Message
POL00108064
POL00108064
From:
on behalf of Paula Vennells <_
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Paula Vennelis [;
21/08/2013
Theresa lles
Fwd: IN CON
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paula Vennells ¢
Date: 21 August 2013
To: Alasdair Marnoch
Subject: Fwd: INCONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
Alasdair, hi. I'm in touch with Richard to see him tonight or tomorrow. As we only covered very
briefly, would really appreciate a further quick chat with you beforehand having now read his
draft - would that be possible? I can do now until 10.00, between 11.00-13.00, or between 14.30-
15.00. Are any of those of use?
If not, pls say and I will call Alice. She has offered to speak if urgent and I know she would want
me to be comfortable pre-meeting Richard; but... I have also promised not to disturb her unless
really necessary, as this is still her holiday.
Equally, I know we are drawing on your time ..
Paula
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Hatfield <E GRO I
Date: 20 August 2013 1 08 BST
To: ‘Alasdair Marnoch'
ERO
Subject: RE: INCONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
“Pp, ‘Paula Vennells’
Alasdair,
Thanks. Will await contact ~ back in London later today and fairly flexible for rest
of week.
POL-0110928
__GRO_
Richard
From: Alasdair Marnoch [mailto
Sent: 20 August 2013 11:57
To: Richard & Penny Hatfield; Paula Vennells
Subject: RE: IN CONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
Richard
A brief update.
I've now caught up Alice and Paula (who are both back from holiday). We have
some thoughts around refinement of the scope and sponsorship but in the first
instance Paula is understandably keen to meet you and is going to arrange a
meeting this week - her office will be in touch.
Regards
Alasdair
From: Alasdair Marnoch [mailto _ _.__GRO
Sent: 15 August 2013 21:49
To: Richard & Penny Hatfield
Subject: RE: IN CONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
Importance: High
Richard
This looks very good and thorough and I fully endorse the approach/key points
you have raised below.
I agree with the TOR - we may refine a little further when you get a better
understanding of the work done elsewhere but I think you have a very good
grasp of the issues. I also thought your LLR scope was also good and I can see
already you are starting to raise some important questions. So overall this looks
good for me.
The next stage will be for me to clear with Alice and Paula - Alice particularly as
she has a couple of areas she would liked covered off (and I think you have done
so) and Paula for her proper buy in and also to get her view of the scope to
ensure we get maximum impact from your work.
I would also like to get their views about talking to 3rd parties - normally would
POL00108064
POL00108064
POL-0110928
not be an issue but we are clearly very sensitive to the external impact and of
course there is a risk that someone externally will want to read your report. My
reticence on this point is that your report will be more forthright if it is only for
internal purposes. But i hope we can navigate through this so you can engage
properly.
FYI - Shex is the Shareholder Executive (part of BIS) ie our shareholder and pretty
important in our lives.
Finally thank you for your thoughts on timescales and fees. I'm appreciative that
you feel able to keep to c20 days but understand this will be tight. I am happy on
fees (but again i need to clear internally) and as we discussed if there is an
overrun we should revisit your fees to ensure you are properly compensated.
So I will now follow up and aim to get agreement next week (holidays
permitting)
thanks again
Alasdair
From: hatfields12/_
To: alasdairmarnock
Subject: IN CONFIDENCE: TO OUR MEETING
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:05:56 +0100
Alasdair,
Following our very useful discussion, I have now read the Second Sight interim
report and some other background on the web in order to work up my proposals
for the conduct of the Review.
My proposal consists of the attached draft of fully fledged TOR developed from
the initial sketch you sent me, our discussion last week and my preliminary
assessment of the ground that I think the Review would need to cover.
The draft TOR are, I hope, generally self explanatory. I would welcome any
comments or suggestions but I have, however, made explicit a number of key
assumptions/suggestions about the status and methodology which I would like
confirmed or corrected. In particular:
The Review is about Lessons Learned by the Post Office from the whole
episode —i.e. it is not an investigation of individual cases or of the performance
of Horizon.
For this reason, the Review will be commissioned as private report to the Board
(or the chair? or you?). While I think this is the right starting point, I suggest the
Board (and I) will want to keep in mind the possibility of releasing the findings in
some form after the PO has had an opportunity to consider, both as a response
to external interest and to assist with follow up action.
The Review should not single out the Second Sight investigation, although the
Second Sight work is clearly an important aspect to be covered.
POL00108064
POL00108064
POL-0110928
POL00108064
POL00108064
You and I will keep in contact throughout the Review, so there should be no
surprises,
The second document expands the TOR but outlining the ground which I would
want cover and some of the key questions which, even at this early stage, I
believe need to addressed (particularly in the light of my reading of the Second
Sight report). Of course, other issues may well emerge as the Review progresses
but please let me know if I am barking up any wrong trees or if I have missed
something that you would like covered.
One point my initial reading has brought home to me is the need to be careful
about ensuring that events and decisions are considered in their proper
context. I suspect that this means spending more time than I had thought on
initial preparation to ensure that I understand the chronology and organisational
background before embarking on the main interview programme. I hope,
however, this can be done while the holiday season is still upon us, so that it
need delay the start of interviews. One thing I will undoubtedly need help with
is identifying an and arranging interviews with key players. I am not clear
whether you envisaged that I would talk to anybody outside the PO. I guess I
might need to talk to one or two people were involved before the PO split off
(Alice’s predecessor?) and If I am to do this thoroughly, especially in looking at
possible wider implications, I probably ought to talk to James Arbuthnot and,
conceivably, the JFSA. I would welcome your thoughts on this. One of the
reasons for spending more time on preparation is to try to ensure that I cover
the relevant ground with each interviewee as thoroughly as possible, not least to
avoid imposing unduly on busy people,. Nevertheless, it is likely that I will need
to talk to some people a second time to clarify specific points or to address
something which has come up in later interviews.
In the light of the above, I think that the estimate of 20 days work in total
remains reasonable, if quite tight, but I am confident that there is no risk of a
significant overrun. Nevertheless, I would like to give myself a little more
flexibility about the exact end date and have proposed a deadline of the end of
October. There are three reasons for this. First, fitting in all the interviews
could turn out to be more problematic than we expect. Second, I would like to
leave myself a little room for reflection both during the interviewing process
and, particularly, after the main evidence gathering and analysis. Third, it might
be helpful to discuss my emerging conclusions with you and/or Alice before
finalising the report. I would also, of course, be very happy to discuss the final
version with both of you and, indeed, with the Board, if you so wished.
If you are comfortable with my proposals for TOR and coverage, including
outputs and timings, I suggest we agree a fixed fee of £10,000 for completion of
the Review and submission of the Report, broadly equivalent to £500 a
day. Please let me know whether this would be acceptable. If you are happy
to proceed on this basis I would welcome an early chat about when and how I
can get on with some preparatory work.
POL-0110928
POL00108064
POL00108064
Happy to discuss.
Richard
PS. Ona point of detail, who or what is “Shex”, referred to among the
stakeholders?
POL-0110928