PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Post Office Redress and Funding - 18 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to provide an update to the House about the Government’s Post Office redress schemes and funding.

No one in this House—no one in this country—will have failed to be moved by the plight of postmasters caught up in the Horizon scandal. The fact that they suffered so much over so many years is both unconscionable and inexcusable. The Government are determined to do right by them and to learn from the mistakes of the past. That is why, before the election in July, we promised to ensure swift and fair redress for postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal and, in the past five months, we have made significant progress.

To date, compensation has more than doubled since the Government took office, with £499 million paid to 3,300 victims. Of that amount, £79 million has been paid to 232 people from the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which we set up in July. As of 29 November, the Ministry of Justice had notified more than 520 people in England and Wales that their convictions have been quashed by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024. The relevant justice authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are also continuing to notify individuals within their jurisdictions.

While the progress we have made is positive, we know there are still complex cases to resolve, and we need to speed up other parts of the redress process. Many postmasters are still yet to be compensated or have their cases reconsidered. I am conscious that for the victims of the Horizon scandal, justice delayed is justice denied, and that our responsibility in Government is to work to make the compensation process as effective as possible. That is why we have asked the Post Office to write to over 16,000 former postmasters, encouraging them to come forward if they believe they have a genuine claim. I can confirm those letters have been sent. We want to ensure that every postmaster who is eligible for redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme has the opportunity to apply for it.

On more complex cases, notably in the group litigation order and the Horizon convictions redress scheme, for which my department is, and should be seen to be, directly responsible, we have agreed a new target for 90% of challenge cases in the GLO and HCRS to receive a substantive response within 40 days. We have moved in additional staff, and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, who is already assisting us with the overturned conviction cases, has been appointed chair of the independent panel for the HCRS.

We are looking again at the arguments for providing additional redress to postmaster family members who were affected by the scandal, and to the employees of postmasters. I will report back to the House on that in due course. The Horizon compensation advisory board recommended the establishment of an appeals process for the Horizon shortfall scheme that is independent of the Post Office and Government, and we accepted that recommendation in September. We are in the process of assembling a team of independent external lawyers to help deliver the appeals process. We expect that contract to be awarded in January. I will be able to provide a further update on the appeals process early in the new year.

There are still concerns about the responsibility of the Post Office to deliver the Horizon shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. The Government are considering the merits of my Department taking over that responsibility, but the benefits of such a move must clearly outweigh the potential disruption. We are carefully considering what intervention we may take.

Thanks to a small group of postmasters and their families coming forward this year, as well as to parliamentarians including Lord Beamish, we now know that issues at the Post Office went beyond Horizon, and that some postmasters may have been affected by earlier systems such as Capture. The Government have responded with swift, significant action. The Kroll investigation published its report into Capture on 30 September, with a further addendum made on 18 October. From that report we have concluded that there are postmasters who may have fallen victim to flaws in Capture software.

Most of us will not be able to comprehend fully what it was like to be accused of mistakes never made, ill intent never harboured and crimes never committed. Some postmasters have told us that, like victims of the Horizon scandal, they were shunned by their local communities—by their customers, friends and neighbours. I speak on behalf of the whole Government in expressing how sorry I am for what those postmasters and their families have gone through. For that and all they were forced to endure, they deserve not just redress but the restoration of their good names.

Uncovering exactly what happened in each case will be a challenging exercise given the passage of time and the lack of records and evidence. However, we are keen to apply the lessons that we have learned from previous redress schemes, and to take account of the needs of this group of victims. The Government will develop our proposals through engagement with postmasters and other key stakeholders, such as the Horizon compensation advisory board and legal experts. Over the coming months, we want to determine the scope of the financial redress and the eligibility criteria, so that we can bring both redress and closure to the impacted postmasters and their families. I expect to provide a further update to the House on that matter in the spring.

Next year, we also expect to receive Sir Wyn Williams’s report. The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry has reviewed the oral evidence that was submitted to it over the course of the last two years. I am thankful to Sir Wyn Williams for his excellent chairing of the inquiry, which closed yesterday. I am also thankful to the Horizon compensation advisory board for the report that it published earlier this year. In case Members are not aware, the board is recommending that a new independent body be set up to deliver any future redress schemes on behalf of the Government, as well as to act in a role similar to that of an ombudsman. The goal is, of course, to reduce the chances of future scandals—or at least to expose them more quickly.

The Government welcome those recommendations. Any recommendation that might prevent harm, or at least help the Government be more responsive to it, is worthy of serious consideration. The potential impact of such a body would be wide ranging, with potential implications for existing redress schemes in the NHS, which need to be considered alongside other issues. We will therefore take time to consult and consider in particular the view of the Williams inquiry before reaching a conclusion. We intend to give a full response within six months of the publication of the Williams inquiry report.

For too long, decisions about the future of the Post Office have been put off. That neglect has allowed significant issues at the heart of the company to grow and take root. As previously set out, we will publish a Green Paper in the first half of next year to seek the public’s views, insights and experiences to help shape the future of the Post Office. In the meantime, we are taking steps to continue to support the post office network and the important services it provides. I can announce that we are providing a further £37.5 million to subsidise the post office network this year. The interim chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, is rightly shifting the focus of the business from headquarters to postmasters; the Post Office is also reviewing its costs, as its financial position continues to be challenging. He has announced ambitions for a new deal for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office is going to make an immediate one-off payment to postmasters to increase their remuneration, in recognition of the pressures that postmasters face. That payment is expected to be delivered this month.

We are working with the senior leadership of the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue and reduce its costs in communities across the UK. Together, we hope these steps will enable the Post Office to move forward, working better with its postmasters and better serving the needs of its customers. This Government are attempting to fix the foundations, deal with the injustices of the past, and invest in a different future for the Post Office so that it can sit at the heart of our communities as a trusted institution once more. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

As shadow Secretary of State, I can say on behalf of every Conservative Member that we are committed to working collaboratively with the Government to deliver the appropriate redress to all those affected by the Horizon scandal and any issues relating to the Capture software. Many of the actions on which the Minister has updated the House were initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). As my hon. Friend has said, Ministers will have our full support in the swift delivery of redress and the overturning of the convictions of those affected by this wide-ranging scandal. The Conservative party welcomes the redress schemes that have been implemented to remedy the gross miscarriages of justice that have affected hundreds of families across the country. Our only focus now must be on processing claims to get those schemes completed as quickly as possible.

There remain a number of questions following the Minister’s statement that I would be grateful if he would clarify. I understand that the Kroll report did not publish any conclusions about the safety of criminal convictions. The Horizon advisory group had already recommended that the Government introduce legislation to overturn the convictions of postmasters who fell victim to the Capture scheme. I read that the Government have deferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on that matter. Could the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with the CCRC in relation to the process of overturning convictions?

The redress that the Minister has announced is welcome news, but there remains a lack of specific detail on how the affected parties can expect progress. Will he set out a timeline for the redress of postmasters affected by Capture? He said that he has instructed the Post Office to write to 16,000 potentially affected former postmasters, urging them to come forward if they believe they have a claim to make, and that those letters have been sent. Can he confirm when they were sent?

Is the Minister able to provide an update on his conversations with Fujitsu? How much has Fujitsu contributed to date? What meetings has he had, and where are we on that important aspect of this process? It was concerning to learn back in September that only a small handful of claims had been offered redress through the Horizon convictions redress scheme and, at that point, no full and final settlements had been made through that scheme. Could the Minister reassure the House that the Government are not just opening the door to those claims, but managing the process of getting them heard, resolved, and ultimately redressed? I was pleased to hear that additional staff have been seconded to facilitate the compensation scheme—I welcome that and thank the Minister—but can he confirm how many have been seconded and from where, and can he give the House an assurance that they will remain seconded for as long as is necessary?

Finally, we welcome the Government’s announcement of £37.5 million of network subsidy. It was announced in yesterday’s written ministerial statement, and it is indeed welcome news. The Minister said that it is for this year, so would he clarify whether that relates to the period up until the end of March 2025? What certainty is there of funding beyond that period so that we can all proceed on a sustainable footing? Is it only for this year, or does it also cover the fiscal year 2025-26?

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his willingness to work with us collaboratively on providing redress not only to the victims of the Horizon scandal, but to the victims of the Capture software issues.

The shadow Secretary of State referenced the Kroll report. As he and, I suspect, other Members of the House who have followed this issue closely will be aware, Kroll did not take a specific view on convictions. We are aware that a small number of sub-postmasters—those who believed they were victims of using the Capture software, given the shortfalls it generated and the way they were treated by the Post Office as a result—have referred their claims to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to work at speed to review what evidence it can provide to the CCRC to help it make decisions on the safety of those convictions. Similarly, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at a number of cases, and we have similarly instructed the Post Office to co-operate with it as quickly as it can.

On Capture redress, yesterday we met sub-postmasters who have campaigned on Capture, and indeed Lord Beamish, to update them on the steps we will take. We will work at pace. As I said in my statement, we face a significant challenge with the amount of evidence available. For example, no central record has as yet been found of the number of Capture users or of who they were. We are nevertheless going to be working to design a redress scheme. We will consult sub-postmasters and the Horizon compensation advisory board. As I have said, I will bring forward an update on where we have got to by next spring.

On the 16,000 letters that the Post Office has sent out, I can confirm that they have gone out very recently—the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not have the exact dates. He rightly aired again the concern about the responsibility of Fujitsu, which is felt across the House. I am sure that he will recognise that we need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry to report, to give us a better understanding of the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibilities and, therefore, its potential liabilities. We have said that we will respond to the inquiry’s recommendations at pace, and certainly within six months. I am sure that he will opine on Fujitsu, and we will respond accordingly.

On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), and I had the pleasure of appearing before the Business and Trade Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), to update it on progress in overturning the convictions following the legislation last summer. She committed the Ministry to completing its work of assessing the cases by the end of January, and I understand that it still intends to do so. We have already paid out some £79 million as part of our responsibilities to provide redress to those whose convictions were overturned.

Lastly, on the network subsidy uplift, the shadow Secretary of State will understand that the money is just for this year. Spending review discussions are taking place across Government, and the Post Office is an active part of those discussions.

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

I welcome much of the Minister’s statement today. Redress is being paid out faster, but the truth is that 70% of the budget for redress has still not been paid. The Select Committee will be supplying its advice on how we make that faster in a report that we will release on new year’s day. The Minister has set out details for the House about the Capture victims who have been identified. Does he believe that many of those victims were convicted? If they were, would it not be right to have those convictions automatically overturned, in the way that we have done for other victims of this appalling scandal?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend that the first report of his Committee has looked at the Post Office redress schemes. He will know that progress has been made, but as I alluded to in my opening statement, we recognise that there is still significantly more to do, particularly with the complex cases. Specifically on convictions and Capture, I have to tell the House that at this stage we do not know how many people were convicted as a result of the Capture software. We are aware of a small number of cases. As I have said, a number of cases are with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to review all its records—we know it has some records available for the 1991 to 1999 period—and to get what information it does have to those two bodies, so that they can opine as quickly as is feasible on the safety of those convictions. It is right that that is the first step we take. We will wait to see the judgment. In the meantime, we will get on with designing a redress scheme for all those who were not convicted but who suffered as a result of the Capture software.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Minister for sharing his statement in advance.

Honest, hard-working people had their lives totally wrecked by this scandal, and it is a great shame that it happened over a number of years, and that there was dither and delay over it for far too many years. I welcome the steps that he has outlined this afternoon. I welcome the suggestions made to him about an independent body for compensation. However, this scandal must never happen again. One way this Chamber could ensure that is the case is by having a duty of candour on officials, as the Liberal Democrats have called for. I hope he will give that serious consideration, to stop such a scandal ever happening again. Finally, there is a real opportunity, should the Government choose to take it, to set up an office for whistleblowers through the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently making its way through the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. In particular, I share his anger, and that of the whole House, at how sub-postmasters were treated, whether as victims of the Horizon scandal or of the Capture software issues, which was clearly appalling. We must do everything we can to ensure that can never be repeated. He will understand that yesterday was the last day of hearings in Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. Sir Wyn Williams has said that he will publish his conclusions and recommendations within months. The Government will then work at pace to consider his recommendations and to publish our response within six months of that date. The specific ideas that the hon. Gentleman has referenced in that context will, I am sure, be part of the Government’s deliberations. He will forgive me if I wait at this stage for Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations. We will then look at those recommendations and come to the House with the future steps we intend to take.

I welcome the Minister’s announcement on the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office. It is also welcome that the Government are taking additional steps towards financial redress for the postmasters who suffered such horrendous treatment in that scandal. I am concerned that this new deal for postmasters comes at the expense of post office branches across the country, including at Kensington Park in my constituency. Does he agree that there should not be a choice between giving postmasters a fair deal and losing essential high street services? Will he please meet me to discuss that further?

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recognise that post offices are a fundamental part of every one of our communities in the UK. That is one of the reasons why the Government have been clear that we adhere to and support the commitment on various access requirements to ensure that every community has good access to post office facilities. On directly managed branches, she will know that no decision on the future of all those branches, or indeed any individual branch, has been taken. I recognise that she has particular concerns about the branch in Kennington, and I am happy to meet her to discuss that.

I am glad that the Minister chose to reference the excellent work done on behalf of the postmasters by Lord Beamish, who is better known to many of us as our former colleague Kevan Jones. I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his appointment today as the new Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee—an appointment, by the way, by his fellow Committee members, which is exactly as it should be done.

May I gently ask the Minister—this may go slightly outwith his Department’s responsibilities—whether there is any news or progress about the question of prosecutions for criminal conspiracy? That is something I have raised before. That is one thing that might act as a deterrent to this sort of terrible behaviour by a gilded, self-selecting class of people who think that their institutional importance is greater than truth or justice.

I am certainly happy to echo the right hon. Member’s congratulations to the noble Lord Beamish and to emphasise again my appreciation for his work on championing the concerns of those who are victims of the Capture software. He is one of those whom we will continue to work with going forward as we put together redress and think about these issues more generally.

Specifically on prosecutions, the right hon. Member may be aware that the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it has established a unit and is looking at a number of issues to do with how the Post Office operated. He will understand that, quite rightly, Ministers are not involved in those decisions, but the information that I have set out is publicly available. We will obviously all have to wait to see what happens in that regard.

My hon. Friend rightly said that there is an urgent need to speed up the redress process. What we know is that while £500 million has been paid out in claims, £267 million has been spent on lawyers. Nigel Railton told us that between 80% and 85% of all claims are simple cases, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real opportunity to automate the process so that we handle claims far more quickly?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Specifically on what further action we can take to speed up the process, one of the reasons why we introduced a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 for those whose claims had been accepted as part of the Horizon shortfall scheme was deliberately to offer an option of faster redress for victims.

On the question of automation, we encouraged Nigel Railton and the senior leadership at the Post Office to look at what further steps they can take to speed up the consideration of claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme, where there is particular pressure given the numbers that are still coming forward. I welcome the fact that they are coming forward, but we need faster action to get through them and to support all those whose claims are being accepted to get redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme.

Recently I met a couple of constituents—Tony Hibberd, a former sub-postmaster, and Colin Chesterton, a solicitor who is representing him pro bono. During our meeting, they raised concerns about the delays and inadequacies of the Horizon shortfall scheme. My constituent has waited in excess of four years since his claim application and 14 years since he was forced to lose his livelihood. What percentage of the claimants to the Horizon shortfall scheme have received an interim payment, and what percentage have had their requests settled in full?

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of that case, I will happily look at where it is at. The Horizon shortfall scheme has been run by the Post Office for some time. Initially, it was closed and then it was reopened under pressure. All those who came forward in the initial tranche of claims have had them assessed and offers have been made. The majority of the compensation that was offered has been paid out. When the scheme was reopened, there was a substantial increase in the numbers of people applying for redress. Indeed, we are still seeing people coming forward now and we would expect, as a result of all the letters that we have asked the Post Office to send out to sub-postmasters who might have a claim, that there will be further substantial claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme. With the Post Office, we are looking at what more we can do to speed up the assessment of those claims.

The fixed sum payment that we announced in September of some £75,000, which sub-postmasters can choose to accept in full and final settlement of their claim, has been welcomed and accepted by a significant number of sub-postmasters. That is helping to speed up redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I accept that there is more to do, and we are looking at what else we can do in that regard.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the fact that he is putting more resources and manpower into processing people’s claims. But I wonder where the complexity of these claims is coming from. Are we asking for too much information from people in the first place? I watched the evidence of Sir Alan Bates at the Business and Trade Committee, and I have read some of the cases in the news. In one case, a person with breast cancer had their compensation reduced and I thought, hang on a minute, this may be going too far and is a bit churlish. Just how much information is being gone through in order to process these cases? I wonder if we may want to go back and look at that. I have spoken to the Minister about this, and I know that he wants to speed the process up as much as possible. Is it possible that we could streamline the process?

I have looked at this issue, which came up at the Select Committee. We write out to ask for further information in order to be able to justify the payment of more compensation, not to query the information that has been provided by sub-postmasters to date. To try to provide reassurance on that point, we are making that explicit in the letters that we send out to sub-postmasters. We are anxious to reduce the stress and concern and, essentially, the trauma that people have gone through already. We do not want that process to be repeated, if at all possible, during the compensation process. Asking for more information is designed to enable us to offer more and fairer compensation to the individuals concerned.

I am listening in detail about the processes you are going through looking for more information on Horizon. You have mentioned Capture, which goes back to 1992—30 years ago. You have mentioned a lack of information and that you are looking for more detail—

Order. Three times, “you”—it needs to be “he” or “the Minister”, please.

Bad habits—must get rid of them. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Capture system, which is more than 30 years old and had 19 different versions. We do not know who used it, and we do not know who has been convicted for it. The people who have been convicted are probably dying every other week just now. The Minister talks about working at pace, but can he make a flying sprint to get to those people urgently, to ensure that investigations are carried out and that compensation deserved is duly received?

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—it is something I feel acutely. I have met a number of the sub-postmasters who used the Capture software and were treated very badly as a result by the Post Office, so I am acutely conscious of our collective responsibility to those individuals and their families. Some of the sub-postmasters who used Capture software have already passed away, which only underlines the points he and I have made. I can assure the House that we will work at pace. We are working with the Post Office, and have asked the organisation to go through its records so that we can identify, inasmuch as we can, how many people were potentially victims of Capture. We are also supporting the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in looking at whether convictions are safe.

The devastating case of Susan Cain, the mother of my constituent Zoe Stokes, highlights the profound human cost of this scandal. Susan, who ran the post office in Hampton in Arden, was falsely accused of theft, and forced to sell her business and home in order to repay £25,000 to avoid prison. Tragically, she later died from emphysema, which medical evidence links to the immense stress that was caused by these false allegations. Despite her exoneration, her family have been offered just 40% of their claim, with the Post Office refusing to accept responsibility for her illness. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the compensation programme for families like Zoe’s is fair and transparent, and fully accounts for the harm caused by this scandal?

I commend my hon. Friend for championing the cause of the family of a sub-postmaster in his constituency. He will forgive me if I do not know the exact compensation scheme that his constituent applied to. However, in general, independent elements are built into each of the compensation schemes to try to ensure that as fair a sum of redress as possible is offered. On the Horizon shortfall scheme in particular, in September we committed to setting up an independent appeals process, and I hope to have more information for the House early next year. We are determined to establish that process to provide a further independent element for that particular scheme.

My constituent Donna is one of the 555. She was audited through Horizon, which found a loss of £186,000. An employee admitted fraud and was later imprisoned, but Donna was made bankrupt for the loss—for not just £186,000, but £250,000, which, of course, she could not pay. It was never challenged; we do not know whether the real amount was £180,000 or £180. She was awarded an interim payment, most of which was taken by the receivers. Now, the amount the receivers took has been taken from the final £75,000 fixed amount, and she has only been offered £20,000, despite losing everything. Will the Minister personally look at Donna’s case and ensure she gets proper redress for this obvious miscarriage of justice?

I would be very happy to receive further information from the hon. Lady, and I will endeavour to reply to her as quickly as I can. I recognise that there are concerns about the fairness of the compensation process. There are complex cases that are still to be settled. We are working at pace to ensure, where we can, that those cases are settled, particularly with regard to the GLO scheme. We have made it clear that for all the remaining cases that are with us by Christmas, we will be able to get substantial redress paid out to those individuals by the end of March. As I say, if she writes to me I will happily look at her letter.

It is known as the Horizon scandal, but the real scandal is not the failings of software but the action and deeds of individuals and institutions, as Sir Alan Bates said. In that light, I would include the misuse and potential abuse of private prosecutions. Will the Government commit to acting on that?

Yes. My hon. Friend raises a very good point. The Ministry of Justice has made clear its concern about this issue and is set to bring forward a consultation document early in the new year, I believe, to address exactly that concern.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but does he recognise the frustration that many, many sub-postmasters still experience? We put legislation through this place months ago on the quashing of convictions. The compensation scheme has been in place for many years now, yet well over half of the individuals still have not had their cases dealt with. I met some of them when they came over for the inquiry a few weeks ago, and there is real fear among them that the Post Office is still in denial and is therefore still reluctant to proceed with these claims. Two people gave me examples. One has been asked for information that he does not have because the Post Office seized all the information. For the other, the delay is caused because she meticulously kept records and now the Post Office says it has so many records to go through that it will take some time. Does the Minister understand why many people feel that, despite the decisions of this House and the commitment of Ministers, there is still reluctance on the part of the Post Office to deal fairly with these people?

I understand completely the frustration of sub-postmasters who have waited so long to get redress and have their cases heard. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are four Horizon scandal compensation schemes. In the case of the convictions that were overturned by this House this year, the fourth compensation scheme, the Horizon convictions redress scheme, was set up on 30 July and has begun paying out significant sums of money to sub-postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—some £79 million, as of the end of November. As I said earlier, the MOJ has sought to contact all individuals who had their convictions overturned as a result of that legislation. It has said that it will complete its work by the end of January and I understand that it is on course to do so, but I am acutely aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is why we continue to look, as much as we can, at what further efforts we can take to speed the delivery of compensation.

Last but by no means least, I call Emma Foody.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to providing redress as soon as possible. One of my constituents, a former sub-postmaster who wished to remain anonymous, attended a surgery recently to share their experience. Accused of stealing over £40,000 due to the Horizon system, they lost their home, their job and their business, and were forced to pay thousands from their and their family’s savings. Compounding the financial loss was the reputational loss: ostracised by the community, experiencing racial abuse and forced to move away—appalling in its own right but, as we have heard today, just one of many, many examples. Does the Minister agree that any redress must address not just the financial loss, but the further damage done to people’s lives as a result of the actions of the Post Office?

I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that I wish the experience that my hon. Friend has described was just an isolated example, but sadly there have been far too many similar examples of what sub-postmasters have been through. We absolutely must get more speed into the compensation process, and we are very much working on that, but we will also look carefully at the recommendations of the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry when they are published next year. His work will be crucial in helping to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Bill Presented

Public Procurement (British Goods and Services) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Champion presented a Bill to make provision about public procurement in respect of British goods and services; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 153).