POL00153165
POL00153165
Meeting with Ian Wright MP, Chair, BIS Select Committee
Tuesday, 8 September, 2015 — Portcullis House
(In attendance: Iain Wright MP, Asst Clerk to Committee, Mark Davies, Jane Hill and Patrick
Bourke)
Substance
1. IW indicated that he had already met with fellow MPs Kevan Jones and Andrew
Bridgen, together with Alan Bates of the JFSA. The Assistant Clerk to the Committee had
also attended. He was keen to stress that he wanted to be scrupulously fair and transparent in
his dealings. We thanked him for that and began by giving him a quick briefing on the history
of the issue, including on the steps we had taken to ‘speed things up’ as requested by the
Select Committee back in February.
2. He asked why we had not spoken about individual cases. We repeated our well-
rehearsed reasons and he appeared to understand that doing so, even now, would result in PO
being accused of further ‘bullying’. It was clear that he understood the appeal of the little man
versus the big corporate ‘David and Goliath’ characterisation that this issue lent itself to.
3. In this section of our discussion, we went onto explain that we felt that the integrity of
the PO and its handling of this issue (including protecting confidentiality where we had
promised to do so) was of paramount importance, even where this might occasion some
arguably avoidable reputational damage. Other organisations might have chosen differently.
4. In addition, our approach to resolution of these complaints was informed solely by the
evidence of what happened in each case. Where we at are fault, we put our hands up and make
appropriate compensation. However, where are not, we cannot be expected to make payments
because it is the ‘easy’ or expedient thing to do. In any event, the Post Office would quickly
find itself answering difficult question from the Public Account Committee if it were to be
making payments, arguably from public funds, in circumstances where there was no liability or
responsibility to do so.
5. He was most perplexed by JA: why would a parliamentarian of his standing continue
to push the cases if there was really nothing underlying the accusations. We accepted that JA
had to be taken seriously (as indeed we have throughout) but we simply could not understand
it either.
6. He asked about Fujitsu and remote access. We took him through, in detail, why what
was being alleged did not (because it simply could not in a technical sense) happen. Moreover,
even if it were technically possible, what on earth would the motivation for doing so be in
circumstances where there is no possibility of pecuniary or other interest? We offered to write
to him with our rebuttals of the various allegations most commonly made against us, including
those which featured on Panorama.
7. We explained the role and on-going work of the CCRC, gave him the new statistics on
the mediations and indicated that Tim Parker would be asked to look at this issue, and PO’s
handling of it as a whole, afresh as a matter of priority.
POL00153165
POL00153165
8. We then had a very candid and open conversation about what the role of the
Committee might be in all of this. On the one hand, he explained, these were serious
allegations about an important public business in BIS’, and therefore, the Committee’s remit.
On the other hand, he continued, he was not interested in simply providing ‘another day in
Court’ for our detractors.
9. He told us that he was determined that the Committee was there to add value, that
there were a huge number of topics he was aware of where he thought it could make a real
contribution. “Bluntly, I have a reputation to protect, as well as the Committee’s to consider —
is this, in your honest view, something we should have in front of us now ?”.
10. Invited to be candid, we did precisely that, and expressed the view that the Committee
was not as well equipped (or empowered) as the CCRC to examine the accusations being
made in the criminal sphere and, on the civil side, we had 50 or so mediations to conduct
between now and Christmas. We would, however, co-operate absolutely fully in the event of
any decision to conduct an inquiry, whether now or later. In short, we advised him that an
inquiry at this stage would certainly add heat, but shed no further light, on this issue. That did
not, of course, preclude a useful session at a later stage. He appreciated our candour on this.
11. We went on to make clear, however, that he ought to expect the PO to be considerably
more robust and indeed candid, including about those cases which have been featured so
prominently by the BBC and other outlets, in evidence to any such any further inquiry in a way
that we had not felt able to (for very good reasons) back in February. We had a strong sense
that this landed with him.
Comment
12. This was a friendly, candid and constructive meeting and we are confident he would
make the same observation. He is clearly a much more substantial (and fair minded) figure
than his predecessor which makes for a refreshing change. The presence of the Assistant Clerk
to the Committee added an element of formality and official record which is to be welcomed.
13. We said we would write to him to thank him and to provide him with our rebuttals to
the various accusations. We also secured his agreement to a further meeting if, in the event, he
decided to proceed with an inquiry sooner rather than later, so that we could be clear about its
parameters and terms of engagement.
14. Mindful that he needs to go back to the ‘other side’ with something, we will suggest
that while we do not judge this to be the right time for an inquiry to take place (the CCRC and
the mediations needing to be allowed to run their course), we will of course keep him
regularly updated as to progress on the various fronts so that he might make an informed
decision about the timing and nature of any inquiry he determines necessary.
15. In conclusion, our judgement is that:
a. At best, he will not set up an inquiry this side of Christmas (and if the CCRC
and mediations work goes well for us, potentially at all); but
POL00153165
POL00153165
b. At worst, any inquiry will have a very different character to the February
session — critically, in the degree of fairness, rigour and transparency we can
expect from his Chairmanship of the Committee’s work.
9 September 2015