The CEOs of the Post Office and Fujitsu (Europe) appeared before the Business Select Committee today. I have two short points, both related to poorer grasp of detail that they had than might be expected. I’ll spare you an analysis of which details, save for one point.
If I understood him correctly, Nick Read denied that the Post office used NDAs when settling compensation disputes with sub-postmasters. This is odd because he admitted later on that settlements were subject to confidentiality clauses.
These are NDAs.
The SRA’s warning notice says:
This warning notice covers the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and we use this term to include any form of agreement or contract, or a clause within a wider agreement or contract, under which it is agreed that certain information will be kept confidential.
Could it be that Mr Read has been wrongly briefed on the Post Office’s use of NDAs? Could that briefing be by his lawyers? It’s not an insignificant problem either. Such clauses inhibit scrutiny and debate of PO Settlements. Dan Neidle has made similar points about the use of ‘without prejudice’ labels on PO compensation correspondence. Non-lawyers find such language intimidating, and it is misleading to use it in certain circumstances. He referred matters to the SRA in May 2023.
My interpretation of Fujitsu CEO’s evidence is a little different. Here’s a comment I gave to a Japanese newspaper, to save me drafting afresh:
Accepting moral responsibility and confirming a willingness to contribute to the costs of addressing the Scandal was sensible PR from Fujitsu. People will rightly say it is too little too late, and the company is engaged in damage limitation but it was positively received. As the dust settles, and people remember how long Fujitsu has kept silent about the scandal, the anger will reappear, I think.
The alternative to offering this apology would likely have been more damaging for the Company, and certainly its reputation, in the medium and longer term. The details of the statement suggest to me this was a play for time. The European CEO wasn’t across the detail that he should have been, perhaps indicating a degree of panic in the response. And the idea that they will wait till the end of the Inquiry to allocate blame between them and the Post Office will not, I would predict, survive very long.
Who knows if I am right or wrong? I know there are limitation and other problems in the way of litigation against Fujitsu, but I don’t think they are as insuperable as some are saying. Fujitsu might have realised their vulnerability, legally, reputationally or politically (perhaps all three) and decided to open up a negotiation on reparation.
That’s what the statement today seems to suggest to me. The fact that their CEO seemed to know so few relevant details but was also quite subtly laying off responsibility on the Post Office as their partner in the blame game suggests that this bit of the story has some time to run. The negotiation will be tough and in the end. It might even be subject to an NDA, but the numbers if not the detail will likely emerge.
