1-20 of 4,549 results for subject:"Miscarriages of justice"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.34 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Miscarriages of justice"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Miscarriages of justice" OR subject_ses:92050
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether regulatory changes have been implemented following the quashing of Mr Tom Hayes’ conviction by the Supreme Court.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether regulatory changes have been implemented following the quashing of Mr Tom Hayes’ conviction by the Supreme Court.
The Government commissioned the independent Wheatley Review in July 2012 to identify and recommend changes to the regulatory framework in light of the LIBOR scandal. The Government accepted the Review’s recommendations and implemented associated reforms to the regulation and oversight of benchmarks.
Since then, LIBOR has been wound down, reflecting concerns about its reliability. This has been supported by coordinated action across government and regulators, alongside the transition to alternative benchmarks. The Treasury engaged closely with regulators throughout the programme to support the transition away from LIBOR. The transition was successfully completed, with all LIBOR settings having now ceased and no significant market disruption arising as a result.
The investigations and subsequent prosecutions relating to the LIBOR scandal were led by the operationally independent Serious Fraud Office. The Government is not able to comment on the specifics of any individual case, but the Government’s position on financial market abuse is clear: it undermines the integrity of public markets, impairs the effectiveness of financial markets, and reduces public confidence in them.
My honourable friend the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation at the Department for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall), announced the Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme on 19 March 2026. The scheme offers redress to close family members of postmasters whose lives were significantly affected by failures in the...
My honourable friend the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation at the Department for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall), announced the Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme on 19 March 2026. The scheme offers redress to close family members of postmasters whose lives were significantly affected by failures in the...
My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
My honourable friend the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation at the Department for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall), announced the Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme on 19 March 2026. The...
My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
My honourable friend the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation at the Department for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall), announced the Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme on 19 March 2026. The...
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of refunding victims of historic miscarriages of justice for the saved living costs of the time they spent in prison.
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of refunding victims of historic miscarriages of justice for the saved living costs of the time they spent in prison.
Individuals who have had their convictions quashed following an out of time appeal are eligible to apply for compensation through the statutory Miscarriages of Justice Application Service.
On 6 August 2023, it was announced that compensation payments would no longer have saved living expenses deducted. Consistent with established public policy principles on certainty and the finality of concluded settlements, the change to remove deductions for saved living expenses applies prospectively only.
Given the Government’s position that changes to compensation arrangements apply prospectively, no estimate has been made of the cost of revisiting concluded settlements.
My hon Friend the Minister of Small Business and Economic Transformation (Blair McDougall MP) has today made the following statement.
The Government is determined that postmasters affected by the Horizon Scandal receive the compensation they deserve.
The Government is today announcing further details about how postmasters who previously accepted the Horizon Shortfall...
My hon Friend the Minister of Small Business and Economic Transformation (Blair McDougall MP) has today made the following statement.
The Government is determined that postmasters affected by the Horizon Scandal receive the compensation they deserve.
The Government is today announcing further details about how postmasters who previously accepted the Horizon Shortfall...
The Government is determined that postmasters affected by the Horizon Scandal receive the compensation they deserve.
The Government is today announcing further details about how postmasters who previously accepted the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) Fixed Sum Offer (FSO) will be able to request permission from an independent person to appeal their...
The Government is determined that postmasters affected by the Horizon Scandal receive the compensation they deserve.
The Government is today announcing further details about how postmasters who previously accepted the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) Fixed Sum Offer (FSO) will be able to request permission from an independent person to appeal their...
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After the financial crash in 2009, a banker called Tom Hayes was wrongly sent to prison. Last July the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, and in January it instructed the Government to pay him just shy of £300,000. He has still not...
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After the financial crash in 2009, a banker called Tom Hayes was wrongly sent to prison. Last July the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, and in January it instructed the Government to pay him just shy of £300,000. He has still not...
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Beamish, whose unwavering determination, moral courage and steadfast advocacy over these years have ensured that the voices of Horizon victims were heard, believed and ultimately vindicated.
Fujitsu has acknowledged its moral responsibility and has indicated its intention to make a financial contribution. The figure will be set once the Williams inquiry publishes the final volume of its report. We have made it clear to Fujitsu that an interim payment would be a valuable demonstration of intent. However, whether to make such payment and the level of any contribution remains a decision for the company.
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Beamish, whose unwavering determination, moral courage and steadfast advocacy over these years have ensured that the voices of Horizon victims were heard, believed and ultimately vindicated.
Fujitsu has acknowledged its moral responsibility and has indicated its intention to make a financial contribution. The figure will be set once the Williams inquiry publishes the final volume of its report. We have made it clear to Fujitsu that an interim payment would be a valuable demonstration of intent. However, whether to make such payment and the level of any contribution remains a decision for the company.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to Fujitsu regarding making an interim payment towards the costs of investigation and redress in the Post Office Horizon case.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that Fujitsu knew from the beginning that its system was faulty; that it knew that it was altering remotely sub-postmasters’ accounts without the knowledge of the sub-postmasters; that it knew that the Government and the Post Office were denying that these things could happen while prosecuting the sub-postmasters, how can Fujitsu possibly be a fit and proper organisation to do business with anyone in this country, let alone the Government? Or are we over a barrel?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that Fujitsu knew from the beginning that its system was faulty; that it knew that it was altering remotely sub-postmasters’ accounts without the knowledge of the sub-postmasters; that it knew that the Government and the Post Office were denying that these things could happen while prosecuting the sub-postmasters, how can Fujitsu possibly be a fit and proper organisation to do business with anyone in this country, let alone the Government? Or are we over a barrel?
My Lords, the anger shown by the noble Lord, which I share, is completely understandable, considering the serious injustice experienced by so many sub-postmasters. These are exactly the issues that the independent inquiry is examining in detail. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral obligation to contribute
to the costs of redress, and the Government have made it absolutely clear that it should do so. Decisions regarding its future role as a government supplier will be made carefully, based on the full findings of the inquiry.
My Lords, the anger shown by the noble Lord, which I share, is completely understandable, considering the serious injustice experienced by so many sub-postmasters. These are exactly the issues that the independent inquiry is examining in detail. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral obligation to contribute
to the costs of redress, and the Government have made it absolutely clear that it should do so. Decisions regarding its future role as a government supplier will be made carefully, based on the full findings of the inquiry.
My Lords, the anger shown by the noble Lord, which I share, is completely understandable, considering the serious injustice experienced by so many sub-postmasters. These are exactly the issues that the independent inquiry is examining in detail. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral obligation to contribute
to the costs of redress, and the Government have made it absolutely clear that it should do so. Decisions regarding its future role as a government supplier will be made carefully, based on the full findings of the inquiry.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that Fujitsu knew from the beginning that its system was faulty; that it knew that it was altering remotely sub-postmasters’ accounts without the knowledge of the sub-postmasters; that it knew that the Government and the Post Office were denying that these things could happen while prosecuting the sub-postmasters, how can Fujitsu possibly be a fit and proper organisation to do business with anyone in this country, let alone the Government? Or are we over a barrel?
My Lords, the situation outlined by my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is right. Fujitsu provided the equipment for the Post Office and knew what was wrong with it, and, even worse, it had a contract to provide information in court to prosecute individual postmasters. Fujitsu was at the centre of this scandal.
My noble friend said that Fujitsu has announced that it has a moral obligation. Well, moral obligations do not pay bills. The taxpayer is on the hook already for over £1.4 billion paid out. Those postmasters—some, unfortunately, are no longer with us—need answers to this injustice. Fujitsu is hiding behind the inquiry. It could make the interim payment now. The Government must stop giving this company contracts: that is the only thing which will stop it and wake it up. Can my noble friend indicate when that decision will be made to stop giving Fujitsu work?
My Lords, the situation outlined by my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is right. Fujitsu provided the equipment for the Post Office and knew what was wrong with it, and, even worse, it had a contract to provide information in court to prosecute individual postmasters. Fujitsu was at the centre of this scandal.
My noble friend said that Fujitsu has announced that it has a moral obligation. Well, moral obligations do not pay bills. The taxpayer is on the hook already for over £1.4 billion paid out. Those postmasters—some, unfortunately, are no longer with us—need answers to this injustice. Fujitsu is hiding behind the inquiry. It could make the interim payment now. The Government must stop giving this company contracts: that is the only thing which will stop it and wake it up. Can my noble friend indicate when that decision will be made to stop giving Fujitsu work?
I share the frustrations my noble friend expresses. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that this inquiry takes place, and the findings will be published soon. As he will note, the first volume of the inquiry has been published, and it makes it clear that Fujitsu has an obligation to make compensation for the sufferings of all these postmasters. We are determined to ensure that Fujitsu plays its part.
I share the frustrations my noble friend expresses. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that this inquiry takes place, and the findings will be published soon. As he will note, the first volume of the inquiry has been published, and it makes it clear that Fujitsu has an obligation to make compensation for the sufferings of all these postmasters. We are determined to ensure that Fujitsu plays its part.
I share the frustrations my noble friend expresses. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that this inquiry takes place, and the findings will be published soon. As he will note, the first volume of the inquiry has been published, and it makes it clear that Fujitsu has an obligation to make compensation for the sufferings of all these postmasters. We are determined to ensure that Fujitsu plays its part.
My Lords, the situation outlined by my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is right. Fujitsu provided the equipment for the Post Office and knew what was wrong with it, and, even worse, it had a contract to provide information in court to prosecute individual postmasters. Fujitsu was at the centre of this scandal.
My noble friend said that Fujitsu has announced that it has a moral obligation. Well, moral obligations do not pay bills. The taxpayer is on the hook already for over £1.4 billion paid out. Those postmasters—some, unfortunately, are no longer with us—need answers to this injustice. Fujitsu is hiding behind the inquiry. It could make the interim payment now. The Government must stop giving this company contracts: that is the only thing which will stop it and wake it up. Can my noble friend indicate when that decision will be made to stop giving Fujitsu work?
My Lords, it might help if your Lordships understand the scale of our commitment to Fujitsu. On my count, there are 30-plus live UK contracts, worth at least £5 billion through the lives of those contracts. Since the 2019 High Court ruling, HMRC alone has awarded eight contracts to Fujitsu. We do not need an independent inquiry to know that Fujitsu should be paying compensation, so what is stopping the Government pushing it to do that?
My Lords, it might help if your Lordships understand the scale of our commitment to Fujitsu. On my count, there are 30-plus live UK contracts, worth at least £5 billion through the lives of those contracts. Since the 2019 High Court ruling, HMRC alone has awarded eight contracts to Fujitsu. We do not need an independent inquiry to know that Fujitsu should be paying compensation, so what is stopping the Government pushing it to do that?
The noble Lord touches on several points; let me go through each of them. First, the suggestion that we should simply walk away from existing Fujitsu contracts does not take account of the impact on public services.
The noble Lord touches on several points; let me go through each of them. First, the suggestion that we should simply walk away from existing Fujitsu contracts does not take account of the impact on public services.
The noble Lord touches on several points; let me go through each of them. First, the suggestion that we should simply walk away from existing Fujitsu contracts does not take account of the impact on public services.
My Lords, it might help if your Lordships understand the scale of our commitment to Fujitsu. On my count, there are 30-plus live UK contracts, worth at least £5 billion through the lives of those contracts. Since the 2019 High Court ruling, HMRC alone has awarded eight contracts to Fujitsu. We do not need an independent inquiry to know that Fujitsu should be paying compensation, so what is stopping the Government pushing it to do that?
Oh!
Oh!
Bear with me. For instance, Fujitsu provides communications between our submarines at sea and HQ. It supports HMRC’s self-assessment scheme and the Home Office border operation. It is also supporting the current Horizon scheme. Although a replacement is being developed and the Government are committed to the Green Paper that we just published, we are investing £483 million over the next two years to support the transformation, replacing Horizon and transitioning away from Fujitsu.
Bear with me. For instance, Fujitsu provides communications between our submarines at sea and HQ. It supports HMRC’s self-assessment scheme and the Home Office border operation. It is also supporting the current Horizon scheme. Although a replacement is being developed and the Government are committed to the Green Paper that we just published, we are investing £483 million over the next two years to support the transformation, replacing Horizon and transitioning away from Fujitsu.
My Lords, it might help if your Lordships understand the scale of our commitment to Fujitsu. On my count, there are 30-plus live UK contracts, worth at least £5 billion through the lives of those contracts. Since the 2019 High Court ruling, HMRC alone has awarded eight contracts to Fujitsu. We do not need an independent inquiry to know that Fujitsu should be paying compensation, so what is stopping the Government pushing it to do that?
My Lords, if there is sufficient evidence to support the assertions two noble Lords have made about the extent of Fujitsu’s knowledge of the failures in their system—and I believe there is such evidence—have the Government not considered taking legal action against Fujitsu to enforce what would almost certainly be its legal liability to pay compensation for the massive losses its action has caused? Why are the Government just relying on a vague indication by Fujitsu that it has a moral obligation? A very great deal of money could be recovered for the taxpayer if a successful legal action was brought against this international company.
My Lords, if there is sufficient evidence to support the assertions two noble Lords have made about the extent of Fujitsu’s knowledge of the failures in their system—and I believe there is such evidence—have the Government not considered taking legal action against Fujitsu to enforce what would almost certainly be its legal liability to pay compensation for the massive losses its action has caused? Why are the Government just relying on a vague indication by Fujitsu that it has a moral obligation? A very great deal of money could be recovered for the taxpayer if a successful legal action was brought against this international company.
I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord but, as a former Secretary of State and Minister, he should know that the Government speak to government lawyers on a regular basis. An inquiry is taking place, and we should wait for it to finish and for the report to be published. An interim report has been published, and Fujitsu has committed to making a payment. When and how that happens is being consulted on and discussed between the two parties.