POL00097879
POL00097879
Message
From: Paula Vennel
Sent: 26/03/2013
To: Alwen Lyons.
cc: Martin Edwards }
Subject: Re: Second Sight note from meeting 25 March
Attachments: image001.gif; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png; image006.gif; image007.png
Sensitivity: Company Confidential
I think you are right - we wait for Janet's note.
I'm a bit disturbed by lan's. James seems to be even-handed in his comments, which makes Ian's look as though he had
an agenda.
Did James ask lan to do the note? Odd - really it should have come from James initially, rather than SS.
Re Alice, I suggest you tell her you have it but that James has some amends (important she knows as he may well
mention in the future). Therefore she may want to wait for the final version. If she wants to see it though - no problem
at all.
Thx Paula
Sent from my iPhone
G RO I wrote:
On 26 Mar 2013, at 18:39, "Alwen Lyons"
Paula
lam sure Martin will brief you as he was on the call we have with Second Sight this afternoon, But I
thought you should see the emails below. The original from lan, annotated by James.
I have put in a call to Janet as she is doing the official note of the meeting and! am going to discuss her
view of how it went tomorrow and get some clarity around James’ note
I know you have a 121 with Alice tomorrow, she hasn’t seen this note as I wanted you to see it first, but
if you want her to see would you let me know and I will send it on, I wouldn’t want her to think I was
keeping anything from her.
My advice would be we wait for Janet’s note before deciding on the way forward.
if you would like to discuss please give me a call, although as I say Martin was on the call with Second
sight
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons I Company Secretary
<image001 gif
<image002,png>
<image003,png>
<image004.png>
POL-0097462
POL00097879
POL00097879
<image005.png> i
<image006 gif> @postofficenews
<image007.png>
From: ARBUTHNOT, James [mailto!
Sent: 26 March 2013 15:44 i
To: Susan Crichton
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker; Ian Henderson; 'Ron Warmington’
Subject: Second Sight note from meeting 25 March
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear Susan,
T have had sight of Ian Henderson's email to you following the meeting held at Westminster on
25 March. I would be grateful if you would forward this message to Ruth X. Barker and Mark R.
Davies, neither of whom is known to me, nor do I have their email addresses, but as they were
included in the initial circulation, I feel they ought to be able to read my response.
The reason I am writing is that my recollection of the meeting is somewhat different to his. I
plan to circulate the note my office made of the meeting in due course, but please would you
note the following comments from me (in red), which refer directly to Ian Henderson’s points in
the email he sent to you, copied below.
1. There was broad support for the concept of reporting on issues rather than individual
cases — rather than ‘support’, I think I would express this as ‘understanding’. MPs will, in
the end, want to know how their individual constituent’s case concludes, and whether it
can be stated that their constituent has been wrongly accused.
2. The MPs want Second Sight to report on a much wider range of issues in July than we
had planned i.e. not just the Horizon transaction issues. A consequence of this is that
any report in July will be an interim not a final report — this is not my recollection of
what was discussed or agreed at the meeting. Although the possibility of a July meeting
was mooted, and the possibility that the report that might be presented at that meeting
might be interim in nature, no desire for a wider range of issues to be reported on was
mentioned by MPs.
3. There was broad support for the proposal to run a series of tests in the Model Office
replicating the specific scenarios reported by SPMRs — this was not really discussed.
What I heard was that the Model Office was offered to Second Sight as a way to test
processes and the system by the Post Office, but no express support — or lack of it — for
its use was discussed or agreed.
4. Alan Bates reported that a significant number of SPMRs had not accepted the JFSA / POL
agreement and remained concerned about possible retribution from POL. This has
POL-0097462
POL00097879
POL00097879
resulted in under reporting of cases and issues. (This was the first time we had been
told about this) — this is true. I was rather irritated that Alan Bates raised this without
warning, and did so publicly.
5. MPs (and JFSA) reported continuing concern about “heavy handed” audit and
investigations processes and the inability within POL to differentiate between genuine
issues of concern reported by SPMRs compared with suspected fraud or theft. This is
causing real hardship to SPMRs and may lead to suicides. (This was mentioned more
than once) — this was the view coming from the JFSA, not MPs. I do not recall any
mention of suicides at the meeting, but JFSA did raise the point that POL continues even
today to prosecute allegations of theft without the prior investigation or the
tentativeness that this investigation would suggest might be necessary.
6. MPs were pleased to note the personal involvement of Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells
but would like this to be extended within POL to a much more sympathetic attitude
to SPMRs with problems. They felt internal communication processes within POL were
not working well. There was universal concern about the continuing use of comments
such as “we have total confidence in the Horizon system” which are contrary to the
experience reported by a number of SPMRs — I am unhappy with the way this is
expressed. There was no expression of any views from MPs or their representatives
about internal communications within the Post Office, nor that the personal involvement
of staff beyond senior management ought to be extended. That the Post Office
continues to claim confidence in Horizon is factually correct, and I emphasized that
until cases were put to the Post Office which undermined this confidence, the Post
Office’s stance was understandable.
7. In the light of the issues now being looked at by Second Sight, POL should consider a
suspension of all current prosecutions activity until after July at least — this was not
specifically discussed at the meeting, but it may well follow from the point I make at 5
above.
8. There was widespread support for the view that it is essential the investigation continues
to be supported by POL as it was felt that this is the best opportunity to really dig into
the issues and concerns reported by SPMRs — as above, a good point. There was,
however, concern that the matter was going on so long and costing POL a lot.
To my mind, the meeting went as well as could be expected. I would not go so far as to
support Ian’s opinion that ‘extensive concern’ was expressed about the investigation and
prosecution processes the Post Office is following. My impression is that by and large, we
listened to what was being presented to us by Second Sight. Mike Wood and Kevin Barron
certainly did mount some robust questioning, as they should, but to shape this as ‘extensive
concern’ is stretching things a bit, I think.
IT shall circulate my briefing in due course, but would be grateful if you would note my
comments above.
Yours ever,
James
Office of the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A GAA
POL-0097462
POL00097879
POL00097879
Sent: 26 March 2013 10:25
To: ‘Susan Crichton’
Cc: 'Alwen Lyons’; ‘Simon Baker’; ‘Ruth X Barker’; ‘Mark R Davies’; 'rwarming:
Subject: Meeting with MPs - 25 March 2013 =
Sensitivity: Confidential
CONFIDENTIAL
Susan
The meeting with MPs went reasonably well, however there was robust questioning from a number of
MPs, particularly Mike Wood MP and extensive concern expressed about POL investigation and
prosecutions processes. Janet Walker will be circulating an official minute of the meeting in due course.
Whilst Shoosmiths were present throughout, they took no part in the meeting and did not comment at
any point.
I attach a copy of the Second Sight Briefing Note that was tabled at the meeting.
Headline points from the meeting were:
1. There was broad support for the concept of reporting on issues rather than individual cases
2. The MPs want Second Sight to report on a much wider range of issues in July than we had
planned i.e. not just the Horizon transaction issues. A consequence of this is that any report in
July will be an interim not a final report.
3. There was broad support for the proposal to run a series of tests in the Model Office replicating
the specific scenarios reported by SPMRs
4. Alan Bates reported that a significant number of SPMRs had not accepted the JFSA / POL
agreement and remained concerned about possible retribution from POL. This has resulted in
under reporting of cases and issues. (This was the first time we had been told about this)
5. MPs (and JFSA) reported continuing concern about “heavy handed” audit and investigations
processes and the inability within POL to differentiate between genuine issues of concern
reported by SPMRs compared with suspected fraud or theft. This is causing real hardship to
SPMRs and may lead to suicides. (This was mentioned more than once)
6. MPs were pleased to note the personal involvement of Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells but
would like this to be extended within POL to a much more sympathetic attitude to SPMRs with
problems. They felt internal communication processes within POL were not working well. There
was universal concern about the continuing use of comments such as “we have total confidence
in the Horizon system” which are contrary to the experience reported by a number of SPMRs.
7. Inthe light of the issues now being looked at by Second Sight, POL should consider a suspension
of all current prosecutions activity until after July at least
8. There was widespread support for the view that it is essential the investigation continues to be
supported by POL as it was felt that this is the best opportunity to really dig into the issues and
concerns reported by SPMRs.
I will circulate Janet Walkers note of the meeting as soon as I receive it
POL-0097462
POL00097879
POL00097879
With best wishes
Tan R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
http: //advancedforensics.com
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/forensicgod
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forensicgod
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
-nrivileeed.Ifvouare.oot the intended recipient, please notify me at
' GRO and delete the email and any attachments.
POL-0097462