I declare an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. I rise to welcome the Bill and the reasoning behind it, as outlined by the Minister. I must say that the Minister is committed to ensuring that we make the scheme as fair and equitable as possible. As he said, it would have been unjust to have left the sword of
Damocles that was the arbitrary deadline of next August hanging over the heads of potential claimants. It is right that the Bill is brought forward. I echo the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) that we do not want to see delays in compensation, but, because of the trauma that individuals are involved in and the complexity, some cases may take longer than others.
May I, at this point, put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam? Having dealt with the issue for more years than I care to remember—and, I must say, having dealt with a succession of useless Ministers who literally accepted what their civil servants said and continued to parrot that, even when they knew that the Horizon system was at fault—it is a credit to him that he was the only one who grasped the situation and got to understand its complexities. I also welcomed the private chats we had on some of the issues. He is right that the scheme is not easy to implement, but he was willing to question things that were clearly wrong and to put it through. I would not want to make the Minister blush, but if people want an example of a Minister doing his job and having something to look back on and be proud of, they should look at his response to this matter. I do not want to downgrade the present Minister, who has picked up the baton and, as the poacher turned gamekeeper that he is, is following through to ensure that the scheme and justice are delivered for those individuals affected by Horizon.
As has been mentioned, I first got involved because of a constituent called Tom Brown, who came to my surgery. I say to any new Members in the House that if they ever get a case in a constituency surgery and think, “This sounds complex, but it just seems wrong,” they should dig into it and stick with it. Tom was a sub-postmaster in North Kenton in Newcastle. He had worked at other post offices before that, but he and his wife had bought a sub-post office in North Kenton for £150,000, which he saw as an investment not only for him but for his family’s future. He ran it with his wife; they had a convenience store, and it was successful until the Horizon computer system came along. Like many victims, he was given initial training on the system, but it came out in the inquiry that it was completely inadequate.
Not long after Horizon was installed, Tom started having shortfalls. If they were small, many people just made them up, but in his case they got to £85,609.03. He could not reconcile it, despite going to the helpline and saying, “Look, something’s wrong here.” The helpline just ignored him. In November 2008, two Post Office employees came along to do a branch audit, which is when the nightmare for Tom and his family began. He was accused of stealing the £85,000. Despite his efforts to explain the shortfalls in the system, no one listened, nor did they listen in the many other victims’ cases.
Tom had invested in property: he had his business, investment properties and his own house. He had the indignity not only of his name being in the local newspapers as someone who had stolen £85,000 but of having his home searched by the Post Office, looking—strangely enough—for the £85,000, as though he had it stuffed under the bed. The indignity of that is remarkable. We must remember that these individuals were pillars of the local community; people looked up to them and respected them in their communities—and that was suddenly all torn away.
In his witness statement to the inquiry, Tom describes the sensational media wildfire, which was disturbing for him and for his family. He is open in his statement that he considered suicide—sadly, we have heard that at least four people have taken their own lives. He did not because of his strong family. The irony of his situation is that when the Post Office prosecuted him, the case went to Crown court only to be withdrawn on the day it was heard. He was found not guilty of false accounting because no evidence was put forward. The judge said in his summing up:
“I’m sure you’ll be taking this further, Mr Brown”.
By that stage, Tom was left bankrupt. He was accused of stealing £85,000, his name sullied. That led to hardship not just for him but for his family. He had to sell his properties and his business, after it floundered. His son had to take him in and also got into financial difficulty, borrowing money to support his father, and they ended up in social housing in my constituency. The family were completely broken. I want to stress this aspect: we talk about the individual victim, but the effect on their families must be highlighted and compensated. Some family members need counselling because of the effects on them, and Tom’s witness statement to the inquiry sums that up well.
Sadly, Tom did not live to see the compensation he deserved, nor to see his name cleared and those involved in his case brought to justice; he passed away a few weeks ago. I add my condolences to his family. His name is still there with Alan Bates, who has been mentioned, and the others who fought this case.
Would we have got to where we are today without those people? No, we would not, because even when the Post Office knew that the system was flawed, it spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending the indefensible in court as a result of the litigation brought by Alan Bates and the rest of the 555. The tactic of the Post Office was very clear: it was to use public money—our money—to outspend the postmasters who had taken it to court. That was outrageous, given that it subsequently came to light, during the inquiry and also in court, that the Post Office knew that it did not have a leg to stand on. It was forced to settle out of court because it had run out of money, which was the intention of the Post Office and the Department that was in charge at the time.
Do we need to get this system moving? Yes, we do. Having been on the advisory board, I understand the complexities of the scheme. Would we start where we are starting now if we were starting afresh? No, we would not—but 60 people have already died, including Tom, and it is imperative now for us to try to get this compensation paid to their families and to the other postmasters. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said that we would not have started here. We now have the group litigation scheme, the historical shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. Is it too late to try to pull those three into one? I personally think it is, and I do not know what the Minister’s civil servants would do if we suggested it. In any event, I do not think that it is the way forward.
One thing that I do welcome is the appointment of Sir Ross Cranston as the final arbitrator in the process. If people are not happy about the levels of compensation they receive, there will be that final independent arbitrator. There has always been this point about independence.
Do any of those involved trust the Post Office? No, they do not. Do I trust the Post Office? No, I still do not trust it, given the way in which it has handled this matter.