Latest news with #DepartmentForBusinessAndTrade
Daily Mail
25-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Post Office hero Alan Bates attacks 'quasi kangaroo courts' payouts system and reveals 'take it or leave it' offer he's been handed
Post Office hero Sir Alan Bates has accused the government of running a 'quasi kangaroo court' payout system for victims of the Horizon scandal. More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their accounts. Hundreds are still waiting for payouts despite the previous government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000. Now Mr Bates, who led the sub-postmasters' campaign for justice, has attacked the government for 'reneging' on assurances given when the compensation schemes were set up. He said the Department for Business and Trade had promised they would be 'non-legalistic' but this turned out to be 'worthless'. It comes as the 70-year-old revealed that he had been handed a 'take it or leave it' compensation offer of less than half his original claim. Mr Bates said the first offer, made in January last year, was just one sixth of what he was asking for, adding that it rose to a third in the second offer. He has now been given a 'final take it or leave it offer' - which he said amounts to 49.2 per cent of his original claim. Mr Bates told The Sunday Times: 'The sub-postmaster compensation schemes have been turned into quasi-kangaroo courts in which the Department for Business and Trade sits in judgement of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses. 'Claims are, and have been, knocked back on the basis that legally you would not be able to make them, or that the parameters of the scheme do not extend to certain items.' Mr Bates said he has now lost confidence in the whole process and that he wants a new framework for assessing compensation for victims of public scandals. He has called for the creation of an independent body who would monitor the claims and see the government have little involvement. Last September he received a knighthood from Princess Anne at Windsor Castle for exposing the Horizon IT scandal. Mr Bates was the figurehead in the decades-long campaign to have his colleagues' names cleared and win compensation. He and his wife Lady Suzanne Sercombe bought a post office and haberdashery in Llandudno, Wales, in 1998. The Horizon IT system was installed in October 2000 and within two months financial discrepancies were showing up. Sir Alan insisted they were not his fault and refused to pay the shortfall. His contract was terminated in November 2003 and, while he was not prosecuted, he lost the £65,000 he had invested in the business. In 2009, Computer Weekly broke the story of the Post Office scandal, featuring Sir Alan and six other victims, and he founded the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance. Just 20 people turned up to the group's first meeting, but it soon mushroomed into a high-profile campaign that ultimately led to group litigation against the shamed Post Office, and the ongoing public inquiry. It comes as it was revealed this week hundreds of former sub-postmasters will be compensated by after bungling officials accidentally leaked their names and addresses on its website. In a staggering data breach, the Mail revealed last June how 555 Post Office victims had their personal details published on the company's website. It was described as an insult to injury by those whose lives have already been ruined by being falsely accused of stealing in Britain's biggest ever miscarriage of justice. The 555 former postmasters whose home addresses have been published were among the group involved in bringing High Court class litigation against the Post Office in 2019. According to the BBC, the individuals whose personal details were leaked will be compensated in what could cost the Post Office up to £2.8million. In a statement provided to the public broadcaster, the Post Office said victims would receive £5,000 or £3,500, depending on whether the address published last year was current, although higher claims may still be pursued. The statement said: 'We have written to all named individuals either directly, or via their solicitors. 'If there are any individuals whose name was impacted by last year's breach, but who have not received information about the payment for some reason, they can contact us or ask their solicitors if they have legal representation.' Chris Head, the youngest former sub-postmaster of the Horizon IT scandal, told MailOnline he 'welcomed' the compensation, but added: 'It's taken far too long.' The 37-year-old told MailOnline: 'It was brought into the spotlight by the media in June 2024 - and nearly a year later it's only being resolved now. 'You just can't believe what the Post Office would make such a basic mistake. 'When we are talking about a confidential settlement agreement made out of court, that should never have made public, especially around such a sensitive topic. 'If we are looking on why it had such an impact, based on the original scandal and the further impact, I don't think Post Office realised the level of impact it had. 'This is not just an ordinary breach, this was on top of what people have been through over the last 25 years - all suffered at the hands of the Post Office.' A Department for Business and Trade spokesman said: 'We pay tribute to all the postmasters who have suffered from this scandal, including Sir Alan for his tireless campaign for justice, and we have quadrupled the total amount paid to postmasters since entering government. 'We recognise there will be an absence of evidence given the length of time that has passed, and we therefore aim to give the benefit of the doubt to postmasters as far as possible. 'Anyone unhappy with their offer can have their case reviewed by a panel of experts, which is independent of the government.'
The Guardian
24-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Sir Alan Bates given ‘take it or leave it' offer of less than half his Post Office Horizon claim
Sir Alan Bates, who led the 20-year campaign for justice for post office operators over the Horizon scandal, has revealed he has been handed a 'take it or leave it' compensation offer of less than half his original claim. The 70-year-old, who was knighted last year, has accused the government of presiding over a 'quasi kangaroo court' system for the compensation. More than 900 post office operators were convicted of offences including fraud, false accounting and theft between 1999 and 2015 after the faulty Horizon IT system falsely showed that money was missing in branch accounts. The convictions were overturned by parliament last year. Many are still awaiting damages despite the previous government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000 payouts. Bates has also accused the Department for Business and Trade, which administers the compensation schemes, of reneging on assurances given when they were set up and told the Sunday Times a promise they would be 'non-legalistic' had turned out to be 'worthless'. He said he was given a final 'take it or leave it' offer, which amounted to 49.2% of his original claim after appealing and being referred to the scheme's independent reviewer, Sir Ross Cranston. The campaigner is now calling for the creation of an independent body that would administer compensation schemes for public sector scandals but cautioned: 'I can already hear the sharpening of goose quills across Whitehall as the civil service prepares to snow politicians under with reasons it would not work.' He added: 'The sub-postmaster compensation schemes have been turned into quasi-kangaroo courts in which the Department for Business and Trade sits in judgment of the claims and alters the goalposts as and when it chooses. 'Claims are, and have been, knocked back on the basis that legally you would not be able to make them, or that the parameters of the scheme do not extend to certain items.' The group litigation order (GLO) scheme was set up to achieve redress for the 555 claimants who took the Post Office to the high court between 2017 and 2019. Under the GLO, claimants can take a fixed sum of £75,000 or seek their own settlement. If there are disputes in individual cases, they are referred to an independent panel for review. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Post office operators can also seek a final view from Cranston, a former high court judge, if they believe the panel has got it wrong. A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: 'We pay tribute to all the postmasters who have suffered from this scandal, including Sir Alan for his tireless campaign for justice, and we have quadrupled the total amount paid to postmasters since entering government. 'We recognise there will be an absence of evidence given the length of time that has passed, and we therefore aim to give the benefit of the doubt to postmasters as far as possible. Anyone unhappy with their offer can have their case reviewed by a panel of experts, which is independent of the government.' Earlier this week, it emerged that hundreds of former post office operators will be compensated by the Post Office after it accidentally leaked their names and addresses in June 2024. The Post Office said individual payouts will be capped at £5,000, although higher claims may still be pursued.
Arab News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
UK export of F-35 parts to Israel unlawful, Palestinian NGO tells court
LONDON: Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was unlawful, a Palestinian rights group told London's High Court on Tuesday. Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is taking legal action against Britain's Department for Business and Trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The United Kingdom had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law, in relation to humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees, as the basis for its decision in September. But, after the Ministry of Defence said suspending licences for F-35 parts would have an impact on international security and "undermine U.S. confidence in the UK and NATO", Britain decided to "carve out" F-35 licences. Al-Haq, which documents alleged rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians' self-rule body in the West Bank, argues that the ministry's decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention. The group's lawyer, Raza Husain, said its case at the High Court was being heard "against a backdrop of human calamity unfolding in Gaza", since Israel responded to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks with a devastating military campaign. Nearly 53,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Hamas-run Gaza health authorities. Husain said the vast majority of Al-Haq's case did not require the High Court to rule on "the lawfulness or otherwise" of Israel's actions in Gaza, but whether British ministers had misunderstood the law when it decided on the F-35 carve-out. The British government, however, argues ministers were entitled to take "exceptional measures" to not suspend F-35 licences to avoid the potential impact on international peace and security. Its lawyer, James Eadie, said in court filings that the decision was "consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations". Last year, a coalition of groups, including Al-Haq, asked a Dutch court to stop the Netherlands exporting weaponry to Israel and trading with Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. Israel says it takes care to avoid harming civilians and denies committing abuses or war crimes in Gaza. In March Israel ended a January ceasefire deal with Hamas, after the two sides could not agree on terms for extending it, and renewed its military operations.
Reuters
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
UK export of F-35 parts to Israel unlawful, Palestinian NGO tells court
LONDON, May 13 (Reuters) - Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was unlawful, a Palestinian rights group told London's High Court on Tuesday. Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is taking legal action against Britain's Department for Business and Trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The United Kingdom had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law, in relation to humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees, as the basis for its decision in September. But, after the Ministry of Defence said suspending licences for F-35 parts would have an impact on international security and "undermine U.S. confidence in the UK and NATO", Britain decided to "carve out" F-35 licences. Al-Haq, which documents alleged rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians' self-rule body in the West Bank, argues that the ministry's decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention. The group's lawyer, Raza Husain, said its case at the High Court was being heard "against a backdrop of human calamity unfolding in Gaza", since Israel responded to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks with a devastating military campaign. Nearly 53,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Hamas-run Gaza health authorities. Husain said the vast majority of Al-Haq's case did not require the High Court to rule on "the lawfulness or otherwise" of Israel's actions in Gaza, but whether British ministers had misunderstood the law when it decided on the F-35 carve-out. The British government, however, argues ministers were entitled to take "exceptional measures" to not suspend F-35 licences to avoid the potential impact on international peace and security. Its lawyer, James Eadie, said in court filings that the decision was "consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations". Last year, a coalition of groups, including Al-Haq, asked a Dutch court to stop the Netherlands exporting weaponry to Israel and trading with Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. Israel says it takes care to avoid harming civilians and denies committing abuses or war crimes in Gaza. In March Israel ended a January ceasefire deal with Hamas, after the two sides could not agree on terms for extending it, and renewed its military operations.
The Independent
09-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Fact check: US trade deal and Indian air strikes
This roundup of claims has been compiled by Full Fact, the UK's largest fact-checking charity working to find, expose and counter the harms of bad information. Is the UK-US trade deal 'full and comprehensive'? On Thursday the UK and the United States announced a 'landmark economic deal' between the two countries – the first such agreement the US has reached on trade since President Donald Trump introduced wide-ranging tariffs on US imports. Ahead of the announcement, Mr Trump described the deal as 'full and comprehensive', and later told reporters when questioned on this point that the agreement was 'maxed out'. But in reality, the deal covers only a limited set of measures involving specific sectors. The UK Department for Business and Trade has confirmed to Full Fact that it does not constitute a fully-fledged free trade agreement (such as that agreed between the UK and India earlier this week). The agreement includes a reduction in tariffs on UK car exports to the US, as well as the elimination of US tariffs on UK steel and aluminium exports, while the White House said the deal will 'significantly expand US market access in the UK', in particular for agricultural exports. A UK government press release said that 'work will continue on the remaining sectors – such as pharmaceuticals and remaining reciprocal tariffs', but added that the US had agreed to give the UK 'preferential treatment in any further tariffs imposed'. Neither party has confirmed when the measures agreed will take effect – at a press conference the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the tariff reductions would 'come into place as soon as possible'. Meanwhile, during Thursday's announcement US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick claimed that the UK government 'nationalised British steel' as part of the deal. Last month, the government passed emergency legislation to enable it to take control of British Steel's Scunthorpe plant to prevent its Chinese owners, Jingye, from allowing it to close. But British Steel was not nationalised, because the government did not take full ownership of the company. The government gained the ability to reinstate sacked staff and enter the plant to prevent the blast furnaces from being turned off, but ownership remains with Jingye for now. Ministers have indicated, however, that full nationalisation remains a possibility, especially if no other buyer is found. Finally, Donald Trump described the UK as the US's 'oldest ally, or just about'. That's highly debatable, as Mr Trump himself seemed to acknowledge when he then added that a 'couple of people claim that too, but let's put it right at the top'. Many, including Mr Trump himself previously, have argued that it is actually France which should be considered the US's oldest ally. Welcoming French president Emmanuel Macron to the White House in February, Mr Trump said: 'France is America's oldest ally. Our cherished partnership has been a force for freedom, prosperity and peace from the very beginning.' This is a reference to the French monarchy recognising the United States as an independent country in 1778, two years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. France also provided critical support for the American colonies against the British in the American War of Independence. Others may point to Morocco, which was the first country to publicly recognise the United States of America with a decree in 1777. The UK officially recognised the US by signing the Treaty of Paris in 1783, after the end of the War of Independence – though the countries fought again in the War of 1812. Online misinformation about Indian air strikes Misleading social media posts have been shared widely online in the aftermath of Indian air strikes on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, amid escalating tensions in the region. A picture of a burning plane was shared on Facebook with a caption suggesting it showed a plane shot down by Pakistan. The country has said that it shot down five Indian fighter jets, including French-made Rafales, and a drone – a claim India has not confirmed. But a reverse image search reveals the picture shared in the post was used in a report by an Indian news site about a crash in September 2024, where an Indian Air Force MiG-29 fighter jet crashed in Barmer, Rajasthan, in the north west of the country. A video featuring a series of explosions at night was shared with captions saying: '#BREAKING: Pakistan Army confirms attack by India. India has launched an attack on Pakistan.' But this clip has been online since at least October 13 2023. It was described then as depicting Israeli air strikes on Gaza, although Full Fact has not been able to independently verify what the footage shows. And striking images of buildings illuminated by fire were also shared on Facebook with a caption suggesting that they showed India carrying out strikes in Sialkot, in Pakistan. India has said it targeted two camps in Sialkot, but both images are several years old, and featured in news reports about Israeli air strikes in Gaza in May and June of 2021. Misleading information can spread quickly during breaking news events, especially during periods of crisis and conflict. Before sharing content that you see online, it is important to consider whether it comes from a trustworthy and verifiable source. We have written guides explaining key tools to help you spot misleading images and videos.
