UKGI00002896
UKGI00002896
Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance
Jo Swinson MP
Minister for Postal Affairs
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills I !
1 Victoria Street i I
LONDON
SW1H OET
Email:
224 December 2014
Your Ref: 2013/04327
Dear Minister
I was present at the Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall on 17th December, and
heard the comments made by the MPs who are concerned about what has happened to
the Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme. Following that debate I thought I should
write to you once more to offer to meet with you to discuss the issues involved with this
matter from the perspective of those it has affected, rather than from those who seem to
be so desperately trying to keep the truth from you.
Without going into detail about many of the points discussed the other day, from the JFSA
point of view, there was the odd ‘red herring’. The one that I will mention here relates to
the percentage of cases being approved by the Scheme’s Working Group to go forward to
Mediation. It actually does not matter what the percentage is, as it has never been the
role of the Working Group to approve cases going to Mediation, other than those
‘particular cases’ identified as not being recommended for Mediation by Second Sight, the
independent investigators that Post Office appointed. It is the role of Second Sight only,
to identify which cases are suitable for going forward to Mediation, otherwise what is the
role of Second Sight? This point and those that follow, were addressed in a letter from
JFSA to the Chairman of the Working Group at the beginning of November, and I have
enclosed a copy of that letter for your information.
The whole issue of all cases going through the Working Group for approval for Mediation,
is little more than another example of Post Office trying to hijack the Scheme to filter and
process cases to its own advantage. Did Post Office ever make you aware that once it
became evident to JFSA that Post Office was attempting to do this, JFSA refused to take
part in any discussions on these cases at any Working Group meeting? The wording of
the Scheme’s documentation that was sent out to all the individuals who applied, made it
clear, in the spirit of how the Scheme began, that the majority of cases would go to
Mediation.
Previously I have put in writing to you that the Post Office should never have been
allowed to take control of this Scheme, it should have been an outside body. After all,
what Post Office did with regard to an individual’s case is as much part of the investigation
as is that pertaining to the actions of the Subpostmaster. However in each case Post
UKGI00002896
UKGI00002896
Office is in control of investigating itself, and as such, is in a position to regulate what
information it does or does not provide to Second Sight.
Furthermore, Post Office has recently abused its position of running the supposedly non-
partisan secretariat for the Scheme, when it decided, without discussing with the Working
Group or its Chairman, to remove and bar JFSA’s access to the online central document
depository. Post Office took this decision when it discovered that JFSA was in early
discussions with a law firm about a group action should the Scheme fail to deliver what it
had promised.
Not only that, but Post Office then demanded the names of all the JFSA members who
wished to take part in such a group action. Yet the number of JFSA members in the
Scheme would be the smaller part of any action, as it is all the new members of JFSA,
who have come along since the Scheme closed, that would make up the bulk of those
involved. This mainly being due to there being no other way that these new members can
have their cases independently reviewed, despite Post Office stating in a press release on
7th July 2013 that:- “A review chaired by an independent figure to determine how an
independent safety net might be introduced to adjudicate in disputed cases in the future.
Again the JFSA and other stakeholders will be invited to take part in this process.” But it
never happened and was constantly dismissed by Post Office every time JFSA raised it.
In the debate last week it was clear and understandable why so many MPs had withdrawn
their support for the Scheme. Yet despite this, JFSA still remains engaged in the Initial
Case Review & Mediation Scheme, albeit with a somewhat distant hope that it can be
brought back to the open and transparent search for the truth that was discussed at the
outset.
Whilst Post Office is still being allowed to try and control the output of the Scheme
through being the funding source, by running the secretariat, having Second Sight
contracted directly to it, and is allowed to decide what information it will or will not make
available or is prepared to answer, the Scheme seems doomed to failure. For the Scheme
to be resuscitated successfully, Post Office has to be removed from its controlling position
and be subject to the same conditions of investigation as that of the Subpostmasters.
Yours sincerely
Alan Bates
Chairman, Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance
jfsa.orguk 2