Fujitsu: Post Office Horizon Case

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to Fujitsu regarding making an interim payment towards the costs of investigation and redress in the Post Office Horizon case.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Beamish, whose unwavering determination, moral courage and steadfast advocacy over these years have ensured that the voices of Horizon victims were heard, believed and ultimately vindicated.

Fujitsu has acknowledged its moral responsibility and has indicated its intention to make a financial contribution. The figure will be set once the Williams inquiry publishes the final volume of its report. We have made it clear to Fujitsu that an interim payment would be a valuable demonstration of intent. However, whether to make such payment and the level of any contribution remains a decision for the company.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that Fujitsu knew from the beginning that its system was faulty; that it knew that it was altering remotely sub-postmasters’ accounts without the knowledge of the sub-postmasters; that it knew that the Government and the Post Office were denying that these things could happen while prosecuting the sub-postmasters, how can Fujitsu possibly be a fit and proper organisation to do business with anyone in this country, let alone the Government? Or are we over a barrel?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the anger shown by the noble Lord, which I share, is completely understandable, considering the serious injustice experienced by so many sub-postmasters. These are exactly the issues that the independent inquiry is examining in detail. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral obligation to contribute to the costs of redress, and the Government have made it absolutely clear that it should do so. Decisions regarding its future role as a government supplier will be made carefully, based on the full findings of the inquiry.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation outlined by my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is right. Fujitsu provided the equipment for the Post Office and knew what was wrong with it, and, even worse, it had a contract to provide information in court to prosecute individual postmasters. Fujitsu was at the centre of this scandal.

My noble friend said that Fujitsu has announced that it has a moral obligation. Well, moral obligations do not pay bills. The taxpayer is on the hook already for over £1.4 billion paid out. Those postmasters—some, unfortunately, are no longer with us—need answers to this injustice. Fujitsu is hiding behind the inquiry. It could make the interim payment now. The Government must stop giving this company contracts: that is the only thing which will stop it and wake it up. Can my noble friend indicate when that decision will be made to stop giving Fujitsu work?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I share the frustrations my noble friend expresses. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that this inquiry takes place, and the findings will be published soon. As he will note, the first volume of the inquiry has been published, and it makes it clear that Fujitsu has an obligation to make compensation for the sufferings of all these postmasters. We are determined to ensure that Fujitsu plays its part.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it might help if your Lordships understand the scale of our commitment to Fujitsu. On my count, there are 30-plus live UK contracts, worth at least £5 billion through the lives of those contracts. Since the 2019 High Court ruling, HMRC alone has awarded eight contracts to Fujitsu. We do not need an independent inquiry to know that Fujitsu should be paying compensation, so what is stopping the Government pushing it to do that?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord touches on several points; let me go through each of them. First, the suggestion that we should simply walk away from existing Fujitsu contracts does not take account of the impact on public services.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Bear with me. For instance, Fujitsu provides communications between our submarines at sea and HQ. It supports HMRC’s self-assessment scheme and the Home Office border operation. It is also supporting the current Horizon scheme. Although a replacement is being developed and the Government are committed to the Green Paper that we just published, we are investing £483 million over the next two years to support the transformation, replacing Horizon and transitioning away from Fujitsu.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, if there is sufficient evidence to support the assertions two noble Lords have made about the extent of Fujitsu’s knowledge of the failures in their system—and I believe there is such evidence—have the Government not considered taking legal action against Fujitsu to enforce what would almost certainly be its legal liability to pay compensation for the massive losses its action has caused? Why are the Government just relying on a vague indication by Fujitsu that it has a moral obligation? A very great deal of money could be recovered for the taxpayer if a successful legal action was brought against this international company.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord but, as a former Secretary of State and Minister, he should know that the Government speak to government lawyers on a regular basis. An inquiry is taking place, and we should wait for it to finish and for the report to be published. An interim report has been published, and Fujitsu has committed to making a payment. When and how that happens is being consulted on and discussed between the two parties.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Can the Minister confirm that Fujitsu has a role in the national emergency alert system on which our entire society depends? If so, is it time for a rethink?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that, but I will definitely find out and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is it not inconceivable, in the circumstances that have developed, that Fujitsu could get away without making a payment? Should there not now be a ring-fenced fund into which it is required to pay, so that all the liability does not land on the taxpayer?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, we are in constant conversation with Fujitsu. It has already committed to pay compensation, but how and when that happens is currently being consulted on.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is wholly unacceptable for the taxpayer to be picking up the full cost of this scandal while Fujitsu, whose systems were at the heart of the failings, has yet to make any meaningful financial contribution? Can he confirm whether the Government will take advantage of the new procurement regime put in place by the previous Government, which allows the exclusion of suppliers from future procurement processes on the grounds of professional misconduct?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s expectation is clear: Fujitsu should bear the cost of redress resulting from the Horizon scandal. We are engaging constructively with the company and have communicated our position at the highest level. I cannot go further than that. However, it is not appropriate for the taxpayer alone to bear the burden of the failure in which Fujitsu was significantly involved.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, if the litigation strategy rightly suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, does not bear fruit, I would urge my noble friend and the Government to consider legislation to ensure appropriate legal restitution.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are open to all suggestions, and that is something we will consider.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in Questions answered by the Treasury, I was told that it did not have the power under procurement rules to prevent Fujitsu being awarded new contracts. If that is the case, are the Government going to change the rules?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions procurement. I am sure that the Cabinet Office is looking into whether any changes need to be made, but a live inquiry is happening at this time. We have to follow it through, and its findings will be published in due course.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I make the point that my noble friend’s work has been wonderful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Prime Minister should personally ring the Prime Minister of Japan, who had an amazingly successful outcome in the election, and suggest that she lean—this is my word—on Fujitsu, as it is in our interests to trade with them. I know that it is a bit late to ring tonight but, first thing tomorrow morning, the Prime Minister should speak to her personally and ask her to lean on Fujitsu.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I mentioned, the Government are having conversations with Fujitsu regularly, which I am sure are also at government level. I take the noble Lord’s point.