Post Office chief Paula Vennells could be sanctioned by MPs for misleading parliament

Sign up for the View from Westminster e-mail for skilled evaluation straight to your inbox

Get our free View from Westminster e-mail

MPs are mulling sanctions towards former Post Office boss Paula Vennells after it was revealed that she might have identified distant entry to the Horizon system was potential two years earlier than denying it to parliamentarians.

The cross-party enterprise and commerce committee has introduced “all options on the table” because it appears into taking motion towards former Post Office CEO Paula Vennells in relation to doubtlessly misleading parliament on the Horizon scandal.

The announcement follows allegations that Ms Vennells was briefed by the Post Office’s basic counsel {that a} unit in Bracknell’s Fujitsu headquarters could entry subpostmaster’s accounts remotely.

In tapes obtained by Channel 4, Post Office chief lawyer Susan Crichton confirms twice that Ms Vennells was conscious of the allegations two years previous to the Post Office halting prosecutions towards its personal sub-postmasters, and two years earlier than the previous chief govt informed MPs in 2015 that it was not potential for subpostmasters’ accounts to be accessed remotely.

The former put up workplace boss denied to parliament in correspondence that distant entry was potential, and these denials have been used within the courtroom case towards sub-postmasters, together with Alan Bates, as late as 2019.

Committee chair Liam Byrne has stated his committee is “deeply concerned by the latest revelations” and “will be exploring options for penalising the leadership that presided over the scandal.”

The Labour MP added: “All options are on the table, including the Commons exercising its powers in relation to contempt of parliament.

“We have to make absolutely sure that we don’t jeopardise any future legal action or undermine Sir Wyn Williams’ public inquiry. I will present my committee with options upon Parliament’s return later this month for careful consideration.”

If somebody is present in contempt of parliament it implies that one thing has interfered with parliament or obstructed its member’s duties. It is loosely outlined, and solely parliament decides whether or not one thing counts as contempt.

In the previous, contempt has been used when somebody has misled the House, engaged in monetary misconduct, leaked parliamentary proceedings or defied a command.

In July final 12 months, the privileges committee discovered that former prime minister Boris Johnson had dedicated “repeated contempts of parliament” when he had “wilfully misled” parliamentarians over partygate.

The committee beneficial that Mr Johnson shouldn’t be entitled to a former member’s go, which permits most former prime ministers and lawmakers to realize computerized entry to parliament and would have beneficial he be suspended from the House of Commons for 90 days, had he not already resigned.

Some MPs have accused the punishments for contempt of being weak, as it’s now not customary for parliament to imprison or high-quality perpetrators.

In 2019, former Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings was present in contempt of parliament after he refused to attend an proof session after being summoned by the digital, tradition, media and sport choose committee.

Mr Cummings was admonished within the House of Commons however little additional motion was taken, main some MPs to demand the strengthening of parliamentary powers.

The enterprise and commerce committee is predicted to debate any additional actions when parliament returns from recess.

The Post Office was approached for remark.