POL00232158
POL00232158
Monday Volume 597
29 June 2015 No. 24
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Monday 29 June 2015
£5-00
POL-BSFF-0070221
POL00232158
POL00232158
1305 Scotland Bill 29 JUNE 2015 1306
Warman, Matt Williamson, th Gavin i
Watkinson, Dame Angela Wilson, Mr Rob ; Post Office Horizon System ,
Wharton, James. ‘Wollaston, Dr Sarah Motion made, and Question proposed, That this
Whately, Helen ‘Wood, Mike House do now adjourn.—(Kris Hopkins. )
Wheeler, Heather Wragg, Willian
White, Chris Wright, th Jeremy
Whittaker, Craig Zahawi, Nadhim
Whittingdale, rh Mr John ‘Tellers for the Noes:
Wiggin, Bill George Hollingbery and
Willams, Craig Margot James
Question accordingly negatived.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme
Order, 8 June).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
PETITION
Pardon for Dic Penderyn
10.59 pm
‘Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): I wish to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents in the Cynon
Valley, my hon, Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil
and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Aberavon (Stephen
Kinnock), and people from all parts of Wales. On the
instruction of Mrs Beryl Astbury and Mrs Pamela
Lewis, descendants of Mr Richard Lewis, their solicitor
Bernard de Maid has written to the Secretary of State
for Justice requesting a pardon for Richard Lewis, I
repeat Richard Lewis’s last words before his hanging on.
13 August 1831, which reaffirm this miscarriage of
justice: “O Arglwydd, dyma gamwedd.” In English, this
means, “Oh Lord, this is injustice.”
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Wales,
Declares that Richard Lewis (known as Dic Penderyn) was a
‘Welsh labourer and coal miner who lived in Merthyr ‘Tydfil;
further that he was involved with the Merthyr Rising of 3 June
1831; further that during the riot, he was arrested and charged
with stabbing a soldier, Donald Black, with a bayonet; farther
that the people of Merthyr Tydfil were convinced of his innocence
and signed a petition for his rcloasc; further that despite this, he
was found guilty and hanged on 13 August; further that in 1874, a
man named Ianto Parker confessed on his death bed that he
stabbed Donald Black; further that James Abbott, who testified
against Richard Lewis at the trial later admitted to lying under
oath; further that al Mr Lewis’ trial, the Prosecution suppressed
evidence which would have exonerated him; further that the same
evidence, which should have led to his pardon in 1831, was also
suppressed by the trial Judge and the Home Secretary; further
that there is strong feeling in Wales that Richard Lewis was
‘wrongly executed, that his conviction should be overturned and
that he should be granted a pardon.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons
urges the Secretary of State for Justice to grant a pardon to
Richard Lewis.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
1001530]
11.2pm
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): I
pay tribute to the work carried out on this issue by
James Arbuthnot, the former Member for North East
Hampshire, and Mike Wood, the former Member for
Batley and Spen, both of whom I worked with for more
than two years in a working party in search of a fair
settlement on this matter. Unfortunately, throughout
the process we all lost faith and trust in the Post Office’s
willingness to investigate the issue properly and thoroughly.
To give some background on how the Post Office has
let down sub-postmasters and Members of this House
throughout this process, let us consider how it has dealt
with the matter from the outset. The Horizon accounting
system used by sub-postmasters was introduced some
15 years ago. Almost immediately, a spate of discrepancies
began to appear as sub-postmasters attempted to balance
their accounts at the end of the day. From that time
forward, there has been failing after failing on the part
of the Post Office.
The Post Office has finally acknowledged that its help
system for the Horizon software was completely inadequate,
but even with that admission the Post Office continues
in its failure to demonstrate any appetite to deal with
issues arising from the Horizon system in a fair and
transparent way.
dim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Is there not something
disgraceful in the fact that criminal charges were pressed
against these sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses
when the fault lay with the Post Office, yet nearly
two years after the investigations those charges have not
been lifted? The shadow hanging over their heads has
not been lifted cither, Does the hon. Gentleman not feel
that it is time to bring that to an end?
Andrew Bridgen: The hon, Gentleman tells a tale
which has been told too long to the working group. We
need to bring matters to a head and I hope the debate
tonight will give us an opportunity to do so.
The mediation scheme that was sct up to handle
disputes about the software system has not delivered
what Members of this House had understood was
agreed at its inception. It was flawed in a number of
ways, the most significant being that it excluded those
who had pleaded guilty.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con):
My constituent, Jo Hamilton, has her case in front of
the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Does my hon.
Friend agree that for those who pleaded guilty, the
CCRC should be given powers to obtain all the papers
that it needs from private sector organisations and full
access to all Post Office files?
Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend makes a good point
and he is right. Many people pleaded guilty on advice
from lawyers or out of fear of losing their liberty in a
lengthy and expensive court battle with the Post Office.
POL-BSFF-0070221_0001
1307 Post Office Horizon System
[Andrew Bridgen]
The House should know that the Horizon system has
no adequate suspense account function, so it pushes the
sub-postmaster who wants to balance his books when
the books actually do not balance. This is false accounting
and a criminal offence. However, I have seen correspondence
that shows that the Post Office has advised sub-postmasters
to keep any surplus balances that they discover at the
close of business in their safe so that they can put them
back when they have a shortage. That is also false
accounting and is also a criminal offence.
A further flaw is the fact that issues of concern to the
forensic accountants Sccond Sight, appointed by the
Post Office at the request of the working group to
assess independently the mediation cases, have been
specifically excluded from mediation—for example,
the absence or the ignorance on the part of the
sub-postmaster of the contract they were under, and
the failure of audits and investigation—despite the
agreement of Post Office Ltd with Members of this
House that the scheme would cover all these issues.
This is resulting in what I believe to be 90% of the cases
in dispute being excluded from the mediation scheme.
This mediation has proven to be a shadow of what was
agreed with Members.
I first became involved in this matter several years
ago when my constituent Michael Rudkin brought his
case to me, My constituent had 15 years’ experience as a
postmaster and served as a senior member of the national
executive. Indeed, he was chairman of the negotiating
committee, the most senior post within the National
Federation of SubPostmasters, responsible for national
negotiations with Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail Group.
Inshort, my constituent knew his job and the organisation
inside out. He knew the organisation to the extent that
on a visit to the Post Office headquarters in Bracknell,
he was shown in error a room where operatives had
remote access to the Horizon software and it was
demonstrated to him how postmasters’ accounts could.
be altered remotely. The House should know that the
Post Office has always maintained that it is not possible
to alter accounts in a sub-post office remotely. However,
it has recently admitted that this was not the truth.
In a debate in December I went into the details of
Mr Rudkin’s case. To summarise, his post office branch
had a loss in the accounts in excess of £44,000, He was
absolved of any knowledge of this loss by Post Office
Ltd but ordered to pay back the money at £1,000 per
month from his salary. After he had paid back £13,000,
Post Office Ltd started proceedings against Mr Rudkin’s
wife for theft and false accounting, It also applied for a
confiscation order to be placed on all his property and
had his bank accounts frozen using the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002. This all occurred after my constituent
had witnessed the operatives in Post Office headquarters
demonstrating their remote access to the Horizon
system.
My constituent has gone through the mediation scheme
and his experience is that the professional advisers, Aver
Ltd, Bill Cleghorn and Emma Porter, are yery good.
Second Sight has been extremely fair, professional and
accurate in its analysis of both systemic and thematic
issues within Post Office Ltd. However, the same cannot
be said of the Post Office itself. I and my constituent
have no faith in its ability to resolve the matter. It is said
that justice delayed is justice denied, and this matter has
29 JUNE 2015
POL00232158
POL00232158
Post Office Horizon System 1308
simply dragged on for too long, with the Post Office
seemingly looking for cver more reasons to delay the
truth of the matter coming out.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con); In the
past five days I have been alerted to a case in my
constituency. Very briefly, the sub-postmistress emailed.
‘me to say:
“My post office has been audited today and has been closed
ducto financial discrepancies asa result, I believe, of the inadequacies
of the Horizon system.”
That has left the village without a post office service,
and obviously it is also putting an intolerable strain on
my constituent. I would be grateful if my hon, Friend
and the Minister would consider the impact that that is
having.
Andrew Bridgen: My hon, Friend is quite right, When.
we hear a Post Office spokesperson stating,
“T am really sorry if people have faced lifestyle problems as a
result of their having been working in Post Office branches”,
we have to wonder whether the organisation is even
aware of the misery it has caused. The fact that Post
Office Ltd believes that honest, decent, hard-working
people losing their homes, their businesses, their savings,
their reputation and, worst of all, in some cases their
liberty can be quantified as a “lifestyle change” only
serves to show that the organisation is not fit to conduct
an inquiry into the matter.
The Post Office mediation scheme has proven to be a
sham, Second Sight has proven to be far too independent
for the Post Office to stand, and the disdain that has
been shown to Members of this House and to sub-
postmasters is a disgrace.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con): Does
my hon. Friend agree with my constituents Mr and
Mrs Hedges, who are sub-postmasters, that in this case
the Post Office has treated not only them but this House
with contempt?
Andrew Bridgen: Indeed. When we look at the cross-
section of Members who have raised the matter, many
of whom have served at the highest levels of Government,
and who all belicve that their constituents have been
wronged, how can the Post Office believe that it can
continue to sweep the matter under the carpet?
It is most interesting that after two years in which the
Post Office has consistently claimed that its Horizon
system software is robust and 100% reliable, I now have
in my position an email clearly showing that the Post
Office is now urgently seeking a replacement software
system from IBM. I am sure that the Minister can draw
his own conclusion from the happy coincidence that the
investigation is now closed. It appears to me that it is
indeed now sunset for the Horizon system,
Itis therefore my belief, and the view of many Members
across the House, that the matter must now be taken
away from the Post Office and a judicial inquiry set up.
The Post Office has abused its privileged position and
sought to cover up its failings by way of a wholly
non-transparent approach to the mediation process,
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab):
Concerns about the Horizon system are clearly of long
standing. In the few weeks that I have been here I have
POL-BSFF-0070221_0002
1309 Post Office Horizon System
heard from at least three constituents who have long-
standing concerns about the Horizon system, and there
are huge problems that are historic. I understand from
one constituent that an injunction has been taken out
against her for the sale of a property—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): Order.
‘That intervention has been slightly too long.
Andrew Bridgen: I am not surprised to hear that from
the hon. Gentleman. The management style of the
senior management at the Post Office is Dickensian,
and they have an almost feudal relationship with their
sub-postmasters. This is now a national scandal. The
Post Office has demonstrated that it is incapable of
putting its own house in order, so it falls to this House
and to this Government to do so for it. I therefore
respectfully ask the Minister for a full judicial review
into the Post Office Horizon system and the way in
which the Post Office contracts with is sub-postmasters
and sub-postmistresses,
11.14 pm
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I congratulate
the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew
Bridgen) on securing this debate.
My constituent Tom Brown, a postmaster for 30 years,
had a post office in Newcastle. In 2008, he informed the
Post Office that there was a problem with his Horizon
system, and it took away one of his base units to change
it. He was told by the helpline—a euphemism because it
has not been very helpful to many sub-postmistresses
and sub-postmasters and has actually got them into
more trouble—that the system would rectify itself. It
did not. The next audit said that his figures were down.
by £85,000. He was arrested by Northumbria police,
and his car and home were searched, Subsequently, the
police dropped all charges as there was no evidence
against him. Then, for some unknown reason, the Post
Office took out a prosecution against him to take him
to court for false accounting. That process took until
July 2013, when he finally appeared in court for the
third time. No evidence was put forward to the court,
and after that the case was dropped.
This man has lost his home, his livelihood and his
good reputation. He is one of the individuals who have
gone through the mediation system, even though, as the
hon, Gentleman outlined, the system is a sham, He was
given four different dates that were all delayed. He
described this to me as six hours of wasted time. The
Post Office employed top lawyers from Neweastle to
represent it. It again went through what it said was the
evidence, and made no offer at all. The system is a
sham. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, it has been a
way of delaying decisions on these cases.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab): Does
my hon, Friend agree that the Post Office has failed to
be transparent about this process? My constituent,
Mrs Carter, a sub-postmistress, asked the Post Office to
audit her branch to get to the bottom of the problem,
but it refused to do so.
Mr Jones: I will go further than that. It has not only
not been transparent; it has gone out of its way to delay
cases and hide evidence,
29 JUNE 2015
POL00232158
POL00232158
Post Office Horizon System 1310
My concern about the work done by Second Sight is
that it suggests that if information is returned to the
Post Office, evidence will go missing. That is why I
totally agree with the hon. Member for North West
Leicestershire that there needs to be an independent
judicial inquiry into this—as he described it—national
scandal. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member
for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the new Chair of the
Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, is present
for this debate. I urge him and his Committee to look at
this as a matter of urgency,
The fundamental point is this: who controls the Post
Office? This organisation is out of control. It has led to
people’s lives being ruined and, as we have heard, in
some cases to people being given prison sentences when
clearly they are innocent. It is important that we get to
the bottom of this. Without a judicial inquiry, I fear
that this national scandal will continue and these people’s
reputations will continue to be blackened.
11.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills (George Freeman): I congratulate
my hon. Friend the Member for North ‘West Leicestershire
(Andrew Bridgen) on securing this debate. I commend
him and other hon. Members across the House for
raising here and elsewhere the concerns of their
constituents—sub-postmasters who face problems. I echo
the tributes paid to the former Members for North East
Hampshire and for Batley and Spen for their work on
this issue, They, my hon, Friend and others can take a
great deal of credit for raising this issue and encouraging
the Post Office to take action to address sub-postmasters’
concerns and to improve business for the thousands of
sub-postmasters and staff working in the network today.
My hon. Friend kindly informed me before the debate
of the points he wanted to raise, and I will try to deal
with all his questions, but I want first to set out a little
background.
Hon. Members do not need me to wax lyrical about
the important role that post offices play in communities
in providing access to essential mail, financial and
Government services. I am sure that we all agree on and
understand that. The Post Office is undergoing a very
significant transformation programme to remove central
costs, grow new revenue streams and modernise its
extensive branch network. Already, more than half of
cligible sub-postmasters have benefited from investment
in their branches or have signed up to do so, These
changes will help the post office network to survive in
the digital age. The way we live and communicate is
changing, and post offices need to adapt to that. The
Government are supporting and investing in the Post
Office to ensure that it can become sustainable for the
long term and reduce its reliance on taxpayer subsidy.
The network is now at its most stable for a generation.
Having halted the closure programmes we saw under
previous Governments, we are committed to securing
the future of 3,000 branches that are the last shop in a
local community,
The Government are, of course, the shareholder of
Post Office Ltd, and in that role we make sure that there
is a wide network of branches across the whole country,
and we provide subsidy for the Post Office to do so, We
also recognise, however, that it is a commercial business
POL-BSFF-0070221_0003
1311 Post Office Horizon System
[George Freeman]
and we allow it to operate as such. Furthermore, as lam
sure most hon. Membets are aware, the vast majority of
post office branches are operated not by Post Office Ltd,
but by sub-postmasters. They are independent
businesspeople who choose to contract with Post Office Ltd
to provide post office services, usually from a small
business such as a shop.
Smail businesses are the lifeblood of the local economy
in so many communities, and Post Office Ltd needs to
ensure that it supports its sub-postmasters properly. I
am pleased that the Post Office takes that role very
seriously and that it has made significant improvements
to the way in which it works with its sub-postmasters,
not least following many of the cases that hon. Members.
have raised.
The Post Office already ensures that new sub-postmasters
receive full training on all aspects of their role, including
the Horizon system, through both classroom and in-branch
training. There is also a dedicated helpline available to
sub-postmasters to help resolve any issues they are
‘Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): I am listening carefully
to the Minister, but surely he accepts that there is a
fundamental problem with the Horizon system, because
we have heard complaints right across the country from
all sections of the population, as well as from the
sub-postmasters themselves,
George Freeman: I will come to the quality of the system.
It is difficult on the face of it to characterise either the
training or the helpline as having been inadequate.
The vast majority of people who use or have used. the
Horizon system since it was introduced 15 ycars ago
have in fact done so successfully. However, there is
always room for improvement and the Post Office has
implemented a business support programme to that
end, including improvements to training, with both
classroom and new online training available 24/7;
improvements to the Post Office’s support helpline,
including new ways of identifying and proactively
supporting branches in difficulty; and new processes to
help sub-postmasters manage their branch and protect
against fraud.
I now come to some of the points that have been
made about the Horizon IT system. It is used by tens of
thousands of people working in the post office network,
performing more than 6 million transactions every working
day in branches up and down the country, so it is
essential that it functions correctly. Like any large IT
system, it is subject to rigorous testing, independent
audit and industry accreditation. Nevertheless, in the
light of the concerns raised about serious glitches in the
Horizon system, the Post Office commissioned an
independent firm of forensic accountants, Second Sight,
to investigate,
Second Sight produced two independent reports-—one
in 2013 and the other earlier this year—both of which
found there was no evidence of systemic flaws in the
system. That is an important point that I would like to
reiterate in response to the shadow Minister’s point:
there is no evidence of systemic flaws in the system.
Second Sight’s reports have, rightly, pointed out some
areas where the Post Office could have improved how it
29 JUNE 2015
POL00232158
POL00232158
Post Office Horizon System 1312
operates, particularly on the training and support that it
provided in some individual cases. As I said earlier, the
Post Office is acting on those points.
The general secretary of the National Federation of
SubPostmasters, George Thomson, told the Business,
Innovation and Skills Committee in the last Parliament
that the NFSP
“represent 7,000 sub-postmasters...If there was a systemic
problom.,.we would be absolutely inundated.”
He went on to say:
“Over the 15 years, the Horizon system has been fantastically
robust.”
As well as improvements to training and support, the
Post Office also launched a mediation scheme so that
any current or former sub-postmaster who felt they had
problems with the Horizon system could bring forward
an application. They would have their cases thoroughly
reinvestigated both by the Post Office and by Second
Sight, and, if appropriate, proceed to mediation to seek
to resolve any issues.
It is important to understand that the mediation
scheme is independent of the Government. That is the
right approach for something that is a contractual
matter between two independent businesses, and we
should remember that sub-postmasters are independent
businesspeople who have contracts with Post Office Ltd.
Mediation is, of course, a voluntary process. Both
parties need to consent to it, and for it to be successful
there needs to be a reasonable chance of coming to a
common understanding. Sometimes mediation will not
be appropriate or will not succeed, but it is important to
note that mediation cannot overturn a criminal conviction.
I will come back to that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West
Leicestershire and others have been critical of the mediation
scheme and how it is progressing. He mentioned that
90% of cases are being excluded from mediation, but
that statistic is not borne out by the information provided
by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, which
oversees the mediation scheme and is independent.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab): Given the number
of. postmasters and postmistresses who have been attending
MPs’ surgeries to discuss this matter, does not the
Minister agree that one miscarriage of justice is one too
many and that the Post Office has to be accountable for
this system?
George Freeman: I absolutely accept that the Post
Office must be accountable for any miscarriages and I
will make a suggestion at the end about how we might
address that,
My hon. Friend the Member for North West
Leicestershire raised the case of his constituent Mr Rudkin.
As he will understand, I cannot comment on that or any
other individual case, because their details are rightly
confidential, but I reiterate an offer that has been made
to all hon. Members who have a constituent in the
scheme: Post Office Ltd has offered to mect to discuss
individual cases in detail, provided the applicant gives
their consent, I am aware that Post Office Ltd has
repeated that offer to my hon, Friend in the last fortnight,
POL-BSFF-0070221_0004
1313 Post Office Horizon System
and I hope that he and others will take up that offer. I
would be delighted to convene the meeting in my office
in the Department if that helps.
I will move on to the points that my hon. Friend
made about whether there may have been miscarriages
of justice where sub-postmasters have been prosecuted
and convicted. The Post Office handles large amounts
of public money every day and operates a trusted role in
communities, so it is vital that it has processes in place
to protect that money and guard against fraud or theft.
‘The Post Office can bring prosecutions against an individual,
but it is down to the courts to determine whether they
are guilty.
If an individual has been convicted and feels that
their conviction is unsafe, they should explore the legal
avenues open to them. They should seek advice on
whether they can appeal their conviction, or raise their
case with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That
is the correct way to deal with these issues if people
believe there have been miscarriages of justice. The
House cannot overturn a court ruling; nor, indeed, can
mediation.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con): It is of course for
individuals to decide whether they plead guilty and
there is of course an avenue of appeal, Is it not important
to note, however, that for many of these people the time
for an appeal will be long past, so they remain the
victims of a grave injustice?
George Freeman: As I say, if any individuals feel that
their conviction is unsafe, they can always explore the
legal avenues open to them, Where large numbers feel
that that is the case, as is alleged, it is perfectly possible
for them to bring a class action together. I do not accept
that there is a fundamental injustice in the process that
prevents people from bringing claims. I accept, however,
that it is absolutely vital, where there is a legitimate
claim against the Post Office about how it has treated its
sub-postmasters, that those claims must be looked at
properly.
In the limited time available, I want to move on to the
Post Office’s approach. Both tonight and elsewhere, my
hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire
and others have raised the very serious dissatisfaction
felt about the way in which the Post Office has handled
relations with its sub-postmasters. When this debate
was called, I spoke to the Post Office to understand the
situation. I have received a letter from its chief executive,
Paula Vennells, which I shall send to my hon, Friend
and others who have spoken and place in the Library.
The letter sets out just how seriously the Post Office has
taken this matter. Ms Vennells says:
“We have gone to great lengths...because I was determined
that, if there were problems with the Horizon system, these had to
be identified and resolved.”
I will happily pick up any issues that my hon. Friend or
others feel are not addressed in the letter.
As I have already said, the mediation scheme is
rightly independent of the Government. It was established
jointly by the Post Office and the Justice for Subpostmasters
Alliance, working with Second Sight, and it is overseen
by an independent chair, a former Court of Appeal
29 TUNE 2015
POL00232158
POL00232158
Post Office Horizon System 1314
judge. It is right that the details of individual cases
should be confidential and that the Post Office respects
that.
Andrew Bridgen: The Minister should be aware that
one of the criteria given by the Post Office for removing
cases from mediation was if a very large claim was
involved. Those sub-postmasters who have suffered the
greatest loss and the greatest injustice were therefore
immediately excluded from the mediation system.
George Freeman: That is a very interesting point,
which I will be happy to take up with my hon. Friend,
perhaps in the context of what I am about to suggest.
Although it remains the case that there is no evidence
that the Horizon system is flawed, if any individual feels
that their conviction is unsafe, they can pursue the legal
avenues available to them. I do not see any reason for
the Government to intervene in this matter by instigating
a full judicial inquiry. However, I am struck by the
extent of the concern expressed tonight by Members
from both sides of the House and during the lead-up to
this debate, including some of the specific testimony
heard tonight. I will be happy to convene a meeting in
the Department, perhaps led by my hon. Friend, with
the support of others from across the House—to deal
with the point he has just made and one or two others
that have been made this cvening—and to invite the
Post Office to come to that meeting with representatives
of sub-postmasters to try to iron out the issues,
My hon. Friend has raised other points that are a
matter for the Post Office, rather than for the Government.
Ihave no doubt that the Post Office has listened closely
to this debate and will be in touch with him to answer
his questions. I agree with him that this matter has gone
on for far Jonger than anyone would wish and, for
whatever reason, has been the cause of huge difficulties,
trial and unnecessary hardship for a number of the
sub-postmasters who have been affected,
The important thing now is for the final cases in the
mediation scheme to progress to mediation, and I urge
all the parties involved to continue to work together to
make that happen. That will help the individuals with
cases remaining in the scheme to reach resolution, and
it will mean that the Post Office can, working closely
and collaboratively with its sub-postmasters, carry on
with its essential role of serving communities,
I repeat that some of the points made tonight in the
House merit investigation. I will happily convene a
meeting in the Department to put those specific points
to Post Office Ltd. The system may have generally
worked well for the vast majority of users, but that in
itself is no reason not to ensure that those who have
been legitimately unable to deal with the system should
not be penalised unfairly, They certainly should not be
made the victim of criminal judgments when their
crime is nothing more than being unable to cope with a
new IT system. I look forward to raising those points
with the Post Office.
Question put and agreed to.
11.30 pm
House adjourned.
POL-BSFF-0070221_0005