UKGI00004897
UKGI00004897
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
POST OFFICE HORIZON: UPDATE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE
Recommended lines to take:
The mediation scheme is independent of Government, and details of
individual cases are confidential
Government has offered to convene a meeting between MPs and Post
Office to allow each side to understand each other’s views better.
There is no evidence of systemic flaws in the system, and legal avenues
exist if people feel their convictions are unsafe. There is no need for a
judicial inquiry.
Andrew Bridgen MP has led calls for a judicial inquiry into the small number
of alleged complaints about the Horizon IT system, at an adjournment debate
on Monday last week (29 June).
We recommend strongly that a judicial inquiry is neither necessary nor
appropriate. The matter is independent of Government, there is no evidence
of systemic flaws in the system or of miscarriages of justice, and legal
avenues (the Criminal Cases Review Commission) exist if individuals feel
their convictions are unsafe. Twenty people have applied to the CCRC.
George Freeman (responding in the Commons) has offered a meeting
between Mr Bridgen and other MPs and Post Office Limited, an offer which
the PM repeated at PMQs last week (see excerpt at end).
Baroness Neville-Rolfe wrote to Mr Bridgen and to Post Office on Thursday
(2 July) to arrange a meeting. No response has been received yet and a date
is yet to be fixed (but we intend it to happen before summer recess).
Given that this matter is independent of Government, plus the significant
legal risks to Post Office Limited, we have offered a private meeting of 2-3
MPs, POL, and Ministers, which will not look at specific case details or
undermine the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Rather, it will look at the more general points that MPs raised during the
debate, with the ambition of taking some of the heat out of the debate and
allowing MPs to hear POL’s side of the story. POL have repeatedly offered
to meet with MPs and have rebutted some of the false allegations against
them, yet MPs continue to decline to meet but repeat the allegations.
UKGI00004897
UKGI00004897
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
7. Subpostmasters’ representatives have not been invited to attend that initial
meeting. This may attract criticism, not least because the offer (repeated by
the PM) included subpostmasters’ representatives. However, it is important
that confidentiality is respected and we consider it essential that no individual
with a case in the scheme is present in the meeting. If all parties decide they
would prefer representatives to attend then we would invite the National
Federation of Subpostmasters, who are the representative body with around
7,000 members (and who have to date agreed with POL that there are no
systemic issues with Horizon).
Excerpt from PMQs (Wednesday 1 July)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con):
Owing to ongoing issues with the Post Office’s Horizon software accounting
system, I believe that many honest, decent, hard-working sub-postmasters and
sub-postmistresses have lost their reputations, their livelihoods, their savings and,
in the worst cases, their liberty. This is a national disgrace. Will my right hon.
Friend consider the requests from Members across the House for a judicial
inquiry into this matter and bring it to a conclusion?
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend has done a real service in campaigning tirelessly on this issue,
and I know that he has led a debate in the House on it as well. The Post Office’s
answer is to say that it set up an independent inquiry which has not found
evidence of wrongdoing, but, clearly, that has not satisfied many Members on
both sides of the House who have seen individual constituency cases and want
better answers.
What I think needs to happen next is for the Under-Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk
(George Freeman), to convene a meeting involving Members of the House, the
Post Office and representatives of sub-postmasters to discuss their concerns and
see what should happen next. I would hope that it would not be necessary to
have a full independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue, but get
to the bottom of it we must.
Laura Thompson, Shareholder Executive
7 July 2015