POL00153064
POL00153064
Patrick Bourkef”
Wed 02/09/2015 10:
To: Jane MacLeodf”
Ce:
Corfieldf~
Williams,
Subject: RE: BNR letter draft
Hi Jane
Following a recent further (and pretty major I gather) wobble on BNR’s part, BIS commissioned a ‘full rebuttal’ of all
Panorama allegations late last week as I understand it and they need that in time for her weekend box which closes at
noon on Friday. That is being prepared so that Callard and Thompson can include it as part of the submission they will
prepare for her in time for that box. I understand from colleagues on the copy list, as well as from Richard Callard
directly today, that while BNR was in a ‘good place’ following your meeting with her, she has since gone back to
wobble mode because of a further email she received last week from our Parliamentary detractors.
That email came from Bridgen, Kevan Jones and, it would appear, Oliver Letwin, requesting an early further meeting
on the back of the ‘very serious findings’ of Panorama’s investigation. The two issues they have particularly identified
and raised with her are a) the FJ whistleblower’s assertion that remote access was not just possible but also took
place; and b) what they say is the wilful misrepresentation by us (and as a result by BIS to Parliament) of SS’s findings
that there were no systemic issues with Horizon. BNR is particularly sensitive about Oliver Letwin’s apparent
involvement since he is a big figure in Government and a Cabinet Minister. The email goes onto to suggest that
someone like Sir Terry Leahy (ex CEO of Tesco when BNR was on the Board) or Stuart (now Baron) Rose (ex CEO of
Marks and Spencer) would be ‘ideal’. Beyond bizarre, but there you go.
In internal discussions about our key risks and what more, above and beyond simply providing BIS with briefing for
them to incorporate into their advice, we (copy addressees) felt that we should also write to her directly. Bluntly,
while BIS officials do a sensible enough job of relaying information, we are less confident about their
ability/willingness to provide her with proactive, robust advice and deliver difficult messages. The relative lack of
challenge by Government of the call for a ‘public inquiry’ is, alongside the potential BIS Select Committee inquiry,
currently the most damaging aspect of the project and we feel it necessary to begin the process of placing a marker
down that this is a place that we, as an organisation, can’t be taken to. The letter makes it clear why, I hope — CCRC on
criminal, availability of courts in non-crim cases and non-exhaustion of rights, cost and absence of locus. We also felt
the SoS’s office ought to be invited to take a more active interest by copying the letter directly to him.
You make a good point on timing — there is no magic about our letter reaching her at precisely the same time as the
blander piece she will get from Callard and Thompson: it just felt sensible that she should have both simultaneously.
In addition, we are in any event having to prepare the rebuttal document for the officials to that timescale, so again, it
seemed sensible to co-ordinate her receipt of the internal advice she will get from her officials and our own letter. But
we could equally hold our letter over to next week if that is your preference — do let me know ?
I should also add that I thought it would be useful for the letter to be quickly reviewed by the QC we used to do the
advice we needed before Xmas on PV’s concern that making any change to the Scheme might expose us to a
successful JR. He was recommended to me by the Legal Director at the Ministry of Justice (an old colleague) and did a
fantastic and, frankly, very cheap, job for us then. He is familiar with the ins and outs and I thought his input would be
particularly invaluable around the public inquiry section argumentation. He’s in France but has agreed (and is
currently lined up) to do this for me —it would take him an hour, I reckon. Are you ok with that ?
Rod is working on the bits relating to the individual cases and we ought to be in a position to send you that during the
course of tomorrow. We only need a paragraph on each but I agree it needs to be spot on and consistent with what’s
gone before naturally. My view is that it’s just a question of addressing the specific aspect of each case raised by
POL00153064
POL00153064
Panorama (eg insufficiency of evidence in the Hamilton case), rather than a full account of all the intricacies of each
case.
Nothing will go anywhere until we’ve had a) your comments on the letter as it stands; b) your approval of the
proposed responses on the allegations in relation to the 3 cases; and c) your views on timing and my QC idea, both of
which I raise above.
I hope this helps — sorry it’s rather long but it’s late at this end and therefore harder to be as concise as I would ideally
like to be.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 02 September 2015 21:32
To: Patrick Bourke
Cc: Mark R Davies; Mark Underwood1; Melanie Corfield; Jane Hill; Rodric Williams
Subject: Re: BNR letter draft
Patrick
Thanks for this - what was the reason behind the letter suddenly being required and the short timeframe?
If the letter comes from me (which is fine), then I'd like some of the wording to be simplified (personal style point
only). I'm travelling today and won't be able to comment until tonight (Thursday morning your time) so I'll look at any
further drafts that come through today and will comment on those.
On the individual cases, I'd like to see the proposed wording for this - we did take the minister through this when
Paula, Mark & I met her in July and we need to be very careful what we say in writing in case it gets used publicly.
Thanks
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Sent from my iPad
On 3 Sep 2015, at 04:01, Patrick Bourke
wrote:
Colleagues
I attach a DRAFT of the letter to BNR we discussed yesterday. I recognise it needs work but I hope to
have faithfully captured the points we discussed. In particular, I have sought to address the issue of the
‘public inquiry’ suggestion reasonably head on but, I hope, in a way that is not unnecessarily
confrontational. But, as we agreed yesterday, I think we can no longer duck it, even if we soften the
language down further. There is also the question of who sends it — I have a preference for Jane M (to
put my cards on the table — but Jane, you'll have a clear view on this I’m sure — just conscious that we
need to get this to BNR for 12 Friday and other senders will entail delay...).
Comments gratefully received. Time is going to be pressured tomorrow, so can I encourage early
POL00153064
POL00153064
contributions if at all possible ?
Kind regards and thanks for your continued help on all the various fronts !
Patrick
<BNR - Panorama and More - v1.docx>