UKGI00000007
UKGI00000007
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
To: Baroness Neville-Rolfe
From: Laura Thompson, Shareholder Executive (x4240)
Date:
31 July 2015
Purpose: Following our meeting earlier this week, and ahead of our discussion with
you and Nick King on Tuesday (4 August), this is a short update on current activity
and plans. This note also looks ahead to the potential BBC Panorama programme.
Recommendation: That you note this update.
Timing: To see ahead of our meeting on Tuesday 4 August.
Summary
1. Since we spoke to you earlier this week, we have been exploring options to
address the concerns you raised. We have also been engaging with Post Office at
a senior level to ensure they are aware of your views.
2. We recommend that you meet Paula Vennells next week when she returns from
leave. Paula will be accompanied by Jane MacLeod, POL’s General Counsel,
who wrote to you earlier this week regarding the preservation of information
returned by Second Sight to Post Office.
3. Post Office are preparing some briefing for you to set out the degree of
independent scrutiny this matter has had, and will want to update you on their
own plans to manage this matter and ensure it is handled appropriately.
4. At our meeting on Tuesday we will bring proposals for options you can consider
to ensure that there is independent oversight of this matter, rather than
Government having simply to take the side of one party or another. We will also
consider some suggestions around presentation and communication. We would
like to discuss all those options with you and Nick King.
5. As we discussed with you, we expect that any proposals should be focused on
cases where an individual does not have a criminal conviction and has been
offered mediation, whether they have chosen to take this or not.
6. Individuals who have a criminal conviction already have a suitable independent
route of appeal through the Courts or the Criminal Cases Review Commission
(CCRC) and around 20 individuals are pursuing that option. That is the
appropriate course of action for those individuals to take if they feel their
convictions are unsafe.
7. We also explained there are a small number of cases (we believe fewer than 10)
where an individual has permitted their Member of Parliament to engage with
1
11.
UKGI00000007
UKGI00000007
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
Post Office on the specific details. In these cases, the MP has acted as an
independent arbiter and has heard both sides of the story, so we would suggest
that these wouldn’t necessarily need to be included in any option. While the
number of these cases is small, Post Office continue to make these offers to all
MPs.
Subject to your agreement that these proposals should focus on the individuals
in paragraph 5 (rather than those in 6 and 7), we are considering options which:
e Provide some oversight of the process of investigation and mediation of each
case — could an independent arbiter satisfy themselves and stakeholders that
the process of mediation is fair, to encourage those who haven’t participated
to take part. This could involve asking CEDR (the Centre for Effective
Dispute Resolution, who oversee mediation currently) to take a stronger or
more visible role. It could also involve an independent party (maybe a non-
serving judge or some other suitably qualified individual) taking oversight or
“spot-checking”.
e Provide some guidance to individuals who are considering mediation,
explaining the options available to them if they do (or do not) choose to take
part. This could include setting out that, whether or not an individual goes to
mediation, they have the right to pursue a civil claim if they feel they have a
case, and that a group can bring a class action. (Indeed, in December 2014
the JFSA indicated that they were looking to bring class action but we have
heard nothing since then).
e Provide some kind of scrutiny of the merits of individual cases. This could
be more challenging as it becomes a quasi-judicial role, and we would need
to be certain we were on solid legal ground for this, particularly when as
stated above there are existing legal routes which have not been exhausted
We would like to discuss these with you on Tuesday. In any action, we would
also want you to consider the merits of Government being seen to act or not.
There is a risk that, the more that Government gets involved, the more we are
asked to remain involved or to intervene further. Alternative options could
involve, say, Post Office deciding to take action to increase independent
oversight, which as Government we could support.
. Separately, and as you are aware, we have secured a suitable response to
Andrew Bridgen MP’s query around the information to be returned by Second
Sight, through Post Office offering to place copies of the information with their
solicitor. You have replied to Mr Bridgen on this.
We would also like to use our meeting on Tuesday to discuss the forthcoming
BBC Panorama programme. A short overview of what we understand about the
programme to date (based on information from Post Office) is attached. Our
current understanding is that the BBC Panorama programme will be broadcast
2
UKGI00000007
UKG100000007
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
on Monday 10 August, although this programme has moved before and there is
a chance it will move again.
Copied to: Ministers’ offices, SpAds, Permanent Secretary, Mark Russell, Anthony
Odgers, ShEx Post Office team, Simon Creer, Claire French
Advice received from:
Finance SpAds Press Legal Analysts
No No No No No
UKGI00000007
UKGI00000007
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
BBC Panorama overview
BBC Panorama is preparing a programme on this matter which we understand may
be broadcast on Monday 10 August. We understand it will be fronted by journalist
John Sweeney and expect it to be highly critical of Post Office, featuring:
Three separate human interest stories (brief overviews below)
Interviews with
e — James Arbuthnot (former Conservative MP for North East Hampshire)
e A forensic accountant, potentially an individual from Second Sight, the firm
of forensic accountants appointed to carry out an independent review
A computer expert (no further detail)
A former Fujitsu (supplier of Horizon) employee, apparently a whistleblower
saying that POL can remotely alter branch accounts to cause discrepancies.
This is related to an account by Andrew Bridgen MP’s constituent Mr
Michael Rudkin, which Mr Bridgen raised in Parliament.
The programme is also likely to criticise POL’s approach to prosecutions and lack
of support for subpostmasters, as well as repeating claims that there are faults in the
system. They will repeat allegations that there have been miscarriages of justice.
All these allegations have been made before and POL plan to defend themselves
robustly against them. POL have engaged fully with Panorama but have (in
confidence) advised us they are not confident that the programme will present a
balanced view. As such, they have decided not to field a senior manager for
interview and will offer a spokesperson quote only. They are considering options
including legal routes to manage media interest before, during and after the
programme.
Currently we do not expect the programme to be critical of Government and BIS
press office has not been approached by Panorama at all. There is a possibility that
the programme could seek to use clips from the recent (29 June) adjournment debate
on this matter, to which George Freeman responded for the Government.
We will provide further advice on handling, in conjunction with press office and
SpAds, following our discussions next week.