On 8 July last year, my predecessor announced the Government’s intention to launch a redress scheme for postmasters’ family members who were most severely affected by the Horizon scandal. This statement provides further information to the House about the scheme’s form, scope and eligibility criteria. While the scheme remains focused on personal injury, we have made significant changes that will make it easier for more family members to qualify for redress.
This scheme follows the Government’s acceptance of recommendation 18 in volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report (that financial redress should be provided to close family members of those most adversely impacted by the Horizon scandal), and of similar recommendations made by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board.
Over the past months, my officials and I have been working with stakeholders, including the Lost Chances group, Horizon redress claimants lawyers and the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, to develop a fair approach to redress that recognises the difficulties that some people may find in providing evidence of the harm which they have suffered. In doing so, we have drawn on lessons from other Government schemes to ensure that this scheme delivers timely, accessible support, while minimising the potentially re-traumatising impact of a lengthy claim process.
The outline scheme announced by my predecessor focused on personal injury—which in many cases we expect to mean damage to mental health. That earlier version of the scheme would have allowed applications to be made based only on contemporaneous evidence of medical issues or a fresh assessment of an ongoing medical condition arising from Horizon.
Stakeholders have told us that very few people would be able to provide this type of evidence. In response, we have created an alternative route to redress for people whose postmaster relatives faced some of the most stressful specific consequences of the Horizon scandal (such as prosecution or bankruptcy) and were therefore more likely to have experienced significant harm. So long as we can confirm the event experienced by the claimant’s postmaster relative, we will not require them to evidence any further harm.
Because we are not asking such claimants for specific evidence of any harm for events-based claims, we cannot differentiate between claims. We will therefore offer flat-rate “recognition payments” to people who claim through this route. This simple approach may result in some individuals receiving an amount that differs from what they would have been awarded following the assessment of a personal injury claim. However, given the evidential problems, the alternative would have been to give them no compensation at all. Those who do have evidence will still be able to apply for an assessed personal injury claim and provide contemporaneous evidence of medical issues arising from Horizon, or a fresh assessment for any ongoing medical condition, as outlined by my predecessor.
I believe this enhanced scheme for family members is the best approach, striking the right balance between a low-evidence approach and an individual personal injury assessment to meet our original promise—and Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendation—to support family members of those most severely affected by the Horizon scandal.
Restorative Justice
The Department’s response to volume 1 of the report of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry announced that with the Post Office and Fujitsu we had jointly embarked on a restorative justice project for postmasters, facilitated by the Restorative Justice Council. On 31 October 2025 the RJC published a report on the pilot phase of that programme, which set out what postmasters wanted from a restorative justice programme. They have continued to engage with postmasters in the intervening period.
The RJC is today publishing a second report which gives a further account of many postmasters’ terrible experiences of the impacts of this scandal, considers how a restorative justice programme can help, and describes what will now be delivered. As was always our intention, the programme is very much postmaster-led.
The Department, the Post Office and Fujitsu have agreed to support the programme both financially and practically for up to five years initially. Responsibility for funding will be shared between the three organisations. Fujitsu’s financing of the programme is separate from their contribution to compensation, which will be agreed once the Williams inquiry has reported.
I am placing a copy of the Restorative Justice Council report in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1420]