Why the Post Office paid £600m to stay shackled to the faulty Horizon system
The Post Office has paid more than £600m of public money to continue using the faulty Horizon IT system despite deciding to ditch it more than a decade ago, the BBC can reveal.The terms of the original 1999 deal with computer giant Fujitsu mean the Post Office has been stuck with the system and unable to build a replacement so far, even after it contributed to one of the UK's biggest miscarriages of justice.Former Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair and other senior Labour government figures were warned about potential problems with the terms of the deal before it was signed, the BBC has learned.The Post Office said it "apologises unreservedly to victims of the Horizon IT scandal" and said it was committed to moving away from Fujitsu and the Horizon software.
Under the terms of the original £548m deal, struck under pressure from the then-Labour government, the Post Office did not own the computer code for the core part of the Horizon system.Although the Post Office has wanted to switch suppliers since 2012, buying the rights to the code from Fujitsu or building a completely new system from scratch was considered too expensive - even as the amounts paid to Fujitsu to retain the Horizon system grew and grew.Because it did not own the code, the Post Office was also unable to inspect the part of the software that processed transactions, and had to rely on assurances from Fujitsu that it was functioning correctly.The Post Office, which is owned by the government, prosecuted about 700 sub-postmasters between 1999 and 2015 for theft, fraud and false accounting over supposed cash shortfalls in branches reported by the Horizon system, based on these assurances. The convictions were overturned by Parliament last year.Earlier this year, Business Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch told the House of Lords that the Post Office is "unfortunately, still dependent on the Horizon system", and the only way Fujitsu could be "out of the picture" immediately would mean shutting down all local post offices.An attempt to replace the system with one built by IBM failed in 2016, at a cost of £40m, and the Post Office extended its contract with Fujitsu for at least four more years at a cost of £107m.The Post Office told the BBC that it finally obtained rights related to the Horizon software and code in 2023, although it is not known if this includes the core system that processes transactions.The £10m price for the licence was "cheap - because who else would buy it?" according to IT expert Jason Coyne, one of the first people to identify flaws in the system.
The BBC understands that the Post Office may try to use this licence for Horizon's replacement. But while this is being built, IT experts believe the Post Office's contract with Fujitsu will need to be extended beyond March 2026 - when it is currently due to end.Issues over who would own the Horizon software began when the contract to computerise the network of Post Office branches - then numbering 18,000 - was negotiated between the Post Office, Fujitsu and its subsidiary ICL Pathway, and the government.In May 1999, Sir Tony Blair received an update from the Treasury, in a document warning that discussions with ICL over the terms of a deal "have foundered".One of the sticking points was around intellectual property rights (IPR) - which included ownership of the code within the Horizon software.The document says that ICL was "not prepared to... give perpetual licences for all the IPR".It goes on to say that if the Post Office ever wanted to change suppliers, the owner of the IPR "would be in a strong position to drive a costly settlement with the Post Office".
The BBC has also obtained a document from 20 May the same year, which was sent to then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and other government officials, warning about the issue of who owned the code.In it, a Treasury civil servant states that one of the "main problems" with the terms of a proposed deal with ICL for the Horizon software was the "issues surrounding ownership of assets and IPR of the kit acquired by" the Post Office.Mr Coyne, the IT expert, said it was "utter madness" that the deal went ahead in July 1999 because it meant that the Post Office became "operationally reliant on Horizon", even though it did not own the rights to use the system without Fujitsu.A spokesperson for Sir Tony Blair did not address the BBC's questions around his knowledge of the IPR issues but said he "took very seriously the issues raised about the Horizon contract" at the time."The final decision was taken after an investigation by an independent panel recommended it was viable."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."A spokesperson for Gordon Brown said he "would not have been shown the memo" from 20 May 1999 and he would have been copied in as a "formality"."He was not involved in any work related to the purchasing, award or management of the Horizon contract."
The warnings about ownership of the IPR came true more than a decade later when Post Office decided to invite other companies to take over the Horizon contract.Former executives told the Post Office Inquiry, which is examining decisions leading up to the wrongful convictions of hundreds of sub-postmasters, how the company had found it difficult to replace Fujitsu.Alisdair Cameron, former chief financial officer at the Post Office, said that Fujitsu had been "difficult colleagues" and "it was accepted that Horizon, and the infrastructure on which it was built, was vulnerable".But Mike Young, chief operations officer at the Post Office between October 2010 and April 2012, told the inquiry that Fujitsu management said to him "the code is ours. You own the service because you pay for that but you don't pay [for] the code".Documents released by the Post Office Inquiry show the "IPR issue" was often discussed by top-level Post Office executives."There is a risk that we may be unable to agree an IP license with Fujitsu on reasonable terms", said an agenda for a Post Office board meeting in July 2013 - while other documents describe concerns over costs.Procurement specialist Ian Makgill told us he believes not owning the IPR to the Horizon software would have been a factor in the collapse of the 2016 IBM deal to replace the system.He said that if IBM had tried to build new software without any of the IPR from Horizon, it would have needed to "start from scratch, which would have cost the Post Office hundreds of millions of pounds"."IPR is the reason why the Post Office hasn't been able to move away from Fujitsu and the Horizon software," he said.Since 1999, the Post Office has spent £2.5bn on contracts with Fujitsu. This figure includes more than £600m spent on bridging or extension contracts to continue the Horizon contract since the Post Office started looking for new suppliers in 2012, according to analysis from data firm Tussell and the BBC.Many of the sub-postmasters wrongly accused by the Post Office maintained that there was no missing money and the shortfalls were down to errors in the Horizon system.But with the Post Office unable to directly inspect the system which processed transactions, it accepted assurances from Fujitsu that the system was working correctly.
"Fujitsu were fighting the whole time to protect their investment and their intellectual property, rather than looking after the interests of the sub-postmasters," said Mr Makgill.Fujitsu did not respond to the BBC's specific questions but stated that it was "focused on supporting the Post Office in their plans for a new service delivery model" so branches can continue to operate.Mr Makgill said that the Post Office bears the "ultimate responsibility" over the fate of wrongly accused sub-postmasters."They didn't have to take those prosecutions, they didn't have to take people to court."Sub-postmasters currently using the Horizon IT software continue to report issues with it. Seven in 10 said they had experienced an "unexplained discrepancy" on the system since January 2020, according to a YouGov survey with 1,015 respondents commissioned by the Post Office Inquiry in 2024.The Post Office has said that it has not undertaken any prosecutions related to Horizon since 2015 and "has no intention of doing so".It told the BBC that it is "implementing changes across the entire organisation" so that it is "fit for the future, fundamentally changed and with postmasters at its heart".It said this includes working with Fujitsu to correct discrepancies and reviewing the current version of Horizon - replacing it in stages, under a five-year plan named the "Future Technology Portfolio".Post Office chairman Nigel Railton has said a new IT system would not be introduced in one "big bang" but there would be gradual changes.The Post Office did not respond to the BBC's specific questions about IPR being the reason why the company was unable to ditch Fujitsu, and said it would not be appropriate to comment ahead of the Post Office Inquiry's final report.The Department of Business and Trade told the BBC that it was providing £136m of funding over the next five years to the Future Technology Portfolio, and was "working at pace" to ensure the Post Office had the technology it needed, including replacing the Horizon system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The radio debut of the House of Commons: ‘there could be a long-running series here' – archive, 1975
Permanent radio broadcasts from the House of Commons began on 3 April 1978, and from the House of Lords on 4 April. Television broadcasts began on 21 November 1989. 10 June 1975 Ed Boyle, the commercial radio commentator for the first broadcast of parliament, yesterday spent two hours cooped up in a tiny glass box at a temperature of nearly 90 degrees, wearing a jacket, tie, and buttoned up collar, suffering from a particularly ferocious type of dysentery which has already brought his weight down to eight stone. Just to add a touch of challenge to the job, he was operating a new type of microphone kindly supplied by the BBC with operating instructions entirely in Japanese. In spite of this, Mr Boyle and his BBC colleague, David Holmes, who were trapped together in the same tiny glass box, managed somehow to give composed and informative account of the proceedings. Mr Holmes admitted afterwards that the heat had been so great that at times he had thought he would not be able to carry on, and though listeners may have noticed his voice fading occasionally, he always remained strikingly coherent and apparently in command. Mr Boyle now intends to make a few swift changes to make life slightly more bearable. Apart from sartorial changes to Bermuda shorts, for himself, he plans to make commentating easier by fading out some members when the discussion gets too technical. 'Some of the questions are really on very minor and erudite issues, and I guess the MPs won't mind if we turn them down occasionally so as to explain to the listeners what is happening.' Yesterday the two broadcasters were blessed by a good chunk of pungent topical debates, with Tony Benn using industry questions as the chance to prove himself a good Euro-democrat, and with splendid quotations like: 'If the opposition wants any head on a charger, the leader of the Conservative party will have to be a lot more seductive as a Salome than she has been so far.' At the same time, there were highly complex questions about, for example, the funding of the new pod for the stretched version of the Rolls-Royce RB 211 – a matter of great importance, but one which cannot be explained in the few seconds between question and answer. Both commentators had to trim down their remarks to within a second or so either way: Mr Holmes reckoned that if he did not spot immediately whether the speaker was calling an MP for a supplementary or for the next question on the order paper, he would lose two of the four or five vital seconds of explaining time. Time was so tight that Mr Boyle had to make a definite policy decision to give the first name of each MP as well as his surname and party. Often their time was so limited they could only say: 'This is a question about Europe' or, 'This is about British Leyland.' Mr Holmes hopes to grab a few more seconds of talking time while MPs are laughing and cheering between answers. But both men were pleased with the way things had gone, and came out of the box easier in mind if not in body than they had been when they went in. 'What's encouraging is that it looks as if we can do a proper job without the house having to change its way of going about business or even the tempo of its debates, so no one need feel that we are interfering in any way,' said Mr Holmes. The commercial company plans to use more material than the BBC will use, with prime minister's questions live every Tuesday and Thursday, plus special debates. It will also have an hour of extracts and highlights each morning – twice as long as the BBC – with an instant feedback service from a panel of MPs who took part in the debate; and possibly a Saturday morning edition giving chunks of the week's committees. Val Arnold-Forster, our radio critic, adds: It was a lucky day for broadcasters, according to David Holmes at the end of the transmission – audibly breathing a sigh of relief. It was too, it was a well or luckily chosen parliamentary day. At first, both Holmes and his opposite number, Ed Boyle of IRN, seemed to feel a trifle defensive about parliament. Well they might, for BBC listeners anyway missed not only some of Woman's Hour and a play, but since political events always seem to invade children's entertainment, they also missed Listen with Mother. Before the actual live broadcast started, both political editors showed us round like keen members of a parent-teachers association displaying their school: eager to tell us about the hallowed tradition, the problems that the whole institution had in a changing society, and the usefulness of the work done. The leader of the house, Edward Short, appeared on both channels in his headmasterly capacity to say that this was a particularly noisy House of Commons, but he hoped that the MPs would be on their best behaviour. A bit unruly, he thought, and not only the MPs either. There would have been more room, said Mr Short, in the tiny broadcaster's box if IRN and BBC had done the decent thing and agreed to a joint transmission. Nobody need have worried: from the moment question time started we were in capable hands. Both David Holmes and Ed Boyle chipped into the debate sotto voce, to identify and give party allegiances and explanations. Both tried valiantly to feed the listener with the details that make the House of Commons come alive. 'Mr Bidwell, chairman of the Tribune Group … Mr Denis Skinner, always a lively performer … Mr Benn is smiling to himself.' But they need not really have bothered: the proceedings were jolly enough. For those of us used to hearing politicians debating cautiously in front of untried audiences or answering laboured questions and phone-ins, it was an entertaining experience to hear such skilful parliamentary technicians as Harold Wilson and Tony Benn, parrying questions, riposting, joking, and scolding. The jokes were not always very good, but that's true of other radio comedians. Perhaps the laughter and applause sometimes seemed excessive but the barbed retorts were well placed and, as in other radio shows, what seemed like impromptu repartee must have been rehearsed, if only in the bath. 'I do not require lessons in political morality from an honourable member who regularly signs the oath of allegiance and snipes continually at the royal family,' snapped Tony Benn to Willie Hamilton. The uproar which worried Edward Short was cheerful mostly. The general cosiness, which came through strikingly as everyone complimented everyone else on performances in the referendum debate, seemed as easy to grasp as the Archers: we could become as familiar with William Whitelaw's idiosyncrasies as Walter Gabriel's. Final verdict: early days yet, but there could be a compulsive, long-running series here.
Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday Dr Hilary Jones attend the Good Morning Britain Health Star Awards (Image: 2017 Mike Marsland ) TV doctor Hilary Jones has described assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. In its current form the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have. And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.' Article continues below Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill. Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'. He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love. 'And for me, it's always been very clear.' Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'. He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice. He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want. 'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody. And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.' Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame. 'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.' Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying. Article continues below Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?' 'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told to abandon 'austerity' welfare cuts in spending review by the SNP
The SNP says Labour must 'abandon plans to impose more austerity cuts' Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The chancellor is being told to 'scrap the Labour Party's devastating cuts to disabled people' in her spending review later this week. The SNP has written to Rachel Reeves ahead of her statement on Wednesday, urging her to 'abandon plans to impose more austerity cuts' and ensure there are no cuts to affordable housing, policing or the Scottish Government's budget. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivers a speech during a visit to Mellor Bus in Rochdale on June 4, 2025, to announce investments in regional transport (Photo: PETER BYRNE/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) |Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison also told the chancellor to 'change course' and abandon her self-imposed fiscal rules. Yesterday, UK Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Peter Kyle was asked if he could guarantee there would be no cuts to affordable housing and police officer numbers. In response, Mr Kyle said: 'The whole details of the spending review will come out on Wednesday.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dave Doogan MP, the SNP's economy spokesman, has now written to the chancellor calling on her to 'immediately and fully reverse Labour's austerity cuts to disabled people, pensioners and families, and deliver the investment needed to end child poverty, boost public services and grow the economy - instead of swinging the Westminster austerity axe again'. In his letter he also said the chancellor must 'deliver long-overdue funding for Scottish energy projects - including fully and immediately funding the Acorn Scottish carbon capture project, which has faced years of Westminster delays'. Mr Doogan also said Ms Reeves should match the Scottish Government's plan to scrap the two-child benefit cap and the bedroom tax, and introduce a UK-wide version of the Scottish child payment. 'It's safe to say 2025 has got off to a frantic and varied start. "It is a welcome antidote to get back to the constituency to meet businesses and organisations achieving so much for local people and local economies, in stark contrast to the chaos at Westminster.' He added: 'Instead of choosing more austerity cuts, the Labour government should be choosing to boost economic growth and make fairer choices to help families and properly fund public services. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'At the UK spending review on Wednesday, I urge you to scrap the Labour Party's devastating cuts to disabled people and abandon plans to impose more austerity cuts to public services, including affordable housing and policing, which would hit the most vulnerable and squeeze Scotland's budget.' Over the weekend Mr Kyle said police must 'do their bit' to 'embrace change' as the Home Office and Treasury continue negotiations ahead of the spending review. It is understood Home Office ministers do not believe there is enough cash to recruit the additional police officers Labour promised in its manifesto. He said 'every part of society was struggling' and the chancellor is facing pressure from all sectors - last week Ms Reeves also warned that not every government department will 'get everything they want' and said there were 'good things I've had to say no to'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Peter Kyle | Jonathan Brady/Press Association However Mr Kyle did confirm there would be a boost to spending on schools and scientific research. Over the weekend Ms Robison said the UK and Scottish governments must work together to support shared economic growth and end spending that bypasses devolution. She has called on the chancellor to relax her fiscal rules to enable investment in public services, to fully fund employer National Insurance contribution increases in the Scottish public sector, abandon welfare cuts, and fund the Acorn carbon capture project. Ms Robison said: 'The UK spending review is an opportunity for the UK Government to abandon some of its damaging policies such as cuts to welfare support for disabled people, to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She also said she hopes the chancellor will use the spending review to fully fund the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions in the Scottish public sector. Ms Robison added: 'The UK Government should also use the spending review to empower the devolved administrations with more flexible fiscal rules that can enable investment in public services and we need an end to spending that bypasses devolution so we can direct funds to best meet local needs. Finance Secretary Shona Robison presents the Scottish Government's budget at Holyrood | Getty Images 'We called on UK ministers to involve us at an early stage of this process, but since they've refused to provide us with any clarity on their spending priorities it's clear that it's business as usual for Westminster. 'We continue to call on the Treasury to use the spending review to change course, providing the funding we need to deliver for the people of Scotland.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Reeves's spending review on Wednesday will confirm how much taxpayers' money will be spent on public services such as the NHS, and how much money the UK Government will be investing in new projects. The chancellor set out department budgets for 2025/26 back in her autumn statement - this week's spending review will see her confirm the departmental spending allocations for the next three to four years. Government borrowing grew to £20.2 billion in April, which is £1bn higher than the same month in 2024 and more than economists had been expecting. Tax revenues also increased due to increases to employer National Insurance contributions - spending also increased due to increases to pensions and other benefits. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The UK Government has already previewed some of its spending decisions, such as raising defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 and cutting the overseas aid budget. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has also vowed to reverse the Labour Party's cuts to universal winter fuel payments, but has yet to set out the details on what this will look like.
