Brit politicians question Fujitsu's continued role in public sector contracts
- Reference: 1750846990
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/06/25/fujitsu_public_sector_contracts/
- Source link:
Following the widespread publicity around the Post Office Horizon scandal in January 2024, Fujitsu, which supplied the faulty computer system, volunteered to stop bidding for UK public sector contracts until the public inquiry had completed.
At the time, the Japanese computer giant was in the process of bidding for a contract to build Northern Ireland's new land registry system. It [1]won the £125 million contract in April 2025.
[2]
In letters to the Cabinet Office in January and February 2024, Fujitsu said it would "only bid for work with a new government customer if asked to do so." The Northern Ireland government [3]has confirmed it did not ask Fujitsu to continue bidding.
[4]
[5]
A number of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords – the UK's two legislative chambers – have since called on the government to clarify Fujitsu's role in public sector contracting while a public inquiry into the Horizon scandal continues.
Horizon is an EPOS and back-end finance system for thousands of Post Office branches around the UK, first implemented by ICL, a UK technology company majority-owned by Fujitsu in the 1990s and later taken over by the Japanese giant. From 1999 until 2015, around 736 subpostmasters were wrongfully convicted of fraud when errors in the system were to blame, destroying the lives of many involved. While a number of convictions have been quashed in the courts, 60 people died before just seeing any sort of justice served. A statutory inquiry into the mass miscarriage of justice launched in 2021 is expected to publish its first report in July.
[6]
Fujitsu has yet to contribute to victim compensation, although it has accepted [7]a "moral obligation" to do so. The Register understands that MPs and Lords are concerned that the company continues to win and bid for lucrative government contracts while [8]the compensation question remains open .
In June, Conservative MP Mark Garnier [9]tabled a Parliamentary question asking Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves if the Treasury had assessed Fujitsu's suitability to bid for [10]the Trader Support Service (TSS), a seven-year, £370 million contract to support a digital platform and call center to handle trading arrangements over the Northern Ireland border, "in the context of the failures of the Horizon system."
Fujitsu is the incumbent supplier of the system, and has been awarded around £500 million since 2020.
[11]
In response to Garnier, exchequer secretary James Murray said that contracting opportunities were "available to any economic operator that is able to meet the requirements of the procurement in compliance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015."
On June 17, Lord Bellingham [12]asked what assessment the government had made of the "propriety of Fujitsu's bid for the TSS contract in the light of the fact that the company has not yet contributed to compensation for victims of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal." The question was due an answer in seven days, and the government has yet to reply.
[13]Northern Ireland government confirms it did not ask Fujitsu to continue bidding for project
[14]Post Office finally throttles delayed in-house EPOS project
[15]Fujitsu and its no public sector bids promises... what happened to them?
[16]Fujitsu promised to sit out UK deals ... then Northern Ireland called with £125M
Bellingham, a former Conservative minister, [17]has written that Fujitsu is rebidding for the TSS . Fujitsu has been asked for comment.
Sir Gavin Williamson, former defence and education secretary, this month asked Reeves whether the government has formally invited Fujitsu to [18]rebid for the TSS and " [19]what assessment she has made of the potential impact of awarding the contract to Fujitsu on the reputation of that service."
Labour's Murray responded that the government contracts in question were being completed within procurement law and are publicly available. "We follow government procurement rules," he said. "Under the applicable legislation, there are no legal grounds that prevent Fujitsu from expressing its interest in this procurement. It is not appropriate to comment on any potential outcomes of a live public procurement."
Last week, Conservative MP Bob Blackman [20]asked minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds if he planned to "make an assessment of the potential merits of removing Fujitsu's access to public sector contract opportunities, in the context of the Horizon IT failures."
He also [21]asked the secretary of state for business and trade, Jonathan Reynolds, whether his department was considering designating Fujitsu as a high-risk vendor under the Procurement Act 2023, in the context of the failures of the Horizon system.
The responses to both questions remain overdue.
The Cabinet Office, Treasury, Department for Business and Trade, and Fujitsu were offered the opportunity to comment. ®
Get our [22]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/23/fujitsu_northern_reland/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aFwdFpY295iF-EBYOOBGFwAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/16/northern_ireland_government_fujitsu_bid/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aFwdFpY295iF-EBYOOBGFwAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aFwdFpY295iF-EBYOOBGFwAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aFwdFpY295iF-EBYOOBGFwAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/18/fujitsu_gets_1_billion_market/
[8] https://news.sky.com/story/post-office-scandal-fujitsu-agrees-to-talks-about-contributing-to-victims-compensation-13323562
[9] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-05/57630
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/20/hmrc_ni_trade_services/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aFwdFpY295iF-EBYOOBGFwAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-17/hl8512
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/16/northern_ireland_government_fujitsu_bid/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/14/post_office_horizon_support/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/28/fujitsu_promised_not_to_bid_uk_public_sector/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/23/fujitsu_northern_reland/
[17] https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2025/05/22/lord-bellingham-why-is-fujitsu-still-bidding-for-government-contracts/
[18] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-18/60834#:~:text=Fujitsu
[19] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-18/60835#:~:text=Fujitsu
[20] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-17/60431
[21] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-06-17/60430
[22] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
100 million per year
Fujitsu is the incumbent supplier of the system, and has been awarded around £500 million since 2020.
For this piece of shit software
I know this nationwide EPOS ( electronic piece of shit?) software needs a lot of expensive servers and redundancy , and even some staff on duty to take support calls and correct data entry mistakes or whatever .
Maybe even some developers , testers , and some hardware - like a barcode reader or something for each post office
So a bit more involved than the MSBasic program my newsagent uses for paper rounds ....
But 100 million per year ?????
Somewhere the beancounters have lost site of the fact that this is computer software - the advantage of which , over other tangible products , is that it can be replicated infinite times and its barely any more effort to supply 10,000 people with it than 10
Maybe I'm being naive , and i realize this in industry standard - at least when selling to gov , but i find this ongoing cost for a piece of supplied software mindblowing
Re: 100 million per year
Some software has to be supported from a yacht.
Re: 100 million per year
Might include specialised hardware beyond code scanners and may also include services to keep up to date with changing business rules.
Re: 100 million per year
Still, £100m a year is (at £70k per arse) 1,400 man years of effort per year. You really think that a few regulatory or tax changes cost THAT much on one well established system?
I don't. I think it's "kerching!" at Fujitsu and some sub contractors.
Pay suitable compensation
THEN bid away…
"there are no legal grounds that prevent Fujitsu from expressing its interest in this procurement"
And yet we have this a simple search away:
[1]Procurement Policy Note 04/15: taking account of suppliers’ past performance
To ensure good provision of public services and value for money, suppliers with the necessary technical and professional ability should be selected to bid for contracts. One aspect of a supplier’s technical and professional ability is its reliability as demonstrated by how it performed in past contracts.
And if that's not good enough, then there's nothing stopping the government changing the law.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0415-taking-account-of-suppliers-past-performance
Re: "there are no legal grounds that prevent Fujitsu from expressing its interest in
then there's nothing stopping the government changing the law.
Except arch nemesis of every government trying to do good - the mighty brown envelope.
I agree with you that their perfomance on Horizon and the possibilty of criminal action ought to be enough to exclude** them and even if not then I'd exlude them anyway, and tell them to go ahead and sue and then use discovery to f**k them.
Changing the law is a bit more complicated. We're signed up to treaties which would make this difficult because they preclude excluding bidders on large contracts other than due to the past performance. The fact that many of the other countries who are signed up to the same treaties take no bloody notice of them would not, I fear, impact the thinking of UK government lawyers desperate to be seen to play with a straight bat.
** at best, although if we're talking about using semi-legal activities on the bastards then I can think of better ones than just stopping them bidding on contracts.
'value for money'... if it isn't working properly then it's not vfm
Contract : something a company can fight in court, or can escape by bankruptcy. Has non-zero cost. Tends to work, given that to break it, you need to dislike the other party more than you dislike lawyers.
Pledge: Something the coloured pencil office plays with. Slightly more promising than a new years' resolution.
Law: something MPs can introduce and vote on to fix broken things, has non zero cost, when done well, long term benefit. Reminds to do right thing (tm) when other criteria overtake human values, see done well.
Questions in parliament: A way to avoid introducing laws while stating the obvious. See redundancy.
When a consulting company, a construct that only exists to justify runaway greed, pledges to stop its raison d'etre, that is a level surrealism that makes even artists blush.
Maybe the way bids are scored needs to change...
Let anyone bid that wants to bid, but weight scoring criteria such that the bad grapefruit are locked out.
Maybe this is already the case, which highlights the motleyness of the other contenders?
EDIT: I see Dan 55 has posted what should be the relevant link.
Brown envelope
These things cannot be explained. Even bodies tax payer fund cannot explain it. It's probably one of the biggest mysteries.