Establish standing public body to administer future redress schemes
Post Office Horizon Inquiry · Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Final Report · Issued 8 July 2025 · Addressed to: Department for Business and Trade
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
As soon as is reasonably practicable, HM Government shall establish a standing public body which shall, when called upon to do so, devise, administer and deliver schemes for providing financial redress to persons who have been wronged by public bodies.
Post Office Horizon Inquiry, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Final Report · 8 Jul 2025 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- The Department for Business and Trade acknowledged this recommendation on 9 October 2025, stating it saw "clear advantages" but that options needed careful consideration, with a substantive statement expected by summer 2026 (Government response to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report (volume 1), DBT, 9 October 2025).
- The Business and Trade Select Committee noted the government had not committed to establishing a standing public body as recommended (Business and Trade Select Committee evidence session, January 2026).
- The Business and Trade Committee report HC 1598 found no progress on establishing the body, with the government having promised a substantive statement by summer 2026 (Business and Trade Committee, HC 1598, March 2026).
Response — verbatim from government
●Department for Business and Trade
Department for Business and Trade acknowledges this recommendation and sees clear advantages in establishing a standing public body for financial redress. However, the government recognises that establishing such an independent redress body requires careful consideration of feasibility, scope, and resource requirements. A ministerial group will lead exploration of this recommendation, with a substantive statement expected by summer 2026.
Department for Business and Trade · 9 Oct 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 2 Mar 2026 DBT sees clear advantages of the recommendation but recognises that options to improve future delivery of redress will need to be carefully considered and the feasibility of an independent body will need to be properly explored, alongside existing mechanisms. The Minister responsible for Postal Services is chair of a ministerial group which leads on this work. While it is unlikely that an independent body could be established in time to take over delivery of redress for existing time-limited redress schemes, the government is actively considering its options and will make a substantive statement on this matter by summer 2026. Source →
- 31 Jan 2026 Verification: Government published formal response to Volume 1 recommendations on 13 October 2025, accepting 17 of 18 recommendations. Total compensation paid across all schemes: £1.38 billion as of December 2025. Volume 2 of Final Report expected 2026. Source →
- 13 Mar 2026 · Business and Trade Committee HC 1598 HC 1598 found no progress on establishing a standing public redress body. The government had not committed to the proposal and promised a substantive statement by summer 2026. The committee noted this remains undelivered. View source → No Meaningful Progress
- 6 Jan 2026 · Business and Trade Select Committee Business and Trade Select Committee noted the government had not committed to establishing a standing public body for financial redress as recommended. The committee heard DBT was "actively considering its options" and had promised a substantive statement by summer 2026. View source → No Meaningful Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.