UKGI00003891
UKGI00003891
Alan Bates
Chairman
Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance
March 2015
Thank you for your email of 10 March regarding the Post Office mediation
scheme.
Firstly, I must reiterate that the mediation scheme is independent of
Government, and decisions relating to the scheme or its operation are matters
for the parties involved and not for the Government.
As you are aware, Post Office announced on 10 March that they would put
forward for mediation all cases remaining in the scheme except those that
have been subject to a previous court ruling. Post Office will consider cases
which have been the subject of court rulings carefully on a case by case basis.
More information is contained in the announcement and detailed scheme
report from Post Office, which is available on the Post Office’s website.
These changes do not equate to Post Office closing the scheme. Cases which
remain in the scheme will progress to mediation as set out above, and more
swiftly than under the previous situation where cases would be discussed by
the Working Group before proceeding to mediation. Given that all parties
involved, yourself included, have expressed concern at the length of time
which has been taken to review cases, these changes are welcome in
accelerating the process while ensuring that Post Office meet the
commitments they have made to applicants.
As a result of Post Office’s decision to mediate remaining cases, I understand
that they have indeed given notice of termination of contract to Second Sight.
Second Sight were engaged under a contract with Post Office specifically to
provide a number of services to the Working Group. They were appointed to
do so on an independent basis, and throughout the 18 months operation of the
scheme to date, have maintained this independence. That independence was
reiterated by Second Sight during their evidence to the BIS Select Committee.
UKGI00003891
UKGI00003891
As you know, Post Office have also provided funding for other independent
advice for scheme applicants, and the independence of these advisors is not
in question.
With the closure of the Working Group, that contract is necessarily being
brought to an end. Post Office remain committed to working with Second
Sight through the remaining period of their contract, and have stated that they
will seek to continue to make available to scheme applicants an independent
review by Second Sight (where one has not already been provided), and
provide funding accordingly. Furthermore, Post Office have also stated they
will work with Second Sight to support the completion of their further thematic
report in order that it is available to inform the ongoing mediation process.
The Working Group, consisting of Post Office, JFSA and Second Sight, has
been in existence for some 18 months now, with an independent Chair in Sir
Anthony Hooper, and has been fully involved in developing the mediation
scheme, overseeing its operation and making decisions on whether particular
cases should progress to mediation. Regarding its closure, given that it no
longer has a role in determining whether cases are suitable to go to mediation
or not, there is no need for its continued operation.
As I know you are aware, details of the Working Group and its business are
confidential to members of the Working Group. The Government is not privy to
information about this. I am aware from the evidence provided in public to the
BIS Select Committee that Second Sight have been working on a further
thematic report. It is important to add that this report was not intended to be
published, on grounds of confidentiality, but would instead be available to
applicants involved in mediation. The details of when the report would be
completed and what it might contain were confidential to the Working Group.
As I have said, Post Office have stated they will work with Second Sight to
support the completion of this further report, so that it can be provided to
applicants in the scheme and used to inform the ongoing mediation progress.
The Government cannot compel its publication and nor would we do so given
the confidential nature of details within it. Indeed, testimony at the BIS Select
Committee hearing emphasised the very sensitive and personal nature of
some of the issues that may or may not have caused the problems that
applicants have raised through the scheme. Post Office have extended an
offer to all Members of Parliament with a constituent in the scheme that they
are happy to discuss the details of individual cases if the applicant gives
permission, an offer which I hope many more MPs will accept.
UKGI00003891
UKGI00003891
To conclude, I note that, through Second Sight’s report and the subsequent
investigations, that there is no evidence of system-wide problems with
Horizon. This conclusion has stood firm through nearly two years of
investigation. As such, the priority must be to ensure that those applicants
remaining in the scheme can have their cases considered swiftly and fairly,
and I am hopeful that all parties involved will continue to work constructively to
ensure this can happen.
JO SWINSON