Fujitsu Europe Head Expresses Uncertainty on Horizon System Reliability

Paul Patterson, the head of Fujitsu Europe, has acknowledged his uncertainty regarding the dependability of the Post Office Horizon IT system, which was central to hundreds of erroneous convictions of sub-postmasters. During his testimony at the inquiry investigating the scandal, Patterson stated that the accounting system “have been bugs errors and defects” and that it is evident “that there is a level of unreliability.” He concurred that this situation would pose a problem for sub-postmasters presently utilizing Horizon. Appearing before the inquiry for a second time, Patterson further confessed that he was unaware if Fujitsu had commissioned an independent assessment of the software system. Nevertheless, he indicated that he would endorse an investigation conducted by an external party. From 1999 to 2015, numerous sub-postmasters and postmistresses faced incorrect prosecutions because the Horizon system falsely indicated financial discrepancies in their respective branches. The contract for Fujitsu’s Horizon system is scheduled for renewal early next year and has the potential to be prolonged for an additional five years. Patterson expressed being “very worried” about the potential consequences should this occur, citing Horizon’s unreliability. He elaborated, stating, “In my experience… if you don’t keep [IT systems] upgraded, I cannot determine what will or will not happen, which is part of my nervousness of it being extended.” Monday commenced the concluding week for presenting evidence at the inquiry, which began public hearings over two and a half years ago. Mr. Patterson affirmed Fujitsu’s dedication to providing compensation to those affected by the scandal, describing it as a “moral obligation,” yet he stated that the company would defer payments until the inquiry’s conclusion. During a contentious discussion with Sam Stein KC, who represented several victims, Mr. Patterson was pressed for an explanation regarding this delay. Mr. Stein remarked, “You already accept that there is a need for Fujitsu to put its money where its mouth is.” Mr. Patterson responded that the company wished to review all evidence prior to proceeding. He explained, “These are complex matters and we need to understand all the components.” Earlier that day, Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party and former business secretary, testified, as the government-owned Post Office fell within her purview. She asserted that the broadcast of the television drama concerning the Post Office scandal “brought the urgency” to accelerate compensation payments for sub-postmasters. Badenoch stated that the government needed to be “seen to be doing the right thing.” At the inquiry into the scandal, she conceded that it was “extremely disappointing” that the ITV drama was required to elevate the issue’s urgency. However, she maintained that her disagreement with the Treasury last August, concerning the delay in issuing compensation, was not merely a matter of her “posturing.” Badenoch explained that Mr Bates vs The Post Office, aired in January, heightened public awareness of the problem, shifting compensation from “a value for money perception to a public perception question.” She asserted that the previous government had been addressing the issue, but acknowledged that progress was “too slow” and criticized the entire “government machine” for impeding compensation efforts. The inquiry learned that Badenoch informed the Treasury of her desire to provide £100,000 “flat offers” to all sub-postmasters with valid claims, with inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC characterizing her reference to “ministerial direction” as a threat. He suggested this could be interpreted as “soft power” or “posturing.” Nonetheless, Badenoch refuted this assertion, stating: “It was signalling the direction I wanted the department to take to make it very clear.” She articulated her belief that speed should take precedence over accuracy, conceding that this approach might not have offered optimal value for money from a taxpayer’s perspective. Badenoch also faced questioning regarding her dismissal of Henry Staunton, the former chairman of the Post Office. She explained that she had been unaware of the gravity of concerns regarding him due to “vanilla updates” received from civil servants. Her submitted evidence statement outlined her justifications for Staunton’s termination, which encompassed the former chairman’s alleged attempt to halt a whistleblowing investigation into his behavior, his aggressive, intimidating, and disrespectful conduct, and his inadequate grasp of the Post Office’s operations. Staunton had previously defended himself following a report that indicated he used disparaging language during a meeting concerning board member recruitment. He has also denied Badenoch’s assertion that he was subject to a “formal investigation” for “serious matters such as bullying.” Earlier on Monday, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, suggested that ownership of the Post Office might be transferred to its thousands of sub-postmasters throughout the UK. He stated, “Nothing should be off the table for the future of the Post Office,” further noting that the organization’s future plans would be revealed in the first half of next year. He attributed the Post Office’s corporate culture as being “at the root of this scandal” and observed that some sub-postmasters had “lost all faith in the justice system” as a consequence.