POL00186945
POLO00186945
Briefing for Paula / James Arbuthnot meeting
1. Introduction
1. The purpose of the call is to discuss how we can bring the Horizon investigation to a
conclusion before summer recess. (THIS IS NOT THE OPENER FOR JAMES)
2. As you know this has gone on much longer than anticipated and I think we can bring it to
closure soon. (AGAIN THIS SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT IS JUST INCONVENEINT FOR US.
WE CAN'T START WITH THIS TONE. WE NEED TO STRESS THE PUBLIC MONEY
POINT AND THE POINT THAT THENSPOT REVIEWS ARE NOT INDICATING SYSTEMIC
DEFECTS.
2. Speaking note
Needs to start with clear statement that PO has been and is keen to explore any issues, that we
propose second sight, tht we have faith in horizon but understand and support the need for
confidence. Concerned however tht the inquiry is showing signs of mission creep into areas within
are out of scope and not relevant to the issue which James is most concerned about - any defects in
horizon.
We also have to have regard for use of public money. Danger of this spiralling in an uncontrolled
way,
1. In discussing this with Second Sight, I understand that you have suggested that they focus
on two to three MP cases — and report back by the summer recess’...... I support that
approach, it will help bring things to a timely conclusion. (I THOUGHT WE KNEW THIS
FOR CERTAIN?
2. In addition, to ensure we get closure in the summer, can we also be clear on the question
we are asking Second Sight to answer, looking at the terms of reference, to me the key
question is: have systemic defects in the Horizon system resulted in the wrongful
conviction or suspension of sub postmasters.
NEED TO SEPARATE OUT THESE TWO THIINGS
1. We are also expecting Second Sight to report back on improvement areas WHICH ARE
OUTPF SCOPE BUT WHICH OF COURSE PO WANTS TO ADDRESS we have already
started making changes from the lessons we have gained, we will also take on board the
improvement areas identified by Second Sight.
2. We have discussed the above three points with Second Sight, and they are happy adopt this
approach, and are looking for you to give them this direction.
3. In addition to this, can we agree that if the two to three cases show that there are no
systemic issues, we close the investigation at that point. (DECOUPLE) Obviously the
improvement plan we put into place will go beyond that date.
1. Stakeholders
Strictly Private and Confidential; Subject to Legal Privilege 10f1
POL00186945
POLO00186945
1. Taking this approach will mean that some stakeholders may be disappointed. ( SUGGEST
WILL NOT BE SATISFIED RTHER THAN DISAPPOINTED) I suggest to discuss how to
resolve at a face to face meeting. But, in summary I think we can address this, for example:
1. MPs. We can work with you to manage the expectations of the MPs whose cases are
not in the 2-3 selected. For example we can have Second Sight take them through the
details of their cases (ONLY IF WE ARE THERE TOO)
2. JFSA. The JFSA may not be happy with this approach. We can discuss how best to
manage JFSA, but maybe we have to accept that no matter what we do they will not be
happy unless systemic issues are found, nonetheless I would like to see if we can
positively engage with them.
3. Media. I suggest we work together to manage the media interest that will no doubt be
generated when the report is produced.
2. Conclusion
1. To me James, it is really important that we get Second Sight to focus on bringing this to a
timely conclusion
2. Are you OK writing to them to confirm the points we agreed?
3. I will set up a meeting for two to three weeks time to discuss progress and how we can help
manage stakeholders
' The letter came to us via Second Sight, not from James, so we can’t refer to it directly.
Background
+ When Post Office commissioned Second Sight the expectation was that the investigation
would review a small number of MPs cases (6 to 12 cases).
+ MPs have now submitted 29 cases and JFSA have submitted about 20 cases.
+ It is unlikely that the investigation, no matter how long it runs, will conclude anything
definitive; as the remit has become blurred, different stakeholders have different
expectations, and the evidence is open to interpretation.
* There is currently no defined point at which the investigative process will end.
* To date the investigation has cost £180k. At the current rate of spend, by December 2013
the cost will be £500k, by next July the cost will be £750K. This is public money.
+ Second Sight are focussing the investigation on Automated Reversals ie, does the system
automatically reverse, or change transactions without sub postmaster knowledge.
+ Spot reviews:
* Second Sight put allegations to Post Office in the form of “Spot Reviews”. Post Office
has responded to the first four spot reviews (received in March) and is responding to
the next batch of spot reviews (five, received in early May). WHAT ARE OUR
RESPONSES? THIS SHOULD ALL BE PART OF THE MAIN BRIEF
+ We have received positive feedback from Second Sight on the quality of our
responses to the spot reviews (we can make them available to James if he wishes).
Strictly Private and Confidential; Subject to Legal Privilege 20f1
POL00186945
POLO00186945
+ JFSA have responded negatively to our responses. We are organising a meeting
with JFSA to discuss this. NOT APPROPRITE UNTIL SECOND SIGHT
INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE
+ Second Sight would prefer Post Office to adopt an iterative approach to spot reviews.
Post Office has adopted a methodical approach to ensure are our facts are correct
and we clearly articulate them.
Defects/bugs/glitches in Horizon. Post Office is not saying Horizon is free from defects. All
large systems of this nature occasionally encounter problems. We are confident though that
no sub postmaster has been wrongly convicted or suspended due to Horizon defects. THIS
IS FUZZY - WE SHOULD NOT USE THE WORD DEFECTS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS - IMPROVEMENT AREAS IN A SYSTEM AND SYSTEMIC
DEFECTS. V different
Strictly Private and Confidential; Subject to Legal Privilege 3of1