Sub-postmasters Miscarriages of Justice Act (England and Wales) - Clause 1

Appeals to include fewer than 30 people in Northern Ireland affected by the scandal, arguing for cross-party support and devolved representation.

Questions the phrasing of condition E in Clause 1, emphasising the importance of a tightly drafted Bill to avoid setting a precedent for judicial interference.

Asks about including those who lost at the Court of Appeal or were not given leave to appeal, suggesting these cases may have new evidence due to the inquiry.

Raises data points about cases outside Horizon that failed because of lack of support, urging a review before Report stage.

Compliments efforts in compensation and exoneration but urges to revisit Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, supporting a private Member’s Bill on whistleblowing.

Supports the Bill's groundbreaking nature but urges to look again at cases that failed in Court of Appeal with new evidence, emphasising judicial responsibility.

Suggests a sunset clause to emphasise the exceptional nature of the Bill but warns against frustrating its purpose with delays.

Reiterates the wholly exceptional nature of the legislation, cautioning about sunset clauses and emphasising proper disclosure practices.

Questions the likelihood of future audits identifying issues earlier, suggesting such legislation should not be necessary again.

Stresses political consensus in Northern Ireland for national action to avoid inequity among postmasters across the UK.

Pushes for a similar timetable for Northern Ireland cases, emphasising equitable treatment of all affected postmasters.

Compliments efforts and suggests expanding legislation to other scenarios of prosecutorial practice similar to sub-postmasters' cases.

Raises concern for direct Post Office employees who suffered reputational damage without conviction, urging contact and support from the organisation.

Proposes a compensation tariff to simplify claim processes for victims post exoneration, ensuring they are not short-changed.

Welcomes changes in compensation but insists on excluding Post Office involvement to gain trust among sub-postmasters.

Reiterates the need for exclusion of the Post Office in compensation processes, highlighting current poor handling by the organisation.

Supports the need for reflection on judicial roles in the scandal and criticises those who did not raise red flags. Emphasises that some judges acted poorly.

Agrees with examining how evidence was produced to persuade prosecutions, highlighting the need for those responsible to learn lessons from their mistakes.

Acknowledges progress prior to the TV drama but highlights that public attention has brought new claimants forward, stressing ongoing work since 2020.

Suggests a sunset clause to prevent this legislation from setting a precedent for future injustices.

Argues that uncertainty about future cases makes a sunset clause unnecessary, as it would not prevent similar issues from arising in the future.

Highlights the importance of ensuring that Northern Ireland is included in the bill and seeks assurances on whether the Opposition would support a motion for this extension.

Suggests reflecting on measures to accelerate the payment of compensation while ensuring proper handling of complex cases.

Warns against imposing arbitrary deadlines on complex cases, emphasising that such actions could hinder thorough case resolution and fair compensation.

Raises concerns about excluding Scotland from the bill despite similar circumstances to Northern Ireland and calls for inclusion based on rational reasons.

Expresses support for the inclusion of Northern Ireland within the bill, highlighting the need for justice in affected areas.

Explains political accountability reasons for excluding Scotland, highlighting differences between Scottish and UK legal systems.

Endorses inclusion of Northern Ireland within the bill due to similar experiences faced by sub-postmasters there, emphasising ongoing turmoil.

He supports the Bill but criticises the Government's approach, suggesting a more thorough judicial review to address individual cases properly. He highlights systemic issues in Post Office accounting systems beyond Horizon, such as Capture, and warns against excluding those who had their appeals rejected due to non-Horizon system failures.

He intervenes to question whether we can ever accurately restate the Post Office’s accounts, given that many innocent sub-postmasters were wrongfully accused of owing money they did not actually owe.

He suggests including those who initially lost in the Court of Appeal or were denied leave to appeal, due to current knowledge about IT system failures, highlighting a small number of cases that might benefit from such an extension.

Marion Fellows expressed her disappointment that Scotland was left out of the Bill, despite previous commitments. She noted the alignment of Scottish legislation with the UK bill and emphasised the importance of treating victims equitably across the United Kingdom.

Davis questioned why the Scottish Parliament could not replicate the Bill, highlighting Northern Ireland as a special case. He sought to understand why similar measures couldn’t be taken for Scotland.

Carmichael informed the House that emergency procedures exist within the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation rapidly, similar to those here.

Hollinrake encouraged taking political responsibility for the right course of action within one’s jurisdiction, even if it is unpopular.

Reynolds queried the rationale behind extending the process for Scotland when a quick replication could be achieved, thus ensuring Scottish victims receive justice sooner.

Vara expressed his disbelief at the notion of a few extra days delaying justice for Scottish sub-postmasters, given that rapid passage is possible within the Scottish Parliament.

Scully supports the Bill, highlighting its importance in providing a human solution to an issue of systemic failure. He emphasises the need for quick action and the role of the postal affairs Minister in accelerating cases for victims. Scully also discusses the compensation process and the potential impact on post offices in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Supports the amendment, welcoming the bill proposed by the advisory board. Acknowledges past difficulties but emphasises the need for swift compensation systems in similar future cases. He argues that some individuals have been unjustly prosecuted and traumatized due to faulty computer evidence.

[Intervention] Agrees with Kevan Jones, stating that the state and justice system should find quicker ways for citizens to get redress rather than leaving them to fight for long periods of time.

[Intervention] Agrees with Kevan Jones, emphasising the importance of dealing with less difficult cases first to speed up compensation and reduce costs.

[Intervention] Supports Kevan Jones' point that some people will get more money than they lost, as the trauma compensation is worth it. Also mentions the BAE study highlighting issues with Capture system.

[Intervention] Agrees that investigation officers made a presumption of guilt before prosecution, as seen in the Royal Mail case.

[Intervention] Clarifies statistics: 1,200 people have come forward since TV dramatisation; seven cases heard by Court of Appeal with six refused leave to appeal.

Supports lifting barriers to speed up compensation for sub-postmasters affected by wrongful convictions. Acknowledges long-standing issue and the importance of addressing it urgently despite judicial concerns. Highlights personal experience as a former sub-postmaster, emphasising the impact on individuals and communities. Advocates for further investigation into those responsible for the software errors and accountability within the Post Office.

Agrees that despite the small number of cases, delaying justice is unjustifiable.

Suggests legislative consent motions from Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Parliament would be a cleaner way to extend territorial provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Explains that in Scotland, prosecutions are taken by the Procurator Fiscal Service or Lord Advocate rather than Post Office directly, highlighting a difference from other parts of the UK.

Asserts that Scottish Government would provide legislative consent for the Bill to cover all four nations as prosecutions were made by CPS and not Post Office directly.

Stephens suggests that legislative consent motions in Scotland could be used to address the territorial jurisdiction issue. He proposes a solution using the Criminal Justice Bill, which already has legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament.

MacNeil emphasises the importance of compensation for those affected by the scandal, including individuals who paid out of their own pockets to avoid prosecution. He highlights potential delays in implementing justice if Scotland takes a different approach.

Hollinrake clarifies that the Bill ensures UK-wide compensation schemes, eliminating delays for those exonerated. He emphasises the importance of a unified approach to ensure justice is served without delay.

Fellows underscores the need for all victims to be exonerated simultaneously. She raises concerns about timing, particularly if the Scottish Parliament is in recess during crucial stages of legislation.

Welcomes the Bill and expresses gratitude to the Minister for his work. Explains that this is a UK-wide scandal necessitating a unified solution due to its reserved nature under Westminster. Argues against leaving Northern Ireland to act separately, citing potential delays and further injustice to victims if public consultations are required. Proposes that London-based action would expedite justice and compensation for Northern Ireland's falsely convicted individuals. Emphasises the political consensus in Northern Ireland supporting swift inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill.

The speaker supports the Bill, highlighting its necessity to address the widespread injustice faced by sub-postmasters due to the Horizon scandal. She also discusses the broader impacts on victims' families and communities, emphasising the need for Northern Ireland's inclusion in the Bill and advocating for urgent compensation and further justice.

Argued for the Bill, highlighting its necessity to address historic injustices caused by the Post Office Horizon scandal. Emphasised the need for rapid legislative action due to delays in justice delivery and the constitutional sensitivity of the case.

Asked if it is necessary to lay an instruction motion to include Northern Ireland in the Bill, expressing admiration for the Minister's efforts but seeking assurance on territorial extent.

Inquired about discussions with Scottish Government and expressed concern over Asda employees in Scotland affected by similar issues, highlighting the need for a comprehensive solution.

Asked about legacy cases where individuals have passed away, suggesting that estates should be contacted to ensure they receive compensation and emphasising the need for further discussion on this issue.