Post Office Management Culture

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing today’s debate. I know that she has worked on this and other Post Office issues from the minute she set foot in this place in 2015. Her efforts, and those of many other hon. Members who have spent many years trying to raise this subject, are finally getting the attention they deserve, and we are actually seeing the required redress for those caught up in it. In many ways, she is our very own Madam Post Offices. I know she is going to hit me for that later, but that is okay.

This is a really important issue, and it shows that when injustices are brought to light, it is possible that they can be addressed. It may never be done as quickly as we want it to be done and it may not be done exactly how we want it to be done, but when we all come together, it can be done. The fact that we had to wait for a TV dramatisation to speed up the process is unfortunate, but at least we are there now. I commend the Minister for his personal efforts and the actions he has taken in driving this forward, because I know he has done so. That is a genuine recognition of a subject on which we will not just oppose for the sake of opposing. When something is done right, it is important that we make that point.

By now, we are sadly too familiar with the details of this chapter in British history and, indeed, the infamy of it. Hundreds of working people had their lives ruined, and still nobody has yet really been held accountable. I know there is an inquiry under way, but we are still waiting for that accountability. More than 900 sub-postmasters and postmistresses have been prosecuted after being accused of stealing money because of incorrect information provided by the failed Horizon computer system. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) highlighted issues involving Fujitsu and the responsibilities of that company, but what questions were being asked by the Post Office itself when issues in the system were first brought to light? Were questions being asked, and were they simply dismissed? Why is it that, when questions were asked, that did not necessarily result in the Post Office much more quickly addressing the issues that were raised?

Some very serious questions still require answers, and some very serious answers are required from Fujitsu. I know others have done the same, but in the past few weeks I have written to the CEO of Fujitsu to urge him to step forward to help the corporation come forward and accept its responsibility for its part in this debacle. It would only be right if Fujitsu held up its hands and accepted that responsibility. In the spirit of openness and transparency—and, indeed, dare I say, honour—that company should recognise the part it has played.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about injustices, and it is important that we all get behind an injustice such as this. Of course, this is only one of several injustices we are currently dealing with, which include Grenfell, infected blood, partygate, Hillsborough and—just to plug my own Bill—the subject of the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) Bill, which I would encourage all Members to support. Where we see injustices, it is important that we come together to address them and tackle them head-on.

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) about the use of NDAs by the Post Office, because when we are trying to get to the bottom of a scandal such as this, we need to have as much information as possible. The Minister’s direct intervention and assurance on that point was very helpful in making sure that we are all clear that any postmasters or mistresses who may have concerns about coming forward can do so without fear of that coming back on them.

Every day, I and everyone in the Chamber see the important part that post offices play in our local communities. I know that my post offices in Midlothian do a phenomenal job. It is because they are a central part of the community that so many of us feel so strongly about this issue, and the heart of many of our communities have been let down by a management structure that simply tried to brush aside concerns and complaints. I am still waiting to see if there is actually the shift in culture that we all hope there has been, but there seems to be some concern that that has not necessarily entirely changed. We hear that sub-postmasters are still closing businesses because their present terms are insufficient to make it worthwhile. What will the Minister do to push the Post Office further towards a fundamental culture shift?

Some of the issues that arose in the Horizon scandal were even named after Scottish towns. We had the Dalmellington bug and the Callendar Square bug—these issues were not unseen or unheard; they were flagged to the extent of being named after towns. How could we have got to that place without action being taken sooner?

All these tragedies again show that the cards are stacked heavily against the ordinary working person. Sadly, it sometimes takes something like an ITV programme to bring that into wider public awareness. I hope we can learn lessons through this process to instigate a culture shift in the management of the Post Office, and wider than that, to ensure that where such concerns are raised, they are not simply pushed aside by whatever colour of Government there happens to be, and that those concerns are taken on board in the way the Minister is doing here. We should expect Parliament and Governments to address injustices where we come across them and to restore faith. Too often, it is the negative headlines that come out of this place that catch the public’s attention, but we are seeing that it is possible to do the right thing, albeit that it can sometimes take a lot longer than we might have hoped.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for all her work, as well as members of the APPG and other Members who over many years have contributed to trying to get to the bottom of this issue. I hope we can move swiftly to a place where this issue is a historical fact that has been resolved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

1. What recent discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on the adequacy of the implementation of voter ID requirements for national elections.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. The Committee discussed the commission’s work to support the implementation of voter ID at its public evidence session in March. A transcript of that session is available on the Committee’s website. The commission has also published an initial analysis of voter ID in the May local elections in England, saying that further work is required to ensure voter ID does not become a barrier to voting and that elections remain accessible to everyone. The commission is undertaking further research and will make recommendations for improvement in its full election report to be published in September, and it will continue to run public awareness activities and provide guidance to electoral administrators ahead of future elections where voter ID is required.

[Martyn Day]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The commission’s interim report indicates that 14,000 people were turned away due to voter ID restrictions in England, and it warned of concerning signs that voters with disabilities, those who were unemployed or those from particular ethnic groups were disproportionately affected. Given that it says that 4% of people who did not vote said it was due to lack of voter ID, what steps are being taken to ensure that hundreds of thousands of voters are not turned away at the next general election?

[Owen Thompson]

I again thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is too soon to draw conclusions about the impact of voter ID on specific groups of people, but the commission has said that some of the emerging evidence is concerning, with the example that data suggests that disabled people and those who are unemployed were more likely than others to give ID as a reason for not voting. Elections should be accessible to everyone, so the commission is working to build a better understanding of specific experiences. As I say, the commission is undertaking further research and will make recommendations in its full election report to be published in September, and it will work with the Government and the electoral community to ensure that elections remain accessible to all.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian)]

The commission regularly publishes guidance for political parties, candidates and non-party campaigners to help them comply with their legal obligations. It recently submitted for ministerial and parliamentary approval draft statutory guidance on digital imprints and a draft code of practice for non-party campaigners. These will support parties and campaigners to understand and prepare for challenges introduced by the Elections Act 2022.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is the commission preparing any guidance about this new trend we have of Members of this House, who may be candidates at the next election, being given their own TV programmes on some of the new news channels and interviewing members of the Government from their own Benches in the lead-up to a general election? What is the Electoral Commission doing about that?

[Owen Thompson]

I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question. The Committee has not discussed those matters with the commission as yet. The Electoral Commission does not have a role in the regulation of political or news programmes. Ofcom is responsible for regulating broadcasters and providing guidance on impartiality, but if the Member wants to take up this issue further with the commission, it would be more than happy to meet him.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the commission look closely at the fact that Members of this House have television programmes? I was invited on to a television programme by two Members of this House, and I did not accept that invitation. There is surely something wrong with Members in this House asking questions at the same time as they are running very political campaigns on television. What will the hon. Gentleman do about that?

[Owen Thompson]

The point is well made. As I have said, the Committee has not discussed this matter with the commission, but I am sure that the comments made by hon. Members will be heard. As I offered to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I am sure that if the hon. Member for Huddersfield wanted to discuss this matter further with the commission, it would be more than happy to meet him.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

5. Whether the Committee has had recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the transparency of political donations from overseas.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian)]

The Committee has not had a recent discussion with the commission on that issue. The commission publishes information about donations to ensure transparency, and it has powers to sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. It has highlighted that the political finance system is vulnerable to unlawful influence from donations overseas and in the UK, and it has recommended that parties should be required to know not just who a donor is but where the money for the donation is coming from. It has also recommended that parties have policies in place to manage the risk of receiving money from unlawful sources. The commission has said that parties should not be permitted to accept donations from companies that exceed their profits made in the UK.

[Chris Stephens]

The executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, Susan Hawley, says that the Tory UK Government’s “abject failure” to take decisive action on overseas donations is concerning our allies. She also says that elections are at risk of interference from Russia and other hostile states after the Government opposed the move to require political parties to verify and disclose the source of political donations. What steps is the commission taking to prevent overseas donations from hostile states that undermine electoral law? Has the commission asked the security services to undertake a review of political finance?

[Owen Thompson]

Speaking as a representative of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, it would be a matter for the security services to make a full assessment of whether unlawful foreign money has been used to campaign in UK elections. However, political parties must report when they are given an unlawful donation and return it to the donor. In addition, the commission carries out checks on permissibility on a sample of donations and has the power to sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. The commission has said that it takes all possible steps within the current regulatory framework to prevent unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics, and it publishes information about donations to ensure transparency. It has the powers to sanction, but it cannot take enforcement actions against organisations based outside the UK. The commission will continue to recommend changes to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—