POL00180832
POL00180832
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Susan Crichto1
Thur 05/07/2012
Susan Crichtot
FW: Today's Meeting
9 AM (UTC)
From: Ron Warmington £
Sent: 04 July 2012 21:29
To: ‘Susan Crichton’; ‘Simon Baker’
Cc: ‘lan Henderson’
Subject: FW: Today's Meeting
As reported verbally, a good meeting. lan and I felt it went well. My
feedback later in the afternoon, from
James' PA, is that they
felt good about the meeting too.
As well as James an
there:
Andrew Bridgen MP
Mike Wood MP
Tessa Munt MP
Mary Glindon MP.
9. and lan and myself... the following were
A representative of Andrew Garnier MP also attended.
Oliver Letwin MP sent his apologies but wants to be closely involved going
forward.
JA took the lead and welcomed us, summarising what we were there to address.
Nothing surprising here: they wanted to know how we came to be
short-listed/selected for the work; what we understood the scope to be;
whether we were likely to carry out a one-sided, biased or inadequate job;
whether we expected to drill deep into Horizon; and to whom we expected to
report. RW answered all those questions.
JA stated that it was a pity that, having cleared it that the JFSA leader
Alan Bates could attend, in the end he was unable to do so at short notice.
JA clearly wanted to - and now wants to - get some buy-in from AB and seemed
genuinely disappointed that the whole thing now couldn't be buttoned up
today. He asked whether RW would be prepared to come back for a
th
erson meeting in his (JA's) office. RW of course offered to do that.
will arrange. Apparently, AB had commented along the lines that "this
“all Seemed to be moving rather too quickly. All agreed that that seemed a
strange and inappropriate comment.
Mike Wood - initially bordering on hostile - challenged us on how the sample
of cases had been selected. RW answered that the sample was not yet
finalised but that they (the MPs) had largely driven it. MW asked whether
his constituent's case was included (don't know but don't think so as yet...
will need to be... need the name). One or two (mainly MW and AB) pressed for
a larger sample. We expect them to call for that. RW said that it would be
surprising if the sample of cases pushed forward by the MPs would fail to
surface to the reviewers instances of the sort of Horizon-induced shortages
that have been so publicly alleged if they are there to be found.
Some discussion on whether there could be bugs in the (or for that matter
any) system that could generate spurious cash shortages... or perhaps some
POL00180832
POL00180832
central figure(s) milking off funds and laying a trail of blame pointing to
innocent others. Answer: hypothetically possible... we've dealt with cases
like that before. Near sighs of relief that we weren't trotting out the
(clearly not accepted) party line that the system was and is bug-free and
above suspicion. This point seems to be central: almost all of them seem to
harbour suspicions that there is "something out there". They wanted to be
assured that we're genuinely independent, objective and have open minds on
this point and that the PO is asking us - and will allow us - to dig deep.
We carried out a reality check here, saying that we'd NOT been asked to dig
deep into Horizon looking for deeply-embedded bugs at the code level...
indeed, we'd not recommend that course of action (certainly not at this
stage). Rather, we trust our instincts and experience that a deep review of
a sample of cases, focussing not on whether there had been False Accounting
but on IDENTIFYING THE UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSE OF THE DISCREPANCY, would
without doubt help us to formulate a recommendation as to whether some such
deep digging would, later, be worthwhile. MB said that the conclusion of
the Case Review would probably provide them (the MPs) with an opportunity to
call for such a deep dive system review.
JA conceded that he was prepared to be convinced (he seemed to have a
balanced, open attitude here) of the guilt of his constituent(s). RW said
that the term "guilt" needed, in his mind, to be clarified... the Reviewers
would pay little heed to convictions for False Accounting. What we would
focus on would be identifying the real cause of the losses;... and...
ideally, where the money went; whether it was stolen; by whom; and WHY. But
we had to be realistic in that we might never know - indeed the people in
the office themselves may not know - the answers to those key questions. To
that end we will probably need to re-generate (using retained computer
records, interviews, etc.) the most likely destiny of the missing funds and
underlying root causes of the losses.
The issue of whether some perpetrators’ (in respect of False Accounting)
assertions that: "They were at their wits end and had no viable alternative,
given their distrust of - or absence of help from - the Helpdesk", is also
clearly pivotal to the MPs. They want to know whether any of those claims
are valid... and they clearly expect the Review to feed back to them on this
point. They seem to suspect that the way things have in the past worked (and
the Contractual Terms) have led to a situation where some sub-postmasters
have received little or no real help in finding out what has gone wrong and
where many of them lack the skills/resources to get to the bottom of it
unaided. Their suspicion here seems to be that the PO may not care "since
(contractually) it's not its problem".
JA asked whether he would be given a draft copy of the Report (I think he
meant at the same time as it goes to PO Senior Management). We couldn't of
course commit to that so for sure he'll ask about that. He also stressed
that, since leaks to the press (from Westminster) were sadly a fact of life,
we'd need to be very careful not to name any constituent in the Report.
In regard to AB and the JFSA, whilst JA clearly wants AB's buy-in, he
doesn't want to give AB the impression that he (AB) has power of veto over
who carries out the Review, its scope and how it is to be carried out.
The meeting concluded with JA confirming - on behalf of all present - that
they are satisfied that 2nd Sight is a suitable choice and that it now
remains to get that AB/JFSA concurrence. JA stated that the big challenge
here will be "to carry the sub-postmasters with us". Note from RW: that's
not a big challenge, it's a colossal one. It means we'd not only have to
convince each of the (case-selected) perpetrators that they'd been fairly
dealt with by the courts and the PO but also (and without allowing into the
public domain case-specific details) we'd need to turn the tide of public
opinion in the PO's favour! Let's discuss!!!
POL00180832
POL00180832
Speak at tomorrow's 09:00 hrs call. Best Regards, Ron.