First Post Office inquiry report stops short of attributing blame
The chairman of the probe Sir Wyn Williams said the human impact of the Horizon saga 'should be placed at the forefront' of his final report and it was important to publish his conclusions on that issue as soon as possible.
Sir Wyn elected to make his findings on the compensation processes and the devastating impact the scandal had on subpostmasters on Tuesday.
His conclusions on who was at fault for overseeing the scandal are expected in the coming months.
That report is expected to scrutinise the role of Post Office bosses who oversaw the scandal, including former priest Paula Vennells.
Ms Vennells previously told the inquiry she was 'too trusting' and had 'no sense there was any conspiracy at all', but also admitted she made 'mistakes'.
The first tranche did tease what his overarching conclusions would include, saying Post Office bosses should have known Horizon was faulty but 'maintained the fiction that its data was always accurate'.
In the introduction of his report, Sir Wyn said: 'I have formed the view… that the impact upon those affected, the 'human impact', should be placed at the forefront of my report to the minister.
'That is why I have decided to publish this volume of my report as soon as it was completed rather than wait for the whole of my report to be ready for publication.
'It also seemed to me to be natural to combine my description of the suffering endured by so many with my assessments of, and conclusions about, the attempts by the Post Office, the minister and the Department to provide redress to those affected which is 'full, fair and prompt'.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
39 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Review, Frankly: Sturgeon psychodrama suddenly makes sense
Macmillan, £28 THERE is a classic episode of Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? in which Bob and Terry are desperate to avoid the England score. Welcome to the world of the Frankly reviewer. The past week has been spent trying to shut out what people are saying about the memoirs of Scotland's first woman First Minister. Wait till the book arrives, said the better angel on my shoulder. Give it the considered judgment readers deserve as they ponder shelling out £28 (now half that on Amazon). So I did. And the conclusion? Just as the England match turned out to be called off, meaning Bob and Terry missed nothing, so it is with Frankly - up to a point. Something becomes blindingly clear in these 464 pages, and the former FM is going to hate it being pointed out. Sturgeon opens with an account of her Ayrshire childhood that is almost comically dull. 'A quirk of the door numbering meant that, although we moved half a street away, the change in our address was slight: 56 to 55 Broomlands Road,' she tells us. From an early age, she considers herself extraordinary. 'I had - at the risk of sounding daft - a very strong sense of 'destiny'.' A bit like Harry Potter, one might say, though for some reason she doesn't make the comparison. As she gets older, a pattern of thinking emerges. Nothing is ever Nicola's fault, or not for long. Time and again, she will take a criticism, consider the possibility of being wrong, then reject the notion entirely. On her parents buying their council house, for example: 'I ended the right to buy in Scotland and was accused of hypocrisy. It was an easy attack to make, but it was wide of the mark. For one thing, I wasn't responsible for the decisions my parents took.' No, but she benefited from those decisions. This inability to see the bigger picture is a constant. That and self-doubt. Not that it lingers for long. She fears voters in Govan find her unlikable, yet boasts about being cheered at airports after the 2015 election. Read more One can hardly fail to sympathise as she battles her way up the ranks, routinely encountering misogyny as she goes. It was tough - it still is. Yet she doesn't do herself any favours. You expect her to go in, studs up, against opposition politicians. Labour's Jim Murphy was 'boorish and cocky'; Tony Benn 'appeared to barely know where he was', etc. This is nothing compared to what she says about her own side. Jim Sillars and Alex Neil get it in the neck for 'hurling criticism from the sidelines'. Kenny MacAskill announces Megrahi's early release 'like he was reading a bedtime story'. Even when she is being nice she finds a way to ruin it. Referencing a successful campaign to save a shipyard, she writes: 'I went to a mass meeting at Govan and was presented with a big bunch of flowers from the unions. There might have been a touch of unconscious sexism in the gesture, but it still meant a lot to me.' Who thinks like that? There is, of course, no doubt who really gets her goat. So much has been written about the political partnership with Alex Salmond, but a lot of it fails to get to the heart of the matter. This memoir does, albeit unintentionally. What leaps from the pages is the howling dysfunctionality of the relationship. The Salmond-Sturgeon psychodrama made Blair and Brown look like Terry and June. There was one fundamental difference between the Labour rivals and the SNP pair, however. Reader, I do believe she cared for Salmond far more than she realised, particularly at the start, and this influenced her later behaviour. There is no suggestion that the relationship was anything other than platonic. What happened subsequently was no ordinary falling out between politicians. This was intensely personal. Complicated. At least it was on her part. How else to explain writing which reads at times like a bad Mills and Boon parody? He fixes her with a stare and 'works his political magic'. They go on the campaign trail together, singing along in the car to Dolly Parton. He takes a helicopter back to HQ after an election victory: 'Alex disembarked and strode purposefully to the lectern. It was like a scene from The West Wing.' They part on the eve of the independence referendum: 'We hugged and wished each other luck. We knew that by the time we were next together, for better or worse, the world would have changed.' Revealing choice of words there, 'for better or worse', because as the years pass, their relationship begins to sound like a marriage, one that she was rapidly outgrowing. Her 'IRL' (in real life) husband, Peter Murrell, barely figures in the book, save for when she is brushing off Salmond's advice not to have hubby as the party's chief executive. Remind us how that one worked out? With critics, her instinct is to lash out. She chooses her battles carefully, however. I doubt her claim that Salmond leaked details of the allegations against him to the Daily Record would have made it past a lawyer had the former FM been alive. For a political memoir, Frankly is remarkably light on policy. The most glaring example of this is the three paragraphs she spends on Scotland's drugs deaths, compared to the six pages lavished on The Queen. Look under F in the index and you will find naff all on ferries. Covid ends up a blizzard of questions but no answers. Education gets a glance. On the double rapist Isla Bryson, Sturgeon asks if she could have handled things differently, before concluding it would not have changed anything. Remember, it's never Nicola's fault. If you are looking for an insightful analysis of the Sturgeon years you won't find it here. She, at least, ends the memoir on a high, telling us: 'I've learned to dance in the rain.' Deep as a puddle to the end. Alison Rowat is a features writer and columnist at The Herald
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves to take aim at environmental protections in bid to speed up infrastructure projects, say reports
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an attempt to accelerate infrastructure building and boost the economy, according to reports. The chancellor is considering major reforms that would make it more difficult for wildlife concerns to hold up developments, according to The Times. Treasury officials are said to be drafting another planning reform bill, the publication reported. The move reportedly involves tearing up parts of European environmental rules, which developers have argued slow down crucial projects. While Labour ministers have previously insisted their current planning overhaul would balance growth with nature, Ms Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go further. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill going through Parliament overrides existing habitat and nature protections, which, if passed, would allow developers to make general environmental improvements and pay into a nature restoration fund that improves habitats on other sites. But Ms Reeves is considering more contentious reforms that are likely to trigger further backlash from environmental groups, according to The Times. Among the changes under discussion are plans for a smaller, UK-only list of protected species, which would give less weight to wildlife considered rare across Europe but relatively common in Britain, The Times said. Ms Reeves is also reportedly considering abolishing the EU 'precautionary principle' that forces developers to prove projects will have no impact on protected natural sites. Instead, a new test would assess the risks and benefits of building. The chancellor is also exploring limits on legal challenges from environmental campaigners. Speaking to the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month, Ms Reeves said: 'The reason that HS2 is not coming to my city of Leeds anymore anytime soon, is because I'm afraid, as a country, we've cared more about the bats than we have about the commuter times for people in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and we've got to change that, 'Because I care more about a young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails, and I care more about my energy bills and my constituents than I do about the views of people from their windows.' High-profile examples of costly protections include the £100m Buckinghamshire 'bat tunnel' built to protect wildlife from HS2 trains and the so-called 'fish disco' at Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, which uses sound to deter fish from cooling system intakes. The existing Planning and Infrastructure Bill already proposes a 'nature restoration fund' under which developers could offset environmental damage by paying for conservation schemes elsewhere. But the bill has faced criticism from both environmental groups and developers, who fear it will fail to speed up construction. Paul Miner of the countryside charity CPRE told The Times that targeting habitats regulations would 'take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery'.
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves to cut ‘bats and newts' in boost to developers
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an effort to boost the economy by speeding up infrastructure projects. The chancellor is considering reforms that would make it far harder for concerns about nature to stop development, which she insists is crucial to restoring growth and improving living standards. The Treasury has begun preparing for another planning reform bill and is thinking about tearing up key parts of European environmental rules that developers say are making it harder to build key projects. Labour ministers have repeatedly insisted that their current planning overhaul will not come at the expense of nature, promising a 'win-win' system where developers will pay to offset environmental damage. But Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go significantly further, after expressing frustration that the interests of 'bats and newts' are being allowed to stymie critical infrastructure. She has tasked officials with looking at much more contentious reforms, which are likely to provoke a furious backlash from environmentalists and cause unease for some Labour MPs. A smaller, UK-only list of protected species is being planned, which would place less weight on wildlife — including types of newt — that is rare elsewhere in Europe but more common in Britain. Developers would also no longer have to prove that projects would have no impact on protected natural sites, under plans that would abolish the 'precautionary principle' enshrined in European rules. Instead, a new test would look at risks and benefits of potential projects. Further curbs to judicial review are also being considered by Reeves to stop key projects being delayed by legal challenges from environmentalists. No decisions have been made, but work is underway and Treasury sources acknowledged there was a growing belief that the government needed to go further, as Reeves says she wants to make boosting Britain's sluggish productivity the centrepiece of her autumn budget. She argued this week that building more infrastructure such as roads and railways were crucial to this aim. A Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently going through parliament attempts to encourage development through a 'nature restoration fund' through which developers will be allowed to press ahead with projects by setting up schemes elsewhere to offset their environmental impact. • The grid is struggling — and our green future hangs in the balance But the plan has been criticised by environmental groups while also attracting scepticism from some developers, who fear it will not work in practice and do little to speed up building. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who stood down as energy minister in May, is urging his former colleagues to go further to achieve Labour's promise of 150 major infrastructure projects. 'While I think the planning bill will work for housing, I don't think it is sufficiently focused on the major infrastructure projects, so it is encouraging that the Treasury is going to have another look at whether we've really got this right,' he said. 'The government has to face up to the tensions in the Habitat Regulations which are making it hard to build essential infrastructure and the reality is that at some point someone needs to make a hard decision and say 'on some things, you just have to press ahead'.' The rules, which incorporate the EU Habitats Directive into British law, ban killing of hundreds of species, including types of bats, news, voles, snails, spiders, insects and woodlice. Developers must prove there is no risk to protected sites and species before being allowed to go ahead with projects, under rules which critics say impose an 'impossibly high standard' on vital projects. Reeves is increasingly sympathetic to such criticism, after repeatedly hitting out at 'ridiculous' environmental protections. She said last month that she cared 'more about the young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails', after a speech in January in which she said developers should be able to 'focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about bats and newts'. Sir Keir Starmer has also expressed frustration with the ability of campaigners to delay projects through legal challenges, and is already introducing rules which limit judicial review to override the 'whims of nimbys'. Campaign groups and residents, who currently have three opportunities to apply for judicial review, which will be reduced to two, or one in cases deemed by a judge 'totally without merit'. Reeves is now considering allowing only one opportunity to bring any challenge. Some Labour MPs and peers want her to go further by using dedicated acts of parliament to prevent any legal challenge to specific named projects. The plans are at an early stage and are likely to cause tension with ministers in other departments who have pledged to protect the environment. Paul Miner, of the countryside charity CPRE, said targeting habitats regulations would 'take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery', adding: 'We urge the government to drop the worn-out 'builders versus blockers' narrative which wrongly frames climate and nature as being in conflict with economic growth.' Becky Pullinger, of the Wildlife Trusts, said maintaining environmental standards was 'essential if we are to achieve targets to protect and restore the natural world which is suffering huge declines, saying Reeves should abandon 'the myth that deregulation will lead to economic growth'. But Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure planning at Pinsent Masons, said: 'Ministers are finally realising that their rhetoric about reform doesn't match up up the reality of their bill. We have been saying to ministers and officials all year that the bill needs to go further and it seems that message has finally been heard.'
