Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for advance sight of it. I also thank the campaigners on this issue, with whom I worked for more than five years—both as a Back Bencher and as a Front Bencher—and, indeed, I thank Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot for their work on the Horizon compensation advisory board, which we established on a cross-party basis during our tenure.

I agree with the Minister that, although good progress has been made, there is much more to do. It is good that £892 million has been paid to 6,200 sub-postmasters, a tenfold increase on what we saw only a couple of years ago. It is clear that most of that has gone out of the door because of what this Parliament did last June, when it overturned the convictions by statute, and because of the introduction of fixed-sum awards, which have revolutionised the ability to pay compensation quickly.

I am proud to say that we did all that in the House on a cross-party basis, and it was the right thing to do. I worked with the then shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade and with this Minister and others in their former roles, and our work was strongly supported by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the then Business Secretary, who is now Leader of the Opposition, and the then Chancellor and his Ministers. I am therefore a little disappointed that the Minister has sought to suggest that he took over a crisis.

We have made much progress on this matter on a cross-party basis, and my remarks today will continue to be made on that basis, but for all the progress the Minister talked about in his statement, I did not hear about a single aspect of the Horizon programme that was not already in train under the last Government, in conjunction with the then Opposition. The Minister mentioned a three and a half-fold increase in July, which I welcome, but as he will no doubt concede, it happened as a result of the overturning of the convictions by Parliament and the introduction of the compensation schemes. The redress scheme, for example, was set in train by the last Government with the co-operation of the then Opposition, as was the investigation of Capture.

The Minister says that the compensation was not budgeted for, but that is not right. Last year’s Budget simply said that the money had been reallocated from departmental expenditure to annual managed expenditure. He implies that the money was not there to pay out to postmasters, when the work had been done on a cross-party basis. It is absolutely wrong to give that impression to people out there who are still waiting for redress. The HSS appeals system was something that we advocated for and put in place, as were the fixed-sum awards for overturned convictions and the Horizon shortfall scheme.

The Minister talks about the unstable leadership of the Post Office. We thought it was right to put a new chair in place, and we have every confidence that Nigel Railton, whom we put in place, will do a fantastic job. We support his transformation plan and the move to a fully franchised network, which we think is the right thing to do.

I will ask the Minister some questions, if I may. It is not clear what he will do about victims of the Capture programme, even though it has been acknowledged that the Post Office was at fault in some of those cases. Will he bring forward legislation to overturn their convictions by statute? I know the advisory board believes that that is the right way forward.

On compensation, when I was in the Minister’s role, I said that a named individual should oversee the compensation schemes, and the Business and Trade Committee has advocated for that. There should be one individual to oversee all the schemes, who will put their reputation on the line for delivering compensation. Although the fixed-sum awards are working, the full assessment route still has problems. Something that the Minister did not mention in his statement, but which we looked at, was a pilot of a more tariff-based scheme, whereby people who have suffered from mental health difficulties could be paid more rapidly, rather than going down a full assessment route.

The Minister mentions the timescales. Currently, there is a time parameter of 40 days for a response from the Department to a new claim, but the clock is reset when the claimant says that the claim is at the wrong level. Will he look at that?

What progress has the Minister made on an interim payment from Fujitsu? What progress has been made on establishing what Ernst and Young should have done in 2011-12, when it was aware of the huge liabilities that the Post Office had on its books due to this particular problem? Will he be ambitious on the banking framework to make sure that postmasters get a good deal, and what progress has the chair made on his commitment to reduce the highest-paid roles in the Post Office’s central management tier to make sure that more of the revenue that flows into the Post Office flows out to postmasters?

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I join him in commending the work of all those who have campaigned, and who continue to campaign, for the victims of this horrendous scandal. I pay tribute to the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Beamish. In a spirit of cross-partisanship, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in the past. I know that he worked extremely hard to try to move things forward, and I very much respect the job that he did.

Let me attempt to do justice to the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. On Capture, we are actively working on a redress scheme. We have had a series of meetings with some of the sub-postmasters who were affected by the problems in the Capture software and their legal representatives. He will be aware that a number of cases with the Criminal Cases Review Commission relate to Capture, and we think it is appropriate that the CCRC is allowed to continue to review those cases.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, the Secretary of State recently met the global chief executive of Fujitsu during his visit to Japan. I have met the chief executive of Fujitsu in the UK, and I said to him that an interim payment would be a significant step in the right direction.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Post Office’s accountants. He may be aware that the Financial Reporting Council is looking at this issue and has been talking to the Horizon compensation advisory board. It is an independent body, and I am sure that he and the House will recognise that it is right that we respect the right of that independent body to do its work.

The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that the full assessment of claims occasionally has problems. That is one of the reasons why I referred to the fact that we are bringing back facilitated discussions, particularly on the GLO scheme. Although there has been significant progress in settling two thirds of the GLO claims that have been put in, we think that those facilitated discussions will help to make it easier for fair compensation to be allocated in a timely way to those victims of the scandal.

Where a case for interim payments is made to us, we always encourage our team to make such payments in order to try to ease the financial pressures, and therefore the trauma, that victims still experience. The hon. Gentleman will know that there were concerns in the past about the letters requesting further information. I have seen some previous examples of those requests, and I can well understand the frustration of sub-postmasters, their lawyers and campaigners. When we request further information, it is to make sure that we can offer an increased payment to sub-postmasters going forward. However, I recognise that there will be some scepticism because of the history around requests for information.

We will continue to do everything we can to get payments out to people as quickly as possible, and we have taken further steps to work with the Post Office to identify victims who had not previously come forward. Some 6,000 new claimants have now come forward, and we are trying to process their cases as quickly as we can.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and Rob Waltham, our excellent candidate for Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, for their engagement and work on this issue.

Despite repeatedly promising to protect and support virgin steelmaking capacity when in opposition, the Labour party is potentially presiding over its total demise. In the process, thousands of blue-collar jobs in this once proud industry have either gone forever or are at risk, including 5,000 directly employed roles at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe alone and many more in the supply chain.

Given that the regions with the highest numbers of steelworkers are Wales and Yorkshire and the Humber, the situation is dealing a hammer blow to efforts to address regional inequality. Steel is obviously a key strategic industry—even more so given our need to increase defence spending and infrastructure investment, and even more so again given President Trump’s game-changing imposition of tariffs.

The Prime Minister keeps saying that the world has changed, and that we are witnessing the end of globalisation. I cannot say that I totally agree, but if that is the Government’s position, surely they have no choice but to intervene to support domestic production. The alternative could see us locked out of reliable, consistently priced sources of steel. The Government have stepped in to help car manufacturing in recent days, so will the Minister now redouble her efforts to reach a deal with British Steel?

Steel production is just one of the industries closing due to our high energy prices, which are 50% higher than our competitors in France and Germany and 400% higher than in the USA. Other manufacturers such as CF Fertilisers on Teesside and Ineos at Grangemouth have closed their doors or are in the process of doing so. Will the Minister press with the Chancellor the case for permanently lower industrial energy prices?

The Minister mentions support for steelworkers. How many steelworkers have the Government engaged with? What support has been given to account for the knock-on effect to communities? What assessment has the Minister made of the effects this situation will have on national security? She mentions a bright future for steelmaking in this country. Will she confirm that that means primary steelmaking capability?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcements today on the zero emission vehicle mandate and the changes we have made to support the automotive industry, which is incredibly important.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the number of good steel jobs that have gone forever or are at risk, but that happened because the previous Government failed to intervene to support our steel industry. That is why we lost so many jobs over the last decade. Not having an industrial strategy or a plan for steel meant that we allowed offshoring of our jobs in the steel sector, which has damaged us. He rightly said that in many key parts of our country we need good jobs. I should say that steel produced really good jobs, which are better paid than the average in the area and are done by really good, qualified people we want to retain in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman talked about energy. Again, the reason why we are here is that we had years of the previous Government not intervening in this space. We are well aware of energy prices in this country and are doing all we can to bring those down. [Interruption.]

I was asked by the hon. Gentleman to redouble my efforts in the negotiations we are having with British Steel. I will do everything that I possibly can—as we are doing. I hope he understands that I cannot go into detail about the state of those negotiations because that would be bad for the workers, bad for our supply chains and bad for the outcome.

The hon. Gentleman talked about national security and primary steel. We are conducting a review of primary steel as part of our plan for steel and we will have the results of that soon. We will look at those results and see what we need to do. I should stress that there is defence equipment made in the UK from electric arc furnaces; there is not much defence work either in British Steel or at Tata in Port Talbot at the moment. People such as Sheffield Forgemasters produce steel from electric arc furnaces. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of national security and to say that the world has changed and things have moved on, so we need to ensure that we are protecting our country as we need to.

As I said in the Chamber in response to the last urgent question on this issue, there is a reason why Putin bombed the blast furnaces in Ukraine pretty much first: it was because a country wants to have that steelmaking capacity. We are alive to those issues, and that is why nothing is off the table. We are doing everything that we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

If Labour Members going back to their seat this weekend were thinking of going to a local pub for a pint and a chat with local farmers, I would think again. A publican with a mid-sized pub contacted me last night to say that because of yesterday’s changes, he would be £120,000 a year worse off, moving him from profit to loss. Labour said that its plans were fully costed and fully funded. Yesterday was a massive broken promise, was it not?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman oversaw the worst Parliament for living standards in modern history. We did not choose that inheritance, and we have made choices. Would he rather we did not compensate for the infected blood scandal? Would he rather we did not compensate the Horizon victims, for whom there was no money in the Budget, on his watch? Would he rather we did not invest in the health service? Would he rather we did not increase the minimum wage? Would he rather we did not support carers? Would he rather we made the choices that he made, such as cutting national insurance for workers when there was no budget for that? This Government are fixing the foundations, so that we can have a bright future for all our country.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Government’s choice was to hit businesses, and that is because there is not an ounce of business experience among them. Labour’s death taxes will hit farms and businesses. Families with a typical farm will have to find hundreds of thousands of pounds or see their farms broken up and sold. The Environment Secretary said 10 months ago that he had no intentions of putting death taxes on businesses. That was a broken promise, was it not?

[Sarah Jones]

I will not take any lectures from the Opposition, who said “eff business”. Conservative Members have some cheek to come at us when we are clearing up the £22 billion black hole that we inherited, and setting in train stability. I spent quite a lot of yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, talking to and having meetings with businesses about the Budget and its implications. We talked about the potential for growth, long-term stability, and changes that this Labour Government are making.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his kind words. I assure him that we will continue to work collaboratively to put the interests of postmasters first. I also associate myself with the congratulations offered by the Secretary of State to Sir Alan Bates and Lady Suzanne Bates, and the recognition of their contribution and that of others.

As the Opposition promised during the very first urgent question of this Parliament, Ministers know that they will receive our full support to deliver compensation swiftly and quash the convictions of those wronged by this terrible tragedy. In his statement, the Secretary of State has set out a new appeals process for those who have already settled their claim under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I welcome that step. I know that the Department is implementing the work of the Horizon compensation advisory board, which was instrumental during my time in office, and will no doubt be supporting the new Government.

However, I have some questions about the Secretary of State’s statement. First, he confirmed that the appeals process will be open for claimants who have settled their claim under the HSS, but it is restricted to those who have new evidence to support their case. In the same breath, he recognised lessons learned from redress schemes to date, indicating that his Department is aware of the flaws in the scheme, which I also acknowledge. Crucially, will the appeals process also be available, as it should be, to all claimants, not just those with new information? Given the accepted flaws in the scheme, it would be wrong to leave individuals without the opportunity to appeal. If people choose the £75,000 top-up, will they be entitled to appeal? If so, there is a risk that for those wanting to go through the appeal process it will be a slower process because of the number of people seeking to appeal.

Secondly, the Secretary of State says that the appeals process will be up and running as soon as possible. Can he set out a specific timeline? Finally, on appeals, can he tell the House whether these individuals will be entitled to legal representation, as is the case in the GLO process?

Could I also ask the Secretary of State some questions about the broader compensation schemes? Some £289 million has been paid to over 2,800 claimants across four schemes. I was alarmed to find, however, that only six claims have been offered redress through the Horizon convictions redress scheme, and no full and final settlements have yet been made through that scheme. Can he explain those numbers?

I was also concerned to hear the Secretary of State say last week that only 130 letters have been written to postmasters who have had convictions quashed—I think there are 700 such postmasters—and that this was a matter for the Ministry of Justice, rather than his office. I am sure he realises that finger-pointing within Government will not wash with the people who have been through these difficulties and this horrendous scandal, so I must therefore push him on what steps he has taken to mitigate the delays in sending out letters to those affected.

Finally, delay in all the schemes is at least partially the result of an adversarial process of lawyers arguing with lawyers. As a remedy, we were working very hard for Sir Gary Hickinbottom, scheme reviewer in the overturned convictions scheme, to be appointed across all three schemes to expedite claims. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that vital appointment has now been made?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his response, and for the tone and collaboration that we tried to model when we were sitting in opposite places in this Chamber. I believe that helped advance what was a difficult piece of legislation to put on the statute book, particularly during a wash-up process, but was the only real vehicle for delivering what we all wanted to see. He has asked me a number of questions; all are absolutely reasonable, and I am happy to respond to them.

In a situation where someone has already received a top-up to £75,000, the hon. Member is right to say that the appeals scheme would not be available. It is a choice between the two best methods of redress and satisfaction for the postmaster. I recognise what the hon. Member has said—that, given the issues with the speed of delivering redress, having that system clogged up would not be satisfactory to anyone—but I think that both options represent reasonable ways forward for people who are in that position.

The hon. Member asked specifically about the remit of the appeals scheme, and I have listened to what he said. The reason we are announcing today that we will take this scheme forward, but will then consult with postmasters to make sure the eligibility criteria are correct—he asked about the timeline, which is just a matter of months—is to make sure that we do not have to revisit the scheme, and can all be satisfied that crucially, postmasters themselves have confidence in it. That is the intention, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments about the remit of the scheme.

The hon. Member asked about legal representation. Yes, that is part of the scheme, again learning lessons from where we have been in the past. As he knows, most of the schemes have now been adjusted to reflect that, but I absolutely take his point about new announcements.

I want to be clear about the difficulty that has existed with the Horizon convictions redress scheme. To update the House, I will give the hon. Member the figures: so far, 180 letters have gone out from the Ministry of Justice. Including those letters and the people who have registered with the Government who perhaps have not all received a letter yet, there are now 276 claimants. I will make the appeal again: while we are doing everything we can with Ministry of Justice colleagues to make sure those letters go out, people can proactively register with the Government. To be frank, this has been a frustration. When the hon. Member and I were having our conversations when we sat in different places in the Chamber, neither of us perhaps knew the state of the database and the records, and—having passed the legislation—the frustrations we would face in getting to people. However, doing so is clearly integral to sorting this out.

Finally, the hon. Member asked about the scheme reviewer. If I may, I will come back to him on that; I will write to him to tell him the up-to-date situation.

In summary, I say again that we will work with all parties and all postmasters to get redress at pace, and to learn the lessons from where things have not gone well in the past, to make sure new announcements carry the confidence of the people who really need to have confidence in them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their places. The Secretary of State seems to imply that businesses are comfortable with his changes to the workplace, but this morning I and my fellow shadow Ministers met business representative organisations that are far from comfortable with the changes he is making, such as day one employment rights, a four-day week, a right to switch off and a higher and broader national living wage, as well as changes to business taxes, including in relation to business property relief, and the fair work agency. Does he not realise—do his Ministers not realise—that until he brings forward the detail on these plans, businesses’ recruitment and investment plans are completely on hold? When will he bring forward those plans?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. I just remind him that he has to direct the question to the Minister responding—I am sure we will get there in the end.

I also remind the shadow Secretary of State that during the general election, the front page of The Times had 120 businesses supporting the Labour party in full knowledge of our plans to make work pay. We are consulting regularly and frequently—almost on a daily basis—with businesses about how the plans will work. I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State has spent the summer putting out scaremongering statements about what this all means. In fact, the only statement he made over the summer on which I agreed with him was that his party deserved to lose the general election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister talks about statements, so I will read him some. The Federation of Small Businesses says its members view these measures with “trepidation”. The Institute of Directors says that confidence is fizzling out, with the biggest one-month drop on record. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation says that these changes

“risked fuelling long, complex litigation”

for businesses defending themselves at employment tribunals. Will he—and the Secretary of State—at least consider exempting small and medium-sized enterprises from these ruinous, French-style regulations?

[Justin Madders]

Again, I have to point out that I am not the Secretary of State—perhaps one day.

We heard all these arguments 20 years ago with the minimum wage. Conservative Members were wrong about that, and they are wrong about this. I just hope they are a bit quicker to come round to realising that this country is going to prosper with improved workers’ rights, working in partnership with businesses to improve the economy for the benefit of everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that until recently his party was in government, and inward investment from China grew over four times since 2014, so I will take no lessons from him on these issues. The automotive industry, which I work with closely and meet regularly, has not asked for what he suggested—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It will do.

[Sarah Jones]

No, it has not. The hon. Gentleman is chuntering again from a sedentary position. It has not asked for that. This is something we are monitoring. We will work closely with the industry and do the right thing, and if we need to intervene we will intervene. As I said, the UK’s economy and industry differ very much from those of other countries, and 80% of UK auto production is exported. It is not that we have the risk of EVs in the other direction. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) needs to recognise the part that his Government played in the development of these matters over many years, and be reassured that we are working closely with our colleagues to make sure we do the right thing.

Post Office Horizon

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on financial redress for postmasters and outstanding issues relating to the Post Office Horizon scandal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

As hon. Members will know, convictions across the UK have been quashed through recent legislation, and those affected are now able to apply for financial redress under the Horizon convictions redress scheme. The scheme will be wholly delivered by the Department, not the Post Office. All the forms of redress, including those pursued under the group litigation order, will be delivered by the existing schemes.

Since taking office, this Government have continued to work closely with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to identify those who have had their convictions overturned. Letters have started to be issued to those eligible that will confirm that their conviction has been quashed and provide further information on how to access financial redress. But I would encourage those who believe that they are eligible not to wait for a letter. Please do come forward now and register for the Horizon conviction redress scheme.

We have put guidance on gov.uk to help people know where they stand: whether their conviction has been overturned and, if eligible, how to apply for redress through the registration and application process. Victims will be able to choose from two options: first, they can either accept a fixed settlement of £600,000; or, secondly, they can choose a full claim assessment if they believe their losses exceed £600,000 and wish to have their application fully examined by the Government.

No matter what route they choose to take, once an applicant’s eligibility is confirmed, they will be paid a preliminary payment of £200,000. We are making sure that they can access historical data from both the Post Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to support their decision and the application. We also recognise that, with the best will and support in the world, in a few cases, some information may not be retrievable, but I assure hon. Members that, even in those cases, we will do all we can to ensure that a fair offer is made to sub-postmasters who have suffered this terrible injustice. This House was united in the last Parliament in its wish to see justice for sub-postmasters. In this Parliament, we intend to deliver on that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is disappointing that I have again had to ask an urgent question to get the Government to come to the Dispatch Box. It is also disappointing that neither the Secretary of State nor the postal affairs Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas)—has responded to either of the urgent questions. This is clearly an important matter that deserves full scrutiny by this House. Despite earlier promises only 12 days ago to give the House a significant update, only a written statement was available.

One of the final acts of the last Government was to pass legislation that, for the first time in history, overturned hundreds of convictions and set in train a process to provide redress to the victims. We made a clear commitment that the victims would be able to apply for redress before the summer recess. That commitment has not been honoured, although claimants can now register for redress. To do so, they need a reference number that is available only to individuals written to by the Ministry of Justice, which has today confirmed that only 10 of the 700 postmasters have received such a letter.

I ask the Minister: when will the other 690 postmasters be written to? Assuming claimants apply for the most rapid form of redress—a fixed sum award—when will the first £600,000 payments be made? The Secretary of State will acknowledge that we had conversations regarding Court of Appeal convictions and those refused leave to appeal that were not quashed by the legislation. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that those cases are given assistance to overturn their convictions?

The last Government also announced that we would top up claimants in the Horizon shortfall scheme to a minimum payment of £75,000. How many of the thousands of claimants in this scheme have been written to to that effect? Finally, where is the Secretary of State, or where is the hon. Member for Harrow West, who has been appointed post office Minister?

[Justin Madders]

We promised to update Parliament before the summer recess, and we have done that by way of a written ministerial statement. I note that, when the shadow Minister was the Minister, he came and answered on most occasions for the Government. We certainly did not take that as an indication that the Government were taking this matter any less seriously than they should, and that is not the case now either. I understand the frustration that the shadow Secretary of State has about the number of letters that have gone out, but there have been difficulties in corroborating some of that data. I understand that, when he made that promise as a Minister, he did so in good faith, but it has turned out that additional physical checks have been required. We have had to access court documents—sometimes stretching back decades—which has meant that there have been delays. The Ministry of Justice has put more resource into that to ensure that work carries on at pace.

As the shadow Secretary of State has noted, the website is now up and running and applicants can register on it. I am pleased to report that, as of this morning, 89 people have already done so. We hope that, once verification checks have been completed, payments can be processed within 10 working days. We understand that the question on the Court of Appeal was discussed at length during the passage of the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024. The matter deserves further consideration, and I understand that the Minister for postal services has had conversations on what we can do in that respect.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I wish to make it clear that I am once again waiving the provisions of the sub judice resolution in relation to this matter to allow Members to be able to discuss fully these issues of national importance.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): I congratulate you on your re-election, Mr Speaker, and thank you for granting this urgent question, which is to ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on financial redress for sub-postmasters and outstanding issues relating to the Post Office Horizon scandal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his new position and on securing the first urgent question of this Parliament.

Members will know that the Government made a key manifesto commitment to ensure that justice and compensation are delivered as swiftly as possible for every postmaster caught up in the Horizon scandal. The Secretary of State has already met Sir Alan Bates, Kevan Jones and the chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, to discuss the progress being made and what more can be done. The Government intend to make a significant announcement on the new redress scheme before the summer recess. This scheme will apply to postmasters whose convictions have been overturned by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 passed in the last Parliament.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I welcome the Minister to his role. I say in all sincerity that I wish him the very best of luck. We on the Opposition Benches, in the national interest, wish the Government to succeed. It is vital that his Department succeeds in its brief. When British businesses do well, we all do well.

I hope this urgent question, on a matter on which the House has been in agreement, will set us off on the right foot in working together in the national interest. That matter is of course compensation for sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal. I was the previous Post Office Minister, and the House will know of my commitment and my party’s commitment to the individuals whose lives have been torn apart by this scandal.

It is right that the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act received Royal Assent during wash-up to quash the convictions of hundreds of affected postmasters, but the Minister will know that the Act itself does not provide compensation, which is why, alongside that legislation, we announced plans for a new Horizon convictions redress scheme. This scheme will make compensation payments to those who have had convictions quashed by the Act.

In government, we ensured that Royal Assent was achieved as soon as possible so that there was no gap in the availability of compensation. It is only right that postmasters have access to swift and fair compensation. That is why we overturned those convictions. Those with overturned convictions have the option of immediately taking a fixed and final offer of £600,000. It is also why, in government, we changed the rules for those in the Horizon shortfall scheme so that they are entitled to a £75,000 fixed-sum award, bypassing the assessment process; so that all full and final settlements below that figure would be automatically topped up; and so that an appeal process for those in the HSS is also considered.

Although I am pleased that, as of 31 May, approximately £222 million has been paid to over 2,800 claimants across the scheme, I must push the Government for more detail on when the redress payments set out by the Horizon convictions redress scheme can be expected—we were told that it would be by July. I also note that the Department for Business and Trade has said that it “continues to work” on the new Horizon convictions redress scheme.

I ask the Minister—[Interruption]—when will the scheme be up and running? When does he expect the £75,000 top-ups and the HSS appeal process to be implemented, and the victims to be contacted to that effect? When will he open the scheme? Will he announce a date for full compensation under the Horizon convictions redress scheme?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the Chamber that it is a new beginning, and we want to start on the right foot, not the wrong foot. It is difficult to go from Government to Opposition, but there is a two-minute limit for the Opposition and a one-minute limit for the third largest party. Please let’s stick to the rules and start as we mean to go on.

Companies House: 2024-25 Public Targets

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2024-25:

Use our new powers to ensure companies on the register have a legitimate address—in particular, by taking action against identity and address theft. 100% of companies that have been defaulted to Companies House’s address due to not providing an appropriate office address, or using an address that has been hijacked, will have been removed from the register, be pending removal, or have been updated to an appropriate registered office address, in accordance with the law.

Eradicate the use of PO box addresses as a registered office address by companies on the register.

Introduce the technical capability to verify an individual’s identity by March 2025. This will help ensure Companies House is prepared for the anticipated transition process whereby all new and existing company directors and persons of significant control will be required to verify their identity, either directly through Companies House or through authorised third parties.

Develop a strategic intelligence assessment to identify the priority areas for action in the fight against economic crime, and act upon it.

Digital services are available for a minimum of 99.5% of the time.

80% of customers are satisfied with Companies House.

Incoming calls to the contact centre to be answered within an average of four minutes.

Manage expenditure within budgetary limits and utilise central government funding.

[HCWS501]

Growth Guarantee Scheme: Contingent Liability Notification

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the details of the growth guarantee scheme, which will replace the recovery loan scheme on 1 July 2024 and run until at least 31 March 2026.

The growth guarantee scheme is facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Under the scheme, lenders will offer facilities of up to £2 million to support businesses that would otherwise be unable to access the finance they need, or would only be able to do so on worse terms. The scheme is forecast to facilitate £2.19 billion of finance between 1 July 2024 and 31 March 2026.

Some notable features of GGS are as follows:

The maximum amount of external finance available will be £2 million per business in Great Britain; for businesses in scope of the Windsor framework, the maximum amount will be £1 million per business.

To lend through the scheme, lenders will be required to certify that they would not have been able to offer a facility to the business on their normal commercial terms, or that they would have only been able to do so at a higher interest rate.

Personal guarantees will be permitted, but not required, for all facilities in line with delivery partners’ usual policies. Principal private residences may not be used as security under any circumstances.

The minimum facility size will be £25,001 for loans and overdrafts and £1,000 for asset and invoice finance products. Businesses will be required to meet the costs of interest payments and any fees from the outset. The lender must establish that the borrower has a viable business proposition assessed according to its normal commercial lending criteria. Businesses who have made use of the previous coronavirus loan schemes, or the recovery loan scheme, will be able to access the scheme.

Given the above, the maximum contingent liability for the forecast £2.19 billion scheme is £1.533 billion.

I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.

[HCWS502]

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is an historic day. It has been a great privilege to be the Minister for the Bill, and I thank our officials for moving with lightning speed to get it to this point, only five months from when the process commenced. I also thank Members in all parts of both Houses for their co-operation and their collegiate approach to the Bill, including the Opposition Front Benchers, who have provided great support, which we greatly appreciate. I thank the Justice Secretary, my Department’s Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—the Bill would not have been possible without their support.

This is an historic day because, as a result of the Bill, convictions will be overturned on Royal Assent. With His Majesty’s agreement, that means they will be overturned tomorrow.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Along with the contaminated blood scandal, the Horizon scandal remains a terrible stain on our nation’s recent past. It is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history, and over the course of the debates on the Bill we have heard the testimonies of victims, and the lies and obfuscations of those who were responsible, expressed by Members across the House. That has rightly made Members of both Houses and the public deeply frustrated and angry at the injustice that sub-postmasters and their families have faced.

It is right that the Government have introduced legislation to exonerate those who have suffered for so long, and the time provided for the Bill today allows us to ensure that it is concluded. We must not lose sight of the task at hand during this wash-up, and we must ensure that the hundreds of innocent people who were wrongfully convicted get the justice that they deserve, and the compensation and exoneration that they desperately need. The Opposition have supported the Bill, and we support the independent inquiry and wish to see it continue its work. Even this week, with the testimony of Paula Vennells, shocking new information has been revealed, and we will continue to push for justice for the victims.

At previous stages, the Minister provided assurances that he would ensure that cases from the Capture IT system are looked at, because this Bill does not cover the wider extent of the scandal, and that the company responsible for Horizon, Fujitsu, and its executives will honour the commitment that they made to provide compensation, rather than leaving it to taxpayers to do so. I hope he can update us on any progress he has made since giving that undertaking in the House. This Parliament will soon dissolve, but Ministers of the Crown carry on for a few more weeks. I hope the Minister will make every effort to ensure as much progress as possible is made, so that the families receive the redress they desperately need.

In the other House, the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson highlighted Lord Arbuthnot’s desire to see those convicted by the Court of Appeal included in the Bill before us. At the time of speaking, the Government opposed that. We are sympathetic, but we nevertheless remain opposed to Parliament becoming, in effect,

“the appeal court for the Court of Appeal”.

We would, however, support appropriate proposals to give the 13 people not covered by the Bill the opportunity to seek redress in the courts. I hope the Minister is able to look at what might be done to work with Lord Arbuthnot to find a satisfactory solution for those 13 cases.

In conclusion, I am grateful to colleagues from across both Houses for the work they have done, particularly the Members of Parliament who worked so tirelessly to ensure that the plight of sub-postmasters and their families was raised. Their work highlighted that in this and other scandals, such as the contaminated blood scandal, it is the constituency connection and our relationship with the people we represent that is often the most powerful insight into seeing injustices early on, and seeing broader patterns that expose major failures in our system, be that in the contaminated blood scandal or the Horizon scandal. The message is very clear: whoever and whichever party is in power, Ministers, civil servants and those in positions of power must listen very closely and not dismiss the concerns of Members of Parliament who raise those cases, which can expose a bigger pattern of injustice, or the citizens we represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you for your kind words, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this will be the last time that I speak in this Chamber, and I cannot think of a more fitting debate in which to do so, because it is the culmination of many years of fighting. I played a small part in getting justice for the sub-postmasters; much of it was down to Alan Bates and the families who went through this complete nightmare. Hopefully, they will get justice and truth when the inquiry reports next year.

This Bill was always going to be important because of the individuals involved. Unless you actually sat with many of these victims, they would not have come forward to clear the stain on their reputations or to gain access to compensation. It has been a long fight, and my partner in crime was Lord Arbuthnot. Someone asked me how we had got together on this. If people look back, they will see that we both served on the Defence Committee—he was the Chair at the time. He has been a very effective advocate and I pay huge tribute to him.

There have been many Members from all parts of the House—some are no longer here—who made a contribution over the years, and I think that their support needs to be recognised as well. Turning to the Ministers involved, I would like to mention the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who showed such tenacity in his determination to get justice. He was followed very ably by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I have called him a poacher turned gamekeeper, but he is a very effective one. He has driven this case forward, not in a belligerent way, but with patience and determination to ensure that people who have been wronged get justice. That is something that we should all think about.

People can turn round and say, “No, you are wrong, the system cannot be questioned.” And there are times when you can feel like you are ploughing a lonely furrow. But if you know in your gut that something is wrong, it is important to just keep going. This was one of those cases. But it has certainly been championed by the Minister, who has been an excellent advocate on behalf of all these people. It has not been easy. I accept that some of the decisions that he had to make were not easy and were not always welcomed by everyone, but he tried his best and we have this Bill today because of him.

I have one final thing to say, and this is unfinished business. The Minister knows what I am going to say now and it is about Capture, the pre-Horizon scheme, which I have been investigating. Hopefully, we will get justice for those individuals as well, and, again, the Minister is determined to get to the bottom of that by appointing an independent investigator to look at the cases that have been referred to him. I shall be looking from afar with interest, but I know that whoever picks up his brief or takes on this case will not be able to put it down unless they get that justice.

In politics, people often ask whether you can actually achieve anything. There is a lot of cynicism these days. I say to anybody who is aspiring to be a Member of this place that they can change things, they can make a difference, but they have to be persistent. Most of the time, people across the other side of this House may be political opponents, but they are not our enemies. We do the best in this place when we work together, and, in this case, cross-party working has achieved final justice for these people.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

With the leave of the House, I have a few final comments. The shadow Minister asked about the Capture software that was used prior to the Horizon software. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has pushed strongly on these matters, and we are having an independent investigation into them, which we anticipate will report later this year. I am sure that he will take a keen interest in that, as will those on the Opposition Front-Bench team. It is important that we get redress as soon as possible. The Bill opens the door to rapid redress for hundreds of victims of this scandal. We believe that we can get redress paid from July onwards, when the new scheme will be put in place. On the Court of Appeal, we are very interested to ensure that those people also get a fair hearing, and a rapid rehearing of their cases, and can be exonerated wherever possible.