Select committee: Public Accounts Committee
Conclusion 12
12th Report - Government compensation schemes
Published 9 Sep 2026
Addressed to HM Treasury
Public Accounts Committee Government compensation schemes: update All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
We asked the Departments how they had learned lessons from what went wrong with earlier compensation schemes. DBT told us that it learnt lessons as it continued to administer the Horizon IT compensation schemes and applied the learning from earlier schemes to its more recent ones.25 For example, Sir Alan Bates criticised the Horizon Group Litigation Order Scheme, stating the scheme became very legalistic despite DBT’s assurances during co-design that it would not be. DBT now accepts it over-complicated the scheme and has applied this learning to its Capture Scheme26. It also explained it had learned from the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme when designing the Capture Scheme and referenced, in particular, its more broad and holistic assessment of claims.27 Similarly, the MoD said it engaged closely with earlier schemes, and learned a lot from the Windrush Scheme about case working and processing as well as the importance of considering the implications of financial recognition payments on benefit payments. The MoD also referenced the Cross-Whitehall Working Group and described it as bringing together expertise in government.28
From: Public Accounts Committee, 12th Report - Government compensation schemes (HC 88), 9 September 2026
Government response
Government response awaited: deadline 9 November 2026.