PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Public Accounts Committee - 15 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member, not the Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

I am pleased to be giving this statement on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member.

Before I turn to the findings of our report on Government compensation schemes, I want to begin by recognising the individuals and families whose lives have been profoundly affected by the events that gave rise to these compensation schemes. Behind every application, every claim and every payment is a person who has experienced loss, injustice or harm, often through no fault of their own.

No amount of money can ever fully restore what has been taken away. Compensation cannot return lost years, repair damaged health, rebuild broken trust or erase the suffering that many have endured. Nevertheless, where mistakes have been made, public bodies have failed, or citizens have been harmed by the actions or omissions of the state, compensation represents an important acknowledgement of that injustice. It is one of the clearest ways in which the Government can accept responsibility, recognise the experiences of those affected and demonstrate a commitment to making amends.

Properly designed and delivered, compensation is not simply a financial transaction; it is an expression of accountability and, crucially, compassion. It signals that those who have suffered have been heard, that their experiences are believed and that society recognises the wrong that has been done to them. For many people, the true value of a compensation scheme lies not only in the financial support it provides, but in the recognition and dignity it can offer. That is why it is so important that such schemes are fair, accessible, timely and centred on the needs of those they are intended to serve. It is against that backdrop that the National Audit Office conducted a review of the way that compensation schemes have been handled, and the findings of the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry were published last Wednesday.

I want to recognise the sub-postmasters and their families affected by the Horizon scandal; the victims and bereaved families of the infected blood scandal; the Windrush generation denied the right to remain in the UK; and LGBT veterans, including Victoria from my constituency, whose service to her country was repaid with imprisonment and dismissal from the Royal Navy because of her sexuality. All those experiences have informed the Committee’s work. I particularly thank everyone who responded to our survey and everyone who gave evidence to our inquiry. Many of the testimonies we received were deeply moving, and all were invaluable.

If the Government are to improve how compensation schemes operate in future, they must listen carefully to the experiences of those who have already been through them. Our inquiry found that, too often, people experience lengthy delays, complex processes and uncertainty about what will happen next. The vast majority of respondents to the Public Accounts Committee survey felt the schemes they had experienced were unfair. Three quarters told us that the claims process itself had been distressing or retraumatising.

One respondent told us:

“It has become a lumbering, slow bureaucracy. It is failing in its duty to get payments to people quickly.”

Another said:

“After decades of fighting for recognition, we believed we were finally at the finish line—and instead we are being treated with suspicion, as though we are trying to defraud a system rather than seeking acknowledgement of a wrong done to us by the state.”

One of my own constituents, the wife of a postmaster, told me that the stress from the Horizon scandal caused alopecia and a blood clot. On applying for compensation, she was told that her suffering was irrelevant, despite being the co-owner of the post office. The compensation was paid to her husband, from whom she is now divorced. These experiences highlight why the quality of scheme design matters so much, and we heard many similar stories. Compensation is not simply about the final payment; it is about the journey that people make to reach that point—a journey that must be fair, transparent and humane.

We heard from Sir Alan Bates, whose work was instrumental in exposing the Horizon scandal. He told us that schemes often end up reinventing the wheel. He argued for the creation of an independent organisation that is capable of carrying expertise and experience from one scheme to the next, which is what our report recommends. Peter Gibson, the chief executive at Fighting With Pride, which represents LGBT veterans, highlighted the importance of making realistic commitments that can actually be delivered. Kate Burt, representing those affected by infected blood, emphasised the importance of meaningful engagement with communities and of ensuring that lessons from previous schemes are genuinely applied.

Victims have lost trust in the bodies administering Government compensation schemes—bodies that they view as responsible for the initial harm caused. The Committee therefore recommends—I am pleased to see the Cabinet Office Minister on the Front Bench—that the body administering compensation should work with individuals and organisations representing victims. Many claimants told us that they found it difficult to trust the processes administered by organisations that they associated with the original harm, which is why witnesses repeatedly argued that independence is essential if schemes are to command confidence. The answer is not to choose between independence and expertise; it is to combine them and establish an independent body that is capable of developing specialist expertise, preserving institutional memory, promoting good practice and earning the trust of those it is there to serve. A key recommendation of the report is that the Government should establish an independent body to design and administer Government compensation schemes.

We should remember that, for many people, the compensation process is not simply an administrative exercise. Making a claim often means revisiting some of the most painful experiences of a person’s life. It means being asked to recall events that they have spent years trying to come to terms with, gathering evidence from decades ago, and recounting—often to complete strangers—experiences of injustice, discrimination, illness, loss and trauma. The Committee heard repeatedly that the process itself can reopen old wounds. Witnesses spoke of victims feeling as though they were having to fight the same battle all over again. That is why good scheme design matters so much: it is not simply about how much compensation is awarded; it is about ensuring that the process to get to the outcome is compassionate and designed around the needs of those who have suffered.

I believe that this report highlights the unique role of the Public Accounts Committee. Our role is to look across Government to identify recurring challenges, to bring together evidence from different Departments and to ask what lessons can be learned. One of the clearest conclusions from our report is that the Government require stronger mechanisms for retaining and sharing knowledge across compensation schemes. Every compensation scheme is inevitably different, but the fundamentals of good scheme design are not. The Committee concluded that the Government need a more systematic approach to applying what has been learned. Reverend Clive Foster, the Windrush Commissioner, told us it is critical that impacted groups are involved in designing schemes from the outset, and that design is aligned with trauma-informed principles that consider how the claim process can be traumatising for people.

Compensation schemes exist to provide redress, but they should also provide confidence that people will be treated fairly, confidence that lessons have been learned and confidence that future schemes will be better than those that came before. All those who shared their experiences with our Committee have given the Government a valuable opportunity to improve, and we should not waste it. Our responsibility now is to ensure that the lessons are not lost, stored away in reports or revisited only when the next scandal emerges, but that they are permanently embedded into how the Government approach redress.

The Committee’s recommendation is therefore clear: the Government should establish an independent body to design and administer Government compensation schemes—a body that is capable of retaining expertise, carrying lessons forward and delivering redress swiftly, fairly and with the confidence of those it serves. Above all, it must be a body that is capable of restoring trust. The victims whose experiences informed our inquiry deserve nothing less.

I thank the hon. Lady for her statement. Is she able to outline whether, during the course of its work, the Committee gave any consideration to index-linking compensation payments in line with inflation? Those payments can take a very long time to be made, and over that time, the value of the award can have reduced. Was that something that the Committee looked at, or would consider?

No, that was not something that the Committee specifically looked at, but I totally agree that many victims wait far too long. The length of time it often took to set up compensation schemes, and their complexity—often resulting in cases taking a long time to reach a decision and therefore compensation taking a long time to be awarded—were things that repeatedly came up in the Committee. We urge the Government to make sure that is much more timely in future.

I thank my hon. Friend for this report on redress schemes, which certainly reflects the experiences of my constituents who have been involved in some of those campaigns. I particularly welcome the idea of having an independent body looking at schemes—I think here of the Hughes report and those affected by sodium valproate, mesh and Primodos, who are still waiting for a decision. This is life-changing stuff for constituents. Has the Committee thought about how, in those kinds of situations, we might speed up the response to inquiries?

As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, I am very well aware that the Hughes report is still in the Government inbox, awaiting a response. I also have constituents who are victims of the pelvic mesh scandal, which obviously particularly impacted women, and I hope that we will soon hear the Government’s response to that report. Hopefully, they will be able to bring forward more swiftly a Government compensation scheme that works, co-designed with the victims, as our report recommends.

First, can I say how much I enjoy serving on the Public Accounts Committee with the hon. Lady? I think—and I am sure she agrees with me—that the key to correcting this situation is for the Government to make better decisions. It seems that a pattern of bad decision making has resulted in the necessity of these claims, which do take too long to be heard, and I fully support the Committee’s report, which suggests that we need an independent body to ensure that the Government are not seen to be marking their own homework and kicking the ball into the long grass for as long as they possibly can.

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I guess I return the compliment—although I am not sure I always enjoy his contributions to the Public Accounts Committee! However, I certainly recognise that on this and other issues, it is also important to get behind the reasons why these scandals happened in the first place. That obviously was not the purpose of our Committee’s inquiry—it was to look at compensation schemes—but valuable lessons must also be learned about why these scandals occur, whether in relation to the Post Office, infected blood, or the treatment of LGBT veterans in the armed forces. I do appreciate those points.

I thank colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee and at the National Audit Office for their work on this report. Groups representing victims expressed concern to our Committee that the Government do not do enough to advertise and promote schemes, leading to some victims missing out, and the amount and type of evidence required of victims when they submit a claim can make the process difficult and retraumatising. Does my hon. Friend agree that more care needs to be taken when designing schemes in order to ensure that the process is not overly complex and burdensome, and that those schemes need an outreach plan to maximise take-up?

I agree with my hon. Friend—another colleague on the Public Accounts Committee. The report is very clear that much more needs to be done to try to reach victims; there is a concern that the LGBT veterans scheme is closing while victims remain. It is important that institutions use the data they already hold to reach people directly, and that the evidential burden is as low as possible while still maintaining protections against fraud.

I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for those in her constituency who suffered from the decisions that impacted on the Windrush generation. She is absolutely right. We heard significant evidence, not least from the Windrush commissioner, about the poor treatment and the difficulties people were having in seeking redress, in particular the complexity and, as she points out, the lack of legal support. The report recommends that, where possible, it should be clear from the start whether victims would have access to legal support and also that that should be more consistent. I agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

I am pleased to see this report. Back in January 2024, I asked the Comptroller and Auditor General if the NAO would examine compensation schemes. I looked at a number of them during my more than a decade on the Public Accounts Committee, and different Departments would set them up and they would have different foundations. My hon. Friend will obviously be waiting for the Government’s response to this report in the relevant set of Treasury minutes. When the Committee was doing its thorough work looking into the schemes, with witnesses in front of them as a comparison, were there a couple of good lessons that the new body, if the Government agree to set it up—I hope they do—could take forward, whether that is an exemplar or even one of the better compensation schemes?

I commend my hon. Friend for all her years of work on the Public Accounts Committee and for her leadership and foresight in making sure that the work was done by the National Audit Office. We did hear some examples. In particular, the infected blood compensation scheme is not run by the Department of Health and Social Care, but has a degree of independence from being run out of the Cabinet Office, and that makes a difference. There were some examples where there had been some co-design with victims, but those examples were too seldom. Unfortunately, across the examples we looked at, there were simply too many examples of things that went wrong. In learning those lessons, we need to make sure that the emphasis in any future Government compensation scheme is on co-design, timeliness and fairness for victims.