The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 8 July.

“Sir Wyn Williams has today released the first volume of his report into the Horizon scandal, which caused so much harm to so many innocent people. The fearless and diligent work of his inquiry has, I believe, won the trust and admiration of postmasters. The inquiry has asked penetrating questions of a large number of witnesses and has scrutinised more than 2 million pages of evidence. I know that the whole House recognises the bravery of the postmasters who fought against enormous odds to see their cause recognised.

Sir Wyn’s report reminds us that blameless people were impoverished, bankrupted, stressed beyond belief, and lost their jobs, marriages, reputations, mental health and, in some cases, their lives. I am sure that the whole House shares my gratitude to Sir Wyn and his team for their work so far. This is only the first volume of their final report, spelling out the scandal’s human impact and looking at the redress schemes that have been put in place in response. The second volume will in due course deal with the causes of the scandal and how repetition can be avoided.

To be clear, I am very sympathetic to Sir Wyn’s 19 recommendations in the volume published today. Clearly, a number of them require careful consideration. We will respond to them promptly, as some concern the ongoing delivery of Horizon redress schemes. Sir Wyn has set us a deadline of 10 October, and we will meet it.

The House will see that Sir Wyn has accepted that

‘the Post Office, the Department and Ministers continue to adhere to the aims of providing financial redress, which is full, fair and prompt’.

He also concludes that the majority of people who have accepted offers under the group litigation order scheme

‘will have done so because, for them, the offer was full and fair’.

That said, Sir Wyn makes some understandable criticisms, especially of the Horizon shortfall scheme, which we will need to study closely and address.

We inherited a compensation process that was widely seen as too slow, adversarial and legalistic. Well over four years after the first High Court case exposed the scandal, only 2,500 postmasters had had final settlements. There were clearly significant gaps in the compensation process, and many victims had not come forward. Indeed, there was no compensation scheme in place for those postmasters whose convictions had been overturned by Parliament.

A year ago, the Government had paid £236 million in redress. We have now quadrupled that to nearly £1.1 billion. We have launched a compensation scheme for postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—the Horizon convictions redress scheme—and have merged the Post Office’s compensation arrangements for overturned convictions into it. Through the Post Office, we have delivered a £75,000 fixed-sum offer to over 4,200 victims who opted for it.

We have also launched an independent process to allow people to appeal their HSS settlements or offers. That should provide, as Sir Wyn says in his report,

‘an opportunity to put right any failures to deliver redress which is full and fair’

for HSS victims.

We have also begun discussions with Fujitsu on their contribution to the costs of the scandal. As the House knows, and as Sir Wyn’s report underlines, there is still a lot more to do. I know that the postmasters who have yet to agree final compensation are frustrated with the delay; so am I.

We have consulted regularly with the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board and others on what more we can do to improve redress. Sir Wyn’s recommendations are very helpful in that regard. Two of his recommendations address issues that we have already been working on across Government and with the advisory board. I can confirm that we accept Sir Wyn’s recommendation that claimants should be able to bank the best offer that they get from the GLO process and that it should not be put at risk if they choose to go to the independent panel.

Secondly, we will provide redress for family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal. I have met the group Lost Chances for the Children of Sub-postmasters, which has campaigned with considerable courage on this issue. Sir Wyn rightly recognises that designing a suitable compensation scheme for family members raises some very difficult issues. None the less, we want to look after those family members who suffered most—meeting Sir Wyn’s recommendation that we should give

‘redress to close family members of those most adversely affected by Horizon’.

Given those challenges, we will now discuss the details of how a scheme should be run with claimants’ lawyers, the independent advisory board and the Lost Chances group. It will be open to close family members of existing Horizon claimants who themselves suffered personal injury, including psychological distress, because of their relatives’ suffering. Other than in exceptional circumstances, we will need contemporaneous written evidence of that personal injury.

There are some fundamental lessons to be learned, to which Sir Wyn points, about how compensation following wrongdoing on this scale should be delivered in future. In particular, the Post Office should never have been allowed to run it, decisions on funding should have been made much more quickly, and it should not have needed an ITV drama to stimulate action to overturn hundreds of unjust convictions. We cannot now turn back the clock to fix those fundamental mistakes. We must instead address two challenges.

The first challenge is to make sure that if there is ever another terrible scandal like this one—we all sincerely hope there is not—the victims do not need to bring a traumatic court case to expose it. The second challenge, if another such scandal happens, is that the Government must be set up to offer trusted redress from the very start. Sir Wyn argues that there should be a standing public body to deliver redress in any further scandal. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with that argument, but clearly we need to analyse the options fully before we commit to it. We will reflect on how to address those twin challenges and will bring back our conclusions to the House.

We can never properly recompense a person for being wrongly denied their freedom, for the humiliation of being wrongly accused or for seeing their loved ones in profound distress or worse, and neither can we recompense them for their good reputation being taken from them. I cannot assuage the anger of the victims, nor will the anger that I feel on their behalf ever be assuaged, but we are determined to do more on redress and beyond, and to do it quickly, to give more of the victims of this appalling scandal at least a measure of the peace that they so rightly deserve. I commend Sir Wyn’s report to the House”.

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s Statement and the accompanying green paper, Future of Post Office. This marks the first comprehensive review of the network in over 15 years—one that, I must say at the outset, raises as many questions as it seeks to answer. We on these Benches recognise, as I believe all noble Lords do, the vital social and economic role of the Post Office in every corner of our country. Whether it serves as the last shop in a rural village, a banking hub for the digitally excluded or a trusted lifeline for elderly customers, the Post Office is far more than just a delivery counter; it is part of the national fabric. Yet as we examine this Green Paper, we are confronted with proposals that suggest the Government are focused more on loosening their obligations than on strengthening the network’s future.

I begin with the most glaring concern: the proposed removal of the long-standing requirement for 11,500 branches. The Government say that this figure is arbitrary, yet it is one that has long underpinned public and parliamentary confidence in the reach of the Post Office network. So I ask the Minister directly: will the Government replace this minimum with a new commitment? The Green Paper claims that some branches exist solely to meet the 11,500 target, rather than community need. If that is the case, how many such branches are there and where are they? These are not academic questions; they go to the heart of rural and community access. Does the Minister expect that the current network access criteria will be changed within the timeframe of this Parliament? Do the Government accept that we have to ask these questions, otherwise there may be the suspicion that we are entering a phase of managed decline by stealth?

The Government also assure us that 99% of the population will remain within three miles of a branch. How will that promise be maintained without a firm floor on the number of branches? Is the Minister suggesting that we should accept consolidation in urban centres at the cost of village branches? We do not feel that we should replace geographic equity with mere spreadsheet logic.

The Government’s preferred path for the future ownership of the Post Office appears to be mutualisation—a model that has long had appeal—but the fine print of the Green Paper tells a different story. It seems that mutualisation has been pushed well beyond the current Parliament and will not be delivered before 2030, and then only after a further three years of implementation, if it happens at all. For many postmasters who have already endured over a decade of uncertainty and the profound trauma of the Horizon scandal, the proposed timeline may well feel like a further deferral—an important reform pushed into the distant future rather than a commitment delivered in the present. Moreover, the Green Paper offers no clarity on what constitutes financial and operational stability. What are the benchmarks for profitability or branch sustainability that would trigger mutualisation? Can the Minister please provide a definition?

We are told that the Post Office must modernise to embrace technological change, and indeed a major and welcome focus of the Green Paper is on future-proofing—quite so—but after the Horizon scandal, no one in this House needs reminding that technology alone does not ensure progress, particularly when its implementation is opaque and accountability is absent. In the wake of the Horizon scandal, it is vital that any new technologies introduced across the Post Office network are subject to rigorous, independent testing and transparent auditing. Staff and postmasters must be assured of clear, protected channels to raise concerns, free from fear or reprisal. We cannot afford the emergence of another Horizon.

There is also the curious matter of Royal Mail. The Green Paper mentions the possibility of closer working, but says that currently

“a re-merger is not under consideration”.

Is it off the table entirely or merely on pause?

The Green Paper calls itself the start of “an honest conversation”. We are happy to believe that, but, if it is so, then the Government must begin by answering the questions that we have put before them today. We on these Benches will continue to hold Ministers to account on the future of access, ownership, technological governance and the true role of the Post Office in national life. After everything the postmasters have endured and all that the Horizon scandal laid bare, this moment must not be about withdrawing responsibility but restoring trust. I urge the Government to match any consultation with clarity, ambition and integrity.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has spoken about the green paper, but I understood that we were responding only to the Post Office Horizon inquiry’s first report. I apologise if we are meant to cover the Green Paper, but, having had that instruction, I have rewritten my speech accordingly.

We need time to consider the inquiry’s first report. The Statement expresses many of the sentiments that we often hear at the Dispatch Box: admiration for the fearless and diligent work of Sir Wyn Williams, the bravery of the postmasters, and descriptions of what the Post Office, and through it, Governments, have done over a number of years. All that is true, but the problem is that, once again, a judge leading an inquiry has had to call out the lack of delivery and transparency, and, frankly, the re-victimisation of the postmasters and their families. It is just unacceptable. It is close to the old-fashioned saying about cheques: “words and figures do not agree”.

My first question to the Minister is: will the Government review all Sir Wyn’s recommendations, and, as importantly, the evidence of poor delivery in the compensation scheme that he cites, and report back to Parliament in three months? This cannot go on. Some postmasters are dying; until all have realistic offers of compensation, they remain in a financial limbo created by the Post Office and Whitehall.

To give the House an example from the report, page 48 sets out the design of the scheme, which was meant to be “user friendly”. Sir Wyn says that it was so chaotically delivered that, as described in paragraph 4.23, a postmaster’s eligibility criteria were

“determined by employees of the Post Office” and not by people independent of it. Employees then decided whether the postmaster had suffered a shortfall. Assessors from the Post Office’s solicitors would value that and then write a recommendation for the independent panel. The independent panel’s overriding priority, set by the Post Office, was speed and to assess via its terms of reference, created by the Post Office.

That is just one example from Sir Wyn’s excellent report, but it demonstrates once again why such compensation schemes must be run truly independently from the body that caused the damage. He recommends a truly independent body and not one at arm’s length like the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, because not even that is truly independent. Are the Government going to consider this seriously? From what was said in the Statement, it does not sound like it.

I ask the Minister what it will take to change this. We now have or have had problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme, the Windrush scheme and the IBCA scheme. The government approach to redress and remedy, regardless of the Government, fails time and again; even worse, the problems last longer because there is no real desire to change.

Then there is the issue of Fujitsu. Sir Wyn says that the Post Office and the Government must start discussions with Fujitsu on its contribution to this scheme. Will the Minister provide a timetable for those discussions? There is also another Fujitsu issue: it is now clear from the evidence heard at the public inquiry that it was complicit at the very least, and proactive at worst, in helping the Post Office in its cases in court against postmasters over many years. We know the police are now investigating this, including for perjury and other very serious crimes.

There is a further question. Why does government continue to recontract Fujitsu in other areas? Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are completely confident that Fujitsu meets the high standard of probity required of large IT contracts?

It is good that it is proposed that the family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal will receive redress. But before the Government copy the arrangements for the infected blood scandal, will they please look at the very large problems that the affected victims’ scheme already has? It still has 18 months before it offers its first compensation.

In Opposition, Labour repeatedly promised that a duty of candour would be one of its priorities to ensure that discussions start at an early stage as it becomes clear that there are problems somewhere. But the Government have delayed the introduction of the Bill. Can the Minister say when that legislation will be presented to Parliament?

From these Lib Dem Benches, we believe that is not enough. It is essential that whistleblowers have a safe place to air their concerns. We believe that, given the repeated slapping down of anyone expressing concerns—which, by the way, delayed so many truths coming out—an independent office of the whistleblower must be set up. The decades of wrongdoing are a shameful episode in this country’s history. We need mechanisms in place to ensure that this never happens again.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. The inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams has asked some wise and penetrating questions and has scrutinised more than 2 million pages of evidence. I extend my thanks to Sir Wyn and his team for their commitment to confronting the impact of this terrible scandal. I also thank the Horizon advisory board, including the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, for its hard work in helping to improve the delivery of redress. We will continue to seek its guidance on how we can continue to improve delivery, particularly in light of the recommendations made in Sir Wyn’s report.

The volume published last Tuesday is only the first volume of Sir Wyn’s final report. It focuses on the human impact of the Horizon IT scandal and the redress delivered to its victims, and we look forward to receiving the subsequent volume from the inquiry when it is published in due course. Sir Wyn’s report lays bare the wide-ranging suffering endured by victims of this scandal—the distress and severe disruption experienced so acutely. Victims lost money, their health and their liberty, and in the most tragic cases they lost their lives. We owe it to them to have proper redress for all crimes that have been committed.

Sir Wyn’s report focuses on the redress scheme set up by this and the previous Government, with 19 recommendations made for the Government to consider. The Government welcome these recommendations, which we have committed to respond to by 10 October. In answer to the noble Baroness, we will of course review all the recommendations and the evidence behind them in detail. I hope to be back here at the Dispatch Box in October to update Parliament on the progress we are making.

We have already announced that we will accept three of Sir Wyn’s recommendations, which include extending redress to the most severely affected family members and introducing a best offer approach in the GLO scheme. The Government are keen to ensure that we get redress to those affected as soon as possible. We recognise that delays have been unacceptable and that some sub-postmasters have found the schemes adversarial and difficult to navigate. Over the past year, we have made improvements that have significantly sped up the process of claims. In the last 12 months, this Government have more than quadrupled the total amount of redress paid, which now stands at nearly £1.1 billion. But we recognise that there is more to do.

Horizon, which sparked this whole scandal, should have gone long ago, but the task of replacing it is hugely complex and cannot be done overnight. In the meantime, it remains critical to the delivery of the essential Post Office services on which people depend. We are determined to end the use of Horizon and so draw a line under Fujitsu’s involvement with the Post Office. As part of over £500 million of investment during this Parliament, we have committed up to £136 million this financial year to invest in new technology and replace Horizon.

I turn to some of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the green paper. Twelve months ago we inherited a Post Office in crisis, with declining financial sustainability, unstable leadership, a network struggling to maintain services and a reputation shattered by the Horizon scandal and its appalling treatment of sub-postmasters, as Sir Wyn Williams’s report has underlined. The Green Paper published this week begins a national dialogue on the future of the Post Office so that we can create a modern, resilient and financially sustainable organisation.

Although we recognise the Post Office’s history, this Green Paper is about looking forwards, not backwards. We also need to recognise the serious cultural issues of the past and ensure that, going forwards, the Post Office has a positive postmaster-focused culture and is run in an accountable and transparent way. We also of course recognise the points raised by the noble Lord about the important role that post offices can play in rural areas and as banking hubs, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

The noble Lord asked about the progress and possible changes of governance. No decision on changes to governance will be made by the Government until the inquiry’s final report, to allow the Government to consider the inquiry’s recommendations on governance issues together with the Green Paper responses.

The noble Baroness asked about Fujitsu and the technology. The Post Office is committed to moving away from Fujitsu and the Horizon system. Post Office has a plan to introduce a new IT system in stages for postmasters and strategic partners. Post Office’s future technology portfolio is designed to transform technology and data across the Post Office while supporting the transition of Horizon out of Fujitsu. As I said, the Government have confirmed that they will provide up to £136 million for this project in the financial year. The noble Baroness wanted to see some speed in this. This is a complex programme of work that cannot be completed overnight, given the range of transactions that the IT system needs to support. Nevertheless, we will move at pace to try to bring those changes about.

The noble Baroness also asked about Fujitsu’s continued involvement. The first thing to say is that Fujitsu has acknowledged its moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal, and the Government welcome this. The extent of Fujitsu’s culpability for the scandal will not be clear until all parts of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry report are published. In the meantime, Fujitsu has begun talks with the Department for Business and Trade on the company’s contribution to the cost of the scandal. That includes whether any interim payments should be made.

The noble Baroness asked about the progress on redress. We share the postmasters’ frustration that redress has been too slow. However, we have massively increased the pace. We have paid out nearly £1.1 billion—four times what had been paid when we took office. We have already made some other positive interventions, including introducing the £75,000 fixed offer for the HSS claimants; launching the HCRS and merging Post Office’s redress for convicted claimants into it; launching the HSS appeals scheme; and promising redress for Capture victims. We will continue to look at Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations to see what more we can do.

It remains the mission of this Government to bring the victims of the Horizon scandal the justice they wholly deserve and to make sure that a miscarriage of justice does not happen again. But as well as fixing the past, we must build on the future. As I say, the Green Paper published earlier this week begins a national dialogue on the future of the Post Office. Our priority now is building a modern and financially sustainable Post Office that is run in an accountable and postmaster-focused way, and I hope noble Lords will support those objectives.

My Lords, I was astonished by the contribution from the Opposition front bench, not just because, as the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrats said, I had assumed this was specifically on the report and not on the green paper, but because the noble Lord was talking about the future of the Post Office, and indeed mentioned Royal Mail, without acknowledging that the demise of the Post Office and the Royal Mail has been under the Tory party over the last 14 years. It has. If we look at other countries, we see a much better system continuing in most of our competitors.

I want to raise two points, the first of which was raised by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrats. The Minister said that the Government expect Fujitsu to contribute and that discussions are under way, but has Fujitsu been given a deadline by which this must be agreed, and how much do we expect it to contribute? It needs to be a great deal; otherwise, the taxpayer is undertaking the cost again, as we have done with so many things, and as we are going to have to do with the Afghan compensation, and it should not be the taxpayer in this case—it should be Fujitsu.

My second question is about prosecutions. Everyone seems to get away without any prosecutions in these kinds of things. Will the Minister talk to the Attorney-General and ask when some of the people who were responsible for the terrible tragedy that so many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses suffered will be held to account? It is about time that they were.

I thank my noble friend. He is quite right that this scandal occurred over many years, and it has taken a long time for both the previous Government and now this one to really get to grips with the action that needs to be taken. That is why the report from Sir Wyn is so important to provide extra clarity on the further actions that we need to take. My noble friend talked about Fujitsu. As I have said, the Government are having active discussions with Fujitsu about its contribution. We are still awaiting Sir Wyn’s second report to get a better sense of the complete culpability of Fujitsu, and we cannot pre-empt that, but I think Fujitsu recognises that it has a role in making amends, and we are in active discussions with it.

My noble friend asked about criminal prosecutions and accountability. I think everybody shares his frustration that this is taking so long, but the action on accountability must await the conclusions of the second part of the Williams inquiry—obviously, we all await those with interest. He will know as well that the Metropolitan Police investigation, which is independent of government, is ongoing. The Met is a core participant in the Williams inquiry, but it also has around 100 staff engaged on Horizon matters, looking at whether there are any criminal issues that need further following up, and I know that it will be doing that in a very active way.

My Lords, the Minister is quite right that this matter has taken place over many years, under Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Ministers. We should all, frankly, hang our heads in shame. I went along to the Oval last week to listen to Sir Wyn give his excellent report, and he used a telling phrase about Fujitsu; namely, that it was kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what it is doing. The longer it thinks it can stave off paying a single penny towards the victims of this matter, the less it thinks it will have to pay. Do the Government recognise that the only way we can change that behaviour is to stop giving it contracts?

First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all his involvement in this running scandal over many years and for helping to bring the scandal to light. He asked about Fujitsu. As I say, we are in active dialogue with Fujitsu. He will know that Fujitsu has announced that it will not voluntarily bid for new contracts, unless requested by the Government, and we welcome that as the right course of action. The extent of Fujitsu’s role in the scandal is not fully known and therefore we feel it would be inappropriate to take further action until we have all the parts of the inquiry before us. At the moment, Fujitsu has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing and as such it continues to deliver government contracts where these are already in place. However, as I say, it has announced that it will not voluntarily bid for new contracts, but I share the noble Lord’s frustration with the current situation.

My Lords, I will not repeat everything that we have heard. I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but on one point she brought up, surely one way that we could allay the suspicions of the general public, which are mighty at the moment, to do with infected blood and this scandal, would be to get on with interim payments. That would at last begin to give these poor victims, and the general public, some confidence that we all mean what we say and that money is going to be forthcoming before some of these victims die.

The noble Lord is right that we need to speed up the payments and, as I set out earlier, we are taking steps to do that. The Government have already taken major steps to improve the delivery of redress, leading to nearly £1.1 billion having been paid to more than 7,900 victims, more than four times the total amount paid before last year. We need to continue to work on this issue. We have taken a variety of measures to speed up redress, including the introduction of the £75,000 fixed offer for HSS claimants, and we recently announced that we are introducing facilitated discussions in the GLO scheme, as requested by claimants’ lawyers. We will not rest until all those affected have received redress. That is absolutely the determination of the Post Office Minister and it is absolutely our determination. It is very frustrating when these things get held up, and we are trying to unblock any blockages that still exist. It is an absolute determination of this Government that individuals and their close family members receive the redress that they are due.

My Lords, I join others in welcoming the first stage of this very important report into an appalling scandal which has blighted so many lives and which we know has, sadly, actually cost lives as well. Sometimes we are faced with a scandal, such as we debated yesterday, that has been caused by a single cock-up. That is not the case here. There have been years, if not decades, of conscious decisions leading to culpability. It is right, as we move ahead with this inquiry, that those who are culpable are held directly to account, so I welcome the Government’s opening of discussions with Fujitsu.

While we cannot, at this stage, work out the quantum of the compensation Fujitsu owes, will the Government give an assurance that should Fujitsu, or indeed anyone else that is culpable in this situation, either not produce compensation or offer an inadequate compensation package, they are prepared to take action to compel those who are culpable to provide compensation? Further, will the Government give an assurance that whatever sum of compensation is provided by Fujitsu or anyone else, it will not be at the expense of calling off criminal prosecutions? Will they ensure that those who have committed criminal acts are ultimately held responsible for their behaviour?

My Lords, as I say, the extent of Fujitsu’s role in the scandal is not yet fully known, so we await the second stage of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry report. I very much hope that that will lay down some very clear rules for how we should proceed on this issue. Fujitsu has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing; nevertheless, the Government are in constructive discussions with Fujitsu, and I think it understands its responsibility to make amends when the final recommendations come out. I do not detect any sense from Fujitsu that it will not comply with the desire for proper redress.

My Lords, like others across the House, I welcome Wyn Williams’s first report into this IT scandal, and it is an IT scandal. It is clear from looking at the green paper that there are huge historical failings across the Post Office’s management and board—serious cultural failings. How do His Majesty’s Government see this Green Paper redressing those failings and setting up new structures for the future of the Post Office so that no sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses are ever left to face these appalling situations again?

Every Speaker in this debate has touched on the financial compensation, and I add my weight to that. The Statement made in the other place on 14 July said that £500 million of taxpayers’ money will be committed to bringing in and supporting a new IT system. That is before we even touch on the compensation packages. The Minister said that Fujitsu has a moral obligation. I think Fujitsu has far more than a moral obligation when we look at the situation that far too many of those sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were put into. They were ostracised within their communities, some took their own lives, and they were treated to years of not being believed and a legal system that believed a computer over their word in far too many cases. Fujitsu is on the hook for more than a moral obligation. It has a financial obligation to deal with both the redress and the implementation of a new and fairer IT system.

I thank my noble friend for those questions. He asked first about the cultural issues, and we all understand just how poorly the Post Office has been run over many years to allow this scandal to appear and not be addressed, given the increasing amount of evidence that was presented to the leadership in the Post Office. We are taking steps to address this. There is now, as my noble friend will know, a new leadership in the Post Office. The green paper gives us an opportunity to revisit what we want from the Post Office, which ought to remain a vital part of UK life in our communities and on our high streets, providing small business opportunities for many people. It is potentially a huge reset that will take place in the Post Office.

We are committed to maintaining it as a strong, accessible network. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the size. It is our preferred option that the overall size and shape of that network would remain the same. My noble friend is right about the cultural issues. For us, there are other issues about governance going forward, but the key thing is to make sure that postmasters and postmistresses play a critical role in shaping and designing the future of the Post Office, because they know what works, they know their communities and, as we know, we really have not listened to them sufficiently in the past. I am confident that they will very much be part of shaping the future of the Post Office as the consultation goes forward, and it will be all the better for that.

My noble friend asked about the technology. We are working to replace Fujitsu as quickly as we can. The development of the technology is based on a test and learn approach, so we are working to make sure that the replacement of Fujitsu is done right in a robust system. Post Office Ltd’s IT transformation is ensuring that the hardware that was purchased for NBIT will now be used to refresh counter devices across the network and that the software that was developed will still be used for drop and collect services. We need to get the technology right and there is money going into it, but the important thing here is that we really listen to those people at the heart of it, the postmasters and postmistresses.

My Lords, this is a very sad story about the failures of a very large business, the Post Office—which many years ago I used to work for—and its culture, and about the failure of the machinery of the state, which has had very serious impacts on the lives of many human beings and their families. It has cost us all hundreds of millions of pounds, is still costing us all large amounts of money and is still affecting these people, despite all that has happened. What are the Government intending to do to drill into and come to terms with those failures in the machinery of the state and what the real lessons learned might be? Some of us in our working life have seen these same kinds of failures in other areas of public life, in the NHS and in the public sector. What lessons are going to be learned from this, given the human tragedies that we can all clearly see in this set of affairs in plain sight?

The noble Lord is right. From the top down, we all bear some responsibility for this, although I pay tribute to the MPs and the Members of this House who used their positions to highlight and eventually bring to account some of the individuals involved in this scandal. The green paper is attempting to address exactly those issues about the machinery of state and whether the Post Office should be reconfigured and run in a different way. We want to make sure that it is financially viable on a longer-term basis. This is an opportunity for us to make sure that the future of the Post Office is robust and that we learn the lessons from previous scandals for how government listens and flags issues going wrong at the kind of level that occurred with the Horizon scandal. We will look at whether there are any crossover lessons from other scandals that we can take forward. I understand that the second volume of Sir Wyn Williams’s report will also look at some of those wider issues.