UKGI00000063
UKGI00000063
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
1. George Freeman
To: 2. Baroness Neville-Rolfe
From: Laura Thompson, Shareholder Executive { ¢
Dat 1 July 2015
Purpose: In Monday’s adjournment debate on the Post Office Horizon system,
George Freeman offered to convene a meeting of MPs, Post Office and
subpostmasters’ representatives. This note sets out our recommendation on the
terms for this meeting, and on writing to Andrew Bridgen MP (who called the
debate) and Post Office CEO Paula Vennells.
Recommendation: That you:
A. Agree that a meeting should take place under the terms proposed here
B. That Baroness Neville-Rolfe should write to Andrew Bridgen MP and Paula
Vennells using the draft letters in the Annex
Timing: Letters should be sent this week, to follow up promptly on the debate.
Background
1. In Monday night’s adjournment debate Andrew Bridgen MP (North West
Leicestershire, Con) called for Government to launch a judicial inquiry into the
matter, claiming that Post Office had failed to resolve subpostmasters’ problems
and alleged miscarriages of justice. Ten other MPs also spoke in the debate,
generally raising individual former subpostmasters’ cases in their constituencies.
2. The Government’s response noted that there were no systemic flaws with
Horizon, and legal avenues in place for people who felt their convictions were
unsafe, concluding that there was no reason for Government to intervene and set
up a judicial inquiry. However, Government would convene a meeting of MPs,
Post Office and subpostmasters’ representatives to try to iron out issues.
3. We have maintained that this matter is independent of Government. To set up a
judicial inquiry would be unnecessary and disproportionate, particularly given
the level of scrutiny that Post Office has been under over the past three years
since these issues were raised. We recommend, therefore, that the meeting
Government convenes should be solely to bring the various sides together and
help each understand the other’s views, rather than Government seeking to
intervene or opine on the merits of particular cases.
4. It should be noted that Post Office have attempted to engage directly with MPs
before. Under the last Parliament, Post Office’s Chair and CEO met with several
UKGI00000063
UKGI00000063
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
MPs including Andrew Bridgen, in a difficult meeting which achieved very
little. Post Office have also offered to meet Mr Bridgen and other MPs on
several occasions and Mr Bridgen has refused repeatedly to meet to discuss his
constituent’s case — we do not know why.
Proposed terms
5. We recommend that Baroness Neville-Rolfe should write to Andrew Bridgen
MP and Paula Vennells to follow up on Monday’s debate and invite them to take
part in a meeting in the Department, to take place before the summer recess.
6. We have considered carefully how to facilitate a productive meeting while
meeting the commitments made to Parliament. It is vital to balance these
commitments alongside the risk of legal challenge and further significant
reputational damage to Post Office, and the risk of increased media interest and
pressure which might lead to Government being forced into a judicial inquiry.
7. We recommend that a meeting should take place between MPs - Andrew
Bridgen MP and 1-2 other MPs who have led on this issue (for example, Kevan
Jones MP) — and senior representatives of Post Office, facilitated by Ministers.
The meeting should be chaired by Baroness Neville-Rolfe as the Minister for the
Post Office, and George Freeman should attend as the Minister who spoke on
this matter in the Commons.
8. Given that some scheme applicants have applied to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission, it is important that this meeting neither undermines the role of the
CCRC nor prejudices any of the individual cases being considered. As such, we
recommend the meeting should be clear that individual cases are not to be raised
— confidentiality must be preserved. Instead, we propose that MPs should raise
some of the general concerns they have raised in the House, and Post Office can
respond directly, in an attempt to ensure each side hears each other.
9. We recommend that Second Sight should not be invited to attend. We are aware
that some MPs after the debate were keen for them to be invited, and we may be
criticised for not doing so. However, we strongly advise against their attendance.
They have demonstrated in their conduct since being appointed that they have
not respected confidentiality undertakings and have been openly critical of Post
Office on social media, despite having been appointed as independent
investigators. We understand they are also appearing on the BBC Panorama
programme, despite still being under contract. Furthermore, their findings are
available in both of their reports, which have both been leaked and are therefore
in the public domain — so there is no need for them to attend in person.
10. The question of whether to invite subpostmasters’ representatives is trickier:
George Freeman said in the Commons that “representatives of subpostmasters”
would be included in the invitation. The representative body for subpostmasters
is the National Federation of Subpostmasters (NFSP) and we could invite their
UKGI00000063
UKGI00000063
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
General Secretary, George Thomson to attend. However we may be criticised
for not inviting the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA). Our rationale
for doing so is that they are not a representative body — they are members of the
public, and furthermore, each member of the JFSA has a case in the mediation
scheme. As such we suggest it would not be appropriate for them to attend and
discuss individual cases. As with Second Sight, JFSA have proven in the past
not to abide by undertakings of confidentiality.
11. We strongly recommend therefore that JFSA are not invited to attend. The
question is whether to invite the NFSP: if we do so, we face accusations that the
Government is skewing the meeting in Post Office’s favour (since the NFSP are
supportive of Post Office on this matter); if we do not, there will be no
representatives of subpostmasters present. On balance, we recommend that we
do not invite NFSP to attend. The meeting will be more manageable with just
two parties, and we reduce the risk of MPs refusing to engage in the process.
12. Do you agree with our recommendation that the meeting should consist
only of 2-3 MPs, 2-3 senior Post Office representatives, and Ministers?
13. Realistically, we suggest the likelihood of either MPs or Post Office
dramatically changing their position as a result of this meeting is low. The
meeting may be a challenging one, and will require careful chairing to keep it on
track and maintain the terms set out. Nevertheless, convening a meeting will
give Post Office a chance to communicate with MPs who to date have refused to
meet with them, to try to address some of the allegations that have been made.
Media handling
14. If we receive media enquiries from the adjournment debate, press office will
continue to direct queries to Post Office in the first instance, and maintain that
this matter is independent of Government. If pressed on details of this meeting
or the Government’s position on a judicial inquiry, we propose the following
line:
A BIS spokesperson said: “This is an operational matter for Post Office and
sub-postmasters, and Government sees no reason to intervene. Government has
agreed to convene a meeting of key parties on this matter to facilitate discussion
between each side.”
Annex: Draft letters to Andrew Bridgen MP and Paula Vennells
Copied to: Ministers’ offices, SpAds, Permanent Secretary, Mark Russell, Anthony
Odgers, ShEx Post Office team, Aileen Boughen, Simon Creer, Claire French
Advice received from:
Finance SpAds Press Legal Analysts
No TBC TBC No No
UKGI00000063
UKGI00000063
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
Annex: Letter to Andrew Bridgen MP
Post Office Horizon system
I am writing as the Minister responsible for the Post Office, further to your
adjournment debate in the House of Commons on Monday this week regarding the
Post Office Horizon system. I would like to follow up on the offer my Ministerial
colleague George Freeman made during the debate by inviting you to attend a
meeting at the Department to discuss this matter.
The mediation scheme, set up in connection with the Horizon system and the small
number of complaints made against it, is independent of Government and the details
of individual cases are confidential. It is important that confidentiality is maintained.
Furthermore, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has received applications
from individuals in the mediation scheme, which I understand they are looking in to.
The Government is very clear that the work of the CCRC must not be undermined
by any party, particularly while investigations are ongoing.
The Government acknowledges the concerns that Members of Parliament raised
during the adjournment debate. I am aware that MPs have met with Post Office on
this in the past, and furthermore, that Post Office have offered to meet with any MP
individually and in confidence to discuss individual cases.
The Government wants to ensure that MPs take the opportunity to raise their
concerns directly with Post Office. At the same time, the Government would like to
allow the Post Office a further opportunity to address the very serious accusations
that have been made against it. This meeting will provide an opportunity for both
MPs and Post Office to understand each other’s views better, while maintaining the
confidentiality of individual cases and respecting the work of the CCRC. I hope that
all parties involved will approach the meeting on that basis.
I hope you will be able to accept this invitation, and I would be happy for you to
suggest one or two other colleagues who should also attend. I will be writing in
similar terms to the Post Office to invite them to attend. My office will be in touch
to agree a mutually convenient date.
Finally, I am attaching a copy of the letter mentioned during the debate from Paula
Vennells, CEO of Post Office Limited. A copy of this letter has been placed in the
Libraries of both Houses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG
(Copied to George Freeman)
UKGI00000063
UKGI00000063
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL
Annex: Letter to Paula Vennells
Post Office Horizon system
I am writing further to the adjournment debate in the House of Commons on
Monday this week, regarding the Post Office Horizon system. I have also seen your
letter to my Ministerial colleague George Freeman on this subject. I would like to
invite the Post Office to attend a meeting at the Department to discuss this matter.
As you are aware, the mediation scheme was established to be independent of
Government and the details of individual cases are and should be confidential. The
Government is fully supportive of this position and it is right that it should be
maintained.
Furthermore, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has received applications
from individuals in the mediation scheme, which I understand they are looking in to.
The Government is very clear that the work of the CCRC must not be undermined
by any party, particularly while investigations are ongoing.
The Government acknowledges the concerns that Members of Parliament raised
during the adjournment debate. I am aware that MPs have met with Post Office on
this in the past, and furthermore, that Post Office have offered to meet with any MP
individually and in confidence to discuss individual cases.
The Government wants to ensure that MPs take the opportunity to raise their
concerns directly with Post Office. At the same time, the Government would like to
allow the Post Office a further opportunity to address the very serious accusations
that have been made against it. This meeting will provide an opportunity for both
MPs and Post Office to understand each other’s views better, while maintaining the
confidentiality of individual cases and respecting the work of the CCRC. I hope that
all parties involved will approach the meeting on that basis.
I hope you will be able to accept this invitation. I am writing in similar terms to
Andrew Bridgen MP, who tabled Monday’s adjournment debate, to invite him to
attend with one or two other MPs. My office will be in touch to agree a mutually
convenient date.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG
(Copied to George Freeman)