NOVEMBER 22, 2024
On October 28th, Carol Riddell a subpostmistress in Sunderland, died at the age of 73, worried about money to the very end. She and husband Alan had experienced 24 years of pain and worry after being accused by auditors of theft, and after being forced to pay back thousands of pounds in shortfalls caused by Horizon. Carol did not receive the compensation due before she died. At the Horizon Post Office Inquiry on November 5th, Chair Sir Wyn Williams made the solemn announcement of her death – on the symbolic date which, fireworks aside, is supposed to enshrine the importance of parliamentary democracy.
The Inquiry ended its final and seventh evidence session on November 14th. Sir Wyn has now retired to write his report due in mid-2025. Here, campaigner Rosie Brocklehurst, who has followed this story over the past 14 months for Labour Hub, examines what the Inquiry may tell us about institutional and Government dysfunction. She also weighs up the value of lengthy, expensive public inquiries into wrongdoing, particularly when evidence shows recommendations are often accepted by successive Governments but then nothing happens. Finally, she asks, does lack of individual accountability or timely and appropriate redress for victims, actually feed into the phenomenon of rising populism? A Labour Hub long read.
As Secretary of State for the Department of Business and Trade (DBT) from February 2023 until the last election, new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was involved in the Government’s response to the Horizon Post Office Scandal. Among her controversial actions was the dismissal in early 2024, of Henry Staunton as Chair of the Post Office.
The sacking, ostensibly for reasons of poor performance in the one year he had been in post, also concerned the appointment of an independent non-executive director (SiD). Staunton had turned down her pick. He had clashed with the by-now-notorious Ben Foat, General Counsel at the Post Office, and taken away an ambiguous message on spending from a Permanent Secretary at the Department for Business and Trade, Sarah Munby, to mean that compensation delivered by the Post Office should be slowed down to coincide with the next General Election.
Badenoch has a reputation for reacting badly to anyone who crosses her, and following the press leak of his sacking which she declared was nothing to do with her, delivered a televised, vitriolic report to the House. She furiously tore into Staunton and later, when he put up a mild defence in the ‘business’ media, returned to Parliament to claim Staunton was being investigated for bullying.
It was in fact Post Office CEO Nick Read (who is officially no longer in post and is leaving the beleaguered former “most-trusted ‘brand”, in March next year) who was being investigated. Chapter and verse of this was embedded in a ‘Speak Up’ whistleblowing report produced by the previous Head of HR at the Post Office. She in turn had left her role after signing one of those ubiquitous, non-disclosure agreements, used widely by lawyers to suppress the truth. True to form, Nick Read commissioned another lawyer at yet more public expense – a female KC, to investigate, who produced what was subsequently widely criticised by post office campaigners as a ‘whitewash.’ It exonerated Read.
The dysfunction of Government as the shareholder of the Post Office, like the institution itself, is exemplified by this catalogue of self-interest by elites and the people who appoint them. A former Business Department Permanent Secretary Sir Alex Chisholm, who has long been mentioned as a person of interest by the compassionate peer and campaigner for subpostmasters, James Arbuthnot, was finally brought before the Inquiry to explain why he failed to stop the hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent fighting Sir Alan Bates’ Group litigation (GLO) in the High Court in 2019, when it was clear he knew that miscarriages of justice had occurred. This is the man who agreed Paula Vennell’s award of a CBE and also welcomed her into the Cabinet Office when she left the Post Office, despite all he knew about her. In November, the Inquiry failed to ask him about his symbolic myopia and his well-paid career continues unabated. Sir Alex Chisholm is now Chair of EDF, the energy company.
The irony remains, that the bullying accusation made in full public glare against Staunton, came from a Badenoch, whose own reputation was rooted in the fear and loathing she allegedly inspired in her ministerial staff. At the time Badenoch came to the House early in 2024, accusations of bullying had also dogged Liam Byrne MP, the powerful and effective Chair of the cross-party DBT Parliamentary Committee. Some of his Labour colleagues felt this to be a one-off, the unfortunate outcome of a higher standard of work ethic he set for himself and his constituency staff, to assist him on his path to redemption from 2010’s “I am afraid there is no money” error of judgement. That gave Osborne the excuse for years of austerity.
Whatever the cause of Byrne’s silence, it goes some way to explain why he failed to challenge Badenoch on the floor of the chamber on the Staunton bullying accusation. Staunton himself comes over as an amiable old buffer who had unwittingly fallen into a nest of vipers. Bewildered and caught between the crosshairs of veteran politically astute sharpshooters, he failed to successfully win through. Badenoch scored a hit and used it to assist her ride to become the elected leader of the Tory party.
Badenoch also attempted to claim credit for a proposed £100,000 compensation scheme for those subpostmasters eligible for the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. Some insiders say the idea for the scheme came from Kevin Hollinrake MP, the Post Office Minister, not Badenoch, but it was Badenoch who wrote to Jeremy Hunt, then Chancellor, to seek approval for it. Hunt rejected it on the grounds that it was not value for money and asked for other options to be investigated. However, in a letter, Hunt had previously reassured a subpostmaster constituent that he would do everything in his power to secure swift, full, and fair redress. There is no more stark display of the contradiction between public perception of what Government says it wants to do and what it has failed to do for subpostmasters.
At the Horizon Public Inquiry, Badenoch opined that “it was as important to be seen to be doing the right thing as it was to actually do the right thing.”
Jason Beer KC, counsel to the Inquiry questioned her true meaning. She stood her ground, emphasising that there would be no respect for politicians if they were not seen to be doing the right thing, as well as doing it. It seemed to escape her notice that the Tories had lost the election on July 4th because not only had Government not done the right thing a great deal of the time, but they were also increasingly perceived not to have done the right thing.
But, we need to ask, can public perception of what is right be prioritised over meaningful and ‘right’ action, if there is no transparency at all about the actions actually being taken behind the scenes?
Badenoch’s own actions, particularly the disconnect between public promises and government inaction on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, point to a much deeper issue – one of political theatre, and relates to the familiar ‘smoke and mirrors’ politics – where appearances are maintained, but substantial change never happens.
This failure to act feeds into a broader sense of disillusionment and pertinently leads us to ask if public inquiries in the UK will always fail to deliver on their promises and to ensure vital change to our democratic processes.
The Role and Cost of Public Inquiries in the UK
Public inquiries are generally established to ensure accountability, transparency, and reform in the wake of major failings. However, their overall impact remains in question, particularly when recommendations are accepted but rarely implemented. In the UK, the Horizon Inquiry, and others, such as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, have involved significant financial costs, with inquiries over the past four years running up a total cost exceeding £400 million.
Nick Wallis, the journalist who has probably done most to raise awareness of the Horizon Post Office scandal, revealed that by March 2024 the Inquiry had cost £48 million. Also this year, we find there have been an astonishing 18 public inquiries in progress. These inquiries represent a massive commitment of resources, yet their outcomes often seem limited in scope. While they bring critical issues to light, they frequently fail to catalyse tangible reforms.
The Disconnect Between Public Trust and Government Accountability
The 2024House of Lords committee report into Inquiries, Public Trust and Accountabilityhighlights a growing disillusionment with the process. The committee noted that many inquiries’ recommendations are accepted by the government, but implementation rarely follows:
“Implementation monitoring does already take place, but informally and therefore ‘the challenge is that it is ad hoc.’ This does not imply that public inquiries do not lead to change… There are some instances that we can point to where inquiries have led to positive change… Nonetheless, we heard from many witnesses that there are widespread problems with recommendations not being implemented. We heard that if the recommendations from the inquiry into deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary had been comprehensively implemented, then the events investigated by the Mid-Staffordshire Hospitals Inquiry may have been less likely to have occurred, in the view of an experienced firm of solicitors. A lack of implementation is not just a problem for statutory inquiries. Witnesses told the Committee that if the recommendations from the inquest into the Lakanal House fire had been implemented, then the Grenfell Tower fire may have been less likely to have occurred.”
This failure to act on findings is eroding public trust in Government institutions. The House of Lords committee looking into Inquiries and enhancing trust does not make direct reference to failure of Inquiries to change things and populism. Would it ever be so bold? The clear, underlying message reveals inquiry recommendations are rarely followed by Government action, and this is contributing to a broader sense of dissatisfaction among the public.
Compensation delays remain for the vast majority of claimants. For too long there has been a war of attrition between paid lawyers within the DBT, a procrastination of the most maddening complex process, overseen by the negating Treasury who hide behind the arras.
It was reported last summer that £450 million had been spent on lawyers for paying out just £180 million in compensation. The paid-out figure has increased since the summer, but nevertheless, the compensation levels given out mostly go nowhere near to bringing people back into the position they would have been in, if they had not been caught up in this horrific miscarriage of justice.
Many people who have followed this story from a distance will recall Badenoch’s announcement in September 2023 of £600,000 for convicted subpostmasters. Many victims reported being stopped in the street by those in their community who had heard about it. One said: “Expect to see you on a world cruise shortly then!” The level of understanding about what these subpostmasters went through leaves a lot to be desired. Badenoch failed to say to the media at the time that fewer than 100 subpostmasters out of over 900 convicted had had their convictions overturned. So much for doing the right thing. The cheek of the woman is astonishing.
It took until May 2024 for Parliament to exonerate subpostmasters and, until October, for letters to arrive from the Ministry of Justice to allow those exonerated to actually start their claim. It may seem a lot, but £600,000 goes nowhere near the amount that should be paid to those subpostmasters who lost their livelihood over 24 years, were stigmatised, spat at in the street, could not get jobs, could not go to some countries on holiday even if they could have afforded one, because of their criminal record, were made bankrupt, homeless, can never get a new mortgage, lost their health, friendships, and had families torn apart. 253 deaths of subpostmasters, many without proper redress, litter the path of this scandal.
Public inquiries in the UK often reveal uncomfortable truths, but when it comes to implementing changes, the political will seems to dissipate. As a result, citizens begin to question the utility of inquiries: are the recommendations unfeasible, or is the real problem the inability of Government institutions to take action?
The cost of public inquiries, combined with their slow pace, leads to a growing sense of frustration. It’s like opening a wound in full public glare, traumatising, resurrecting memories long suppressed. Failure to implement recommendations undermines trust in the institutions responsible for driving change.
The gap between public promises and meaningful action segues into feelings of powerlessness and alienation, which populist movements often capitalise on.
The rise of populism is of course a global phenomenon seen across many democratic societies. ‘Leaders’ who claim to speak for the “forgotten people” often present themselves as outsiders who can ‘fix’ the system, (‘clean out the swamp’) even if their solutions are simplistic or authoritarian. In this climate of disillusionment, populist rhetoric can easily gain traction by offering the promise of immediate action, even when it comes at the cost of undermining democratic values and institutions.
The failure to implement recommendations from public inquiries as outlined in commentaries in the House of Lords document, contributes to the widespread perception that the Government does not work for the people. This feeling of alienation is particularly strong among those who have been directly affected by the failings under investigation. Public inquiries, rather than restoring trust, often ‘highlight the chasm between official narratives and real-world outcomes.
When recommendations are accepted but not implemented, citizens begin to feel that the Government is incapable or unwilling to address systemic problems. This disillusionment is particularly acute for marginalised groups, who often feel that their concerns are ignored. The sense that the government fails to deliver on its promises or fails to hold those responsible accountable, leads to a deeper belief that nothing ever changes, no one is ever held accountable, and the political system serves the interests of the powerful rather than the public.
This creates fertile ground for populist movements. Leaders who promise to restore power to the people, challenge the elites, and dismantle the established systems can tap into this anger and frustration. In many cases, billionaire populists such Elon Musk and Silicon Valley’s Peter Thiel, have exploited these feelings of discontent by presenting themselves as figures who can reshape the system in favour of the people, even while their own business interests may run contrary to the public good. Similarly, in the UK, the nod to populism has come from Boris Johnson and from Liz Truss whose Tufton Street friends were funded in part by such billionaires and has been given more encouragement from new MPs in the Reform Party by wealthy Richard Tice and Nigel Farage.
Exploitation of Public Anger
Reactionary populism, like any uncurbed pathogen, will thrive on a sense of being unheard – a condition that resonates. Directed by the dishonest, it can lead to hate-filled societal unrest, as we saw in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and as we have witnessed in recent months in Southport and on display in the USA on January 6th, 2020. With Trump elected, there is, undoubtedly, much more horror to come.
Political commentators such as Yanis Varoufakis and Thomas Frank argue that populism arises when people feel they have been betrayed by the political system, which has been co-opted by the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Varoufakis notes that growing economic inequality and political alienation contribute to a sense of hopelessness among the public, making them more susceptible to populist rhetoric. Frank, in his work on the rise of Trumpism, highlights how a sense of betrayal – by both parties in the political system – creates fertile ground for populist movements that promise dramatic change, but often only exacerbate existing problems. Andrew Urie, in his 2021 LSE blog believes populism to be an “energy” that can be reactionary and progressive. He also interestingly mentions “the regulatory state” – a function of democracy into which public inquiries may comfortably fit:
“As Frank points out, the horrific outcome of the 2016 conjuncture was that Trump, via the advice of the reactionary populist strategist Steve Bannon, outfoxed the Democrats by manipulatively presenting himself as the voice of the deindustrializing working class. Naturally, Frank is astute enough to recognize that this turned out to be nothing more than an insincere, opportunistic bid to secure the support of some desperate, misguided people, some 6 to 9 million of whom had previously voted for Obama. As Frank notes, the key leadership task that Trump embraced with ‘enthusiasm’ resided in dismantling the ‘regulatory state’, which remains one of ‘the few institutions in Washington designed to help working class Americans.’”
What Can Be Done?
To make some inroads into addressing these issues, Governments should make regulators of banks and public utilities more effective, instead of letting them off the hook (or deregulating as Reeves seems to want to do with city financial institutions) and of course, make public inquiries far more effective. Their powers need to be increased.
Statutory public inquiries may compel witnesses to attend, but they need also to work with Governments abroad to compel those who run away from responsibility to ensure they attend. (Jane McLeod a key Post Office General Counsel, left for Australia in 2020 and refused to attend the Inquiry). They also need to work in tandem with a better resourced police service, so that prosecution of suspected culpable ‘actors’ in these scandals, can be speeded up.
We must start with an unequivocal commitment to act on the recommendations made by all Inquiry reports and ensure that findings lead to genuine and palpable reform. The Government must also work to restore public confidence in the process by demonstrating accountability. Inquiries should not be seen as political theatre, but as a means of genuine redress for those affected.
Ultimately, the power of populism is fuelled by a sense of disillusionment, but this can be counteracted if the Government learns how to listen well to the victims of scandals, and hears the silent roar of the wider populace, as was documented in petitions, letters to newspapers and media reports and in a general upswelling of genuine human feeling of solidarity, in response to the ITV drama on the Post Office scandal last January 1st. It must hold itself accountable, and act decisively when faced with such issues that present such a threat to the very fabric of what we call democracy. It must be made in the interests of what is right – not what is shaped to appear to be the right thing by disruptive, main-chance politicians, interested in manipulating the alienated populace, but largely driven by a desire for power for personal advancement. We have to hope that it is not too late.
Rosie Brocklehurst is a journalist and press officer (retired) who worked for the Labour Party, LWT, the BBC and several charities.
Image: Wallasey Post Office. Author: Rodhullandemu, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
BBC November 23, 2024, 
