Alan Bates, who has led the campaign for justice for post office operators, has told MPs that he can see “no end” to the scandal, as the government admitted it was still failing to meet its own targets on payouts.
In evidence to the cross-party business and trade committee, Bates, who rejected an initial “cruel” offer of compensation, said his claim for financial redress “still sat there”.
Asked if he felt redress for post office operators was occurring “faster and fairer” after the broadcast of the ITV drama about their persecution between 1999 and 2015, Bates told MPs: “Speaking personally of my claim, I can say no, it isn’t. It’s still sat there – we’ve refused it and that’s it.”
Of evidence given earlier on Tuesday by the senior civil servant overseeing the Post Office redress schemes, Bates added: “It’s very disappointing and this has been going on for years, as you well know, and I can’t see any end to it.”
More than 900 operators were wrongly prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 as the Post Office’s Horizon accounting system made it appear as though money were missing from their branches.
Thousands more had their lives ruined by the emergence of apparent financial shortfalls which they could not cover.
A route to financial redress has been established by the government, which is expected to pay more than £1bn to victims of the scandal – but it is accepted by the government that the speed of providing compensation has been too slow.
Just 4% of those with wrongful convictions have received compensation for their ordeal, the select committee heard.
Carl Creswell, a director at the business department responsible for Post Office policy, confirmed they were also still failing to meet a government target of providing an initial offer to 90% of all claimants within 40 days of application.
Creswell told the committee that close to 85% of claimants were now receiving an offer, an improvement from the 70% figure of earlier this year, with complex cases likely to take many months to resolve.
“We are closer to the targets now,” he said. “And I think that, early on, we were getting some processes up and running, and some of the cases had some legitimate reasons for why they took so long.”
Creswell confirmed that only 55% of disclosure reports, providing post office operators with internal papers about their cases necessary to make applications, had been completed.
The committee further heard that where initial offers for financial redress were declined by applicants, that it would take at least six months for further study to lead to a new offer.
Tim Brentnall, whose conviction was overturned in 2021, said he was still preparing his claim with his lawyers three years on because of “the amount of information and detail the Post Office insist we put in it”.
Despite the slow progress, Creswell and Nick Read, chief executive of the Post Office, said they did not believe recent claims that the government wanted to slow down payouts to Post Office operators before the general election.
That claim had been made by Henry Staunton after he was sacked by the business secretary, Kemi Badenoch, from his position as chairman of the Post Office last month.
Creswell said Staunton’s claim was “completely incorrect”, adding that he was aware of concerns that the former chair did not have a “grip on his brief” and was not “alert in meetings”.
He added that more serious allegations about Staunton’s conduct had come to him in January.
He told MPs: “There were two key allegations from my point of view that were influential in the secretary of state’s decision for the dismissal.
“One was around the chair allegedly trying to stop a whistleblowing investigation into his conduct which, given the history of the Post Office and the lies and scandal, struck me as particularly serious. The second was around the chair; trying to stop a public appointments process to recruit the new senior independent director.”
Creswell said he was told by one person: “The level of anxiety about Mr Staunton’s behaviour was such as we might see resignations from the board.”
Read said Staunton may have misinterpreted a conversation with the permanent secretary at the Department for Business and Trade when making his claim.
He added: “I think we’re all acutely conscious that the schemes are not as quick as they need to be and the balance between fairness, redress and managing public money and the level of bureaucracy is not where we want.”
