serious software glitches and errors in the same way. I am grateful that the Government have now instituted an inquiry into that, although, hopefully, of a more limited nature. The Independent newspaper reported that former sub-postmasters had suffered unexplained shortfalls caused by Capture, which was rolled out in the early 1990s. Details show that the Post Office knew Capture was prone to faults and glitches, yet prosecutions went ahead.

Following the inquiry that the Government have now instigated into the Capture convictions, would it be possible—I suspect the answer is no—to add Capture to the Horizon inquiry? Yes, the software definitely predated Horizon, but everything else, including the bizarre and unexpected shortfalls and the way the Post Office conducted the prosecutions, including repeated assertions, is very similar to the Horizon case. If that is not possible but the Capture inquiry comes to the same conclusions as are now evident from the Horizon inquiry, what route to redress is available for the Capture postmasters?

The noble Lords. Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, spoke of the 13 people post the Hamilton case who had their sentences upheld by the Court of Appeal, of whom seven are entitled to appeal but six were refused leave. Assuming that the final inquiry report confirms that cases relating to Horizon should never have been brought to court because of the Post Office relying in every case on Horizon, saying repeatedly that it was not possible for anyone to be able to access postmasters’ Horizon accounts, can the Secretary of State ensure that these cases are entitled to make an application to appeal? There are consequential rights, although the Bill says they are limited in scope, for the Secretary of State to do so. Would a particular finding from the inquiry be something that could happen? The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said he believed those people would not be able to get any of their convictions overturned under the Bill. Is that true? He is shaking his head, so if I misunderstood him then I apologise. Could the Secretary of State’s power be used in regulation as it relates to Horizon?

I hope we will be able to progress with the same carefulness with which we started this Second Reading.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Under Clause 3(2) of the Bill, you do not get your appeal allowed if it has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am referring to Clause 8, which is the power of the Secretary of State to make further consequential provision. I wondered whether the recommendations and report from the Horizon inquiry might be able to be used by the Secretary of State to make that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a thoughtful and considered debate, and I am grateful for the broad and insightful contributions from noble Lords across the House. I was particularly grateful for the opening contributions of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Burnett of Maldon, one speaking as a former Lord Chancellor and the other as a former Lord Chief Justice. They were able to frame so eloquently the two potential solutions available to your Lordships’ House to right these wrongs.

The Government acknowledge that the quashing of convictions by an Act of Parliament is an exceptional step, but we believe it is required to respond to a factually exceptional situation. We know that many postmasters are simply too traumatised or disenchanted with authority to consider appealing, no matter how easy we make it. They want to see no further lawyer or court; they are scunnered. In many cases, evidence simply no longer exists anyway in order to help their cases. The scale and circumstances of prosecutorial and investigatory misconduct over such an extended period are unique in our history. The scale of this miscarriage of justice is an affront to the rule of law itself. Therefore, it is right that the Government intervene to deliver justice to hundreds of postmasters, who deserve this without having to make a huge amount of effort themselves. We need to do this while respecting the delicate constitutional balance so eloquently put forward by a number of noble and learned Lords this afternoon.

I will start by covering the legislative approach we are taking. I understand the concerns of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Etherton, and the right relevant Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. We all share their respect for an independent judiciary. I have been clear that the Bill is not a comment on the outstanding work of the courts and judiciary, which have dealt swiftly with the cases before them. I am cognisant of the assurances given by the judiciary that it would move fast in this case.

However, I respectfully disagree with how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, characterised the legislation. We agree that the separation of powers is a vital part of our justice system, but public confidence and faith in the system are also vital. This is a miscarriage of justice on a scale never seen before, and the circumstances are exceptional. We have carefully considered other approaches, including court processes. However, ultimately, no reform short of this legislative approach provides the swift remedy needed as a result of these unprecedented circumstances.

Many postmasters would not see justice through the courts, because much of the evidence about individual cases has now been destroyed or because many postmasters no longer trust the criminal justice system and therefore will not come forward. It is therefore right that the Government take action to put this right.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, raised the possibility of legislating to give Ministers powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal and assume that all convictions were wrongful unless new evidence was presented. Reconsideration of cases by the Court of Appeal would take time even if court processes were expedited. Further, a presumption that all relevant convictions are unsafe is rebuttable, and we cannot be sure that every case would pass through the courts swiftly and without adjournments. This approach would not avoid interfering with the independence of the judiciary; it would raise other constitutional concerns, as it would make an assumption about the outcome of the cases being referred, meaning that the Government were still interfering in the judicial process of the senior appellate court.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, also spoke about comments made by the Lady Chief Justice. She said that in over 90% of cases the defendants pleaded guilty. We are not able to verify this figure, which in itself tells noble Lords quite a lot about this case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rightly raised, we are also aware, from Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry, of evidence suggesting that individuals pleaded guilty because they were told to or felt under pressure.

I turn to the specific issue of the Court of Appeal cases, which was highlighted at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, and then raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. This is a difficult issue; I thank noble Lords for raising it.

Let us start by reminding your Lordships’ House of the unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive nature of this legislation. That is why it is vital that we legislate in a way which respects the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as far as possible. Including convictions that have been upheld by the Court of Appeal would override decisions taken by the senior judiciary. Of the 13 such cases we know of, seven were upheld by the Court of Appeal and six were refused leave to appeal. They are excluded from the Bill because the Government believe we should tread very carefully where judges in the senior appellate court have considered a case on its merits. We recognise that this approach may leave a small number of individuals concerned about the way forward for their cases. In cases where the Court of Appeal has upheld a conviction, the usual routes of appeal remain available to them.

I turn to the matter of the DWP cases—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am sure that is right for the seven who could appeal, but there were six who were not given leave to appeal. What would their route be to getting justice?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My understanding is that six were given no right to appeal because it was considered they did not have the evidence to do so; in effect, they are considered with the 13 whose convictions were not overturned. Therefore, they are included within the same category.

Post Office Legislation

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have said many times before, the Fujitsu/Horizon scandal is truly shocking and one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history. The scandal has brought blight and devastation to the lives of thousands of falsely convicted sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. Over 20 years on, they and their families still suffer from the consequences and trauma of all they have been through. I pay tribute to them for their determination in pursuing justice, especially those who took the very courageous and difficult step of challenging the Post Office. Without their bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today.

We of course welcome the legislation that has been laid before Parliament. Before giving a full verdict on it, we will need to properly scrutinise the detail and analyse its potential impacts. In the first instance, the legislation still leaves a series of outstanding issues, including the question of when justice and compensation will be delivered and to whom.

I ask the Minister: what steps have he and Ministers in the other place taken to prevent this rightly exceptional piece of legislation being used by government in a nefarious way in future? How are we protecting against the abuse of this legislation further down the track? The flip side of that is that there are many other scandals that courts, reviews and government are working through. Could the principle of this legislation be used by them?

As I have said before, I seek assurances on the territorial scope of the legislation, which currently applies only to England and Wales even though the Post Office is not devolved and the Fujitsu 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 and sub-postmistresses in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular will receive their justice. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that there will be regular dialogue with the devolved Administrations, given the different legal processes, but I will be a bit more specific: can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on what conversations his department has had with colleagues in Northern Ireland, who have expressly requested that the cases there be included in the scope of this legislation?

This is probably harder to deal with but can the Minister also update your Lordships’ House on what conversations the department has had with colleagues in Scotland about the progress on exonerating sub-postmasters there? As we know, 80% of the redress budget is yet to be paid out and considerable uncertainty remains about when sub-postmasters will receive their full compensation. We all agree, I am sure, that they have waited long enough and that the delays are causing only further financial distress and suffering.

The Commons Business and Trade Committee recommends that there be a “legally binding timeframe” for the period between an offer first being tabled and a settlement being reached. Would the Minister care to comment on that recommendation? If those legally binding targets are not adopted, what assurances can the Minister give that Minister Hollinrake will meet his target of ensuring that all compensation is out of the door by the end of the year? I know that the Minister here and the Minister in the other place are committed to ensuring that there are no further delays but sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will want to know when this will actually happen.

Given the recent chaos in the Post Office’s leadership, we welcome the decision to take it out of the redress process. In fact, last week, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I called for this. Redress must have independent oversight; I thank the Government Ministers and their teams for implementing this. Financial redress alone cannot come close to repaying sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses for their suffering, although it is important that we get it right. As we have previously discussed, some of those impacted by the scandal have sadly passed away; they did not live to see this legislation and their innocence proven, nor to receive the compensation that they rightly deserved. Can the Minister clarify the process for those who have passed away so that their families can receive closure?

On the families, especially children and partners, we see today in the news that a number of children of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are looking to take legal claims against the Post Office. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House of the Government’s attitude towards this? It is vital that the Government act with the urgency and speed that are needed to correct this injustice. We on these Benches stand ready to work with the Government to ensure the speedy implementation of this Bill.

I have just one question regarding the Explanatory Notes. On page 7, paragraph 41, the sentence just trails off. It starts:

“Clause 2 gives the meaning of ‘relevant offence’ with reference to several conditions set out in the subclauses”.


That is fine, but it continues:

“All of the conditions must be satisfied for an alleged offence to”.


It just stops. Can the Explanatory Notes be updated? I understand that this was rushed through, and that is absolutely fine, but it would be helpful if we could have just a bit of clarity of what the end of the sentence is meant to be.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrat Benches echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the consistent and determined efforts of the wronged postmasters who still are fighting for the redress that they deserve. I thank the Minister for the Statement. We on these Benches are pleased to see that legislation will start to correct the fundamental wrongs done to most of the postmasters convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal.

However, the Statement says that

“this legislation will quash all convictions that meet a clear set of conditions”.

These are defined in paragraph 11, on pages 3 and 4 of the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, which was introduced yesterday in another place; the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, referred to those Explanatory Notes just now. Can the Minister explain how these criteria were decided upon? How many of the convicted postmasters are excluded from this redress scheme as a result, and why? I appreciate that all this has been done in a hurry, but even if my questions cannot be answered now, please can the answers be clearly articulated to those who will speak on this Statement so that we can understand why? At the moment, it is not clear who is and is not included as a result of Clause 2 of the Bill.

As I mentioned in a number of previous interventions on this issue, we know that software issues were reported in the predecessor systems to Horizon. Indeed, in 1997, when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was Paymaster-General, there was a steady stream of complaints during the pilot rollout. The i newspaper has also revealed the problems with the Capture scheme, under which a number of postmasters were also convicted. It said yesterday:

“Steve Marston … was using Capture, an IT system rolled out by the Post Office in the early 90s when he suffered unexplained shortfalls of around £79,000. He insists he never stole ‘a penny’ from his branch at Heap Bridge, Greater Manchester, but felt pressured into pleading guilty in 1998 in order to avoid a prison sentence, a tactic the Post Office has admitted was widely used by investigators to secure convictions”.


Can the Minister explain why this group of postmasters, who were using Capture when there were complaints, are also excluded from this Bill?

The Minister says in the Statement that the Bill only covers England and Wales; the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has already covered this. It specifically excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Statement says:

“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”.


If that is the case, why has the Justice Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Angela Constance, expressed her real concern that Scotland is not included? She said:

“We, along with the Northern Ireland Executive, urged the UK Government to introduce UK-wide legislation as the best way to ensure there is a quick, fair and equal solution for all the affected sub-postmasters, particularly as the Post Office is reserved to Westminster, so this announcement is extremely disappointing”.


Given that, in that same paragraph, the Statement goes on to say

“The financial redress scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, once convictions have been overturned”,


why on earth has the decision been made by the Westminster Government to exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland, when neither of those devolved Governments want that?

The Statement made it clear, at last, that the Post Office will no longer have responsibility for redress and should be subject to independent oversight. My noble friend Lord Fox and I, and others from these Benches, have also raised this as a fundamental problem of trust for many postmasters, so its removal is welcome. However, I ask whether the Department for Business and Trade is truly independent of the process, not least because of the debate about the speed of processing of claims that happened in January following the differing statements from the Prime Minister, Kevin Hollinrake MP and the Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch. The Government are responsible for the payments—I shall come on to that later—but this gives them some skin in the game and one thing has to happen now, which is to give postmasters confidence that oversight is truly independent. Can the Minister therefore describe how independent the independent panels or independent individuals will be? Who will appoint them? Will there be a departmental official on the panel? Will departmental staff clerk the panels? Will the independent panels include a postmaster?

The Statement says that there will be legislation to make sure that the payments are exempt from taxation. A regulation on taxation exemption under the compensation arrangements for both the Horizon and infected blood schemes was presented to Parliament in December 2023. Is this a further simple amendment to that regulation, or is it further, separate secondary legislation, or is it a new Bill? How will it differ? Can the Minister explain?

The final section of the Statement refers to the Select Committee’s recommendation of a legally binding timeframe for redress—here, I echo the questions from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol—but I think there is some sympathy for ensuring speed wherever possible. However, the Statement said that it would be impossible without imposing penalties on forensic accounts. That seems to be an extremely narrow focus. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring as swift as possible processing of payment and debate between postmasters and forensic accountants about what is due to postmasters. The critical reason for independence is to ensure that postmasters are afforded a truly fair debate, which many say has been denied them in the initial offers received from the scheme when it was run by the Post Office.

Finally, I have been going through the central government supply estimates for 2023-24 and obviously looked at the Budget papers. I am still struggling to find the compensation payments—in total, approaching about £1 billion—in either the department or Treasury tables. Can the Minister help? I have raised this matter now with, I think, three Ministers and would be grateful if the Minister could write to me and point me in the right direction for the figures. I know that Liam Byrne has also raised these points in the Select Committee he chairs.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords—

Horizon Scandal: Psychological Support Services

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, Northern Ireland has a separate legal system, as does Scotland. The legislation coming before the House is immediately pertinent to England and Wales, and covers around 770 of the 983 convictions. There are live and active discussions with the legal systems in both Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are being helped considerably by the Executive sitting again in Northern Ireland. Both those jurisdictions need to be respected and we will work at speed to get the right treatment across the United Kingdom while respecting the different legal jurisdictions.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, with the Budget this coming Wednesday, I repeat the question that I asked the Minister last week and asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill. Where in the Green Book would I find details of the £1 billion compensation? Is it in the Treasury or another department? I cannot find it anywhere at all. If the Minister does not have the answer at his fingertips, please will he write to me urgently with it?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question, which we have discussed in this House. It may not be in the Green Book specifically, but it is clearly in the Treasury’s books. The money is there to be paid in compensation. The Government have given assurances on that; there will be no wriggling back. I am very happy to write with any further details required, but I say from the Dispatch Box that, as far as the Government are concerned, all commitments will be made to the postmistresses and postmasters.

Post Office: Executive Remuneration

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister’s Answer just now was very interesting, given that the Post Office Limited: Shareholder Relationship Framework Document says at paragraph 7.6 that

“the remuneration of all Board members will require approval by the Shareholder”,

and remuneration that exceeds the threshold must also be approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Can the Minister say what bonuses were approved after 2015? Have any additional approvals been required by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury since 2015? If the Minister does not have this information, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with it.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

Again, I am very grateful for this challenge; it is a very important discussion to have. The Government are responsible for setting remuneration for the board, while the bonuses that I think the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was referring to relate to the Post Office executives, so we should separate the two. Both still need to be investigated—absolutely. I do not have the specific answer to the question relating to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I will be delighted to write to the noble Baroness.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

This is very straight- forward. If I am appointed as the new chairman of a company in this situation and, of my three priorities, the No. 1 is to manage a legal process to get compensation quickly to postmasters, I would expect to be told that formally by the Permanent Secretary and to be held accountable to manage those costs effectively. That does not mean to minimise or delay; it means to manage the process effectively to get compensation to the postmasters. What has been put into the public domain makes it very clear that there has been no dragging of feet and no instruction to the contrary on this matter.

As we have discussed many times in this Chamber, we now have a full statutory inquiry. The judge, Wyn Williams, will pick through this in fine detail. We are all very impatient and frustrated because we want the answer now, but we got into this mess because we jumped the gun before, and we are not going to do so again.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, about where the £1 billion sits. If it comes from the Treasury, would it be in the Green Book following the Autumn Statement? It was all agreed by then. If it is not visible in the Green Book, can the Minister please write to the people speaking on this Statement to say where we might find it? It should be visible from the moment it was agreed, which was well before the Autumn Statement last year.

My second question, going back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, is about the bullying claims. I find it slightly extraordinary that in one part of the Statement the Secretary of State says it is important that she does not go into details, yet suddenly she alleges bullying—which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has pointed out, is not in the Written Statement. It is really important to understand when the allegations of bullying came about and the process that must now be under way to investigate them. You do not sack somebody without an investigation having got under way. If you do, that is the most appalling error of judgment. Can the Minister please confirm when and how Staunton was informed of the bullying complaint and whether he has been contacted by an investigator?