January 2024
It was probably not surprising that the Post Office scandal should be one of the chosen topics for our first café of 2024. After two decades, the persecution of nearly a thousand subpostmasters (male and female) burst into public consciences with the transmission of an ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office. Despite extensive coverage, someone noted, in Private Eye, Computer Weekly, the BBC on the radio and on Panorama, and the Guardian, the scandal had failed to excite public interest to any degree and certainly not in parliament.
The government has suddenly woken up following the outrage highlighted in the ITV drama and was proposing a law to offer mass invalidation of the sub postmasters’ convictions. This will be debated in parliament next week (w/c 15th). The question posed therefore was what are the implications of the government’s proposals to carry this out? Would it set a precedent which might have unfortunate consequences for our constitution? This had generated a lot of concern for example from Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general.
One comment was this was an example of ‘heart over head’ and perhaps it would be better to let things quieten down before pushing through legislation which could have momentous effects. To counter this it was noted that the people affected had already waited two decades for justice during which a number have died without having been exonerated and four had taken their own lives.
The basic question was ‘what instrument do you use to put things right?’ People were convicted on bad evidence. A problem is that there were some who had defrauded the Post Office who would also be exonerated. It was suggested that the bills of attainder – not used since 1820 – might be a mechanism however, this was used to dispossess (attaint) people of their rights and property not to put it right.
The important role of whistle-blowers was introduced. Such people received little support and took enormous risks by revealing corporate wrong-doing. There were several comments which noted the failure of some many elements of the state apparatus to deal with matters of this sort. The judiciary had failed, partly because the corporations could fund an army of high powered lawyers whereas the defendants were individuals with few if any resources, but secondly for allowing the Post Office to sue on the basis of a loss of money but offer no evidence of actual theft. It was simply a system which was hideously unfair and unbalanced.
But to the main point of the debate: the dangers of parliament overturning the judicial process. It was noted that we have a dual system and a separation of powers which has been supremely important in protecting our liberties. The example was quoted of Boris Johnson and his attempt to prorogue parliament which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. More recently, the government had produced a bill to say that human rights in Rwanda were satisfactory and it was a safe country when the Supreme Court had decided that there was significant evidence it was not. Both were examples where the government had acted in defiance of the law and reason. Passing a new law – however well intentioned – risked giving powers to the legislator we may come to regret.
Anger was expressed at the ‘system’ as a whole i.e. the entire paraphernalia of governance. Parliament, government, MPs (with a few honourable exceptions), much of the media, the courts and the legal process, all had played a part allowing the scandal to proceed. Putting things right was being done at a snails pace. Someone described the judicial element as ‘rotten’. Nobody has apologised and nobody has – so far at least – been held to account. It was noted that legal aid has all but disappeared leaving the ‘wronged individual’ powerless against corporations and other well resourced organisations able to swamp courts with batteries of lawyers.
Better scrutiny was needed it was suggested and taking the prosecution rights away from the Post Office needed to happen. Independent investigation was sometimes needed. However, this would require the CPS to be better resourced since it would, like the legal system as a whole, be unable to handle the increased case load. Indeed, if the subpostmasters were to continue using the legal route, the under resourcing would result in yet more years of delay. The contrast with aircraft safety was noted. Pilots have long had the ability to report problems (like near misses) anonymously thus avoiding career risks. Also, major accidents are thoroughly investigated independently.
Needless to say the Horizon system was mentioned and the fact that Fujitsu has failed to account for itself. This led to a discussion of large IT systems and their part in this scandal. Large IT projects were inherently flawed it was suggested. Specifications were constantly changed. And we have AI to look forward to …
As to causes, the bonus system for directors and others at the Post Office was a factor. Basically a reluctance to admit problems – especially systemic ones – which might be costly and hit profits and hence bonuses. Also a belief in the infallibility of IT systems. The contrast between commercial and government IT systems was noted. The former were more incremental: they were introduced and subsequently modified in line with consumer involvement and interaction. Government IT projects tended to be huge and introduced in a ‘big bang’ which meant problems and glitches were present from the start.
Did we come to a conclusion on the main question? Truthfully, no. The subpostmasters had suffered a serious misjustice and people wanted it to be put right – and quickly before yet more of them die. But allowing the government to side-step the judicial process was a worry. There was an overriding feeling that so many parties to this scandal had been found wanting and had failed lamentably, that to give them yet more powers was a cause for concern.
The second half was around the topic of arms sales and why do we continue to sell arms to a variety of countries? [the implication being they were dubious countries].
The introducer of the question noted the sales of arms to Ukraine, and Israel (a large number of other countries could be named) and that these sales seemed to be an accepted fact and no one seems to question it. One person said they were conflicted: although they were against many aspects of arms sales, supplying Ukraine which was under attack seemed different from supplying Israel and their bombing in Gaza. It was noted that an Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, has a number of plants in the UK, one in Bristol and another in Portsmouth.
It was pointed out that countries have a need to defend themselves and thus a need to develop arms and armed forces to use them. The issue was about selling them. Campaign Against the Arms Trade*, CAAT has long campaigned on this issue. It was pointed out that the government does have controls on what arms are sold to what states in a system of licensing and end user certificates. However, in recent years, more weapons are being sold under ‘open licenses’ where these controls do not exist.
The contrast with Northern Ireland was noted and the prolonged period of violence during the Troubles. Despite bombing attacks in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, the conflict was eventually resolved, not by bombing the Republic, but by negotiation and dialogue leading to the Good Friday agreement.
Psychological factors are frequently ignored. For example, the feelings in Russia which has endured a series of invasions from the West over the centuries of its history, about the expansion of NATO up to its borders. This was part of the motivation for the invasion of Ukraine.
The paradox of the world’s biggest sellers of arms were also the members of the UN Security Council was pointed out. So while they were debating issues of ceasefire in Gaza in the UN, they were busy supplying weapons to the world. On the topic of weapons, the question of small arms was sometimes overlooked. It was these weapons which caused so much misery in the world especially to women and children who were almost always the biggest sufferers in these conflicts. The problem here though was that control of these sales was almost impossible since there were many producers of Kalashnikovs around the world. So although we might wish to clamp down on UK sellers and brokers, they can be sourced easily from other countries. If we don’t sell them, someone else will.
It was pointed out on the other hand that arms sales were part of wider government policy issues and British interests for example oil and arms supplies to the Saudi government. Supplying weapons to the Saudis was it was argued, in our interests. It was noted that arms sales came with conditions.
It was perhaps unsurprising that Israel emerged in this context with the war in Gaza in full spate. It was noted that after bombing a refugee camp, it was claimed that the ‘wrong weapons’ had been used. [We did not discuss this but there are a number of articles available on line concerning the use of what are termed ‘dumb weapons’ i.e. unguided munitions which are less precise than the guided ones. It is these which have caused so much collateral damage]. It was also claimed that Israel was using weapons from US stores in the country.
How significant were arms sales to our economy in any event? [Comparable figures are quite hard to obtain and what are or are not arms sales is ambiguous. One estimate is £86bn making the UK the second biggest supplier of arms in the world and the GDP (2022) was £2.27tn. So sales are just under 3.8% of the economy. It is claimed that there are 135,000 people employed]. It was suggested that if we ceased to sell arms to the world it would not be of great consequence to our economy.
There was discussion about whether international development was a better use of our resources. This was reduced from 0.7% of the economy to 0.5% around 2 years ago. This was part of a wider discussion about removing the anger and helping countries to improve their water supplies for example. It was noted that many countries did not sell arms.
The issue of morality was introduced which the subtext to the topic being discussed and that there were people trying to develop a better world. Arguably, we did not discuss this adequately – perhaps a topic for the future.
A surprising comment was the fact that Costa Rica has no military force. It is one of only 21 states in the world not to have one.
Finally, we could not have a democracy café without mention of the media and it was commented that we have need of more neutral reporting. Two sources were mentioned: Bylines and Declassified.
Peter Curbishley
*Disclosure: the writer is a member
Books mentioned:
The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, 2013, Oneworld. A large section is devoted to IT failures and one of the points made is the irrelevance of parliament in the process. Decisions were made by ministers and civil servants and parliament told later or not at all, p361f
[Not mentioned but relevant] The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, 2011, Andrew Feinstein, Hamish Hamilton.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 