UKG100002842
UKG100002842
From:
Sent: Wed 17/12/2014 12:25:12 AM (UTC)
To: Callard Richard (ShEx)f
Cc: = ==——Ss«~Paattrick Bourkei
Subject: Re: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Richard
Just to confirm that I agree your final point. We could not possibly have done more and have been very
accommodating. We cannot continue to be.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Thanks. You do have to wonder don't you....????
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 16/12/2014 21:00
To: Callard Richard (ShEx); Swinson MPST
Ce: McInnes Tim (ShEx); Baugh James (ShEx); Belinda Crowe
Subject: Re: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Richard
Belinda and I will consider this and come back to you. I note your time constraints.
Rgds
Patrick
From: Callard Richard (ShEx)
's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Alysa (cc Belinda and Patrick for expediency)
UKG100002842
UKG100002842
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...)
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.
UKG100002842
UKG100002842
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. We need 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:
Re www.bis.gov.uk
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete
this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the
sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD
STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
This email was received from the INTERNET.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
UKG100002842
UKG100002842
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.
This email was received from the INTERNET.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.