The shadow minister asked how long it will take for compensation schemes to pay appropriate compensation and whether these aim to return people to their original position had the scandal not occurred. She also inquired about legal firms involved, financial sources of the scheme, impact on post office services or other budgets due to the cost-of-living crisis, support from Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and Alan Bates, intentions towards holding Fujitsu accountable, and stance on Paula Vennells' CBE award.

While welcoming the statement and apology, Chi Onwurah expressed concern over the timeline for compensation payments, questioned where funds would come from amidst a cost of living crisis, raised concerns about post office service impact, and asked if the scheme has support from key groups like the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. She also inquired about legal representation involved and whether Fujitsu will be held accountable.

Julian Lewis questioned whether the ongoing inquiry would reveal how hundreds of people with unblemished records could be prosecuted based solely on a computer programme's findings in a modern democracy.

Marion Fellows thanked the Minister for allowing her early sight of his statement and expressed appreciation towards Alan Bates from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and Lord Arbuthnot for their work on this issue.

Lucy Allan welcomed the tone of the statement and expressed concern about justice being served through accountability measures. She asked for assurances from the BEIS Secretary regarding proper, fair, and prompt dealings with sub-postmasters involved in the compensation scheme.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the announcements made today and the appointments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot in the other place. In respect of the benefit disregards, can the Secretary of state confirm when the statutory instrument will be tabled? It will not take long to do, and it should be done quickly. Can he also confirm that while we are waiting for the benefit disregards to come into force, the victims who suffer loss as a consequence of that will be given additional compensation to cover the deductions from their benefits and pension payments?

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and I also thank his Department for allowing Back-Bench colleagues from across the House with a long-term interest in this topic to be involved in the formulation of the compensation scheme. Will he commit to keeping the House updated on the progress of the compensation scheme? Let us all hope that sometime in the near future he will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that all the compensation has been paid to the recipients.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Can I also put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)? In a long list of useless and indifferent Ministers over the years, he was the only one who actually got it and was determined to sort it out. Does the Secretary of State agree that what we need next, following the public inquiry, is for those individuals who were responsible for ruining people’s lives—in some cases people took their own lives; others who were innocent went to prison—to be held to account? It has to be a determination for the Department to ensure that those individuals—whether they are in the Post Office or in his Department—face the day of reckoning that should be coming to them in a court of law.

As a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, the compensation scheme announcements—particularly on the benefits disregard—and the comments on the timing of what will happen. However, there are going to be some shocking lessons from this scandal that we need to learn, revolving around who knew what, and when, and what the role of the Federation of SubPostmasters was during this crisis. Will the Secretary of State agree that when the inquiry is finished there should be another debate in this House to make sure that we really do learn those lessons?

I thank the Secretary of State for his work in coming up with the scheme in such a short time. People at the very top must have made decisions to block defence lawyers getting information that was incredibly important to the defendants’ defences. Those victims and their families will not feel they have had justice until every single person responsible is criminally investigated, potentially prosecuted and sent to prison for a very long time. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that this is his intention?

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and, in particular, the apology. Will he and the Department continue to work tirelessly not only for justice but for compensation for all the victims?

We are not quite at the end of the road, but there is a sense today that perhaps the end of the road is in sight. I echo colleagues in taking a great deal of comfort from the participation of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot in future proceedings. One of the lessons we have to learn is that it is all too easy for people in Government and public bodies to use taxpayers’ money to defend situations where they have made mistakes. Why should subpostmasters be treated differently?

Pays tribute to Nichola Arch and hundreds like her who have campaigned for justice, and raises concerns about the involvement of ambulance-chasing third-party organisations in past compensation schemes. Questions whether the scheme has been designed so that postmasters do not need to rely on such organisations.

Pays tribute to Lord Arbuthnot and others for their work on the issue. Questions whether the Government will provide full disclosure of documents required for future legal proceedings, and inquires about how justice will be pursued without further funding issues.

Welcomes the Secretary of State's commitment and use of the word 'travesty'. Questions about regular communications from the Government on this issue, both in the House and outside.

Welcomes the statement but raises concerns about the dangers of using intrusive surveillance technology in workplaces. Asks if the Government will make it a statutory duty for employers to consult trade unions before introducing AI and automated decision-making systems.

As someone who used to be a postmaster, thanks the Government for reparations but raises issues about investment in the post office network and proper payments for postmasters. Requests better banking services through post offices on high streets.

Commends the Secretary of State for his statement and mentions the new compensation scheme. Asks if lessons will be learned from the scandal to prevent false accusations in future cases.