Post Office Horizon Scandal: Compensation Payments

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. He is right: of the four schemes that are available, two of them are administered directly by the Post Office, while the other two are administered by the Department for Business and Trade. This is a matter that is currently being reviewed by the Department for Business and Trade, and there is consideration being given to whether that administration should be brought within the department. However, as part of that consideration, we cannot inadvertently create some environmental factors that may accidentally slow down the process of those claims. We are looking into this and trying to make sure that we deal with these expeditiously, while ensuring we do not inadvertently create unintended consequences by bringing those within the department.

With regard to the legal claims that are in process and whether those legal fees are addressable, there is significant legal support available for each of the claimants, and those legal fees are being reimbursed. But I understand that the process is a complex one, that people have suffered a great deal already and that the process can be quite cumbersome. Whilst this cannot always be avoided in all cases, the Government have worked hard to try to alleviate some of this by making some fixed-sum offers available, which go some way to making the process a lot simpler for claimants.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has declared my interest as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. Attention has rightly focused on the contribution to be made by Fujitsu to the compensation payable, and I hope it is very substantial, but the auditors of the Post Office, Ernst & Young, should also bear their share of the blame. I asked the chair of the inquiry to include in his inquiry what the auditors knew and did not know, and he decided that that would lengthen the inquiry disproportionately. That means that the auditors who certified that the Post Office accounts presented a true and fair view of the Post Office finances, and yet somehow missed a liability of £1.87 billion, will not be held to account. What can we do about that?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord not only for his question but for his significant contribution to the role, and I pay tribute to him for his long-standing commitment to resolving the Horizon scandal and his work within the advisory board. He is right that Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry chose not to look at the issues concerning the audit of the Post Office. I know colleagues on the advisory board have aired these matters with the Financial Reporting Council, which is the right thing to do, and I look forward to ultimately hearing the outcome from the FRC.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure what a white rabbit has to do with it, but it was not clear that the rebate would apply. That is precisely why we were engaged in intensive discussions with the European Commission, and it is why, universally in this House and in the media, people were talking about a figure of £1.7 billion. It was not clear, but we achieved the application of the rebate, and as a result the bill is £850 million.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I think I am missing something here. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the only reason we are discussing the payment of an EU surcharge at all is because of the stunningly impressive handling of the economy by my right hon. Friend?

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend is very kind. One of the reasons why this surcharge, as he puts it, has arisen is because of the strong UK economic performance relative to the continent of Europe. We should not be happy about the poor performance of the European continent. We want the European continent to be performing better.

Trident Alternatives Review

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

rose—

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I am here to set out the details of the review. Those are the terms of the debate today. I will set out my own views in the course of my speech, if my hon. Friend will allow me time to get on with it.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will, however, give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee first.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I am grateful to the Chief Secretary. I am trying to take this document seriously, but I am having some difficulty, not least because of the removal by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of the excellent Liberal Democrat Minister from the Ministry of Defence, which shows something of his party’s attitude towards defence. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accept that his policy would destroy the submarine building industry of this country?

[Danny Alexander]

No, I certainly do not accept that, but I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who made an enormous contribution to this review.