Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s Statement and the accompanying Green Paper, Future of Post Office. This marks the first comprehensive review of the network in over 15 years—one that, I must say at the outset, raises as many questions as it seeks to answer. We on these Benches recognise, as I believe all noble Lords do, the vital social and economic role of the Post Office in every corner of our country. Whether it serves as the last shop in a rural village, a banking hub for the digitally excluded or a trusted lifeline for elderly customers, the Post Office is far more than just a delivery counter; it is part of the national fabric. Yet as we examine this Green Paper, we are confronted with proposals that suggest the Government are focused more on loosening their obligations than on strengthening the network’s future.

I begin with the most glaring concern: the proposed removal of the long-standing requirement for 11,500 branches. The Government say that this figure is arbitrary, yet it is one that has long underpinned public and parliamentary confidence in the reach of the Post Office network. So I ask the Minister directly: will the Government replace this minimum with a new commitment? The Green Paper claims that some branches exist solely to meet the 11,500 target, rather than community need. If that is the case, how many such branches are there and where are they? These are not academic questions; they go to the heart of rural and community access. Does the Minister expect that the current network access criteria will be changed within the timeframe of this Parliament? Do the Government accept that we have to ask these questions, otherwise there may be the suspicion that we are entering a phase of managed decline by stealth?

The Government also assure us that 99% of the population will remain within three miles of a branch. How will that promise be maintained without a firm floor on the number of branches? Is the Minister suggesting that we should accept consolidation in urban centres at the cost of village branches? We do not feel that we should replace geographic equity with mere spreadsheet logic.

The Government’s preferred path for the future ownership of the Post Office appears to be mutualisation—a model that has long had appeal—but the fine print of the Green Paper tells a different story. It seems that mutualisation has been pushed well beyond the current Parliament and will not be delivered before 2030, and then only after a further three years of implementation, if it happens at all. For many postmasters who have already endured over a decade of uncertainty and the profound trauma of the Horizon scandal, the proposed timeline may well feel like a further deferral—an important reform pushed into the distant future rather than a commitment delivered in the present. Moreover, the Green Paper offers no clarity on what constitutes financial and operational stability. What are the benchmarks for profitability or branch sustainability that would trigger mutualisation? Can the Minister please provide a definition?

We are told that the Post Office must modernise to embrace technological change, and indeed a major and welcome focus of the Green Paper is on future-proofing—quite so—but after the Horizon scandal, no one in this House needs reminding that technology alone does not ensure progress, particularly when its implementation is opaque and accountability is absent. In the wake of the Horizon scandal, it is vital that any new technologies introduced across the Post Office network are subject to rigorous, independent testing and transparent auditing. Staff and postmasters must be assured of clear, protected channels to raise concerns, free from fear or reprisal. We cannot afford the emergence of another Horizon.

There is also the curious matter of Royal Mail. The Green Paper mentions the possibility of closer working, but says that currently

“a re-merger is not under consideration”.

Is it off the table entirely or merely on pause?

The Green Paper calls itself the start of “an honest conversation”. We are happy to believe that, but, if it is so, then the Government must begin by answering the questions that we have put before them today. We on these Benches will continue to hold Ministers to account on the future of access, ownership, technological governance and the true role of the Post Office in national life. After everything the postmasters have endured and all that the Horizon scandal laid bare, this moment must not be about withdrawing responsibility but restoring trust. I urge the Government to match any consultation with clarity, ambition and integrity.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has spoken about the Green Paper, but I understood that we were responding only to the Post Office Horizon inquiry’s first report. I apologise if we are meant to cover the Green Paper, but, having had that instruction, I have rewritten my speech accordingly.

We need time to consider the inquiry’s first report. The Statement expresses many of the sentiments that we often hear at the Dispatch Box: admiration for the fearless and diligent work of Sir Wyn Williams, the bravery of the postmasters, and descriptions of what the Post Office, and through it, Governments, have done over a number of years. All that is true, but the problem is that, once again, a judge leading an inquiry has had to call out the lack of delivery and transparency, and, frankly, the re-victimisation of the postmasters and their families. It is just unacceptable. It is close to the old-fashioned saying about cheques: “words and figures do not agree”.

My first question to the Minister is: will the Government review all Sir Wyn’s recommendations, and, as importantly, the evidence of poor delivery in the compensation scheme that he cites, and report back to Parliament in three months? This cannot go on. Some postmasters are dying; until all have realistic offers of compensation, they remain in a financial limbo created by the Post Office and Whitehall.

To give the House an example from the report, page 48 sets out the design of the scheme, which was meant to be “user friendly”. Sir Wyn says that it was so chaotically delivered that, as described in paragraph 4.23, a postmaster’s eligibility criteria were

“determined by employees of the Post Office”

and not by people independent of it. Employees then decided whether the postmaster had suffered a shortfall. Assessors from the Post Office’s solicitors would value that and then write a recommendation for the independent panel. The independent panel’s overriding priority, set by the Post Office, was speed and to assess via its terms of reference, created by the Post Office.

That is just one example from Sir Wyn’s excellent report, but it demonstrates once again why such compensation schemes must be run truly independently from the body that caused the damage. He recommends a truly independent body and not one at arm’s length like the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, because not even that is truly independent. Are the Government going to consider this seriously? From what was said in the Statement, it does not sound like it.

I ask the Minister what it will take to change this. We now have or have had problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme, the Windrush scheme and the IBCA scheme. The government approach to redress and remedy, regardless of the Government, fails time and again; even worse, the problems last longer because there is no real desire to change.

Then there is the issue of Fujitsu. Sir Wyn says that the Post Office and the Government must start discussions with Fujitsu on its contribution to this scheme. Will the Minister provide a timetable for those discussions? There is also another Fujitsu issue: it is now clear from the evidence heard at the public inquiry that it was complicit at the very least, and proactive at worst, in helping the Post Office in its cases in court against postmasters over many years. We know the police are now investigating this, including for perjury and other very serious crimes.

There is a further question. Why does government continue to recontract Fujitsu in other areas? Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are completely confident that Fujitsu meets the high standard of probity required of large IT contracts?

It is good that it is proposed that the family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal will receive redress. But before the Government copy the arrangements for the infected blood scandal, will they please look at the very large problems that the affected victims’ scheme already has? It still has 18 months before it offers its first compensation.

In opposition, Labour repeatedly promised that a duty of candour would be one of its priorities to ensure that discussions start at an early stage as it becomes clear that there are problems somewhere. But the Government have delayed the introduction of the Bill. Can the Minister say when that legislation will be presented to Parliament?

From these Lib Dem Benches, we believe that is not enough. It is essential that whistleblowers have a safe place to air their concerns. We believe that, given the repeated slapping down of anyone expressing concerns—which, by the way, delayed so many truths coming out—an independent office of the whistleblower must be set up. The decades of wrongdoing are a shameful episode in this country’s history. We need mechanisms in place to ensure that this never happens again.