House of Lords Podcast: Lord Speaker and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom

 

Transcript

• Jump to Lord Speaker
• Jump to Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom

Matt:

Welcome to the House of Lords Podcast

Amy:

In this episode we speak to the new Lord Speaker, Lord McFall of Alcluith, about his pathway to Parliament and what drove him to stand for election as Lord Speaker.

Matt:

We also hear from Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom about the Horizon scandal, speaking up for wrongly convicted subpostmasters, and the work of the new committee that he chairs, which is looking at future threats to the UK.

Amy:

Welcome to our June episode. As you know, we started the podcast during the pandemic and, so far, all of our interviews have been conducted via video chat. So we are very excited this month to actually be able to do an interview in person, so today we are sharing with you our first in-person interview, which was with the new Lord Speaker, Lord McFall of Alcluith.

Matt:

For our first in-person interview, we did follow government guidance on social distancing. It did also mean we had a bit more technology running, so you might notice it sounds a bit different to usual.

Before we get to the interviews, a little roundup of what has happened recently. The last time we had the podcast, we talked about the COVID-secure State Opening of Parliament that took place. We've since had government legislation introduced off the back of that, I coundted up nine government bills up before the House at the moment. So the House is busy and back scrutinising new bills before Parliament.

Amy:

And internally, Chloe Mawson was appointed Clerk Assistant. A little bit of a confusing job title, but that's actually the second most senior role in the House of Lords Administration and, in the history of that role, which was created in teh 1600s, she is the first woman to hold it. So quite a monumentous appointment.

First up, we are going to be hearing from Lord McFall of Alcluith, all about why he wanted to become Lord Speaker, what he hopes to do in that role and his career in Parliament.

Here's what he had to say.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Hello, I'm John McFall, I'm the newly elected Lord Speaker and took up my duties on the 1st of May, following Lord Fowler who was Lord Speaker for the past five years. During that time I was Senior Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chair of the Commission to Lord Fowler. And Lord Fowler and I worked very closely together on that. So I want to take forward a number of initiatives that he was known for which developed the House of Lords and particularly to be reaching out.

Amy:

Lord Speaker, welcome to the podcast. Many people know that you were an MP before you joined the House of Lords, but they might not be aware that you were a teacher before you were elected to the Commons. What led you into that career?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Into teaching?

Amy:

Yes.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Well, I grew up in a community in the sixties where, in many ways in my community, a very working class community, it was a noble aspiration to be a school teacher. Since then, things have developed and there's been a wider range of opportunities, particularly for young people. But at that time, it was seen as a mark of progress to go to university and become a teacher, and I did enjoy my teaching life. And I think one of the things I would like to engage in as Lord Speaker would be to encourage young people to understand the House of Lords.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

During my time as Senior Deputy Speaker, every Thursday morning for an hour, I spoke to pupils in schools, so I probably got to over 2000 young people. And during all that time I never had any criticism of the House of Lords. What I did hear was young people's interest in finding out what I did, the position of the House of Lords in the UK Parliament. So if they're interested in politics, perhaps they're not so interested in party politics, but they're interested in politics itself. And I think during these times of doom, gloom, whatever, we've got to keep in mind that people are still interested in the society and the issues that we confront in Parliament.

Amy:

So did you find that they were already quite informed about Parliament or the House of Lords, or not so much?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

They were informed about the issues in society, less informed about the rituals in the House of Lords and how legislation was formed, how amendments were made, how we undertook scrutiny. And the way I described it to them was quite simple. I said, the House of Lords is an institution, which is secondary to the House of Commons in terms of decision-making. So the House of Commons is supreme, but what the House of Lords does is it takes the legislation, which largely speaking is inadequately scrutinized by the House of Commons, comes along to the House of Lords and we undertake that scrubbing element with it. So we clean it up and we send it back to the House of Commons.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And when I tell the young people that in an average year we would have something like 1300 or so amendments, 95% of which were accepted by the House of Commons. Then they can see that there is a good purpose to the second chamber. And I make comment on issues of bills that went through, well we're talking about the latest Trade Bill that went through in the past few weeks, we were talking about the Domestic Abuse Bill or whatever else it is. So making the House of Lords relevant to the environment which they and their parents are involved in is important.

Amy:

And so from teaching to politics then what made you want to go into that? What made you run to be an MP?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

I'd always been interested in politics. In fact, I was looking at the BBC iPlayer programme the other evening on Watergate, it's running just now, it's quite a fascinating program. But before I went into politics itself, locally, I was watching the American scene very closely. And I remember my friends who emigrated to America, I was telling them all about Nixon, of what was going to happen and they were in quite a bit of ignorance of it because The Guardian had followed that very, very closely and had a great understanding of it. And so that basis and that wider aspect of politics in society, that was always key to me.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

But one of my friends was a councillor locally and he asked me if I would like to be involved in politics. I said, I ain't interested in being a councillor because I'm a school teacher, I've got my family, I've got enough to do, my little brain can only deal with that. However, I did join the local Labour Party and I was involved very much in the administration of it, particularly the secretarial work and the chairmanship. And at the time in the Labour Party, it was a turbulent time in the 1980s. And I suppose what I did was I kept the show on the road with it.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

I remember Harold Wilson's comment at the time when he said the Labour Party was like a Morris Minor car. How it was great when it was going along the road and people were hanging out the windows, but once it stopped, if there was a blow out with a tyre then it was absolutely mayhem. So I had to keep the show on the road locally on that, and doing that got myself very much involved with the members. And when it came to the member of Parliament at the time retiring, suggested I put my name forward. I didn't think, to be honest with you, that I did have a chance of getting selected because a number of well known names that were put forward. For example, George Galloway and George came up to contest it. But I had the local connection and I was born and raised in the area, and I think that was very helpful to it. And actually having been an MP for so many years and have represented my local area, I feel that's particular point of pride for me.

Amy:

And the rest is history, as they say.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Who writes history?

Matt:

Perhaps I can rake over a bit of that history with some follow up questions. So you spent 23 years in the Commons by my calculations. In the late nineties you were in government as a whip and a junior minister before then chairing the Commons Treasury Committee at the height of the banking crisis. That's just some of what you were doing in that period, but have you got any particularly memorable moments as an MP?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

There's been a number of memorable moments. First of all, I was in opposition and from 1992 to 1997, I was on the Scottish frontbench as deputy to George Robertson, who went on to become Defence Secretary and NATO General Secretary. And actually when I got this job, George sent me an email of congratulations, and he did say to me at the time that he hopes this job is easier than the Scottish frontbench job, because in his opinion, being General Secretary of NATO was an easier post than being on the Scottish frontbench at that time.

Matt:

That was pre-devolution of course.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Exactly because we were responsible for everything. And I mean, I remember for example, on a Thursday evening getting an overnight train up from London to my home. Getting in about half-past-seven, having a shower and then get in my car and driving to Inverness to engage in assisting the prospective candidate in Inverness, Dave Stewart it was at the time, and others with the campaigns and then driving back in the afternoon to get to my constituents in the evening.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Now I know, and it's implanted my mind, the distance between Dumbarton and Inverness is 181 miles, depending on whether you're going in the city centre, as a result of that. But the reason I did the car up and down in one day, is I couldn't get the train and be back for the evening in my own area. So these were really very, very busy times and there was a multiplicity of issues that you were dealing with that took time and attention. So I would agree wholeheartedly with George Robertson's assertion about that time.

Matt:

And you joined the Lords in 2010. Did that come as a surprise to you? Were you expecting to join the Lords in 2010?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Yeah, well if truth be known, my family had been at me for quite a time, because when you go on the tramway of politics it's very hard to get off. But all my family were saying, look, you've had enough dad, and, get off. And anyway, the story goes on, so that was it. But I was asked by Gordon Brown to come in because of the experience I had in the economic and the financial field and I felt I had something to contribute in that particular area. And actually I wasn't in a couple of years before I was asked to go on the Parliamentary Commission for Banking Standards, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nigel Lawson and Lord Turnbull. And we made a big, big difference to that, and that illustrated to me that the joint working arrangements with the Lords and the Commons works, and I want to push initiatives like that.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And that's why it's important during my speakership that we have an engagement with the House of Commons as well, because this is a UK parliament and the work of the Lords complements the work of the House of Commons, it doesn't crowd it out at all. And certainly the Parliamentary Commission for Banking Standards. I think that was gold standard example of the two houses working together. And indeed it was in the House of Lords that we secured a crucial amendment, which the government weren't willing to embrace near the end. And we were getting encouraged by the MPs to put these amendments down because unlike the House of Commons, we don't have a guillotine here and we can debate for as long as possible.

Matt:

Now you mentioned there being an advocate for joint working with the Commons, obviously 23 years in the Commons and then coming to the Lords. What were some of the other differences you noticed between the two Houses on joining the Lords?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Well I mentioned to you, that I was on the frontbench in Scotland and largely speaking, MPs don't really bother about what's happening in the House of Lords. I would like to change that in part, but when I was responsible for home affairs in Scotland at that time, it was one of the many areas I was responsible for, by the way, Highlands and Islands was another and that's why I had to go to Inverness regularly on that. But when I was responsible for home affairs, I used to come along to the House of Lords to listen to the debates and particularly at the time, the Law Lords and listening to what was happening there. So, if you like, a good layman's education on the law, legal and home affairs and that. So it was a legal diploma for idiots that I undertook in that. But I found the level of insight in the laws very, very helpful to me as someone new to home affairs and legal affairs in my brief.

Matt:

Fast forward to this year, Lord Fowler announces he's stepping down early, leaving a vacancy as Lord Speaker, what inspired you to stand for election as Lord Speaker? You've already spoken about some of the things you'd like to achieve, but what made you think it was you that should be elected?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Very good point. Some people will say I've been off my head because there's big issues that we have to confront. But actually as Deputy to Lord Fowler, and I mentioned that him and I got on hugely well together in terms of how we want to see things progress, that I dealt with the problematic issues. Whether we're talking about the hybrid House in the past year, whether we're talking about the review of committees, which we've now established whether we're talking about the work of the commission and been deputy to him there. There were big issues there, and we are still to close a lot of them off. And I felt that with Lord Fowler leaving, with the Clerk of the Parliaments leaving, with my position having to be vacated, because had I not stood for the Lord Speakership, then I would have had to demit office from that.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

So a big gap in institutional memory, and given that I had familiarity with a number of issues, I felt that the next few years in particular are going to be full of change and engagement. Now when I say change, it's change which is underlined by collegiality and collaboration. But Heraclitus, 500BC, change is the only reality. So every day is a day of change. So how do we take that change along? And how do we bring the house along? And the external management review is very clear that the House of Lords was about 15 years behind the rest of Whitehall in terms of how organized it's business, so we have quite a lot, to undergo. So, when I questioned what you said there is knowing all the problems, why did I take it on? So I'll maybe come back to you in a few years on that with a full answer.

Matt:

That sounds like we have another booking.

Matt:

You've already outlined some of the sort of big ticket things you hope to achieve as Lord Speaker. You just mentioned there change is reality. So what sort of changes you're looking to achieve in the more immediate term? What's on your agenda at the moment?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

First of all, the Burns Committee report in reducing the size of the House, I think that's important. And I've already had a meeting with Lord Burns individually, but also with Terry and his committee, we'll discuss that. And just by chance I was in the House of Commons a few weeks ago and the Prime Minister saw me passing, so he shouted hello to me and congratulations and he's since sent a nice letter on it. So he said, all the best. I said, great, all the best to you, I'll come and see you. He said, okay. So him and I have got a date some time in the future on it. And again, my experience whether it is as a school teacher, whether it was as a politician in Northern Ireland, when I was there for a few years, you will only get an understanding and engagement if you have eyeball-to-eyeball, if you meet people personally on that.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And you mentioned about my time in the House of Commons, I was asked in the late eighties, early nineties to go in the British-Irish parliamentary group, which had been established. Now, it was an enjoyable experience and that, but in terms of policy, there wasn't very much in policy at all. But there was a good social engagement and we always ended up having a good night, in Dublin or here or wherever else it was. But what happened there is we got to know people individually, so that when the peace process came along I was familiar, on first name terms with quite a number of people. For example, Enda Kenny, who was Taoiseach a while. Micheál Martin, who is now the Taoiseach, who was Education Minister. And I was Education Minister in Northern Ireland at the time. So we had these arrangements and their understanding with each other, it was very important.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And also the understanding with all the politicians in Northern Ireland. And one of the things about the job here is that there's quite a smattering of Northern Ireland politicians across all the parties. And I got on with every one of them because we had to deal with them to solve problems at that particular time, so that's important.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

So the human element of politics is really, really important. And I mentioned Northern Ireland, I could say to you, one of my abiding memories of Northern Ireland was the 15th of August 1998 at twenty-five past three in the afternoon, which was a Saturday. When I was in Northern Ireland as the only Minister and it was the first day that I was Minister and I got a telephone call to say that a bomb had gone off in Omagh. And as the only Minister I was in Omagh a couple of hours later, and I had to deal with the trauma of that immediately. I ended up going to Requiem Mass, for Spanish children who died, in Madrid a couple of days later. But then as the Minister responsible, given that responsibility by the late Mo Mowlam, dealing with the aftermath of Omagh and what was required and the different services. So that human element has never left me as a result of that and that's been a searing experience for me.

Amy:

So you mentioned there the human element, how have you found it over the last sort of year-and-a-bit now with the pandemic, the effect that that has had on everybody, and of course the complete change that the House has faced with, hybrid proceedings and things like that?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

I suppose I could say I was at the centre of that as the Chairman of the Procedures Committee, having to do that. But to be honest with you, I mentioned to you about a risk-free environment, the need for a risk-free environment. That was a time actually, when we had no option other than a risk-free environment. And it was left to the initiative of the staff to engage and for myself and other senior members to make decisions based on the best information which we had. And I see that as a real team effort, we had great staff doing it, so that's the first thing I would say to that. Secondly, it was a difficult period, we had quite a number of torturous discussions in the Commission to ensure that we had the financial arrangements correct. But also to ensure in terms of the technology that we had peers who would be able to deal with the technology.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And if you'd taken a bet at that time between the House of Lords and House of Commons, in terms of dealing with technology, you would have said the old lags are not going to win on that, but the old lags did win. I got interviewed in the garden a number of months ago by Peter Walker and his report was very clear that House of Lords has won that in terms of technological advance. Now, we did that, A: because of the quality of the staff we've got, but B: because we allowed them to develop the initiative in that area, so that's important to recognize. And members, this was very strange for members, and it was important to engage with members as much as possible - to do one-to-ones and that to reassure people. I was very much involved in that, but with staff involved in that area as well in terms of technology and ended up with that one to one engagement with staff and members, and even the members who said that they didn't have any emails, they came on board and it worked perfectly for that.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

On reflection a year later the question is, wait a minute, we want to get back to normal. What have we missed as a result of that. Well we've missed the human engagement, which is really important, the eyeball-to-eyeball engagement on that. We've also, I suppose, and I agree with the members who say this, we've also not had the level of scrutiny that you would get from a normal situation. And the need for us to get back is really important to get that level of scrutiny going now. But we have to do it within Public Health England guidelines, and to make sure that everyone's safe. But certainly, on reflection, members think that we've lost out in part because of it whilst recognizing that the system that was put in place was the best that possibly could be done during these circumstances.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

But there are areas that we would be looking at for the future. For example, the Private Notice Questions, that's an initiative which Lord Fowler has undertaken that actually I've continued with that. And it discusses the issues of the day. For example, yesterday, there was a Private Notice Question put down on the education issue. The government were offering a fraction of what they were supposed to have promised Sir Kevan Collins. So I allowed a Private Notice Question on that, and I felt there is a contemporary issue to that. And as we speak, there is another Private Notice Question being debated today by the Bishop of St Albans, which is on the G7 and tax avoidance and what this really means.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And if I give my own experience here as a former Chairman of the Treasury Committee. Whenever you get a financial statement out, the first thing you look at is how will this look tomorrow and what about the nuts and bolts of it? So it's with that in mind, I thought that this would be very good to look at, to get an idea exactly what this means in terms of the multinational companies and the level of taxation that we hope to get from that.

Amy:

Am I right in thinking that you still live close by to where you grew up?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

I do actually, I live 250 yards from where I had my first job, weeding gardens. So I can still see it from the front of my house. I live about 500 yards from where I was born and raised. And my wife and I lived probably about 400 yards from each other. So it's all pretty small town stuff. The boy is local and therefore I can't go into any fancy stuff anywhere as a result of that because I get "I knew your mammy".

Amy:

Everyone knows everyone, everyone knows everyone's business. You said at the top that you want to reach out to people, you want to reach out to all areas of the UK. How do you think that the Lords does that at the moment? Do you think the Lords effectively represents all the four nations?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

So I mentioned about the review of committees, the reports that committees undertake here are really gold-plated reports, terrific. And at the time of Brexit, the EU Committee, the stuff that they would come out with is landmark stuff. For example in Brexit, right at the very beginning, the EU Committee came out with a report and when they produced it, they sent Lord Jay former Foreign Office Permanent Secretary, to Dublin, to launch the report whilst we had a launch here and there was one in Belfast as well as a result of that. So we're, well-received with our reports, whether you go to Europe or other capitals on that.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

But there was a view that whilst the reports are good, that we discussed them on the floor of the House - and by the way, there was a problem with that in the sense that quite a number of the chairs were saying they don't get enough time from the government for that, so I had to take up that issue with them - but we discussed them on the floor of the House, and then it doesn't even really go anywhere after that. That was a complaint that was made to me.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

We've tried to ensure that there's a resonance to our reports now and I think it would be good reaching out to the different communities with it. For example, the report that Lord Bassam undertook, on seaside towns, I think it was. What he did was that they went out to all those areas and took evidence on that and presented their findings and listened to what people were saying. And it was very, very successful. So that's an example.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Another example, going way back. I think it was in 2013. When I came in here, I was fortunate enough to be on the Economic Affairs committee. Lord MacGregor was athe chairman at the time and we undertook a report on Scotland and its position in the UK, vis-a-vis the financial services and the Bank of England after independence. We weren't making a case against independence or for independence, we were just looking at the arrangements that are in place and what both sides would have to do as a result. That ended up a very, very successful report, and what it provided was the framework for a lot of the discussion during the debate and the referendum in 2014 in Scotland.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

So I've seen it firsthand, the good work that we're doing there, but I want that to resonate even more. And as one of our colleagues had said, why don't we brand the House of Lords as the best think tank in town, given the expertise that's here, we can do that, but it needs a little change and more emphasis on it. And I think that it would be important to ensure that we have the work of committees as a strategic objective of the Commission. In other words, it's tied to enhancing the reputation of the House. How do we go about enhancing the reputation of the House? By ensuring that our reports, not only are read, but that they're followed up. That there's a civic element and social element to that. And that we ensure that the government, and by the way, this can be any government, because I knew that when I was chairman of the Treasury Committee and I was confronting the Labour government, that the government stick by the pledges on that. So I think there's a great opportunity to do that and reaching out.

Amy:

And as you said, you've been a member since 2010, it's been quite a turbulent time actually in British politics you could say since then. I wonder if you have any sort of most memorable or favourite moments from your time in the House?

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Favourite moments in my time in the House? I remember actually way, way back probably the early nineties, when one of the MPs, I think he's since died, Ron Brown, he lifted the Mace, I don't know if you remember that incident and-

Amy:

I'm far too young!

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Yes, far too young. Well, it caused, as we call in Scotland, it caused a real stooshie. And this was really terrible. Somebody going up and lifting the Mace. God forbid, what happened here. So we had a special debate on it. And I remember being in the debate that night and the late Michael Foot was there, Tony Benn was there, Michael Heseltine. Because Michael had lifted the Mace many years later. I think it was at the time of the nationalization of shipbuilding at the time. But I got a real lesson that night on constitutional history. Now I went into this debate thinking, oh, this is a waste of time. And I got a real lesson. So you're always getting surprised in the House, by the depth of understanding and history on it. And that was one area where I had.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

And I remember when it made a great impression on me was one evening when we thought business was going to finish at 10 o'clock. But the news coming through about the plane being downed at Lockerbie. And we reconvened in the House that evening at 10 o'clock to listen to that tragic news. So it's issues like that, that keep in your memory.

Matt:

Lord speaker. Thank you very much for joining us today on the podcast, in person for the first time as well. So really nice to be here with you today.

Lord McFall of Alcluith:

Well thank you very much, Matt. And thanks very much for the opportunity to talk to you this morning.

Matt:

Next up, we hear from Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom about his campaigning for justice for subpostmasters. He also talks to us about his role as chair of the House of Lords committee on risk.

Lord Arbuthnot:

I'm James Arbuthnot. I used to be the MP for Northeast Hampshire, when I came across Jo Hamilton. She was a constituent of mine, and she was one of the subpostmasters. She became in fact, the lead public face of the subpostmaster's battle for justice and for compensation, and for having their convictions quashed. In 2009, I first became involved. In 2015, I left the House of Commons and came into the House of Lords. I've been one of those people who've been campaigning on behalf of the subpostmasters ever since. I'm also chairman of the short-term risk select committee. I say it's short term select committee rather than a short term risk that we're dealing with, because it's a select committee that's looking into the issue of long term and or catastrophic risks that threaten the country, and indeed the world. We're looking into that, and we will have to report by the end of November of this year.

Matt:

James, you've been campaigning on the issue of subpostmasters who were affected by problems with the Horizon IT system for a number of years. People may know that a group of people were wrongly accused of theft, but could you tell us how it all started?

Lord Arbuthnot:

There are two different things. There is the way it all started, and the way I got involved. The way it all started was I think back in 1999, when the Post Office was looking for a new IT system and they introduced the Horizon system. There were real concerns at the time in 1999, about whether it was working well. Anyway, over a period of years, it began to be introduced. Then it was imposed on these subpostmasters by the Post Office with no option to not to have it. Prosecutions began to happen on the basis that money was going missing.

Lord Arbuthnot:

The subpostmasters involved insisted that they were not to blame. The Post Office thought, I think genuinely, that the new accounting system had uncovered a set of dishonest subpostmasters that had previously not come to light. I first became involved in 2009 when a subpostmaster in a village in my constituency said that he had a problem, and that somebody else in a neighboring village also had a problem, and could I see them? I met them in South Warnborough, which was Jo Hamilton's sub-Post Office. Jo Hamilton became the lead face of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance.

Lord Arbuthnot:

What I discovered was first, the person who had contacted me and then dropped out of contact with me, he left my constituency. Jo Hamilton had pleaded guilty to false accounting, having been threatened with the more serious allegation of theft. In order not to go to prison, she pleaded guilty to false accounting and, she having pleaded guilty to false accounting,

Lord Arbuthnot:

and the other subpostmaster having left my constituency, that was the end of the matter so far as I was concerned. But in 2011, the whole issue began to arise again because a firm of solicitors nearby to my constituency said that they had 19 different allegations of something similar going wrong. I thought this is too much of a coincidence. There's a huge number of these things. I began to write around to MPs, to ask whether they had experienced anything similar, and a lot of MPs had. We got together and had a meeting with those MPs and those subpostmasters early in 2012. As a result of that, the whole campaign began to get going.

Matt:

It was pressure by a group of MPs such as yourself, that put pressure on the government to start an investigation into the situation?

Lord Arbuthnot:

It initially put pressure on the Post Office, because I got in touch with the chairman of the Post Office. I met the incoming chairman, Alice Perkins, at a conference in Ditchley Park. I said we're going to need to have a conversation about something that does seem to be going wrong, and Alice Perkins said, "let's just have a couple of you in." She asked Oliver Letwin and me into the Post Office where we met Paula Vennells the chief executive, and Alice Perkins to discuss the possibility that something was going seriously wrong. It seemed clear to Oliver and me that they were genuinely concerned to get to the bottom of it. They seemed to want to help. Paula Vennells suggested that there should be the appointment of a forensic accountant firm to help out. That was exactly the sort of response that Oliver and I, and back in House of Commons, the other MPs, were wanting. If the Post Office was going to help us get through this with our constituents, then that was exactly what we needed to happen.

Matt:

In 2015, you became a member of the House of Lords, and you've continued to campaign on this issue. Do you feel that you had to change your approach in pushing for a resolution to this situation? How did it change things, if at all?

Lord Arbuthnot:

Becoming a member of the House of Lords didn't change things. That itself didn't change things itself, no. What had happened between the initial meeting with Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells and Oliver Letwin and me and 2015, was the Post Office, in brief, set up a mediation scheme. They also discovered, which we didn't know, that they were prosecuting people on the basis of false evidence. They discovered that they knew that evidence was false, and they didn't then tell the subpostmasters. They didn't tell the MPs that was going on. In fact, in 2015, they told a select committee that they had no reason to suppose that the convictions that they were obtaining were unsafe. Whereas in fact, they had been advised specifically of that by the forensic accountants and by a team of lawyers who were advising them. They had misled us.

Lord Arbuthnot:

At that stage, the mediation scheme broke down. Then the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance took the Post Office to court and the whole matter became sub judice. It wasn't something that was persuadable through the parliamentary process. While I moved from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, there was a sense that the campaign in Parliament was in abeyance. It was only in 2019 that the Justice for Subpostmasters' case was so spectacularly successful, as against the Post Office. We could then begin to pursue it again through parliamentary means.

Matt:

We found a quotes of yours from 2015 - I think you said that 'in the House of Lords, you actually have to win the argument.' Can I ask you for some reflections on what you feel about the opportunities are in the House of Lords to campaign on issues such as this?

Lord Arbuthnot:

It's very unusual for someone to pursue a campaign both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, you have to win the argument. In the House of Commons, you have to win the majority. Yet, this is an unusual campaign in that nobody in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords, apart from the ministers defending a government line, nobody has actually supported the government line on this. The government is going to have to make it very difficult for the House of Commons to hold a vote. If there were a vote in the House of Lords, then virtually nobody would support the government line, which is holding for the time being, that the subpostmasters who brought the successful litigation against the Post Office should not be properly compensated.

Lord Arbuthnot:

Of course they should be properly compensated, but the government feels protected by a government majority in the House of Commons, which I think is very shaky on this issue. In the House of Lords, the government would lose any vote on not compensating the subpostmasters. The government is moving gradually and slowly towards building up a scheme which would compensate everybody, but it hasn't been able to announce that scheme yet. The reason it is doing so is because of the pressure on it. Both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, which is proving effective. The government has got to do the right thing on this, and I think eventually it will. It's just taking so long.

Amy:

This has been a campaign that you have pushed for as a member of Parliament for many years, as you've said. Throughout that time, what has driven you to continue campaigning? To continue the fight for this cause?

Lord Arbuthnot:

It's something that I had no choice about getting involved in because I was Jo Hamilton's member of Parliament. It became obvious to me very early on, that she and other subpostmasters were telling the truth. If they were telling the truth, as I believe they were, then a monstrous injustice had been perpetrated by a government owned organisation, the Post Office. There's only one thing you can do if you're an MP in such circumstances, and that is to fight for the monstrous injustice to be overturned. This is something that has never happened before. The number of injustices that have now been overturned by the Court of Appeal as a result of a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the previous largest number was 10. Now we are well into the forties or fifties, and there are hundreds more to come. This is extraordinary. It has never happened before.

Lord Arbuthnot:

What has driven me has been a sense of monstrous injustice which has got to be put right. There was a similar campaign I was involved in, in relation to the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. That involved my constituency because the Chinook helicopter fleet was based in Northeast Hampshire when I was the MP. That campaign took 16 years. Eventually it did involve a select committee of the House of Lords which got to the matter overturned, but it takes a very long time. Maybe it's something that the House of Lords actually is particularly suited to because it was a former defence minister, Lord Chalfont, who suggested to set up a committee in the House of Lords, which came to the right result. Then there was a special inquiry set up by the government in much the same way as is happening with the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Amy:

You mentioned there are potential government compensation schemes, that many convictions got quashed and others still being investigated. Do you think that will be the end of this issue? Or is there still more that needs to be done, and needs to change?

Lord Arbuthnot:

In order for us to end this scandal, we have to have two things. We have to have full proper compensation for everybody who has been so badly wronged, and we have to hold to account those people who perpetrated it. Neither has happened. The holding to account those people who perpetrated these dreadful events, is very important for two reasons. First, we need to ensure that it never happens again. That will only happen if people who do it, know that there are consequences for doing it.

Lord Arbuthnot:

Second, there are subpostmasters who've been to prison. Sadly, we can never give a sense of justice to the people who've died by suicide, but some people have been to prison. Many have suffered bankruptcy, have seen their marriages break up. Some have seen their families break up because they were required by the Post Office to sack family members who the Post Office were accusing of being dishonest. They need a sense of justice too. Justice is very important. Justice is part of the psyche of the British people. A sense of fairness can only be instilled if we hold those people to account. We need two things to come out. First, full, proper compensation. That hasn't happened. Second, a sense of holding to account and justice. That hasn't happened. Until both of those things have happened, this matter won't be closed.

Amy:

Did the Post Office get to the bottom of what went wrong?

Lord Arbuthnot:

A, not yet. B, it wasn't only the technology that went wrong. It was the contractual arrangement, and the training, and the offensive investigation and management that went wrong as well. The technology did go wrong in that Fujitsu had a method of changing subpostmasters' accounts without the subpostmasters being aware of it. We told the Post Office and the ministers in 2013 that this was happening, and they did nothing about it. Instead what they did was, they tried to outspend the subpostmasters in the litigation. They outspent them with the use of taxpayers' money. I think it is so atrocious in terms of government behaviour, as well as Post Office behaviour, in terms of purely human behaviour. It's not the sort of thing that one could ever let go.

Amy:

You were speaking just now about the power of Lord's Committee inquiries. You were recently appointed the chair of the new Lord's Committee on Risk Assessment and Risk Planning. What will the committee be focusing on first?

Lord Arbuthnot:

The committee came into being because the government had, at the top of its risk register in 2019, a pandemic. The government had been advised that a pandemic might create a number of deaths, maybe up to 100. And 130,000 and more deaths later, we realized that maybe the government's method of dealing with risk assessment and risk planning has left something to be desired. What we don't want to do is to focus on the last war. We don't want this select committee to be only a matter of making sure that we deal with pandemics in the future. There are lots of other risks that we need to prepare properly for. For example, if there were an effective cyber attack on the national grid, which switched off the electricity grid for longer than a week, then modern life as we know it would grind to a halt.

Lord Arbuthnot:

We would have no communications, we'd have no money, we'd have no method of spending money. We wouldn't be able to buy food. There would be no water because it's pumped by electricity. If there were no communications, no money, no food and no water, order would break down very soon. It would be very difficult to restore it because there would be no communications. It'd be quite difficult to mobilize the emergency forces. This is all very apocalyptic, but it's the sort of thing for which you can prepare yourselves, provided you are prepared to take the long-term decisions. It's taking longterm decisions, beyond the electoral cycle, that is going to be difficult for any democratic elected government to do. It's what we are trying to work out, how we can best encourage politicians and governments to take long-term decisions and not to allow things simply to be forgotten because the moment of crisis has passed. We have an opportunity now, because of the COVID pandemic, to learn the lessons from this risk and this hazard, and 'build back better' as people keep saying, so that we don't get into this position again.

Amy:

Committees, of course, take evidence from lots of different people. You've recently heard from writers such as Robert Harris, as well as former ministers, first responders, academics, and international experts. How do all of those different contributions feed into the committee's thinking?

Lord Arbuthnot:

We decided to have a panel of science fiction writers. Robert Harris doesn't really classify himself as that, he describes himself more as an historian. What we were worried about in that particular session, was the risk that the politicians and the strategists might lack the imagination to work out what could get us. We thought, science fiction writers imagine the impossible and write about the future in a way which really harnesses imagination. It was a very interesting session. That was one session. In a completely different vein, we had a session on flooding. We were hearing yesterday from Oliver Letwin, how the government had set up a whole new set of thinking about flooding, but then abandoned it shortly before the country was hit with massive floods. As he put it, we had been told that some of the flooding risks were once in 10,000 years, maybe once in the life of the universe. Now, they seem to be happening once every two years instead.

Lord Arbuthnot:

The point about some of the risks that we face is that they are becoming more and more prevalent. Maybe because of climate change, maybe because of the change and our reliance on technology, maybe because of population growth. One evidence session we had concentrated on the fact that we wont predict whatever risk it is that we will face, and so we have to be more able to respond to risks in a flexible way. Resilience, which is one of the things that we want to see built into the country, involves adaptability and flexibility rather than predicting the risks and getting all of those right. Our historical success rate on that has been poor. We want to be able to respond to any risk, including those that we have never experienced before, because new technology brings new risks that we haven't experienced. We want to be able to respond to risks that are more than just those risks that people are old enough to have experienced in their lifetimes.

Matt:

Thank you so much for joining us on the podcast today. It's been really interesting hearing about the Horizon scandal and what your committee is up to. Thank you.

Lord Arbuthnot:

Not at all. I've enjoyed it.

Matt:

And that's it for another month's edition of the House of Lords Podcast

Amy: 

If you've got a burning question that you want us to answer, you can message us on any of our social media platforms, or email us on hlinfo@parliament.uk