JARBOO000001
JARB0000001
Meeting between MPs and the Post Office Ltd re Subpostmasters and Horizon
Attending
MPs
James Arbuthnot MP
Andrew Bridgen MP
Annette Brooke MP
Oliver Letwin MP
Tessa Munt MP
Mike Wood MP
Representatives from offices of:
Jonathan Djanogly MP
Edward Garnier MP
Graham Stuart MP
Attending from Post Office Ltd.
Alice Perkins — Chairman
Paula Vennells — Chief Executive
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd — Head of Network Services
Alwen Lyons — Company Secretary
Introduction
James Arbuthnot introduced the meeting, which was limited to MPs and the Post Office
personnel only.
The issue of problems reported with the Horizon system has given rise to controversy dating
back a number of years. Many MPs’ constituents have been prosecuted for false accounting,
theft, and fraud, many protesting their innocence.
A meeting was convened in February at the House of Commons, attended by MPs and their
constituents at which this matter was discussed. Following this meeting, James had several
private meetings with Ms Perkins and her colleagues to discuss how the issue might best be
approached, and resolved.
Alice Perkins then gave background information and the Post Office's perspective and
introduced her colleagues.
Post Office Limited is now a completely separate entity from the Royal Mail. She arrived at
the organisation in August 2011 and became aware of the issue soon after starting. She
emphasised that the matter was a very serious one for the Post Office, whose business
rests on its reputation as being trustworthy. She said the Post office also recognised full well
that the matter was also very serious for the SubPostmasters and mistresses involved as it
was invariably life-changing.
JAI
She said that now was a time of enormous change at the Post Office, and that it was
important to give MPs confidence in the business and its reputation.
She stated that the matter involved treading a tightrope regarding questions of money. The
Post Office and its staff are stewards of large quantities of cash — the cash does not belong
to the Post Office; it is in transit as it comes through the Post Office. There is the issue of
trying not to put temptation in people’s way, but in any retail business this is not possible.
Paula Vennells continued. She said that temptation is an issue, but that trust in the Post
Office as a brand is absolutely paramount. The Post Office needs competent, trustworthy
people on staff, and its processes and systems must be transparent and must work well.
Of the 11,800 SubPostmasters and mistresses currently employed, only a tiny number are
presenting as cases where there is an issue of alleged fraud involving the Horizon system.
The problem therefore is relatively very small.
The Horizon system is very secure. Every keystroke used by anyone using the system is
recorded and auditable. When things go wrong in a SubPost Office, there is a helpline which
staff can call 7 days per week during office hours, and back-up staff who will help further if
things go wrong. It is here that issues are normally resolved.
It appears that some SubPostmasters have been borrowing money from the Post Office
account / till in the same way they might do in a retail business, but this is not how the Post.
Office works. Post Office cash is public money, and the Post office must recover it if any
goes missing.
Every case taken to prosecution that involves the Horizon system thus far has found in
favour of the Post Office.
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd then talked through two case studies (attached).
Annette Brooke raised the issue of training, saying that at the previous meeting, a
constituent had said that not enough training was offered to support new staff.
James Arbuthnot said that it had been mentioned that the helpline was of little value, that
training had been minimal, and that potential SubPost Masters had reported that they had
had to commit to buying the business before they got to see their own contract.
Paula Vennells replied: over the past 18 months the business has changed the way it
assesses whether potential employees are capable of running a Sub Post office. With regard
to the helpline, the majority of people find it good.
Angela van-Den-Bogerd made the point that the helpline and support are there. Whether
staff take it up or not is another matter.
Mike Wood asked whether anyone at the Post Office had entertained the thought that
there might well be problems with the Horizon system, rather than believing that there was
not. He asked whether the Post Office was saying that the system was 100% secure, and
100% foolproof, making the point that it would be the first software system implemented by
government to be so, were this the case.
JARBOO000001
RB0000001
JARBO000001
JARB0000001
Andrew Bridgen asked whether there had been any case where the discrepancy was the
fault of the system.
Oliver Letwin then proposed that in answer to these questions, the proposed solution to
the entire issue might be discussed, especially as Annette Brooke had to leave the meeting.
The proposal was presented — the Post Office would undertake to hire an independent
forensic accountant, who would investigate every individual case, meet with MPs to discuss
each case, and ascertain what had happened (see Terms of Reference, attached).
Mike Wood - who selects the forensic accountant?
Andrew Bridgen — the Post Office oughtn’t to pay for this post, as this would detract from
its independence. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
James Arbuthnot said it must be the Post Office who pays for this solution. Who else
would?
Oliver Letwin made the point that the PO genuinely wants an answer to the entire
problem; that it is in the PO's interests to get to this.
Paula Vennells said that going back to Andrew Bridgen’s question, there had not been a
case investigated where the Horizon system had been found to be at fault.
Mike Wood made the point that Post office personnel attending the meeting were very
confident in the system, and surely there was someone in the PO who was more
circumspect about it.
Alice Perkins said that initially she herself was very sceptical, but that had seen that in
each case that had arisen, there was always another explanation than a systems
explanation.
Mike Wood said again, had it never been found that the system was at fault?
Alice Perkins said it was her understanding that this was the case.
Tessa Munt talked about the case concerning one of her constituents.
Oliver Letwin mentioned the delicacy of each matter — it was impossible to publicise the
Post Office's evidence locally, since given our presumption of innocence it would be wrong
to announce to a village that one of the most trusted people in the community might be a
crook.
James Arbuthnot concluded — the terms of reference would be circulated, the
investigations begun shortly and concluded by the end of the year.
The meeting continued briefly outside the room; draft press release agreed, and all relevant
documents would be circulated.