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?