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
North Wales Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.
Leader Live
18 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.
Glasgow Times
18 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
What does the universal credit immigration data show?
A total of 7.9 million people were receiving universal credit (UC) as of June 2025, up from 6.8 million a year earlier, according to the Department for Work & Pensions. The vast majority of current claimants are people who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions: British and Irish nationals, plus those who have right of abode in the country. Some 6.6 million people were in this category in June, making up 83.6% of all claimants. This is a higher proportion than a year earlier (82.5%) as well as being a jump of one million from 5.6 million. The next largest proportion are people who have a right to live in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme. These accounted for 9.7% of all claimants in June 2025, down from 10.7% a year earlier, though the number of people in this category rose slightly from 732,107 to 770,379. Some 2.7% of claimants were classed as having indefinite leave to remain in the UK, separate from the EU Settlement Scheme, up from 2.2% a year earlier. This status gives people the right to live, work and study in the UK for as long as they like and apply for benefits if they are eligible. Some 211,090 people were in this category, up from 150,838 in June 2024. The proportion of claimants who had refugee status was 1.5%, down from 1.6%, though the number rose slightly from 111,011 to 118,749. The percentage in the UK for humanitarian reasons was unchanged year-on-year at 0.7%, with the number up slightly from 51,146 to 54,156. In addition, there was a fall in both the number and proportion of claimants classed as having limited leave to remain, or temporary immigration status, from 1.3% (86,129) to 1.0% (75,267). Overall, people from outside the Common Travel Area of UK and Ireland accounted for 15.6% of UC claimants in June 2025, down from 16.5% in June 2024. This covers the five categories of the EU Settlement Scheme, humanitarian status, refugee status, indefinite leave to remain and limited leave to remain. The number of claimants across these categories increased from 1.1 million to 1.2 million year on year, up by nearly a tenth. But the total number of UC claimants rose by a faster rate, up by nearly a sixth, from 6.8 million to 7.9 million. This is why the proportion of claimants from outside the Common Travel Area shrank year-on-year, from 16.5% to 15.6%, even though the number of these claimants rose. With 83.6% of claimants in June 2025 from inside the Common Travel Area and 15.6% from outside, the remaining 0.8% either had no immigration status recorded (0.4%) or were classed as 'other' (0.4%), such as people no longer receiving UC payments or ineligible partners of an eligible UC claimant. These percentages have changed only slightly in recent years. The proportion of claimants from the Common Travel Area of the UK and Ireland stood at 82.9% three years ago in June 2022, 82.4% in June 2023, 82.5% in June 2024 and 83.6% in June of this year. The proportion from outside the Common Travel Area was 16.2% in June 2022, 16.7% in June 2023, 16.5% in June 2024 and 15.6% in June 2025. The new data also includes a breakdown of universal credit claimants by employment and immigration status. It shows that 34% of people on UC in May 2025 (2.7 million) were in employment and 66% (5.1 million) were out of work. A year earlier the figures were 38% (2.6 million) and 62% (4.2 million). Among the 5.1 million claimants who were not in employment in May 2025, 12% (604,914) were foreign nationals while 85% (4.3 million) were British and Irish nationals or those who have right of abode in the UK. These figures stood at 12% (514,961) and 84% (3.5 million) in May 2024. Of the 604,914 foreign nationals out of work and claiming UC in May this year, 343,741 were in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme; 109,324 had indefinite leave to remain; 60,753 had refugee status; 49,790 had humanitarian status; and 41,306 had limited leave to remain. Universal credit is available to people on a low income as well as those who are unemployed.
