Fujitsu boss ‘doesn’t know’ whether Horizon is reliable

The boss of Fujitsu Europe has admitted he “doesn’t know” whether Post Office Horizon’s IT system, which is at the heart of the wrongful convictions of hundreds of sub-postmasters, is reliable.

Paul Patterson told the investigation into the scandal that there are “bugs, errors and defects” in the accounting system and that it is clear “there is a degree of unreliability”.

He agreed that this would be an issue for sub-postmasters currently using Horizon.

In his second appearance before the inquiry, Patterson also admitted he did not know whether Fujitsu had done an independent report on the software system.

Although he added that he would welcome a third-party investigation.

Between 1999 and 2015, hundreds of sub-postmasters and postmistresses were wrongfully prosecuted after Horizon created the impression that money was missing from their branches.

Fujitsu’s Horizon contract is up for renewal early next year and can be extended for another five years.

Patterson said he was “very concerned” about what could happen if this happens, due to Horizon’s unreliability.

“In my experience… if you don’t upgrade (IT systems), I can’t determine what will or won’t happen, which is part of my nervousness about expanding them,” he said.

Monday marked the start of the final week of evidence at the inquiry, more than two and a half years since it began hearing evidence in public.

Mr Patterson said Fujitsu was committed to paying compensation to victims of the scandal, calling it a “moral obligation”, but said the company waited until the end of the investigation before actually doing so.

In a heated exchange with Sam Stein KC, who represented some of the victims, Mr Patterson was asked why this was so.

“You already accept the need for Fujitsu to put its money where its mouth is,” Mr Stein said.

Mr Patterson said the company wanted to hear all the evidence before moving forward. “These are complex issues and we need to understand all the components,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch gave evidence – as a former business secretary, the government post office fell under her remit.

She said the broadcast of the TV drama about the post office scandal “brought urgency” to accelerate compensation payments for sub-postmasters.

The government needed to be seen to be doing the right thing, Badenoch said.

She accepted at the inquiry into the scandal that it was “extremely disappointing” that it took the ITV drama to escalate the issue.

But she said her row with the Treasury Department over the time it took to issue compensation last August was not just a result of her “attitude.”

Badenoch said Bates vs The Post Office, which aired in January, had raised awareness of the issue, turning compensation from “a perception of value for money” to a matter of public perception.

She emphasized that work was being done on this issue by the previous government, but admitted it was “too slow” and criticized the entire “government machinery” for delaying compensation.

The inquiry heard how Badenoch told the Treasury she wanted to give £100,000 “flat offers” to all sub-postmasters with a claim, with the inquiry describing to counsel Jason Beer KC her mention of “ministerial leadership” as a threat.

He said this could be seen as ‘soft power’ or ‘posture’.

But Badenoch denied the claim, saying: “It indicated the direction I wanted the department to take to make it very clear.”

She said she believed speed should triumph over accuracy, and admitted this might not have delivered value for money from a taxpayer’s point of view.

Badenoch was also questioned about her resignation of former Post Office Chairman Henry Staunton.

She said she was unaware how serious concerns about him were because of “vanilla updates” from officials.

Her statement of evidence gave her reasons for Staunton’s dismissal, including the former chairman attempting to close a whistleblowing investigation into his conduct, behaving in an aggressive, intimidating and disrespectful manner and having a poor understanding of the Post Office’s work.

Staunton has defended himself before after a report found he used derogatory language during a meeting about recruiting a board member. He has also refuted Badenoch’s claim that he was under “formal investigation” for “serious issues such as bullying”.

Earlier on Monday, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said ownership of the Post Office could be transferred to the thousands of sub-postmasters across the UK.

“Nothing should be off the table for the future of the Post Office,” he said, adding that the future of the organization will be outlined in the first half of next year.

He said the Post Office’s corporate culture was “at the root of this scandal” and that some sub-postmasters had “lost all confidence in the justice system” as a result.