POL00448699
POL00448699
From: Ben Foat{/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=8070ECECB2CC4077A7ECE348
6716D2B6-BEN FOAT]
Sent: Tue 09/01/2024 1:52:20 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce:
J; Henry Staunton
eniamin
Subject: RE: Post Office Compensation Bill I Debate Summary
All
In addition to my note on Saturday setting out a range of points on legal, governance, and comms, I
do think it may be worthwhile that a one pager “fact checker” is drafted (some media organisations
do this).
There are a number of facts that are actually erroneous in the media ie that all convictions are unsafe
etc. If it such matters are overtaken by a political decision and legislation I believe it will be important
to have an accurate position of why it was that the Government and POL were in this position. le
CACD not all 700 are unsafe convictions based on Hamilton; current legal rules mean that the
convicted claimant must bring the Appeal — its not up to POL to just overturn all of them etc; POL
does NOT have special private prosecution powers etc.
Such a fact checker can then be used in subsequent comms and at the Inquiry to explain the
rationale.
Kind regards
Ben
Ben Foat (He/Him)
Group General Counsel
100 Wood Street
London
EC2V 7ER
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
! work flexibly — so whilst it suits me to email outside normal working hours, I do not expect a response
during that time.
From: Nicola Munden <
Sent: 09 January 2024
To: Diane Wills ¢
Benjamin Tidswell >
Subject: RE: Post Office Compensation Bill I Debate Summary
Thanks Diane. As discussed, I think mass exoneration remains an option (there was reference to ‘the
First Minister of Scotland said he will look at mass exoneration for these convictions’ and Minister
Hollinrake said ‘a mass exoneration scheme...is something we are looking at...we certainly think that
that kind of blanket overturning convictions, together with a rapid compensation scheme, will mean
that more people get access to justice more quickly’).
We have had some early engagement from DBT, who have asked that we/P&P liaise with MoJ to
assist them with the detail.
Many thanks,
Nicola Munden
Remediation Unit
Legal Services Director
100 Wood Street
LONDON
EC2Y 7ER
postoffice.co.uk
POL00448699
POL00448699
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
Owen
Ben Foat
>; Kathryn Sherratt
; Karen
>; Simon Recaldin
icola Munden
ion Bill I Debate Summary
Hi-—I noted that despite the calls from some, the Minister stopped short of any reference to
exonerating all — and indeed in his answer to David Davis, he noted expressly the constitutional
convention of ‘separation of powers’ and in answer to Paul Scully, recognised the need to find a
solution ‘that does not cause is any constitutional or legal problems across the system’. The focus was
on pace and the Minister also referred to ensuring the PO ‘does not challenge unfairly any attempt to
overturn those convictions’.
It would be good to try to understand now what DBT will/won’t be willing to share as proposals are
developed but as things stand, it looks like they are aiming for a bespoke process for these appeals,
which would operate to different time scales to the usual appeal process and which may operate
independently of POL (other than us providing the disclosure). The Minister also referenced a process
that does not require a convicted postmaster to come forward — instead looking for something that
could be done across the board.
And then:
* something possibly baked in legislation to state that POL cannot bring prosecutions itself
* some guidance generally about private prosecutions
* possibly an increase in penalty for offences relevant to actions by officials
* aright to comp flowing automatically on the overturning of the conviction
* taking comp out of POL’s hands (see his answer to Clive Efford) — ideally in terms of
overturning convictions and access to compensation, we would deliver something completely
outside the Post Office’s jurisdiction
Diane
From: Nick Rea’
Sent: 09 January 2024 0
To: Jack Foden +
Owen Woodley
; Ben Foat<
Kathryn Sherratt ¢
; Karen McEwan fone
~ >; Alice Cookson
POL00448699
POL00448699
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
'b; Simon Recaldin
-; Jamie Park
Diane Wills <
; Benjamin Tidswell <~
‘ost Office Compensation Bill I Debate Summary
Subject:
Good summary Jack.
I also sat through the entire debate...there was definitely a different energy about it and
clearly more attendees than at other Horizon Scandal debates that I have witnessed. The
Minister did well, knew his numbers and detail and I think we can safely assume there is a
real willingness to accelerate the Appeals/overturning convictions process...two former Lord
Chancellors have also expressed a desire to see this. The momentum is there and I would
not be surprised if this materialises later in the week, albeit maybe not at PMQ’s tomorrow
which I know was what Officials were hoping to achieve.
Nick
Nick Read
Group CEO
100 Wood Street
London EC2V 7AN
postoffice.co.uk
From: Jack Foden ¢_
Sent: 08 Januar
To: Nick Read
I; Jamie Park imon Recaldin
_k>; Diane Wills ¢
sation Bill I Debate
Evening all,
As you will know, the Minister provided a statement in the House of Commons this evening on
‘Horizon Compensation and Conviction Update’, following media coverage of ITV's Mr Bates
drama and mounting pressure on Government over the weekend.
POL00448699
POL00448699
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
POL00448699
POL00448699
By way of summary:
= Despite the House being fairly quiet during the preceding debate, it quite quickly filled
once the Minister was due to provide his statement — and nearly 3h of contributions
followed. In comparison to the previous debate on Post Office Compensation shortly
before the Christmas Recess, the House was much fuller — though steadily emptied
during the course of debate — reflecting the renewed interest in the topic.
= Although the Minister did not have a substantive update on compensation, he did note
that he had met with the Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk today and together they have
‘devised options’ to work through outstanding convictions ‘with much more pace’, but
noted the Lord Chancellor would need to speak to senior members of the judiciary for
advice first, before being able to progress these. However, he said he hoped to put
these to the House ‘very shortly’ and repeated this in the debate that followed — he did
not go into detail on the options, but later nodded to potentially introducing legislation
on the floor of the house to quash all convictions.
= There was a fair amount of overlap across the contributions, with MPs making similar
points but also providing examples of those impacted among their constituents and
often asking for the Minister’s support in addressing individual examples. In terms of a
summary, I thought I’d draw out the key themes raised by MPs:
o The overarching theme was the need to deliver a blanket exoneration to all those
impacted, both to speed up the compensation process and restore the reputations of
those impacted. Although the Minister highlighted progress with compensation to date,
several MPs emphasised the number of convictions that have not yet been overturned.
In one of his few contributions on Post Office to date, Shadow Business Secretary
Jonny Reynolds called on all affected Postmasters to be exonerated and said Labour
would support any necessary legislation to ensure this.
o There were repeated calls for Government to encourage more people to come
forward, given the number of convictions yet to be overturned, to simplify the overall
process for all involved and also to look into new areas impacting Postmasters that
might not yet be well understood or might fall outside of existing schemes e.g. a pilot
version of Horizon.
o Similar to the Compensation Debate before Christmas, there was a good deal of
focus on individual and corporate accountability — with calls for Post Office
employees to be held to account on a number of occasions. There was also a common
call for Post Office to be stripped of its ability to pursue private prosecutions. While
most of the focus was on Post Office’s historic role, there was some attention on
bonuses at points.
o Paula Vennells’ CBE was mentioned by several MPs, with calls to strip her of it. The
Minister noted that he believed it should be voluntarily handed back, but did not call on it
to be removed yet (echoing his comments on Good Morning Britain last week) — and
said the Inquiry should complete its work before the Forfeiture Committee reviewed the
case.
o Relatedly, the role of Fujitsu was also noted several times by MPs — with calls to
pause existing contracts and cease future contracts with the IT company across
Government. The Minister repeated that Sir Wyn’s Inquiry must be allowed to finish its
work, but that Government would consider the evidence provided in due course.
o Towards the end of the discussion, there was increasingly focus on how the brand
impact might impact prospective Postmasters — with concerns that this scandal
would damage the network in years to come. The end of the contributions also saw calls
on Government to reset its governance and oversight of Post Office, but also other
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
POL00448699
POL00448699
Arm’s-Length Bodies (ALBs) more widely to ensure this cannot be repeated.
I’ve attached more details notes for those interested, though they’re fairly lengthy given the
number of contributions. Do let me know if you have any questions — we'll continue to monitor
parliamentary contributions over the course of the week, including any more statements from
the Minister.
Thanks,
Jack
Jack Foden
Head of Public Affairs & Policy
Corporate Affairs & Communications
From: Jack Foden
Sent: 20 December 2023
To: Nick Read < Owen Woodley ¢
3; Ri
Morning all,
I wanted to draw your attention to the Post Office Compensation Bill that went through its
various phases last night in the House of Commons and was passed successfully. By way of
summary:
= As you may know, the Post Office Compensation Bill is a short, fairly technical piece of
legislation that essentially looks to give powers to the Secretary of State to make
compensation payments. Previously HMG spend for compensation had been incurred
through powers under the Appropriations Act, but this had a two-year horizon that is
due to expire in August 2024 — i.e. two years after the first (interim) payment under the
GLO scheme was made — and so the Bill looks provide more specific, long-lasting
powers, as was recommended in Sir Wyn’s interim report.
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
POL00448699
POL00448699
= The Bill progressed through all its stages yesterday (Second Reading, Committee
Phase and Third Reading), meaning the debate was 2h+ in the Commons, though
there were relatively few attendees in practice (largely those particularly interested in
Post Office e.g. Minister Hollinrake, Kevan Jones, Marion Fellows, Paul Scully). It’s
worth noting that the Shadow Minister for Small Business, Rushanara Ali, led on
Labour's side — which was her first sizeable contribution on POL-matters since taking
up the role in September 2023.
= The discussion around the Bill was generally not about the Bill itself given its fairly
anodyne, technical nature — and more generally about the Horizon Scandal, with MPs
taking the opportunity to make wider points about historic failures, speed of
compensation, disclosure in the Inquiry etc.. Contributions from MPs were of a vein
one would expect — largely emphasising the scale of the scandal and the human
impact on both the impacted Postmasters and their families and a sizeable portion of
the debate was spent on reprising examples of this, paying tribute to those who
campaigned on the matter and those in Commons/Lords who supported them.
= However, there were a few core themes emerging from the debate, including:
i. the need to deliver compensation as quickly as possible (with multiple MPs
insisting that the extra time afforded by the Bill should not be used as an excuse to
delay delivering compensation), with several calls for a clear timeline to be shared
against which compensation payments would be made;
ii. the need to ensure both ‘corporate and personal’ accountability for mistakes
made, with an expectation that individuals would be held accountable once Sir
Wyn’s public Inquiry concluded, with Paula Vennells named a number of times;
iii. the need to also ensure Fujitsu is also held accountable for whatever role they
played — and also that they shoulder their fair share of the financial implications of
the scandal;
iv. the need to ensure that both Government and Post Office fully learn from their
mistakes to ensure nothing of this kind can occur again in the future.
+ It's worth also noting that Kevan Jones MP proposed a few amendments, including to
pay compensation to all those with convictions that have not been overturned yet.
However, he ultimately did not press this to a vote and withdrew the amendment, after
the Minister addressed his concerns by highlighting work underway to review
convictions and pointing out the practical challenges/implications of the amendment.
I’ve attached more detailed notes for those interested. The House is now in recess until
January 8". Do let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jack
Jack Foden
Head of Public Affairs & Policy
ommunications
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147
POL00448699
POL00448699
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029147