1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.2
Narrative and summary of the Second Sight report
The Second Sight (SS) investigation has considered 47 cases referred
via MPs, the JFSA, or made directly by ex-SPMs to SS.
SS broadened the scope of its report from an investigation into the core
software element of Horizon to also consider issues such as the
training of subpostmasters, POL’s reaction to handling errors, and the
level of support provided to subpostmasters.
SS appears to have further widened its remit to act as an arbitrator for
aggrieved ex-SPMs. These attempts by SS to reach ‘closure’ between
ex-SPMs and POL have not been successful.
SS has sought to handle the different elements of each claim as a ‘spot
review’ to help identify trends between cases. They have so far
prepared 29 spot reviews, but this report looks at just four. SS is
implicitly critical of POL’s engagement, noting that POL’s responses
are “long and highly technical”, which SS notes has resulted in many
ex-SPMs feeling “aggrieved and dissatisfied with what they see as
POL’s overly technical and apparently unsympathetic response.”
Again, this attempt at reconciliation — which cuts across court
convictions — has overstepped SS’s remit.
SS report that as part of the investigation POL voluntarily admitted to
having identified two ‘anomalies’ that had affected 77 branches (0.65%
of the network) and 12 branches (0.12% of the network) respectively.
The report notes that POL took action to rectify these anomalies once
they had been identified.
On the question of the core Horizon function, SS finds that the system
achieves its intended purpose and concludes that they have “so far
found no evidence of system wide (systemic) problems with the
Horizon software.” Additionally, the report notes that the Horizon
system, which involves over 65,000 users “operates smoothly for most
subpostmasters and their staff’ all of the time.
With regard to the wider aspect of operation, SS is more critical citing
the large number of interfaces with linked systems (i.e. Camelot for
lottery products), the complexity of some processes (i.e. resolving
transaction corrections within the system), and the perceived lack of
training.
Next steps
Though POL see the SS interim report as being unsatisfactory in many
respects, their current thinking is to welcome the report and to commit
to work with SS, JFSA, James Arbuthnot (JA) and other MPs in
implementing changes and improvements (where not already done) in
the Horizon training and support provided to SPMs and establishing a
‘User Group Forum' as a channel to monitor and respond to SPM
concerns about Horizon operating procedures.
SS are understood to be refining draft of report over the weekend.
UKGI00001695
UKGI00001695
2.3
24
2.5
26
27
4.2
UKGI00001695
UKGI00001695
Discussions between Paula Vennells (PV) and Alan Bates of JFSA
(Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance) indicate that he is agreeable to
signing up to a joint statement with POL (and ideally JA) welcoming the
report, acknowledging that there is no evidence of systemic problems
with Horizon and moving forward to establish a 'User Forum’ to identify
scope for improvements and continue with case investigation.
PV is having further discussions with JA on Fri afternoon to and seek to
persuade him to sign up (and minimise handling issues) to the joint
statement approach for the Monday SS meeting to report to MPs and
JFSA. (Not seen as a certainty and so contact with him by Tessa Munt
and/or Oliver Letwin may be helpful - POL can provide a pre-brief is
required.)
Also helpful if Tessa Munt (and Oliver Letwin) could attend the SS
Report meeting at HoC on 8 July (both have ex-SPM constituents
whose cases have been submitted for SS investigation) to moderate
MP response (e.g. proposal for Urgent Question/Ministerial Statement
on 9 July). Therefore helpful if you have an opportunity to flag to Tessa
over the weekend.
POL has commissioned external lawyers to review all cases where
legal action against a SPM has been initiated by POL since separation
or may be pending) in the light of the interim report findings.
POL giving consideration to JFSA proposal for establishing an
independent 'Adjudicator’ to consider SPM appeals in financial
irregularity cases that arte not resolved bilaterally between POL and
SPM. (Issues around cost/funding to work through.)
Suggested lines to take
It is not appropriate for BIS to comment on the details of individual
operational business issues for the Post Office such as those covered
in this interim report.
However, BIS welcomes the interim report's conclusion that there is no
evidence of systemic problems with the Horizon software.
BIS also welcomes the collaborative approach proposed by the Post
Office and JFSA in working together to seek to improve business
processes and training to avoid such issues going forwards.
Summary of the four spot reviews
(1) Relates to the loss of data connection to the Horizon terminal
resulting in the failure for a transaction to complete, but for which the
SPM charged the customer. SS note that “procedurally the SPM was
at fault’. SS judge that had the SPM correctly followed the procedure,
this would have resulted in unacceptable customer experience.
(2) Relates to a claim by an ex-SPM that they witnessed POL
employees remotely accessing live branch transactions. There are not
43
44
5
clear records of events due to the time elapsed, but POL has
suggested that the ex-SPM witnessed a test environment. SS has
been unable to provide a definite opinion on the matter, noting “our
enquiries are continuing”.
(3) Relates to a claim that Horizon reversed a number of stock
adjustments made by the ex-SPM. POL has responded that the
function to generate automatic stock adjustments simply does not exist
within the Horizon system. SS notes that the SPM “remains confused
as to what really happened’, and they have not been able to reach a
firm conclusion on the case.
(4) Relates to an issue whereby SPMs whose retail outlets traded after
the PO counter closed continued to sell lottery scratch cards, the sales
of which needed to be ‘remitted in’ retrospectively. The ex-SPM claims
this accounted for a £5,280 discrepancy, but the report fails to provide
a narrative on the outstanding unaccounted £9,500 shortfall.
List of MPs who have referred constituents to Second Sight
James Arbuthnot
Stephen Crabb
Jonathan Djanogly
Alan Duncan
George Freeman
Dai Havard
Oliver Letwin
Jonathan Lord
Alan Meale
George Osborne
Mike Wood
James Arbuthnot
Andrew Tyrie
Mark Lazarowicz
Greg Knight
John Woodcock
Greg Knight
Priti Patel
Edward Leigh
Damien Hinds
Kevin Barron
UKGI00001695
UKGI00001695