Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Post Office, Horizon redress and Post Office finances. We inherited a Post Office in crisis. It had a grim past, a poor commercial track record, unstable leadership and its record on compensation was widely perceived as legalistic, slow and adversarial. Since this Government came into office, the total amount of redress paid to victims of the Horizon scandal has increased by more than three and a half times. Between July last year and 31 March this year, more than 3,300 victims have received compensation for the first time. Approximately £892 million has now been paid to more than 6,200 claimants. We have also established a new compensation scheme, so that those postmasters who finally had their convictions overturned by Parliament last year get redress. We are working on our approach to redress for postmasters who fell victim to the flaws in the Capture system.

Unlike the previous Government, we set out a clear forecast for compensation within the autumn Budget of £1.8 billion from 2024-25. As the House will know, the Government previously committed to provide the majority of group litigation order claimants with substantial redress by the end of March. I can confirm that, as promised, 76% of those who submitted claims for compensation have received substantial redress. All those who submitted a claim before Christmas have received an offer or, in one case, a substantial interim payment instead. We will also take further steps to increase the pace at which claimants’ challenges can be resolved fairly. Facilitated discussions will be reintroduced to the GLO scheme for this purpose.

Most recently, we announced that from 3 June my Department will take over responsibility for the overturned convictions scheme from the Post Office. We have also welcomed Fujitsu’s commitment to contribute to the Government’s compensation for the victims of the scandal. During a meeting between the Secretary of State and Fujitsu’s chief executive officer in March, an agreement was reached on beginning talks ahead of the conclusion of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry.

The House will be aware that the Secretary of State announced the Government’s intention to establish an appeals mechanism for claimants who were unhappy with offers that they had received under the Post Office’s Horizon shortfall scheme. Today we are publishing the guidance and principles for the HSS appeals, and by the end of this month we will begin to accept applications from eligible postmasters who are currently involved in the Post Office’s dispute resolution process. The document sets out the underlying rules that will govern the assessment of appeals, and also provides information on, for instance, the eligibility criteria to help postmasters and their legal representatives make their claims. We developed this in consultation with the Horizon compensation advisory board, claimants’ lawyers, and representatives of postmasters’ organisations.

Later this month we will begin writing to the legal representatives of potentially eligible postmasters who are currently involved in the dispute resolution process, inviting them to transfer their claims to the new HSS appeals scheme. If postmasters do not have legal representatives, we will write to them directly. Shortly after that, we will open the scheme to all other eligible postmasters. As with the GLO scheme, my Department will aim to respond within 40 working days of the submission of a substantially complete appeal in at least 90% of cases. We will encourage postmasters entering the process to engage legal advisers, and we will meet their reasonable legal costs through a tariff that we have agreed with claimants’ lawyers. Postmasters will not have to pay a penny of income tax, capital gains tax, national insurance contributions, corporation tax or inheritance tax on any compensation that they receive through the new process.

As we look to the future, we will also continue to address any concerns about the Post Office’s past behaviour. I am therefore pleased to be able to provide an update on the Government-funded Post Office process review scheme, which will provide redress for postmasters who lost out financially owing to issues connected with Post Office products, policies or processes. Those issues are unrelated to Horizon but are part of the company’s efforts to rebuild trust with its postmasters and ensure that past failings are fully addressed. The scheme is due to be launched in the next month, and the Post Office will write to all of those potentially affected with further details, including information on how postmasters can apply.

We will consider carefully the conditions and recommendations of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry when it is published. While tackling the awful legacy of the Horizon scandal, the Government are also determined to make the Post Office more sustainable for the future, and we remain committed to publishing a Green Paper to consider its long-term future. In particular, I look forward to hearing the visions and ideas of stakeholders, including key trade unions, sub-postmasters and others.

It has been apparent for some time that the Post Office is heavily reliant on Government funding. Its chair’s transformation plan was announced in November, with the aim of putting the company on a path towards financial stability and delivering a “new deal for postmasters”. The plan requires the company to make difficult decisions about, for example, the need to look seriously at efficiencies in its headquarters and the branch network to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

Today the Post Office has announced that it would be moving to a fully franchised network as part of those plans. That will realise significant savings, potentially amounting to £100 million over the duration of the current Parliament. Before this announcement, many Members wrote to me expressing concerns about their local directly managed branches, and we have heard those concerns. The Post Office will therefore ensure that each directly managed branch will be franchised, either on site or in a location nearby, so that service provision will remain in place in communities. Making those changes will ensure that the company is more sustainable.

To support Post Office provision in every community across the UK, the Government plan to provide up to £83 million of subsidy next year. That is up from the £50 million provided under the last Government, and is in addition to the uplift that we provided in the last financial year. The Post Office needs to transform the outdated technology on which it depends, and we therefore plan to provide up to £136 million of funding for its new future technology portfolio in the 2025-26 financial year. Over the next five years this work will address technology needs across the business, which will include replacing Horizon, reducing central costs and ensuring that postmasters have the tools they need to serve their customers. To enable the Post Office to continue to administer redress payments to postmasters and respond to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, the Government will provide up to £57.9 million of funding. These funding streams are subject to the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and referral to the Competition and Markets Authority.

An announcement on banking framework 4 has not yet been made, but I am hopeful that there will be a positive announcement soon, as post offices continue to provide vital banking services in every community up and down the country. Together, these steps will help to pave the way towards a more sustainable future for the Post Office.

During my engagement with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, concerns have been raised that the Post Office may have acted improperly in the course of the network transformation programme during the 2010s. There are claims that the Post Office and its representatives put undue pressure on postmasters, and may have given unregulated financial advice to encourage them to move on to contracts that were ultimately not in their best interests. Those allegations must be taken seriously. I am therefore commissioning an independent review of the conduct of the programme to establish whether there was any improper or coercive behaviour, and I will update the House on the scope and timing of the review in due course.

It remains our priority to speed up the delivery of fair compensation to all the victims of the Horizon scandal, and to secure and strengthen the Post Office for the future. There is more to do, but I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for advance sight of it. I also thank the campaigners on this issue, with whom I worked for more than five years—both as a Back Bencher and as a Front Bencher—and, indeed, I thank Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot for their work on the Horizon compensation advisory board, which we established on a cross-party basis during our tenure.

I agree with the Minister that, although good progress has been made, there is much more to do. It is good that £892 million has been paid to 6,200 sub-postmasters, a tenfold increase on what we saw only a couple of years ago. It is clear that most of that has gone out of the door because of what this Parliament did last June, when it overturned the convictions by statute, and because of the introduction of fixed-sum awards, which have revolutionised the ability to pay compensation quickly.

I am proud to say that we did all that in the House on a cross-party basis, and it was the right thing to do. I worked with the then shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade and with this Minister and others in their former roles, and our work was strongly supported by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the then Business Secretary, who is now Leader of the Opposition, and the then Chancellor and his Ministers. I am therefore a little disappointed that the Minister has sought to suggest that he took over a crisis.

We have made much progress on this matter on a cross-party basis, and my remarks today will continue to be made on that basis, but for all the progress the Minister talked about in his statement, I did not hear about a single aspect of the Horizon programme that was not already in train under the last Government, in conjunction with the then Opposition. The Minister mentioned a three and a half-fold increase in July, which I welcome, but as he will no doubt concede, it happened as a result of the overturning of the convictions by Parliament and the introduction of the compensation schemes. The redress scheme, for example, was set in train by the last Government with the co-operation of the then Opposition, as was the investigation of Capture.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I join him in commending the work of all those who have campaigned, and who continue to campaign, for the victims of this horrendous scandal. I pay tribute to the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Beamish. In a spirit of cross-partisanship, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in the past. I know that he worked extremely hard to try to move things forward, and I very much respect the job that he did.

Let me attempt to do justice to the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. On Capture, we are actively working on a redress scheme. We have had a series of meetings with some of the sub-postmasters who were affected by the problems in the Capture software and their legal representatives. He will be aware that a number of cases with the Criminal Cases Review Commission relate to Capture, and we think it is appropriate that the CCRC is allowed to continue to review those cases.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, the Secretary of State recently met the global chief executive of Fujitsu during his visit to Japan. I have met the chief executive of Fujitsu in the UK, and I said to him that an interim payment would be a significant step in the right direction.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Post Office’s accountants. He may be aware that the Financial Reporting Council is looking at this issue and has been talking to the Horizon compensation advisory board. It is an independent body, and I am sure that he and the House will recognise that it is right that we respect the right of that independent body to do its work.

The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that the full assessment of claims occasionally has problems. That is one of the reasons why I referred to the fact that we are bringing back facilitated discussions, particularly on the GLO scheme. Although there has been significant progress in settling two thirds of the GLO claims that have been put in, we think that those facilitated discussions will help to make it easier for fair compensation to be allocated in a timely way to those victims of the scandal.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the reference to the discussions with Fujitsu. The Horizon software is still being used by the post office network, and I understand that the contract with Fujitsu is worth about £2.4 billion over its lifetime. We should not lose sight of the fact that Fujitsu was heavily involved in supporting the Post Office’s prosecution of innocent sub-postmasters. Can my hon. Friend say exactly how he will ensure that Fujitsu pays the appropriate amount of money to compensate for its role in this affair?

I recognise the concern across the House. My hon. Friend has followed this issue for a long time, and I recognise his continuing interest. He will forgive me if I do not give a running commentary to the House on the negotiations that we will have with Fujitsu. We are obviously waiting for the conclusions of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry and his judgment about the level of responsibility that Fujitsu must accept. As I alluded to in my answer to the Opposition spokesman, an interim payment by Fujitsu would be a significant step forward.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the progress that the Government have made, but the redress payment processes are still too slow. First, victims claiming under the Horizon shortfall scheme continue to face significant up-front complexity without legal advice. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Government will be writing to that group, but could he please outline a time by which they will receive those letters?

Secondly, the Minister announced that any compensation will not be subject to a penny of income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax or other taxes. Could he confirm whether that will require primary legislation? If so, will it be limited to this scandal or apply to other scandals as well? I am thinking in particular of the cross-party campaign on Philomena’s law because some victims of that scandal are struggling to access their compensation.

Thirdly, this scandal has involved many individuals working at the Post Office, Fujitsu and others. The Government have committed to bringing forward a statutory duty of candour; they initially said they would do so by 15 April, which is the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. At business questions last week, the Leader of the House cast doubt on whether that deadline would be met, because the Government say they will take whatever time is necessary to get the issue right. We Liberal Democrats want the drafting to be done correctly, but is there any update on when we can expect the statutory duty to be brought forward?

Fourthly, the evidence of whistleblowers at Fujitsu was crucial in exposing the lies about Horizon. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an office of the whistleblower, and we have put down amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen protections for whistleblowers. Would the Government work with us on that issue?

Finally, I was surprised to see the announcement about directly managed post offices. The Minister will be aware that a cross-party group of Members has been infuriated by the poor communication from Post Office bosses on this process. I recognise that today’s announcement states that the Post Office will move to a fully franchised network, but that still provides no guarantee about the range or quality of services that will be available, no guarantee on the definition of “nearby”, no guarantee that there will not be a break in service and no guarantee that those post offices will not eventually be closed if the franchises do not work. Will the Minister please set out the next stages? Those will affect my constituents in St Albans and many constituents represented by Members here.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right to reflect the view of the whole House that there is still much more to do on compensation. We as the Government are very clear about that ourselves, and we are working at pace to try to step up even further the rate at which compensation payments are made. We think that, in just the first nine months of this Government, we have made significant progress, increasing by three and a half times the amount of compensation that has been paid out. But I completely accept that there is more to do.

We think that the launch of the Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process will help to address a number of cases in the HSS where sub-postmasters are concerned about the offers they have had. The hon. Lady asked me when letters would be going out. I set out the broad timescale in my statement, and I simply say to her again—shortly. We want to get this up and running as quickly as we can.

The hon. Lady asked me whether new legislation would be required to implement the commitments on tax that I set out. No, it will not be required. On the issue of the duty of candour, I do not have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. However, the hon. Lady’s question is an opportunity to underline that we expect a number of significant issues to arise from Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry, and we as the Government—and, I am sure, the whole House—will want to reflect on the conclusions and recommendations that he comes up with.

The hon. Lady mentioned the issues about the decision to franchise the remaining directly managed branches. As I set out in my statement, I have heard the concerns from across the House—they were particularly significant on the Labour Benches, but I recognise those from the Opposition side as well—about the impact of losing post office services in the communities where those directly managed parties are. That is why we have made it clear to the Post Office that franchised post office services have to remain in those communities.

Salford precinct’s busy Crown post office is a vital lifeline for residents and businesses alike, especially for those who collect their pensions and benefits in person. Put simply, closing it in favour of a franchise would cause local economic and social devastation, especially if services are reduced and staff are let go. It would also put that service at the whim of the franchisee, which, as we know from the recent case of WH Smith, causes great uncertainty and insecurity. What is the Minister doing to guarantee that Salford retains all its existing post office services and staff in this geographical location, and what alternatives has he considered or will he consider in favour of shelving franchising?

I know that my hon. Friend has always been a great champion of Salford. Like other Members, she has made it very clear to me how significant the post office is in her community. The vast majority of post office branches across the country are already franchised. Both main and local franchises are often open longer than directly managed branches.

My hon. Friend asked what guarantees there are. As I have set out, we have made it clear to the Post Office that we want every directly managed branch to ensure that there is a main franchised operation in those communities. I recognise that there will be concern while that change takes place, but if she or any other Members have concerns about aspects of that transition as it moves forward in their constituencies, I will obviously be very happy to meet them to discuss those.

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I should remind the House that in March we recommended that the Government should listen harder to our recommendations. I am glad that that seems to have been taken on board, but I am slightly concerned that a lot of back patting seems to be going on, particularly about Fujitsu. Does the Minister not agree with me that he should be telling Fujitsu what to do, not asking it? This Government seem overly deferential to lawyers. He is in charge of this. Can he not get the pace moving, because lawyers are getting their money—their fees—but postmasters are not getting their money at the rate they should?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to want progress on Fujitsu, which is one of the reasons why I have made it clear to Fujitsu that an interim payment would be a very welcome and significant step forward. We have said that we think it is important that we hear the view of Sir Wyn Williams, who has been looking in detail at the responsibility of both Fujitsu and senior leaders in the Post Office during this scandal. We need to recognise that there is a process, but we are absolutely clear about our responsibility to move the negotiations forward.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for all the work he is doing to redress the injustice of the Horizon scandal. Can he confirm that the Communication Workers Union, as well as the National Federation of SubPostmasters, has been involved in decision making? I have lobbied him very hard about my post office in Cricklewood, so he will know that we want to and must maintain those services going forward. I think a lot of the problems stem from the separation of the Royal Mail and the Post Office following privatisation, so would he consider discussing the possibility of a joint venture again?

I know from the conversations I have had with my hon. Friend just how much she and her constituents value the post office in Cricklewood. As I have set out, our starting point is that a mains franchise offering the same services as currently enjoyed by the residents of Cricklewood will be provided. I hope her constituents will not see any significant disruption going forward, but I am very happy to have a conversation with her about that.

I have had many conversations since coming into this role with the leadership of the Communication Workers Union, who have been very direct in their views about directly managed branches. On the question of their having a view and a say in the future of the Post Office, as I have made clear we are determined to publish a Green Paper, which will allow all those who are interested, including the CWU, to give us their vision of the future of the Post Office and view about the various questions about its future.

Does the Minister acknowledge that among the horrific impacts of the Horizon scandal is the massive brand damage to Post Office Ltd and its management among not only the sub-postmasters who are currently employed, but the potential workforce of the future?

Our communities in the lakes in Hawkshead, Staveley and Grasmere are currently without an operating post office and have lost those services. Will the Minister give attention to and push Post Office Ltd to provide a package that not just encourages people to remain within the Post Office, but attracts new people, acknowledging that it will take more effort than normal to attract people into the sector? On the issue of franchise services, our post office in Kendal shares space with the Royal Mail, and any change of site for our post office could threaten both. Is he cognisant of that, and will he do something about it?

The hon. Gentleman rightly underlines the significance of the Post Office, in particular in rural communities, and the challenge on occasion of finding sub-postmasters to run franchise post offices in those areas. I hope the uplift in postmaster remuneration that came just before Christmas will help to address that particular challenge.

We have made clear to the Post Office leadership that a fundamental change in its culture is needed to place sub-postmasters at the heart of the operation going forward, which they accept. They have therefore set up a consultative council to ensure that sub-postmasters have direct input into the future direction of the Post Office. They are also doing more, through a postmaster panel, to bring in postmasters to understand the different processes used and to rebuild confidence in how Post Office management handles some of the bigger challenges that the company faces.

I will happily consider any request or point of concern that the hon. Gentleman raises about Kendal. If he is not satisfied with progress in addressing those points, he is very welcome to get in contact with me further down the line.

I am very proud of the local campaign I have been involved in alongside councillors and residents to save Chester-le-Street post office. Although it is disappointing that we are losing the post office in its current form, I am relieved that the services have been saved. I recognise that the market for traditional post office services has been in decline for some years. Does the Minister share my disappointment that Post Office management did not have the commercial imagination to find new business streams utilising their brand and network of prominent high street locations?