RLITO000603
RLIT0000603
House of Commons
Business and Trade Committee
Post Office and
Horizon redress:
Instruction to deliver
Third Report of Session 2023-24
Report, together with formal minutes relating
to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed 5 March 2024
HC 477
Published on 7 March 2024
by authority of the House of Commons
Business and Trade Committee
The Business and Trade Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to
examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for
Business and Trade.
Current membership
Liam Byrne MP (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Chair)
Douglas Chapman MP (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline and West Fife)
Jonathan Gullis MP (Conservative, Stoke-on-Trent North)
Antony Higginbotham MP (Conservative, Burnley)
Jane Hunt MP (Conservative, Loughborough)
lan Lavery MP (Labour, Wansbeck)
Anthony Mangnall MP (Conservative, Totnes)
Julie Marson MP (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)
Andy McDonald MP (Labour, Middlesbrough)
Charlotte Nichols MP (Labour, Warrington North)
Mark Pawsey MP (Conservative, Rugby)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which
are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These
are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publication
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2024. This publication may be
reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at
www.parliament.uk /site-information/copyright-parliament/.
Committee reports are published on the Committee's website at
www.parliament.uk/CommonsBTC and in print by Order of the House.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Nick Beech (Clerk), Matthew Chappell
(Committee Operations Manager), Catherine Meredith (Second Clerk), Abigail
Millis (Senior Economist, Scrutiny Unit), Jacob Moreton (Media Officer), Heather
Nathoo (Committee Specialist), Lewis Pickett (Committee Specialist), Delfina
Raka (Committee Support Apprentice), Adam Taylor (Committee Specialist on
secondment from the National Audit Office), David Turner (Committee Specialist),
Tim West (Senior Media Officer) and Sue Wrightman (Committee Operations
Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Business and Trade
Committee, House of Comm. ondon SW1A OAA. The telephone number
for general enquiries is I GRO } the Committee's email address is
commonsbtc¢ 0
You can follow the Committee on X (formerly Twitter) using @CommonsBTC.
RLITOO00603
RLIT0000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver 1
Contents
Report 3
Background 3
Business and Trade Committee scrutiny 3
Role of Post Office in delivering redress 3
Instruction to deliver 5
Fast and fair 7
Conclusions and recommendations 8
Formal minutes 9
Witnesses 10
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 11
RLITOO00603
RLIT0000603
RLITO0000603
RLITO000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver 3
Report
Background
1. The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British
history. Between 1999 and 2015, the Post Office pursued sub-postmasters after errors in
the Post Office’s IT system, Horizon, caused false shortfalls to show in financial accounts.1
The Post Office demanded that sub-postmasters covered those shortfalls. Some sub-
postmasters were suspended, usually without pay; some sub-postmasters were dismissed;
and some sub-postmasters were prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for false accounting
and theft. Sub-postmasters experienced reputational damage, mental and physical health
problems and financial ruin. Several of them took their own life.2
2. In 2016, a group of 555 sub-postmasters and employees (‘the 555’) took the Post
Office to the High Court via a Group Litigation Order. The judge ruled in the 555’s favour,
stating that even after improvement, the Horizon IT system was not “remotely” robust.3
Following that ruling, the Group Litigation Order (GLO) compensation scheme, the
Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) and the Overturned Convictions scheme were established
to compensate victims.
Business and Trade Committee scrutiny
3. The Business and Trade Committee first scrutinised the Horizon scandal in March
2020 and published an interim Report on 17 February 2022.4 We revisited the issue of
financial redress for affected sub-postmasters in two evidence sessions on 16 January
and 27 February 2024. In the January evidence session, we heard from affected sub-
postmasters, campaigners, lawyers, the current CEO of Post Office Ltd, the Director of
Fujitsu, Department for Business and Trade officials and the Minister for Enterprise,
Markets and Small Business, Kevin Hollinrake MP. At our February oral evidence session,
we took evidence from sub-postmasters, Department for Business and Trade officials,
legal representatives, Post Office Ltd executives and the former Chairman of Post Office
Ltd, Henry Staunton.
Role of Post Office in delivering redress
4, The Post Office runs two financial redress schemes, the Horizon Shortfall Scheme
and the Overturned Convictions process. In addition, it plays a key role in the GLO
scheme, because it discloses the evidence to sub-postmasters that sub-postmasters must
provide when submitting a claim. We have consistently expressed concern about the Post
Office’s involvement in financial redress, because at the height of the scandal the Post
1 “Post Office scandal explained: What the Horizon saga is all about" BBC news, 20 February 2024.
2 Explanatory Notes to The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, Bill 16 of 2023-24, para 3.
3 Fora detailed overview of the lead up to the Hori zon trial in December 2019 and the settlement, see: House of
Commons Library, The Horizon Settlement and the future governance of the Post Office Ltd, (March 2020).
4 Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2021-22, Post Office and Horizon
= Compensation: interim report, HC 1129.
RLITOO00603
RLIT0000603
4 Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver
Office acted as “judge, jury and executioner” when convicting sub-postmasters.5 In our
February 2022 Report, we recommended that an independent intermediary body should
be set up to assist sub-postmasters in seeking financial redress, including providing
claimants with access to forensic accountants and legal experts who could advise on sub-
postmasters’ claims. The Government rejected that recommendation, arguing that setting
up sucha body would take significant time.6 We regret that the Government rejected that
recommendation.
5. At the oral evidence session on 27 February 2024, we heard that the Post Office still
suffers from a “toxic” culture and a complete lack of trust between the company and sub-
postmasters. When we asked former sub-postmasters whether the culture of the Post
Office had changed, they all replied “no” and were unable to identify any aspects of the
Post Office that have changed positively.7 Alan Bates observed:
Over the years that I have been dealing with Post Office, the culture has
always been Post Office. It has not changed; it has been the same for donkey’s
years. It will not change and you cannot change it.8
6. We also heard that the Post Office caused delays in financial redress sought by
sub-postmasters. James Hartley, a lawyer representing GLO claimants, said that it was
“inescapable” that there was a degree of incompetence and inefficiency when it came to
disclosing evidence to sub-postmasters. Mr Hartley estimated that on average it took the
Post Office six months to disclose records to allow claimants to submit a claim.9 Dr Neil
Hudgell, who represents claimants from the Horizon Shortfall Scheme and Overturned
Convictions, identified similar disclosure delays by the Post Office. He cited a case in
which he had been waiting for disclosure since July 2023, which amounts to a seven-
month delay at the time of writing.10 He added that in all cases with which he was familiar
on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, no postmasters had received full and fair redress:
I would love to sign off as many as I can and tell people, “Look: this is a
decent outcome. Try to get on with the rest of your life”, but I cannot find
them. In every case something is missing. 11
7. Whe Post Office ruined the lives of innocent sub-postmasters. It subsequently
failed to facilitate redress. Unsurprisingly, sub-postmasters have no confidence in the
Post Office. he Post Office’s leadership remains in disarray; its chairman has been
dismissed; and its chief executive, Nick Read, is under internal investigation.12 Mr
Read concurred that reform of the Post Office’s culture is still a “work in progress,”
5 During the scandal, the Post Office used its own investigation branch to bring private prosecutions against
its staff. It did this under the general right in English law for individuals and organisations to pursue private
prosecutions without using the Crown Prosecution Service. For more information, please see “ Post Office
scandal puts private prosecutions in dock,” Financial Times, 11 January 2024
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2021-22, Post Office and Horizon
= Compensation: interim report, HC 1129, page 15, para 48. OT
6 Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2021-22, Post Office and Horizon
= Compensation: interim report, HC 1129, page 2. OT
7 Qaor
Q403
3
3
©
fe}
©
fe}
FS
3
fe)
FS
Fey
8)
Ey
i]
fe)
RLITO000603
RLIT0000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver 5
and not “job done.” 13 In that context, we note that Mr Read has supplied misleading
evidence to the Committee on at least two counts, relating to the Post Office’s use of,
first, non-disclosure agreements and, secondly, public relations firms. 14 15 Khe Post
Office is not fit for purpose to administer any of the schemes of redress required to
make amends for one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.
8. The Government must immediately remove the Post Office from any involvement
in delivering redress for sub-postmasters and the Government should set out to the
Committee how it proposes to deliver swift and effective redress for sub-postmasters,
and in what legally binding timeframes. We repeat the Committee’s recommendation
that the Government set up a properly resourced independent intermediary to assist
sub-postmasters seeking to overturn convictions and seek compensation across all
redress schemes. This intermediary should provide claimants with access to forensic
accountants and legal experts who can offer advice to help ensure that claims are robust
as possible, that offers take account of all the losses suffered and that claimants do not
suffer significant detriment because records have not been kept by the Post Office or
other relevant organisations.
Instruction to deliver
9. We identified unacceptable delays to delivering redress across all schemes. As a
result, only 20% of the budget set aside for redress has been paid out.16 Nick Read stated
that he neither received written instructions to accelerate payment of redress nor had a
conversation with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, right hon. Kemi Badenoch
MP, about the need to accelerate payments.17 However, Mr Read also refuted the claims
of former Post Office Chairman, Henry Staunton, that instructions had been received to
slow the compensation process down, telling us “categorically” that neither he nor his
team have received instruction from the Government to slow compensation payments.18
The Director of Business Resilience, Carl Creswell, also denied that he received instruction
to slow payments, stating that in recent conversations with Ministers he has been told to
“definitely go faster”.19 We note for the record that, under oath, Mr Staunton stood by his
claims.20
10. The Director of Business Resilience, Department for Business and Trade, Carl
Creswell, told us that 147 out of a possible 478 applications (30.75%) have been submitted
to the GLO scheme and that only 55% of the necessary disclosure reports have been
issued.21 Alarmingly, the Government's support team at Addleshaw Goddard is staffed by
just 15 people, of whom only eight are qualified lawyers.22 Consequently, when we asked
13° Q541
14 Qq 565-571 & Q 593
17 Qq 468-469
18 = Q453
19 Qq 304-305
20 Qq 605-606
21 Q283 &Q 330
22 Q329
RLITO0000603
RLITO000603
6 Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver
witnesses from Freeths and Hudgell solicitors how long they thought that it would take
for their clients to see full and final redress under the current arrangements, both gave a
ballpark figure of one to two years.23
ll. Complicating the submission of claims is the Government and Post Office’s
requirement for extensive medical and financial evidence, which in many cases is simply
not available to former sub-postmasters. Furthermore, the claims forms are extremely
complex. Simon Recaldin, Remediation Matters Director, Post Office, conceded that the
claim form for the Horizon Shortfall Scheme was not simple enough, admitting that
“there are a number of issues with this. First is the clumsiness, the bureaucracy and the
legalese in that application form.”24
12. We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a Bill to deliver remedies
for the wrongly convicted and tackle the unacceptable delays in delivering redress for sub-
postmasters.25 The Bill presents an opportunity for legislation to improve the certainty
of delivering redress across all schemes. Our Chair, right hon. Liam Byrne MP, proposed
on the Floor of the House including in that legislation a suggestion first made by Alan
Bates to the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business of “hard” timeframes for
reaching first offer and final settlement, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant
if these timeframes are missed. However, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small
Business argued against setting a legally binding date, because the Government cannot
control when claims are received to be processed.26 None the less, the Minister told the
House of Commons that the Government would examine “all the various suggestions that
are made.’27
13. We acknowledge that setting legally binding timeframes to fix the total processing
time by which compensation claims must be concluded risks some cases not being
considered properly.28 To manage that risk, witnesses at our February 2024 oral evidence
session argued that it would be possible to set legally binding timeframes for each stage of
a compensation claim, beginning with a legally binding timeframe under which the Post
Office must issue the disclosure reports required for sub-postmasters to submit a claim,
followed by legally binding deadlines with penalties where subsequent deadlines are not
met.2 Sir Ross Cranston, the Independent Reviewer for the GLO Scheme, while noting
the risk that some cases may not be properly considered, nevertheless made it clear that
there is well-established legal precedent for enforcing such time periods:
[Yo]u could certainly escalate cases if you reached a timeline—in the law,
we often have deadlines, limitation periods and so on—so it could jump up
to the next stage.30
23 Q450
24 © Qq504-505
25 HC Deb, 26 February 2024, col 36 [Commons Chamber]
26 HC Deb, 26 February 2024, col 42 [Commons Chamber]
27 HC Deb, 26 February 2024, col 42 [Commons Chamber]
28 Q348 ~~
29° Q424
30 348
RLITOO00603
RLIT0000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver bs
Alan Bates commented:
I think there should be penalties involved where they are not met, and
then those penalties should go to the victims [ ... ] That would then be
compensation for having to wait and delay.31
14. To correct the abject failure to deliver timely redress for sub-postmasters, the
Government must include in its forthcoming legislation legal timeframes to deliver
redress to sub-postmasters. Those targets should include binding timeframes for each
stage of a compensation claim, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant for
failure to meet those deadlines. To accelerate the submission of claims, the Government
must review and radically simplify the evidential requirements of the claims process,
especially in relation to medical impact, consequential loss and repetitional damage.
Fast and fair
15. The Committee was extremely concerned to hear that a significant number of initial
offers made by the Post Office to sub-postmasters for redress were insultingly low.32 The
claims process currently requires sub-postmasters to submit claims without knowing the
full extent of Post Office records regarding their personal situation or the range of case law
precedents used to calculate heads of loss in initial offer letters issued by the Post Office.
Former sub-postmasters do not have access to a standardised tariff to estimate such
losses.33 Furthermore, there has been a wholesale lack of clarity about the availability of
legal assistance, the cap on legal assistance and the ability to take an interim payment while
continuing to contest a claim. The initial legal support made available to sub-postmasters
was in no way commensurate to the legal firepower available to the Post Office. As such,
contests to settle final claims have been unbalanced by a substantial inequality of arms.
16. To ensure that offers of redress are fast and fair, the Government must:
a) Require full disclosures by the Post Office of the information needed to submit
full and fair claims within legally binding timeframes;
b) publish a standardised tariff of damages to help sub-postmasters claim the full
amount to which they are entitled;
c) remove the cap on legal expenses for sub-postmasters to contest their claims;
d) allow those who have already settled under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme to
revisit their claims to ensure that they have received fair redress; and
e) introduce a legally binding independent appeals mechanism.
Fe}
8
By
fe)
fe)
RLITO0000603
RLITO000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver
Conclusions and recommendations
1.
The Post Office ruined the lives of innocent sub-postmasters. It subsequently failed
to facilitate redress. Unsurprisingly, sub-postmasters have no confidence in the
Post Office. The Post Office’s leadership remains in disarray; its chairman has been
dismissed; and its chief executive, Nick Read, is under internal investigation. Mr
Read concurred that reform of the Post Office’s culture is still a “work in progress,”
and not “job done.” In that context, we note that Mr Read has supplied misleading
evidence to the Committee on at least two counts, relating to the Post Office’s use
of, first, non-disclosure agreements and, secondly, public relations firms. The Post
Office is not fit for purpose to administer any of the schemes of redress required
to make amends for one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.
(Paragraph 7)
The Government must immediately remove the Post Office from any involvement
in delivering redress for sub-postmasters and the Government should set out to the
Committee how it proposes to deliver swift and effective redress for sub-postmasters,
and in what legally binding timeframes. We repeat the Committee’s recommendation
that the Government set up a properly resourced independent intermediary to assist
sub-postmasters seeking to overturn convictions and seek compensation across all
redress schemes. This intermediary should provide claimants with access to forensic
accountants and legal experts who can offer advice to help ensure that claims are
robust as possible, that offers take account of all the losses suffered and that claimants
do not suffer significant detriment because records have not been kept by the Post
Office or other relevant organisations. (Paragraph 8)
To correct the abject failure to deliver timely redress for sub-postmasters, the
Government must include in its forthcoming legislation legal timeframes to deliver
redress to sub-postmasters. Those targets should include binding timeframes for each
stage of a compensation claim, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant for
failure to meet those deadlines. To accelerate the submission of claims, the Government
must review and radically simplify the evidential requirements of the claims process,
especially in relation to medical impact, consequential loss and repetitional damage.
(Paragraph 14)
To ensure that offers of redress are fast and fair, the Government must: (Paragraph 16)
a) Require full disclosures by the Post Office of the information needed to submit
full and fair claims within legally binding timeframes;
b) publish a standardised tariff of damages to help sub-postmasters claim the full
amount to which they are entitled;
©) remove the cap on legal expenses for sub-postmasters to contest their claims;
d) allow those who have already settled under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme to
revisit their claims to ensure that they have received fair redress; and
e) introduce a legally binding independent appeals mechanism. (Paragraph 16)
RLITOO00603
RLIT0000603
RLITOO00603
RLIT0000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver 9
Formal minutes
Tuesday 5 March 2024
Members present:
Liam Byrne, in the Chair
Andy McDonald
Anthony Mangnall
Mark Pawsey
Draft Report (Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver), proposed by the
Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs I to 16 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 12 March at 9:45am.
10 Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver
Witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications
page of the Committee's website.
Tuesday 16 January 2024
Dr Neil Hudgell, Executive Chairman, Hudgell Solicitors; The Rt Hon. the Lord
Arbuthnot of Edrom
Alan Bates, Founder, Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance; Jo Hamilton, former
sub-postmistress
Nick Read, Chief Executive, Post Office; Paul Patterson, Director, Fujitsu Services
Ltd
Kevin Hollinrake MP, Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business,
Department for Business and Trade; Carl Creswell, Director, Business Resilience,
Department for Business and Trade
Tuesday 27 February 2024
Carl Creswell, Director of Business Resilience, Department for Business and
Trade; Mark Chesher, Partner, Addleshaw Goddard; Rob Francis, Partner,
Dentons Solicitors; Sir Ross Cranston, Independent Reviewer, Post Office GLO
Scheme
Alan Bates, former sub-postmaster and founder, Justice for Subpostmasters
Alliance; Tony Downey, former sub-postmaster; Tim Brentnall, former sub-
postmaster
Dr Neil Hudgell, Executive Chairman, Hudgell Solicitors; James Hartley, Partner
and National Head of Dispute Resolution, Freeths
Nick Read, Chief Executive, Post Office; Ben Tidswell, Chair of the Remediation
Committee, Post Office; Simon Recaldin, Remediation Matters Director, Post
Office; Simon Oldnall, Horizon and GLO IT Director, Post Office
Henry Staunton, former Chair at Post Office
Qi-41
Q42-83
Q84-225
Q226-266
Q267-372
Q373-424
Q425-451
Q452-604
Q605-667
RLITO000603
RLITO000603
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver
List of Reports from the Committee
during the current Parliament
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the
Committee's website.
Session 2023-24
Number Title
1st Batteries for electric vehicle manufacturing
2nd UK accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive
Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
1st Joint Scrutiny of Strategic Export Controls
Special
2nd Batteries for electric vehicle manufacturing: Government
Special Response to the Committee's First Report
Session 2022-23
Number Title
Ist Pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred
candidate for Chair of the Competition and Markets
Authority
2nd Draft Legislative Reform (Provision of Information etc.
relating to disabilities) Order 2022
3rd Energy pricing and the future of the Energy Market
4th Post-pandemic economic growth: state aid and post-Brexit
competition policy
5th The semiconductor industry in the UK
6th The semiconductor industry in the UK: Government response
7th Royal Mail
8th Memorandum of Understanding on scrutiny of the
Investment Security Unit
9th UK plc
10th Post-pandemic economic growth: UK labour markets
11th Decarbonisation of the power sector
1st Special Decarbonising heat in homes: Government Response to the
Committee's Seventh Report of 2021-22
2nd Energy pricing and the future of the energy market:
Special Responses to the Committee's Third Report of Session
2022-23
Reference
HC 196
HC 483
HC 436
HC 547
Reference
HC 523
HC 522
HC 236
HC 759
HC 291
HC 1115
HC 1045
HC 1235
HC 1120
HC 306
HC 283
HC 208
HC 761
RLITO000603
RLIT0000603
12 Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver
Number
3rd
Special
4th
Special
5th
Special
6th
Special
7th
Special
8th
Special
9th
Special
10th
Special
Title
Post pandemic economic growth: State aid and post-Brexit
competition policy: Responses to the Committee’s Fourth
Report of Session 2022-23
Revised (Draft) National Policy Statement for Energy:
Government response to the Committee's Ninth Report of
Session 2021-22
State aid and post-Brexit competition policy: Office for the
Internal Market response to the Committee's Fourth Report
The semiconductor industry in the UK: Further Government
response to the BEIS Committee's Fifth Report of Session
2022-23
Royal Mail: Responses to the BEIS Committee’s Seventh
Report of Session 2022-23
UK trade negotiations: Agreement with India: Government
response to the International Trade Committee's Fifth
Report
CPTPP: opportunities and challenges for the UK:
Government response to the International Trade
Committee's Sixth Report
Free Trade Agreement Negotiations with the Gulf
Cooperation Council: Government response to the
International Trade Committee's Seventh Report
Session 2021-22
Number
Ist
2nd
3rd
4th
Sth
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
1st Special
2nd
Special
Title
Post-pandemic economic growth: Industrial policy in the UK
Climate Assembly UK: where are we now?
Post-pandemic economic growth: Levelling up
Liberty Steel and the future of the UK steel Industry
Pre-legislative scrutiny: draft Downstream Oil Resilience Bill
Pre-appointment hearing of the Government's preferred
candidate for Chair of the Financial Reporting Council
Decarbonising heat in homes
Post Office and Horizon - Compensation: interim report
Revised (Draft) National Policy Statement for Energy
Draft Legislative Reform (Renewal of National Radio
Multiplex Licences) Order 2022
Decarbonising heat in homes: Government Response to the
Committee's Seventh Report of 2021-22
Net Zero and UN Climate Summits: Scrutiny of Preparations
for COP26—interim report: Government Response to the
Committee's Third Report of Session 2019-21
Reference
HC 1078
HC 1299
HC 1302
HC 1404
HC 1391
HC 1584
HC 1614
HC 1626
Reference
HC 385
HC 546
HC 566
HC 821
HC 820
HC 1079
HC 1038
HC 1129
HC 1151
HC 1199
HC 208
HC 120
RLITO000603
RLITO000603
Number
3rd
Special
4th
Special
5th
Special
6th
Special
7th
Special
8th
Special
9th
Special
10th
Special
Post Office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver 13
Title
Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains:
Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report of
Session 2019-21
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme: Government Response to the
Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2019-21
Climate Assembly UK: where are we now?: Government
Response to the Committee's Second Report
Post-pandemic economic growth: Industrial policy in the UK:
Government Response to the Committee's First Report
Post-pandemic economic growth: Levelling up: Government
Response to the Committee's Third Report
Liberty Steel and the Future of the UK Steel Industry:
Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report
Pre-legislative scrutiny: draft Downstream Oil Resilience Bill.
Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report
Post Office and Horizon - Compensation: interim report.
Government Response to the Committee's Eighth Report
Session 2019-21
Number
Ist
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st Special
2nd
Special
3rd
Special
4th
Special
Title
My BEIS inquiry: proposals from the public
The impact of Coronavirus on businesses and workers:
interim pre-Budget report
Net Zero and UN Climate Summits: Scrutiny of Preparations
for COP26 - interim report
Pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred
candidate for the Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committe
Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme
Automation and the future of work: Government Response
to the Committee's Twenty-third Report of Session 2017-19
Future of the Post Office Network: Government Response to
the Committee's First Report of Session 2019
Safety of Electrical Goods in the UK: follow-up: Government
Response to the Committee’s second report of Session 2019
COP2é6: Principles and priorities—a POST survey of expert
views
Reference
HC 241
HC 386
HC 680
HC71
HC 924
HC 1123
HC 1177
HC 1267
Reference
HC 612
HC 1264
HC 1265
HC 1271
HC 1272
HC 1346
HC 240
HC 382
HC 494
HC 1000
RLITO0000603
RLITO000603