Post Office Update

Question

Can you confirm that Sir Wyn will have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony under oath and force organisations such as the Post Office to provide documents? Are there any limitations on these powers?

Question

Why has compensation not been included in the terms of reference? Who was consulted on these revised terms?

Question

Will ongoing contracts with Fujitsu, which provided the faulty Horizon software, be reviewed? What about the honours given to Paula Vennells during this period?

Question

The MP thanked the Minister for his statement but highlighted delays and shortcomings, questioning changes to previous stance on statutory inquiry. She called for an apology from the Government, oversight failure acknowledgment, compensation review, public consultation, and changes to prevent future scandals. Seema Malhotra questioned the scope of Sir Wyn's powers, Fujitsu’s accountability, and the £42 million contract with them despite their role in faulty software.

Question

The MP congratulated the Minister on his statement and thanked the Prime Minister for meeting affected sub-postmasters. She asked if compensation would be paid to all those affected, including those involved in the group litigation order, and highlighted that sub-postmasters should not face penalties for shining a light on Post Office conduct.

Question

Welcomes the statutory inquiry into the Horizon scandal but criticises the Government for briefing it to the press beforehand. Emphasises that the Post Office must agree to meet all costs due as a result of any compensation and stresses the need to hold those responsible accountable.

Question

Welcomes the announcement of a full public inquiry to finally draw a line under this tragic fiasco. Praises sub-postmasters as ordinary, honest people who have been caught up in incredible events not of their making.

Question

Welcomes the inquiry being on a statutory footing but questions why the terms of reference are still being decided by Ministers rather than the independent chair, Sir Wyn Williams.

Question

Welcomes the statutory footing but asks about Fujitsu's responsibility towards compensation for victims.

Question

Gives credit to the Minister for admitting to changing things when they go wrong, asks about full disclosure including ministerial submissions from the Post Office and highlights the Government's role as a shareholder.

Question

Welcomes the statutory inquiry and asks for a guarantee of fair compensation for those wronged.

Question

Welcomes recognition but criticises Post Office for defending the indefensible. Asks about Treasury support for funds to ensure fair representation in the inquiry.

Question

Welcomes the action but asks about steps to ensure proper remuneration for postmasters performing valuable roles in local communities.

Question

Criticises the Post Office for defending a case it should not have been defending, leading to high legal fees. He calls on the Minister to give an undertaking to return money used in those legal fees.

Question

Welcomes changes to the Horizon scandal inquiry and its importance in rebuilding trust between Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters, crucial for retaining post offices on high streets.

Question

Reiterates her previous question on full legal costs compensation for affected postmasters.

Question

Asks if Government will do everything within its power to encourage affected postmasters to come forward and engage with the inquiry.

Question

Asks if Government will address the limited remit of the inquiry regarding compensation and accountability of managers.

Question

Asks how Government will ensure Post Office acts on recommendations from the statutory inquiry.

Question

Proposes sub-postmasters be recognised as employed workers rather than independent contractors, citing the importance of their roles and the need for proper remuneration.

Question

Welcomes announcement of statutory inquiry into Post Office-Horizon IT scandal, asks about provision of technical advice and examination of National Federation of SubPostmasters.

Question

Asks why Government has declined to accept a Justice Committee recommendation on private prosecutors, requesting acceptance of said recommendation.

Question

Welcomes news that those wrongly accused will not face prosecution, asks if recommendations from the inquiry will ensure such events never happen again.

Question

I welcome the Minister’s change of heart. It will provide much-needed reassurance, as he mentioned, to sub-postmasters, including my constituent, John Bowman. What will happen now for the sub-postmasters who have lost everything so that they have the financial confidence to get evidence to Sir Wyn’s inquiry? If they cannot afford to give that evidence, if they require legal support, what work is the Minister doing with the Treasury to ensure that those postmasters who have lost everything, including, in some cases, their homes, have the funding available to take part in this now statutory inquiry?

Question

My sympathy goes to everyone affected by this appalling scandal. Looking to the future, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways that we can support sub-postmasters and the post office network, which means so much to our constituents, is by using it to deliver more Government services? Up to now that been made difficult by EU procurement rules, which we can now change?

Question

I welcome the move to a statutory inquiry, but also note the extension of the timescale for the inquiry; it has been extended, I think, by some nine months or so. John and Pat Moir have spent more than a decade fighting this case and fighting to clear their name. Clearly they welcome this inquiry, but what assurances can they have that it will work to the timescales, so that they and others can see the outcome before more time passes?

Question

The importance of the Post Office has increased in every community across this country, especially as high street banks continue to close. Does my hon. Friend agree that postmasters truly are the backbone of the Post Office and that we need to strengthen that relationship? Does he therefore share my concern about the way in which many have been treated by the Post Office through this scandal?

Question

I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the fantastic news that the sub-postmasters wrongly accused across the UK will no longer face prosecution. It is incredibly important that full and timely justice is served. Will my hon. Friend therefore commit to holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, ensuring that it studies carefully whatever recommendations may arise from the inquiry to ensure that this can never ever happen again?

Question

I do welcome the statement, but it has taken far too long for it to happen. My constituent was held responsible for missing funds, charged, convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison. It cost her not only her home, which she had to sell to meet these debts, but her marriage. She is left penniless and has to move out of the area, and is understandably concerned that nearly 40% of the compensation awarded is just swallowed up by legal costs. What does appropriate compensation look like for people like her?

Question

My hon. Friend will be well aware that the overwhelming majority of men and women who run our post offices are small business owners who work extremely long hours and have to deal with extremely complex and different sets not only of accounts but of transactions. Given the circumstances that have arisen under the Horizon scandal, what actions will he take to ensure that the position is rebalanced between those small business owners and the vast monolith of the Post Office?