UK biz dept overspent by £208M prepping to pay workers hurt in Post Office IT scandal
- Reference: 1738575012
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/02/03/uk_government_department_exceeds_spending/
- Source link:
In a statement, the National Audit Office said a lack of data and a breach in the department's spending limits that was tied to Post Office Horizon compensation schemes led it to issue its "qualified opinion" on the DBT's 2023-24 financial statements.
Horizon is an EPOS and back-end finance system for thousands of Post Office branches around the UK, first implemented by ICL, a UK technology company later bought by Fujitsu. From 1999 until 2015, around 736 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were wrongfully convicted of fraud when errors in the system were to blame. It destroyed the lives of many involved, leaving some bankrupt and others feeling suicidal, with several succeeding in ending their lives.
[1]
While a number of [2]convictions have been quashed in the courts, 60 people died before just seeing any sort of justice served. A statutory inquiry into the mass miscarriage of justice was opened in 2021 is ongoing.
[3]
[4]
The government has launched two scheme by way of redress for the injustice: the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) and the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme (HCRS).
The HSS intended to support those who experienced financial discrepancies related to previous versions of the Horizon IT system. Individuals who qualify for HSS can choose to either accept a fixed sum of £75,000 ($93,000) or opt for a full assessment by an independent advisory panel.
[5]
"The Post Office is inviting current and former postmasters to apply to HSS if they wish to but haven't yet done so, as there will be a closing date for the scheme. It has advised DBT that it anticipates a response rate of approximately 25-30 percent and that the majority of new claimants will accept the fixed sum offer. However, due to the limited amount of available data on which to base this estimate, the eventual outcome could vary significantly," a statement from the spending watchdog said.
Meanwhile, the Department for Business and Trade also manages the HCRS, which is designed to compensate individuals who had their convictions overturned.
"Because this scheme is in its early stages, there is limited data upon which to base an estimate of future settlement values," the NAO said.
[6]We told Post Office about system problems at the highest level, Fujitsu tells Horizon Inquiry
[7]Fujitsu does not trust Post Office in use of Horizon data in future third-party prosecutions
[8]Post Office CTO had 'nagging doubts' about Horizon system despite reliability assurances
[9]Post Office CEO tells inquiry: Leadership was in 'dream world' over Horizon scandal
The Department for Business and Trade had assumed the proportion of applicants who choose to accept the fixed sum offer — rather than submit a full claim for detailed assessment — would be similar to the take-up rate for those who had their convictions overturned by the court which are being compensated through the Overturned Conviction (OC) scheme. The department was also working on the basis that the average settlement value for those choosing not to accept the HCRS fixed sum award would be significantly lower than its equivalent estimate for OC claimants.
"In light of the limited evidence backing up DBT's assumptions regarding both HSS and HCRS, the head of the NAO has limited the scope of his audit opinion," the NAO said.
[10]
The NAO also said the department had breached its authorized departmental spending limit by £208 million in anticipation of settling its HSS obligations. ®
Updated to add:
Since the end of the reporting period, the government has announced a provision of £1.8 billion ($2.2 billion), on an Annually Managed Expenditure basis, to provide more budget certainty. A DBT spokesperson told us: "This issue took place as a direct result of the decision to rightfully offer further redress to Horizon scandal victims, at a time when the high volume and complexity of claims meant there was significant uncertainty on the cost estimates.
"We have acknowledged this to the NAO and remain determined to ensure that all affected postmasters receive the financial redress they deserve to right these historic wrongs."
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z6Ch2vUkJZjo34YU3DocpAAAAUM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/11/post_office_horizon_scandal_first_subpostmasters_cleared/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z6Ch2vUkJZjo34YU3DocpAAAAUM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z6Ch2vUkJZjo34YU3DocpAAAAUM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z6Ch2vUkJZjo34YU3DocpAAAAUM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/18/we_told_post_office_about/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/12/fujitsu_does_not_trust_post/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/17/post_office_cto_inquiry/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/10/post_office_ceo_inquiry/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z6Ch2vUkJZjo34YU3DocpAAAAUM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "first implemented by ICL, a UK technology company later bought by Fujitsu"
It would be unfair to mention one without the other.
It started out as ICL Pathway’s crock of shit and while Fujitsu had 15 years to fix it, didn’t, and doubled down by conspiring with the POst Office to pervert the course of justice it seems only fair to give the original architects their fair share of the credit…
Re: "first implemented by ICL, a UK technology company later bought by Fujitsu"
The dozens of articles written here by Lindsay Clark on this scandal have focussed on the facts and the statements by the participants, without the author expressing their opinion. That is what I want to read. I'm not here for a blog to tell me what to think. I don't think you could read these articles without concluding that some post office employees should go to jail and some Fujitsu employees should follow them.
There is one article where the journalistic mask slipped slightly and Lindsay's opinion came out.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/11/uk_post_office_epos_procurement/
"The public inquiry into the scandal centers on the deployment of Fujitsu's bug-ridden Horizon accounting system , which made mistakes in calculating the finances of local Post Office branches. The errors and the erroneous prosecutions left some bankrupt and others feeling suicidal, with several succeeding in ending their lives. Sixty people died before just seeing any sort of justice served."
They still don't get it.
Personally I think 75k is a derisory sum considering what these PO victims have suffered over the years.
P.S.
Oh, and how do you compensate those that are dead - I bet their families don't get as much as a stale crust.
Re: They still don't get it.
Yes, it's somewhere between a slap in the face and a kick in the balls, isn't it?
Given what the PO put these people through, this so-called "compensation" is less than three years salary. How is this not an insult?
Let's start with this:
* Double postmaster salary for every year since then and now.
* For everybody convicted whether by "evidence" or their forced "confession", double it again.
* For everybody who had to sell important assets (such as their home) to pay money they didn't steal, double it again.
* For everybody who spent time behind bars, if only a single day in a police cell, double it again.
* For those who chose to take their lives, double it again for their families.
Yes, we're now talking millions per person. And why not? This was straight up malicious incompetence and those companies concerned need to suffer harsh consequences, not a minor amount that is "the cost of doing business". Let them argue amongst themselves who pays what.
Oh, and one final thing, once a far more appropriate compensation is determined, and not this shitty 75K, specify clearly that it will double for every calendar year that it is not paid out. Make it far too expensive to drag this on and on until the people involved cark it, otherwise they'll do exactly that.
Icon, because this is what it needs and this should only be the beginning, these companies cannot be trusted and must be audited to hell and back.
"first implemented by ICL, a UK technology company later bought by Fujitsu"
The Register unfailingly includes this line in any article about what I'm half inclined to start calling The Fujitsu Scandal as it feels rather contrived. Is Fujitsu paying you to say "Fujitsu is obviously blame-free in this unpleasant business and is the real victim here"?