Government urges Fujitsu to pay compensation to victims of Post Office scandal
They also argued the under-fire company 'should be nowhere near' new Government contracts as it emerged it continued to secure lucrative multimillion-pound deals with Whitehall, bankrolled by the taxpayer.
The company has already acknowledged it has a 'moral obligation' to contribute to compensation, pending the outcome of the public inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams.
The firm has come under renewed pressure after the publication of the first part of Sir Wyn's final report.
It found around 1,000 people were wrongly prosecuted and convicted after Fujitsu's defective Horizon accounting system made it appear as though money was missing at their Post Office branches.
Some victims were sent to prison or financially ruined, others were shunned by their communities, and some took their own lives.
The long-running battle for justice accelerated dramatically after ITV broadcast the drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, which highlighted the scandal.
Sir Wyn said around 10,000 people are eligible to submit compensation claims following what has been dubbed as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
Labour former MP Kevan Jones, who now sits in the upper chamber as Lord Beamish, has been a long-standing champion for the subpostmasters.
He said: 'To date, the Government and taxpayers have paid over a billion pounds, quite rightly, to those victims.
'Fujitsu have not paid one penny piece. They may have a moral obligation, but moral obligations do not pay compensation.'
He added: 'So when will the Government get on and force Fujitsu to act on its moral obligations, put its hands in its pockets and at least pay some interim payments?
Responding, Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said: 'With regards to the payments by Fujitsu, we urge them to make interim payments, but there are ongoing conversations with Fujitsu, including regular meetings with the Crown representative, the Cabinet Office and DBT (the Department for Business and Trade) and we will continue to have such meetings.'
Conservative peer Lord Arbuthnot, who played a pivotal role in exposing the scandal, said: 'Fujitsu has paid not one penny towards the victims of the havoc and misery that it helped to cause.
'Is the Government – is the country – over a barrel to Fujitsu? If not, why is Fujitsu still winning government work? If we are, what are the Government doing about it?'
Lady Anderson said: 'They have accepted that they have a moral obligation to give funds, but he will be even more aware than I am that we are yet to see a penny.
'Fujitsu have agreed that they will have to make a financial contribution, but I am urged not to give a running commentary, although we will welcome any interim payment in due course.'
In addition to extensions available under Fujitsu's existing contracts, a further 12 new deals had been struck with the company over the last year.
The Government has said the majority are for services already provided by Fujitsu and were put in place to ensure continuity of services.
Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones raised concerns over HM Revenue & Customs continuing to award contacts to Fujitsu.
He said: 'In the light of the Horizon report, which condemns Fujitsu's conduct as a key contributor to the suffering of thousands of innocent people, isn't it already very clear that Fujitsu should be nowhere near any new contract?'
Lady Anderson said: 'Some of this is about continuity of service, to make sure that we are still able to have business supply secured.'
Given the 'human tragedies' caused by the wrongful convictions of subpostmasters, Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick pressed the minister over due diligence measures 'to ensure that contractors with a history of significant failures or legal issues can demonstrate that they have addressed these concerns before being awarded new contracts'.
Lady Anderson said new procurement legislation provided buyers with more scope to exclude suppliers who had performed poorly on previous contracts.
She added: 'Due diligence on such failures is also more straightforward as the act now provides for the sharing of information on poorly performing suppliers.'
A Fujitsu spokesperson said: 'We remain committed to providing our full cooperation to the inquiry as Sir Wyn prepares his final report and we are engaged with Government regarding Fujitsu's contribution to compensation.'
They added: 'We continue to work with the UK Government to ensure we adhere to the voluntary restrictions we put in place regarding bidding for new contracts while the Post Office inquiry is ongoing.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why is Fujitsu still winning government contracts in the wake of the Post Office scandal?
June 24 2025 was a red letter day for Fujitsu, the Japanese tech company. Winning two government contracts worth nearly £300m would be a cause for celebration for just about any company. The trouble is, just two weeks later, Fujitsu's name was being (justifiably) dragged through the mud for its role in the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, which led to some truly terrible human suffering and one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history. Some victims of the Fujitsu system's bugs, which led to false shortfalls in accounts (among other things), were financially ruined. Some were wrongly convicted of fraud and imprisoned. The first part of Sir Wyn Williams' report into the affair also revealed that there was a 'real possibility' the pain inflicted by the affair was linked to 13 suicides. One former subpostmistress told this newspaper that she would have been the 14th, if she hadn't been pregnant while in prison for crimes she simply did not commit. There should doubtless be consequences for those found to be at fault. Yet the company that created the system – and which employed people who knew it had issues as far back as 1999 – was still awarded two lots of government-paid work just a couple of weeks before the first volume of the report into the affair emerged. It beggars belief. But, wait, I hear you say, didn't Fujitsu promise not to bid for new government contracts until after the report back in January 2024? Well yes, it did. But here's the thing. There were carve outs. The pledge did not apply to existing contracts, extensions of existing contracts or to new work where its involvement was specifically requested. Those carve outs explain the results I got when I turned to a rather useful website called BidStats, a search engine for government contracts and tenders designed for those interested in bidding. When I looked for Fujitsu contracts over the last year, I found 27 entries. A few of those are double counts: there was sometimes an entry for both tender and contract. But even if you omit those, there were still more than 20 entries, involving a dizzying array of government departments, devolved administrations, quangos and other public bodies. They include the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health & Social Care, Social Security Scotland, the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, the Foreign Office and the British Council. Some of the contracts I looked at extend for the next three years. You and I are going to be contributing to Fujitsu's profits for quite some time. The really staggering revelation is that the Post Office is shelling out up to £72m to extend the Horizon Services agreement from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. This is, we are told, for 'IT services: consulting, software development, internet and support' needed 'in order to prepare the Horizon Agreement for expiry and in order to receive transitional support'. The Post Office told me that 'it's simply not possible to turn off Horizon overnight and get a new system up and running the following day'. 'We have been trying to come off Horizon/Fujitsu for a number of years,' I was told. But another pertinent question is this: why is Fujitsu still making money off Horizon? The company says it is in discussions about contributing to the huge compensation bill that the taxpayer – not anyone connected with the scandal – is having to shoulder. Let me be very clear, I am not arguing against the payments. Far from it. The people who have suffered so horribly deserve every last penny. The government should pull its finger out to ensure they are paid. But while the discussions proceed, shouldn't the company be covering the work needed to disentangle the Post Office from its system pro bono until a suitable replacement can be found and installed at the Post Office's 11,000+ branches? I believe it should. I received a similar response to that of the Post Office from HM Revenue & Customs, concerning the £300m worth I referred to at the outset. Here it is: 'This extension will be for a limited time on strict terms to protect essential HMRC services.' But then the plot thickens. There was also a £125m contract 'to deliver a modern digitally enabled ICT solution that will support the transformation of Land Registration Services' awarded by Northern Ireland Department of Finance. That is new work, not an extension. Fujitsu says it is because it was named as the 'preferred bidder' before its promise (a promise that looks to me like it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese). The Cabinet Office, which is front and centre on this, said: 'We have been clear that those responsible for the Horizon scandal must be held to account. Fujitsu has committed to withdraw from bidding for contracts with new government customers until the Post Office Inquiry concludes. We will not hesitate to take action, where appropriate, based on the final findings of the inquiry.' That's rather better than the trite message paymaster general Nick Thomas-Symonds delivered when he was questioned on the subject of Fujitsu contracts by LBC, earlier this week: 'With regard to Fujitsu, that's a matter for procurement,' he said. 'Those matters are looked at extremely carefully. We have to – procurement has a particular legal framework around it.' Here's the problem: Migrating from one IT platform to another is complex and expensive, and also risky. We all know what happened when TSB tried to switch from an IT platform provided by its previous owner, Lloyds Banking Group, to one operated by Sabadell after the Spanish bank took over the UK bank. Chaos ensued, with queues of angry customers lining up at branches after they were locked out of their accounts. However, given the flaws with Horizon – and especially the way this affair was handled by all concerned, not to mention the damage done – it is simply unconscionable that Fujitsu continues to pick up multi-million-pound awards of work. It doesn't matter that these are (mostly) extensions designed to ensure 'continuity of service'. The government needs to try harder. It should also reflect on whether it is a good idea to become so deeply reliant on a company that a divorce appears to be horribly difficult – if not impossible.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
India eases sulphur emission rules for coal power plants, reversing decade-old mandate
NEW DELHI, July 12 (Reuters) - India has reversed a decade-old mandate to install $30 billion worth of clean-air equipment, easing sulphur emission rules for most coal-fired power plants, a government order said. Reuters in December reported the government was reviewing 2015 norms that required nearly 540 coal-based power units to install flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) systems that remove sulphur from the plants' exhaust gases in phases starting in 2027. The federal environment ministry late on Friday issued a gazette notification that exempted 79% of the coal-fired power plants, outside a 10-km (6 mile) radius of populated and polluted cities, from the 2015 mandate. The mandate to install FGD for another 11% of the plants near populated cities would be taken on a "case-to-case basis," the notification said. The balance of 10% of the coal-fired power plants closer to New Delhi and other cities with a million-plus population will be required to install the desulphurisation equipment by December 2027, according to the new mandate. The notification comes after state-run NTPC ( opens new tab, India's top electricity producer, spent about $4 billion on installing the equipment at about 11% of the power plants, and about 50% of the units either placed orders for the desulphurisation systems or are installing them. The Friday notification did not mention the impact on the competitiveness or recovery of costs by these power plants. It said the decision was taken after the Central Pollution Control Board carried out a detailed analysis of the increase in "carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere due to operation of control measures being deployed."
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Licensing conditions for Berkshire jockey Oison Murphy to include testing on and off the racecourse
The champion jockey Oisin Murphy will be subject to enhanced testing both on and off the racecourse as part of conditions placed on his licence by the British Horseracing Authority - following his drink-driving conviction. Murphy, from Hermitage in Berkshire, was fined £70,000 and banned from driving for 20 months having pleaded guilty to drink driving after crashing a car into a tree in Berkshire. Following the conclusion of those proceedings at Reading Magistrates' Court, the BHA says it has been "liaising extensively with Mr Murphy and his team" which has resulted in the immediate imposition of "an extremely strict set of conditions and monitoring requirements" on his riding licence which "must be adhered to at all times". A BHA statement said: "The revised conditions have been designed to balance the need to maintain the safety, integrity and good reputation of British racing, with ensuring that Mr Murphy has access to the appropriate support and advice so that he meets the sport's expectations. "BHA licensing matters and the precise details of any conditions that may be placed on an individual's licence are a private and confidential matter between that person and the regulator. "However, we can confirm that Mr Murphy will be subject to stringent conditions, including detailed and strict procedures relating to further enhanced testing, both on and off the racecourse. "Mr Murphy must also engage regularly and proactively with the BHA. "In addition he must alert us, within a clearly stipulated timeframe, to any change in his personal circumstances that could reasonably be said to be relevant to his position as a licensed jockey." The BHA added both the conditions and Murphy's compliance will be subject to "careful monitoring and regular review", also warning it reserves "the right to seek the immediate suspension or withdrawal of Mr Murphy's licence" if those conditions are not met. The statement added: "As emphasised in our statement of last week, Mr Murphy's conduct has fallen well below the standards expected of licensed individuals. His actions - for which he has since apologised - jeopardised not only his safety, but that of his passenger and other members of the public. "Mr Murphy, like all licensed personnel, is expected to uphold the good reputation of our sport on and off the racecourse. He has been reminded of his responsibility.
