Post Office Horizon Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Sikka

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Perhaps if she has some of that evidence, she could share it with us. I am not dismissing what the noble Baroness said. If she has that evidence, we will of course look into it. It is important that justice is done in this case, and is seen to be done.

In light of these concerns, in September the Minister announced that the Government are setting up an appeal process for postmasters who are unhappy with the full assessments of their claims, as recommended by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. We expect to receive the first appeals in the spring. The Government have committed to covering the reasonable costs of postmasters obtaining legal advice at each stage of the appeals process. The Government are also actively looking at other ways in which the pace of redress can be sped up and have been supported by the recommendations from the advisory board and claimants’ lawyers in this area.

Post Office prosecutions of innocent postmasters were perhaps the most reprehensible part of this scandal. Some 111 of these unfortunate individuals had their convictions overturned by the courts. The Post Office set up the overturned convictions scheme to ensure that such people get fair redress for malicious prosecution and other losses. Approximately £65 million has been paid under this scheme. So far, 82 of the 111 exonerated people have submitted full and final claims for redress. In response, 73 redress offers have been made and 66 accepted and paid. This scheme provides the option of an upfront offer of £600,000 to claimants, ensuring swift redress is provided to those victims who do not wish to submit a full claim. This is larger than the fixed offer in the HSS, reflecting the greater harm done to those who were convicted. As of 3 January, 58 people have chosen to accept that offer.

The House will recall the widespread concern that people convicted as a result of the scandal were not being exonerated by the courts, often because the evidence had gone or because they could not face a further legal fight. These people were therefore exonerated en masse by Parliament in May of last year. As of 7 February, 557 individuals in England and Wales have been sent a letter, informing them that they have at least one conviction quashed by the Act. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are running parallel exercises.

In July last year, the Government launched the Horizon convictions redress scheme to address the suffering of these people, wherever they are in the UK. I am pleased to report that it has made excellent progress. Under this scheme, eligible applicants are entitled to an interim payment of £200,000. They can then opt to have their claims individually assessed or take the fixed offer of £600,000. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that 72% of people in this redress scheme have not yet been paid. Most of the costs of redress relates to convictions which were rightly overturned by Parliament. No full claims have yet been received from those individuals and the Government are not going to slow down the redress. When people claim and we get the full claims, we aim to make to make an offer within 40 working days in 90% of the cases.

As of 31 January, 383 initial interim claims had been received, of which 364 have been paid; 232 full claims have been received, with 208 of those paid and 24 offers accepted and awaiting payment. The department’s target is for the first offers to be provided in response to 90% of full claims within 40 working days of receipt. A total of £156 million, including interim payments, has been paid to eligible claimants under this scheme. BBC News recently ran a story of two more claimants having received their £600,000 claims. It is very good to hear those individual cases of justice being done, even if it has taken far too long.

This brings us to the GLO scheme—the group litigation scheme. The group litigation court order case celebrated in last year’s ITV drama provided redress which proved to be unequal and unfair when compared with that provided by the HSS. The GLO scheme is intended to put that right.

The scheme is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than the Post Office. Last year, Sir Alan Bates expressed concern that the scheme was not delivering fast enough. The Government agreed, but the problem was that we were not receiving the full claims. However, those concerns have now been eased. Out of the 492 postmasters eligible for the scheme, the department has received 408 completed claims. When it receives claims, the department acts quickly. It aims to make offers in 90% of cases within 40 working days of receiving a completed claim. As of 31 January, 89% of offers were made within that target period.

If any postmaster cannot resolve their redress through such bilateral discussions, they can go to the scheme’s independent panel. So far, only five cases have required help from the panel. By contrast, 257 cases have been by agreement between the department and the postmaster, either in response to the first offer or a subsequent challenge. This demonstrates that the department is making fair offers.

A total of £128 million, including interim payments, has been paid to postmasters under the GLO scheme. The Government expect to have paid redress to the great majority of the GLO claimants by 31 March 2025.

My noble friend Lord Sikka raised a question about the DWP convictions. I can assure him that the Minister for Transformation is looking into this, a review is being established, and I hope to provide more information about that. My noble friend also raised questions about the Lost Chances charity. A meeting has been arranged between it and my colleague, Minister Thomas.

We have been talking about the Horizon redress schemes but, as noble Lords have pointed out, a predecessor system known as Capture also involved errors and bugs which affected some postmasters. I pay tribute to the tireless advocacy of my noble friend Lord Beamish on behalf of this group.

In response, the Minister announced on 17 December last year that the Government will be providing full and fair redress to postmasters who were victims of errors and bugs in the Capture programme. The Government will continue to discuss this work with my noble friend Lord Beamish, and we will return to the House in the spring with an update.

Fujitsu supplied the Horizon software at the heart of this scandal. The sorry tale of its introduction has been fully explored by Sir Wyn Williams’ public inquiry. The Government of course welcome Fujitsu’s acknowledgement of a moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal and continue to talk regularly to Fujitsu about this. The Post Office Minister will be meeting Fujitsu’s Europe CEO shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked: if Fujitsu were in jail, would we be giving it the millions that we are currently giving it? It is of course true that Fujitsu has admitted wrongdoing, but at the moment we do not know whether it is criminal. Deciding on that before reviewing the evidence is part of what has caused the scandal, and we should not repeat it. In its apology, Fujitsu recognised that it has a civil liability, and this will be dealt with through the financial contributions which it has promised.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, my noble friend Lord Monks, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others raised the issue of errors made by the Post Office auditors. The noble Lords have referred the performance of Post Office auditors to the Financial Reporting Council, and my department officials have also spoken to it. It is the right body to consider this, and the Government should not second-guess it. But, going back to the issue of Fujitsu’s contribution, the full amount cannot be determined until we have Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will set out the full facts of what happened.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Sikka raised the potential for an interim contribution from Fujitsu. I would say that it is too soon to decide on Fujitsu’s final contribution to the costs of the scandal, but I agree with noble Lords that an interim contribution would be very welcome and appropriate in these circumstances. Given the nature of the discussions that will need to take place on Fujitsu’s contribution, the Government will not be giving a running commentary on them. But I can promise that we will keep the House informed of progress at appropriate moments.

The Horizon system is still in place, unfortunately. A new version was introduced in the late 2010s, which the High Court accepted was “relatively robust”, but it is none the less very much in need of replacement. There can be no overnight fix for this lack of investment.

We are working with the Post Office to secure a new system which is fit for purpose, and which will not involve Fujitsu. In the meantime, the Post Office is, unfortunately, still dependent on the Horizon system to run its branches. I understand the widespread desire to see Fujitsu out of the Post Office picture immediately, but the only way to achieve this would be to shut down all local post offices and deny citizens the vital services which they provide. We do not think that we can do that, and so Fujitsu must remain for the time being. The Post Office has extended its contract until March 2026 but is looking to reduce its input as soon as possible.

Recognising its responsibility for the scandal, Fujitsu has voluntarily paused bidding for new government contracts. However, the Post Office is not the only area where government needs help which is only practicable to get from Fujitsu. So, while we agree with Fujitsu’s decision not to bid for government contracts in general, there will be situations where existing contracts need to be extended, or new ones begun, although generally in connection with existing services. Of course, we understand why that is undesirable, but it is being done only because currently there are no viable alternatives.

There have been allegations in the media that Fujitsu is seeking and receiving contracts beyond those limits. I assure the House that this is not the case. The Crown Representative and his team in the Cabinet Office, who oversee all the Government’s dealings with Fujitsu, are keeping a close watch on the situation.

I agree with noble Lords that individuals and companies responsible for the Horizon scandal must be held to account. The Metropolitan Police is keeping a close eye on the Williams inquiry and has a number of staff working on this. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked about the involvement of law processes. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that it has more than 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms relating to the scandal. There are other channels of accountability, too, and all of these need to be investigated in due course. My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the wholesale culture change needed at the Post Office, and my noble friend Lord Sikka raised specific questions about the culpability of the directors. This will all be covered in Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will establish what happened, what went wrong and why.

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, raised the question of an independent body—

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting. I know she has had a lot of questions to answer; I very much hope she will send detailed replies to a lot of the questions I asked. One matter was the case of 92 year-old Mrs Betty Brown, who, despite promises from the Minister six weeks ago, is still waiting for her compensation. Secondly, I asked whether the Minister could meet me and Mrs Gowri Jayakanthan, who had been refused any compensation and whose husband committed suicide, unfortunately, under pressure from Post Office allegations. Would the Minister be good enough to meet us, please?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to go on to say that a number of noble Lords have asked very specific questions, and I will of course write. I will just deal quickly with the idea that there should be an independent body for redress in the future. That is certainly something that we are looking into, and it is a very helpful suggestion coming forward from the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, among others.

Horizon was a terrible scandal, and it is right that we should continue to keep it in our minds through debates such as this. The Government are determined to learn the lessons from it, which is why Sir Williams’s report will be so important, to deliver full and fair compensation, as quickly as possible, to those postmasters who were so unjustly used. I thank noble Lords for this very helpful debate.

Post Office Horizon

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Sikka

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we are mindful of those cases and are carefully watching the numbers that remain in that camp. The usual routes of appeal remain for those cases. In particular, those individuals can apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be referred back to the Court of Appeal, if it considers that

“there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made”.

I hope that advice will be taken by a number of those individuals.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, for nearly 20 years, institutions of government and corporations claimed that there was nothing wrong with the prosecutions of sub-postmasters. Now, of course, we know different. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to appoint an independent inquiry into the 100 or so convictions of sub-postmasters that were secured by the Department for Work and Pensions. In many cases, the affected individuals have passed away and their families are traumatised.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. He is absolutely right about the long delays that took place, and I think we around this House have all accepted that that was unacceptable. I hope that all parts of government have learned the lesson from that. On the individuals and the question of whether there should be an independent inquiry, we believe that the best way to deal with this issue now is through the current arrangements being set up, rather than by having another third party involved. I am sure that all these matters will be taken into account in the eventual recommendations.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Sikka

Committee stage
Monday 25th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 24, I will speak also to Amendment 26. I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

Together, these amendments go to the heart of questioning why the Government have found it necessary to change the grounds for the refusal of a subject access request from “manifestly unfounded” to “vexatious or excessive”. At the moment, Article 15 of the UK GDPR gives data subjects a right of access to find out what personal information an organisation hold on them, how it is using it and whether it is sharing it. This right of access is key to transparency and often underpins people’s ability to exercise other data rights and human rights; for example, it impacts on an individual’s right to privacy in Article 8 of the ECHR and their right to non-discrimination in Article 40 of the same.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised specific concerns about these proposals, arguing that subject access requests

“are a vital mechanism for data subjects to exercise their fundamental rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination”.

It argues that these rights will be even more vital as AI systems are rolled out, using personal information

“in ways that may be less than transparent to data subjects”.

So we must be suspicious as to why these changes are being made and whether they are likely to reduce the legitimate opportunities for data subjects to access their personal information.

This comes back to the mantra of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding a number of the clauses we have dealt with and, I am sure, ones we have yet to deal with: why are these changes necessary? That is the question we pose as well. Is it simply to give greater clarity, as the Minister in the Commons claimed; or is it to lighten the burden on business—the so-called Brexit dividend—which would result in fewer applications being processed by data controllers? Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether data subject rights will be weakened by these changes.

In the Commons, the Minister, John Whittingdale, also argued that some data search requests are dispro-portionate when the information is of low importance or low relevance to the data subject. However, who has the right to make that decision? How is a data controller in a position to judge how important the information is to an individual? Can the Minister clarify whether the data controller would have the right to ask the data subject their reasons for requesting the information? This is not permitted under the current regime.

A number of stakeholders have argued that the new wording is too subjective and is open to abuse by data controllers who find responding to such requests, by their very nature, vexatious or excessive. For a busy data operator, any extra work could be seen as excessive. Although the Information Commissioner has said that he is clear how these words should be applied, he has also said that they are open to numerous interpretations. Therefore, there is a rather urgent need for the Information Commissioner to provide clear statutory guidance on the application of the terms, so that only truly disruptive requests can be rejected. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether this is the intention.

In the meantime, our Amendment 24 aims to remove the easy get-out clause for refusing a request by making it clear that the resources available to the controller should not, by itself, be a reason for rejecting an application for information. There is an inevitable cost involved in processing requests, and we need to ensure that it does not become the standard excuse for denying data subjects their rights. Our Amendment 26 would require the data controller to produce evidence of why a request is considered vexatious or excessive if it is being denied. It should not be possible to assert this as a reason without providing the data subject with a clear and justifiable explanation. Amendment 25, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has a similar intent.

We remain concerned about the changes and the impact they will have on established data and human rights. As a number of stakeholders have argued, access to personal data and its uses underpins so many other rights that can be enforced by law. We should not give these rights away easily or without proper justification. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but without further clarification in the Bill, I doubt whether our concerns will be assuaged. I beg to move.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a little bit about my intention to delete this clause altogether. Clause 9 significantly changes the data and privacy landscape, and for the worse. The Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, published on 25 January, noted:

“Clause 9 amends Article 12 of the UK GDPR to broaden the basis for refusal”—


not for enhancing, but for refusal—

“of a data access request by providing more leeway to ‘data controllers’”.

In the world we live in, there is a huge imbalance of power between corporations, governments, public bodies and individuals. People must have a right to know what information is held about them, and how and when it is used. It is vital in order to check abuses and hold powerful elites to account.

The request for information can, at the moment, be wholly or partly denied, depending on the circumstances. It can be refused if it is considered to be manifestly unfounded or manifestly excessive. These phrases, “manifestly unfounded” and “manifestly excessive”, are fairly well understood. There is already a lot of case law on that. Clause 9, however, lowers the threshold for refusing information from “manifestly unfounded or excessive” to “vexatious or excessive”.