| Title | HC No. | Published | Items | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16th Report - Post Office Horizon scandal: Justice for sub-… | HC 1589 | 13 Mar 2026 | 29 | Overdue |
We welcome the significant progress that has been made since our last report in delivering redress. We recognise that payment rates have improved across all schemes. However, we regret that thousands of sub- postmasters are still waiting for the full and final redress they are owed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 11)
We recognise the challenges the Government faces in tracing, contacting, and engaging with sub-postmasters to notify them of their right to redress, particularly where contact details are unavailable or where individuals are understandably reluctant to engage, due to their trauma and mistrust in the system. However, like claimants’ lawyers, we …
Post Office Ltd and the Government must make every effort to ensure that outstanding offers are issued and remaining claims are fully settled. Without exerting pressure on vulnerable claimants, we recommend that every effort be made to ensure that all redress payments are completed in
In order to ensure that redress reaches all those wronged by this scandal the Government and Post Office Ltd will need to work sensitively with victims who have suffered traumatic experiences and are understandably distrustful of them. To do this we recommend they work with trusted partners, such as the …
We welcome the creation of a family redress scheme and that the Government are working with stakeholders to develop that scheme. We are concerned that the definition of close family should not be too narrowly drawn. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18) 38
We urge the Government to consult as widely as possible on the development of the scheme to ensure that the mistakes of previous schemes are not repeated. We recommend that the Government publishes the outcome of its consultations with stakeholders on the development of this scheme. We further recommend that …
Post Office Ltd has acted pragmatically in administering the payment of fixed-sum offers under the Horizon Shortfalls Scheme (HSS). We welcome the large number of claims that have been paid over the last year via this route. The HSS, however, remains a laboriously slow process, especially for sub-postmasters going through …
We are unconvinced by the Department’s justification for why the Department cannot take ownership of remaining HSS claims. If the Department accepts the need for separation between initial decision- making and appeals processes, it is entirely within its power to establish a new, distinct and properly resourced appeals mechanism. Resourcing …
As it is nearing completion, we reluctantly conclude that Post Office Ltd should continue to administer all remaining HSS claims for the £75,000 fixed-sum that were received prior to the 31 January 2026 deadline. All remaining complex HSS cases should be transferred to DBT to be assessed. The Department should …
The Government has not properly implemented Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendation to provide legal advice for HSS claimants. Sub- postmasters have already waited far too long for the redress they are owed. Requiring sub-postmasters to progress through the HSS without 39 legal support, merely to reach the stage at which they …
We welcome the fact that individuals appealing their awards under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals (HSSA) process are able to access funded legal advice, and we support the continuation of this provision. However, we are concerned that this should not create a gap in support for those eligible individuals who …
The Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS) appears to be working well for overall for claimants who have had their convictions overturned, but unnecessary delays remain. We welcome the positive change for claimants that now have a basic safeguard in the form of a guaranteed minimum payment of £600,000. Given that …
Every eligible, wrongly convicted applicant to HCRS now has a right to at least £600,000 in compensation. The Government must immediately take the compassionate act of making this payment upfront to all those eligible as soon as possible, regardless of whether sub-postmasters then seek additional redress through the fully-assessed route. …
We heard that former sub-postmasters David and Glenys Eaton suffered greatly as a result of inconsistencies in the process and application of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024. They told us they are 40 concerned that individuals eligible to have their convictions quashed under the 2024 Act may …
We deplore the poor historical state of record keeping by the Ministry of Justice, Post Office Ltd, the Crown Prosecution Service and Royal Mail Group. Action must be taken to mitigate the risk that individuals eligible to have their convictions quashed are being missed. We recommend that Post Office Ltd …
We heard that Ministry of Justice checks to identify individuals eligible to have their convictions quashed are not always sufficiently thorough. This results in unnecessary requests for information and an unjustified burden on victims. Some sub-postmasters who were incorrectly told they were out of scope of the 2024 Act have …
The Ministry of Justice must ensure all records available to the department are rigorously checked before issuing requests for additional information. This would help prevent unnecessary re-traumatisation and prevent exacerbating sub-postmasters’ understandable distrust in the system. Vulnerable individuals should be offered legal aid to respond to requests for information. (Recommendation, …
The case of Mrs Eaton demonstrates that the Ministry of Justice’s internal review process is not a fail-safe. Internal panels do not always appear to consider all available evidence, and individuals are not consistently given the benefit of the doubt. The absence of an external appeal mechanism undermines confidence in …
The Ministry of Justice should establish a formal, transparent appeals mechanism, with access to independent review outside the Ministry of Justice. Claimants should have access to legal representation, and where government error has caused them additional cost, they should be fully reimbursed and compensated. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59) Role of Fujitsu
We welcome Fujitsu’s acceptance that it bears responsibility for the failures of Horizon and its recognition that it must contribute to the redress bill. A substantial proportion of the total redress costs will need to be paid by Fujitsu. We consider it unsatisfactory that no interim payment has been made …
The lack of clarity around the figure, or percentage, that Fujitsu will contribute to redress is deeply concerning. While Fujitsu is waiting for the final version of Sir Wyn’s report, there is no guarantee that the report will specify a recommended figure or percentage. Should it not, negotiations between the …
Fujitsu must live up to its commitment to make a significant contribution to the redress bill. The final redress amount sought from Fujitsu should take into account appreciation and interest on the borrowing that funded the Government’s contribution, as well as the legal and administrative costs incurred. The Government should …
We recognise that Fujitsu has, to an extent, recused itself from bidding on new Government contracts. However, the scale of ongoing payments from the UK Government to Fujitsu remains substantial. We are concerned that the value of these contract extensions came to light only through the Committee’s correspondence with the …
We recommend that the Government should publish, on a regular and transparent basis, the value of all contracts and contract extensions awarded to Fujitsu across the public sector. We further recommend that Fujitsu extend the scope of its current self-imposed moratorium and refrain from bidding for any new Government contracts …
We are concerned by emerging evidence that bugs in pre-Horizon IT systems, and/or failures of disclosure and investigation in these cases, may have contributed to unsafe convictions. Although the number of confirmed Capture-related cases is currently small, incomplete records mean the true figure may be higher. It is worrying that …
Given the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)’s revelations about (a) cases involving software other than Capture and Horizon, and (b) the difficulties in compiling the necessary information in many historical cases relating to Capture and other IT systems used by Post Office Ltd, there are indications that it may prove …
The Government should bring forward legislation to quash Capture-related convictions, as it did for those relating to the Horizon IT system in 2024. (Recommendation, Paragraph 79)
Post Office Ltd must learn from past mistakes and should think carefully before opposing appeals against pre-Horizon convictions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)
The Department must ensure it understands the extent of the problem. Therefore, it must urgently investigate the number of potential cases relating to Post Office pre-Horizon IT systems to judge whether there has been a further mass miscarriage of justice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 81) 43
| Date | Witnesses | |
|---|---|---|
| 6 Jan 2026 | Alex Davies-Jones MP · Ministry of Justice, Amanda Pearce · Criminal Cases Review Commission, Blair McDougall MP · Department for Business and Trade, Carl Creswell · Department for Business and Trade, Christina Pride · Ministry of Justice, David Enright · Howe & Co Solicitors, Dr Neil Hudgell · Hudgell Solicitors, Joanne Hanley · Post Office Ltd, Kieran O'Rourke · Howe & Co Solicitors, Mr David Eaton, Mrs Glenys Eaton, Nigel Railton · Post Office Ltd, Paul Patterson · Fujitsu Services Ltd | View ↗ |
| Date | Direction | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 28 Apr 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation relatin… |
| 15 Apr 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Minister from Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and G… |
| 25 Mar 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation relatin… |
| 11 Mar 2026 | To cttee | Letter from Howe+Co relating to the Ministry of Justice's response to questions… |
| 24 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from Howe+Co solicitors relating to their clients Mrs Glenys Eaton and M… |
| 24 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation relatin… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | From cttee | Letter to the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girl… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Director of Fujitsu relating to government contract extensions,… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Gi… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | From cttee | Letter to the Director of Fujitsu relating to government contract extensions, 1… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | From cttee | Letter to the Director of Fujitsu relating to the awarding of a new public cont… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Director of Fujitsu relating to the awarding of a new public co… |
| 4 Feb 2026 | From cttee | Letter to the Minister for Small Businesses and Economic Transformation relatin… |
| 3 Feb 2026 | From cttee | Letter to Ernst & Young relating to Fujitsu account provisions for Horizon redr… |
| 3 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from Ernst & Young relating to Fujitsu account provisions for Horizon re… |
| 3 Feb 2026 | From cttee | Letter to the Post Office relating to the Committee evidence session on 6 Janua… |
| 3 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Minister for Small Businesses and Economic Transformation relat… |
| 3 Feb 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Post Office relating to the Committee evidence session on 6 Jan… |
| 6 Jan 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Post Office relating to the 2006 Post Office-Fujitsu contract d… |
| 6 Jan 2026 | To cttee | Letter from the Post Office relating to Post Office redress update, 18 December… |