More than £1m of unexplained transactions were transferred in to Post Office profit at the height of the Horizon scandal, leaked documents have showed.
The papers seen by Sky News show a snapshot of transfers from a Post Office “miscellaneous client” suspense account over a four year period, up to 2014.
A suspense account is where unexplained, or disputed, transactions remain until they are able to be “reconciled”.
Unaccounted-for transactions were transferred out of the Post Office suspense account and into their Profit and Loss account after three years.
Ian Henderson, director of Second Sight – the forensic accountants hired years ago by Post Office – said: “The Post Office was not printing money. It was accumulating funds in its suspense account.
“Those funds belong to somebody, either to third party clients or to sub-postmasters, and part of the work we were doing in 2015 was drilling into that.”
Mr Henderson said they were sacked not long after asking questions about whether Post Office profited from shortfalls paid for by sub-postmasters.
Image: Mr Henderson told Sky News that the money could potentially have come from sub-postmasters’ pockets
More than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted due to faults with Horizon accounting software.
Advertisement
A letter from Alisdair Cameron, the Post Office’s chief financial officer, to Second Sight in February 2015 states some “postings cannot be traced” to “underlying transactions”.
He added: “We are not always able to drill back from the combined totals to itemise all the underlying transactions.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:45
‘Compensation paid by summer’
Mr Henderson said the letter shows that “the Post Office was benefiting from this uncertainty due to, frankly, bad record keeping, but taking it to the benefit of their Profit and Loss account.”
He maintains that it’s impossible to prove for sure that sub-postmasters’ money went into Post Office profit because of a “lack of granularity”.
He says therefore that it is of “sufficient public interest” that a further independent review into the use of suspense accounts should happen.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:37
Post Office redress delay overshadowed by executive drama
Mr Henderson added: “It didn’t come from thin air, where did the money come from? That’s a fundamental question Post Office have not answered.”
Meanwhile, separately, a secret recording obtained by Sky News indicates that Post Office was trying to gag the independent forensic accountants.
The recording is of a meeting in January 2014 between Second Sight, a lawyer and a Post Office representative.
It took place over a year before the accountants were sacked.
In the conference call there are signs the relationship between Post Office and Second Sight was beginning to weaken.
There is discussion about a contractual confidentiality agreement, a “Letter of Engagement” between the parties.
In the recording Ian Henderson says: “Either, you know, we have unfettered discretion and authorisation to just talk to MPs or we haven’t.
“At the moment, the way the document is drafted, we are prevented from doing that. That’s the issue.”
His colleague at Second Sight, Ron Warmington is heard agreeing.
In another part of the recording there are more concerns raised that the investigators are being blocked from talking to MPs.
Mr Henderson says: “My point is we should not be gagging either the applicant or Second Sight in being able to respond, you know, fully and frankly to MPs who frankly sort of set this whole process in motion.”
The Post Office representative replies saying they’re not trying to gag anybody.
Mr Henderson describes “a point of principle”: “In exactly the same way that when we were doing spot reviews, we disclosed to MPs, when they asked us a specific question, the information provided to us by Fujitsu and by Post Office.
“And that’s why it’s so important to establish this principle that there should be no gagging of Second Sight in relation to being able to discuss our investigative work with MPs.”
In the same meeting his colleague Ron Warmington said that if it later emerges that Second Sight have been “effectively gagged” in its dealing with MPs, “it’s not going to be Second Sight they are particularly annoyed with, it’s going to be Post Office.”
The representative responds directly with: “I think that’s something that the Post Office will have to deal with if – if it arises.”
Adding that “some of the terminology in terms of gagging is probably an exaggeration of what it is that is trying to be done here, and at the moment you haven’t signed anything.”
Post Office released a statement in response to the findings: “The statutory public inquiry, chaired by a judge with the power to question witnesses under oath, is the best forum to examine the issues raised by this evidence.
“We continue to remain fully focused on supporting the inquiry get to the truth of what happened and accountability for that.”
Rachel Reeves will unveil further welfare cuts in her spring statement after being told the reforms announced last week will save less than planned, Sky News understands.
The fiscal watchdog put the value of the cuts at £3.4bn, leaving ministers scrambling to find further savings.
Ms Reeves is now expected to announce that universal credit (UC) incapacity benefits for new claimants, which were halved under the original plan, will also be frozen until 2030 rather than rising in line with inflation
As originally reported by The Times, there will also be a small reduction in the basic rate of UC in 2029, with the new measures expected to raise £500m.
A Whitehall source told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby that it is “hard to tell how MPs will react”, as while the OBR’s assessment means fewer people will be affected by the PIP changes than thought, they “might be unhappy about the chaotic nature of it all”.
Several Labour MPs criticised the measures as pushing more sick and disabled people into poverty, while former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called the package a “disgrace” on Tuesday and accused the government of imposing austerity on the country.
Watch and follow the spring statement live across Sky News from 11am
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:10
‘Labour MPs are upset’
Spending cuts expected
Ms Reeves is expected to announce a large package of departmental spending cuts when she gives an update on the economy on Wednesday, potentially putting her on a further collision course with her own MPs.
Having only committed to doing one proper budget each year in the autumn, the spring statement was meant to be a low-key affair.
However, a turbulent economic climate since October means the OBR is widely expected to downgrade its growth forecasts for the UK while the government has borrowed more than previously expected.
This has wiped out the £9.9bn gap in her fiscal headroom Ms Reeves left herself at her budget last year – money she needs to make up if she wants to stick to her self-imposed fiscal rule that day-to-day spending must be funded through tax receipts, not debt, by 2029-30.
In a bid to fend off criticism, she will also announce an extra £2.2bn will be spent on defence over the next year to “deliver security for working people”.
The money is part of the government’s aim to hike defence spending to 2.5% of the UK’s economic output by 2027 – up from the 2.3% where it stands now.
Ms Reeves will insist this plan, set out by the prime minister in February, was the “right decision” against the backdrop of global instability, saying it will put “an extra 6.4bn into the defence budget by 2027”.
“This increase in investment is not just about increasing our national security but increasing our economic security, too,” she will say.
The money is coming from reductions to the international aid budget and Treasury reserves, and will be used to invest in new technology, refurbish homes for military families and upgrade HM Naval Base Portsmouth.
Remember “securonomics”? It was the buzzword Rachel Reeves gave to her economic philosophy back before the election.
The idea was that in the late 2020s, the old ideas about the way we run the economy would or should give way to a new model.
For a long time, we ignored where something was made and by whom and just ordered it in from the cheapest source. For a long time, we ignored the security consequences of where we got our energy from. The upshot of these assumptions was that over time, we allowed our manufacturing base to become hollowed out, unable to compete with cheap imports from China. We allowed our energy system to become ever more dependent on cheap Russian gas.
The whole point of securonomics was that it matters where something is made and who owns it. And not just that – that revitalising manufacturing and energy could help revitalise “left-behind” corners of the economy, places like the Midlands and the North East.
Back when she came up with the coinage, Joe Biden was in power and was pumping billions of dollars into the US economy via the Inflation Reduction Act – a scheme designed to encourage green tech investment. So securonomics looked a little like the British version of Bidenomics.
That’s the key point: the “security” part of “securonomics” was mostly about energy security and supply chain security rather than about defence.
More on Defence
Related Topics:
But when Rachel Reeves became chancellor, it looked for a period as if securonomics was dead on arrival. Most glaringly, Labour dramatically trimmed back the ambition and scale of its green investment plans.
But roll on a year or so, and we all know what happened next.
A new era
The Democrats lost, Donald Trump won, came into office and swiftly triggered a chain reaction that panicked everyone in Europe into investing more in defence. Today, much of the focus among investors is not on net zero but on defence.
All of which is to say, securonomics might be about to resurface, but in a markedly different guise. In the spring statement, I expect the chancellor to bring back this buzzword, but this time, the emphasis will not be on green tech but on something else: the defence sector.
Expect to hear about weapons
This time around, the chancellor will say securonomics 2.0, which is to say government investment in the defence sector will also bring an economic windfall, as old naval ports like Plymouth and Portsmouth see regeneration. This time, the focus will not be on solar and wind but on submarines and weapons.
Whether this rendition of securonomics is any more successful than the last remains to be seen. For the chancellor hardly has an enormous amount of money left to invest. While this week’s event is billed as a mere forecast update, the reality, when you take a step back, is more serious.
The chancellor will have to acknowledge that, without remedial action, she would have broken her fiscal rules. She will have to confirm significant changes to policy to rebuild the “headroom” against these rules. These will stop short of tax rises. Instead, the spending envelope in future years will be trimmed (think 1.1% or so spending increases rather than 1.3% or 1.4%). Those welfare reforms announced last week will bring in a bit of extra cash. And thanks to an accounting quirk, the decision (announced a few weeks ago) to shift development spending into defence will also give her a bit more space against her rules.
The austerity question
But even these changes will raise further awkward questions: is this or is this not austerity? Certainly, for some departments, that spending cut will involve further significant sacrifices. Are those benefits gains really achievable, and at what cost? And, most ominously, what if the chancellor has to come back to parliament in another six months and admit she’s broken her rules all over again?
The return of securonomics might be the theme she wants to focus on in the coming months – but that, too, depends on having money to invest – and the UK’s fiscal position looks as tight as ever.
A new boxing format which promises to eliminate often-controversial human judging decisions is in talks to raise $50m from heavyweight investors amid a broader shake-up in the funding and marketing of combat sports.
Sky News has learnt that STRIKR, which will use data-driven scoring by embedding sensors in combatants’ mouthguards and deploying technology from partners including Hawk-Eye, is in detailed talks with a large number of prospective backers about its first major funding round.
Sources said that scores of prospective investors were due to attend the first alpha test of STRIKR’s technology in action at an event to be held at The Outernet, an entertainment venue in Central London, this week.
People close to STRIKR’s development said its proprietary technology could track the exact trajectory, speed and force of punches.
This, they said, would open up huge betting market opportunities by enabling live in-play gambling, which they added would boost consumers’ engagement with the sport.
Among the architects of STRIKR are Greg Nugent, who oversaw the marketing of the London 2012 Olympic Games, and Michael Sutherland, former chief transformation officer at Real Madrid.
Stephen Duval, founder of sports and entertainment corporate finance group 23Capital and creator of Superset Tennis and Superfighter, is also among STRIKR’s co-founders.
More from Money
Sources said the initial fundraising of about $50m would be followed by a larger capital-raising as the concept gained momentum.
Oakwell Advisory, a sports-focused corporate finance firm, is advising STRIKR on its talks with investors.
They added that STRIKR had the potential to “revolutionise” boxing in the same way that T20 had changed international cricket and that data-driven technology and smarter marketing had introduced Formula One motor racing to new audiences.
STRIKR is understood to work by using artificial intelligence combined with technology from Hawk-Eye Innovations and Protecht to generate more than 3,000 points of data about each punch thrown by a boxer.
By promising to eliminate the controversy which frequently accompanies the ringside verdicts of boxing judges, the new format is likely to claim that its advent will deliver a greater level of objectivity, integrity and transparency to one of the world’s most popular sports.
Responding to an enquiry from Sky News, Mr Duval said: “STRIKR is a new format of boxing that uses world-class technology to generate real-time objective scoring.
“It will create a different approach to fighting, using a new format, enabled by new technology, to engage the existing audience and attract a new one, to the benefit of the market overall.”
Mr Duval declined to comment on the identity of the investors in discussions with STRIKR, although people close to the fundraising said it had already secured indicative commitments encompassing a sizeable chunk of the $50m target.
The company also refused to be drawn on further details of commercial partnership discussions ahead of Monday’s test event.
STRIKR fights are expected to be free to watch, including on digital platforms such as YouTube, and will incorporate features such as personalised shopping and loyalty-based premium content.
The arrival of STRIKR – which is expected to include its maiden competitive events in the UK and US next year – will come at a time when investor interest in combat sports has surged amid an influx of funding from sovereign funds and other prominent pools of capital.
An official launch of the new format is said to be planned for May, with a series of exhibition events to showcase the technology later this year.
TKO Group, which owns UFC and WWE, this month struck a deal with the Saudi General Entertainment Authority to create a new international boxing league.
The Saudi government has already sanctioned an enormous investment in the sport through the creation of the Riyadh Season to secure the hosting of some of boxing’s most lucrative fights, including December’s world heavyweight title rematch between Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury, which was won by the Ukrainian.