Post Office paid £600m to continue using bug-ridden Horizon IT system
The Post Office has paid more than £600m of public money to continue using the bug-ridden Horizon IT system despite deciding it needed to be replaced more than a decade ago.
It has emerged that the government was warned about potential problems with the original £548m deal the Post Office struck with the Japanese company Fujitsu before it was signed in 1999.
The former prime minister Tony Blair and other senior Labour government figures were aware that, under the terms of the deal, the Post Office would not own the core computer code to Horizon, which would make it difficult to ever shift supplier, according to the BBC.
To date, the Post Office has spent £2.5bn on contracts with Fujitsu, including £600m on extensions since it started looking for new suppliers in 2012, and ultimately attempting to build its own technology, called the New Branch IT system.
The Post Office stopped private prosecutions based on Horizon IT data in 2015, after more than 900 operators were wrongly prosecuted over shortfalls resulting from the faulty system, a practice it has promised not to restart.
The Post Office started the hunt for a new supplier in 2012 and asked IBM to build a replacement system to Horizon in 2015, but that project was abandoned at a cost of £40m in 2016.
A later plan to build a new system running on Amazon's cloud computing system had to be abandoned in 2022.
The embattled business has been developing its own proprietary system, NBIT, which was meant to roll out this year.
However, it has been beset with delays and increasing costs that could run to more than £1bn, raising doubts it will ever be rolled out, with the Post Office and Fujitsu admitting they are likely to still be working together until 2030.
According to the BBC, Blair received an update from the Treasury in May 1999 warning that discussions with a Fujitsu subsidiary, ICL Pathway, over the terms of a deal for Horizon had 'foundered'.
One of the issues related to the implications of not controlling all intellectual property rights, with the Treasury warning that Fujitsu 'would be in a strong position to drive a costly settlement with the Post Office'.
A spokesperson for Blair did not directly address his knowledge of the intellectual property ownership problem but told the BBC he 'took very seriously the issues raised about the Horizon contract' at the time.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
'The final decision was taken after an investigation by an independent panel recommended it was viable,' the spokesperson said. 'It is now clear that the Horizon product was seriously flawed, leading to tragic and completely unacceptable consequences, and Mr Blair has deep sympathy with all those affected.'
In the same year a document was sent to Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, warning of the issues over code ownership.
A spokesperson for Brown said he 'would not have been shown the memo' from 20 May 1999 and he would have been copied in as a 'formality'.
The spokesperson told the BBC: 'He was not involved in any work related to the purchasing, award or management of the Horizon contract.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How to game the social housing system
Westminster council has announced that every single social housing tenant in the borough will receive lifetime tenancies. No test of need. No review of income. No incentive to move on. Once you've been awarded a property, you can stay as long as you like. When you die, your adult children may be eligible to inherit the lifetime tenancy too. Social housing tenants in Westminster pay around a fifth of what renters on the open market spend. They also have access to more than one in four properties in the borough, from flats in postwar estates to £1 million terraced houses. The council says it's bringing stability to people's lives but for many young professionals dreaming of their own home, it looks like something else: a bribe. Angela Rayner has secured £39 billion more for social and affordable housing this week. Local councils will use this money not only to build houses, but to buy them from private landlords. It's a form of class warfare which targets the most politically invisible demographic – young, propertyless professionals – whom the state exploits mercilessly. One woman told me that she and her partner rent privately on a joint income of more than £100,000, yet still cannot afford to buy in Westminster. 'We walk past people every day who are being subsidised to live in the middle of London, while we can barely get by,' she said. You may scoff at the plight of high-earning professionals, but do the maths: a couple in London on £100,000 loses around £27,000 to tax, £30,000 on rent and 9 per cent of income over £28,000 to student loans before travel and bills. For many professionals, working hard simply doesn't add up. They are not alone in feeling this way. Another woman I spoke to recently bought a flat in a converted west London maisonette, only to find Japanese knotweed growing into her garden from a neighbouring property. 'If I had normal neighbours, this would have been fixed years ago. But because the flat happens to be owned by a housing association, they're not dealing with it.' She could lose tens of thousands on the value of her home, while her neighbours don't face any consequences. This sense of imbalance is not new, but it's becoming harder to ignore. One woman found herself living above a man who is fresh out of prison. He was placed there by the local authority and uses the property to deal drugs, smoke weed and house his illegal XL bullies. When she complained, he threatened her with his dogs. When she spoke to the council, she was told the placement was intentional, to keep him away from 'negative influences' in a nearby estate. Voters, paying ever more in housing costs, want a system that also rewards those playing by the rules Middle-income earners are paying for a model that rewards dysfunction. In the course of reporting this piece, I spoke to a senior housing officer with more than three decades' experience, a social worker in one of London's most ethnically segregated boroughs and a former official who has witnessed profound changes in social housing. All spoke of claimants who game the system. 'People know what to say,' explained one officer. 'They'll allow mould to grow in their temporary accommodation to get on the council flat track. Or say their partner's become abusive. That gets them priority.' I was told that some families encourage their daughters to declare themselves homeless while pregnant. 'Everyone knows how it works,' one official said. 'You get her on the list and she'll get a flat in a couple of years. They'll take her back in the meantime, then she moves out when a property is offered.' Once housed, few ever leave. 'There's no incentive to move,' said the social worker. 'If you start earning, you don't lose the flat. If you stop, you get help again. People treat it like an inheritance.' In boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, entire communities have been built around this model. 'There's halal butchers, Islamic schools, mosques. The infrastructure is there.' The patterns are impossible to ignore. In Tower Hamlets, 67 per cent of Muslim households are in social housing. The reasons are complex: economic clustering, migration history, support networks, but the result is visible. Often newcomers are helped by others who know how the system works. 'You ask around, someone tells you what to do,' the former officer said. 'It's ingrained.' Fraud happens too, sometimes spectacularly. In Greenwich, Labour councillor Tonia Ashikodi was convicted of applying for council housing while owning multiple properties. In Tower Hamlets, another Labour councillor and solicitor Muhammad Harun pleaded guilty to housing fraud. Staff across multiple boroughs have been caught taking bribes. But most manipulation is quiet, legal and invisible. While middle-income Londoners compete with one another in the housing market, the government buys up more properties, removing them from the private rental pool. Westminster council has just spent another £235 million buying hundreds more properties. Those are now off-limits for those looking to rent or buy, pushing up the price of remaining homes. Here, too, are the hidden costs of the groaning social housing system. 'If you earn £100,000, you lose your child benefit, your tax allowance, your eligibility for support,' one young professional told me. 'But the person in the flat next door could be on full housing benefit and you're paying for them to live there.' For many, that's the injustice. The problem isn't that people are housed, but that they are housed indefinitely, unconditionally and often with more security than those footing the bill. If we're serious about fairness, long-term benefit claimants should be rehoused in cheaper areas. This isn't about punishing those people. In fact, it's the kinder thing to do: it would free up homes for teachers, nurses, civil servants, people who make cities function and who are priced out. A new politics may be emerging from this tension. Not one of ideology but of exasperation. Last month, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick published a video in which he confronted fare-dodgers on the Tube, asking why they felt they could get for free what everyone else had to pay for. It went viral for a reason. Voters, paying ever more in taxes and housing costs, want a system that also rewards people who play by the rules.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
I've lost control of the kitchen
Looking back, I can pinpoint my fatal blunder. It was lunch. It was like the West allowing Vladimir Putin to help himself to the Crimean peninsula without a peep, basically. This is how it happened. My husband had invited two families to stay over the May bank holiday which bled into half term. For four days. 'Don't worry,' he said, in light tones, ahead of their arrival. 'I've told them they're bringing all the food and doing all the cooking.' As if I'd welcome this wonderful idea, when in fact what he'd suggested was the domestic equivalent of handing over the nuclear football and the codes behind my back. The guests are delightful and I couldn't wait to have them all (five adults and five children), but guests handling the catering was never going to happen under my roof, as my husband ought to have known. One, I am a fast and capable cook. I came second to Ed Balls in the final of the BBC's Celebrity Best Home Cook series (and maintain that he won because he made a pirate cake with full sails out of chocolate and he blubbed). Two, if an Englishman's home is his castle, the female equivalent of the White House Situation Room is a woman's kitchen. The last thing I needed, in other words, was several other bossy middle-class parents occupying my catering HQ on Exmoor. Plus, I'd already ordered a van-busting home delivery from Sainsbury's. On the Art of War principle that 'supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemies' resistance without fighting', I replied: 'Oh no, don't worry! But maybe they can do lunches?' Category error on my part. Perhaps I'm late to the party here but, as it turned out, the families didn't really have a concept of 'lunch' as a separate meal, after breakfast and before supper. They simply prepared and ate fare whenever they or their children were hungry, which was, of course, all the time. In more civilised places than the Johnson compound, i.e. Provence or Tuscany, when you have 12 people for four days it's understood that one of the 'main' meals will be 'out', i.e. at a restaurant to spare mine hosts, and the convention is that the guests stump for this. But the farm is two miles from Tarmac. It's an hour round trip for a pint of milk. A two-hour round trip to a pub. All meals are eaten in and none are 'opt'. The last thing I needed was several other bossy middle-class parents occupying my catering HQ on Exmoor On day one, everyone arrived at teatime after extended drives on the M4 and M5. We had tea and cake, and a late-ish supper. So far, so good. Two meals down! Day two was different. When provisioning, I'd texted my husband's nephew to ask what his three heavenly girls ate for breakfast. 'Bacon eggs toast juice fruit yoghurts porridge etc,' came the detailed reply. I therefore rose at 8 a.m. to slam the first tray of bacon in, yet there were people refilling the coffee jug and boiling eggs and stirring porridge at elevenses. Still, the guests did a fine clear-up and cleared off with the kids to a local beauty spot while I made scones for tea. Everyone returned from Tarr Steps at 1 p.m., making noises about their lunch duty, and invaded the kitchen. For hours. With what I felt was superhuman restraint – I can make an apple crumble in five minutes flat, and on Best Home Cook I made crab ravioli on a bed of fennel with a citrus jus from scratch starting with flour and water for the homemade pasta in 35 minutes – I only said 'But how long does it actually take to boil rice?' loudly around three times. At 3 p.m. (!) there was a simple lunch of delicious dahl (brought from London in Tupperware) and the rice on the table. As I shovelled it in, I worked out that at this rate, there would be half an hour until tea; tea would run straight into children's supper; and then adult supper. I had an awful vision of us all mealing non-stop till bedtime. I therefore put my fork and foot down and made an announcement. First, there would be a 'breakfast window' of an hour. As it was already past 3.30, I went on, we would have the scones for pudding. This went down well. So I went to the kitchen to fetch the scones. It was then that I discovered a full tray of chicken pieces in the Aga bubbling in their juices. Genuinely panicked, I returned laden with the scones, Rodda's and jams. 'And what meal is all the chicken in the Aga for?' I queried, brokenly. The table fell silent. 'Oh I put them in, just in case the children were hungry… later,' one perfect guest replied as a dozen arms shot out to grab the scones as if they'd been deliberately starved by colonial aggressors for months. I sank to my chair and applied golden, crusted Rodda's thickly to my scone. It was clear there'd still be a whole other meal 'later', i.e. between now and children's supper and, after that, two more days of culinary occupation. On day three the dishwasher flooded. On day four, the Aga went out as if in protest and could not be relit. Looking back, yes – it was lunch. Lose lunch, and you'll be out-generalled in your own kitchen by a chicken traybake.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The BBC's Israel problem
Intrepidly, the BBC dared recently to visit Dover, Delaware – source, it implied, of starvation in Gaza. I listened carefully as its State Department correspondent, Tom Bateman, hunted down the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in the state which, he explained, is 'a corporate haven for those who like privacy'. Brave Tom did not find much, but that only proved to him that 'The main ingredients of this aid are its politics'. The foundation's chairman says he is a Christian Zionist which, for the BBC, is almost as bad as saying you are a neo-Nazi. The portentousness aside, it is reasonable to ask tricky questions of the American/Israeli organisation which claims it can solve aid in Gaza. The BBC's problem is that it would never, ever apply its investigative zeal to the cartel currently responsible for the aid that seems not to get through. When has it ever doorstepped the UNWRA operatives who moonlight for Hamas? When has it ever challenged the political 'ingredients' of UN agencies as they heap abuse on Israel and stay respectfully silent about Hamas? When has it complained that Hamas does not answer its calls? Perhaps Hamas does answer, welcoming the BBC's trusting approach. The Office of Rail and Road has noticed that our railway system comes down too hard on the innocent. Yes. The weekend before last, about to return from Newcastle, I found I had lost my ticket. I went to the ticket office, bearing my complete receipt, which even included my seat reservation. The man was pleasant, but said there was no way I could have a free new ticket or even an eventual refund. So I had to pay £133 (nearly £50 more than I had already paid) to travel. Approaching the train, I noticed that the barrier was open. Boarding, I found the computer seat reservations had all gone down. Alighting at King's Cross, I realised that no guard had checked my ticket on the journey and that the barriers were open and unmanned. So if I had 'cheated', I would have been unmolested but because I had owned up, I was out of pocket. Obviously this all started with my carelessness, but why can rail companies treat one as guilty until proven innocent though English law says the opposite? I spoke twice in Oxford last week to highly intelligent, mainly undergraduate audiences. The atmosphere reminded me of 1980s secret meetings of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain arranged by British intellectuals, such as Roger Scruton, who were smuggled in. One encountered young people who feared discovery but showed a touching belief in the life of the mind as they thirsted for freedom in the desert of enforced conformity. For the sake of their careers, I shall not reveal who my audiences were. From one attendee, I learnt that in Mods, the first half of the Oxford four-year Classics degree, one no longer studies Virgil or Homer. Instead, the only compulsory texts are Terence and Plautus. This is like reading theology without studying the Old or New Testaments (which, come to think of it, is probably now commonplace). Are there any subjects, outside the liberal arts, in which each generation is encouraged to know less than the previous one? Are there physics degrees which drop quantum theory, or maths ones without calculus? We have contrived a culture in which universities grow, yet knowledge shrinks. As a graduate of Cambridge, I am depressed by my university's decision to open up the Chancellorship to all of us. We always felt smug about Oxford's beauty contest between superannuated politicians. Ours was uncontested. Now we have to endure a dingier version of the Oxford rhodomontade. The Chancellor of Cambridge should not strike attitudes or take sides, as a vote compels. He or she should be unspeakably grand/rich/disinterested. For many years, the late Duke of Edinburgh held the post, faction-free, because he was married to the then Queen, had a mind of his own and had never been to a university. After Prince Philip, our Chancellor was Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a blamelessly benevolent prince of commerce. Now there are ten candidates, all with 'statements' staking their claims. Gina Miller, the eurofanatic, wishes to 'affirm Cambridge's commitment to modernity and equality'. Sandi Toksvig, the television personality, says she speaks up for 'equity, inclusion, rewilding, sustainability and tackling online bias'. We don't want someone who speaks up. Why can't we have the present Duke of Edinburgh, alumnus of Jesus College, who gives diligent public service and will therefore remain silent? There are a great many stories about ransomware and the damage it causes. Presumably these attacks happen mainly because the businesses attacked pay the ransom. One never reads about this, or how criminals get away with the money. If a business pays, is it acting legally? If a public limited company pays a ransom, could shareholders sue? If, on the contrary, it is argued that paying the ransom is good for shareholders, could they sue a company that refused to pay? Friends tell me – and I believe them – that Chloe Dalton's new book Raising Hare is excellent. It does not automatically follow that she is right to call for a new law to impose a close season on hare-culling. The patchy shortage of hares (in some places, the fields are teeming with them) is not attributable to shooting but to habitat loss, vermin and European Brown Hare Syndrome. Besides, as is so often the case when people itch to legislate, there is a relevant law already. Under the Hares Preservation Act 1892, it is an offence to sell, or expose for sale, any hare or leveret between the months of March and July inclusive. Hares may only be sold if shot between 1 August and the last day of February. There is therefore no commercial incentive to orphan a hare in the breeding season.
