Lord Sikka

The Public Sector Fraud Authority is committed to publishing data promoting transparency and highlighting progress across government to fight fraud against the public sector. Due to a number of factors the publication of the 2020-21 Fraud Landscape Report was delayed. The 2020-21 report has been drafted and will be published shortly.

The data for the 2021-22 Fraud Landscape Report has been collected and is currently being analysed. We will be looking to publish this data in a Fraud Landscape Bulletin in 2023.

The Public Duty Cost Allowance was introduced to assist former Prime Ministers still active in public life. The Public Duty Cost Allowance is a reimbursement of incurred expenses for necessary office and secretarial costs arising from fulfilling public duties to a maximum of £115,000

The amount claimed by each recipient under the Public Duty Cost Allowance is published each year in the Cabinet Office Annual Reports and Accounts.

The 2019-20 Fraud Landscape Report Bulletin, (which predates the pandemic), states that our best estimate of total fraud and error losses to Government are between £29bn and £52bn per year. This comprises the published estimates for fraud and error loss in tax and welfare, and an estimate for the rest of the system where the level is less well known.

For the 'rest of Government' (i.e. outside DWP and HMRC) the proportion of the estimate is between £2.5bn and £25bn a year. The ‘rest of Government’ estimate is overseen by an independent Oversight Board and built from a group of completed fraud and error measurement exercises done over the past 5 years.

Government departments that use the Government Recruitment Service (GRS) vX recruitment system to track candidates will collect diversity data on all applicants.

Candidates applying on promotion via an external campaign will not be asked questions on their ethnicity. They are, however, expected to complete the diversity questionnaire.

There is currently no legislative requirement or set methodology for the collection and reporting of ethnicity pay data for employers. Therefore no ethnicity pay gap figures are currently available centrally.

The Commission for Race and Ethnic Disparities recommended that employers report on ethnicity pay on a voluntary basis and publish a diagnosis and action plan to address any disparities.

The government is carefully considering the findings of the Commission’s report and will publish its response in due course, alongside the response to the 2018/19 consultation on ethnicity pay reporting.

The mean and median gender pay gaps for the Civil Service, as of 31 March 2021, were 7.8% and 8.1%, respectively.

Information on the gender pay gap in each government department is published annually, as part of Civil Service Statistics. A detailed breakdown of gender pay gap statistics by department, as of 31 March 2021, can be found here (published on GOV.UK on 28th July 2021).

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Dissolution. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

This information is not held centrally.

Cabinet Office does not hold the information requested, as individual departments are responsible for their own procurements.

Central Government contracts above £10,000 are published on Contracts Finder at https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search.

Central Government departments have drawn on the expertise and resources of a number of public and private sector partners to support the response to Covid-19. Details of central government contracts above £10,000 are published on Contracts Finder at https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search

This is a matter for Post Office Ltd as the Department does not hold this information. Government understands that all current Post Office employees who received the bonus have voluntarily returned the remuneration associated with the sub-metric relating to the Post Office’s support for the Inquiry. ​Nick Read (Post Office CEO) took a further step and voluntarily returned the full bonus payment attributed to the overall Inquiry metric.

700 postmasters were prosecuted by Post Office and a further 283 were prosecuted by others based on Post Office evidence, totalling 983 convictions. As of 13 February, there are now 102 overturned wrongful convictions.

On 10 January, the Prime Minister announced that the Government intends to bring forward legislation to overturn the convictions of all those convicted in England or Wales on the basis of Post Office evidence during the Horizon scandal.

Postmasters with overturned Horizon convictions are offered a fixed sum award of £600,000 to settle their claim, however those who wish to can continue to have their claim individually assessed. The amounts awarded to individuals are not revealed out of respect for their privacy, but the total so far paid to people whose convictions have been overturned is over £35 million.

The small number of postmasters who were prosecuted but not convicted are eligible to claim compensation via the Horizon Shortfall Scheme or GLO scheme.

Nominations to the Board of Post Office Limited are generally made by Post Office Limited’s Nominations Committee (‘NomCo’, a sub-Committee of the Post Office Board) with the resulting appointments confirmed by the Board, on the advice of the NomCo. The Shareholder Representative Non-Executive Director sits on NomCo, and the Shareholder (the Department for Business and Trade) approves the appointment. The exceptions to these processes are the appointment of the Shareholder Non-Executive Director and the appointment of the Chair, which are made by the Shareholder.

A historic record of appointments, as set out on Companies House, is provided below.

This is a matter which we expect that the statutory Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams will examine. The Government is cooperating fully with the Inquiry’s work and should not pre-judge its findings.

The Government has not provided funding for prosecution of sub-postmasters.

The Postal Services Act 2011 established Post Office Limited as a company independent of Royal Mail Group. The following table sets out the subsidies awarded by Government to Post Office Limited since the 2011/12 Financial Year. The funding covers annual network subsidy payments, investment funding and from 2021/22 funding for Horizon compensation payments.

We are not aware of any evidence that the National Audit Office (NAO) has been asked to review the operation of the Horizon system; the Horizon contract was always managed directly by Post Office, which does not come under NAO’s remit.

However the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry will look at the actions successive Governments have taken regarding oversight of the Horizon IT system.

We do not have the data related to WH Smith. In terms of reviewing prosecutions, after the landmark Court of Appeal judgment in April 2021, Post Office commissioned criminal lawyers to review all convictions which it had prosecuted which may have relied on Horizon data. Where Post Office has sufficient evidence that the conviction relied on Horizon data, it will contact that individual to let them know it would concede their appeal on the basis of evidence it holds, further to contact it has already made to convicted individuals. Furthermore, the Government is proceeding at pace with its commitments to legislate for the overturning of Post Office related convictions as per the Prime Minister's announcement of January 10th.

When appointments are made, conflicts are routinely addressed as part of the appointments process. The Companies Act sets out that a director must avoid situations where they have conflicts which conflict with the interests of the company and they must disclose conflicts of interest. As per the Companies Act requirements, any conflicts are disclosed in the company's Annual Report and Accounts, as is the mechanism for managing any conflict.

When appointments are made, conflicts are routinely addressed as part of the appointments process. The Companies Act sets out that a director must avoid situations where they have conflicts which conflict with the interests of the company and they must disclose conflicts of interest. As per the Companies Act requirements, any conflicts are disclosed in the company's Annual Report and Accounts, as is the mechanism for managing any conflict.

In the timeframe available to us, we have not been able to identify any Minister, civil servant, or director appointed by the Government advising the Post Office to make provision for contingent liabilities in its annual financial statements. The Post Office Board is collectively responsible for approving what is in the Accounts.

The Horizon Inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, aims to review all the evidence to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of Horizon. A number of the issues which the Inquiry is considering relate explicitly to the actions of Post Office.

The Government does not hold information on the number of prosecutions broken down by type of Post Office. Postmasters who repaid shortfalls, which arose as a result of the Horizon software, to the Post Office, can claim compensation for these amounts, as well as any other financial and personal damage which they have suffered as a consequence of the IT system.

The full 2,417 postmasters who claimed through the original Horizon Shortfall Scheme have now all had offers of compensation. Offers have totalled over £107m and over £93 million has been paid out in this scheme, with Post Office now dealing with late applications and with those cases where the initial offer was not accepted.

When appointments are made, conflicts are routinely addressed as part of the appointments process. The Companies Act sets out that a director must avoid situations where they have conflicts which conflict with the interests of the company, and they must disclose conflicts of interest.

The Department is not however aware of any specific assessment made with regard to Tim Parker’s role as Chair of HMCTS and Post Office Ltd decisions in response to postmaster appeals.

The Post Office CEO, Nick Read, confirmed to the Business and Trade Select Committee on 16 January, that Post Office would not block any Non-Disclosure Agreements being broken for postmasters. Minister Hollinrake, the Postal Services Minister, has since followed up with the Post Office to discuss what, if any, further action needs to be taken. My Department does not include any confidentiality provisions in the offers it issues to postmasters participating in the Group Litigation Order Compensation Scheme.

Henry Staunton took up his post as Chair of Post Office on 1 December 2022. His appointment was made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments and was subject to successful completion of all routine pre-employment checks, including consideration of any conflicts of interest.

There have been several versions of Horizon since its introduction in 1999 and the current version of the system, introduced from 2017, was found in the Group Litigation to be reliable, relative to comparable systems. Post Office continue to make improvements to the system and will be moving away from Horizon to a new IT system. The Government is providing funding to support this programme. In the meantime, Horizon remains in place. Fujitsu's role in the Horizon scandal is one of the issues being examined by the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Post Office Limited has entered into a standstill agreement with Fujitsu.

There have been several versions of Horizon since its introduction in 1999 and the current version of the system, introduced from 2017, was found in the Group Litigation to be reliable, relative to comparable systems. Post Office continue to make improvements to the system and will be moving away from Horizon to a new IT system. The Government is providing funding to support this programme. In the meantime, Horizon remains in place. Fujitsu's role in the Horizon scandal is one of the issues being examined by the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Post Office Limited has entered into a standstill agreement with Fujitsu.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is responsible for investigations of possible audit failures in cases of major public interest. The FRC is aware of possible questions as to the audit work conducted at the Post Office during the period in which issues arose with the Fujitsu Horizon system and is continuing to monitor developments in this case.

The Government does not hold this information. However, we will approach Post Office Limited on behalf of the Noble Lord and write when we have received a response.

The Government are confident that the statute of limitations will not have the effect which the noble Lord's Question implies.

Until the Horizon Inquiry is completed, and all of the evidence is known, it would be premature to take action against anyone who may have been involved in the scandal.

Post Office has not undertaken any private prosecutions related to Horizon since 2015. All Non-Executive Directors of Post Office joined from 2021 onwards and no current Board member was in place before 2015.

The Government has set up a statutory inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal. Collective and individual accountability for the scandal can only be considered when the Inquiry has reviewed all of the evidence.

The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board is an independent advisory board of parliamentarians and academics which oversees compensation related to the Post Office Horizon scandal, ensuring that the compensation schemes achieve fair outcomes for postmasters.

This is a matter for the statutory Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. It would be wrong to prejudice its work.

983 Post Office-related convictions have been identified during the relevant period. Not all of these will be directly related to the Horizon system.

These are matters for the statutory Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. It would be wrong to prejudice its work.