BEIS0001195
BEIS0001195
Horizon Compensation Programme Board Note
Chair: Carl Creswell (CC) Date: 21/08/2024
Attendees (DBT)
Rob Brightwell (RB), Helen Thomas (HT), Joel Miah (JM), Eleri Wones (EW1), Ellen Wasden (EW2),
Shay Abedin (SA), Fidelma Griffin (FG), Elena Michael (EM), Beth White (BW), Ross Fielding (RF),
Grace Cockerill (GC), Ethan Corkhill (EC), Helena Raraty (HR)
External Attendees
Simon Recaldin (SR) [POL], Milo Kershaw (MK) [HMT], Bruno Williams (BW) [UKGI]
Comparison of Legal representation, Decision-Making Process and Appeals Mechanisms Across
Schemes
- EM introduced the paper, sharing that this paper was for information and no decisions
would be required at the meeting.
- On legal representation, the position of OC, GLO and HCRS was known, that reasonable costs
were paid, GLO and HCRS had legal tariffs, OC was done on a case by case basis, and the HSS
was determined at the offer stage.
- On decision making, the GLO and HCRS were set up so that DBT reviews first offers, in
contract with OC where POL reviewed first offers. EM noted that principles had been aligned
across schemes, namely on CAGs and principles.
- On appeals. All schemes had an independent panel in place, OC, GLO and HCRS utilise an
independent reviewer.
- CC thanked EM for providing an overview of differences and commonalities between the
schemes.
- CC commented on the legal side, acknowledging that HSS was quite different and that some
sort of explanation may need to be provided to the inquiry on this matter.
Monitoring and Evaluation
- RF introduced the item alongside a slide deck
- RF provided an outline of the update on this area. The team was feeling an increased
pressure from the internal DBT evaluation team to produce evaluation data on the redress
schemes.
- RF highlighted that there were no immediate evaluation plans for non-horizon related
schemes due to limited resource and order of priority.
- RBasked if there was a requirement to evaluate schemes run by POL. RF responded (from
his perspective) that it does lay with DBT, as funding for POL was provided by DBT. CC
acknowledged this, reflecting that this would require closely working with POL.
- Capture was flagged, uncertain as of the date of the board if there would be a scheme for
this, though in the event a scheme was stood up then evaluation would also be needed for
this area.
- RF spoke through the slide deck and the various evaluation plans for the schemes, outlining
that GLO had its evaluators appointed.
- OnHCRS, lessons learned from previous criticism on speed of standing up M&E activity has
led them to ensure that a plan was in place from the stand up of the scheme.
- On HSS, added complexity that it could become a multi delivery approach, POL led HSS and
DBT led HSS appeals.
BEIS0001195
BEIS0001195
With OC, the plan for this was simpler and smaller in comparison to the other schemes given
its smaller claimant pool, and that a lighter approach could be taken for this scheme.
RB asked about a programme level M&E exercise and if there was a plan in place for this,
proposing if a unified singular approach would be simpler than carrying out multiple M&E
exercises.
RF responded that the scheme by scheme approach provided a more comprehensive and
nuanced M&E exercise. That a programme level review would limit the number of suppliers
that could perform such a large single evaluation exercise, risking a loss of detail and depth
in the data that could be attained.
RF also shared that an “FYI” sub would be shared with the minister. Additionally, he asked if
there was an post office colleague that he could collaborate with on schemes led by them
In relation to a question by the board on if evaluation exercises would strain vulnerable
claimants, the response was that the companies being used to engage in evaluation
specialise with dealing with vulnerable individuals, confident in suppliers capability in
approaching claimants.
CC recommended to the analyst team to consider the governance behind carrying out the
M&E work.
SR offered himself as the POL contact and was forthcoming in his offer to collaborate on the
M&E exercise. He also offered select areas of POL’s resources that could be used to aid in
the data collation process.
Finance
Comms
HR mentioned on the GLO, it had reprofiled into next FY based on current run rate, OC costs
had been reduced due to passing of HCRS bill. Those were the main points flagged for notice
to the board.
BW added spending review return was to be done in coming days. Questioned whether
similar numbers would be needed for SRR or PPR, Helena responded that those numbers
should indeed be looked at.
EM highlighted that the main thing to mention is that first round of case manager reports
had been published.
SR also noted for the board’s information that there would be an interview with a capture
victim, and that a capture angle should be added to the comms tracker
Programme Dashboard
CC provided a high-level overview of the dashboard with the information as presented
RB asked to consider the relative ratings of the projects in relation to one another, given that
GLO was rated Amber, and the HCRS rating was amber/green. Though given the challenging
and risky nature of the HCRS project could this rating be higher. CC recommended that this
rating be reviewed at the respective project board.