POL00098912
POL00098912
Message
From:
on behalf of
Sent:
To: Paula Vennells!.
Subject: Fw: JA meeting brief
Attachments: Concerns with Horizon Document - 12.12.12.doc; Horizon TOR Version 3.doc
Paula,
Second time lucky?
Rodric
{Alwen called me Rodriguez earlier this week too!)
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 06:18 AM
To: Alice Perkins } Paula Vennells; Martin Edwards
Cc: Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Mark R Davies; Hugh Flemington; Simon Baker; Nina Arnott; Ruth X Barker
Subject: RE: JA meeting brief
Alice,
Please find attached:
1. Terms of Reference; and
2. Agreement between Post Office Limited, JFSA and Second Sight.
Kind regards, Rodric
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
ey 4 5HQ
From: Alice Perkins:
Sent: 03 July 2013 06:53
To: Paula Vennells; Martin Edwards
Cc: Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Mark R Davies; Hugh Flemington; Rodric Williams; Simon Baker
Subject: Re: JA meeting brief
Thanks so much for this - very good, clear and helpful - not easy given the complexities of this. And what a time to be
doing it.
Is it possible to have the exact TOR of the SS review and copies of letters I/we wrote to JA about this before our
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
meeting? Annex 1 of the brief is helpful but I'm not clear how far it replicates the TOR. Perhaps I'm missing something
here.
Alice
From: Paula Vennell
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 06:19 AM
To: Martin Edwards
Cc: Alice Perki
Mark R Davies
Subject: Re: JA meeting brief
Martin, thank you and everyone else very much for this. Have just scanned and it looks seriously helpful. I know Alice
will be grateful too.
Thank also for the huge amount of time going in and for that to come over the next few days. It is demanding - especially
at a time when there are equally important issues happening elsewhere related to funding, not to mention strikes.
We will make sure you are updated after the JA meeting of course.
Paula
Ps. Martin, I noticed that you didn't copy Nina and Ruth. If you or Mark haven't already forwarded, could you do so as he
asks. And could everyone pls note the request to keep them copied. It just saves time and is more efficient. Thx.
Sent from my iPad
On 3 Jul 2013, at 02:04, "Martin Edwards" I GRO “wrote:
Alice, Paula
With many thanks to Susan, Alwen, Mark and everyone else involved, here's the briefing note for the
meeting with JA (attached as both a Word doc and PDF, and also pasted in the email below in case
easier to read on blackberry. I think Alwen will try to bring printed copies if she has time).
Also attaching a more detailed factual background brief in case needed, which is what we're developing
as our main fact base for reference throughout this process. It includes details of the 4 cases under
review by SS in the interim report and also a summary of the cases pertaining to JA and OL's
constituencies.
I mentioned a website earlier which provides guidance on the proper process for independent enquiries,
including in relation to ‘Salmon letters' - have referenced the key read-across in the brief, but here's the
link if anyone wants to read up on this in more detail:
http://publicinquiries.org/holding_a_hearing/fairness_to_witnesses
Best wishes for the meeting,
Martin
Briefing for meeting with James Arbuthnot, 3 July 2013
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
<image002.png>
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
SPEAKING NOTES
Introductory points:
} Thank you for agreeing to meet us.
boss provided us with an update following your call with them on Tuesday morning.
t Following that, would like to discuss with you:
a) Communications around the report and media/parliamentary handling
b) The approach to the report itself and Monday's meeting
c) The approach beyond next Monday to close down other MPs' cases and learn lessons
But first point to reiterate is that we take this whole process extremely seriously indeed. That is why
we set up the independent investigation in the first place. It is important we get to the truth and
learn lessons where appropriate.
i) Communications around the report and media/parliamentary handling
t
Would be useful to understand your plans for communicating the report to the media and
Parliament. (Second Sight's read-out of your conversation gave us some areas for concern.)
The single most important principle from our point of view is that the report and the associated
communications must be rigorous and completed grounded in the facts. The Post Office is too
important a business to thousands of sub-postmasters and millions of customers (and taxpayers)
across the country for confidence to be undermined unfairly.
From the SS update we have been made aware of the potential for different interpretations on the
definition of Horizon. Whilst we both agree that the wider system is part of the review (as defined in
the ToR) we consider that the report and communications should clearly distinguish between the
‘computer system’ and the wider support processes.
From what we have been told by SS so far, there is no evidence in the interim report to support any
suggestion of systemic failures with the Horizon system (and this is based on the four "best" cases
from all those under review).
If this is the case, important that point is communicated clearly given some of the original allegations
against the system - otherwise customer and agent confidence in the integrity of the system could be
fundamentally undermined.
This is not to belittle the importance of the overall user experience for spmrs. It is essential that we
continue to improve our wider systems of support and training for agents, and we are grateful for
some of the additional insights generated by this investigation to date. Many of these process issues
are historical and have already been rectified through improved guidance to staff and training for
spmrs - but where further changes need to be made we will absolutely act on them. Will come back
to how we propose to engage JFSA and spmrs and identifying further process improvements.
We're concerned to hear that you may have lined up an interview with the BBC in advance of the
report being shared. Keen to understand your thinking here.
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
b We willlet you know our handling plan in relation to the media, and share statements. We would be
grateful if you were able to do the same. You will appreciate the danger of the media exaggerating
the report and our need firmly to defend our reputation.
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
ii) The approach to the report itself and Monday’s meeting
t
t
SS propose to share with us the draft report on Friday. We will work urgently over the weekend to
check for factual accuracy.
Clearly this issue has significant bearing on our main supplier for Horizon, Fujitsu. They will therefore
also be asked for their views on the facts contained in the report before publication.
Our hope and expectation is that this fact checking and consultation can be completed in time to
allow the report to be shared with MPs on Monday afternoon - but obviously an extremely tight
turnaround, so we will need to review the situation on Monday. If there remain fundamental
concerns around factual points, it would be better for the report to be delayed rather than misleading
statements to be issued.
[If needed: none of this undermines the independence of the SS investigation - on the contrary, our
aim is to protect its credibility and rigour. Also has parallels with the statutory process for public
enquiries - Inquiries Act 2005 recognises the need for ‘Salmon letters' to give appropriate warning to
any person or organisation about whom criticism could be inferred from an enquiry.]
In terms of the meeting itself, we understand that the JFSA and their lawyers will be in attendance
alongside the invited MPs. As both the commissioner and subject of the report, we would appreciate
it if you could also give us the option of sending observer representatives. Most likely to involve one
employee and one external lawyer. Will help us to ensure we have a clear and accurate read-out of
the meeting and that we can follow-up on any queries or action points as appropriate.
iii) The approach beyond next Monday to close down other MPs' cases and learn lessons
t
Clearly we recognise that the interim report does not cover all the cases put to Second Sight. We
agreed on this approach and we also recognise the need to complete the review of the other cases
put to Second Sight by the JFSA and MPs.
We'd like to work with JFSA to continue this work but we do have concerns about the process. It
has taken too long, and we have to have regard for the appropriate use of public money.
Need to stress as well that, in Second Sight's view, in around half of the cases from MPs there is
insufficient evidence on which to investigate, despite requests for further information to be
submitted.
So we suggest a refined approach for the remainder of the cases. We want to set up a user group
(chaired by CIO) which would meet regularly to learn from experiences of spmrs and to provide a
forum for continual improvement.
We suggest that this would include JFSA and for the immediate period the forum could (potentially)
also include Second Sight and have as its priority the completion of the reviews of the cases put to it.
This approach might be more effective than the process we have gone through, which you will accept
has not been perfect.
Once the cases put to us have been reviewed by the group and a conclusion or conclusions reached,
the forum would continue as a structure through which we can continue to refine and improve our
processes.
We would hope that the JFSA would continue to be a part of this, along with other interested parties
such as the NFSP.
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
Additional point if needed
Depending on the tone of the meeting, it may be appropriate to address head on JA's apparent annoyance
at the issues around prosecutions and the systems ‘exceptions’.
Current prosecutions
} Since the start of the SS investigation we have not pursued a criminal conviction which relies solely
on Horizon computer system evidence. We have also put on hold civil recovery proceedings in certain
cases whilst we await final report.
} As you now, we also prepared an ‘immunity agreement’ with the JFSA to provide reassurance to
spmrs thinking of submitting evidence to the process.
} But in cases where it is clear that Horizon system isn't the issue, we have a duty to take appropriate
action to safeguard public money. For criminal prosecutions we treat each matter on a case by case
basis, with a detailed investigation and legal review (generally involving external lawyers).
Historical convictions
t Nothing has emerged from the interim findings given to us by SS which would point to specific
convictions being unsafe. Cases have been through the judicial process and the Court considers all
relevant evidence not just that relating to the Horizon computer system.
} Inthe event that any person considers that there has been a miscarriage of justice they have the right
to apply to the Court of Appeal to have their conviction reviewed.
System exceptions
} We know of two systems exceptions (anomalies) under the current Horizon system where spmrs'
accounts have been affected, and both were voluntary communicated to SS (although not directly
related to the cases under review).
t Key point to note is that in both cases our processes picked up these issues, appropriate remedial
action has been taken and they did not lead to any disciplinary action against the affected spmrs.
t Absolutely no reason to believe this means there are other undiscovered issues.
b We are sorry this information was not passed onto you at an earlier stage - if we had considered
these cases to materially change the investigation we would have flagged them directly to you, but in
our firm view they don't.
Further detail on the two cases if required:
+ The "62 branches exception" - 3 years old at the time of migrating branches from old Horizon the
HNG:
o Affected 62 branches (13 Crowns; 12 Multiples; 37 Sub postmasters)
© Sub-postmaster branch losses ranged from €115.60 down to 8p
o Identified by Horizon's built-in checks and balances which are designed to flag up these types
of discrepancies. Appropriate action taken to rectify issue.
© 17 sub-postmasters were adversely affected, ie. had a loss attribute to their branch.
POL-0098495
°
°
POL00098912
POL00098912
Sub-postmasters notified in March 2011 and (where appropriate) reimbursed.
Sub-postmasters who made a gain through the anomaly were not asked to refund this.
t The "14 branches exception"
°
°
Financially impacted 14 branches (4 Crowns; 5 Multiples; 5 Sub-postmasters)
Concerns an error where historic accounting entries in the 2010/11 financial year were
replicated in accounts for 2011/12 and 2012/13, only showing up a year later.
Raised by 2 sub postmasters affected by the exception.
1 sub postmasters and 4 multiple partners were adversely affected, i.e. had a loss attribute to
their branch.
We suspended attempts to recover known losses from affected sub-postmasters
Letters to notified sub-postmasters will be sent out imminently
The worst loss to a branch would have been 9,799.88. This was one of the first cases notified,
so no recovery action was progressed. Other losses ranged from 113.14 down to a penny.
Action underway to modify the system to prevent any repeat of this exception
Martin Edwards I Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive
_<image003.png>
postoffice.co.uk
@postofficenews
<image004.png>
<20130702 JA meeting brief.doc>
<20130702 JA meeting brief.pdf>
<20130703 Briefing Note re Second Sight Interim Report - 02 07 13 (2).pdf>
JOH EI HOG SOHO IIIB SOD IDI SO DI IIIS OA II III AISA IIIA AIH
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JOBE ISI III SO HII IAI SII III DOI II III ISO II IDOI TIAA I IIIT I
POL-0098495
POL00098912
POL00098912
Click here to report this email as spam.
POL-0098495