Post Office boss gave ‘misleading evidence’ to MPs
Nick Read has been accused of supplying “misleading evidence” to MPs as pressure intensifies on the beleaguered Post Office chief executive.
A report into compensation schemes for Horizon victims described the organisation as “unfit for purpose” in administering them and called for the Government to end the Post Office’s involvement in redress.
It is the latest bad news the Post Office has endured as it continues to deal with the ramifications of the Horizon scandal.
More than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongfully prosecuted after they were blamed for non-existent shortfalls produced by faulty Fujitsu software.
Mr Bates vs The Post Office, an ITV series which dramatised sub-postmaster Alan Bates’ fight for justice, reignited a call for victims to be fully financially compensated when it aired earlier this year.
Meanwhile, the Post Office also had to deal with claims made by its former chairman Henry Staunton, who revealed Mr Read was under investigation for his conduct at a committee hearing last week.
The business and trade committee report, published on Thursday, also noted that Mr Read had “supplied misleading evidence” to MPs.
The chief executive was previously asked at a committee meeting in January whether he had hired a public relations firm “to handle the crisis” after the airing of the ITV drama.
At the time, Mr Read said: “No, we haven’t.”
Yet in February, the Telegraph revealed the Post Office had contracted out PR firm TB Cardew at a rate of £15,000 a month.
When quizzed on the report at another committee meeting last week, Mr Read said TB Cardew had begun working for the Post Office in 2019 and then again in 2022 when its contract was renewed.
He also confirmed the company had put a briefing pack together for him ahead of the hearing, with biographies of MPs as well as suggested questions they might be asked.
Evidence given by Mr Read on gagging orders has also come into question – with the chief executive previously writing to MPs to state that any offer letters to sub-postmasters were marked with “Without Prejudice” and were therefore confidential.
When Liam Byrne, the committee chairman, suggested that the chief executive’s letter was “not a perfect reflection of the facts”, Mr Read followed up the meeting with a letter stating: “We have now made it clear that we have no expectation of confidentiality from postmasters who have received offers from us; even those which were labelled ‘Without Prejudice’.”
In Thursday’s report, the committee wrote: “We note that Mr Read has supplied misleading evidence to the Committee on at least two counts, relating to the Post Office’s use of, first, non-disclosure agreements and, secondly, public relations firms.”
Hypothetically, chief executives found to have lied at a committee meeting could be found to be in contempt of Parliament and were likely to lose their right to hold their position.
However, the process would involve a number of votes and stages and has never been completed in practice
‘Not fit for purpose’ in running redress schemes
In a damning indictment, the Committee stated: “The Post Office is not fit for purpose to administer any of the schemes of redress required to make amends for one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.”
The Post Office runs two financial redress schemes: the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, often used by sub-postmasters who used the money to make up for fictitious losses, and the Overturned Convictions process, which deals with victims who were wrongfully convicted.
MPs noted the organisation also plays a “key role” in the Group Litigation Order scheme because it has to disclose evidence to sub-postmasters that they are required to submit a claim.
Yet lawyers are waiting for up to seven months for the Post Office to send these disclosure reports and only 55 per cent have been issued so far, the Committee heard last week.
A spokesman for the Post Office confirmed it would have “no objection to relinquishing” its role in administering redress.
The report also said Post Office’s leadership remains “in disarray” noting that its chairman, Mr Staunton, had been dismissed and that Mr Read was under investigation.
Mr Byrne said: “The spectacle of the battle between the Post Office chief executive and its former chairman light up a simple truth; that the top of the Post Office is in utter disarray and not fit for purpose to run the payouts to former sub-postmasters.
“Its involvement in running Post Office redress schemes has to end and ministers must create a new, independent body set up that will genuinely help victims through their every stage of their compensation claims.”
Compensation delays
In total £1 billion has been set aside to compensate victims of the Horizon scandal.
Yet the report stated that just a fifth of this sum had been paid out so far, which Mr Byrne described as a “national disgrace”.
It read: “We identified unacceptable delays to delivering redress across all schemes. As a result, only 20 per cent of the budget set aside for redress has been paid out.”
The report also took note of the claims made by Mr Staunton about being told to slow down compensation payments ahead of the General Election.
MPs noted how Mr Read told them that “categorically” neither he nor his team had received such instructions.
The report added: “We note for the record that, under oath, Mr Staunton stood by his claims.”
Toxic culture
MPs also noted that they heard how the Post Office “still suffers from a ‘toxic’ culture and a complete lack of trust between the company and sub-postmasters”.
Former sub-postmasters who gave evidence told the Committee that the culture of the Post Office had not changed and were “unable to identify any aspects of the Post Office that have changed positively”, the report read.
The document also quoted Mr Bates himself, who gave evidence last week.
He told the Committee: “The [culture] has not changed; it has been the same for donkey’s years. It will not change and you cannot change it.”
Bates’s call for payment deadlines
The Committee also recommends a suggestion proposed by Mr Bates himself, that hard deadlines be set for payments being issued.
It recommends that the Government includes in forthcoming legislation “legal timeframes” for “each stage of a compensation claim, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant for failure to meet those deadlines”.
Mr Byrne added, “To guarantee this scandal drags on no longer, we have to enshrine into law an idea proposed by Mr Bates, of legally binding timetables for payouts.”
Mr Bates welcomed the recommendation, and told The Telegraph: “I was very keen that there has to be some kind of compensation for delays in payments.”
Commenting on the proposal to remove the Post Office entirely from the schemes, he added: “The sooner it happens the better, I don’t see how we can move forward while the Post Office is involved.”
A Government spokesman said it was working “tirelessly” to get compensation into the hands of those wronged by the scandal and that it would consider the report carefully and respond in due course.
He added: “We’re speeding up compensation, with approximately £179 million already paid, and legislation is being brought forward to overturn the convictions of those who were wrongly prosecuted, with £600,000 in compensation also available.
