POL00098923
POL00098923
Message
From: Paula Vennells
on behalf of — Paula Vennells
Sent: 03/07/2013 07.
To:
ce: Alwen Lyons
Subject:
Yes to share and yes to a letter post-meeting - had exactly the same thought. Worth drafting one in readiness? P
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Jul 2013, at 08:00, "Martin Edwards" ff wrote:
Thanks.
I think sharing with BIS would be helpful - I know they would certainly appreciate it. I'll just re-read to
check for any issues which could be misinterpreted or unhelpful to our position, but otherwise I'll
forward around 8.30 unless anyone objects before then.
I'll defer to Susan and Alwen on SS, but presumably a bespoke letter drawing on some of the points in
the brief would be the safest approach if we need something in writing.
And I'll send to ExCo on your behalf Paula (presumably you mean now rather than holding off until after
the meeting?).
Martin
Martin Edwards
Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive
Post Office
On 3 Jul 2013, at 07:21, "Paula Vennells" <paula.vennells(_ ‘GRO “> wrote:
A thought, four actually. You may already be ahead of me:
1) this could be shared with BIS as background briefing to my call with JS later today.
2) it puts the whole issue into context, which as we discussed yesterday, needs to be
brought out in the SS report. Is there merit in sharing with SS, so they understand how
seriously we take the issue of proportionality and related reporting? Also with our
lawyers who will be reviewing their report over the weekend.
3) Share with the Board but after the JA meeting - Alwen, Alice and I will discuss, post.
JA.
4) it should be sent to the ExCo please with a covering note from Martin on my behalf,
explaining briefly what is happening and to be kept P&C.
Thanks Paula
POL-0098506
POL00098923
POL00098923
Sent from my iPad
On 3 Jul 2013, at 02:04, "Martin Edwards' } 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
<!--[if !vml]--><image002.png><![endif]->
POL-0098506
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506
SPEAKING NOTES
Introductory points:
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Thank you for agreeing to meet us.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->SS provided us with an update
following your call with them on Tuesday morning.
<!--[if_!supportLists]--><![endif]-->Following that, would like to
discuss with you:
a) <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Communications
around the report and media/parliamentary handling
b) <!--[if [supportLists]--><![endif]-->The approach to the
report itself and Monday’s meeting
c) <!--[if IsupportLists]--><![endif]-->The approach beyond
next Monday to close down other MPs’ cases and learn
lessons
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.)
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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 !supportLists]--><![endif]-->If this is the case, important that
point is communicated clearly given some of the original allegations
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506
against the system - otherwise customer and agent confidence in the
integrity of the system could be fundamentally undermined.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->We will let 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.
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506
ii) The approach to the report itself and Monday’s meeting
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->SS propose to share with us the
draft report on Friday. We will work urgently over the weekend to
check for factual accuracy.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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 !supportLists]--><![endif]-->[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.]
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]->We would hope that the JFSA
would continue to be a part of this, along with other interested
parties such as the NFSP.
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
<!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->As you now, we also prepared an
‘immunity agreement’ with the JFSA to provide reassurance to spmrs
thinking of submitting evidence to the process.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506
process and the Court considers all relevant evidence not just that
relating to the Horizon computer system.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->In the 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
<!--[if!supportLists]--><![endif]-->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).
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Absolutely no reason to believe
this means there are other undiscovered issues.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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:
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The “62 branches exception” - 3
years old at the time of migrating branches from old Horizon the
HNG:
o <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Affected 62 branches (13
Crowns; 12 Multiples; 37 Sub postmasters)
© <!-+-if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Sub-postmaster branch
losses ranged from £115.60 down to 8p
o <!-+-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
© <!+[if supportLists]--><![endif]-->17 sub-postmasters were
adversely affected, i.e. had a loss attribute to their branch.
co <!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Sub-postmasters notified
in March 2011 and (where appropriate) reimbursed.
© <!+{if !supportLists]--><!{endif]-->Sub-postmasters who
made a gain through the anomaly were not asked to refund
this.
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The “14 branches exception”
°
<!--[if, IsupportLists]--><![endif]-->Financially impacted 14
branches (4 Crowns; 5 Multiples; 5 Sub-postmasters)
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Raised by 2 sub
postmasters affected by the exception.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->1 sub postmasters and 4
multiple partners were adversely affected, i.e. had a loss
attribute to their branch.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->We suspended attempts
to recover known losses from affected sub-postmasters
<!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Letters to notified sub-
postmasters will be sent out imminently
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->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
<20130702
<20130703
13 (2).pdf>
JA meeting brief.doc>
JA meeting brief.pdf>
Briefing Note re Second Sight Interim Report - 02 07
POL00098923
POL00098923
POL-0098506