POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
LINES OF QUESTIONING FROM THE COMMITTEE
What is the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the mediation
Scheme so far?
¢ Aim at the outset was to ensure that Horizon operates as it should - Initial
investigations provided reassurance
¢ Significant opportunity for people to apply to the Scheme
e Each and every case submitted is investigated and independently reviewed
e Fair, independent and impartial
© We have continued to improve training and support through what we have learned
¢ However it has taken longer than we would like - every stage, not just Post Office
Over 50 cases have either been mediated or recommended for mediation. Some were
resolved at early stages and others have been resolved at other points in the Scheme, either
before or during mediation.
It was also very important to ensure that there was significant opportunity for people to put
forward complaints once the Scheme was agreed. We actively encouraged people — as did
the JFSA - to come forward. . We advertised in 2012 when we appointed Second Sight to
look into the issues and again, when we established the Scheme in 2013, we advertised
during a period of three months, through our communications channels including our web
channels for postmasters and counter clerks.
A rigorous approach is essential. The allegations are extremely serious.
We have a 20 strong team dedicated to investigating every case in full, people who are
employed full-time for retrieving and analysing documents and evidence including interview
transcripts, telephone logs, and Horizon transaction data. We have produced 130
investigation reports on individual cases, typically - for each case - running to more than 20
pages, together with up to 80 separate pieces of evidences. For example, in one case, just
one piece of evidence was 18,000 pages. All of this is provided to Second Sight for their own
independent analysis and review.
The Scheme is voluntary and does not affect anyone’s legal rights.
The inquiry and investigation has taken longer than we would like. This is for a number of
reasons, which Sir Anthony Hooper set out in a letter to the Minister of Postal Affairs in
December and which is in the House Library: The progress of cases at every stage of the
Scheme has taken longer than the Working Group would have wanted, including
submissions by applicants or their professional advisors, Post Office’s investigations, Second
Sight’s reviews and applicant responses to draft case reviews.
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
Potential drill down
Comment
Response
MP complaints that it is a sham/ lost
confidence in scheme
Some cases have been resolved and
the Scheme is working as it was
agreed between Second Sight, JFSA —
who were the main drivers of its
design and the recommendation for
the appointment of its independent
Chair - and with the involvement of
MPs.
We could not know what the inquiry
and investigations would find. We
established the inquiry with an
entirely open mind and a
determination to address any
problems that were found and that is
exactly what we are doing.
There could and should be no pre-
determined outcomes ~ and that
means either by Post Office or other
parties involved. We have gone to
great lengths to ensure impartiality.
The Scheme is supervised by a
Working Group with an independent
Chair, Sir Anthony Hooper. We have
provided funding to support each
applicant in obtaining independent
professional advice to build their case
(£1500 for each applicant for the first
stages of the Scheme and additional
funding to prepare for and support
mediation if this takes place).
Too much secrecy
We will not breach the confidentiality
of applicants. We have a
responsibility to all applicants in the
Scheme, not only to those who have
chosen to speak publicly.
Our position has been described
publicly as one of “secrecy” but it is
adherence to confidentiality and it is
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
for good reason. It was agreed with
the JFSA that an assurance of
confidentiality was paramount to
encourage people to come forward.
It protects sensitive personal
information of individual applicants,
which might include for example
details of ill-health or criminal
convictions which the law requires to
be treated with extra care. In
addition, mediation itself —all
mediations not just those resulting
from this particular Scheme —is a
confidential process. It allows a full
and frank exchange which makes
resolution more likely.
It could not possibly be right for
mediation to be conducted publicly
and, in any case, confidentiality is
required by the independent
mediator, CEDR whose own Code of
Conduct is aligned to the European
Code of Conduct for Mediators which
the Civil Mediation Council requires
all UK providers to observe to
maintain accreditation. When Sir
Anthony wrote to the Minister for
Postal Affairs about Scheme progress
in December he attached a letter
from CEDR outlining confidentiality
arrangements and this is also in the
House Library.
Excluding cases
We are not excluding cases. Each and
every case is being investigated and
independently reviewed in the same
way, whether there is a criminal
conviction or not and whether or not
the applicant pleaded guilty,
Each applicant and their professional
advisor receives the Post Office’s
investigation report, Second Sight’s
draft and final reports and all the
evidence that has been retrieved and
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
examined.
Both Post Office and JFSA made very
clear when the Scheme was
established that it does not have the
power to overturn criminal
convictions — that can only be done
through the Court process.
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
What progress have you made on training and support — on business user
forums for example?
© Continually improving training and support, with involvement of our people
e Postmasters directly involved in the design of improvements
We have continued with improvements to training and support — with postmasters directly
involved in designing these. Examples are more visits and calls to new postmasters; earlier
help for any balancing problems; full new online training planned for everyone — flexible
and available anytime and in addition to onsite training.
Post Office always strives to improve its training and support and has taken further
initiatives since the publication of Second Sight’s report in 2013. Post Office created a new
Branch User Forum as a way for postmasters and others to raise issues and insights around
business processes, training and support, to feed directly into the organisation’s thinking at
the highest level.
We provide comprehensive training, both in the classroom and onsite, and follow-up
support and visits are also offered to those who may benefit from them or who request
them. In addition, our helpline is available to support postmasters in addressing any queries,
alongside providing a service for technical queries. If these are not resolved quickly, further
expertise is available, including visits to Post Offices as necessary.
Potential drill down
Comment Response
Training and support was inadequate © Thousands of postmasters, in receipt
of the same training and support as
applicants to the Scheme, have been
operating the Horizon system
successfully for years. We provide
comprehensive training, both in the
classroom and onsite, and follow-up
support and visits are also offered to
those who may benefit from them or
who request them. In addition, our
helpline is available to support
postmasters in addressing any
queries, alongside providing a service
for technical queries. If these are not
resolved quickly, further expertise is
available, including visits to Post
Offices.
e Where, in what is a small number of
individual cases, Post Office has
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
found that the support provided in
that case has fallen short of the
appropriate standards, those issues
are addressed as part of the
investigation and review process.
Helpline gave wrong information/ said
“things would sort themselves” but they
didn’t
There is no evidence for this. All calls
to the helpline are recorded by the
operators in call logs. If calls were
not addressed appropriately then
matters would be escalated and this
would be noted also.
Transaction corrections are made so
it is likely references were made to
those. But if any issues could not be
resolved they could be escalated to a
higher level of support.
Every case is different and complaints
about the Helpline or our support
processes are investigated as part of
the Scheme.
You have outsourced Helpline to Manilla
Our internal IT helpdesk for
postmasters and employees has been
outsourced. Feedback from staff
surveys about the service is that it
has improved. The helpdesk is for
technical queries, not queries about
financial or other transactions.
Like any other business we continue
to improve our IT - it’s part of the
transformation of our business,
supporting the modernisation of
11,500 Post Offices, creating more
opening hours and significantly
improving services.
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
There are 90% of cases not being mediated — what do you say about this?
e Not correct — we have declined 5 out of a total of 51 that have been recommended
for mediation by Scheme’s working group
e Every case benefits from rigorous investigation and independent review
e It was agreed with JFSA and Second Sight at the outset that mediation would not
be the right route for every case
Every case is different and each is considered on its merits, but through establishing the
Scheme we have provided support funding for each of the applicants to obtain professional
advice to build their cases and they receive Second Sight’s report, the Post Office
investigation report and all of the evidence relevant to their case.
We don’t know where the 90% came from.
t Potential drill down
I Comments Response
I
I You are refusing to mediate criminal cases ¢ No. Every case is different and
considered on its merits. But in
criminal cases, unless there is new
evidence it is difficult to see that
there would be a prospect of
resolution through mediation in
cases that have already been decided
through the Court process with all of
the evidence disclosed to the
I defence.
e These cases are fully investigated and
@ independently reviewed and
applicants are provided with a Post
Office investigation report, Second
Sight’s report and all supporting
evidence. This can be used in legal
action if an applicant
You are trying to influence SS’s and the e The Working Group is impartially
WG’s recommendations chaired by Sir Anthony Hooper and is
comprised of representatives from
Post Office, JFSA and Second Sight.
e Impartiality is built-in. JFSA and
Second Sight were the principal
drivers of the design of the Scheme
and the appointment of the
independent Chair of the Working
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
Group.
Second Sight’s conclusions and
recommendations are discussed at
the working group and the matter of
whether a case proceeds to the
mediation stage is put to a vote, with
the Chair having a casting vote. This
is part of the role of the Working
Group, agreed by all when it was set
up.
POLO00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
What is the eligibility position regarding people who pleaded guilty to
criminal charges?
¢ Eligible for the Scheme — minority of cases
© Cases are all investigated and independently reviewed in the same way
¢ Duty of disclosure would be immediately engaged if new evidence found in
criminal cases
We are not excluding cases involving criminal convictions. These are a minority of cases in
the Scheme but whether there is a criminal conviction or not and whether or not the
applicant pleaded guilty, each and every case is being investigated and independently
reviewed in the same way. Each applicant and their professional advisor receives the Post
Office’s investigation report, Second Sight’s draft and final reports and all the evidence that
has been retrieved and examined.
Both Post Office and JFSA made very clear when the Scheme was established that it does
not have the power to overturn criminal convictions — that can only be done through the
Court process.
The JFSA advised on their website that, if individuals have a court finding against them, the
Scheme will “consider that to some degree” but:
“you should enter a parallel scheme with a firm of criminal lawyers who will look
into your case with a view to consider using the appeals court to overturn the
findings against you.”
If there is any evidence found during investigations which suggests that a conviction is
unsafe or would help the defence, our duty of disclosure will be immediately engaged. We
take this extremely seriously. There has been no evidence found so far to suggest that any
conviction is unsafe but we are not complacent about this. We also contact anyone we are
made aware of who has suggested they have or have seen evidence suggesting an unsafe
conviction and ask that this be produced so that it can be acted upon. No such evidence has
been produced so far. The Scheme is entirely voluntary and does not affect anyone’s legal
rights. Applicants can use the reports and evidence they are receiving from the Scheme to
follow a legal route if they wish to do so.
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
There are cases involving Horizon that have arisen outside of the Scheme —
what are you doing about that, since you have closed the Scheme?
e Encouraged, as did JFSA, for people to come forward during a period of three
months
Very small number of concerns raised outside the Scheme
e Always investigate - there have been no cases where Horizon has not worked as it
should
We actively encouraged people to put cases forward to the Scheme as did the JFSA. We
advertised throughout our internal communication channels during a three month period.
The Scheme was established in August 2013 and closed to new applications in November
2013.
There have been a very small number of concerns raised outside of the Scheme, which we
have investigated separately, as we would always do as part of our responsibilities for a
huge network. There have been no Horizon flaws found in any of these cases.
This is in the context of nearly 500,000 users of Horizon since it was introduced in Post
Office branches of all sizes all over the country, from small independent branches to those
run in franchise partnerships with big retailers such as WH Smith, Tesco, McColls and Asda.
Postmasters can raise concerns about Horizon or any other area of Post Office business
directly with us and there are processes in place for them to do so. We also, following
Second Sight’s report in 2013, continued to improve training and support and we set up a
branch user forum as a way for postmasters and others to raise issues and insights around
business processes, training and support and to feed into the thinking of the organisation at
the highest level.
Potential drill down
Comment . Response
You committed to put an independent e There could be no pre-determined
process in place for future cases outcomes from the review and
investigations — we did not commit to
a definitive future plan in this regard.
© Horizon is working as it should.
© We have taken action very quickly on
findings as they have emerged, for
example making further
improvements to training and
support which were raised as areas
for concern in some cases in Second
10
POLO00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
Sight’s 2013 report.
People are afraid to come forward because
you might close their Post Office or
prosecute them
Not at all - there is nothing to suggest
postmasters are afraid to raise issues
they might have with Horizon, which
they and our counter clerks are using
to process six million transactions for
our customers every day. We receive
regular feedback from colleagues
through our internal channels, such
as Subspace magazine and Subspace
Online, which reach everyone in the
network.
We also receive feedback on Horizon
through our Network Business
Support Centre, Horizon service desk
and a branch user forum we
established as a way for postmasters
and others to raise issues and
insights around business processes,
training and support, to feed directly
into the organisation’s thinking at the
highest level. And there is feedback
from contact with the Finance
Service Centre and through
discussion in the field with Contract
Advisors and Field Support Agents.
That feedback is assessed and
implemented as appropriate through
regular system reviews and upgrades
implemented by both Post Office and
our suppliers and in product
development (e.g. to streamline a
new product’s transaction journey).
14
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
It has taken a very long time to resolve cases — why?
e Important to allow sufficient time for people to come forward
e Important applicants and their advisors have time to prepare cases
e Every stage of Scheme — not just Post Office investiations — has taken longer than
we would have liked
e The need for thoroughness was paramount
Cases have been and are being resolved but it is taking longer than anyone involved would
like. As Sir Anthony Hooper said in a letter to the Minister of Postal Affairs in December and
which is in the House Library:
“The progress of cases at every stage of the Scheme has taken longer than the
Working Group would have wanted, including submissions by applicants or their
professional advisors, Post Office’s investigations, Second Sight’s reviews and
applicant responses to draft case reviews”.
It was also very important to ensure that there was significant opportunity for people to put
forward complaints once the Scheme was agreed. We actively encouraged people — as did
the JFSA - to come forward. . We advertised in 2012 when we appointed Second Sight to
look into the issues and again, when we established the Scheme in 2013, we advertised
during a period of three months, through our communications channels including our web
channels for postmasters and counter clerks.
A rigorous approach is essential. The allegations are extremely serious.
We have a 20 strong team dedicated to investigating every case in full, people who are
employed full-time for retrieving and analysing documents and evidence including interview
transcripts, telephone logs, and Horizon transaction data. We have produced 130
investigation reports on individual cases, typically - for each case - running to more than 20
pages, together with up to 80 separate pieces of evidences. For example, in one case, just
one piece of evidence was 18,000 pages. All of this is provided to Second Sight for their own
independent analysis and review.
Potential drill down
Comments. Response
Deliberate delay to put cases ‘out of time’ ¢ We could not know what the inquiry
for going to Court and investigations would find.
¢ We established the Scheme with an
entirely open mind and a
determination to get to the bottom
of the complaints and that is what we
are doing. The Scheme is voluntary
12
POL00114384
POLO0114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
and does not affect anyone’s legal
rights. The Scheme does not affect
the right of someone to go to Court
at all.
You should give up the time bar/ statute of
limitations for these cases.
The Scheme does not affect
postmasters’ legal rights, including
the right to start Court proceedings if
they believe their case has merit.
Many of the complaints in the
Scheme are very old, with the typical
6 year limitation period expiring well
before the Scheme was established.
Limitation periods for bringing legal
actions are a long and firmly
established part of the law. The
periods, currently established by the
Limitation Act 1980, balance the
interests of the claimant (who may
need time to bring a claim) and the
defendant (who must be protected
from stale claims e.g. because
relevant materials are no longer
available. The limitation defence is
available to all defendants, no matter
how strong the claim they are asked
to answer. Post Office should not be
prevented from exercising this legal
right.
13
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
What can Post Office do to address concerns of MPs?
e The Scheme is operating as it was agreed, with the involvement of MPs
e We have offered to meet with MPs about individual cases of their constituents
The Scheme, which design of which was driven by Second Sight and JFSA with the
involvement of MPs is operating as it was agreed. We have been painstaking in ensuring
that we have carried out our responsibilities as agreed. MPs are not represented in the
Working Group — that was not part of the agreed design — but we are able to discuss, in
confidence, individual cases involving their constituents with them, provided we have the
constituent’s consent. When MPs and applicants have wished to do this, we have of course
taken part. The Scheme documentation at the start made it clear to applicants that they
could involve their MP.
I have had several meetings with James Arbuthnot MP and the group of MPs he was leading
on the issue to discuss the progress of the Scheme.
There was a suggestion at a meeting with some MPs last year that we should change the
Scheme so that all cases are mediated if Second Sight recommends it, apart from a few
undefined exceptional cases.
We have resolved some cases and we are continuing to mediate cases. We welcome
opportunities to speak about the progress of the Scheme.
Potential drill down
Comments Response
You have broken commitments you made © The Scheme is operating as it was
to them agreed with Second Sight and JFSA
and the involvement of MPs.
e We have been painstaking about this.
During the progress of the Scheme I
have met with MPS and updated
them. I have listened to criticism,
considered them carefully and have
responded to them. What I have not
done is to agree to seek to change
the operation of the Scheme. I see no
reason to do this.
You have kept them in the dark e [have met with MPs and updated on
progress and meetings have been
offered to MPs with cases in their
constituencies. We can discuss
individual cases with the relevant MP
if the applicant consents. Many MPs
14
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
have not taken us up on our offer.
But there are elements of the
Scheme that are confidential and for
good reason.
Our position has been described
publicly as one of “secrecy” but it is
adherence to confidentiality and it is
for good reason. It was agreed with
the JFSA that an assurance of
confidentiality was paramount to
encourage people to come forward.
It protects sensitive personal
information of individual applicants,
which might include for example
details of ill-health or criminal
convictions which the law requires to
be treated with extra care. In
addition, mediation itself —all
mediations not just those resulting
from this particular Scheme —is a
confidential process. Confidentiality
in mediation allows a full and frank
exchange which makes resolution
more likely. It could not possibly be
right for mediation to be conducted
publicly and, in any case,
confidentiality is required by the
independent mediator, CEDR.
The confidentiality arrangements are
in line with their own Code of
Conduct and with the European Code
of Conduct for Mediators which the
Civil Mediation Council requires all
UK providers to observe to maintain
accreditation. When Sir Anthony
wrote to the Minister for Postal
Affairs about Scheme progress in
December he attached a letter from
CEDR outlining confidentiality
arrangements and this is also in the
House Library.
You misled them about mediation — you are
not taking part in mediation as they
The Scheme is operating as it was
agreed with Second Sight and JFSA
15
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
understood you would
and the involvement of MPs.
It is the role of the Working Group to
decide which cases progress to the
mediation stage and there is a vote
on it with the impartial Chair, Sir
Anthony Hooper having the casting
vote.
At that stage, when cases pass to
CEDR, either party can decline to
mediate.From x cases recommended
for mediation by the working group
we have declined to mediate in 2.
16
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
Second Sight’s interim report mentions documents being destroyed — what is
your data retention policy?
© No destruction of documents held in these cases
© Some cases are very old but the same searches are made for each and every case
Our document retention policy is, in most instances, seven years and we of course comply
with the law. We are certainly not destroying any documents we hold that are relevant to
the cases in the Scheme. We have taken great care about this. Some of the cases in the
Scheme date back many years. However, some records are retrieved that do go back
further than this. Each and every case is investigated in the same way - we search for the
relevant available documents and we make the same searches in each case. We do not
assume that we will not have certain records after seven years — we check each and every
time.
For every case there is a check list of documents so that it can be clearly seen by Second
Sight, the applicants and their professional advisors exactly which records have been
searched for and which have been retrieved.
Potential drill down
Comment Response
You are withholding information from e The position is quite the opposite. If
Second Sight there were a problem we would want
to identify it and correct it as quickly,
fairly and effectively as we possibly
could.
The computer system is used by
78,000 people and, every day,
processes six million transactions for
our customers - it is in our interests
that people have confidence in that
system so if a problem was found we
would want to be very transparent
about putting it right.
e We have provided a huge amount of
information to Second Sight, not just
about Horizon but about a wide
range of business processes and
other matters, where these have a
bearing on the case investigations.
This runs to hundreds of thousands
of pages.
17
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
For example we have produced over
130 investigation reports on the
individual cases in the Scheme, each
typically running to over 20 pages in
length and with up to 80 pages
pieces of supporting evidence. That
evidence can also be a substantial
amount of information — there is an
example of one document running to
18,000 pages being supplied in one
case,
You cannot be sure that documents are not
being destroyed
We are ensuring that documents are
not destroyed for any of the cases in
the Scheme — they are not being
destroyed under retention policy or
atall
We have provided many thousands
of pages to Second Sight — each
investigation report runs to, typically,
20 pages together with up to 80
separate pieces of evidence
You are refusing to answer Second Sight’s
questions
We are answering questions about
these cases and providing broader
information about business
processes where these relate to the
issues raised by applicants.
We are providing Second Sight with
the information asked - from 109 of
the latest questions received on very
complex issues, we have answered
the overwhelming majority and we
are working with Second Sight on
around a dozen remaining questions.
Questions which are relevant to
cases in the Scheme are all being
answered.
18
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
What is your response to Mr Henderson’s summary of the contents of Second
Sight’s report(s)?
It is welcome reassurance that there is no evidence of system-wide flaws in Horizon. I accept
that, in some cases, Post Office should have done more in the areas of training and support
for the individuals concerned and that is being addressed through the Scheme.
Potential drill down
Comments
Response
Second Sight think Horizon is not proving fit
for purpose in some instances
The cases have certainly revealed
that some people — a small number
in the context of nearly half a million
users of Horizon since it was
introduced — found the system or
aspects of it, difficult.
That does not mean that Horizon is
not fit for purpose but it does
indicate that, in some cases, training
and support was not sufficient. We
have continued to improve our
training support including measures
such as our branch user forum that
we announced when Second Sight
published their 2013 report.
Second Sight say lots of questions still
remain
The aim of this inquiry was to ensure
that Horizon is working as it should —
and it is welcome reassurance for our
people, customers and clients that it
is
The original inquiry found no
systemic flaws in Horizon or
associated processes and the work of
the Scheme has been focussed,
rightly, on the individual cases
We will continue to work with
Second Sight on looking at each of
those cases
You did not endorse their P2 Report
We were unable to endorse this
report because it contained
inaccuracies and important
19
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
POL00114384
omissions. The report was sent to
applicants and Post Office released a
reply detailing its own position on
the issues raised which was also sent
to applicants and advisors so that
there was clarity for them.
You do not seem confident about Second
Sight’s work
It has been important to an
independent organisation or
individual involved. Their reports are
well-written and balanced.
There is a divergence of views at
times about whether it is realistic to
think that particular cases have a
prospect of resolution through
mediation.
20
POL00114384
POL00114384