Witness Name: Kevin Hollinrake
Statement No.: WITN11460200
Dated: 20/1 / 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF KEVIN HOLLINRAKE
I, Kevin Hollinrake, will say as follows.
us
This is my second witness statement to the Inquiry. I have prepared it with the
support of the Government Legal Department and counsel. I understand that my
first witness statement, dated 7 October 2024, has been given the inquiry reference
number WITN11460100. I gave oral evidence to the Inquiry on 6 November 2024.
. [have provided this witness statement in order to address a discrete issue, which
I understand first arose after I gave oral evidence on 6 November 2024, which
concerns whether I gave my officials the steer that making “prompt’ compensation
was to be treated as more important than ensuring that the payment was “full and
fair’.
Emphatically I did not My clear objective at all times was to ensure that
compensation was “full, fair and prompt’. The steer I and Kemi Badenoch gave
was that we should do what we could to accelerate compensation payments, but
we never gave the steer that these no longer needed to be “full and fair’. I did not
believe at the time, and I still do not believe, that by offering subpostmasters the
choice of accepting or rejecting a fixed sum payment we were abandoning the
commitment to “full and fair’ compensation.
Page 1 of 4
WITN11460200
WITN11460200
4. When giving oral evidence I was not asked whether I had ever given the steer that
“full and fair’ should take a back seat to “prompt’. However, I did explain that I did
not agree with the suggestion — and had not given the steer — that our objective
was on maximising full and final settlements rather than maximising getting
payments out the door (INQ00001202 6 November 2024, page 89 line 6 to page
90 line 10). As I said there:
“You asked whether the aim was to get money out as quickly to claimants or to
get full and final settlements to claimants. She says the focus is the latter; I say
the focus is on both, because the way the fixed-sum award works, as you will,
I'm sure, know is that some people, if they've gone through a full and final
settlement would have got less than £600,000. Some would get more. So the
point is, it shortens the queue for the others. If you take half the people out of
the queue -- because one of the problems we heard is getting people heard
that -- theirclaimheard or getting the assessments made, forensic accountants,
experts on mental health, physical health, all those things, but if you have fewer
people having to go through that process, they can get to the claim point more
quickly because people have come out of the process. It was never trying to
say to somebody, "Your claim might be worth 1 million, we're going togive you
600,000 to get you out of this". It was a choice people could haveand they
could make the assessment based upon their personal circumstances. It was
never trying to shortchange people.”
5. I also explained (INQ00001202 page 93, line 14) that I had not told my officials that
the objective behind fixed sum payments was more on reaching full and final
settlements than on getting payments out the door. These were not alternatives —
fixed sum payments have accelerated both.
6. I am aware that when Carl Creswell gave oral evidence on 6 November 2024, the
Chair indicated that it might be possible to understand his evidence to mean there
was “a shift in ministerial objective from the three words “full fair and prompt” to at
least an emphasis on prompt’ (INQ00001202 page 185, line 14). Mr Creswell
Page 2 of 4
WITN11460200
WITN11460200
agreed that Kemi Badenoch and I gave the steer “to prioritise speed, even if it
meant overpayment” (INQ00001202 page 186, line 1). That was entirely correct.
However, the Chair then suggested that the steer might also have been to prioritise
speed even if it meant underpayment (INQ00001202 page 186, line 5), to which
Mr Creswell did not give a direct answer. I am aware that, when Gareth Thomas
(the current Minister) gave oral evidence on 8 November 2024, Counsel to the
Inquiry asserted that Mr Creswell had suggested in evidence “that Government
policy now elevates promptness of compensation over fullness and fairness”
(INQ00001202 8 November 2024, page 5, line 6), a point which Gareth Thomas
rejected (INQ00001202 page 5, line 8; page 8, line 3; page 8, line 6; page 8, line
22; page 9, line 15).
8. Categorically, we did not give such a steer. As I explained when giving oral
evidence, “/t was never a case of trying to save money; it was always a case of
trying to expedite and accelerate the amount of compensation that goes to
individuals. We would never try to shortchange anybody, and the scheme should
never do that’ (INQ00001202 page 112, line 8).
9. I have been asked to address the suggestion that fixed sum payments were
intended to carry a degree of risk to subpostmasters to incentivise the acceptance
of those offers (INQ00001202 page 182, line 7). The whole point of fixed sum
payments was to speed up the overall process of remediation, by making fixed sum
offers which have resulted in many claimants receiving significantly more than their
claim was worth on a strict legal analysis (increasing compensation overall whilst
at the same time reducing administrative costs), and therefore reducing the queue
and speeding up the process for the remainder.
10.The policy approach of fixed sum awards was always based on generosity and
speed and never about creating a “risk”. The fixed sum option gives claimants a
choice that they would not have otherwise. If a claimant thinks that by accepting
the fixed sum offer they are risking being underpaid, they are absolutely entitled to
choose have the claim fully assessed according to the usual principles. I think it
Page 3 of 4
WITN11460200
WITN11460200
WITN11460200
WITN11460200
perfectly fair and reasonable to allow individuals to make their own judgements
and decisions based on their own circumstances.
11.1 would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Inquiry on this issue
if that would be helpful.
Statement of truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
GRO
Dated: - No vACLg
Signed:
Page 4 of 4
Index to Second witness statement of Kevin Hollinrake
WITN11460200
WITN11460200
URN
Reviewer Document Description
Control Number
INQ00001202
Transcript (06/11/2024): Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry -
Kevin Hollinrake MP [WITN1146] and Carl Creswell
[WITN1173]
INQ00001202