2010. until my conviction was auashed 2010. until my conviction was quashed in — 2010. until my conviction was quashed in 2001, _ 2010. until my conviction was quashed in 2001, my - 2010. until my conviction was quashed in 2001, my life - 2010. until my conviction was quashed in 2001, my life was| 2010. until my conviction was . quashed in 2001, my life was left 2010. until my conviction was - quashed in 2001, my life was left in tatters _ quashed in 2001, my life was left in tatters are — quashed in 2001, my life was left in tatters are my customers thought i was a _ tatters are my customers thought i was a fraud. just tatters are my customers thought i was a fraud-— was a fraud. just some of the stories from _ was a fraud. just some of the stories from the _ was a fraud. just some of the stories from the breakfast. was a fraud. just some of the i stories from the breakfast sofa was a fraud. just some of the - stories from the breakfast sofa last week. and at the heart of this scandal was the horizon it computer system installed and operated by few jetsy. it had problems right from the start. the errors made it look like money had gone missing in branch accounts. all these years on, the pressure on future to is growing and for the government to act. i want some answers, please, from ministers, including you, about what you are going to do about the post office and fujitsu. lip you are going to do about the post office and fujitsu.— office and fu'itsu. up until now, fu'itsu office and fu'itsu. up until now, fujitsu has — office and fujitsu. up until now, fujitsu has escaped _ office and fujitsu. up until now, fujitsu has escaped much - office and fujitsu. up until now, fujitsu has escaped much of - office and fujitsu. up until now, fujitsu has escaped much of the | fujitsu has escaped much of the scrutiny, given a statement in apologising for its role and says it will support the public inquiry that it is going to get a grilling from mps today. 50 it is going to get a grilling from mps today-— it is going to get a grilling from mps today. so far, fu'itsu, who built the system _ mps today. so far, fu'itsu, who built the system that h mps today. so far, fujitsu, who built the system that failed, - mps today. so far, fujitsu, who| built the system that failed, that led to innocent people going behind

bars, have not said anything and we think it is time they broke their vow of silence and tell us what was known by who and when, whether they feel a moral obligation at least, to contribute to a compensation bill of hundreds of millions of pounds. his committee also wants to know when the victims will get their full and final compensation, as well as a deadline for when justice will finally be done. emma simpson, bbc news. live now to charlie rose outside the post office inquiry in central london. what are we going to hear today? london. what are we going to hear toda ? , , ., ., today? this inquiry into what has been described _ today? this inquiry into what has been described as _ today? this inquiry into what has been described as their - today? this inquiry into what has been described as their biggest l been described as their biggest miscarriage ofjustice this country has seen appears to finally be building up a head of steam. today we are hearing from the japanese tech firm, the £20 billionjapanese tech firm, the £20 billionjapanese tech firm, the £20 billionjapanese tech firm fujitsu, at the heart of all of this. they created the faulty horizon it software which made it

look like money was going missing from post office branches. the european boss will be giving evidence to mps and answering questions from mps, who will want to know how a faulty it system led to so many people, so many postmasters and postmistress is being prosecuted for theft and fraud. also we are hearing from a number of other fujitsu employees, including a former member of the fraud and litigation team. now some questions which may come up include, when did fujitsu know their it system was faulty? did the company lie and well fujitsu, that huge company, be prepared to put its hand in its pocket and pay out compensation to victims question but that is what, those are some of the questions the victims in all of this, the hundreds of postmasters and sub—postmaster is wrongly convicted of theft and fraud were want to know. and just like

that itv drama, which raised so much public anger, the proceedings in london today this week could well be just as gripping. london today this week could well be just as gripping-— just as gripping. charlie, we have as et just as gripping. charlie, we have as yet had _ just as gripping. charlie, we have as yet had very — just as gripping. charlie, we have as yet had very little _ just as gripping. charlie, we have as yet had very little if _ just as gripping. charlie, we have as yet had very little if anything l as yet had very little if anything at all from fujitsu on the subject of the faulty it system? idick of the faulty it system? nick wallace, wrote _ of the faulty it system? nick wallace, wrote that - of the faulty it system? nick wallace, wrote that very - of the faulty it system? ii ca. wallace, wrote that very important book over the past couple of years also, he was interviewed on bbc breakfast a little bit earlier and he was talking about how much fujitsu still has to answer, saying in his view they have been very quiet and all of this, they haven't spoken very much about compensation. since the high court case in 2019. so in his view, they have a lot to say, a lot of questions to answer and that inquiry will have former postmistress is sitting on the edge of their seats, very keen to hear

what the fujitsu, the japanese firm will have to say, as well as the mps in the committee, a little distance away from here in parliament, will be listening to paul patterson, the european boss of fujitsu. lots of people waiting to hear what that company has to say today. we are also hearing _ company has to say today. we are also hearing from _ company has to say today. we are also hearing from alan _ company has to say today. we are also hearing from alan bates, - company has to say today. we are also hearing from alan bates, the | also hearing from alan bates, the man at the centre of the tv drama but also set up the justice for sub postmasters alliance, which incorporates all of those who have been wrongly convicted. what time does he strike now, what is it he is looking for? he does he strike now, what is it he is looking for?— looking for? he is defiant. he led the original— looking for? he is defiant. he led the original legal— looking for? he is defiant. he led the original legal action - looking for? he is defiant. he led the original legal action against l the original legal action against the original legal action against the post office. his story is huge. a lot of interest to so many people. it led to the popular itv drama aired at the beginning of this year.

he took the post office, he launched that original legal action and he is as keen as everyone else, he and the other sub postmasters and mistresses are keen to hear what fujitsu have to say. nick wallis, the author of that book i mentioned, in his view, fujitsu have been very quiet. a huge corporation, huge company have been very quiet in this. alan bates, who has been at the wrong end of this and all the victims very keen to hear all the evidence the rest of this week. we hear all the evidence the rest of this week-— hear all the evidence the rest of this week. ~ . , , . , this week. we are seeing pictures from the itv _ this week. we are seeing pictures from the itv drama. _ this week. we are seeing pictures from the itv drama. it _ this week. we are seeing pictures from the itv drama. it is - this week. we are seeing pictures from the itv drama. it is the - this week. we are seeing pictures from the itv drama. it is the case nonetheless that some of these postmasters and mistresses have been compensated already but many have not and the legislation now is being introduced in order to address that? yes, last week richey so nak in the house of commons told mps —— rishi sunak told the house of commons to

open the doorfor sunak told the house of commons to open the door for convictions to be overturned and those convictions are expected to be overturned towards the end of this year. also he opened the end of this year. also he opened the door, cleared the path if you like, but those victims, although 700 also postmasters and former sub post mistresses who were victims in all of this, so they can now apply for compensation. up to around £600,000 also. so that is what happened last week. this whole issue, this whole story is building up issue, this whole story is building up a real head of steam now, following that itv drama about alan bates passed every story, his action, the legal action he took against the post office, with the other sub postmasters and mistresses. this week we are hearing from fujitsu, the japanese company at the middle of all theirs. lots of questions to answer, lots of people following this story sitting on the edge of the seats to hear what

fujitsu has to say today.- edge of the seats to hear what fujitsu has to say today. let's get some more _ fujitsu has to say today. let's get some more insight _ fujitsu has to say today. let's get some more insight on _ fujitsu has to say today. let's get some more insight on that. - fujitsu has to say today. let's get l some more insight on that. charlie, thank you. we can go to our asia business hub. you have been chasing the japanese headquarters of fujitsu for some time. as we have been highlighting, this company, this japanese company really at the centre of this drama, has been very quiet indeed, up until now? yes, absolutely, and when it comes to the japanese headquarters, i first got in touch with them back in 2022. that was when the public inquiry started focusing on fujitsu. i asked for an interview with its global president. not too surprisingly, he declined my request may alter poll times now, most recently just last week. even when may alter poll times now, most recentlyjust last week. even when i asked for just recentlyjust last week. even when i asked forjust a written comment to the victims. i guess i was not too surprised because going silent is a typical pr strategy forjapanese companies, especially when faced with bad news. they did sent me a

statement last week. let me read it out. fujitsu regards this matter with the utmost seriousness. the investigation of complex and sensitive events have unfolded over many years and our uk subsidiary has been cooperating with the inquiry and remains fully committed to supporting the process and out of consideration for the ongoing investigation, fujitsu will refrain from further comment for the time being. so i am still chasing but basically the headquarters remains absolutely tight—lipped about it but what might actually be very difficult for many of our uk viewers, especially to believe, is that hardly anyone injapan has heard of this post office scandal until very recently. so for example, when we spoke to the former president of fujitsu in 2022, i asked about him —— mike asked him about horizon and his reaction was, what is horizon? that was a person who spent four decades at fujitsu in

japan. that is because it was developed by british company icl which they bought years ago. japanese companies often let their international subsidiaries do their own things, especially of their board lacks international experience. apparently the former boss had a slogan of keepjapan out, as well. but i did say to the japanese headquarters pr department that even if they were not aware of the scandal of the time, especially for victims of the post office scandal, they would want to hear from a japanese executive and the silent treatment which might work in japan, it is highly unlikely it would work in the uk. at least they're finally is finally getting some coverage injapan by local media. that would put pressure on fujitsu in japan media. that would put pressure on fujitsu injapan because its software in japan fujitsu injapan because its software injapan are not without controversy with several issues either. , , ., controversy with several issues either. , ~' either. interesting. do you think there is a concern _ either. interesting. do you think there is a concern or _ either. interesting. do you think there is a concern or have - either. interesting. do you think there is a concern or have they i there is a concern or have they expressed any concern, anybody, about reputational risk here? these

postmasters would like to see fujitsu dragged through the courts. i think it is definitely fair to say it's reputation in the uk has been severely, significantly damaged because of this ongoing scandal. but because of this ongoing scandal. but because back home injapan, because the scandal hasn't really been in the scandal hasn't really been in the spotlight until very recently, its reputation hasn't really suffered at all except for the fact that some of the technical glitches happened injapan as well. so for example, last year, they had to suspend software which was providing residence cards forjapan's new id cards. also many of the viewers in japan, especially, would remember how it software caused the stock exchange to suspend trading for an entire day and at the time, the company's global president, who i have been trying to get an interview from, had to issue an apology. so there have been several issues. i

have actually spoken to a couple of former employees of fujitsu injapan and they highlight that some of those technical glitches are caused by the fact that the company hires external engineers because japan has traditionally had this lifelong employment, so they don't want to hire engineersjust for employment, so they don't want to hire engineers just for one project and let them go. so they end up outsourcing those big projects and as a result, once the project is done, those engineers are gone and when there are issues, they don't actually have the expertise to fix it. that was the point of view of one former employee, who actually join straight out of tokyo university. very prestigious japanese university, thinking he would be working at this higher tech innovative company but then realise some of the processes were so are ancient that he quit and he wanted to be innovative in his own career. that i thought was very interesting, for a company known to be very

high—tech to the general public, apparently some of the software is an system is that they use are not exactly high—tech at least injapan. thank you very much indeed. no doubt we will be seeing a lot more review in the coming live now to a former sub—postmaster. tim, welcome to the programme. what are you hoping to hear today to give you some clarity? well, we have to remember sub postmasters like myself that were process, we were criminalised. fujitsu were complicit in that, they provided expert witnesses in almost every trial that their system is robust and there was no back door access to our accounts. so there needs to start to be some contrition from fujitsu and they need to start to be held to account to their role

in the whole scandal. just to be held to account to their role in the whole scandal.— in the whole scandal. just tell us if ou in the whole scandal. just tell us if you would _ in the whole scandal. just tell us if you would briefly _ in the whole scandal. just tell us if you would briefly about - in the whole scandal. just tell us if you would briefly about your . if you would briefly about your story. if you would briefly about your sto . ~ ,., , if you would briefly about your sto .~ , story. well, i bought my local villaue story. well, i bought my local village post — story. well, i bought my local village post office _ story. well, i bought my local village post office back - story. well, i bought my local village post office back in - story. well, i bought my local. village post office back in 2005 story. well, i bought my local- village post office back in 2005 and ran it for about five years until i was audited and £22,500 shortfall was audited and £22,500 shortfall was discovered in late 2009. i was forced to pay that back to avoid a theft charge and then was prosecuted for false accounting and convicted in 2010. �* ., ., , for false accounting and convicted in 2010. ~ . .,, _, , in 2010. and what has your life been like since then? _ in 2010. and what has your life been like since then? my _ in 2010. and what has your life been like since then? my life _ in 2010. and what has your life been like since then? my life has - in 2010. and what has your life been like since then? my life has been - in 2010. and what has your life been like since then? my life has been on | like since then? my life has been on hold for the — like since then? my life has been on hold for the last _ like since then? my life has been on hold for the last decade. _ like since then? my life has been on hold for the last decade. it - like since then? my life has been on hold for the last decade. it has - hold for the last decade. it has been impossible to find any kind of meaningful work with a fraud conviction on your criminal record. the retail business when it lost its full—time post office counter took a huge hit, so we have been stuck living in limbo, still trying to provide a service to the community. but unfortunately, that was forced to end a few years ago. i was fortunate that i was able to get my

conviction quashed in 2021. but since then, nothing has happened. i haven't received any kind of meaningful recompense, i am still waiting. 50 meaningful recompense, i am still waitinu. �* meaningful recompense, i am still waitin., �* , meaningful recompense, i am still waitinu. �* , 11:11: waiting. so you're still £22,000 down? as _ waiting. so you're still £22,000 down? as a _ waiting. so you're still £22,000 down? as a start, _ waiting. so you're still £22,000 down? as a start, yes. - waiting. so you're still £22,000 down? as a start, yes. as - waiting. so you're still £22,000 down? as a start, yes. as a - waiting. so you're still £22,000 l down? as a start, yes. as a start, the impact — down? as a start, yes. as a start, the impact on — down? as a start, yes. as a start, the impact on your— down? as a start, yes. as a start, the impact on your career- down? as a start, yes. as a start, the impact on your career as - down? as a start, yes. as a start, the impact on your career as you i down? as a start, yes. as a start, i the impact on your career as you say has been very realise well and are led to a financial impact.— led to a financial impact. massive financial impact _ led to a financial impact. massive financial impact but _ led to a financial impact. massive financial impact but that - led to a financial impact. massive financial impact but that is - led to a financial impact. massive financial impact but that is one i led to a financial impact. massive financial impact but that is one of the horrors people are starting to realise now. all of the money that sub—post offices were forced to pay back on shortfall still hasn't been returned to us as a start. 50 back on shortfall still hasn't been returned to us as a start.- returned to us as a start. so to what extent — returned to us as a start. so to what extent would _ returned to us as a start. so to what extent would you - returned to us as a start. so to what extent would you like - returned to us as a start. so to what extent would you like to i returned to us as a start. so to i what extent would you like to see some sort of... fujitsu as we have been saying, been very quiet thus far, what do you want them to say, to front up and admit there was a problem? to front up and admit there was a roblem? , ., ., ., problem? they need to admit that it s stem problem? they need to admit that it system was — problem? they need to admit that it system was unreliable _ problem? they need to admit that it system was unreliable and _ problem? they need to admit that it system was unreliable and they - problem? they need to admit that itj system was unreliable and they need to come clean about how much back door access was. whether it was fujitsu themselves, fixing bugs and trying to keep the system stood up

or whether it was, as we know they were sort of acting on the request of post offices to adjust account holders but both of those things have gone on. it is clear from evidence that has already come out in the inquiry that the system is not robust and people were altering figures that we were ultimately held responsible for. so isn't it now time that honesty came forward and people stood up and were held accountable? 1&5 people stood up and were held accountable?— people stood up and were held accountable? ~ , , ., , accountable? as you said, fu'itsu testified in _ accountable? as you said, fu'itsu testified in the i accountable? as you said, fu'itsu testified in the courts, �* accountable? as you said, fu'itsu testified in the courts, so i testified in the courts, so ultimately you must have questions about the legal system? yes. ultimately you must have questions about the legal system?— ultimately you must have questions about the legal system? yes, i mean, there are huge — about the legal system? yes, i mean, there are huge questions _ about the legal system? yes, i mean, there are huge questions about - about the legal system? yes, i mean, there are huge questions about the i there are huge questions about the legal system because although you could maybe put it down to some lack of disclosure from the post office, i was convinced by my barrister to plead guilty to false accounting, which i was determined to try and fight but they couldn't mount a defence against it. but also, the courts, because they were seeing these cases come through, sometimes

that the average of one or two a week for ten years. so why didn't alarm bells start ringing at other places as well? find alarm bells start ringing at other places as well?— alarm bells start ringing at other places as well? and what about the post office itself, _ places as well? and what about the post office itself, are _ places as well? and what about the post office itself, are you _ places as well? and what about the post office itself, are you feeling i post office itself, are you feeling also that the post office has not really gone far enough thus far and you would like it to go further? where is the money coming from to compensate?— compensate? there post office is owned entirely _ compensate? there post office is owned entirely by _ compensate? there post office is owned entirely by the _ compensate? there post office is i owned entirely by the government, compensate? there post office is - owned entirely by the government, so the money ultimately would come from the money ultimately would come from the taxpayer. but the post office has supported itself are our money and taxpayers money for the last decade. so the government needs to hold the post office to account and somebody needs to hold the government to account to get it all sorted out. ., .. government to account to get it all sorted out-— sorted out. thank you very much indeed for _ sorted out. thank you very much indeed forjoining _ sorted out. thank you very much indeed forjoining us. _ sorted out. thank you very much indeed forjoining us. so - sorted out. thank you very much indeed forjoining us. so that - sorted out. thank you very much| indeed forjoining us. so that was sorted out. thank you very much i indeed forjoining us. so that was a former sub—postmaster. now we can go to the computing side of the story and the editor of computer weekly. we are hearing as we have heard from fujitsu today, which designed the horizon computer system, and we were

hearing about this idea of back door access. what is meant by that time is that really the centre of the problem? is that really the centre of the troblem? , is that really the centre of the problem?— is that really the centre of the troblem? , ., ,, ., ., problem? this whole issue of what we call back door — problem? this whole issue of what we call back door access, _ problem? this whole issue of what we call back door access, remote - problem? this whole issue of what we call back door access, remote access i call back door access, remote access as they called it, has been a running question throughout the whole issue of the scandal. it was suggested quite early on that fujitsu, all the post office through fujitsu, all the post office through fujitsu, had the ability to remotely access all the computer systems that were within the sub postmasters branches and make changes on that system. now the post office consistently denied that this was even possible, let alone that they were doing it until a fujitsu whistle—blower, called richard rolle, came forward and about 2015, i think, and said yes, this is completely possible, we used to do it all the time. now we don't know and i'm not were aware of any specific evidence which suggests

that that capability for back door access was ever used to actually physically change any accounts in sub postmasters, but you would expect fujitsu to have that sort of access because they need access to update software, to download fixes to any bugs that they find. so there are two aspects to it: one is the fact they denied this existed for so long. the second one is knowing, as we do now, that it did exist, what controls were in place around that to make sure it was being used properly? d0 to make sure it was being used --roerl ? ., , to make sure it was being used --roerl ? . , ., to make sure it was being used --roerl ? ., , ., ., properly? do we really have a full understanding — properly? do we really have a full understanding of _ properly? do we really have a full understanding of precisely - properly? do we really have a full understanding of precisely what i properly? do we really have a full. understanding of precisely what went wrong, in terms of the computer system? wrong, in terms of the computer s stem? ~ ~' ., wrong, in terms of the computer s stem? . ,, ., ., , ., , system? we know a number of things that did to system? we know a number of things that did go wrong. _ system? we know a number of things that did go wrong. we _ system? we know a number of things that did go wrong. we don't _ system? we know a number of things that did go wrong. we don't know - system? we know a number of things that did go wrong. we don't know to i that did go wrong. we don't know to the extent yet to look at each individual sub—postmaster�*s case and say, this is what went wrong for you and this is what went wrong for you but we do now know whether a number of flaws in the system that could

potentially have cause these problems. i will give you one very quick example. there was a bug that was found in a post office branch in scotland which found that if the screen that the sub—postmaster is using freezers, if somebody then starts hitting the return key to try and wake up the screen, every time they hit the return key on the keyboard it was resending the same transaction. so they were unaware that one transaction was being recorded in the accounts multiple times, yet they were only doing it once. �* ., , ., , times, yet they were only doing it once. �* ., i. , ., once. but what you seem to indicate there is the — once. but what you seem to indicate there is the problem _ once. but what you seem to indicate there is the problem is _ once. but what you seem to indicate there is the problem is not - there is the problem is not necessarily a single problem, it could have been a variety of problems with the it system? yes. problems with the it system? yes, absolutely- — problems with the it system? yes, absolutely. this _ problems with the it system? yes, absolutely. this was _ problems with the it system? yes, absolutely. this was one _ problems with the it system? yes, absolutely. this was one of - problems with the it system? is: absolutely. this was one of the flaws in the post office's argument and their thinking, was they always said we had got whatever the number was, 12,000, 14,000 said we had got whatever the number was, 12,000, 111,000 post office branches. if there was a problem with the software, we would see it

everywhere. that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how software flaws work. a lot of the problems that came would have been very specific perhaps to one particular branch. it mightjust be a postmaster who accidentally presses a set of keys in a way that has never happened before and it confuses the system. it could be a communication problem with the communications between the branch and post office head office. it could bejust and post office head office. it could be just some very small bug that affected a small number of people at a particular time and then got fixed through the normal process of fixing those bugs without them ever realising that it impacted a postmaster in such a way. sorry... i was about to ask, are you surprised that fujitsu seems to have had such a hands—off approach to this? i strongly suspect that if you were to talk to cut privately or if they

were having conversations behind closed doors with the post office, what they would be saying is, we complied with all the terms and conditions of the contract that we had with the post office. we do it all the things that we were legally obliged to do. we did all the things that the post office asked us to do. so the question is around, what did the post office ask them to do? did the post office ask them to do? did the post office sign off and approve software that was not good enough? if it wasn't good enough, did fujitsu openly say to the post office, well, there are some problems here and it is up to you whether you are willing to accept those, we will fix them as we go along? publicly, they will say, you need to ask the post office and the post office is the most culpable here. they are the ones who took all of these sub postmasters to caught and prosecuted them without properly checking whether the software was

working. but from the perspective of fujitsu, it's very much down to, what was their relationship with the post office like? and then once we knew that all this was going on, onceit knew that all this was going on, once it had been exposed, what was happening, why didn't anyone from fujitsu stand up publicly and say, you know what, this could have been a problem with the software? so tare a problem with the software? so we are ttoin a problem with the software? so we are going to — a problem with the software? so we are going to zoom — a problem with the software? so we are going to zoom in _ a problem with the software? so we are going to zoom in and _ a problem with the software? so we are going to zoom in and then - a problem with the software? so we are going to zoom in and then on i are going to zoom in and then on exactly what questions the post office was asking fujitsu and whether fujitsu was as forthcoming as it could have been? yes. whether fujitsu was as forthcoming as it could have been?— as it could have been? yes, that is very much — as it could have been? yes, that is very much what — as it could have been? yes, that is very much what the _ as it could have been? yes, that is very much what the public- as it could have been? yes, that is very much what the public inquiry, | very much what the public inquiry, the ongoing public inquiry that has been running for two years now, that is very much what they are looking at. they are analysing, they have got millions of documentation, letters, e—mails, communications that went between the post office and fujitsu. they are talking to employees of fujitsu today and they have been talking to employees and former employees of the post office former employees of the post office for some time, trying to really

understand what was happening in that relationship between the post office and fujitsu so that they can identify you knew what, why are where the problem is, who told who, who made the decision not to explore those albums at a time when sub postmasters themselves were saying the problem is that software and asking in their court cases for evidence to allow them to understand what was going on, which the post office refused to provide.- what was going on, which the post office refused to provide. thank you so much for — office refused to provide. thank you so much for giving _ office refused to provide. thank you so much for giving us _ office refused to provide. thank you so much for giving us so _ office refused to provide. thank you so much for giving us so much - so much for giving us so much clarity. we can now go to our business correspondent, theo leggett. what we appear to have established so far is that none of this reflects very well on either fujitsu or the post office? on either fu'itsu or the post office? ~ , ,., , , on either fu'itsu or the post office? ~ , , , .,, on either fu'itsu or the post office? �* , , , office? absolutely, this has been described as _ office? absolutely, this has been described as one _ office? absolutely, this has been described as one of— office? absolutely, this has been described as one of the _ office? absolutely, this has been described as one of the greatestl described as one of the greatest miscarriages ofjustice in british history. the post office is at the centre of it but fujitsu did provide the software that was causing

potential miscarriages ofjustice between 1999—2015. that is a long period. why did it not come to like? today we'll will see the european director of fujitsu testifying before a committee of mps, before the business and trade select committee. that is key because as you heard just a few moments ago, fujitsu has been quite tight—lipped about its role in all of this. this is an opportunity for mps to take a senior member of the executive, a senior member of the executive, a senior executive from fujitsu and ask them specific questions. central to that will be, what did fujitsu know and when? how did that potentially affect the prosecutions? should fujitsu itself be paying compensation? we know there are compensation? we know there are compensation schemes setup. ultimately, it is the taxpayer who will be paying for that compensation, should fujitsu itself, still a major recipient of government contracts, be chipping in question but these are the sort of questions that will be asked of fujitsu. also, the chief executive

of the post office will be appearing before the community as well, so he will be facing some tough questioning the studyjust highlighted a very important point and that is unpicking it systems is and that is unpicking it systems is a very complicated business and horizon is still part of the post office? and the horizon system is part of the post office. obviously you can't get rid of a system that is embedded throughout the land overnight. in theory, that system should be robust now. but as we heard, the way in which the system was implemented, the fact that there were clearly bugs in it, at what point did those bugs in it, at what point did those bugs become apparent? why was more scrutiny not placed on the system when it became clear that lots and lots of postmasters up and down the country were being prosecuted for alleged frauds and false accounting? why did this not come to light earlier? why was more attention paid to it at an earlier stage? it earlier? why was more attention paid to it at an earlier stage?— to it at an earlier stage? it must be off in the _

to it at an earlier stage? it must be off in the case _ to it at an earlier stage? it must be off in the case there - to it at an earlier stage? it must be off in the case there are - be off in the case there are problems with it systems that companies have bought and implemented. it is not the first time this has happened, so it seems really that there was questions at the very least not being asked at the very least not being asked at the post office?— the very least not being asked at the post office? absolutely, i come into the office _ the post office? absolutely, i come into the office every _ the post office? absolutely, i come into the office every day _ the post office? absolutely, i come into the office every day find - the post office? absolutely, i come into the office every day find bugs l into the office every day find bugs into the office every day find bugs in the computer system i use and i am sure i am not alone. the key here is this was accounting very software their post office repeatedly claimed was robust and claimed in court was robust. so if at any stage there was knowledge that it wasn't, then that was a very key. so you have here a system which was being relied on, which people were being told was 100% reliable. it later transpired that it was not 100% reliable and people were sent to jail as a result. people were ruined as a result. people were ruined as a result. so the scrutiny will be on, why was more attention paid to potential problems with the system at an earlier stage, why wasn't this detected and why did the post office continue to argue that it was a

robust system?— continue to argue that it was a robust system? and when we talk about compensation, _ robust system? and when we talk about compensation, it _ robust system? and when we talk about compensation, it is - robust system? and when we talk about compensation, it is worth i about compensation, it is worth reminding ourselves that the post office is owned by the government. yes, there are compensation schemes that have been setup. there is a compensation scheme for example for people who have convictions overturned. there are a number of those, although only 93 or so convictions have so far been overturned. but when that happens, people are entitled to a minimum of £600,000. if they want to, they can fight for more money and there are also compensation schemes set up for people who haven't actually been convicted but believe they have lost money because the people for example who paid into the system from their own baskets in order to avoid being prosecuted. there is a lot of money washing around out there. it will come from the pockets of taxpayers unless fujitsu, the company involved in this, is put under pressure to bats chip in as well. we will have to see whether or not it is willing to see whether or not it is willing to do that. to see whether or not it is willing to do that-— to do that. that will be an interesting _ to do that. that will be an interesting question. - to do that. that will be an| interesting question. does to do that. that will be an i interesting question. does it to do that. that will be an - interesting question. does it impact

the role of the post office going forward or is that not in play at the moment? i forward or is that not in play at the moment?— forward or is that not in play at the moment? ,, , , the moment? i think it puts the post office and the _ the moment? i think it puts the post office and the way _ the moment? i think it puts the post office and the way it _ the moment? i think it puts the post office and the way it interacts - the moment? i think it puts the post office and the way it interacts with i office and the way it interacts with sub postmasters under a great deal of scrutiny. these are not people directly employed by the post office but people who operate their own businesses. maybe there was not a lot of trust there. the post office all these people, clearly in the early stages, there was a willingness to believe internally that these people were actually taking money that they should not have done. whether there is a mentality that needs to change is something that might be addressed going forward. something that might be addressed going forward-— going forward. meanwhile, as you rithtl going forward. meanwhile, as you rightly pointed — going forward. meanwhile, as you rightly pointed out, _ going forward. meanwhile, as you rightly pointed out, there - going forward. meanwhile, as you rightly pointed out, there are - going forward. meanwhile, as you rightly pointed out, there are a i going forward. meanwhile, as you| rightly pointed out, there are a lot of people involved so this is really quite some inquiry? it is of people involved so this is really quite some inquiry?— of people involved so this is really quite some inquiry? it is very much tuite quite some inquiry? it is very much quite some — quite some inquiry? it is very much quite some inquiry _ quite some inquiry? it is very much quite some inquiry to _ quite some inquiry? it is very much quite some inquiry to stop - quite some inquiry? it is very much quite some inquiry to stop today i quite some inquiry? it is very much | quite some inquiry to stop today we also have the public inquiry going on a former of the fraud and litigation service of fujitsu will be appearing before that inquiry later on today. there are thousands of sub postmasters and sub—postmistress is affected by this. we are notjust talking about the people who are actively

prosecuted, there are other people who will have lost money as well. some 4000 people ultimately could be in line for compensation, for example. so yes, this is a very widespread affair.— example. so yes, this is a very widespread affair. there we must leave it and _ widespread affair. there we must leave it and we _ widespread affair. there we must leave it and we are _ widespread affair. there we must leave it and we are going - widespread affair. there we must leave it and we are going to i widespread affair. there we must leave it and we are going to hear| leave it and we are going to hear from the inquiry injust leave it and we are going to hear from the inquiry in just about a few seconds' time and that starts at 10.00 uk time and also the committee who is going to be questioning those representatives from fujitsu and also alan bates, who led the sub postmasters in this particular push back against the convictions. last week bbc breakfast spoke to some of the postmasters whose lives were ruined by the scandal. i worked for the post office for 27 years and then i was convicted of false accounting. i had to wear a tag for

three months and i had a suspended sentence for 12 months. i three months and i had a suspended sentence for 12 months.— sentence for12 months. i have carried the _ sentence for12 months. i have carried the show— sentence for12 months. i have carried the show in _ sentence for12 months. i have carried the show in another- sentence for 12 months. i have i carried the show in another sense, i refuse to carry out any longer. —— i have carried this shame. i refuse to carry out any longer. -- i have carried this shame.— refuse to carry out any longer. -- i have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked _ have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked for— have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked for the _ have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked for the post i skinner, i worked for the post office — skinner, i worked for the post office from 1994 until i was suspended in 2006 for a shortfall of £59,000 _ suspended in 2006 for a shortfall of £59,000 i— suspended in 2006 for a shortfall of £59,000. i was given a nine month custodial— £59,000. i was given a nine month custodial sentence, served three months — custodial sentence, served three months in — custodial sentence, served three months in prison and the rest on home _ months in prison and the rest on home curfew. it has affected everything in my life going forward for the _ everything in my life going forward for the past 16 years. | everything in my life going forward for the past 16 years. i am everything in my life going forward for the past 16 years.— for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- | for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here _ for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- lam here on _ for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on behalf— for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on behalf of- for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on behalf of my i for the past 16 years. i am behalfi -- i am here on behalf of my father —— i am here on behalf of my father who was— —— i am here on behalf of my father who was wrongly _ —— i am here on behalf of my father who was wrongly prosecuted - —— i am here on behalf of my father who was wrongly prosecuted by- —— i am here on behalf of my fatherl who was wrongly prosecuted by post office _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited — who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in 2011 _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in 2011 and _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in 2011 and his- office limited in 2011 and his heallh— office limited in 2011 and his health is— office limited in 2011 and his health is completely - office limited in 2011 and his. health is completely shattered, office limited in 2011 and his- health is completely shattered, it will only— health is completely shattered, it will only get — health is completely shattered, it will only get worse _ health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and _ health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and he - health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and he is i health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and he is not. will only get worse and he is not here _ will only get worse and he is not here to — will only get worse and he is not here to receive _ will only get worse and he is not here to receive compensation. l

will only get worse and he is not i here to receive compensation. let’s here to receive compensation. let's take