UKG100002837
UKG100002837
From: Callard Richard (ShEx)[/O=BIS PRODUCTION/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP.
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=EFOFAS7983304064B5 18D3B87774A899-
RCALLARD]
Sent: Tue 16/12/2014 8:54:06 PM (UTC)
To: Swinson MPST[E
Ce: McInnes Tim (ShEx)I Baugh James
(ShEx)§ linda Crowe[t
Bourke}.
Subject: RE: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Alysa (cc Belinda and Patrick for expediency)
Not surprising re decision not to share the speech. Trying to answer each point in turn:
1. We have a line on that
2. An independent review of an independent review is a bit odd. Particularly given Tony Hoopers very independent
stance. Who would do it?
3. We have a line for that.
4. SS probably need permission from the working group. They have gone native but I think Jo could possibly commit to
asking Tony about it at the risk of putting tony in a difficult place. Belinda / Patrick, could we have a view and a line
please?
5. Pass, over to POL. I know they are, or were, a prosecuting authority but if there has been theft or fraud and its in the
public interest they have no real choice. Otherwise what is the deterrent? Anyone could put theft down to 'the system’.
Belinda, could you do a line please?
6. We will think of a line. But presumably if they win the case they would get costs back. Why should spms be any
different to other people? Belinda /Patrick, any views?
7. Pass, and interested in POLs view. At the risk of creating another independent review, I suppose we could consider it if
it meant looking at all the evidence available (at least the failings of the spms could come to light and it could offer the
potential to draw a line under the cases). Belinda / Patrick, again, a line and a view please. Presumably the commissioner
could find there is nothing to investigate, but this could risk generating another story in its own right so if we did agree
we'd have to be clear that this was to draw a line and not because we thought something was worth reviewing. On
balance I think we should probably say no but open minded.
Belinda / Patrick - I'll be in from half we've tomorrow (or just after). I am busy from 10-1 and cant escape so would be
great to get this sorted before ten if we can.
Alysa - some of these requests are rather unreasonable eg point 5. Jo might have to be a bit more "front footie" on those
to close it down. Being conciliatory got us to where we are currently, so am keen not to repeat past mistakes.
R
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Swinson MPST
Sent: 16/12/2014 19:56
To: Callard Richard (ShEx’
Subject: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Hi Richard,
So James no longer plans to share his speech with us ahead of time as apparently it is very inflammatory and he is
worried about putting in an email (this bodes well for tomorrow...)
UKG100002837
UKG100002837
Him and Jo had a quick catch up in which he outlined his main “asks”. I understand you’ve got a packed day tomorrow
but grateful if you could ask POL about some of these as Jo will need to respond in her speech and would be good to
know how warm she should be to these asks.
1. He would like us to ask POL not destroy any documents relating to these cases in the scheme. This for me
raises the question of, are they destroying documents now? How reasonable do you think this ask is?
2. He would also like there to be an Independent Review of the Scheme. This one seems as bit less likely as it’s
already an independent working group.
3. He would like there to be no statute of limitations on the claims being made through the scheme. Is this one
feasible?
4. He’d like Second Sight to do a briefing for MPs on the scheme and its progress. Jo would like to commit to
asking Tony Hooper about this. What do you think?
5. He would like us to ask POL to stop acting as prosecutor on these cases. It’s unclear to me who would then
prosecute instead or why POL currently do it the way they do but Jo said she’d previously discussed this with
Paula and she had been open to this.
6. Weneed to get some lines of what to say in response to the claim that SPM can’t appeal court verdicts
because of the cost
7. James would like the Criminal Cases Review Commissioner to set up an independent review of the cases
relating to Horizons as well. Jo would like to be able to commit to writing to the Commissioner and asking him
to do this, what do you think?
Thanks,
Alysa
Alysa Remtulla I Private Secretary to the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs I Department for Business,
Innovation & Skills I 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET I Work: mpst.swinso! i
www.bis.gov.uk