SSLO000104
SSL0000104
Conf Call with SC, Al and IRH re Paula briefing
SUSAN: ... had a chat with Paula earlier on and we had
a couple of chats this morning, Ron and Ian, and
then separately I've had chats with Alwen so I just
thought we should probably come back together and
try to see if we can move this forward.
So Paula agrees that the original scope of the
investigation did not go as far as looking at
whether -- it was the miscarriage of justice point,
Ron and Ian. So that's -- that's not what she's
looking for. She's just -- she's looking for a
systematic -- or systemic, rather, not systematic --
systemic weakness in the Horizon System, but not --
as I said, didn't go on to that next point around
whether or not it's called a miscarriage of justice
or a suspension of a subpostmaster, because I think
that's -- once you have found it, it's up for us to
look for and see what impact it might be if that
happens.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: Is that okay?
IAN HENDERSON: That makes a lot of sense.
SUSAN: Right. So that's the first thing.
The second thing, and Paula and I did get -- talk
ourselves round in a complete circle on this,
despite me desperately trying to turn it into
a square, I think -- so two things, right, and this
is what I'd like us to focus on on this call.
Firstly, she's obviously got a call with James
tomorrow at 10.30. I don't think either of us
actually know where James is. I think the one thing
that's probably come out of the conversation, more
so with Second Sight than anybody else, but Alwen
you can say whether it's -- and Janet as well -- the
need to somehow have a plan to close down this
process. I mean, even to the extent of stopping MPs
sending cases in now --
ALWEN LYONS: Yes.
SUSAN: So it's how do we close down the MPs' side of
the process and what would work for MPs and what
could we sell to MPs and how quickly can we do that
and what does that look like, in terms of both the
work you and Second Sight need to do and the
outcomes, and then --
IAN HENDERSON: Susan, sorry to interrupt but the other
element of that is what I might call work in
progress items where subpostmasters or former
subpostmasters have claimed that they've referred
cases to their MP but that MP has not yet forwarded
it to James' office and therefore we don't know
about it.
SUSAN: Yeah, so I think we almost need a sort of policy
which says: look, if they have not forwarded it to
the office, then obviously it can go through the
standard Post Office system; what can't do is go
through the Second Sight system.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
ALWEN LYONS: Do we have any idea how many we're talking
about?
RON WARMINGTON: I think it's five new ones. So I put
that in an email yesterday. Let me just haul it up.
There were -- Alan advised us of seven names,
I think, and two of them have just come in -- did
actually come in, the other ones we were talking
about -- having just -- one was McQuillan and then
there's another one, Gail Ward, but there were five
other names on that list we didn't know anything
about.
IAN HENDERSON: But a related element to that, of course,
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
is cases that have come in where we've just got, you
know, no submissions and no information.
SUSAN: So they were going to be my next, sort of,
tranche, is -- I think one thing that Paula needs to
explain to James is that we can't -- do you mean no
information from them?
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
SUSAN: We have no information because you've asked us.
RON WARMINGTON: We've got both situations. We've also
got the Seema Misra case where I can't get hold of
her despite -- no matter how I try to get hold of
her.
ALWEN LYONS: Well
SUSAN: So we've got cases where the MP has said, "I've
got a case" --
RON WARMINGTON: Yep.
SUSAN: -- but then we can get no evidence; is that
right?
ALWEN LYONS: Yes. These are from the subpostmaster or
from us.
RON WARMINGTON: Not quite correct. We haven't gone back
to the subpostmasters to say, "You haven't submitted
anything of any quality or anything at all other
than, at kind of best, a handwritten note," you
know, to -- "do submit more." And the reason we
haven't done that is because we said we would not
make those approaches until we'd looked at the
documentation from the Post Office.
IAN HENDERSON: But, Ron, you are muddling various sort
of categories. What we did say to Janet -- we gave
Janet some months ago, as in February, the
specification agreed with the JFSA, which we regard
as the minimum necessary to, sort of, enter the
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
process. In other words --
RON WARMINGTON: Yep.
IAN HENDERSON: -- clearly set out, sort of, Statement of
Claim and what the issues are and so on.
RON WARMINGTON: Yep.
IAN HENDERSON: Janet agreed that, you know, she would
ensure that MPs and SPMRs delivered that as their
input to the process.
RON WARMINGTON: Right. I've seen no evidence that that
has happened.
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah, we've not reached that standard in
a significant number of cases.
RON WARMINGTON: I don't think we've received it in any
case.
SUSAN: How many?
RON WARMINGTON: I don't think we received that in any --
we haven't had any cases that have got -- where
they've submitted documentation.
Well, perhaps Lee Castleton has submitted a huge
heap of data but it's -- there's no sort of
Statement of Case. It's just a kind of heap of
stuff. The only one that's articulated anything
sensibly is Alan, Alan Bates.
IAN HENDERSON: But, Ron, you came up with a number this
morning that was -- was it 17 or something? -- where
we have in essence got virtually nothing.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: 17 out of 29?
RON WARMINGTON: I think it's 15 actually. 15 out of 29
where we've got effectively nothing.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
Pardon?
SUSAN: Have you got -- have you got the list of those
cases, the actual names?
RON WARMINGTON: Yep. Yeah, we've -- I'll send a fresh
version of the spreadsheet that we've sent to Simon
that's got that summary in it.
IAN HENDERSON: Ron, don't send the spreadsheet. It's
easier to deal with an email. You know, list the
people in an email.
RON WARMINGTON: All right, okay.
SUSAN: So we're saying that you would have liked to
have carried on that investigation but you were
unable to do so because there isn't enough evidence.
Is that what we're saying?
If I say this to James -- or Paula says this to
James tomorrow, it has to be factual, doesn't it?
RON WARMINGTON: I wouldn't say we'd like to. We --
we're as committed to --
SUSAN: You're unable to.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, we're as committed to wrapping
this up as you are.
SUSAN: Yeah, yeah.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, so we have been unable to, yeah.
SUSAN: (unclear) quite saying I think we have an
aligned interest.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, good.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes. Yes, absolutely.
SUSAN: Sorry, Ron, I shouldn't have interrupted you.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: No, all right. I will send -- getting
back to it again, I will send a list of names of
those where we've -- I'll give you a little summary
that says where we've received nothing at all from
the SPM and where we've received nothing at all from
POL, in some cases. Tick both boxes.
SUSAN: Okay.
RON WARMINGTON: Does that worry me? Not particularly
because --
IAN HENDERSON: But, Ron, we ought to look at it from
a James sort of perspective --
SUSAN: Yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: -- and not muddy the waters by
introducing POL issues. You know, let's deal, in
this category, with cases from SPMRs, you know,
where they/their MP have not delivered what is
necessary.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay. Yeah.
SUSAN: So how many do you think those are?
RON WARMINGTON: 15 probably.
SUSAN: Right. So that out of the 29?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: Or out of 20?
RON WARMINGTON: Out of what is now the 31, because we
had two more added.
SUSAN: Yeah, okay.
Okay, so those two added were the ones that came
in yesterday?
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: So I think there are two policy things, Alwen,
we need to be clear about. One is that if claims
are now coming in, (unclear) don't(?) believe they
should go to the Second Sight process, (unclear
expense, et cetera. We are absolutely, you know,
committed to investigate them through the POL
process.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: And they go through our standard process, and
then we -- the response was vetted by senior
management.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: That's important.
Don't say "by legal", because I just think they
all (unclear) defend ourselves, but it's (unclear)
senior management, so --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: So the first policy is I think we need a bit of
history, because I'm really thinking the briefing
paper for Paula here to talk --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah, so am I.
SUSAN: So I'd like to just try to show James, we've now
got 31 cases that have come via your office, two
came only yesterday. We don't think that it's right
they should be included in the Second Sight sample
because too late. Happy -- obviously happy to
investigate them from the POL point of view, if she
can land that and say anything else that comes in
post whatever, the end of April or -- or from today
or tomorrow, doesn't go into the Second Sight
hopper.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: Secondly, of those 29 --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- 15 haven't supplied the information, so
Second Sight can't investigate them, so we believe
they should come off the list, which then takes you
down to, what, 14, is it, then, Ron?
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, about that. Yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: Susan, just to pick up what Second Sight
can't investigate, that's qualified by -- you know,
without a lot of extra work such as going out,
interviewing SPMRs and almost writing up their case
on their behalf.
SUSAN: I think that's really important. Alwyn --
ALWEN LYONS: In your email, Ron, can you put a sentence
that you would be happy for me to say about
Second -- or Paula to say about Second Sight as to
why you couldn't take those forward, because I don't
want to put words in your mouth, I'd rather you
saying what you are happy that we can say.
RON WARMINGTON: Yep. Okay.
IAN HENDERSON: What we might do is refer to the
paragraph that was in the JFSA agreement which
actually set out the -- you know, the documentation
standard.
SUSAN: Well, I think that -- yeah, okay.
So that takes us to 14 cases then on the
(interference) list. Of those 14, how far have you
got with those 14? Is that the summary that you
sent through to Simon -- oh, I don't know, because
I've been off -- three weeks ago now?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. That's 14 cases where we've got
what we assess to be 70 or better per cent
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
completion of the case, where we --
SUSAN: When you say "completion of the case", do you
just mean subpostmaster evidence, or do you mean
completion of the case?
RON WARMINGTON: I mean -- I mean that we've carried out
the investigation work based on what POL has
submitted as documentation, plus what the SPMRs
submitted, plus the interview but -- and where we
have got it, we've looked at the spot review
response and/or the Horizon data. But those last
two steps are thin on the ground. That's why we
haven't got anything higher than 90 per cent,
I think -- 85 per cent we've got, and 90 on one.
SUSAN: So just for my benefit here, if a case is at
90 per cent or even 70 per cent --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- is it going to go any higher or than that or
is it just done now and we could actually -- we've
got to make a judgement on that 70 per cent?
RON WARMINGTON: No, it means that we have documented
what the SPMRs says -- asserts, and validated as
best we can without looking at the Horizon data, and
submitted it, but that we haven't yet got a response
from POL and/or we haven't got the underlying data
yet to validate or refute the assertion.
SUSAN: So you're expecting -- before you could say yes
or no or whatever's going on, that 70 has to go up
to 100?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, yes.
SUSAN: Okay.
IAN HENDERSON: There's another element sort of in the
paths to completion, which is, you know, reviewing,
you know, responses from, sort of, POL. If it is
subject to a spot review, probably some, you know,
dialogue in terms of, you know, sort of dealing with
those responses, and then finally reaching
a conclusion and writing it all up in a mini sort of
report.
RON WARMINGTON: Now, all that was sort of laid down in
a process that we said we were going to deploy from
several months ago, ages ago.
SUSAN: Yeah.
RON WARMINGTON: What was not mentioned and may have
upset Paula is the addition of what was entirely
logical and predictable but never was articulated,
which is to say it makes sense to get Alan Bates'
and Kay's approval -- you know, sort of at least
discuss -- get their input on those before we
absolutely lock in on our conclusion.
SUSAN: Okay. So I think that's -- I mean, that's
a separate point we need -- if I could, I would just
like to follow through --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- so that for Alwyn's benefit in drafting the
notes for Paula we can follow the waterfall of the
cases from James and to sort of get a very clear
understanding about how long you think it would take
to get you from the 90 or wherever you are on each
case, and that will be slightly different --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- from there to 100 per cent, and then I think
we need to come back to the JFSA point.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. And that is where we got to the
issue of the suggestion at one point that we drop
the 14 down to two or three. But that's forward
danger.
SUSAN: Can I just be clear about that suggestion. Did
that suggestion come from James Arbuthnot?
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
ALWEN LYONS: Yes. I mean, what I think -- I'll tell you
what I think and then other people can say what they
think I think that was a suggestion made from James
to JFSA, and I've not seen any response from JFSA.
But the assumption is -- in James' head, is that
that is what now is happening.
SUSAN: Okay? So Ron and Ian, what do you think?
IAN HENDERSON: I think it was slightly more complicated
than that and it came up via sort of multiple
routes, and this is going back to 25th March meeting
where my proposal, which wasn't accepted sort of
accepted subsequently by James, was to go for this,
sort of, thematic approach. Sort of tied in with
that was the, sort of, suggestion that we -- you
know, bearing in mind his wish for some further
report in July, we said we could either look at the
top two or three issues or the, sort of, top two or
three sort of cases. So we did actually have that
sort of discussion without reaching any conclusion
in March.
SUSAN: Did you have that with the big meeting then?
IAN HENDERSON: Um
RON WARMINGTON: Well, it was not suggested at the big
meeting that we dropped the MP-sourced cases. Had
it been there would have been -- I'm sure there
would have been an outcry from the MPs
representatives and their staff -- or their staff.
SUSAN: So would it be a correct summary to say that if
we exclude the new cases, the ones where we've got
insufficient evidence or lack of evidence, you've
looked that 14 they've actually done quite -- we're
almost there on most of them. You've still got to
finish them off.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: It seems daft -- well, I say it seems daft. My
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
other question was: how long -- what's your guesstimate
of how long it would take you to finish off those 14?
And is it delay on Fujitsu or our part that's stopping
you finishing up or is it just that we've fiffed and
faffed around for the last month, you didn't have a
known where to go. And if you were going to take two
or three, which -- presumably they would be in that 14?
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, I think it would be it would --
I've never been a supporter of the idea of cutting
down to two or three, not least because, as I say,
I've already done 14. You know, looking at this,
I could -- it might even be 15. I'm not being
sloppy about it, I'm just -- I've got one --
SUSAN: How long do you reckon it would take you to
finish them?
RON WARMINGTON: So I've got it broken down to
50 per cent -- it probably could be higher --
however long to finish them.
Tan, that's more your bailiwick, because it's --
IAN HENDERSON: Sorry, just to be clear on the question,
Susan, the question is how long to finish the sort
of 14 or 15? Is --
SUSAN: Parking the let's go to two or three for a
minute, because I don't know -- I can't work out
whether that's a valid argument or not. So we've --
IAN HENDERSON: Can I just --
SUSAN: -- got 14/15 MPs' cases --
IAN HENDERSON: Could I pick up on the two or three point?
I think the only context that the two or three
has come up was as an interim sort of measure; in
other words, could we not so much report on the
totality but could we report on two or three by
July. And when that was first raised, I mean, that
was a possibility. But my point is that it was only
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
ever an interim proposal not a finite proposal to
only report on two or three, or at
least -- (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
RON WARMINGTON: You're correct, Ian. It was sort of
mentioned in that context, and only in that context,
and I think it probably -- I think it probably did
come up from JFSA, because JFSA's always made it
clear that they don't particularly care for the
MP-sourced cases. They are "more concerned" about
the thematic or systemic issues, as he calls them.
SUSAN: Okay.
So, sorry, Alwen, what were you going to say?
ALWEN LYONS: I was going to say, so could -- so can you,
even if we say that it's an interim (unclear), if
you like, this two or three, have you got time now
to finish two or three and report by -- before
recess, which is halfway through July?
IAN HENDERSON: I think the question or the issue there
is which cases do we pick. We could pick two or
three completely rubbish cases that would add very
little, sort of, value, and -- and wrap those up,
but that's not really sort of dealing with the
bigger issue, which is --
SUSAN: I'm afraid we might have to, though.
ALWEN LYONS: Are those rubbish cases in the 14?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: Yes.
ALWEN LYONS: So there's rubbish in the 14 as well?
SUSAN: Oh, yes.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes. I mean, the MP cases, generally
speaking, were far weaker and less value than the
JFSA cases.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: I mean, some of them are really old as well.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: Having said that, we have -- of the what
we call high value cases, where we've been able to
assess it, there's only a couple where we're not in
the 70s or 80 per cent completed. So they are
mostly quite good cases but some are quite simple.
The Rudkin one is very, very simple. It comprises
one spot review. And, frankly, we've probably got
to bottom that out before and assess. It is so
important.
SUSAN: Not what we want to do.
ALWEN LYONS: Well, it might be, but we just don't know,
do we, at the moment?
IAN HENDERSON: Probably the highest risk one, you know,
out of all of them at the moment.
RON WARMINGTON: It's probably got to be included.
SUSAN: I think it's got to be included. That's the
Bracknell one, Alwen.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: It's the Bracknell one, yeah.
SUSAN: So -- sorry, I'm sorry to push you on this, but
I know he's going to push us tomorrow.
If we chose that one and three others --
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
SUSAN: -- could we get those done and a report before
summer recess?
IAN HENDERSON: We could produce some form of report.
How final it would be I think it's too early to say.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: Okay, okay.
ALWEN LYONS: Well, that's okay --
RON WARMINGTON: For example --
SUSAN: (unclear: simultaneous speakers) -- quite a lot
of the spot reviews as well.
RON WARMINGTON: For example, the Tracey Ann Merritt case
might be included in one of those. We'd have to be
very selective about which ones we -- which ones we --
SUSAN: I think you have to have the choice.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, we would.
SUSAN: Yes, (unclear).
RON WARMINGTON: But it would --
SUSAN: And the other thing is what we don't want is to
choose, you know, easy ones for the Post Office, if
you like, is what I'm saying, because (1) it might
give the wrong answer first and then a different
answer later.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: Or it might -- if someone realised, you know,
that we've chosen those, because JFSA will see that
quite quickly I think.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: They'll just go: oh, well you just chose those
three because that was easy.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: Rather than make a decision on who, shall
-- after this call, shall Ron and I come up with
a proposal that we think is doable --
SUSAN: Please.
IAN HENDERSON: -- by the middle of July?
SUSAN: I think if you can think about whether -- and we
should, I think, given the amount of work that's
gone in, we can also, for instance, include the
conclusion of the spot reviews.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, we'd have to. We can't -- you
know, we couldn't professionally close out a case --
SUSAN: So that's what I'm saying. I think you would
have to write it as an interim report anyway.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: But could we include some of the spot reviews as
well as the cases maybe? Don't know.
RON WARMINGTON: Oh, I see what you mean, yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: But again, Susan, that's raising a bigger
question because the spot reviews were aligned more
with the thematic approach, putting them into sort
of categories, you know, which is very different
from reporting on cases which are, you know, unique
to an individual, and many --
SUSAN: Okay, okay, sorry, that's not a good idea then.
So that's the two or three.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: Then what sort of timeline are we looking at to
finish the whole thing, the 14, 15 whatever it is?
IAN HENDERSON: Probably another three months after July.
SUSAN: September?
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: But won't we need to think about whether we can
speed stuff up, whether it's us that's delaying
things or --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, I mean, for example, we've said
that it would be a lot faster if we could pursue
a sort of iterative path on the spot review
responses rather than waiting for, you know,
a six-page answer that itself then requires deep
study and response.
SUSAN: Well, but --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, no, I know, (unclear) arguments
the other way.
IAN HENDERSON: Also, frankly, we could be a lot more
aggressive in terms of bringing to your attention
sort of delays in the system, you know, when we've
bashed something out and it takes six weeks for, you
know, a substantive reply to come back.
SUSAN: Yeah, you need to be shouting to me (unclear).
RON WARMINGTON: Okay.
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah. And I think everybody involved in
the process needs to be told by -- from Paula, you
know, that sort of level, "This is a pariah -- a
priority, and we expect" --
SUSAN: No, it's a pariah, you were right the
first time.
RON WARMINGTON: Freudian slip.
IAN HENDERSON: -- you know, “a 48-hour turnaround."
SUSAN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
ALWEN LYONS: So I don't --
SUSAN: Yeah, go on.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
ALWEN LYONS: I don't want to suggest -- and I'm saying
October not September, because I've -- I don't want
to suggest that tomorrow and then us being beaten up
at the end of September. So, you know, is it in
your email? Can you just -- can you have a think
and just check that that is all right to say,
October.
SUSAN: I think Ian and Ron make it contingent
upon -- (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
ALWEN LYONS: That's fine.
SUSAN: -- and energetic support from POL.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah, and support and everything. I think
that's fine. I just -- I just don't want to --
IAN HENDERSON: And of course another risk in the whole
process is Fujitsu getting nervous about the whole
thing and I am picking up some vibes along those
lines.
SUSAN: I think you should mention that actually, Ron,
in your email.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay.
SUSAN: Because we have got a difficult few years with
them, I think.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
ALWEN LYONS: So has anybody told -- so this might be --
I'm thinking of that -- the James conversation now.
Has anybody told James that -- you know, that half
of these cases are basically it's not possible to do
anything with because the evidence is lacking?
IAN HENDERSON: I have certainly told Janet the -- the
sort of the minimum standard that is necessary,
and -- and all of the submissions have come from
Janet, and therefore, you know, she ought to be
aware of the standard of documentation, or the lack
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
of it.
I don't think we've explicitly said, you know,
"Here is a list of, you know, 17 cases, you know, we
need a lot more."
ALWEN LYONS: Is Paula going to raise that? So who
should raise that first with him? Should that be
you guys or should that be Paula tomorrow?
IAN HENDERSON: I think it's perfectly appropriate to
raise tomorrow because, you know, he in his office
should be aware of that fact.
SUSAN: Also we've been giving people time, you know,
blah de blah de blah, haven't we?
IAN HENDERSON: There are -- sorry --
ALWEN LYONS: Let me just play devil's advocate, okay?
Because if I was James tomorrow, I would turn round
and say, "Well, why haven't Second Sight told me
that?"
IAN HENDERSON: Because we have only got what they have
submitted from his office and, therefore, you know,
that they have as much information as we do about
the submission.
SUSAN: But you are the expert. I'm just --
IAN HENDERSON: No, that's fair enough.
SUSAN: You are the expert, right? Janet isn't an
expert. She just sends you something across -- all
right, you have laid out what you want, but she just
sends you something across. And me, being Simon,
and going back and saying, "That's not good enough,
it can't stand as a case."
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah, no, you're right --
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, that is correct. We've got to wear
that hat. We have been silent to Janet. We've
realised that for a couple of months now that we've
been silent on this subject and it's itching us, but
the questions as to -- you know, the key issue has
been if we go back and ask for more, we are further
raising expectations and we've got to do them all
then. Okay? So the reason we haven't done that is
for that reason.
You know, the moment we should have done that was
when we created the JFSA agreement we should have
all slammed back to Janet and James a document
saying: right, the cases submitted so far do not
comply with this, they need to, you've got to go
back and get some level of documentation of every
case.
I mean --
IAN HENDERSON: Ron, we did do that, but without listing
the cases. I mean, I wrote to Janet, I think in
March --
SUSAN: Yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: -- saying this is the standard that we
require.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, and I might --
SUSAN: (unclear: simultaneous speakers) -- phrased it,
Alwyn, they probably had --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah, okay.
SUSAN: -- (unclear: simultaneous speakers) -- and it
needs to be on these cases.
RON WARMINGTON: I might add --
SUSAN: -- (unclear: simultaneous speakers) -- listened.
RON WARMINGTON: I might add that of all the interviews
I've done, I haven't really found many people,
hardly any actually, that are capable of documenting
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
their own case, without external help.
SUSAN: Yeah, right. That's a different issue.
RON WARMINGTON: Well, that might account for why you
haven't got a response.
SUSAN: Sorry?
RON WARMINGTON: That might account for why we haven't
had any responses.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: It might, but then, you know, they've called on
their MPs, they can pick the phone up to you and just
Say -- or email you and say, "Look, I really want to
talk to you about this, I can't explain it."
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah. Yeah.
SUSAN: Okay.
RON WARMINGTON: I mean, the truth was we -- we diverted
some attention on to the more fertile, useful spot
reviews coming in or matters coming in from the
JFSA, and we had our work cut out with the 14 or so
cases on which we did have documentation.
SUSAN: Yeah, okay.
ALWEN LYONS: So I get the MP cases now. So then the
JFSA cases --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
ALWEN LYONS: -- have they -- so we've got the -- so
we're talking about the 29 and I understand those.
How many cases have you had from -- direct from
JFSA? Or have they not sent cases like that? Have
they just sent thematic things?
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, there's 19, and what they've sent
in are, you know, anything from emails to -- to
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
scanned documents, isolating in every case one or
two transactional issues. Tiny issues. You know,
very isolated, closely cropped, relatively easy to
understand issues. They are much easier to deal
with than the MP-referred cases.
SUSAN: I'm just wondering how -- you know, how on earth
we shut these down as well, because --
RON WARMINGTON: We have shut them down in the sense of
no more are coming in because after -- we've got
past the end of February.
SUSAN: Yes, yes. I meant more how do we get to
resolution, really, because we can do all these MP
cases --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- some of which are rubbish, and then we'll go
to the MPs and we'll say we found this or we found
that, and then (unclear) to stand at the sidelines
going, "Yes, but you have answered the wrong
question. What about all this stuff?"
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, well, exactly. The inference is
that -- my position, Alwen, is that trying not, now,
to review the JFSA-referred cases will be -- I just
can't see how we could get away with that.
SUSAN: Okay, well, that then brings us on to discussing
the position with the JFSA.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: So I'll say where I think we are, having
garnered that from Ron and Ian, and Alwyn can -- and
you can all interrupt.
So Ron and Ian are working closely together with
Kay and Alan Bates -- Kay Linnell and Alan Bates.
This was an arrangement brokered by James because it
was one of the things he started off by saying we
need to take JFSA with us. So I reminded Paula, we
all agreed, us at POL, that it was the right thing
to do --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- and actually to get them on side would be
a remarkable achievement and something we should aim
for.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: We even offered, and it was part of the sort of
independent agreement by Kay Linnell, which was also
part of -- wound -- so this was all wound up in the
James Arbuthnot piece.
Ron and Ian have agreed with JFSA that we would
take themes, hence the thematic reviews. A number
of themes have come out of cases. Some are
duplicated so (unclear) across one or two cases.
We have looked at a -- I don't know, about
a quarter of the thematic reviews and delivered them
back to you, Ron, Ian?
RON WARMINGTON: It would be about -- we've got nearly
six spot reviews back, Ian?
SUSAN: You have certainly got five back, haven't you?
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, five I think. Yeah.
SUSAN: Is it going 20-ish?
RON WARMINGTON: We've got 27 spot reviews at the moment.
SUSAN: Okay, so a fifth, say --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: Now, I think there is something around the
process of the spot reviews where we, POL, have
assumed that we would get the allegations, for want
of a better word -- statement of facts --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- open quotes, close quotes, from you, the JFSA
and the subpostmasters. We would then respond to
them.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: Then I think what we weren't expecting is sort
of an iterative process around discussions with
Kay Linnell and Alan Bates.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: And I think we're not entirely sure how we stop
this process and it doesn't just go round and round
and round, because obviously they're not going to
like what we say, they're not going to believe what
we say, and we don't know how we could convince them
just, short of just telling them face to face, and
why would that work when they won't believe it in
writing. So my one question is, how do we
actually -- having done all the work to answer the
questions in the spot reviews, in our honest opinion
having answered them properly, because Alwen and
I have both reviewed the documentation and -- not
been involved in all the investigative work but we
have at least reviewed it, as has Angela, to make
sure that it's -- and make sure of we know about how
we operate, so that sort of sense check there --
can't say it would be absolutely perfect but I think
it would get there or thereabouts, particularly with
Angela and Alwen's impact, not mine.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: What do I know? My (unclear) per cent.
My question then is, how do we actually put these
IAN
RON
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
to bed so that we can say those spot reviews are now
"agreed" by the JFSA?
HENDERSON: Well, unfortunately, it may be that we
don't reach agreement with the JFSA. As almost
a natural justice point, I think we felt that it was
appropriate to have some input from the JFSA before
we reach a final sort of conclusion on the whole
matter but, I mean, that is a step and a stage
that -- that, you know, Ron and I have introduced.
We're in control of that and ultimately Second Sight
needs to make a decision and come to a conclusion on
each spot review, which, you know, we're prepared to
do.
WARMINGTON: Absolutely. Yeah, we're not -- we're
not going to be biased in favour of accepting Kay's
or Alan's response.
SUSAN: Or our response.
RON
IAN
RON
IAN
WARMINGTON: Or yours, yeah. I mean, we'll look
at -- look at all of it. But in my judgement, and
Ian's I think too, it was better to disclose those
to them, and obviously once you disclose it to them
you're kind of inviting their response. I didn't
actually say to them, "Please -- you know, what do
you think of this? Please send us your response."
But you're bound to get it.
HENDERSON: But that was the clear intention, Ron,
and I think we would welcome that.
WARMINGTON: Yeah.
HENDERSON: You know, we have not -- you know, any
input from them that is, you know, of an informed
sort of basis potentially could be helpful, and it's
up to us to sort of decide whether to accept or to
reject that.
RON WARMINGTON: Exactly.
SUSAN: Okay, Alwen, does that make you feel -- because
Alwen and I a discussion, as indeed Paula and I had
a discussion, about how we get to the conclusion,
and we had internally agreed that it was up to
Second Sight at some point to get to the conclusion,
and you're right, they may never accept it.
Alwen, are you okay with that as an answer?
ALWEN LYONS: I suppose that, yes, I am okay with it.
I suppose -- I'm just worried that it's always
become ever decreasing circles, so, you know, you
said this, we said that, you said that. And my
expectation, and I think you have just confirmed
that that's what's going to happen, my expectation
is you're the experts and that -- and in the end you
will call it and you'll say the evidence shows or
that this is what we think happened and therefore,
you know, you need to do something about it, either
left-hand side or on the right-hand side.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, that's --
ALWEN LYONS: I wasn't expecting it almost -- it just
feels as if -- and I absolutely understand why we
need to engage with JFSA and I think that's right,
I think we need to do it at a strategic level rather
than at a "You said this, we said that, you said
this" -- I don't think that will help anybody.
RON WARMINGTON: Yep.
IAN HENDERSON: Bear in mind, of course, that there are
some spot reviews where there is a conflict of
evidence, where, you know, POL, possibly via
Fujitsu, is saying one thing and where the SPMR is
saying something else.
ALWEN LYONS: Absolutely.
IAN HENDERSON: And it may be that we're unable to
resolve that.
SUSAN: And it may be that you will have to come back to
us and say, "Show us the base data," or, “Ask us
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
more questions."
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah.
SUSAN: We completely understand that, don't we, Alwen?
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, absolutely.
SUSAN: Yeah, I mean, I would expect some -- you know,
I would expect that to be the case, because
otherwise -- if it was straightforward, we would
have sorted it out years ago.
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah.
SUSAN: Okay. So the next point then is your commentary
around what the JFSA's expectation is and who needs
to be managing them as stakeholders. So they're
expecting us and you to work through the 27 spot
reviews. Is that right?
RON WARMINGTON: They haven't -- they never said that but
I think it's inferred, yeah.
SUSAN: I think that -- and what do they expect the
outcome to be then, Ron, do you think?
RON WARMINGTON: I think very much as Alwen described it,
which is that we would get POL's input -- well,
we've always said this. We would get POL's input,
try to validate or prove/disprove it with the
underlying data, bounce it off Kay and Alan, and
then reach a conclusion on each case. That's always
been the understanding of how we deal with it.
SUSAN: Okay.
RON WARMINGTON: And I think they would be quite
surprised were we to sort of lop off a chunk of spot
reviews. I don't think -- I don't have any problem
with --
IAN HENDERSON: (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
closed is it?
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: No, I don't see any problem with an
interim report based on some of them. Nothing wrong
with that at all.
IAN HENDERSON: Except it flies in the face of what
Arbuthnot wants or expects.
SUSAN: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: It might do, yeah.
SUSAN: So --
ALWEN LYONS: So is there any way, and I'm thinking out
aloud here, is there any way of shutting down the MP
cases and making James and his friends happy so
they'll just go away basically, and then us finding
a way forward with JFSA about how we look at the
thematic spot reviews and how -- in the future,
after you're no longer involved in all this, how we
have some sort of Horizon users group, which they
might be part of or lead on or whatever. I mean, if
we would -- I mean, that's the sort of communication
I think we need to have with JFSA, which is around
how can we make this better for everyone, including
the subpostmasters, and make sure the system works
properly.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
ALWEN LYONS: You know, I think we're just so far away
from that at the moment. That should be our goal
surely.
IAN HENDERSON: I think that's right. I just think it's
going to be difficult even to have that discussion
until we've reached something closer to finality on
the existing spot reviews, because the risk is JFSA
will feel we're just brushing the past under the
carpet and proposing something that hopefully will
be better in the future, and they want closure as
far as the past is concerned.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
ALWEN LYONS: Okay.
RON
IAN
WARMINGTON: But I don't think you'll get any
push-back on chopping some of the MP cases from
Alan, but we would get push-back on chopping some of
his 19 cases or the 26 spot reviews that relate to
his cases and the MP ones.
HENDERSON: Can I just say one thing on the spot
reviews? One thing that we have said from day one,
and explained to all the MPs, each spot review is
a mini case in itself, and as and when we reach
a sort of a conclusion on each spot review, there
will be the spot review form, there will be the spot
review response from POL, and then there will be our
sort of conclusion. We envisage packaging those all
together right at the end of the process, and that
would form the sort of appendix or a number of
appendices to our report. But what it does mean is
that over the next few months we will be concluding
on a number of spot reviews, we will be sharing
those conclusions with JFSA, and whilst we won't be
publishing them in the sense of, you know, the world
at large, it does represent a form of conclusion on
that particular sort of spot review, and I'm just
wondering if there's anything we can do with that
that, you know, will be of benefit to the process.
ALWEN LYONS: So I think there's opportunity and risk
there, and I think the risk is around the media, and
I suppose it depends what conclusions you come to,
and it could go on in either way. If you keep
telling them, "There's no problem, there's no
problem, we've done this, we've done that, you know,
yes, they should do more training, they should do
better communications but actually the system is
sound," if we say that to them, then -- and you
drip-feed that to them, saying there's a big report
coming, I think that -- I think there's danger there
that they will start disbelieving stuff. If we give
them an inkling that there is an issue, I think to
make them sit on their hands for three months for
a report to arrive, I think that's -- I think that
will happen.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: Do you mean -- when you say "they", do
you mean the JFSA, Alwyn?
ALWEN LYONS: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: I'm more confident than I suspect you
are because I'm probably closer to them. Alan and
Kay I think right now are not in the least bit
minded to go to the press, but I accept what you're
saying, that were we to lose -- were they to lose
trust with us, then I think they will go to the
press pretty quickly.
ALWEN LYONS: Or if they thought they had a chink of a
story, I think that's --
RON WARMINGTON: No.
ALWEN LYONS: I mean, we're hearing, you know -- we're
being quoted that, you know, they've got Private Eye
waiting, they've got the BBC --
RON WARMINGTON: That's me. I'm saying that. No, it's
all quite contained, Alwen.
ALWEN LYONS: That's from them, then?
RON WARMINGTON: No, they're not -- they're not
threatening us with that at all.
ALWEN LYONS: Okay, sorry --
RON WARMINGTON: I think you -- I want to reassure --
IAN HENDERSON: What they did do, of course, was write to
the MP, you know, with responsibility for the
Post Office --
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
IAN HENDERSON: -- and so, you know, that -- (unclear:
simultaneous speakers) --
ALWEN LYONS: (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, in fact, Alan also told me today
he'd written to Paula seeking to meet with her, not
least to make sure, he told me today, that there
are -- that the messages are getting through to her
that should be getting through to her. That's what
he said to me just a short while ago.
ALWEN LYONS: That's funny because I said I wasn't sure
he and Paula should meet. I thought it would be
Alwyn and I who should meet him, but anyway.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, okay. Right.
SUSAN: If we go back to the briefing with James for
tomorrow, which is Alwen's most immediate problem.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, exactly.
SUSAN: Alwyn, have you got enough now and is there
a remaining issue round convincing Paula and Alice
that we need to keep going with the JFSA reviews?
ALWEN LYONS: I think it is. I think -- and I think the
issue there will be -- cost will be the issue there,
because, in fact, if (unclear) is saying that we can
do the MPs and everybody by the end of October, how
long is it going to take beyond that to do all the
JFSA spot reviews?
SUSAN: I thought we'd get everything done by the end of
October --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, I don't think --
IAN HENDERSON: When I said three months, I included or
had in mind --
SUSAN: Oh, right, okay. That's helpful.
IAN HENDERSON: I see this all wrapped up by October.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: Okay. That's helpful.
RON WARMINGTON
RON WARMINGTON: Right, that sounds like good
-- (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
IAN HENDERSON: (unclear: simultaneous speakers) --
RON WARMINGTON:
SUSAN: Alwyn, (unclear).
RON WARMINGTON: It doesn't do any harm.
IAN HENDERSON: Can I just mention one practical point in
case you get any push-back on JFSA issues?
SUSAN: Yeah.
IAN HENDERSON: The totality of the JFSA agreement is
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
published on the internet, you know, and is
available to the world and its dog, and I don't
think, in any practical sense, there's any scope to
renege on any of that.
SUSAN: Okay.
ALWEN LYONS: Well, I did bring this up with Paula today,
and she said, "Oh, yes, I assumed we'd keep on doing
those."
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
MR ENRIGHT: Okay.
ALWEN LYONS: Whether that's true or not, but that's what
she said to me when I spoke to her at lunch --
SUSAN: So that's helpful. It's helpful.
RON WARMINGTON: Well, what we're getting to then is the
culling of some of those low value, undocumented,
disinterested MP cases. You're not getting
push-back from us, that's for sure, and I don't
think you're going to get push-back from JFSA, and
actually neither from Arbuthnot. The only people
that might --
IAN HENDERSON: No, Ron, can I just pick up on Arbuthnot?
I mean, I raised that with Arbuthnot.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah?
IAN HENDERSON: And he specifically said, "I don't think
I've got the power, you know, to involve individual
cases" --
SUSAN: Well, the other option --
RON WARMINGTON: No --
SUSAN: The other option, Ian, if we could offer --
so -- because it's the -- it's not only those but
it's the new cases that are coming in. The other
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
option is we could say that we will offer those MPs
the POL reviews. And frankly, given how much
attention they've paid so far, the MPs that is, that
may be enough.
IAN HENDERSON: Well, can I just read something out,
because I've been looking at my emails with Janet
whilst we've been talking. I had an email from
Janet on 21st March, which is obviously four days
before the MP meeting, and the relevant sentence is:
"Dear Ron and Ian, I am sending these two [as in
cases] in some trepidation from discussions
with ..."
RON WARMINGTON: Exactly.
IAN HENDERSON: "... earlier this week. I gather that
there has been a deadline for new cases to be
accepted."
In other words, she's implying or accepting that
the drawbridge had come down probably on 28th February
and that we would be getting no more MP cases from that
date --
SUSAN: That's what we agreed, I think.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: I just found the same email, Ian.
SUSAN: (Unclear) JFSA?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, this was -- would have been
Shaheen(?) and Robinson come in, and yeah, you're
right, the conversations we had with her, I
remember, she called me, she said, "Oh, look, I'm
really embarrassed, I think these have been sitting
on my desk."
IAN HENDERSON: Ron, can I just finish reading this out?
Second sentence from Janet:
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
"I'm afraid I didn't know about the deadline
until it was mentioned this week, so it might be
worth mentioning to MPs obviously, i.e. no new cases
to be taken on from now, but I would be very
grateful if you'd consider taking these two on."
RON WARMINGTON: Exactly.
IAN HENDERSON: So I think that, you know, we had in
effect reached agreement that after the date of this
email that we would definitely be getting no new
cases via the MP route.
SUSAN: I think there are two things we can say: firstly
that, "And there's the evidence"; secondly, if there
are cases where you have not been able to find
evidence and not -- the subpostmaster has not been
forthcoming, that we, POL, again subject to senior
management review and intervention, will contact
those subpostmasters and invite them to come
forward.
I mean, we could offer that, Alwen. I don't know
whether she will offer it tomorrow with James.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: Or she could say, of course, it's always up to
the subpostmasters to come directly to -- and
I think we should give them a separate email address
or something, not -- that they don't go through the
normal route in the network. Even maybe come to you
as the company secretary or something.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah, yeah, could do that. I have my own
email address now.
SUSAN: Well, I was thinking that it was possible that
for subpostmaster complaints and queries, in order
to stop getting -- to get them out of the network
loop, we should --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: -- you should actually do sort of -- I know we
didn't provide another appeal to it, but they can
come to you and at least get a hopefully more,
maybe -- maybe -- more fair hearing.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: Or at least a hearing.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, yeah. Okay, I have that.
SUSAN: (unclear: simultaneous speakers) -- a little
way --
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah.
SUSAN: -- from that, but it's part -- and it's part of
what I need to put in place as part of the "let's
change the investigation" structure.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, absolutely. Okay.
SUSAN: So I think the one issue we have then is whether
Paula is prepared to wear us taking until the end of
October, worst case, to get to all the other --
the JFSA.
ALWEN LYONS: I think she's going to want to run that
past Alex.
SUSAN: That's fine. I thought she remembered -- you
know, but I think she needs a timeline, Alwen, which
we can probably get from Simon.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes. Yeah, okay.
SUSAN: Otherwise, it will just -- I mean, I know it's long
and it's taking too long and everything else, but this
stuff --
ALWEN LYONS: I think if we can promise them something,
an interim report, by before the end of July -- we
can call it a report, wouldn't that be --
SUSAN: Yes, yes.
ALWEN LYONS: -- then I think they'll be happier.
SUSAN: Okay.
ALWEN LYONS: Then if we can say, you know, and -- and
then within three months or by the end of -- let's
say end of October, let's not push it -- or are we
saying end of September? If you are all going off
doing something --
IAN HENDERSON: I think, to be safe, it ought to be
October.
SUSAN: Okay, okay.
ALWEN LYONS: (unclear) I GRO
RON WARMINGTON
ALWEN LYONS:
RON WARMINGTON: GRO Right --
SUSAN: When Ron sends his email in, he has to make that
subject to adequate --
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, if you could -- if you could get
a form of words for me and -- so that I can include
that in the report with Paula, so she's got that as
(unclear) tomorrow.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, yeah.
SUSAN: That would be really helpful.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay. Okay, right, we'll do that.
The other thing that's -- I don't know, Ian,
before this meeting we were discussing this bloody
Bracknell issue. Are we right in thinking that
Paula isn't aware of that?
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SUSAN: Yes, she's not aware of it -- or, no, she's not
aware of it.
RON WARMINGTON: I don't think Arbuthnot is aware of it
either -- or maybe he is. Oh, actually he is,
because it's --
IAN HENDERSON: He's aware that it's something we're
looking at.
RON WARMINGTON: He is aware of it.
IAN HENDERSON: He's aware of some of the, you know,
evidence that is -- that is coming up.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, he's not aware of how it's panned
out over the last -- more recently.
SUSAN: Yes, I suppose my view on that is I would really
like to understand -- and I have been out of the
loop so apologies, and it probably should be me --
Ian, you and I probably need to sit down and go
through the evidence and work out what the next
steps are with it, or Alwen and
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: He's obviously got an enormous download of data
from CSP. I saw that.
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah.
SUSAN: Maybe we don't need to take Alwen's time on this
but you have been through the emails.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
SUSAN: You've found this one email. We don't need to
say, "Right, well, what does that mean?" I need
probably to get Lesley involved as well, or I need
to ask Lesley for consistent help.
RON WARMINGTON: It's more than one email but --
SUSAN: Yeah, okay. But there is evidence, let's put it
that way.
RON WARMINGTON: There is something.
IAN HENDERSON: Simon also -- and before I say this, we
also need to decide whether we're sticking with the
discussion of a few weeks ago, which was to keep
Simon completely clear of this, because Simon
mentioned it in a call to Ron and I earlier today
and he has, in the last couple of days, got some new
information that pretty well confirms at least part
of what we have found.
MR ENRIGHT: Right, okay. I think we are going to have
to put some -- somebody else on this. I don't know.
We haven't found somebody yet, have we, Alwen?
ALWEN LYONS: No, but I think we'll have to.
SUSAN: Shall I text Lesley and ask her to give me
a call --
RON WARMINGTON: You can't really delegate this to
Fujitsu because --
ALWEN LYONS: No, no, no, we wouldn't do that.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay. Now, who's mentioned it, Simon
told me shortly before this call that he'd
questioned Rod Ismay and Andy Winn as to whether
they knew about that process, and he said that they
said they didn't know anything about it.
SUSAN: Right.
RON WARMINGTON: So one of them might be a civil person.
IAN HENDERSON: Ron, we need somebody unconnected with
the process.
SUSAN: To be honest, I think we need somebody out of the
line.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: Mmm.
IAN HENDERSON: Who is -- who -- you know, who's got
a brain and has got some good IT knowledge.
RON WARMINGTON: Got an internal auditor there?
SUSAN: I almost wonder if it's our new head of
internal -- there's an IT auditor who has just
started.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah, that might work.
SUSAN: I haven't dragged him into it yet. I could do.
RON WARMINGTON: The sort of thing an IT auditor would
routinely do.
SUSAN: It is.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: It might be quicker to get him. It would be good
for him because it would get him up to speed quicker as
well with stuff.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SUSAN: But I'd have to get Chris to agree to it.
Are you happy, because of where we are on the
Bracknell piece, that we don't -- it's not -- we
have suspicions. We need to work them through.
IAN HENDERSON: I think it's dangerous not to brief
Paula.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, so do I. I would brief her on it.
SUSAN: But what do we say, though?
RON WARMINGTON: How's it going to be, for example, if --
if, for all I know, Arbuthnot asks her a question
about it tomorrow? She's going to be blind-sided on
it.
SUSAN: Well, what does he know? He only knows the
allegations that Rudkin's made, doesn't he?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
IAN HENDERSON: Yeah, but what we're getting, Susan, you
know, not putting too fine a point on it, is
confirmation that the sort of facility that was
described was at the sort of capability that was
described does exist. You know, the issue, the
outstanding issue, is what are the consequences of
that and have we got a reliable record --
ALWEN LYONS: The last audit.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, but it's very different saying to
Paula that we found this way that you can fiddle
with the system, right, or them saying to her there
is (unclear) process because he would have to use it
for this, this and this. However, here are the
records of the robust audit. That's a very
different message.
SUSAN: And she has -- Simon has been through with her
the recent incidences.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes.
SUSAN: So she has all that.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. Yeah. Well. That's good.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, she's got everything. The way that
I've tried to brief Paula is as soon as I have
evidence that, you know, there is a problem she
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
knows about it the next minute and so does Alex.
So, you know -- so we have talked through the bugs
and we have done and so we've done that.
RON WARMINGTON: But the context of this --
IAN HENDERSON: Bracknell is in the same category.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, the context of this is --
SUSAN: The thing is, Ron, we don't have the end
solution.
RON WARMINGTON: Well, no but -- well, that's true of
lots of things, isn't it? In my mind, that doesn't
mean -- if I was in her shoes and I was not told
about it because you didn't have the end solution,
I wouldn't be very happy about it.
IAN HENDERSON: I mean, why don't we just say it does
look as if there was the sort of capability
available that has been sort of described. What we
don't yet know is the consequences or the impact of
that and that is something that we are urgently
working on.
ALWEN LYONS: Do we know that the capability's there? We
need to -- I'd like to --
RON WARMINGTON: Simon has told me that it is true the
facility does exist, but --
ALWEN LYONS: So where's he getting that from because
I haven't seen that anywhere?
RON WARMINGTON: He said he found out.
IAN HENDERSON: He found out --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, he's found out a lot in the last
half day or so.
SUSAN: Okay, so we need --
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: He is the centre of knowledge on that at
the moment.
SUSAN: Okay. Okay. Well, we'll catch up with Simon on
that.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah. I think, I mean, having said
that, he relayed something that Gareth is saying it
more or less doesn't exist or it's misunderstood
but, you know, that's -- I don't know. I don't know
the answer to that yet.
SUSAN: You see, I don't think we know the answer.
I suppose it's a -- there are allegations made about
the facility, a Post Office(?) testing facility at
the Fujitsu. Maybe, you know, it is the case that
that exists.
IAN HENDERSON: Well, remember it was POL employees.
They just happened to be located in a Fujitsu
building. I don't think we can sort of pass the
blame on to Fujitsu.
ALWEN LYONS: No, no, I'm not saying that but I don't --
they're testers, aren't they? That's who they are.
It's a test environment.
RON WARMINGTON: Well --
IAN HENDERSON: What we're seeing from the emails is they
were getting instructions, in effect, directly from
the Helpdesk saying, "Look, we need this fixed. You
know, can you work your magic?" and, you know, the
responses are going back, "Yeah, it will be done in
the overnight run tonight. We will change the
balances or whatever".
SUSAN: Okay. Well -- we need to talk to Simon.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
ALWEN LYONS: Have you go the email? Are you the only
one with the email?
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
IAN HENDERSON: And, Susan, I'm coming back to the
question a few moments ago. I haven't sent that to
Simon and I suggest that we don't because I really
think they --
SUSAN: No, you're right. You're right. We can't
really go to Simon --
ALWEN LYONS: No, no, okay. But then he's obviously been
doing stuff.
IAN HENDERSON: I think he's doing it as much to protect
his back. I mean, you know --
ALWEN LYONS: Well, I don't think -- I think he was just
trying to be helpful --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah. I think he was, Ian. I think he
was genuinely trying to be helpful on it.
ALWEN LYONS: I don't think he was trying -- you know,
I think I know him well enough that that's something
RON WARMINGTON: He really is curious as to what on earth
was the truth in this and he's actively trying to
get to the bottom of it. So I'm -- but I agree.
I don't disagree with your position there. But it
does require some urgent action because it's just
such a big issue that could be nothing, that's
just -- it's just a big X factor.
ALWEN LYONS: And whether we can get to it and how we can
get to it and who we can get to help us with it.
RON WARMINGTON: I'm pretty sure you won't be able to
resolve it before tomorrow.
ALWEN LYONS: No, no, no. No, I'm not saying resolve
it --
RON WARMINGTON: Get to the bottom of it --
ALWEN LYONS: -- what Paula needs to know before she
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
talks to James, that's all.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
ALWEN LYONS: I'm not sure whether it's going to --
I think it will just confuse things.
RON WARMINGTON: If James says something like "and where
are you on this assertion about the Bracknell covert
operations team" as it was referred to by Rudkin
and, remember, he's got a direct line to Shoosmiths.
They're chummy apparently. So they will have told
him about this, for sure. So, you know, if he
challenges her on it --
ALWEN LYONS: -- (unclear) say, well, look that's a
specific case --
RON WARMINGTON: (Unclear) .
ALWEN LYONS: -- when we've finished the investigation.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, as long as she doesn't come back
and say, "Well, he mentioned this Bracknell issue.
What is he talking about?" "Oh, we've known about
that for, you know, two months."
ALWEN LYONS: No, she knows about the allegation.
RON WARMINGTON: Oh okay.
ALWEN LYONS: We're working on it.
RON WARMINGTON: That's all right then. Okay. Good,
good, good.
ALWEN LYONS: So we mentioned it to her.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay.
SUSAN: It's been going (unclear) very odd.
IAN HENDERSON: But I think she needs to be prepared for
the, you know, the journalist-type question, you
know.
SUSAN: "When did you last beat your wife?"
IAN HENDERSON: Yes, and in relation to, sort of
Bracknell, can you assure me that there is not some,
you know, back door, some remote capability, you
know, at Bracknell or elsewhere, you know, that has
been used to the detriment of SPMRs.
SUSAN: She won't. I mean --
ALWEN LYONS: I don't think James will ask her -- you
know, if he did, I think she could quite rightly
say, "My understanding is that that's one of the
things in the spot reviews that we're looking at;
so, you know, we'll get to it when we've looked at
the evidence claims". I think, you know, that's
where I would push her in that.
IAN HENDERSON: Okay.
ALWEN LYONS: I don't think she's going to start talking
about cases, to be honest.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay.
SUSAN: She's just desperate to try and get some
structure round it.
ALWEN LYONS: Yeah, yeah.
SUSAN: Alwyn, is there anything else you need from us
because I'm conscious --
ALWEN LYONS: No, I don't think so. I'm going to try and
put this together now and then get that over to you,
Susan.
SUSAN: Okay. That's fine.
IAN HENDERSON: What time is the call?
ALWEN LYONS: 10.30.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
IAN HENDERSON: Fine, okay. Well, if anything else
springs to mind, I mean, you know, contact either
Ron or I direct.
RON WARMINGTON: And we'll contribute our pieces of that
stuff to you tonight, Alwyn.
ALWEN LYONS: Excellent, okay.
SUSAN: Okay. Thanks you for your help. Thank you very
much.
ALWEN LYONS: Bye.
RON WARMINGTON: Bye.
IAN HENDERSON: Bye.
(The call concluded)
FEMALE SPEAKER: There weren't lithium batteries in.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Or Adrian's or the chemist or --
RON WARMINGTON: No, it's only Tesco's that do them,
I think. Not to worry, can we --
FEMALE SPEAKER: Have you met Becky's partner --
RON WARMINGTON: You met Becky?
FEMALE SPEAKER: -- from Winston, yes. I was coming out
RON WARMINGTON: Oh, that Becky.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah. I was coming that
chemist --
RON WARMINGTON: That Becky, yeah, yeah, right.
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
FEMALE SPEAKER: And he said, "Oh, you don't want another
one of those dogs, do you?" I said no but -- are
you Winston's -- are you Becky's partner?
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I said I've got one at home.
RON WARMINGTON: We know. We met him.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Oh, that's Harry.
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, funny.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Then I went into the crop shop, "Oh, we
saw one of these the other day, a lot younger than
him, white. We've looked for a tan". I said, "Yes,
I think that's Winston".
RON WARMINGTON: That's Winston. How funny. Yeah.
Yeah. No, we're on the trail of Winston, eh?
(Descriptive noise) Laying in the sun there, look.
Okay, I've got to do some more work on the Post
Office now.
FEMALE SPEAKER: All right. Shovel some dirt?
RON WARMINGTON: Mmm?
FEMALE SPEAKER: (unclear) dirt shovelling.
RON WARMINGTON: Dirt shovelling, yeah. tJIan will call in
a minute. The whole bloody -- I spent the whole
bloody -- I had one more spot review but spelt the
whole day on the bloody phone dealing with the
management of the case. They want to get some
structure around it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Bit late for that, isn't it?
RON WARMINGTON: As if it's unstructured.
FEMALE SPEAKER: What, who wants to control the Post
Office?
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
SSLO000104
SSL0000104
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah, they want to rein the costs in.
I mean, it's costing so much. Right, okay.
(Recording ends)