UKGI00000042
UKGI00000042
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
To: Baroness Neville-Rolfe
From: Laura Thompson, Shareholder Executive}
Date:
4 September 2015
Purpose: Further advice on handling the Post Office Limited (POL) Horizon
matter, following the BBC Panorama programme and further correspondence from
Andrew Bridgen MP, and ahead of your meeting with (now Lord) James Arbuthnot.
We recommend that Government maintain the position as set out to No 10: that we
continue to play matters down and resist calls for further independent inquiry.
Recommendation: That you note this update, agree the proposed response to Mr
Bridgen (Annex A) and agree to send a short note to Oliver Letwin.
Timing: We suggest your letter to MPs issue next week (w/c 7 September).
Summary
1. On Friday 14 August you wrote to Andrew Bridgen MP and Kevan Jones MP to
summarise the Government’s position on the POL Horizon issue, following the
meeting you chaired with them and POL in July. Last week Mr Bridgen
responded to your letter, co-signed by both Mr Jones and Oliver Letwin MP,
requesting a further meeting and suggesting that an independent businessperson
should be appointed to investigate the matter.
2. The email from Mr Bridgen highlights two particular areas of concern from the
BBC Panorama programme: the former Fujitsu employee who claimed that
transactions can be remotely manipulated; and the statements from Second
Sight. These two issues are discussed in more detail in Annex B, along with
further detail on other matters raised in the Panorama programme.
3. We recommend that you respond to Mr Bridgen as proposed in Annex A,
reiterating the Government’s position that the correct channel for resolving
individuals’ concerns is either through mediation or through legal channels
including the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). We suggest you
remind Mr Bridgen that you have asked Tim Parker to give this matter his
earliest consideration when he takes up his role next month, and that you are
also meeting James Arbuthnot on 17 September, as Mr Bridgen suggested, after
which you will consider if any further meetings would be appropriate.
4. It remains the case that no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that
any convictions are unsafe, or that issues with the Horizon system have caused
losses to postmasters. The BBC Panorama programme contained no significant
new issues or evidence that have not already been raised before and addressed
1
UKGI00000042
UKGI00000042
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
by POL. As you heard when you met POL’s CEO and General Counsel last
month, POL have looked in depth at each individual case and at the issue as a
whole — with the General Counsel herself having done this as recently as
January this year when she joined the business — and found no evidence of
unsafe convictions or systemic fault in Horizon.
5. The inclusion of Oliver Letwin as a signatory to Mr Bridgen’s letter is a new
development, and we recommend that Mr Letwin should be sent a copy of the
note provided to Number 10 before the Panorama programme aired (Annex C),
setting out the Government’s position on the matter — this could be done by your
office or you may prefer to send it yourself with a short personal cover note.
6. It remains our strong recommendation that Government resist calls for further
independent inquiry. An inquiry (either judicial or by a businessperson) would
serve only to prolong the issue, could interfere with the CCRC’s independent
process, and discourages applicants from seeking resolution through mediation.
An independent investigator (such as Terry Leahy or Stuart Rose as suggested
by Mr Bridgen) would have no powers to overturn convictions. Further inquiry
is also unlikely to find the “smoking gun” or deliver the outcomes (i.e. large
compensation payouts) that campaigners want, given that three years’ worth of
scrutiny has unearthed no evidence so far (despite the best efforts of
investigators who are demonstrably hostile to POL). Government risks finding
itself months or years down the line, with more public money spent, facing
continued or increased criticism.
7. We recommend that Government should maintain the position that there are
routes available to individuals with concerns, and that it is essential that
individuals use those options. If campaigners believe they have evidence of
miscarriages of justice or other wrongdoing then they should provide that
evidence to the individuals affected or to the relevant authorities, such as the
CCRC. Smears and vague accusations do not constitute evidence that POL have
behaved improperly, and unless any such evidence emerges, we should hold
firm in the position that individual cases are best resolved bilaterally between
the individual and POL, by mediation or by legal means.
Annexes:
A. Proposed response to MPs (and text of email received)
B. Summary of accusations in Panorama and Post Office response
C. Note provided to No 10
Copied to: Ministers’ offices, SpAds, Perm Sec, Mark Russell, Anthony Odgers,
Justin Manson, Patrick Kilgarriff, ShEx POL team, Simon Creer, Claire French
Advice received from:
Finance SpAds Press Legal Analysts
No Nick King No [Patrick Kilgarriff] No
UKGI00000042
UKGI00000042
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
Annex A: Proposed response to MPs
Dear Andrew / Kevan / Oliver
Thank you for your email of 24 August regarding the Post Office Horizon system.
As I set out in my letter to you of 14 August, the Government has given this matter
serious consideration, and I have asked Tim Parker, the new Chair of Post Office
Limited, to ensure that when he takes up his role next month he gives this matter his
earliest attention. Mr Parker has a strong background working in a range of complex
organisations, both as a senior executive and as a Chair, and I am sure that his fresh
pair of eyes will provide some further reassurance to you.
The Government hopes that all individuals offered mediation will give this
opportunity full consideration whilst it is available to them, noting of course that if
this is unsuccessful the individual still has the chance to pursue other legal routes for
resolution of their case. Several cases have been resolved to date through mediation.
However, and as I have previously mentioned, aside from the mediation scheme,
there are already additional independently assured processes in place to enable
individuals to resolve their differences with Post Office Limited or seek redress.
Individuals with Court judgements against them can apply to either the Court of
Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commission — on the latter, I am aware some
individuals have already done so. Post Office have confirmed publicly that they are
complying fully with their legal duties and with the CCRC’s investigations. The
Government cannot intervene in that independent legal process.
Post Office take the concerns raised on Panorama, and elsewhere, very seriously and
investigate every allegation that is made. With regard to the specific points in your
email in relation to remote access to transactions, no evidence has been advanced
that Horizon has the possibility of remotely manipulating transactions in the manner
implied, that is to say, without a clear audit trail being created.
Regarding Second Sight’s reports, I am not aware that the Post Office has presented
a contradictory version of the reports. The reports produced by Second Sight have
been released into the public domain and are available to all applicants, along with
the Post Office’s response. I have read both Second Sight’s Final “Part Two” report
and the Post Office’s response; and as you will know, Second Sight’s investigations
considered not only the IT system but also wider issues. Where those investigations
highlighted areas of concern, Post Office have committed to addressing them and
making improvements, particularly around the training and support they provide to
subpostmasters. Where problems have been identified in individual circumstances
those are best resolved directly between the two parties involved, as I have set out
above.
UKGI00000042
UKGI00000042
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
You will be aware that, following your suggestion, I have arranged to meet James
Arbuthnot later this month. I expect that discussion to touch on a range of points
including some of the concerns you highlight. Following that meeting I will
consider whether any further action, including a follow up meeting with you as you
propose, might be appropriate.
Regards etc.
Text of email received from Andrew Bridgen MP
From: BRIDGEN, Andrew ;
Sent: 24 August 2015 12:51
To: Neville-Rolfe MPST
Cc: JONES, Kevan; LETWIN, Oliver
Subject: RE: Post Office - Horizon
Dear Lucy,
We write further to your letter dated 14th August 2015 regarding the Post Office
Horizon sofiware. In light of the subsequent BBC Panorama programme broadcast
on the 17th August, all three of us representing those of our constituents who have
been affected, now request a further meeting to discuss this matter.
There were several allegations in the broadcast which we feel need urgent attention
-- the two principal issues being (1) the statement from the Fujitsu whistle blower
that transactions could be remotely manipulated and (2) the statements by Second
Sight which contradicted the version of the Second Sight report that the Post Office
has presenting to Ministers, MPs and the media.
In light of these serious developments, we are convinced that the interests of our
constituents require this matter to be independently investigated -- ideally by a
private sector entrepreneur with experience of managing organisations of this scale.
We would suggest someone with the standing of Sir Terry Leahy or Baron Rose of
Monewden to undertake such a review.
We very much hope you will be willing to meet us to discuss this matter as soon as
possible.
Kind Regards,
Andrew Bridgen MP Kevan Jones MP Oliver Letwin MP