Source · Select Committees · Business and Trade Committee
Recommendation 2
2
Rejected
Paragraph: 8
Remove Post Office from redress delivery and establish an independent intermediary for sub-postmasters.
Recommendation
The Government must immediately remove the Post Office from any involvement in delivering redress for sub-postmasters and the Government should set out to the Committee how it proposes to deliver swift and effective redress for sub-postmasters, and in what legally binding timeframes. We repeat the Committee’s recommendation that the Government set up a properly resourced independent intermediary to assist sub-postmasters seeking to overturn convictions and seek compensation across all redress schemes. This intermediary should provide claimants with access to forensic accountants and legal experts who can offer advice to help ensure that claims are robust as possible, that offers take account of all the losses suffered and that claimants do not suffer significant detriment because records have not been kept by the Post Office or other relevant organisations.
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to immediately remove the Post Office from redress delivery, stating decisions are already independent and such a move would cause significant delays and costs. It also asserts postmasters already have access to legal and expert assistance, rejecting a new intermediary.
Paragraph Reference:
8
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Decisions on redress cases in all three schemes are already independent of the Post Office. • In the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS), decisions are made by an independent panel comprising a KC, an accountant and a retail expert. There is also a dispute resolution process which includes independent mediation. • Decisions on the non-pecuniary aspects of redress for people with overturned con-victions are made in line with guidance provided by retired Supreme Court judge Lord Dyson in his Early Neutral Evaluation. Where agreement cannot be reached with a postmaster, decisions on the pecuniary aspects of a claim can be referred to an in-dependent panel chaired by former High Court judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom. • The Group Litigation Order (GLO) scheme is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than Post Office. If redress is not agreed bilaterally, decisions are taken by an independent panel (similar in composition to that of the HSS). Chal-lenges to the Panel’s decisions are resolved by Sir Ross Cranston, also a former High Court Judge. As Minister Hollinrake announced on 13 March, the new scheme to deliver redress to sub postmasters whose convictions are overturned by the forthcoming Bill will also be delivered by DBT and will ensure that redress is provided on the same basis whether a conviction has been overturned by a court or through legislation. Setting up a new body to replace these arrangements would take months and cost millions which should instead be spent on redress for postmasters. If the Post Office were “immedi-ately” removed from the process, no postmaster would receive redress for months. That is not acceptable. Postmasters claiming redress are already entitled to help from lawyers and other experts, such as forensic accountants and medical experts. Evidence from claimants – whether in the form of documents or of their personal recollections – is already given full weight in compiling offers, especially where Post Office or other records are incomplete.