The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill - Clause 1

Paid tribute to his constituents Mr and Mrs Simpson who campaigned tirelessly for compensation through the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance. Emphasised their crucial role in bringing attention to the scandal.

Acknowledged that while the Post Office has apologised, its corporate behaviour of employing expensive lawyers to obstruct victims has not been satisfactory. Urged the Government to encourage better behaviour from the Post Office.

As a former postmaster himself, Duncan emphasised that innocent postmasters were wrongfully accused when issues arose with the tills. He questioned why Fujitsu has not faced any repercussions despite being responsible for faulty software.

Pays tribute to campaigners for their work on the Horizon scandal, highlighting the injustice suffered by sub-postmasters who were falsely convicted. Emphasises the devastating impact of wrongful convictions, including prison terms, family breakdowns, and health consequences. Mentions that at least 60 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice or receiving compensation, and four have taken their own lives. Supports urgent action to ensure fair compensation for victims as soon as possible.

Intervenes to pay tribute to campaigners and hon. Members working towards justice, stressing the importance of learning lessons from this scandal to prevent future incidents.

Supports extending time to resolve the Horizon scandal compensation issue, emphasising its complexity and importance. Acknowledges the need for public awareness and the potential for further delays but hopes they are not necessary. Stresses the importance of speed in addressing the postmasters' financial situation and justice.

Ms Fellows supports the amendment to broaden the Bill's scope beyond Horizon, ensuring justice for all those affected by Post Office Ltd practices. She argues that the delay in bringing this Bill forward is unjustifiable given the long-standing concerns since 2009 and the admission of faults four years ago. She also raises questions about the Post Office’s relationship with Fujitsu and calls for a wider investigation into possible miscarriages of justice.

Stresses the importance of a fair compensation scheme, citing Tom Brown's case as an example. Argues for expedient compensation payment and highlights the need for accountability regarding those responsible for the scandal.

Intervenes to reinforce the importance of trust in the context of fair compensation, emphasising the lack thereof over years.

Intervenes to ask for a timescale for when all postmasters and their families can expect to receive compensation.

Welcomes the Minister's progress on compensation for sub-postmasters wrongfully accused by faulty systems, emphasises the need to address delays and complexities in providing justice. Criticises the Post Office’s delay in acknowledging system flaws and pursuing innocent individuals through legal means, leading to severe personal and financial impacts including ruined reputations and broken marriages. Calls for regular updates on compensation progress and accountability of responsible entities, including corporate responsibility.

Supports the Bill's aim to deliver compensation for sub-postmasters wrongfully accused, criticises Post Office’s aggressive prosecution methods despite known system faults. Emphasises the severe impact on individuals' lives and livelihoods, including mental health issues, and demands urgent resolution of compensation cases.

Supports the Bill, emphasises the need for speed in delivering justice. Acknowledges the importance of addressing past injustices and ensuring proper compensation to victims. Raises concerns about missed targets and delays in the process.

Mr Hollinrake concluded the debate by addressing specific points raised, emphasising that the proposed long-stop date of 7 August is necessary to prevent arbitrary deadlines from affecting claimants' rights. He acknowledged ongoing efforts to expedite settlements and highlighted the fixed-sum award for overturned convictions as a significant route for compensation. He also addressed resource allocation and underscored the importance of moving at pace without compromising fairness. Mr Hollinrake paid tribute to colleagues who have campaigned on this issue, including acknowledging the advisory board's role in providing guidance.

In his intervention, Mr Jones expressed concerns about the need for more detailed information on how many people were prosecuted under different circumstances related to the Horizon scandal. He raised questions about transparency regarding past schemes and whether they would have been forgotten without public scrutiny.