WITN10170100
WITN10170100
Witness Name: Sir Norman Lamb
Statement No.: WITN10170100
Dated: 11 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF SIR NORMAN LAMB
1, Norman Lamb, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment
Relations and Postal Affairs, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I make this statement in response to the Inquiry's request for evidence dated
26 September 2024 (“the Rule 9 request’). I have prepared it with the support
of the Government Legal Department and counsel, and I have relied on others
to provide me with relevant documents.
Professional Background
2. Prior to my election to Parliament in 2001 I was a practising solicitor and partner
of a law firm based in Norfolk which was, at that time, called Steele and Co. In
the last few years prior to my election to Parliament I specialised in employment
law.
3. I was elected to Parliament at the 2001 General Election, representing North
Norfolk as a Liberal Democrat. In the period between 2001 and 2010 I held a
number of different positions within the Parliamentary Party. I was first a junior
Shadow International Development Minister. I also had a period working as
Charles Kennedy's Parliamentary Private Secretary (“PPS”). I was on the
Treasury Select Committee from 2003 to 2005. After the 2005 general election,
Page 1 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
I was promoted to Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Subsequently, I served as Menzies Campbell’s Chief of Staff and was then
made Shadow Health Secretary in 2007.
. After the 2010 General Election I became an assistant government Whip. I was
also appointed as PPS to Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and became
his chief parliamentary and political adviser.
. I then became Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (“PUS”) with
responsibility for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, in what was then
known as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, on 3 February
2012. Sir Vince Cable was the Secretary of State.
. On 4 September 2012 I was appointed as Minister of State for Care and
Support in the Department of Health. My portfolio included mental health, social
care, learning disability and autism and integrated care. I stayed in this post
until the General Election in 2015.
. Following the 2015 election, I stood for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats
after Nick Clegg stood down. I lost to Tim Farron. I was subsequently appointed
as Health Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. After the 2017 General
Election, I was elected Chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee.
I held that position until I stood down from Parliament at the 2019 General
Election.
. In 2019 I was appointed to chair the Advisory Committee for Kooth, the digital
mental health company. I continue now as an adviser to the company. This
involves about 3 days’ work per month. In March 2020 I became Chair of the
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, a mental health trust. I still
hold that position. In 2023 I was appointed as a member of the advisory
committee of a company called AlertACall, a digital social care company. I
continue in that role.
. I have not been involved in any work or professional dealings relating to Post
Office Ltd following my period as Minister.
Page 2 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
Knowledge of Horizon and prosecutions
10.At some point between 2010 and February 2012 I recall that I was contacted
by a subpostmistress in my North Norfolk constituency. She was being
prosecuted by the Post Office who alleged that she had stolen from her post
office in Worstead. I wrote on her behalf to Ed Davey, who was at that time the
Minister responsible for postal affairs. I therefore had some understanding of
the belief amongst subpostmasters (“SPMs”) that they were being unfairly
prosecuted prior to my appointment as Minister.
11.1 do not recall having any further knowledge of the Horizon IT system prior to
my appointment as Minister, including its integrity and remote access, other
than taking up this constituent’s case in North Norfolk. I do not recall details of
our discussions other than understanding my constituent’s very clear sense of
injustice at being prosecuted, and I had no reason to doubt her. I had probably
read some of the media coverage of the concerns about Horizon. I think I was
aware that it was Royal Mail which had pursued prosecutions of SPMs and had
secured convictions. However, I did not know who in Royal Mail was
responsible for the investigation into alleged offences, the decision to prosecute
or the conduct of those prosecutions.
12.1 do not recall what, if any, briefing I received on the Horizon IT system and
related complaints by SPMs when I started as Minister. I understand that my
‘day one’ briefing documents from the Department cannot now be located due
to the passage of time. The main development in relation to Horizon by the time
I moved to the Department of Health in September 2012, as I explain further
below, was that a decision had been taken by POL to commission independent
forensic accountants to investigate complaints about Horizon. I was reassured
by this, but Second Sight had not yet been appointed and so I had no
involvement with their work, nor did I see their reports. The Simon Clarke
advice, Deloitte reports or Swift Review also all post-dated my time as Minister.
Page 3 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
I only heard about them by following more recent media coverage about the
Post Office’s handling of the prosecution of SPMs.
Role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
13.1 had a wide portfolio which covered competition policy, consumer affairs,
employment, trade policy, Royal Mail and the Post Office and a number of other
areas of responsibility. I was on three European councils — employment, trade,
and competition — which involved regular visits to Brussels, travelling by
Eurostar.
14.1 held the position of PUS in the Department for about seven months only and
during that time I took a major Bill through Parliament — the Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform Bill. This required a very substantial amount of preparation
with the passage through Parliament starting relatively soon after I joined the
Department.
15.1 know that the Inquiry has already had substantial evidence about what it is
like being a Minister within the Business Department, the breadth of the
portfolio, the demands on time and the way in which the Ministerial box and
Private Office function. In particular, I have seen that my immediate
predecessor and successor in the role — Sir Ed Davey and Jo Swinson — have
explained this in detail. I have little to add to their account, which was very
similar to my experience.
16.1 would say that postal affairs probably took up around 10-15% of my time as
Minister. Other matters such as the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill,
employment policy issues, Royal Mail and the work with the European councils
took up a lot of my time and energy. Within that part of the portfolio the Horizon
issues took up very little time from the Department in terms of briefings,
correspondence or meetings. The decision already referred to, to commission
independent forensic accountants to investigate the serious concerns raised by
SPM seemed like an appropriate way of establishing the truth. Other issues
such as pursuit of opportunities to develop new income streams for Post Office
were considerably more the area of focus. This is reflected in a letter from
myself to other MPs dated 20 April 2012 providing a general update on postal
Page 4 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
affairs (BEIS0001224 That said, I certainly thought the Horizon complaints
were important when they were drawn to my attention, primarily through
correspondence from other MPs, because of my experience with my
constituent. That was the case even before I met Sir Alan Bates in June 2012.
17.The Inquiry has already had a great deal of evidence about how Ministerial
correspondence works. Generally, the protocol was that Ministers would
respond to letters from MPs, and letters would be drafted on my behalf to review
and sign, whereas officials would respond on my behalf to letters from others,
without my involvement. An example of the latter is the letter I have been
provided with whereby Mike Whitehead of ShEx responded to Gina Griffiths,
the wife of an SPM, in August 2012 (UKGI00013950 ).
18.In relation to correspondence, I was not in the habit of signing letters without
thinking about their contents, even if the time I had to consider them was limited.
I would and did reject draft letters on occasion. I cannot recall now with any
clarity what I thought about the draft responses I was provided with by my
Officials in relation to Horizon issues, but I think I would have taken the view
that a formal response setting out the official position, based on information
provided to the Department (or more specifically ShEx) by POL was
acceptable, but this did not mean that it was the only way to follow up on such
correspondence. I would have been conscious that behind the scenes I had
agreed to meet with Sir Alan Bates and, during my time as Minister in the
department, I had been informed that there would be an independent
investigation, of which I was very supportive. So, I think that I would have felt
that stating the formal position was acceptable, as it was not dismissing the
concerns and it was not the limit of what I was doing.
Oversight of POL
19.1 was responsible for Post Office policy and oversight of Royal Mail Group
("RMG’) and Post Office Ltd (“POL”).
20.1 was supported in fulfilling my responsibilities by my Private Office, and by civil
servants in the Department and the Shareholder Executive (“ShEx”). My
recollection, as with that of Ed Davey and Jo Swinson, is that it was officials
Page 5 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
from ShEx who briefed me on Post Office issues and attended meetings as the
relevant policy experts. I note, for example, from paragraph 66 of the opening
submissions to the Inquiry from UK Government Investments (“UKGI"), the
successor to ShEX, that when I met with Sir Alan Bates it was two
representatives of ShEx who attended with me. It would also have been usual
for a member of my Private Office to attend meetings.
21.From memory I would receive regular submissions from civil servants, primarily
those in ShEx, in relation to postal affairs. I cannot recall how often I had
meetings with ShEx or oral briefings from them. I also met with the CEO of POL,
Paula Vennells, and the Chair, Alice Perkins. I cannot recall how many times I
met with them during the seven months I was in the Department, and have not
been provided with any minutes of meetings, but it was not very often. I have
seen a document that shows I attended a launch event for the POL Network
with Paula Vennells on 7 March 2012, for example (BEIS0001227 ). I also
remember Paula Venells coming up to North Norfolk to visit a local sub post
office with me. I have also been shown a letter from Alice Perkins to me dated
3 May 2012 asking for greater remuneration for Paula Vennells (BEIS0001226
) and the proposed response for me to send dated 12 June 2012 (BEIS0001225
) which recommended caution in light of discussions about short and long-term
incentive plans for her and Chris Day being developed.
22.During my time as Minister, I focused on exploring the potential for making POL
a social enterprise owned by SPMs through the process of mutualisation. I was
enthusiastic about the principle of SPMs owning the post office as a mutual
company. During this period, the government was developing its response to
the consultation on mutualisation. I was briefed to attend a stakeholder meeting
about this on 9 May 2012, with Paula Vennells and ShEx representatives in
attendance, amongst others (BEIS0001222 ). I have not been provided with
any record of this meeting. Just before this meeting ShEx provided me with a
note for my information about a workshop on mutualisation hosted by POL that
reflected concerns about mutualisation (BEIS0001223 ). That corresponds with
my general recollection that there was resistance to the idea of mutualisation
from POL, although I cannot recall further details as to why. I simply have a
Page 6 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
recollection that Paula Vennells and Alice Perkins did not embrace the idea,
whilst not dismissing it entirely.
23.1 met with the National Federation of Sub-postmasters (“NFSP”) and spoke at
their conference. I do not remember them raising any issues about Horizon or
prosecutions, although they seemed willing to challenge POL on other matters.
I recall that during my time as Minister there was a lot of concern about the
continuing viability of the post office network and consideration of new forms of
income, the potential for post offices to have a role in offering financial services
and the possibility for post offices to have a role as the ‘front office’ for
government, local and national.
24.1 understood that the Government's role in relation to POL was as the
shareholder. I can understand why, on establishing RMG and POL, it was seen
as appropriate to try to run it on a commercial basis without interference from
the Government. I had no particular reason to doubt that this was an
appropriate model at the time. However, the fact is that the model failed to
provide good governance and the Government's representative (from ShEx
and latterly UKGI) on the POL Board failed to challenge the Board effectively.
This now clearly requires rethinking.
25.All the standard replies to letters from MPs about Post Office issues, including
Horizon and the prosecution of SPMs, which were drafted by the Department
and ShEx’s civil servants emphasised the arms-length nature of this
shareholder relationship and that it was not appropriate for the Department or
Ministers to interfere in operational matters. I understood this to mean that day
to day decisions and processes were for POL to deal with, but my role was to
handle questions in Parliament on POL’s behalf and also have an inquiring
mind, being willing to challenge, and to take concerns raised with me seriously,
to have an interest and ask questions of POL whilst recognising the shareholder
relationship. I generally thought that the role of a Minister was to act with
curiosity about their portfolio, and that included the arms-length bodies for
which they had responsibility. In terms of the actual levers or powers I had as
Minister, I think I understood these to be largely ‘soft power’. The only hard
power I (or rather, the Secretary of State) had was to replace the CEO and
Page 7 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
Board, but otherwise it was a power to ask for meetings, ask questions or get
officials to ask questions on behalf or make recommendations to POL.
Knowledge of complaints about Horizon
26.During my time as Minister, I did not ever receive any information from POL or
within ShEx or the Department to suggest that there were widespread errors
within Horizon. Quite the opposite; the consistent advice was that there was no
evidence of such a problem.
27.However, I received a letter from Alan Bates (now Sir Alan) on behalf of the
JFSA soon after I was appointed to my role in the Department in February 2012
(POL00107331). I cannot recall the specific basis of my decision, but I had
already written on behalf of a constituent SPM who had been prosecuted, prior
to my appointment as Minister, and I was clearly struck by the concerns and
decided it was appropriate to meet with him (UKGI00000041). I have not seen
any documents to show whether I was advised by my officials to meet him or
not, but my instinct would have been to have the meeting. I would have had in
mind my constituent’s case; I remember having the feeling that there was
something disturbing about what had happened to her, and although I did not
know her well I had the distinct impression that she was not the kind of person
who would steal. I also generally had a modus operandi of wanting to hear
complaints or challenges, rather than accepting the official or party line on an
issue. When I was at the Department of Health, for example, I went against the
advice of officials to set up the independent investigation into the deaths at
Gosport War Memorial Hospital in the 1990s.
28.In February 2012 I was also invited to a meeting chaired by James (now Lord)
Arbuthnot about the same issues. The invitation was made by Jim Withers, who
had run the Cromer post office between 2006 and 2008 (POL00417085). The
email from my then Private Secretary to Peter Batten in SnEx (POL00417085)
asks for advice with the comment ‘Assume a decline’ (i.e. the assumption is
that the advice would be to decline to attend the meeting). Frustratingly, I have
not been provided with the ShEx response so cannot see what their advice
actually was.
Page 8 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
29. It is clear that I did not go to the meeting but frustratingly I have no recollection
of the request or of the decision not to attend. I also do not know whether it was
even possible for me to attend, given the incredibly heavy schedule I had and
the major piece of legislation I had to take through Parliament. However, I would
say that the Departmental view appears to have been that it was not appropriate
for the Minister to attend. I have reviewed the briefing prepared prior to that
meeting (dated 9 March 2012) in which I am referred to in the third person and
it is noted I declined the invitation (POL00418017). Whilst I do not remember
receiving it at the time, on reading it now I am left with a sense that the briefing
lacked curiosity as to why so many SPMs were being prosecuted and
dismissed. It also fails to refer to the survey results which Sir Alan Bates had
by then sent to us, which seemed to contradict the view that shortfalls were a
rare occurrence. I wish I had attended, but I subsequently did meet directly with
Sir Alan Bates which demonstrated my willingness to listen to the concerns of
campaigners.
30.1 met Sir Alan Bates on 28 June 2012. Very frustratingly, there does not appear
to be a minute or note of this meeting that has been kept by the Department or
UKGI (at least not that has been found or made available to me). I find this very
odd. In particular, paragraph 66 of the opening submission to the Inquiry from
UKGI is written in a way which suggests that there was some record of the
meeting. Because of my concern over the absence of a note of this meeting, I
made a subject access request to the Department dated 5 August 2024. My
request has been acknowledged but I have not yet received a substantive
response. This means that I am left with only my unaided memory of a meeting
over 12 years ago. In truth, I do not recall any details of our discussion now, but
I have seen the evidence Sir Alan gave to the Inquiry and it is clear that he felt
that I understood the concerns he was putting to me and took them seriously.
This is exactly how I would imagine I would have reacted.
31.1 have been shown the briefing that I was given before that meeting
(UKGI00000065). There does seem to be in this document a sense of wanting
to hide behind the arms-length ‘operational matter for POL’ principle. I also note
that it suggested I be in ‘listening mode’ for the meeting and recommended
Page 9 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
caution in what I said in case it was used as part of litigation. I cannot now
remember exactly what I thought of this at the time, but given my general view
was that it was my role as Minister to be curious and to listen I would have
noted it but also be determined to hear what Sir Alan had to say and take action
if I needed to.
32. ‘Listening mode’ was not the extent of what I thought my role was, nor what Sir
Alan Bates himself seems to have understood from our meeting. I cannot say
for sure now what my mindset had been, but I do know I had personal
knowledge of these Horizon concerns from before I joined the Department from
my constituent’s case, that Sir Alan Bates seemed to understand at our meeting
that I “got it’, and that my general approach was to be curious and hear
challenge or complaints, so I do not think that reflects a sense I was passive as
Minister.
33.1 would have noted in particular that the briefing said POL had now agreed
forensic accountants would be engaged ‘to investigate the [Horizon] system
and give further comfort to those concerned about these cases’. I did take
significant reassurance from this. From my perspective as the Minister at the
time it would have seemed a positive and appropriate step that this independent
investigation would be commissioned, and I hoped and expected that this would
get to the bottom of the issue. I am confident it would have done so, or at least
started to do so, had POL not subsequently terminated Second Sight’s
involvement, which was an extraordinary decision, albeit one that was taken
some time after I left the Department.
34.During my time as Minister, I received a series of letters from MPs about the
experience of SPMs who were their constituents. I have reviewed my replies to
these letters dating from February 2012 - March 2012 (UKGI00014057;
UKGI00013948; UKGI00014031). As I set out above at paragraph 17, these
kinds of replies were drafted on my behalf. The replies to these letters initially
took the formal line (I assume informed by information given by POL to ShEx)
that POL had confidence in the Horizon system; that it was an operational
matter for POL; and that the Department could not get involved in individual
cases. This was also the case with the letter drafted for me to send to Kevin
Page 10 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
Barron MP in June 2012 (UKGI00013907 ). However, once the decision had
been taken that POL would commission independent forensic accountants to
review the system, this became the main point made in the replies drafted for
me. This can be seen from July 2012 and August 2012 responses to Albert
Owen MP (UKGI00013766 ), Stephen Hepburn MP (UKGI00013794 ), and Priti
Patel MP (UKGI00013857 ).
35.As referred to above, a similar response was sent on my behalf by officials to
Gina Griffiths, whose husband was an SPM (UKGI00013950 ). I do not think I
would have ever seen this last correspondence, as I left the Department to
move to the Department of Health very shortly after this letter was received and
probably before the response was sent.
36.Similarly, nearing the end of my time as Minister, my Private Office received
several letters in relation to Horizon which I doubt that I myself saw given they
were received during August and just before I left my role. The first was a letter
from John Pugh MP, that refers to my interest in the proposed forensic
accountant investigation (UKGI00001443 ). This letter specifically refers to the
fact that I was “on record as saying that JFSA victims (people effected [sic] by
apparent glitches in the Post Office accounting software) need to be happy with
the forensic accountants needed to look into it.” This demonstrates that I was
taking their concerns seriously.
37. The second was a letter from Laurence Lee & Co Solicitors detailing an SPM’s
ongoing prosecution for false accounting linked to Horizon (UKGI00001446 ).
This letter refers to an upcoming “investigation” into Horizon, which I can only
assume refers to the proposed forensic accountant investigation. I do not recall
this being brought to my attention and as I have said above it is unlikely it was
because of the timing of the letter.
Reflections
38.The Inquiry has asked me to reflect on my time as Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State and whether there is anything I would have handled
differently, with the benefit of hindsight, in relation to the oversight of POL.
Page 11 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
39.Whilst at the time I was excited to get a promotion to the role at the Department
of Health in September 2012, I do have a sense of frustration that the rapid
turnover of Ministers can make it hard to follow through on issues. After having
met with Sir Alan Bates and established some rapport, I left the Department
just over two months later and was therefore unable to take the learning from
that meeting and apply it to the handling of the independent forensic accountant
review and ensure it was brought to a conclusion.
40.1 believe that the governance arrangements have been found seriously wanting.
Although the Post Office is run as a limited company, it is wholly owned by the
Government and so it is still important for Ministers and officials to have a
curious mind and to be willing to challenge the company if issues of concern
emerge. This applies in particular to ShEx and its successor UKGI. As
shareholder representative of a publicly owned company there was clearly a
responsibility to ensure that the company was behaving properly. I have
subsequently reached the conclusion that they failed to do that. I noted a report
by Andy Verity of the BBC dated 26 January 2024 which referred to evidence
that emerged through the Inquiry about unredacted minutes of meetings of the
Project Sparrow sub-committee of the POL Board. The ShEx representative on
the POL Board at the time, Richard Callard, was on that sub-committee. It
decided to end the role of Second Sight, the forensic accountants who had
been appointed to investigate the claims about the Horizon system, and so the
ShEx representative was aware of and participated in that decision, which
seems to me a significant failure of oversight. However, I do not know what he
was told by POL to satisfy him that terminating their role was appropriate.
41.1 do not have a clear view as to the best reform to current arrangements,
although I do believe that my interest in establishing a mutual social enterprise
owned by SPMs to run POL (mutualisation) could have addressed the appalling
behaviours of POL. Would a mutualised company with SPMs in control have
ever allowed this scandal to continue?
Page 12 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
Statement of truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 11 November 2024
Page 13 of 15
Index to Witness Statement of Norman Lamb
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
No URN Document Description Control Number
1 BEIS0001224 I Letter from Norman Lamb dated 23 April 2012 BEIS0001224
2 UKGI0001395 I Letter to Gina Griffiths from Mike Whitehead dated 30 I UKGI00013950
0 August 2012
3 BEIS0001227 I RMPO Comms Handling March 2012 CDR input BEIS0001227
28.02.12 1 CLEAN
4 BEIS0001226 I Letter to Alice Perkins from Norman Lamb dated 3 BEIS0001226
May 2012 re Chief Executive's Remuneration
5 BEIS0001225 I Briefing to Norman Lamb dated 12 June 2012 re BEIS0001225
Post Office Limited- Paula Vennell’s Base Salary
6 BEIS0001222 I Briefing to Norman Lamb dated 3 May 2012 re BEIS0001222
Building a Mutual Post Office: Round-Table Meeting
with Stakeholders
7 BEIS0001223 I Note of Mutualisation Workshop hosted by Post Office I BEIS0001223
Ltd
8 POL00107331 I Letter from JFSA to Norman Lamb MP dated 25" POL-0105639
February 2020 requesting a meeting and enclosing a
survey
9 UKGI0000004 I Letter from Norman Lamb MP to Alan Bates dated VIS00001002
1 4 April 2012 re: JFSA and survey of serving sub-
postmasters.
10 POL00417085 I Email from MPST Lamb to Peter Batten CC: Will POL-BSFF-
Gibson and Kate Wake RE: EX Sub Postmasters 0237236
Meeting dated 14 February 2012
11 POL00418017 I Briefing Note On The Current Status Of The Claims POL-BSFF-
Involving Horizon 0237276
12 UKGI0000006 I Briefing for Norman Lamb from Mike Whitehead VIS00001026
5 ahead of meeting with Alan Bates dated 27 June
2012
13 UKGI0001405 I Letter from Norman Lamb MP to Edward Garnier QC_ I UKGI024850-001
7 MP dated February 2012 RE: SPM/constituent Mr
Kamaljit Kooner's request for meeting due to
termination
14 UKGI0001394 I Letter from Norman Lamb MP to Stephen Hepburn I UKGI024741-001
8 MP dated March 2012 re concern raised by Carol
Riddell (East Boldon Post Office) about the Horizon
computer system - Financial discrepancies
15 UKGI0001403 I Letter from Norman Lamb MP to Alok Sharma MP UKG1024824-001
1 dated March 2012 re: Michael Wilson and problems
with the Post Office computer system.
Page 14 of 15
WITN10170100
WITN10170100
16 UKGI0001390 I Letter to Kevin Barron from Norman Lamb dated UKGI00013907
7 June 2012
17 UKGI0001376 I Letter to Albert Owen from Norman Lamb dated UKGI00013766
6 July 2012
18 UKGI0001379 I Letter to Stephen Hepburn from Norman Lamb UKGI00013794
4 dated August 2012
19 UKGI0001385 I Letter to Priti Parel from Norman Lamb dated UKGI00013857
7 August 2012
20 UKGI0000144 I Letter from John Pugh to Norman Lamb dated 20 UKGI00001443
3 August 2012
21 UKGI0000144 I Letter from Norman Lamb to Brigitte Waters dated UKGI00001446
6
23 August 2012 re Our Client Anne Nield (DOB
4/3/1953) of 10 Buckingham Road, Liverpool L9
4RD
Page 15 of 15