SSLO000108
SSL0000108
July 22nd meeting with Paula, Ian, Mark Davies, Alwyn,
Susan, James and RW
PAULA VENNELLS: ... SO we need to get some more balance
into that. Ron alluded to changes we can make going
forward so, in terms of looking at our current
processes, to make sure that there's ability to
appeal outside the line, to make sure that those
processes are really adequate and which stand up to
21st century standards as opposed to practices which
might be more old fashioned.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Ron, just -- sorry to interrupt, you
should it now come through.
RON WARMINGTON: Okay.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: There is another issue, which is that
these are not the only cases.
PAULA VENNELLS: No, we understand that, and that's one
of the things we were trying to address.
RON WARMINGTON: Got it. Thanks.
PAULA VENNELLS: It's something that will work and
continue to work going forward, and that this
process could be used, subject to it being
successful, for other cases going forward.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Good, because we are holding a number
of cases -- Janet is holding in my office a number
of cases that have come through from MPs since the
statement in the House of Commons.
PAULA VENNELLS: Yes.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: So if that is -- could deal with those
as well, I think that too would be helpful.
PAULA VENNELLS: So I think if you look (interference:
noise due to photocopier) then what we want and must
be able to (inaudible) balance this process and to
make sure the process operates so that it's moving
with the requisite amount of care and control, but
also with speed, so that we get through some of
these processes, because one of the issues, I think,
is that it's taking a long time to get through it
and (inaudible).
It would also (inaudible) the oversight board would
probably (inaudible) 12 months for the operations
and everything like this going forward (inaudible)
is this something we keep in place forever, or is it
something that looks a bit (inaudible) the right
thing to do, because (inaudible).
And that may be moving towards an adjudication or it
may be keeping the process in place, and hopefully,
as I said earlier, if we varied the processes
internally, in terms of having more influence from
outside the direct line of management, you will get
more -- or less coming into the top (inaudible) more
balance within the (inaudible).
And I think also having a user forum would help
(inaudible).
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: I totally agree. As a process this
IAN
seems to me to be -- to marry-up the need to answer
MPs' enquiries while keeping the requisite degree of
pressure on getting these (inaudible). I don't know
whether Ron or Ian agree that. I'd like to hear
what they think.
HENDERSON: I agree, and -- and -- anything where we,
you know, bring two sides together and attempt to
reach a consensus. I suppose my reservation is that
that was built into the Second Sight review process
and we were unable to achieve that. But, you know,
we're not professional mediators and maybe, you
know, with hindsight, that's not too much of
a surprise.
I am conscious that mediation does rely on the
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
goodwill of both parties. It's not binding in any
sense, unlike arbitration, but I would hope that
with goodwill on both sides, you know, it stands
a good chance of achieving what we all want.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: I confess that I was intending to come
IAN
here today to lose my temper both with Second Sight
and with the Post Office, because what I could see
coming down the line was that there was a risk that
the Post Office might say the end of October is the
end of the -- of this process, and Second Sight
might say "There's nothing we can achieve by the end
of October," and as a result MPs would be left in
limbo with nothing having been decided and masses of
money having been spent. But this process seems to
me to resolve the both of those issues, and I think
it's an extremely grown-up way of dealing with the
outstanding problem.
HENDERSON: James, I just had one supplemental point.
The spot review approach that we had devised and
taken for our own sort of reasons actually fits in
very well with this proposal. It's almost a matter
of top and tailing some of these spot review reports
so they can then be turned into the sort of
independent report that could form the basis of, you
know, a discussion and a mediation.
SPEAKER: Yes. What I will need now is the precise
steps that I am to take with the new cases that the
minister wished upon me, which is fine so long as
all we know that MPs sending cases to me will not be
fobbed off.
I would like also to have an email, if possible
drafted by the Post Office and agreed with Second
Sight, to set out for me how it works and which
I can then send on to other Members of Parliament.
All Members of Parliament will have taken up their
cases because they cannot see the answers to the
points that the subpostmasters and subpostmistresses
are making, and so I, for example, would like to
have something that I can go to with my constituent
Jo Hamilton, and one or two others that happen -- my
IAN
constituents that haven't actually yet come into
this process, which I hope will not, so that I can
say, "This is what is happening, this is what you
can expect."
And if that is the way it goes, we don't, I would
hope, (unclear) monthly cut-off point, so that
I could hope that we can say "This will be worked
through until it's resolved either to your
satisfaction or to your dissatisfaction but for good
reason which we will explain to you." Then that
would be all I would want.
HENDERSON: Can I just mention one other sort of
issue that ties in with that, and that is the fact
that I think it is appropriate that we should
require any subpostmasters or former subpostmasters
submitting a case to set out exactly what their case
is, and that I think has been one of the weaknesses
in the process to date. You know, in some cases all
we've got is a -- sort of a name and an address, and
it is by no means, sort of, clear, you know, what
their issue and what the (unclear) is.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Yes, there are a number of cases, all
IAN
of which have come through the MPs --
HENDERSON: Yes.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: -- who have provided no evidence, and
I have to be able to go back to the MPs to say "It's
all very well providing a name, but I need some
arguments as to why it was that you say that this
finding was wrong or the process was wrong."
So if you can tell me who those are, not now but
drop me an email, and what to say to the MPs, that
would be helpful.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes, I mean what we --
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Essential.
IAN HENDERSON: What we did with the JFSA case is that
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
there was quite a nice sort of paragraph setting out
the standard of documentation expected in -- in
a JFSA case, and I always assumed that there would
be a similar provision applicable to MPs supporting,
sort of, cases. So I think we've got a framework in
place already.
FEMALE SPEAKER: In addition (inaudible), work out how
(inaudible) did that, with somebody would go to the
mediation (inaudible: audio too low to hear).
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: And if any cases get overturned as
a result, there will need to be some (inaudible) as
to what happens then. Probably in relation only to
that case, but to the other cases that might only
turn up as a result of that publicity, that arise
out of that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I think we need to work through every
case. I mean, I know there will be (inaudible)
I think actually the cases (inaudible)
IAN HENDERSON: How it's going to be done?
SUSAN: Yes, it's something that I found amazing
(inaudible) actually on this and operated from a
(inaudible).
RON WARMINGTON: Susan, Ron here, would you feel
comfortable to echo to the meeting the points that
I made about what I called the pre-mediation working
session? Was that clear what I put in my email to
you?
SUSAN: No, I thought that that would probably be
covered -- I don't want to make this too many layers
on, and I thought that actually we'd get the same
(unclear) the subpostmaster had (unclear) that would
enable them to (inaudible) their case.
RON WARMINGTON: Well --
SUSAN: Do you have an additional point around that
(unclear) cases?
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
RON WARMINGTON: There are two points really. The first
is that it's become very clear to me in dealing with
the SPMs that, just as you said, they all have
a different way of working. Some are far more
articulate than others. There's a middle group that
have a mate or a brother or a husband or a wife who
is much more articulate and has picked up the cudgel
for them and represented them in some way. So there
are those. And it follows that the request to put
their case decently will be quite a challenge for
some of them. In the big picture of things that
doesn't matter in regard to picking up the thematic
issues but it means there's a lot in regard to the
people that can litigate their case properly.
There's that point.
The second point is that we know that in some of the
cases now, some of the spot reviews we've looked at,
particularly 21 and 22, we have those -- Horizon
says they did it, the person says they didn't, and
differences of -- or, if you like, clashes of fact.
So we need to get to the bottom of those because
I cannot see how a mediation team could possibly
cope with an unknown or an X factor in the equation
like that. Subject to that point we know, Susan has
said already, I'm 100 per cent supportive of the
proposal.
IAN HENDERSON: Susan, just a point made by Ron, I think
it's implicit in the proposals that a case would not
go to the mediation stage until the Second Sight
investigation was complete.
SUSAN: On that case.
IAN HENDERSON: On that case. In other words, we had
bottomed out any of these disputed sort of issues.
SUSAN: And that needs to be parked, so we (unclear) the
working group --
RON WARMINGTON: Yeah.
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
SUSAN: -- the working party would (unclear) preferably
RON
Wednesday this week, or maybe Thursday, and it is
your point about getting a group of Post Office
people in a room who could help you work through the
issues so we could have a (unclear) process around
that, which I think should speed things up.
WARMINGTON: That would be hugely beneficial, rather
than me sort of -- it's sort of -- it's a bit like
the sort of English criminal court process, of
a sort of combative style, which I think we've --
we're past, now. It's time for us to work
differently.
SUSAN: Yes, I think that's right. So, we will -- so
IAN
I think we should do the working group to work
through those process and kick it around and make
sure it's really robust, and then we need to set up
the iterative process, once you have got some
cases -- and you probably already have, because
we've got ten spot reviews we haven't actually
finished off -- to go through those and make sure
that we -- you feel you've got to the bottom of the
facts.
HENDERSON: The other thing I'd like to do is front
load some of this, and Ron, I think you and I have
discussed this sort of briefly.
I mean, we have got ten spot reviews where we have
had some responses. We know that there are some
cases that frankly it will not take very much to
reach agreement with the SPMR, and (unclear)
Armstrong is the case probably at the top of the
list.
What I would like to do is actually push those cases
to the front of the queue, because I feel that this
process that we're describing is one where success
will build on success, and if we can explain to
SPMRs and MPs that this is a viable way to move
this -- this all forward, and actually give them
some tangible evidence of this, possibly as early as
October, that will actually make dealing with some
SSLO000108
SSLO000108
of the other cases a lot easier.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, completely agree.
ALWEN LYONS: I think it would be good as well for the
MPs who have turned up to every meeting, like, to do
their cases quite quickly as well. I think that
would be --
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: That would be extraordinarily helpful.
PAULA VENNELLS: For all concerned, I have to --
RON WARMINGTON: Alwen, was that you made that point?
ALWEN LYONS: Yes.
RON WARMINGTON: I agree. I think that's a really good
idea.
ALWEN LYONS: Yes, so a couple of the extreme ones and
a handful of those that, you know, will (unclear)
process.
RON WARMINGTON: I think I did that in choosing the spot
review 22, which was Mike Wood's constituent.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: And also the Andrew Bridgen one you
did.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. So we're part of the way there.
But, for example, Tessa Monk's we case missed the
cut. It didn't come in until after -- until very
recently. So it's in the next batch.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: But Tessa Monk said that she hadn't
actually submitted (unclear) the case or the
evidence, didn't she?
RON WARMINGTON: Not wishing to lay blame, it wasn't
Janet's fault, it was Tessa's fault because it sat
on her desk for a long time.
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: But Tessa said as much.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes. So yes, it's -- that's a case that
will fall into the next batch, but probably at the
top of the next batch.
PAULA VENNELLS: I think (unclear) and I think -- I hope
it's something that we could work through this week
in terms of process around disputes around the
mediation piece but also round how we move forward
and different ways of working.
RON WARMINGTON: Yes.
PAULA VENNELLS: Just a question on the working group,
because we talked about it in two contexts. One is,
because we are as keen as you are, James, to get
this under way, the working group in my mind has to
meet this week to thrash out the things that we just
talked about -- oh, yes, and (unclear: simultaneous
speakers).
Then a working party, if you like, the working party
meets this week to really grind out the details.
Then there is an ongoing working group, which
I think responds to Ian and Ron's point, that how do
you get -- rather than kind of bashing things across
a tennis court or, you know, confrontationally, but
actually there's a working group which meets
regularly to review where there are issues. And by
regularly, in my mind we're talking weekly.
So Second Sight move in, we find you some desks, we
find you some more resource, we're available as much
as you want, we put some dedicated people there to
answer all your questions on an ongoing basis, and
then there is a formal weekly meeting of that group
so that we can resolve any issues that become
particularly extreme during the week.
Ron and Ian, does that sound okay to you?
RON WARMINGTON: It works for me.
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
IAN HENDERSON: Yes, I'm just flagging up one other sort
of issue tied in with that, and I know you've got
your own arrangements in place, but some of this is
going to be dependent upon on a quick response from
Fujitsu, certainly on the technology issues, so you
may need to have sort of parallel discussions with
them.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: I had a meeting last week with the
Chairman, the UK Chairman of Fujitsu. It was
actually about a defence issue rather than this.
But I said Fujitsu had been, so far as I could tell,
responding very well to enquiries on this and he was
pleased to hear that. He was aware of it going on
but --
PAULA VENNELLS: So that's useful to know. I mean,
I think they have. But Ron is right that there's
just -- one doesn't know how long it takes to get
technical answers for things and I suppose that --
may we use that channel if we need to in future?
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Certainly. Certainly because praising
Fujitsu means that they will want to keep that
praise in (unclear).
PAULA VENNELLS: Yes, yes. Okay. On the sort of working
group level of Fujitsu, could we -- was there
a specific (unclear) to your request. Have you come
across the fact that they're slower than you
expected?
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
PAULA VENNELLS: Okay, that's what I want to hear. So
can we get some specifics on that and can we then go
back to them, and if you don't want to (unclear) to
go and --
IAN HENDERSON: One thing I'd say is we need to get their
commitment and buy-in to this process because it
will be, you know, less than satisfactory if we're
all working collaboratively and we actually then
find that the hold-up, you know, is the slow
RON
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
response by Fujitsu which then slows the whole
process down.
WARMINGTON: Ian, one other point supporting what you
just said, we've had incredibly high quality
material put together by Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu,
who obviously knows the system like the back of his
hand, and do I get the sense that he's coming up to
retirement? That could be quite a problem for us,
if he's about to leave. Did you get this?
SUSAN: To be honest, Ron --
RON
WARMINGTON: I got that from Ian. Ian, did I imagine
that or did you mention that to me at some point.
SUSAN: Let's take that offline, I think.
IAN
RON
HENDERSON: Yeah.
WARMINGTON: Yeah, okay. He is a particularly high
quality individual and has done -- what he writes is
really good. So, you know, if that were to be the
case Fujitsu would need to field somebody nearly as
good.
PAULA VENNELLS: Okay. Well, we will take that. Thank
RON
IAN
you for raising the points. I think two things: one
is we need to go back to Fujitsu with some specifics
around turnaround times -- we've got those,
I think -- and then I think, secondly, this guy
Gareth whether he's replaced or, in fact, whether we
might want to use him in some way if he does leave
Fujitsu, is in the process, if he's a good quality
individual.
WARMINGTON: He certainly is that. Ian, you've had
more contact with him than I have but I've seen lots
of his work in writing.
HENDERSON: He's superb and he's sufficiently sort of
mature to actually almost be independent, you know,
even though he is a Fujitsu --
PAULA VENNELLS: I mean, maybe they can allocate it
(unclear) on his way to retirement (unclear)
RON WARMINGTON: Yes, exactly. Sorry, yes, it is a bit
beyond our brief saying that.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: The Chairman of Fujitsu, Simon
Blagden -- he's the non-exec Chairman -- and he and
I have exchanged warm emails since the meeting last
Wednesday.
PAULA VENNELLS: And the last thing on Fujitsu that we
should pick up internally is that of course they're
a supplier (unclear) is going to go to the market
again for our IT procurement going forward. So it
would be very strange if they weren't more than
helpful on this process.
RON WARMINGTON: Mmm.
PAULA VENNELLS: Okay. Susan, what else do we need to go
through (unclear) time?
SUSAN: I suppose one of the issues we need to go
through is the filtering and I think James has
touched on it there and it's under the MP cases and
we've been talking about Janet getting the JFSA
(unclear). I think it was just really to reinforce
the point about cases having evidence. So I think
that the conclusion that we came to on that is that
we would draft, or Ian would draft, an email people
send out to the MPs where we haven't got the
evidence, ask them to supply that or ask them
(unclear) supply it --
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Yes.
SUSAN: -- which would help us move those forward
because at the moment they're a bit stuck.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Yes.
SUSAN: We can do the same with the new cases that have
come in (unclear)
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Yes, and we'll also have to work out
what happens in relation to the responses which will
be, "Well, we can do A and we can do B, but we can't
do C, D, or E". But that we'll deal with --
SUSAN: -- case-by-case basis.
IAN HENDERSON: Have we given any thought to the Shoosmiths
cases and how they potentially fit into --
ALWEN LYONS: So, as a lawyer, I just jumped in and say
clearly if mediation doesn't prevent people going
to -- taking a civil action against us if that's
what they would prefer to do. So what I'm offering
is a -- I think trying to listen to what people's
point of view is is a relatively low cost way
through this and it's something that we could manage
quickly. If people want to use Shoosmiths for a
civil case against us, clearly that would be their
decision.
IAN HENDERSON: Yes, I mean, the reason I raise it is
Shoosmiths did attend as observers the two meetings
that we had to your, sort of, office and I think I'm
raising it more the sort of a question as to whether
or not a Shoosmiths case falls within or outside the
scope of this process. I suppose the answer is it
depends on the individual SPMR.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: I think they would be unwise to pursue
litigation as opposed to mediation. As you say,
it's entirely --
PAULA VENNELLS: Their decision.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: -- their decision. I'm content.
RON WARMINGTON: So am I.
PAULA VENNELLS: Okay. Ian?
IAN HENDERSON: Yes.
SSLO000108
SSL0000108
PAULA VENNELLS: Quit. while we're ahead then.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Quite.
PAULA VENNELLS: (Unclear) underestimated.
SUSAN: Okay, cheers everyone. Thank you very much.
PAULA VENNELLS: Good luck with the foot.
RON WARMINGTON: It's recovering already. I didn't want
to come up in sandals.
PAULA VENNELLS: Can I just check you will (unclear).
IAN HENDERSON: You will get an email from...
(Call ended)
RON WARMINGTON: Right, good.
(Recording ends)