is this a moment of jeopardy for rishi sunak? tonight, the prime minister has lost two deputy chairman and one ministerial aid, and 58 of his own mps voted against him. has he lost his grip on his party? i've been talking to one mp on the right of the party who defied the three line whip today. if we don't succeed in making the bill work and providing an effective deterrent that stops people setting off across the english channel illegally, then we will not be able to win the election.

so, how much trouble is the pm's flagship policy in, if any? we'll discuss with two people in the know. also tonight, donald trump was the runaway winner of the iowa caucus. is he invincible? what donald trump has achieved here is remarkable. he is a phenomenon, especially when you consider that his attempt to overturn an election and unprecedented legal troubles do not seem to have dented the devotion of his supporters. and a mea culpa from fujitsu. we did have bugs and errors in the system, and we did help the post office in their prosecutions of the sub—postmaster is. for that, we are truly sorry. is that apology accepted by this postmaster? he was sectioned three times after having to find 108,000 to pay back the post office. and we'll talk to this labour mp calling for the government to pause fujitsu's contracts with multiple government departments. and should they, can they be

blocked from government contracts in the future? good evening. the divisions in the conservative party were in full view today in the commons ahead of a vote tomorrow night on the prime minster�*s flagship safety of rwanda bill. nick's here. from your intel, what might happen tomorrow? mil from your intel, what might happen tomorrow? �* , , ., ., ., tomorrow? all eyes on that final vote before _ tomorrow? all eyes on that final vote before the _ tomorrow? all eyes on that final vote before the bill _ tomorrow? all eyes on that final vote before the bill goes - tomorrow? all eyes on that final vote before the bill goes to - tomorrow? all eyes on that final vote before the bill goes to the l vote before the bill goes to the house of lords. there is absolute confidence in government circles that they will win that vote. my sources are pointing to two key elements. before we get to that final vote, there will be more amendments. crucially, one table by the former immigration minister robertjenrick. if that is passed, that would give ministers greater powers to ignore the so—called rule 39 measures of the european convention on human rights, and those are injunctions that have grounded flights. rishi sunak said

earlier this week that he was prepared to ignore foreign courts. i understand that the plan tomorrow is that michael tomlinson, the illegal migration minister, he will, as i am told, lean very heavily in the direction of the rebels on this. there is a suggestion that he will make a commitment from the dispatch box to amend the civil service code to say that there will be a presumption that rule 39 injunctions would be ignored. so, not amending the bill, but giving a bike and a specific commitment. the second element that gives the government confident of success are the tactics of the three people who resigned from government or partyjobs today after they joined from government or partyjobs today after theyjoined the rebellion. those three, who according to government services were actually sacked, james stevenson, no longer a ministerial aide, and we anderson and brendan clarke—smith, no longer tory deputy chairman. i am told that all three of them have made clear to the government that they will vote

with rishi sunak on that final vote in the commons tomorrow. just to get an idea... ~ . .,, in the commons tomorrow. just to get an idea... ~ . ., an idea... what was the point of them resigning? _ an idea. .. what was the point of them resigning? they— an idea... what was the point of them resigning? they were - an idea... what was the point of i them resigning? they were unable an idea... what was the point of - them resigning? they were unable to abide b a them resigning? they were unable to abide by a government _ them resigning? they were unable to abide by a government three - them resigning? they were unable to abide by a government three line - abide by a government three line whip, which was to say that you cannot vote for the rebel amendments. that is defying a whip. if you do that, the usual convention is that you lose a government or party... is that you lose a government or -a �* , is that you lose a government or party... but they will vote for the bill tomorrow _ party... but they will vote for the bill tomorrow night? _ party... but they will vote for the bill tomorrow night? unamended probably? bill tomorrow night? unamended robabl ? , ., , bill tomorrow night? unamended robabl? , ., , ., probably? these votes today, the labour party _ probably? these votes today, the labour party was _ probably? these votes today, the labour party was voting _ probably? these votes today, the labour party was voting with - probably? these votes today, the labour party was voting with the l labour party was voting with the government, so the rebels knew they would not get through. tomorrow night, the labour party will vote against the government. anyway, to get an idea of their approach, we can look at the joint letter signed by lea anderson and brendan clarke—smith. if we look at one but i am clarke—smith. if we look at one but iam highlighting... but then let's look at the final bit of their letter.

look at this. . that is not the language that you would use if you're going to kill the bill. i still think i am a bit confused about why they have done what they done to 58 mps did vote against the government. it done to 58 mps did vote against the government-— government. it was actually 60. 58 aaainst. .. government. it was actually 60. 58 against... that _ government. it was actually 60. 58 against... that is _ government. it was actually 60. 58 against... that is a _ government. it was actually 60. 58 against... that is a big _ government. it was actually 60. 58 against... that is a big rebellion. . against... that is a big rebellion. i was at the meeting they had this evening at five o'clock to talk about it. suella braverman, simon clark, former senior cabinet ministers, what this tells the world is that this is a divided party. this raises the salient of an issue that at the moment is persuading people who might be natural tory voters to vote for the reform party on the grounds that the government has not been delivering what rishi sunak would see as this is absolutely delivering, this is going to provide a deterrent for people

not to get into small boats. thank ou. earlier this evening i went down to the commons as voting was underway and spoke to one of those tories who defied a three line whip and voted for the amendments to toughen up the legislation. lee anderson and brendan clarke—smith had just resigned. danny kruger is co—chair of the group calling itself the new conservatives, on the right of the party. mr kruger gave me his reaction. well, i pay tribute to brendan and lee. they've given up good jobs and they were doing really good work for the party. and it's a sad day when the party has to part company with them in this way. i hope they'll be back, because we all want the same thing, which is a policy that succeeds in stopping illegal migration. and lee and brendan i think have made an important stand today, as have all of us who've broken the party whip. none of us enjoy doing that. but really this matters so much that we get this policy right. we support what the government

is trying to do. we think they need to tighten the policy further. i want to put to you that the voting for the amendments today, against the party whip, plus the two resignations of deputy chairmen, i mean, that isjust a blatant act of disloyalty to your prime minister, isn't it? well, i mean, breaking the whip is a hard thing to do, but we are here as mp5. some would say disloyalty. well, we're here as mp5. we're here to represent our constituents and to do what we think is right in the national interest. usually that involves following your party whip. politics depends on parties, but we're not here simply to vote for whatever the government tells us to. parliament has a process of committee looking at the way bills are framed line by line, amendments can be tabled. that's what's happened today. and if mps feel strongly enough about it, they will vote against their party line. that happens all the time and it's a very healthy part of our democracy. imagine what would happen if we didn't have that. are you going all out to win the next general election? absolutely. and we think... because you know, that divided parties don't win elections. nor do parties that are in the wrong place and the public want us

to be in the right place on migration. we are nearly there. we're certainly in a better place than labour are on it. but the fact is, if we don't succeed in making this bill work and providing an effective deterrent that stops people setting off across the english channel illegally, then we will not be able to win the election. the public expect us to succeed here. our mission and our imperative and our absolute moral obligation is to make sure that this bill works. we are very late in the day. we've tried twice with previous bills. they haven't worked. this one has to. it sounds like you're saying if you can get a couple of boeing 747s off before the next general election to rwanda, you're going to win a fifth term. do you genuinely believe that? well, i think we need to do a whole lot of things to convince the public to re—elect us. but one of the absolute top priorities is to successfully stop the scourge of illegal migration that we have coming across the channel. and then the demand stops. can i ask you why the extra 150 or so judges that rishi sunak is promising and the freeing up of courtrooms that rishi sunak is apparently promising to to make sure any appeals are dealt

with swiftly is not enough for you? well, i'm encouraged by that. i mean, i'm slightly concerned that it suggests that the government itself expects there to be a large number of illegal claims, but it is good that these resources are being made available. the government's already done a lot. let me just, on that point, what do you say to victims of crime, rape victims, for example, who've been waiting four years for their case to come to court and they see suddenly rishi sunak can click his fingers and find 150 judges and free up courtrooms. i'm afraid that criticism is a fair one. i'm also concerned about the implications for our legal system if it is possible. and of course, i don't think it will be possible to get all these judges recruited, trained, put into post very quickly. so i don't think on its own that's sufficient. but we do need a lot of capacity. we need capacity in the detention system as well, as well as in the legal system. but i think the simplest way to ensure that we don't have, we don't clog up our courts and our detention centres is to ensure that people who arrive here are immediately detained and removed. and if they want to pursue their legal rights after that,

they can do so and potentially end up going back to the uk. but they've got to have their claims dealt with once they've left and been deported. if it is unamended tomorrow night, you're likely to vote against it? i am prepared to do so. so - you're likely to vote against it? i am prepared to do so. so we - you're likely to vote against it? i i am prepared to do so. so we come you're likely to vote against it? i - am prepared to do so. so we come to the question — am prepared to do so. so we come to the question of— am prepared to do so. so we come to the question of what _ am prepared to do so. so we come to the question of what does _ am prepared to do so. so we come to the question of what does the - am prepared to do so. so we come to the question of what does the public. the question of what does the public think? are you going to go back to your constituents and say, i voted against the rwanda legislation. i don't want it to get to that point, i want to vote for it. but don't want it to get to that point, i want to vote for it.— i want to vote for it. but if it is unamended. _ i want to vote for it. but if it is unamended, you're _ i want to vote for it. but if it is unamended, you're likely- i want to vote for it. but if it is unamended, you're likely to l i want to vote for it. but if it is i unamended, you're likely to vote against? i unamended, you're likely to vote aaainst? ., ., ., against? i will not get drawn and what i'm against? i will not get drawn and what i'm going — against? i will not get drawn and what i'm going to _ against? i will not get drawn and what i'm going to do _ against? i will not get drawn and what i'm going to do tomorrow. | against? i will not get drawn and| what i'm going to do tomorrow. i against? i will not get drawn and - what i'm going to do tomorrow. i am trying to dealfairly what i'm going to do tomorrow. i am trying to deal fairly with the government. we are having conversations with him. there is still time, there's lots more debate tomorrow. amendments will be made tomorrow, some will be passed, some will not. let's see what the bout looks like tomorrow.— will not. let's see what the bout looks like tomorrow. thank you very much for coming _ looks like tomorrow. thank you very much for coming to _ looks like tomorrow. thank you very much for coming to newsnight. - the problem for the pm is, as nick was saying, that if he toughens up the legislation to appease those on the right such as danny kruger, the so called one nation conservatives on the left say they wouldn't be

able to back the bill. earlier, i asked the chair of the group — damian green — whether today's resignations cld destablise the pm and —— whether today's resignations could destablise the pm and damage his authority. i don't think it does. really? oh, yeah. i think people, you know, people are free to exercise their conscience. but it's important that you have to support the prime minister if you want a job, either in government or at the top end of the party. and they have appropriately resigned. i want to ask you about robert buckland's amendment, which may come before you all tomorrow. it softens the legislation. he is on your wing of the party. what's he playing at? oh, well, robert has put down amendments that allow us to have a discussion about the concerns that people on the moderate, the centre left of the conservative party have. and robert made a very good speech today, but the one nation group is not seeking in any way to destabilise the legislation. we voted with the government solidly today and i anticipate we will vote with the government

solidly tomorrow. let's gauge the impact of today's resignations. henry hill — deputy editor of the website conservative home, and noa hoffman — political correspondent at the sun. welcome, thank you for being with us. how damaging is this for rishi sunak? he us. how damaging is this for rishi sunak? . , , us. how damaging is this for rishi sunak? ., , , ., ' ., us. how damaging is this for rishi sunak? ., , , ., , ., sunak? he has seen off a rebellion. at this point. _ sunak? he has seen off a rebellion. at this point, that _ sunak? he has seen off a rebellion. at this point, that is _ sunak? he has seen off a rebellion. at this point, that is all— sunak? he has seen off a rebellion. at this point, that is all he - sunak? he has seen off a rebellion. at this point, that is all he can - at this point, that is all he can ask for. it looks like he has the boat to see of all of the amendments. the amendments, as you havejust been hearing, it amendments. the amendments, as you have just been hearing, it would have just been hearing, it would have opened up a world of difficulty for the government. the question then becomes, can you get it through third reading? isuspect then becomes, can you get it through third reading? i suspect he can. what are you hearing from conservative mps?- what are you hearing from conservative mps? a, ., , conservative mps? morale across the board among — conservative mps? morale across the board among conservative _ conservative mps? morale across the board among conservative mps - conservative mps? morale across the board among conservative mps is - conservative mps? morale across the | board among conservative mps is very low. board among conservative mps is very low tonight _ board among conservative mps is very low. tonight was yet another example of endless _ low. tonight was yet another example of endless tory drama that led to a lot of— of endless tory drama that led to a lot of feelings of apathy and a lot of mps _ lot of feelings of apathy and a lot of mps being fed up. equally, what is unifying — of mps being fed up. equally, what is unifying tory mps right now is

this sort— is unifying tory mps right now is this sort of— is unifying tory mps right now is this sort of desperate desire to stop— this sort of desperate desire to stop the — this sort of desperate desire to stop the boats. really, a lot of tory— stop the boats. really, a lot of tory mps — stop the boats. really, a lot of tory mps believe the issue of illegal— tory mps believe the issue of illegal migration is the main subject— illegal migration is the main subject that separates the tories from _ subject that separates the tories from labour. they believe labour does _ from labour. they believe labour does not — from labour. they believe labour does not have a viable alternative. they— does not have a viable alternative. they believe that the rwanda plan is the only— they believe that the rwanda plan is the only deterrent that will work, that they— the only deterrent that will work, that they believe. illegal crossings. therefore, at the end of the day, _ crossings. therefore, at the end of the day, they do need to band together— the day, they do need to band together so that they have some ammunition when it comes to an election — ammunition when it comes to an election. , . ., , election. henry hill, could there be an link election. henry hill, could there be any link between _ election. henry hill, could there be any link between the _ election. henry hill, could there be any link between the actions - election. henry hill, could there be any link between the actions of - election. henry hill, could there be any link between the actions of lee j any link between the actions of lee anderson and brendan clarke—smith, red bull conservative mps, and the mr m poll in the telegraph yesterday, which has really spooked some backbenchers?— yesterday, which has really spooked some backbenchers? there could be. i could not speculate _ some backbenchers? there could be. i could not speculate as _ some backbenchers? there could be. i could not speculate as to _ some backbenchers? there could be. i could not speculate as to their- could not speculate as to their individual motivations, but there is clearly... the timing of that poll is not a coincidence, coming directly before this. it has been followed by a raft of specific

pulling about the immigration and rwanda policy in specific seats. there is clearly a concerted push to try to get the prime minister to move in a certain direction. he is in a difficult place because this is one of the few things where there is clear water between labour and the tories. this is one thing he can attack labour on and say, you do not have an answer to this. ultimately, he has failed twice on this policy. he has tried to thread the needle of getting an effective rwanda policy that will not challenge the courts are our legal system. the rebels are saying, you have failed twice, why should we expect this particular bit of drafting to work now? that is not something to which the government necessarily has a good answer, although it is going to win in the house of commons, i think. there is not particularly _ house of commons, i think. there is not particularly good _ house of commons, i think. there is not particularly good answer, - house of commons, i think. there is not particularly good answer, as - not particularly good answer, as henry says. he may get it through, and if it is not amended, if it is not toughened, some in the party want, then the courts may well be clogged up with appeals, despite him bringing in another 150 judges and

freeing up court time. bringing in another 150 'udges and freeing up court time._ freeing up court time. absolutely. in that freeing up court time. absolutely. in that case. _ freeing up court time. absolutely. in that case, we _ freeing up court time. absolutely. in that case, we could see - freeing up court time. absolutely. in that case, we could see the - freeing up court time. absolutely. i in that case, we could see the prime minister— in that case, we could see the prime minister perhaps even trigger an etection— minister perhaps even trigger an election that could be based around the question of leaving the echr and leaving _ the question of leaving the echr and leaving european courts. so, yes, as henry— leaving european courts. so, yes, as henry said. — leaving european courts. so, yes, as henrysaid, i— leaving european courts. so, yes, as henry said, i do think this will pass— henry said, i do think this will pass tomorrow, but even if it does, it still— pass tomorrow, but even if it does, it still needs — pass tomorrow, but even if it does, it still needs to get through the lords, — it still needs to get through the lords, it— it still needs to get through the lords, it still needs to get through the uk _ lords, it still needs to get through the uk courts, and we can expect many— the uk courts, and we can expect many organisations to challenge that _ many organisations to challenge that this— many organisations to challenge that. this is only the very beginning. tojust pass that difficult _ beginning. tojust pass that difficult hurdle of getting this emergency bill through will be a small— emergency bill through will be a small win — emergency bill through will be a small win amid a whole load of losses— small win amid a whole load of losses that the pm has suffered recently — losses that the pm has suffered recently. do losses that the pm has suffered recentl . ~ losses that the pm has suffered recentl . , ., ~ , recently. do you think this legislation is _ recently. do you think this legislation is actually - recently. do you think this | legislation is actually going recently. do you think this . legislation is actually going to recently. do you think this - legislation is actually going to get planes off the ground and deter people from coming across in boats? as you say, depends a lot on how the courts handle it. you can design something in principle, and the government has in theory cutely restricted the ability to file individual appeals, which is what clogs up the system. we will not

know until it gets in front of lords. the supreme court. the problem is that, even if the rwanda scheme worked perfectly, it is only... it can only be a trial for a broader system. the numbers of people that rwanda is signed up to taking is not enough to provide a deterrent. it could prove the concept, and you could then maybe negotiate other deals, but in and of itself, the legislation could get some points of the ground, i would not bet on it, but it could, but thatis not bet on it, but it could, but that is not going to provide a deterrent. it can only show that this model works if you scale it up. in terms of when you look at polling, the priorities of british voters, number one is the economy. number one is the money in your back pocket. numbertwo number one is the money in your back pocket. number two is the nhs. number three is migration. do you think the conservative party is spending too much time on this issue or have they got to get this through because one year ago rishi sunak said stop the boats, we are going to stop the boats?

you are correct on the cost of living — you are correct on the cost of living crisis— you are correct on the cost of living crisis been at the forefront of people's minds but immigration is incredibly— of people's minds but immigration is incredibly important to our readers as well— incredibly important to our readers as well and — incredibly important to our readers as well and members of the public and the _ as well and members of the public and the polling shows that. in the sun newspaper believes the prime minister— sun newspaper believes the prime minister is right to focus on the issue _ minister is right to focus on the issue because it does affect our readers — issue because it does affect our readers and it will be at the forefront _ readers and it will be at the forefront of a general election campaign. and as we've said it is clear— campaign. and as we've said it is clear blue — campaign. and as we've said it is clear blue water between the party and the _ clear blue water between the party and the labour party. in terms of the economy they are in lockstep in many— the economy they are in lockstep in many respects wanting to reduce tax and boost _ many respects wanting to reduce tax and boost growth and these obvious promises _ and boost growth and these obvious promises but there is this big dividing — promises but there is this big dividing line on illegal migration and so _ dividing line on illegal migration and so from a kind of party political _ and so from a kind of party political perspective and strategic perspective it is right that a lot of time — perspective it is right that a lot of time is — perspective it is right that a lot of time is being spent on the issue. thank— of time is being spent on the issue. thank you _ of time is being spent on the issue. thank you both very much. what does it tell us that donald trump has won so much support

so early in the race to become the republican's presidential candidate? iowa has just given mr trump the biggest caucus win in history. joe is there. what's the mood like in the hawkeye state today? it depends on who you ask. 3 million people live in iowa and just over one in 10,000 republicans took part last night, less than 15% of the total registered. maybe the cold weather affecting the turnout. the political advertising spending in this state was just north of $120 million working out as around $1000 per vote. as for the victory last night different views on the secrets to success. but according to newt gingrich trump is not a candidate but the leader of the national movement. by the time morning had broken, so had the dreams of some presidential candidates. two quit the race,

leaving a final three, but the winner's margin of victory, a record 30 point lead, suggests it may be trump's time once again. yet at the drake diner in des moines, the former president's rhetoric wasn't to everyone's taste. what's wrong with him? oh, don't even get me started. i don't like the man. i mean, i don't think he's a good person. i will not vote for trump no matter what. why not? i don't like his policies. i don't like him personally. i don't think he's honest. to the frustration of his critics, mr trump secured 51% of the vote, winning in towns, in suburbs, in rural areas, and according to caucus polling, across key republican demographics, from white evangelical christians to college graduates. what donald trump has achieved here is remarkable.

he is a phenomenon, especially when you consider that his attempt to overturn an election, and unprecedented legal troubles don't seem to have dented the devotion of his supporters. last night, in the shadow of iowa's state capital, republicans braved dangerously low temperatures to gather and caucus in a history museum. among them, 30 year old dr gabe conley, here to speak on behalf of his chosen candidate, biotech entrepreneur vivek ramaswamy. i'm a little bit nervous, but it feels right because i think vivek has earned my support over the course of the last year. under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. just ten turned up for this precinct. some felt compelled to attend for the first time. i have lived in iowa for my whole life and never come august. who;

i have lived in iowa for my whole life and never come august. why have ou turned life and never come august. why have you turned up — life and never come august. why have you turned up this _ life and never come august. why have you turned up this time? _ life and never come august. why have you turned up this time? i _ life and never come august. why have you turned up this time? ithink- life and never come august. why have you turned up this time? i think the i you turned up this time? i think the world is now _ you turned up this time? i think the world is now a _ you turned up this time? i think the world is now a dangerous _ you turned up this time? i think the world is now a dangerous place. - you turned up this time? i think the world is now a dangerous place. i i world is now a dangerous place. i know donald trump can fix it. others had their minds changed. gabe has swung your vote from nikki haley to vivek ramaswamy? just the fact that he had someone speaking that was from the state of iowa, that made a big difference for me. although within hours, his candidate had dropped out and endorsed donald trump. whilst he may be back on winning form... we want to thank the great people of iowa. thank you. we love you all. what a turnout. what a crowd. ..florida governor ron desantis came in a distant second place, with 21% of the vote in a state he really needed to win. as the next president of the united states, i am going to get the job done for this country. nikki haley managed third and has turned her attention to the next vote in new hampshire in seven days time. trump and biden both put our country i trillions of dollars deeper in debt, i and our kids will never forgive them for it _

veteran pollster frank luntz has been covering these caucuses for 28 years. i've never seen intensity like what i saw yesterday. the trump people came only to vote for donald trump. they're not listening to anyone. they don't care about any other candidates. the haley voters, the desantis voters, even the vivek ramaswamy voters, they're considering voting for somebody else. not the trump voters. and that intensity is going to help him in the general election. but it's not enough. in the end, if you just win republicans, you don't win the presidency. is it over for nikki haley and ron desantis? it's not over for nikki haley because there's a significant segment among conservative independents that thinks she's great. for ron desantis, his money was spent in iowa. his time was spent in iowa. his effort was spent in iowa. he doesn't have an organization

in new hampshire, doesn't have support in new hampshire. she can go on. he can't. across town at the des moines curling club, there's no talking politics during play. although off the ice, one member admitted to tactically changing team from democrat to republican. so you switched? idid. i changed my affiliation. so that i have now the opportunity to vote for nikki haley and more importantly, not donald trump. and the one thing they seem to unite on here is a weariness about the campaign ahead. it's messy right now. it's divisive. i don't feel like you can talk to anyone about what issues are important to you without someone getting up in arms. iowa has already swept aside two republican campaigns. and with the next battle approaching in new hampshire, it may not be long before we see

another candidate knocked out. former subpostmasterjo hamilton was right behind one of fujitsu's europe boss today as he sat before mps and said he was "truly sorry" for the role his company played in helping the post office wrongly prosecute former branch managers. truly sorry. jo hamilton was wrongly convicted of stealing £36,000. clearly when people have had their lives trashed, their businesses trashed, their finances trashed, and in some cases jailed when they hadn't stolen anything because it was actually down to deficiencies in fujitsu's horizon it system, "truly sorry" may not be enough. we'll ask a former subpostmaster who was with us last week and is back tonight to tell you what he thinks in just a moment. first here's sima with a recap

on today's evidence before both the business select committee and the public inquiry. yes, so it was quite the day for fujitsu. finally, after days of coverage of the post office scandal, we heard today from two bosses ? the company's europe chief executive, paul patterson. he spoke to the business select committee and was candid, to say the least, saying sorry for the company's part in the scandal and pain it's all caused, and admitting it provided evidence to the post office to prosecute hundreds of innocent sub—postmasters. iam i am personally appalled by the evidence that i have seen and what i saw on the television drama and the

statements i've seen from the victims to the inquiry so we did not stand up to that in those periods of time. he said, "i think there is a moral obligation" for the company to contribute to the compensation for those wrongly accused. and he said fujitsu was aware there were bugs, errors and defects in the horizon it system from early on after its rollout in 1999. he also made clear that the company told the post office that its accounts could be altered remotely ? something the post office denied at the time. a moment that is likely to have angered some of those wrongly convicted was when mr patterson was asked why fujitsu didn't do anything about glitches in the horizon system when the company knew about them. he said, "i don't know. i really don't know." he said, "on a personal level, i wish i did know.

following my appointment in 2019, i have looked back on those situations for the company and the evidence i have seen and ijust don't know." those words won't be very pleasing to those who've spent years fighting forjustice. back with us is balvinder gill — a postmaster wrongly suspended and left bankrupt trying to repay £108,000 back to the post office. he was sectioned three times in the years that followed. and you told us last week about your traumatic experience. balvinder, thank you for being back with us today. we're going to play you some clips of the evidence today, starting with fujitsu europe's boss paul patterson saying sorry. for gypsy would like to apologise for our part in this appalling miscarriage ofjustice. we were involved from the very start. —— fujitsu. we did have bugs and errors

in the system and we did help the post office in their prosecutions of supposed masters. for that we are truly sorry. is that an apology you accept? it is very painful. it takes me back to 20 _ it is very painful. it takes me back to 20 years — it is very painful. it takes me back to 20 years ago when it happened. but i think it seems on the face of it sincere — but i think it seems on the face of it sincere to some degree. someone is trying _ it sincere to some degree. someone is trying to take ownership and it feels _ is trying to take ownership and it feels like someone from the very top has also _ feels like someone from the very top has also apologised. the fact that they focused on the sub—postmasters as the primary part of the apology gave it _ as the primary part of the apology gave it more weight but i find it hard to— gave it more weight but i find it hard to trust until this is resolved. he also admitted fujitsu did have remote access to the systems even though it had previously been denied on multiple occasions.

there was remote access to the systems. what took place or did not take place in those interventions, certainly i know is one of the strings of work that the inquiry are looking at, as well, but there was remote access.— looking at, as well, but there was remote access. ., ., ., , ~ ., remote access. you already knew that because you — remote access. you already knew that because you and _ remote access. you already knew that because you and all _ remote access. you already knew that because you and all the _ remote access. you already knew that because you and all the other- because you and all the other sub—postmaster is who you had got together with it new. but to hear the fujitsu boss see it, what does that mean?— the fujitsu boss see it, what does that mean? very disturbing, but a little bit of a _ that mean? very disturbing, but a little bit of a relief _ that mean? very disturbing, but a little bit of a relief as _ that mean? very disturbing, but a little bit of a relief as well - that mean? very disturbing, but a little bit of a relief as well that - little bit of a relief as well that what _ little bit of a relief as well that what we — little bit of a relief as well that what we thought was true is actually true. what we thought was true is actually true i_ what we thought was true is actually true i have — what we thought was true is actually true. i have driven past a building many— true. i have driven past a building many times, they have always what happened _ many times, they have always what happened there. to hear them say it, at least _ happened there. to hear them say it, at least it— happened there. to hear them say it, at least it is— happened there. to hear them say it, at least it is a — happened there. to hear them say it, at least it is a point of truth which — at least it is a point of truth which cannot be disputed. it is a start, i suppose. _ we also heard from the current heard from the current

post office chief executive nick read, who was pressed by the chair of the committee, labour mp liam byrne, on when the post office knew the it system could be accessed remotely. surely you must be telling the inquiry when somebody in the post office knew that remote access to terminals was possible. irate office knew that remote access to terminals was possible.— office knew that remote access to terminals was possible. we will be ”rovidin terminals was possible. we will be providing all _ terminals was possible. we will be providing all the _ terminals was possible. we will be providing all the information - providing all the information required _ providing all the information reuuired. . , providing all the information reuuired. ., , i] providing all the information reuuired. ., , m required. what is the answer? i have not not required. what is the answer? i have not got the — required. what is the answer? i have not got the specific _ required. what is the answer? i have not got the specific date. _ required. what is the answer? i have not got the specific date. i _ required. what is the answer? i have not got the specific date. i can - not got the specific date. i can come — not got the specific date. i can come back— not got the specific date. i can come back to _ not got the specific date. i can come back to you. _ not got the specific date. i can come back to you. mr- not got the specific date. i canl come back to you. mr paterson not got the specific date. i can - come back to you. mr paterson has described _ come back to you. mr paterson has described we — come back to you. mr paterson has described we will— come back to you. mr paterson has described we will come _ come back to you. mr paterson has described we will come back - come back to you. mr paterson has described we will come back to - come back to you. mr paterson hasl described we will come back to you, i can described we will come back to you, i can do— described we will come back to you, i can do the — described we will come back to you, i can do the same. _ described we will come back to you, i can do the same. i— described we will come back to you, i can do the same.— i can do the same. i think we are both surprised _ i can do the same. i think we are both surprised and _ i can do the same. i think we are both surprised and disappointed | i can do the same. i think we are i both surprised and disappointed you have not got that question answered on the table. have not got that question answered on the table-— on the table. what do you think of that? absolutely _ on the table. what do you think of that? absolutely feel _ on the table. what do you think of that? absolutely feel the - on the table. what do you think of that? absolutely feel the same i on the table. what do you think of. that? absolutely feel the same way, very disappointed. — that? absolutely feel the same way, very disappointed, as _ that? absolutely feel the same way, very disappointed, as the _ that? absolutely feel the same way, very disappointed, as the select - very disappointed, as the select committee was saying. why are these things— committee was saying. why are these things are _ committee was saying. why are these things are still being batted away? why can _ things are still being batted away? why can they not give straight answers? _ why can they not give straight answers? there is always that resistance _ answers? there is always that resistance and some sort of protecting each other, not letting us get _ protecting each other, not letting us get to— protecting each other, not letting us get to the truth. when are they

going _ us get to the truth. when are they going to _ us get to the truth. when are they going to put their hands up and say, look, _ going to put their hands up and say, look. this— going to put their hands up and say, look. this is— going to put their hands up and say, look, this is what happened, let's deal with— look, this is what happened, let's deal with it. the buck back to the inquiry— deal with it. the buck back to the inquiry a — deal with it. the buck back to the inquirya lot, deal with it. the buck back to the inquiry a lot, leave it to the inquiry _ inquiry a lot, leave it to the inquiry. i_ inquiry a lot, leave it to the inquiry. iwant inquiry a lot, leave it to the inquiry. i want to see some ownership, someone to stand up and say, i— ownership, someone to stand up and say, i have _ ownership, someone to stand up and say, i have got this, i am going to look— say, i have got this, i am going to look after— say, i have got this, i am going to look after these people. there is a lot of— look after these people. there is a lot of empty words. i felt it didn't flow _ lot of empty words. i felt it didn't flow there — lot of empty words. i felt it didn't flow. there was no real feeling there _ flow. there was no real feeling there that _ flow. there was no real feeling there that something is actually happening. itjust is the same old post office, same thing. i happening. itjust is the same old post office, same thing.- happening. itjust is the same old post office, same thing. i have 'ust met our post office, same thing. i have 'ust met your mum fl post office, same thing. i have 'ust met your mum outside i post office, same thing. i have just met your mum outside because - post office, same thing. i have justj met your mum outside because you have brought her tonight. it was lovely to meet her. tell our audience what happened to your mum after what happened to you. you were made bankrupt, you are told you it would be post office a load of money, you ended up being sectioned three times. your mum to cover your post office. three times. your mum to cover your post office-— post office. excuse me. so, what happened. _ post office. excuse me. so, what happened. my — post office. excuse me. so, what happened, my parents _ post office. excuse me. so, what happened, my parents were -

post office. excuse me. so, what happened, my parents were told | post office. excuse me. so, what| happened, my parents were told i post office. excuse me. so, what - happened, my parents were told i had committed _ happened, my parents were told i had committed fraud, i was a criminal comedy— committed fraud, i was a criminal comedy that were then duped into taking _ comedy that were then duped into taking the post office back over. they— taking the post office back over. they took— taking the post office back over. they took over a period after i had been _ they took over a period after i had been there — they took over a period after i had been there and had been some interim people _ been there and had been some interim people. they were told that because i had people. they were told that because i had done _ people. they were told that because i had done something, that the business — i had done something, that the business was sound. dad, who took the business over officially as the postmaster, it was done over a handshake, there was no business plan or— handshake, there was no business plan or forecast or anything else. mum _ plan or forecast or anything else. mum was — plan or forecast or anything else. mum was the kind of main manager of the same _ mum was the kind of main manager of the same store where my issues occurred — the same store where my issues occurred at the same post office. she ran _ occurred at the same post office. she ran that post office full heartedly and give it everything she had. heartedly and give it everything she had in _ heartedly and give it everything she had. in 2009, they came and they said that _ had. in 2009, they came and they said that she had a shortage of £57,000 _ said that she had a shortage of £57,000. ~ ., i: i: i: said that she had a shortage of. £57,000-_ after said that she had a shortage of - £57,ooo._ after what £57,000. what? 57,000? after what had happened _ £57,000. what? 57,000? after what had happened to — £57,000. what? 57,000? after what had happened to me, _ £57,000. what? 57,000? after what had happened to me, as _ £57,000. what? 57,000? after what had happened to me, as well. - £57,000. what? 57,000? after what had happened to me, as well. they i had happened to me, as well. they searched _ had happened to me, as well. they searched my parents' home, they interrogated my mum, they got a confession— interrogated my mum, they got a confession out of her to say that the money— confession out of her to say that the money might have gone in a bag or she _ the money might have gone in a bag or she does — the money might have gone in a bag or she does not really know. you

changed — or she does not really know. you changed the accounts. she is not the same _ changed the accounts. she is not the same person. she never will be. she was same person. she never will be. was convicted? same person. she never will be. she was convicted? she _ same person. she never will be. she was convicted? she was _ same person. she never will be. she was convicted? she was convicted. l same person. she never will be. she l was convicted? she was convicted. we re-consult over— was convicted? she was convicted. we re-consult over this _ was convicted? she was convicted. we re-consult over this because _ was convicted? she was convicted. we re-consult over this because her- re—consult over this because her experience, there was a lot of pride in the _ experience, there was a lot of pride in the family. my dad kicked me out because _ in the family. my dad kicked me out because he — in the family. my dad kicked me out because he thought i had dishonoured the family— because he thought i had dishonoured the family name. at that time, there was a _ the family name. at that time, there was a new_ the family name. at that time, there was a new feeling of that somehow the family. — was a new feeling of that somehow the family, there was some reconciliation. i remembertaking my mum _ reconciliation. i remembertaking my mum to _ reconciliation. i remembertaking my mum to court. literally, it was an icy road. — mum to court. literally, it was an icy road, there was a photographer taking _ icy road, there was a photographer taking a _ icy road, there was a photographer taking a picture, she slipped on the ice and _ taking a picture, she slipped on the ice and grabbed my arm. she said, i'm ice and grabbed my arm. she said, i'm going— ice and grabbed my arm. she said, i'm going to— ice and grabbed my arm. she said, i'm going to go home after this. we were pushing her into not knowing ourselves — were pushing her into not knowing ourselves. she were pushing her into not knowing ourselves. ., ., , , ourselves. she thought she might be auoin to ourselves. she thought she might be going to jail- — ourselves. she thought she might be going to jail. there _ ourselves. she thought she might be going to jail. there was _ ourselves. she thought she might be going to jail. there was a _ ourselves. she thought she might be going to jail. there was a deal - ourselves. she thought she might be going to jail. there was a deal at - going to 'ail. there was a deal at the ve going to jail. there was a deal at the very last _ going to jail. there was a deal at the very last minute _ going to jail. there was a deal at the very last minute to _ going to jail. there was a deal at the very last minute to at - going to jail. there was a deal at the very last minute to at the - going to jail. there was a deal at i the very last minute to at the same thing _ the very last minute to at the same thing we _ the very last minute to at the same thing we know they do to a lotta people — thing we know they do to a lotta people. they drop the theft charge, let her_ people. they drop the theft charge, let her take the false accounting because — let her take the false accounting because they had repaid the money. a property— because they had repaid the money. a property they had purchased and were renting _ property they had purchased and were renting out. _ property they had purchased and were renting out, it was gone, wiped away

to cover— renting out, it was gone, wiped away to cover that. plus they had to borrow — to cover that. plus they had to borrow money to try to stay afloat. she is _ borrow money to try to stay afloat. she is mentally not the same person. i do she is mentally not the same person. i do not _ she is mentally not the same person. i do not think i will ever get mum back _ i do not think i will ever get mum back i_ i do not think i will ever get mum back i do — i do not think i will ever get mum back. i do not think we will get her back. i do not think we will get her back in_ back. i do not think we will get her back in the — back. i do not think we will get her back in the full way that we know her, _ back in the full way that we know her. or— back in the full way that we know her. or my— back in the full way that we know her, or my dad to some degree. it her, or my dad to some degree. [i 'ust her, or my dad to some degree. just shows her, or my dad to some degree. it just shows how this... what happened to you had this ripple effect through your whole family. i am so sorry for yourfamily. through your whole family. i am so sorry for your family.— sorry for your family. thank you for listeninu. sorry for your family. thank you for listening. appreciate _ sorry for your family. thank you for listening. appreciate it. _ sorry for your family. thank you for listening. appreciate it. thank- sorry for your family. thank you for listening. appreciate it. thank you| listening. appreciate it. thank you for sharing- _ listening. appreciate it. thank you for sharing- it _ listening. appreciate it. thank you for sharing. it is _ listening. appreciate it. thank you for sharing. it is lovely _ listening. appreciate it. thank you for sharing. it is lovely to - listening. appreciate it. thank you for sharing. it is lovely to meet. for sharing. it is lovely to meet her. we are going to talk more than just a moment. her. we are going to talk more than justa moment. —— more her. we are going to talk more than just a moment. —— more injust a moment. there have been calls for a moratorium on new public sector contracts being granted to fujitsu. some have gone further and suggested the firm should be stripped of existing contracts because of its role in the post office scandal — one of the most widespread miscarriages ofjustice in british legal history. but how feasible is that?

here's ben. just how embedded is fujitsu in the uk public sector? the answer is extremely. the company received £427 million of public sector revenue in 2022—23. it does work across the home office, hmrc, the foreign office, defra, the mod, and the post office, of course, still running the horizon system. it is officially designated as a strategic supplier to the state, which means the goods and services it provides are considered so important the relationship is coordinated through the cabinet office. the proposal of a moratorium is relevant because new contracts, or rolled over contracts, are coming in all the time. a new environment agency contract with fujitsu for managing its flood warning system was awarded only this month. yet the question of a moratorium on new contracts, and of course cancelling existing ones, raised the question of what the impact would be on the public sector to provide the services. is it realistic to expect that another private sector provider could step in? let's take the case of the police national computer,

which fujitsu has run for decades. there were no other private sector bidders except fujitsu when the contract came up for renewal in 2022. this highlights the technical difficulty of moving away from a specific it provider, even if its performance is unsatisfactory. it is just not practical to strip fujitsu of its contracts. it is too well entrenched within big departments, such as hmrc and the department for work and pensions. those departments would cease to function properly without fujitsu. and, by the way, it seems that fujitsu's performance might have been deficient in the case of the police national computer. in 2021, the system mistakenly deleted the records of around 113,000 individuals due to a defective coding problem, according to the then minister for crime and policing, which will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the post office horizon case.

fujitsu was also part of a consortium tasked with digitising the nhs's records in 2004, but the nhs terminated its contract with fujitsu in 2008 after repeated delays and failure to deliver. however, fujitsu sued the government for £700 million and finally won the case in 2014, which is estimated to have cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in legal fees and costs. so there are legal as well as technical barriers to getting rid of underperforming it contractors. this points to something bigger than a problem with one company. how do we design and it public procurement system in which no —— how do we design an it public procurement system in which no contractor is too dominant and powerful not to use or to get rid of if it is merited? bal is still with us, and labour mp kate osborne is here, too. she asked asked then prime minister borisjohnson in early 2020 to launch an independent review into the post office

and horizon scandal. then she handed a petition to number 10 asking for a full public enquiry to clear people's names. the mp spent 25 years working at royal mail before becoming a minister. what do you want the government to do with the fujitsu contracts? 50. do with the fu'itsu contracts? so, thank ou do with the fu'itsu contracts? so, thank you for— do with the fujitsu contracts? so, thank you for inviting do with the fujitsu contracts? 5.0, thank you for inviting me onto do with the fujitsu contracts? 50, thank you for inviting me onto the programme, victoria. in october last year, i asked the then minister if they would pause, at the very least pause giving new contracts to fujitsu because it had already become very clear that they had played a big part in the horizon scandal. i then asked the minister again last week the same question, well they pause the contract? i think that is the least that they need to be doing. irlat think that is the least that they need to be doing.— think that is the least that they need to be doing. not strip them of the current — need to be doing. not strip them of the current contracts _ need to be doing. not strip them of the current contracts because - need to be doing. not strip them of the current contracts because they l the current contracts because they are across multiple departments. i would like to see them pull... well, i would like to see them strip the contract away. i think any due

diligence will show, as your report hasjust shown, diligence will show, as your report has just shown, that this company cannot be trusted. let's not forget the damage that they have done to people like balvinder gill and so many other postmasters. it has taken me around 15 years to apologise. what we need is we need to see people held to account within the post office, but also within fujitsu. and if necessary, we need to see people go to prison on the same way that they sent postmasters and post—mistresses to present. i just wonder how feasible or realistic it would be to remove the company from the public sector. ben gave the example of the police national computer. it has been run by fujitsu for many years, there were no other private sector bidders when the contract came up for renewal in 2022.— when the contract came up for renewal in 2022. ., ., ., ., renewal in 2022. you have to wonder, certainl i renewal in 2022. you have to wonder, certainly i wonder, _ renewal in 2022. you have to wonder, certainly i wonder, when _ renewal in 2022. you have to wonder, certainly i wonder, when you - renewal in 2022. you have to wonder, certainly i wonder, when you have - certainly i wonder, when you have got somebody very senior in fujitsu