The MP welcomed the Government's response but raised concerns about individual exonerations, compensation from Fujitsu, and accelerating investigations. He highlighted the need for individual exoneration rather than a grand pardon to avoid being bracketed with those who may not be innocent.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question; I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden on securing it. This issue has rightly left the public outraged at the scale and shocking details of this injustice. As I said on Monday, Labour believes the Horizon scandal to be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history, where people lost their livelihoods, liberty and their lives; then, when trying to find justice, they were delayed at every turn. It is unconscionable that, despite the landmark legal rulings, several years on people have still not been able to access the compensation that they are entitled to. We are all united in this House in wanting the sub-postmasters to be exonerated in full—it is important to say exoneration and not a pardon, because a pardon implies guilt that is forgiven—and for them to receive compensation with urgency. We recognise that that is not straightforward and the result may be imperfect, but this is an unprecedented scandal that requires an unprecedented response. The alternative of not acting is even less desirable. Labour stands ready to work with the Government to deliver a solution that achieves that long-awaited justice and compensation at pace.

I thank the Minister and the Lord Chancellor for their work. It has been longer in the making than the drama series, but they met their promise over two days by coming up with the first stage of the solution. Too many victims want nothing to do with the British justice system, the Post Office or Government. They have had enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no perfect solution? The best we can aim for is one that is fast and provides life-changing money to restore these people’s lives as best we can.

I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing this very important urgent question. I am sorry that it was not a statement, because then I would have had prior sight of what the Minister was going to say. When we stood here on Tuesday, I asked how long “some time” would be, and I am glad that things are progressing quickly, although with a note of caution—I totally understand the hesitation to introduce any kind of blanket Bill or whatever. We need to move things forward and keep up the momentum from the ITV series in the press, here and everywhere. We also still need to listen to the victims. Only this morning, some of the postmasters said that we should all stop referring to compensation, but refer instead to financial redress. This is not compensation but money due to them, and we need to get it to them as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said that some people do not want to go anywhere near justice or the Post Office. We must encourage people to come forward. I am meeting constituents who were involved who have not officially approached me yet, and I am sure that many others across the House will be in exactly the same position. Scottish law is different, as the Minister is well aware. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice made a statement yesterday, and said that the Scottish Government were looking at Fujitsu contracts, which is really important. I cannot speak for the Scottish Government, but I know there will be no hesitation in moving things forward. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I will write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland.

I welcome this legislation, and I thank the Minister for the amount of work he has done at such great speed. We are still at a midway point in the journey. There are still criminal prosecutions to come. One question that has never been answered is just how much money was taken unlawfully from thousands of innocent men and women. The Post Office took that money, and we have never known that figure. Even the most basic accountant knows that it will run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Could the Minister force the Post Office to publish the grand scale of the money it stole from people?

I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing this UQ. I know the Minister wanted to make a statement but was overruled by No. 10 so that the Prime Minister got the glory of making the announcement. A serious point is that had we not got this UQ, there would have been no debate today, which is a disgrace... Will their estates be able to access compensation?

The Minister has announced that approximately one third of the 555 individuals involved in the group litigation will benefit from the up-front payment of £75,000. What other support will there be for those in that group litigation who suffered losses way in excess of that £75,000?

I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the urgent question... It is not just enough for us to say, “Please come forward.” We need a proactive campaign to encourage people to come forward and reassure them that they will not face the same sort of delays...

The Minister, and indeed all of us in this House, will recognise the desire to get the swiftest possible redress for the victims of this appalling injustice... Therefore, in justifying that, will he set out in full what consideration was given to the practicality of going down the normal route of referring those convictions to the Court of Appeal before the legislative route was decided upon?

I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the urgent question... Three years after the landmark case, 85% of convictions have not been overturned, only 4% of the cases have resulted in a full and final settlement...

I thank the Minister for engaging with the concept of trying something innovative to move this process on and consult senior judiciary. I also discuss my constituent Mrs Jasvinder Barang, whose conviction was overturned over three years ago but is still waiting for full compensation. Can anything be done to enable her case to finally be dealt with?

I welcome the announcement that all convictions of sub-postmasters based on flawed Horizon evidence will be overturned, but why did it take a TV docu-drama and public outcry to force the Government to act? What does this say about our democracy and judicial system?

I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work and welcome his statement. Given the number of people who have refused to come forward, will he ensure that a system is got right in order to avoid further disincentives for innocent people to clear their names?

To counter concerns about intentions not being backed by action, would he consider publishing target dates for legal and administrative matters to be concluded?

I commend the Minister for coming up with a practical and rapid solution despite difficult circumstances. Does he agree that Fujitsu now has a moral duty to put right its wrongs, and should we review its Government contracts?

I welcome swift action to resolve the problem and hope it helps those affected. Will he assure me that there will be no delay in implementing proposals in Northern Ireland?

I welcome the announcement and call for an exceptional process to ensure every miscarriage of justice is put right. However, there are reports that victims were silenced by non-disclosure agreements; will my hon. Friend reconsider calls to ban such agreements in severance agreements?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. I thank the Minister for the heavy lifting he has done in the 15 months he has held his post and commend the Lord Chancellor for his work behind the scenes. Will the Minister say what legal guidance was given by the Lady Chief Justice on the exceptional process of reviewing private prosecutions? Additionally, will the Government prevent the Post Office from prosecuting any matter ever again?

I thank the Minister and others for addressing this matter swiftly. Will the Government look at the wider lessons from this scandal regarding accountability and scrutiny in government, and will they consider corporate fraud actions to recover funds taken from postmasters?

The scandal has led to significant repercussions for individuals and communities. What assessment has been made of the loss of post offices following this scandal, particularly in rural areas?

Victims of the Horizon scandal have faced severe mental health issues. How will compensation schemes take these into account? Furthermore, how can we prevent similar scandals involving artificial intelligence in future?

There may be individuals who have signed non-disclosure agreements and are hesitant to come forward. Can the advisory board communicate with those affected by the scandal to encourage them to seek compensation?

Hundreds of individuals have been wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. I commend my hon. Friend for his work. In his statement, he mentioned the malevolence that took place during these prosecutions. How is it right that individuals who gave false evidence are potentially still in post? Why are Post Office managers still in post when they knew what was happening? Should they not be brought to account and lose their livelihoods and pensions?

What a sorry tale this is. I am glad that a solution to his scandal has been brought forward today, but the Post Office is owned by the UK Government, who have a shareholder—usually a senior civil servant—on the board. What did those Government shareholders tell Ministers about this issue over the years? Does the Minister think this arrangement provided sufficient scrutiny of the Post Office for Parliament and the sub-postmasters?

The entire House will welcome today’s announcement. The Government have made exactly the correct decision, given the balance of mischief. Can my hon. Friend say whether the convictions to be quashed under the process he has announced today will include not only those prosecuted by the Post Office itself but those prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service? On the latter, will the Ministry of Justice review the decision-making process prior to the decision to prosecute?

Many Members across the House have mentioned the ITV drama and it may interest them to know that the director of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” is in the Gallery. He has been watching Prime Minister’s questions and this urgent question closely, hoping for some positive news. It is welcome that we have had some positive news, but he has a few questions for me to ask the Minister. He really wants to know: what are the timeframes for overturning the convictions? I know that we have heard some answers on that, but a bit more detail would be helpful. When will people finally receive the full compensation they deserve? When will those responsible finally be held to account?

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his announcement and I welcome this response from the Minister. This is the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), it occurs to me that important information has emerged in evidence during the process of prosecutions so far. The Minister, if I understood his response correctly, referred to “malevolence” in behaviour. Will he ensure that whatever process unfolds will contain a mechanism by which information that would be useful for consideration in further action will be gathered and collated?

No one, particularly nobody in public life, should get away with perjury, perverting the course of justice or attempting or conspiring to do that. I am therefore glad to hear the Minister say today, as he did in response to me earlier this week, that the question of further prosecutions arising out of this scandal should be carefully looked at. On financial redress, does the Minister agree that it is important that those who have been convicted should get legal advice? If, as I suspect, those prosecutions were malicious ones, the damages to which those people are entitled could be very hefty and they would be unwise to accept an offer from the Minister, generous as it might be, before they had received legal advice about what they would be entitled to if they could prove that the prosecutions were malicious.

Noel Thomas, one of my constituents, was a former sub-postmaster who was wrongly convicted. His conviction for false accounting in 2006 was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2021. How is my hon. Friend ensuring that sub-postmasters such as Noel Thomas, across the UK, are heard, supported, recompensed, recognised and, most importantly, exonerated? Will the Minister meet Noel Thomas, should he wish that to happen?

Following the ITV drama about sub-postmasters, constituents want their names cleared and full compensation. They also demand accountability for those responsible. The postmaster's view is that the affair has shamed the Post Office hierarchy, Government, and legal system. What will the Minister do to restore public trust?

Many families have an empty seat at the table, and compensation does not suffice as justice for them. What actions will be taken regarding software producer Fujitsu, given their ongoing use by Government agencies?

Mr Robinson ran Illingworth Road post office and was prosecuted due to flawed Horizon software but has not been compensated. Will the Minister review Mr Robinson's case for clearing his name?

Paula Vennells handed back her CBE and was given a role as a director at the Cabinet Office after the High Court judgment exposing her involvement in the scandal. Why did she remain in post?

Some constituents who were part of the group litigation received very little compensation after legal costs were deducted. Will they now receive full and proper compensation?

Is it time to look at remuneration options for current sub-postmasters, such as direct employment by the Post Office?

How will the Minister ensure a UK-wide compensation regime, given discussions with the Scottish Administration?

While welcoming justice for postmasters, does the Minister share concern that Post Office’s reputation is irreparably tarnished?

Will the Minister ensure a more independent body handles compensation decisions, as current process involves Post Office’s expensive lawyers?

Will the Minister comment on financial redress for sub-postmasters, including those who were not prosecuted?

Can the Minister provide reassurance for people misled by Post Office into silence regarding terms of their compensation?

What rights of appeal exist other than a request to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for those not seeking a grand pardon?