POL00448700
POL00448700
From:
Sent: Tue 09/01/2024 9:58:50 PM (UTC)
To: Nick Read”
Subject: Fwd: Post Office Compensation Bill I Debate Summary
Nick ,
This is moving very quickly thankfully and in the right direction . A blanket overturning of
convictions looks quite possible . As we discussed ten days ago that would be welcome .
I saw a note from Ben Foat which worried me . I think it would be a mistake if anything came
out of the PO which looked negative / slowing the process .
This is going the way we wanted . PO will get a hammering wrt the past which is right . Your
work of encouraging Post Masters to come forward was quite right too .
Henry
Sent from Outlook for iOS
From: Jack Foden
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 9:39:45 AM
A Richard Taylor
Innes {
Chris Brocklesby
"3 Alice Cookson
Simon Recaldin
“} Benjamin
Jamie Park i”
; Nicola Munden
Subject: RE: Post Office Compensation Bill I Debate Summary
Morning all,
Agreed on the point around a building political momentum — I think there were contributions
from virtually every party across the House and I'd expect contributions in a similar vein at
PMQs tomorrow.
Just to add, Kate Osborne MP has also tabled an Early Day Motion on the matter, which has
22 signatories so far — almost exclusively signed by Labour MPs, given the criticism of
Government. To build on Diane’s point below, the EDM implies Post Office should be stripped
of its role in compensation (see phrase in bold). Full text below:
“That this House notes the increased awareness of the life-changing injustices
experienced by sub-postmasters throughout the Horizon scandal; further notes it is
now known as the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British history; notes with
concern that sub-postmasters have served custodial sentences, suffered bankruptcy
for offences they did not commit and many have died before seeing justice; expresses
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169
POL00448700
POL00448700
concern that the actions of the Post Office and the Government have prolonged this
crisis and added barriers to justice being achieved; further notes that the Post Office
has repeatedly been exposed for having given out false and misleading information
throughout this scandal and should play no part in determining who is entitled to
compensation or how much they should get; and strongly urges the Government
to take action to ensure full compensation is paid, the remaining convictions are
looked at en masse, that justice prevail for all postmasters and that those responsible
for this gross miscarriage of justice are held accountable.”
I'll continue monitoring signatures on this as the week progresses.
Thanks,
Jack
From: Diane Wills} GRO
Sent: 09 January 20.
To: Nick Read
wen
Ben Foat
‘athryn Sherratt
Karen
Cc: Patrick Bourke
Simon Recaldin
a
H
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
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169
POL00448700
POL00448700
* 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 01
To: Jack Foden}
Chrysanthy Pispinis
5 Tim Mclinnes
Ka
Simon Recaldin
Henry Staunto:
} Diane Wills ¢
; Benjamin Tidswe'
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 January 2024 2.
To: Nick Read
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169
POL00448700
POL00448700
; Richard Taylor
; Simon Recaldin
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.
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
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169
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
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 10:31
To: Nick Read
Chrysanthy Pispin’
Cc: Patrick Bourke
imon Recaldin
Diane Wills
POL00448700
POL00448700
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169
POL00448700
POL00448700
Subject: Post Office Compensation Bill I Debate Summary
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.
= 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.
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169
POL00448700
POL00448700
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
Corporate Affairs & Communications
POL-BSFF-WITN-006-0029169