Introduction
6.1. As is obvious from the heading above, this section contains my conclusions and recommendations relating to redress. It is vitally important in my view, that these matters are addressed as soon as can be. No purpose would be served by HM Government or the Department delaying consideration of my recommendations until the remainder of my Report is delivered. The whole reason for delivering this volume of my Report in advance of the remaining volume is that appropriate action in relation to the schemes for redress can be taken as soon as is reasonably possible. Accordingly, the first recommendation which I make is that:
1. HM Government and/or the Department and where appropriate the Post Office and Fujitsu shall provide written responses to my recommendations by 10 October 2025.
6.2. The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry, as I have interpreted them, require me to assess whether the schemes for providing financial redress described above have “properly” delivered financial redress to all eligible claimants. In the revised List of Issues which I published on 10 January 2022, I made it clear that such an assessment would involve considering (i) whether, and if so, to what extent, the schemes provided an adequate means for providing financial redress and (ii) whether in fact, claimants were being compensated adequately.[310]
6.3. As it happens, before I had finalised the List of Issues, the Post Office, the Department and Ministers had announced that they were committed to providing financial redress to claimants which was full and fair. They had also committed to delivering such financial redress promptly. Following the publication of the List of Issues, there was no rowing back from those commitments. Indeed, throughout the course of the Inquiry, all three continued to assert that they were committed to providing financial redress to claimants which was full and fair and that their aim was to provide payments to the claimants promptly. In its written submissions following the evidence in Phase 7, the Post Office stressed that the overarching aim had always been, and continued to be, that postmasters should receive full and fair redress, promptly.[311] In his written and oral submissions at the close of Phase 7, Mr Chapman vigorously defended the Department’s commitment to deliver redress which was full and fair. He relied, in particular, upon the evidence of Ms Munby that “she had never encountered anything that could be described as resistance or opposition to that intent, from anyone”.[312] Ms Munby’s tenure as Permanent Secretary at the Department spanned the period July 2020 to February 2023, a time during which there were repeated pronouncements that financial redress should be full, fair and prompt. It was also during that time that I drew attention to the phrase in the Progress Update and emphasised its significance.
6.4. The evidence adduced at the Inquiry satisfies me that the commitments to provide financial redress which is full and fair and to provide it promptly were made in good faith and represented the genuinely held aims of the Post Office, the Department and Ministers. I am satisfied too, that the Post Office, the Department and Ministers continue to adhere to the aims of providing financial redress, which is full, fair and prompt. I say that on the basis of the witness evidence of Ministers, Departmental Officials, and the Board members of the Post Office who provided written and oral evidence to the Inquiry.
6.5. That said, I am also satisfied that the commitment to provide financial redress promptly became a particular priority for Ministers and the Department from early/mid 2023. This change in mindset took place in the face of mounting delays in the delivery of all the schemes then existing, and a growing realisation that the process of assessing offers was, on any view, taking far too long in some instances. Many high value and complex claims in all schemes could not be resolved within a reasonable timescale. Hence the advent of Fixed Sum Offers, first in OCS and thereafter, in GLOS and HSS.
6.6. Notwithstanding this change in mindset however I accept that the Post Office, the Department and Ministers remain committed to the aims of providing redress which is full and fair and delivering it promptly.
6.7. Ultimately of course, whatever aims the Post Office, and the Department have embraced, the real question is whether they have been able to fulfil those aims. Having reviewed the evidence with care, I have concluded that there have been too many instances in the past in which the aims have not been fulfilled and that, as things stand, there are many formidable difficulties in the way of achieving those aims going forward.
6.8. What has led me to those conclusions? I begin my analysis with some general observations.
6.9. I deal first with a linguistic point in case there is any confusion about the use of descriptive terms in this volume. In my view, redress which is full and fair is at least equivalent to adequate redress, (the description I use in my List of Issues) indeed it is probably more generous. If claimants (or at least most of them) receive financial redress which is full and fair that will also be a significant indicator that the schemes themselves, are capable of delivering redress adequately. However, in making a judgment in respect of the adequacy of the schemes to deliver redress, there is a further factor to be considered, namely, whether redress has been and is being delivered promptly.
6.10. Accordingly, in order to undertake the assessment required of me by the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and my List of Issues, and in order to assess whether the Post Office, the Department and Ministers have fulfilled their stated aims, I propose to answer the following question:
“Have the Post Office, the Department and Ministers delivered financial redress to claimants which is full and fair, and have they done so promptly?”
6.11. In order to answer that question sufficiently, there are sub-questions to be considered and answered. How should the phrase full fair and prompt be understood by claimants and the public at large. Considered objectively, what did the Post Office, the Department and Ministers intend the phrase to mean? Once the meaning of the phrase has been established, has the aim of providing redress which is full and fair in that sense been achieved? Has redress been delivered promptly?