POL00192017 - Email from Alwen Lyons to Larissa Wilson RE: Update on Second Sight Report 7 July - POL commentary
POL00192017
POL00192017
From: Alwen Lyons,
Sent: Sun 14/07/2013 8:16:46 PM (UTC)
To: Larissa Wilson§, GRO_
Subject: FW: Update on SS review - 7 July
Attachment: COMMENTARY ON SS INTERIM REPORT - 07.07.13doc.doc
Horizon reading room
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons I Company Secretary
© 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
@postofficenews
From: Sarah Paddison On Behalf Of Paula Vennells
Sent: 08 July 2013 16:12
To: Paula Vennells; Alice Perkins CB; Neil McCausland; Virginia Holmes; Alasdair Marnoch; Susannah Storey; Tim
Franklin
Cc: Chris M Day; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton; Martin Edwards; Lesley J Sewell; Mark R Davies
Subject: RE: Update on SS review - 7 July
As promised in my previous email, here is a copy of the final draft of the SS report (which is embargoed until 6pm).
They took on board the majority of our comments over the weekend, but not all of them. The second attachment is an
internal note detailing the remaining aspects of the report which we believe are misleading or factually inaccurate.
From: Sarah Paddison On Behalf Of Paula Vennells
Sent: 08 July 2013 15:56
To: Paula Vennells; Alice Perkins CB; Neil McCausland; Virginia Holmes; Alasdair Marnoch; Susannah Storey; Tim
POL00192017
POL00192017
Franklin
Cc: Chris M Day; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton; Martin Edwards; Lesley J Sewell; Mark R Davies
Subject: Update on SS review - 7 July
Dear all,
A quick update on the latest position with the Second Sight report (apologies for not sending this sooner, I’ve been on
calls or in meetings on the topic since first thing this morning).
I’m attaching the latest draft of our media statement, which we will be issuing later this afternoon. It sets out the
three key strands of our response to the findings of the report:
a) establishing a ‘working party’ (involving the JFSA) to complete the review process and look at the thematic
issues which have emerged (particularly related to training and support);
b) conducting a review of how we might set up an independent ‘safety net’ to adjudicate in disputed cases in the
future; and
c) setting up a new ‘Branch User Forum’ involving sub-postmasters and other relevant stakeholders to provide
feedback on our training and support processes on an ongoing basis.
I spoke to Alan Bates again this morning, and will be meeting him in person shortly. Overall he appears to be content
with the package of measures outlined above and is striking a very constructive tone. He had one relatively minor
concern with the drafting of the media statement, which we have now resolved to the satisfaction of both sides.
I also had a further telephone call with James Arbuthnot at lunchtime. He likewise was very positive about our
proposed response, and notes in his own press statement (which he has shared with us in draft and will be issuing at
6pm) that “I am impressed with the way the Post Office has behaved on this matter”. However, he will also draw
attention to the concerns highlighted in the SS report related to the wider processes associated with Horizon, and we
are currently challenging some of the drafting in his statement where we believe he had drawn misleading
conclusions from the review. The most significant remaining concern relates to his continued determination for us to
review past prosecutions in light of the findings of the report, which he wants to be explicitly part of the scope of the
next stage of the review process. As noted in my update on Saturday, we are already planning to conduct review with
our external lawyers of the implications of the report for past prosecutions — something we would have a duty to do in
any case — but this significantly adds to the pressure and expectations around that process.
I have also spoken to Jo Swinson again today, who remains supportive about our actions and relatively relaxed about
the situation (not least because she views this as an operational matter rather than something for the government to
take responsibility for). I have also briefed Oliver Lewtin directly as he is attending the meeting with James Arbuthnot
and other MPs tonight and could help to strike a more balanced tone in the room.
Finally, I’m attaching for background information our Q&A document for handling media enquiries (which is still work
in progress), and we will send you in a separate email a copy of the SS report. We will also forward you the final draft
of our statement and the one from James Arbuthnot once it is available, together with a round-up of the day’s
developments.
Kind regards,
Paula
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 06 July 2013 08:43
To: Alice Perkins CB; Neil McCausland; Virginia Holmes; Alasdair Marnoch; Susannah Storey; Tim Franklin
Cc: Chris M Day; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton; Martin Edwards; Lesley J Sewell; Mark R Davies
Subject: SS 5 July update
POL00192017
POL00192017
Dear all,
A quick further update on yesterday’s developments with the Second Sight (SS) review:
Ihave had two further very constructive telephone conversations with Alan Bates of the JFSA,
which confirmed his willingness to work collaboratively with us in taking forward our response to the
review. In particular he agreed to participate in a new user forum to provide feedback on training and
support issues related to Horizon and bring the existing review process to a conclusion.
. It is worth emphasising that AB's main issue is not 'the computer’ but the human aspect: how in
his view Post Office failed to support and help vulnerable and 'muddle headed' [sic] Spmrs. We had a
useful conversation about this and I will update you more on Tuesday's call. He will collaborate with
us in the user forum but will also need reassurance that we will not just ignore past cases. We will
work with him to understand what happened and I offered again to meet him and one or two of his
colleagues personally. (This time he accepted.) This is the most emotive aspect as we are dealing with
perceptions and feelings. It needs careful handling but by working closely with him over the summer,
rather than at arms length via SS, I am hopeful we will find a way through.
He also raised the idea of setting up a new independent third party that spmrs can approach if
they are facing issues with Horizon which cannot be resolved through the normal Post Office processes
(but which doesn’t replace or undermine our existing systems for dealing with serious cases of actual
fraud or theft). The idea aligns with some of our own thinking on the need to set up a safety net to
prevent small problems snow-balling into more serious issues, which can then lead to prosecution or
the termination of spmrs’ contracts. We are therefore inclined to agree to the idea - in principle - in our
response to the report, without committing to the specific details, which will have to be considered
carefully over the next couple of months (with the involvement of JFSA and other stakeholders).
Alwen and I then had a further meeting with James Arbuthnot yesterday afternoon which was
also positive — we briefed him on our proposed response to the review and the points noted above,
including our plans for working collaboratively with the JFSA, which he appeared to be very pleased
about. This is hopefully an important step forwards in ensuring that his media commentary on the
report on Monday is reasonably balanced, although risks remain nonetheless given his desire to gain
decent coverage. We agreed to share our respective draft media statements, and will formulate our
final handling strategy in light of that. (We will forward under separate cover either over the weekend,
or early Monday.)
One of the main reputational and potentially financial risks arising from the review relates to
possible attempts to reopen past prosecutions based on the findings. James Arbuthnot was certainly
focussed on this. We had a stronger exchange on this point. It is not clear that any new evidence has
emerged. If it does, then as I pointed out to James, legal routes to appeal already exist. Susan and the
legal team are working with our external lawyers to consider whether there are any implications arising
from the report for past cases, and we can provide a further update on this work next week.
In terms of the report itself, we received the full draft from SS yesterday and have sent them
back a version with tracked changes on a number of sections which we (and Fujitsu) believe are either
factually inaccurate or open to misinterpretation. We will be keeping in touch with them over the
weekend to understand how they intend to respond to these suggested changes.
I will update you on any further significant developments over the weekend or on Monday.
Kind regards,
Paula
Sent from my iPad