Horizon Scandal Redress: Government Response Under Scrutiny

This episode delves into the latest developments in the Post Office Horizon scandal redress process, examining the Government's response to the Business and Trade Committee's critical report. We unpack the key recommendations made by the Committee and analyse which have been accepted, partially accepted, or rejected by the Department for Business and Trade.

Over 4,000 claimants still waiting to settle their claims. We explore the Committee's disappointment that only 3 out of 17 recommendations were fully accepted, potentially hindering the acceleration of redress payments.

We examine the ongoing role of the Post Office in the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS), a point of contention for the Committee and even the Post Office itself. Learn about the progress of different redress schemes, including the HSS, the Overturned Convictions (OC) scheme, the Group Litigation Order (GLO) scheme, and the new Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS).

We also discuss key recommendations regarding upfront legal advice for HSS claimants, stronger instructions to lawyers, and the speed of the Independent Panel.

Key Takeaways:

*   Over 4,000 claimants are still awaiting settlement under the various redress schemes.
*   The Government has agreed to provide HSS claimants with the same access to authoritative facilitation and case management directions as claimants in other schemes.
*   The Committee regrets the Government's decision not to provide upfront legal advice for HSS claimants.
*   Responsibility for processing overturned conviction claims will transfer from the Post Office to the Department for Business and Trade on 3 June 2025.
*   Partial acceptance of recommendations regarding the role of the Post Office in the HSS, the speed of the Independent Panel, and the introduction of mediation routes.
*   Rejected recommendations for upfront legal advice for HSS claimants and the introduction of binding timeframes with financial penalties across the schemes.
*   Progress in redress payments since the new Government took office, with over £698 million paid to over 4,400 claimants.
*   The Government intends to publish its approach to redress for pos

Chapters

• 2:21 Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS)
• 3:15 Lack of legal advice for HSS claimants
• 3:59 Administration of HSS to the Dept of Business and Trade
• 5:10 Simplifying and shorten the legal process
• 6:05 Requests for Information (RFI's)
• 7:43 Legally binding timeframes
• 8:17 Group Litigation Order Scheme (GLO)
• 9:59 Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS)
• 11:36 Quarterly Report publications
• 11:56 Conclusions / Frustrations

Transcript

Welcome back to Bench Report, UK politics straight from the benches. We're your hosts, Amy and Ivan. And as always, do check out the episode notes for today's discussion. It can get a bit well detailed. Absolutely.

Today, we're diving into I guess you could call it a follow-up. It's from the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee. It's their, second look at how the government has reacted to, you know, their initial findings on the post office horizon scandal. And importantly, this isn't just about, like, parliamentary back and forth. Right.

This is about the real impact on thousands of people who are still, you know, waiting for justice and resolution. Thousands. The initial report, I believe it was HC three forty one, came out at the beginning of the year, 01/01/2025. Yes. And then the government's response, which we're really gonna dissect today, that arrived on March 3.

Okay. So just a couple of months later. Right. And then this latest report, h c seven seven eight, that was published on March 25. So we're talking about really hot off the press stuff here.

It looks specifically at how the government has addressed or hasn't addressed the recommendations from that first report. One of the things that really jumps out is the sheer number of people still waiting for their claims to be settled. Over 4,000 according to the committee. It's hard to even grasp the scale of that. The ongoing distress, the uncertainty, the financial strain, it's just it's a lot to carry.

Absolutely. And that's something we need to keep in mind throughout this deep dive. Definitely. Our aim today is to try and make sense of all of it. To unpack where things are getting stuck, where we see progress, and what it all means for those individuals and their families who are caught up in all of this.

So let's let's start with the committee's overall assessment of the government's response. They were, shall we say, not entirely thrilled. Only three out of 17 recommendations to speed up redress payments were fully accepted. That's right. And that's really where we see that, that difference in urgency, you know, between what the committee is calling for and how the government is actually approaching it.

So 17 recommendations put forward with the aim of getting people the justice they deserve more quickly and only a tiny fraction fully embraced. Exactly. It makes you wonder about, well, what are the reasons behind not taking on more of these suggestions? Let's get into some of the details, shall we? Let's start with the horizon shortfall scheme or HSS.

There was at least a bit of good news here. Right? Well, there was one significant positive development. The government accepted recommendation six, which means that, you know, HSS claimants, they'll now have the same access to support and case management as those in other schemes. So that's things like having someone to guide them through the process and help them understand what's going on.

Exactly. That must be a relief for some people given how complicated these schemes can be. Especially considering that the horizon shortfall scheme was created to tackle those well, let's call them discrepancies, those financial discrepancies that subpostmasters were facing from the very beginning. But then there are some areas, pretty crucial ones, where the committee's recommendations were flat out rejected. Yes.

And those are the ones that really raised some concerns. Like, the government didn't agree to provide upfront legal advice for HSS claimants? That seems like a big deal. The committee argued that this is, you know, absolutely essential for people to get what they're owed. They called it a matter of fairness, and you can see their point.

Trying to navigate all the legal jargon and procedures without proper guidance, I can't imagine how stressful that must be. And it's interesting because not providing that early legal support might actually end up backfiring. How so? Well, think about it. People who are struggling to understand the process might end up needing a lot more help later on.

So it could actually cost the system more in the long run. Potentially. Yeah. It makes you wonder if the initial cost saving is really worth it. There's another one that caught my eye.

The government rejected the idea of transferring the administration of the HSS to the department for business and trade. And get this. The post office itself actually advised that this should happen. Wow. That's pretty significant.

If the post office, the organization at the center of this whole scandal, suggests that they shouldn't be running the show anymore. You'd think the government would listen. The committee was pretty clear in their report. They see this as a mistake, a missed opportunity. So what's the government's thinking here?

Why are they so hesitant to take full control? It's hard to say for certain, but their response suggests they're concerned about the logistics, you know, the potential disruption of a sudden transfer. But the committee's point is that the post office's continued involvement creates a conflict of interest. Absolutely. The government's only agreed to handle those more complex cases, you know, if a full transfer isn't possible quickly and to make sure that those fixed sum offers are dealt with swiftly.

So kind of a halfway house solution. They've said they'll make a final decision on a full takeover in spring twenty twenty five. We'll have to see what happens. It does feel like they're trying to strike a balance, but the question remains, is it enough? Moving on to the legal side of things, the committee urged the government to, well, to basically tell their lawyers to simplify and speed up the settlements.

And the government claims they've already done that. Right. And they keep emphasizing that it's a priority. But it's hard to know what that means in practice. From the outside looking in, it's difficult to gauge the real impact.

Exactly. Yeah. Are the claimants actually experiencing a smoother, faster process? That's what really matters. Absolutely.

Another concern raised by the committee was the eighteen month time frame for the independent panel to assess claims, especially given the possibility of thousands of new cases coming through. Eighteen months is a long time to wait, especially when you consider the emotional and financial strain these people are under. The government said they're working on boosting the panel's resources, but also admitted that capacity isn't the only bottleneck. So they acknowledge that there are broader issues slowing things down. Now here's an interesting point of disagreement.

While the government agreed to a case facilitator for the HSS appeals process and for handling leftover dispute resolution cases, they weren't keen on a similar role for assessing those requests for information. Those RFIs. Right? Yes. The RFIs.

The committee was worried that some people were being asked for information that was either, you know, excessive or just irrelevant. And that this was just adding to the delays and the stress for claimants. The government's concern was that adding another layer of review would slow things down even more. They argued that those information requests are actually designed to help increase the offer amounts. So they see them as a positive thing ultimately.

But the committee clearly wanted more scrutiny there. Another point of contention was what happens if there's a disagreement about the initial offer. The committee felt that those cases should go directly to external mediation, you know, bypassing the independent panel. Makes sense. Get an independent perspective involved sooner rather than later.

The government partially agreed, but with a caveat. A caveat. What's the catch? They said that there would be a internal reassessment first, and only if that didn't lead to an agreement would it go to external mediation. So extra step in the process.

It's hard to say whether this is a good or bad thing, to be honest. On the one hand, that internal reassessment could resolve some cases more quickly. But on the other hand, it could also mean more delays for those cases where the disagreement continues. Exactly. The real test will be how efficient and impartial that internal review actually is.

Okay. One last point on the HSS. The government wasn't happy with the idea of legally binding time frames for the whole process. This seems to be a recurring theme. They pointed to advice from the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, which suggests that having penalties for missed deadlines wouldn't actually guarantee fairer or faster compensation.

And they emphasized all the steps they're already taking to improve efficiency. But the committee isn't convinced, are they? They still want those legally binding targets. That's right. They don't seem to trust that these nonbinding efforts will be enough to really speed things up.

Let's move on to the group litigation order scheme or GLO. The committee acknowledged that there had been some progress in terms of the initial offers being made. But they still pushed for legally binding time frames at every stage with financial penalties if those deadlines were missed. And surprise, surprise, the government didn't fully agree. They pointed to their own internal targets for offers and response times, arguing that financial penalties wouldn't actually add anything to that.

It's the same argument they've made about the HSS. Exactly. They're setting their own bench marks and monitoring progress, but they're just not willing to put those deadlines into law and risk facing financial consequences. The committee also expressed disappointment that Sir Ross Cranston's role wasn't being expanded to include greater case management responsibilities within the GLO scheme. They felt that having someone like Sir Ross with his experience and independence more involved in the day to day running of things would provide an extra layer of oversight.

The government disagreed, saying that Dentons, who are already acting as case facilitators, are doing a good job and that there's no need to change things at this stage. It seems they're happy with the current structure. And just like with the HSS, the committee wanted assurances that those information requests in the GLO scheme were only being used to increase the offer amounts. And they suggested that the case facilitator should be involved in assessing whether those requests were reasonable or not. Once again, the government rejected the idea, worried that it would cause further delays.

So we see that same tension again, don't we? The committee wants more checks and balances even if it means things take a bit longer. The government wants to move things along as quickly as possible even if that means less scrutiny. Lastly, let's talk about the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme or HCRS. This is the scheme for people who were wrongly convicted because of the faulty horizon system.

Right. So this is about people whose lives were completely turned upside down. The committee raised concerns that some eligible individuals might not even know they have a right to claim redress because of incomplete data across the different nations of The UK. They called for a notification plan and for more detailed data to be published every month. The government's response was that they've already sent letters from the Ministry of Justice and that data for England and Wales is publicly available.

But they also said that Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of their own devolved governments. So it sounds like that division of responsibility might be creating some gaps. It's certainly adding another layer of complexity to an already complex situation. The committee also pushed for a guarantee that those full assessment offers would never be lower than the initial fixed sum offer. Their thinking was that this would remove the fear that some people might feel pressured to accept the initial offer even if they could be entitled to more.

The government didn't agree, arguing that people have access to funded legal advice to help them make the right decisions, and that for many people, the fixed sum is a fair settlement. So they feel that the current system provides sufficient protection for claimants. And as you might expect, the government also rejected the idea of legally binding time frames with penalties for the HCRS. Same reasons as before. They feel that it's just not practical or appropriate in these complex cases.

There was one area where the committee and the government were in complete agreement, though. Oh, tell me more. They both agreed that the government should publish quarterly reports detailing the external legal costs for all three schemes. Mhmm. This information will be available on gov.uk.

That's definitely a step in the right direction in terms of transparency and accountability. So to sum it all up, the journey to justice for the victims of the Horizon scandal is far from over. While there has been some progress, there's still a lot of disagreement between the committee and the government about the best and quickest way to deliver fair redress. The committee's report paints a picture of ongoing frustration and a feeling that the process itself is causing more pain and delay for those who've already suffered so much. Those key sticking points are still the role of the post office, the provision of upfront legal advice, the complexity of the claims processes, and the government's reluctance to implement those legally binding time frames.

On the other hand, the government keeps pointing to the amount of money that's already been paid out and the efforts they're making to make things more efficient. They're also worried about the potential disruption and costs that some of the committee's recommendations might cause. This deep dive really highlights the political and administrative challenges involved in trying to right the wrongs of the scandal. It raises some important questions about accountability, the speed of justice, and how effective the government's response has really been. We encourage you to read the full report and the government's response for yourself.

You can find links to both in the episode notes. It's a complex issue, and it's important to be informed. Absolutely. That's all from us for today. Please subscribe to the bench report to spark your passion, stay informed, and change the world.

Find us on social media at bench report UK.