Post Office Capture and Horizon Scandals

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will provide an update on the Post Office Capture and Horizon scandals.

My Lords, as of 31 January 2026, over £1.4 billion has been paid to more than 11,300 victims of the Horizon scandal. The Government are also making strong progress in implementing recommendations from volume 1 of the Horizon inquiry, strengthening the operation of the schemes and accelerating the delivery of redress. As of the same date, DBT had received 153 complete applications under the Capture redress scheme. Of these, 30 have been deemed eligible, with the remaining 123 undergoing eligibility assessment. Five individuals have received their full payment.

I thank the Minister for his Answer. My friend, Kuldip Gill, ran a post office in 1995 in my neighbourhood. He was accused by the Post Office of stealing £5,000. He protested but had to pay. A few months later, his contract was terminated by the Post Office. Without a job, and with financial pressure and shame in the community, he started to drink and became an alcoholic. Within a year, he died of a brain haemorrhage induced by alcohol. He was only 53.

When, 30 years later, his wife was in a care home, I asked her whether she had put in a claim for compensation. She said that she had been told that she was not entitled to any. I told her that the Capture system was as faulty as the previous one, and she put in a claim and last year received her compensation. How many more postmasters and their families have died or left the country and have not put in their claim, or are simply not aware of their rights? Do the Government have any plan or policy to find them so that they can put in their claims?

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and am truly sorry to hear about the terrible ordeal faced by Mr Gill and his wife. We remain firmly committed to ensuring that those affected by the Capture and Horizon systems receive the redress they fully deserve. The Government and the Post Office have proactively contacted postmasters to confirm their eligibility and to encourage them to come forward.

On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, for example, DBT has written to 142 people who have had a conviction quashed but may not have yet applied to the scheme, encouraging them to apply. This has led to 29 new HCRS registrations. On Capture, I am happy to hear that redress has now at least reached the family referred to by my noble friend. The scheme has been designed precisely to ensure that others in similar circumstances are not missed.

The long time that has passed since the software was in use means that the full cohort of users is not known. That is why we continue strongly to encourage anyone who believes that they used Capture and experienced a shortfall to come forward. This includes family members applying on behalf of postmasters who have sadly passed away and cannot apply themselves.

My Lords, the Capture system was the predecessor of the Horizon system. The Government are paying compensation to all the Capture sub-postmasters—except those who have convictions. Given that the Post Office’s behaviour towards the Capture sub-postmasters was every bit as bad as that towards the Horizon sub-postmasters, and that we cannot expect Capture sub-postmasters to have retained documents for over 25 years to present to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, will the Minister acknowledge that for us to fail to overturn the Capture convictions perpetuates the most ghastly injustice?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot—and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish—for supporting the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board; it is very much appreciated and important work. The noble Lord will know that the legislation followed over 100 successful Horizon conviction appeals through the existing processes. However, as he mentions, no convictions related to Capture have been overturned to date. However, we must therefore allow the independent judiciary to consider safety of convictions through the established process, and we continue to support the work of the CCRC. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further, as that process needs to be independent and run its full course.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, but noble Lords in yesterday’s Committee stage of the Victims and Courts Bill debated the urgent need to change the courts’ presumption that computer system evidence is always reliable. Everyone in that debate, including the Minister, agreed that this must be changed, not least following the Horizon scandal. Despite what the Minister said, will he and the Minister in yesterday’s Committee please work together to ensure that this change happens as soon as possible?

I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the department will work to try to ensure that that comes to its logical conclusion.

My Lords, as the person who first exposed the Capture system, I welcome the fact that victims are now being paid. That was in spite, for example, of the Post Office, which, with all the publicity around Horizon, never publicly pointed out that the Capture system existed. There are 29 cases of individuals who were prosecuted. The Government’s stance has been to refer them to the CCRC, which I do not think is the appropriate way of doing it. Can the Minister tell me why, in the one case that has now been referred to the Court of Appeal, which is Patricia Owen’s case, the Post Office is going to defend against it? Given the fact that, when I first exposed it, I and the campaigners had more information about the system than the Post Office, I would like to understand on what grounds the Post Office is going to resist that case. Also, how much money—public money, we should remember, at the end of the day—will be spent defending the indefensible?

Again, I thank the noble Lord for his work overall on the Horizon and Capture scandals. While, again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a specific case, I can say that the Post Office was the original prosecutor in the criminal case on this specific Capture conviction—not this department, obviously. Therefore, the Post Office has responsibility for responding, and for conducting the case and the appeal. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the ongoing case.

My Lords, I ask the Minister whether Fujitsu has yet paid a single penny to the sufferers in this terrible saga. If it has not, why not? Secondly, has Fujitsu been awarded further government contracts since that time, and if so, why? This is a national scandal that has lasted far too long. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot are the two people who have really tried to find justice for these very unfortunate people who have suffered, as we heard in the introductory remarks.

I share and acknowledge the noble Lord’s passion for the subject. Accountability for Fujitsu will be rooted in evidence and due process. Wyn Williams’ inquiry is the proper mechanism for establishing what went wrong and who is responsible, and for the financial commitment. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral responsibility to contribute to the costs of that redress, and Minister McDougall met with the European CEO in December last year and, in the recent Select Committee, the CEO confirmed the commitment to follow that moral responsibility with financial responsibility.

To the secondary question about government contracts, Fujitsu rightly said that it will not be applying for new government contracts unless the Government ask it to, where those services are necessary. In researching this question, I imagined this would come up: the Government have 68 live contracts with Fujitsu in some critical services, which include HMRC’s self-assessment tool and the Home Office’s border control systems. Walking away from these contracts instantly would do serious damage to important public services, so this is not a viable option. However, it has committed to the new software for the Post Office being completed in the middle of next year. If we were to stop that software service today, all postmasters would have to close. That is not pragmatic, unfortunately.

My Lords, the Minister will already be aware that there is considerable concern in this House, on all sides, that there are still victims who have not received financial compensation. Beyond that, what specific non-financial support is being provided to those victims who have suffered significant mental health harm, and how are the Government ensuring that appropriate psychological and restorative support will remain available?

The noble Lord reminds us all that, behind each of these numbers, there is an individual family that has suffered, as my noble friend so rightly highlighted today. The process that has been set out is careful to ensure that we are not retraumatising people going through the redress system. A new scheme called the family members redress scheme is currently in consultation with the Lost Chances group. We expect announcements shortly to ensure that the noble Lord’s question is fully answered.