Post Office compensation happening far too slowly, damning report finds
A report by the cross-party Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found victims of the Horizon IT scandal are still not getting the payouts they deserve with the Government taking 'insufficient' action
Compensation for Post Office scandal victims is still moving "too slowly", a damning report has found.
Cross-party MPs found not enough is being done to make sure those affected by the Horizon IT failings are applying for payouts. One scheme for wrongly convicted postmasters has not had a single full claim, the Public Accounts Committee found.
It says the Government has taken "insufficient action" to make sure those who are entitled to compensation actually receive it. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, who chairs the committee, said: "Thousands of people were failed deeply by the system.
"This Committee would have hoped to have found government laser-focused on ensuring all those eligible were fully and fairly compensated for what happened. It is deeply dissatisfactory to find these schemes still moving far too slowly, with no government plans to track down the majority of potential claimants who may not yet be aware of their proper entitlements."
By March the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) had written to 18,500 people making them aware of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. But just one in five letters received a response - and there are no plans to follow up, the committee report said.
MPs found that 25 of 111 eligible victims had not applied to another scheme relating to convictions in the most complex cases. Sir Geoffrey said: "It is entirely unacceptable that those affected by this scandal, some of whom have had to go through the courts to clear their names, are being forced to relitigate their cases a second time."
More than 700 postmasters were wrongly convicted, and many more suffered after dodgy computer systems made it look like money was missing from their branches.
Elsewhere the committee found the department had been "dangerously flatfooted" in trying to recoup nearly £2billion in Covid-related fraud.
It found DBT had recovered just £130million in payouts from lenders, while the National Investigation Service (NATIS) had got back a "minimal" £8.6million from Bounce Back loan fraud. Business owners inflated their turnover to secure more cash to stay afloat during the crisis, costing the taxpayer huge sums.
Sir Geoffrey said: "DBT were unable to tell us if even the tiny fraction of that sum recovered was in fact even related to fraud. Indeed, relying on government-backed lenders to recover losses, who thus lack any incentive to pursue lost funds, has been a dangerously flatfooted approach.
"Now that the Insolvency Service has taken over responsibility for viable cases, we look forward to hearing how it fares where others have failed."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
Palestine Action takes UK Government to court over terror proscription
Supporting statements have also been submitted by Amnesty International, Liberty and European Legal Support Centre over concerns of unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, a spokesperson for the group said. An urgent hearing was held in the High Court on Monday related to an application for judicial review on behalf of one of the founders of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori. A further hearing will be held on Friday to decide whether the Government can temporarily be blocked from banning the group, pending a hearing to decide whether Palestine Action can bring the legal challenge. READ MORE: Home Office staff concerned over 'absurd ban on Palestine Action' A decision on whether the group will be given the green light to bring the legal challenge will be given at a further hearing expected to be held in the week of July 21. It comes as the Home Secretary is expected to publish a written statement to lay the order to make membership and support for the direct action group illegal. If approved, it would become a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Commenting on the hearing, Ammori said: 'I have been left with no choice but to request this urgent hearing and to seek either an injunction or other form of interim relief because of the Home Secretary's decision to try to steamroll this through Parliament immediately, without proper opportunity for MPs and peers to debate and scrutinise the proposal, or for legal and human rights experts and civil society organisations to make representations, or for those of us who would be denied fundamental rights as a result and criminalised as 'terrorists' overnight, including the many thousands of people who support Palestine Action.' The Government's move comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Five people have since been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident. Home Secretary Yvette CooperUnveiling the intention to ban the group following the incident on June 23, Cooper said it was the latest in a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'. Offices for companies in Glasgow and Edinburgh, among other places, with links to Israel have been targeted by Palestine Action. The Glasgow Trades Union Council has spoken out in support of the group, saying that they will "do everything we can to stop the UK Government from designating them a terrorist organisation". "Palestine Action is a direct action group that has been protesting against the supply of weapons to the Israeli military. Spraying paint and breaking windows is not terrorism – Israel's genocidal war is," a spokesperson for the council said. "We won't allow the government to repress the rights of protesters. As a movement, we must do everything to defend civil disobedience and oppose parliament's proscription of Palestine Action."
Glasgow Times
32 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. Defence Secretary John Healey had said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' (PA) They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Demonstrators outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London during an earlier hearing (PA) Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.'
Rhyl Journal
32 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.'
