POL00186962
POLO00186962
Briefing for Paula / James Arbuthnot meeting
INTRODUCTION
+ Thank you for agreeing to the call, especially so soon after you return from Defence Committee
business
* I thought it would be good for us to touch base about the review and ensure we have the same
opinion on how to bring it to a conclusion. I know we share the same aims and I want to
reiterate the Post Office's commitment to this process. I am grateful to you for the way you
have supported it, and for making this clear
+ As you know Alice and I are very keen to ensure that this independent review gets to the truth
about the allegations raised against Horizon. If there are systemic issues with the system then
we will of course take steps to address them
+ We, like you, want this review be finished in such a way that we can quickly respond to any
findings.
* It has taken longer than either of us thought and we always have to have a regard to the best
use of public money
WHERE HAVE WE GOT TO SO FAR
* will set out the position as I see it. There are two issues and I believe we should separate
them. One is whether there are systemic failures in Horizon. The second is whether e can
improve the way we train subpostmasters or improve processes.
* Second sight currently have 29 MP cases and 20 cases leading to 27 spot reviews (themes
from JFSA) (CONFUSING - DO WE MEAN 29 MP cases and 20 cases received from the
JFSA. From these cases 27 themes have emerged?)
+ Some of these themes are, we believe, not issues relating to systemic issues with horizon.
This is potentially confusing the picture. Where issues such as training are emerging we
will of course address them. But the breadth of issues ranged seems to be stretching
beyond the original scope of the inquiry.
+ We understand that you have suggested Second Sight focus on 3 of these MP cases to bring
them to conclusion including a report before the summer recess. This would enable us and
you to consider whether there are commons themes relating to systemic defects in the
horizon system.
+ Excellent idea. We believe this step makes sense in that it will clarify the question at the heart of
this - whether there are systemic issues in horizon.
+ From the reviews 2" Sight are highlighting process improvements for us and let me assure you
we are already implementing these as they arise through the review. I will ask my team to
communicate with you on this separately - there will be a package of meAsures we wish to
take to improve training and processes.
* On the 2" Sight work, we have asked them to give us an end date by when they will have
completed all the MP cases and the spot reviews.
* Unfortunately we are being told that half of the MP cases submitted do not enough evidence for
2°4 Sight to investigate.
Strictly Private and Confidential; Subject to Legal Privilege 10f1
POL00186962
POLO00186962
+ New cases are being submitted, 2 more this week. We need to stop new cases coming into
the review or we will never finish. I would suggest we need a different process for new cases
coming forward.
+ We already have a review process in the Business and I think we need to incorporate the new
cases into this process but with my personal assurance James that there will be a new
Senior Management oversight. I would suggest cases come into our Company Secretary
who will give them this rigorous oversight. We would communicate with MPs as we assess
each case.
* 2nd Sight are saying they could complete all the MP cases for which they have enough
evidence to review, and the spot review, and have their report written by the end of October
* This would mean that we would get (a) findings on the three selected MP cases by recess
and (b) a full report on those cases it is possible to consider by the end of October (IS THIS
WHAT WE ARE SAYING? ITS NOT CLEAR.)
* This seems to me to be a good way forward. You will appreciate that we do need a cut off.
With a business as complex as that of the post office there will always be cases, whether
caused by systems or processes, where questions are raised.
* This is right, particularly for a responsible company such as ours, and it is right that we
take steps to investigate. We do so thoroughly and I can assure you that we would
continue to do so as business as usual. These issues are very important to us.
+ It is also worth stressing that this is a vast business dealing with almost 20 million
transactions/customers every week.
* What are James’ view
GOING FORWARD
* So to reiterate, i suggest that we Agree that 2" Sight focus initially on the 3 MP cases and
the spot review relevant to those cases
+ Agree that no more cases can go into the review and how we will deal with them
* Suggest that James goes back to 2"? Sight about the 15 MP cases which they cannot take
forward, as they are currently not in the review
+ Would James be willing to write to 2" Sight to clarify that this is what how they should bring the
review to a close
* The most difficult issue is how to deal with JFSA after the review is complete. I am of course
hoping that the review will find no systemic problems with Horizon but I know we need to a build
relationship with JFSA and Alan Bates. My thoughts are James that he would be good person to
have on a Horizon User Forum which might meet quarterly and help raise issues to the
business.
* You may want to offer this Can I suggest that I ask Alwen to contact Janet to organise a
meeting after recess so that we could discuss this point further. It would also be good to
consider the stakeholders for the review and how they are likely to respond to any report.
DISCUSSION
Strictly Private and Confidential; Subject to Legal Privilege 20f1
POL00186962
POLO00186962
BACKGROUND NOT FOR JAMES
I do not suggest you discuss specific cases
Stakeholders
‘Stakeholder [Response Recommended Approach
MPs [May not be satisfied that their Meeting with each MP, 2" Sight/ or 2"
cases were not included in the [Sight and Post Office to take them
review hrough the details of their case.
Note: not all cases have provided
enough detail to enable a thorough
review, however we could talk about
findings in similar cases
JFSA FSA may respond negatively {Maybe we have to accept that no matter
land could withdraw support. hat we do they will not be happy unless
IThey could take their views to _ {systemic issues are found, nonetheless I
the media. ould like to see if we can positively
engage with JFSA:
Post Office could invite JFSA to become
part of a Horizon user group.
e could ask JFSA on an on-going
basis to help us identify which new casesI
arrant further investigation as sub
postmasters report issues in the future.,
although this would not be through 2"¢
Sight.
Media Any findings will generate media We should work together to ensure our
interest, we have to be prepared communication messages are aligned
ith our proactive messages and reflect the good work that has gone
before the report is published _Iinto this investigation.
Strictly Private and Confidential; Subject to Legal Privilege 3of1