WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400
Witness Name: Thomas Cooper
Statement Number: WITN00200400
Dated: 14 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
Fourth Witness Statement of Thomas Cooper
I, Thomas Cooper, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I make this statement further to my Third Witness Statement, dated 13 June 2024
[WITN00200300]. I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
“Inquiry”) further with the matters set out in the Rule 9 request dated 25 July 2024
(the “Request’) made to myself. I refer specifically to Annex B of that second Rule
9 request, which asked for information in relation to, amongst other things
‘oversight of compensation / redress schemes’. I provided evidence about these
issues in my third witness statement [WITN00200300] dated 2 October 2024.
3. I provide this further brief statement in connection with this issue in light of oral
evidence heard by the Inquiry during the course of Phase 7, and in particular to
Page 1 of 7
WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400
ensure the Inquiry is aware of further documentation and context relevant to
statements made in my third witness statement concerning the responsibility for
delivering the compensation / redress schemes.
My evidence to date
. At paragraph 29 of my third witness statement [WITN00200300] I stated that in
relation to the delivery of the compensation workstreams ‘the Shareholder Team
contributed to those discussions by providing advice to the Department concerning
the separation of historical liabilities and compensation matters arising from the
GLO from the ‘business as usual' commercial operations of the Company
[UKG100046340J and I go on to explain that one of the options proposed was ‘to
transfer the management of POL's compensation related liabilities into a newly
created separate company owned wholly by HMG.’. I refer to the paper for the
detail of the options.
. In paragraph 30 of my third witness statement, I recount the decision that was
taken at the Board in July 2020 as follows:
‘UKGI's advice was discussed with POL and HMT as well as the Department.
HSF assisted POL in preparing its own paper on the topic which was discussed
at the Board [BEIS0000022]. The idea of separating the compensation
workstreams from POL received little or no support. The Board determined that
POL would take responsibility for the compensation workstreams itself rather
than pass it to HMG.’
Page 2 of 7
WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400
The evidence of Nick Read and Ben Foat
. In their oral evidence to the Inquiry, both Nick Read? and Ben Foat? have asserted
(and I summarise) that the Government shareholder would not allow the schemes
to be administered by an entity other than by the Post Office.
Additional evidence on the issue
. The Inquiry is already aware of the content of the ‘Liabilities Funding Concept
Paper’ provided by UKGI to POL setting out two broad options to resolve the
historical liabilities issue [UKGI00045655]. The two options involved either an
internal restructure (paragraphs 19-20 of that document), or setting up a separate
legal entity (paragraphs 21-23 of that document). Neither option is favoured one
over the other on the face of the document.
. The principal benefit of separation was that the entity created would bring a focus
to delivering compensation which would also enable POL’s management to
concentrate on handling the multiple challenges affecting POL’s business,
including carrying out the remediation work required following the Horizon
judgements. As I said in my third witness statement at paragraph 31, the paper did
not address the benefit of obtaining the claimants’ perspective on separation and I
consider this to have been a significant omission. Consideration was also given in
the paper to the challenges with creating a separate entity to run the schemes.
Transcript of Nick Read's evidence ~ Day 1 (9 October 2024) p100, Day 2 (10 October 2024) piff, Day 3 (11 October
2024) piff.
Transcript of Ben Foat’s evidence ~ 18 October 2024 p.84.
Page 3 of 7
WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400
9. UKGI’s paper was produced with the full knowledge of POL. This is demonstrated
by drafts of the document being shared via email with POL as follows:
(a) UKGI shared its liabilities funding concept paper outlining the two options with
POL (Nick Read, Alisdair Cameron, and Ben Foat) on 4 June 2020
[UKG1I00047894] and there was a discussion that followed;
(b) UKGI also socialised the paper with BEIS and HMT to obtain their views. Mark
Underwood of POL asked Tim Mcinnis (then at UKGI) to share feedback
[UKG1I00030517] and whilst Mr McInnis shared that there were some concerns
around the complexity of creating a separate entity, he also made clear that
“there was no clear preference” between creating a ring fenced unit or new
entity.
(c) Mr Mcinnis did however note “Between you and me (and those on cc), and
hearing Nick earlier in the week wanting to do something about this in the very
short term, I think it’s pretty clear which option is preferable and I don’t think
detailed analysis is required to make that recommendation. But then I don’t sit
on the Board or earn the big bucks.”
10. There is a further email dated 26 June 2020 shared by UKGI with the Government
shareholder and stakeholders at BEIS and HM Treasury, which records that the
UKGI paper had been shared with POL. POL was reported to be “working up the
options, practicalities etc. to take to the POL Board on 28 July [2020]’
[UKG100012084].
Page 4 of 7
WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400
11.Itis important to note that the discussions that took place between UKGI, BEIS and
HMT were at official level. My recollection is that officials were not enthusiastic
about the idea of separation. In their view, POL was responsible for the Horizon
scandal and so should deal with the consequences including funding as much of
the compensation as possible. In his email referred to above, Tim Mclnnes
mentioned that officials had concerns around the complexity of creating a separate
entity. It is likely that the view of officials that POL should take responsibility for
handling the compensation would also have been relayed to POL at least verbally.
However, to my knowledge, UKGI’s paper was not shared with Ministers or senior
officials, such as the Permanent Secretary, and so the idea of separation was never
fully tested within Government as it lacked sponsorship from officials. In order to
make progress, POL would therefore need to make a proposal to HMG.
12. The paper that was presented to POL’s Board, exhibited to my third witness
statement [BEIS0000022], retains the two options set out in the UKGI paper (and
has the diagrammatical structures lifted from the UKGI document). The Board
paper was sponsored by Ben Foat and provides an extensive analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of creating a separate entity to deliver
compensation. Like UKGI's paper it too fails to address the claimants’ perspective.
The paper makes a clear recommendation against the option of separation on the
grounds which included “the associated cost, complexity and timeframes” involved
(at paragraph 13). No reference was made in the paper to any views of HMG in
relation to the options being considered.
13.The minutes of the Board of 28 July 2020 [UKGI00017761], make no reference to
any views of HMG on the options. The minutes record Ben Foat saying that POL’s
Page 5 of 7
WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400
management “wished to retain the management and oversight of the GLO”. My
recollection is in accordance with the documents, namely that POL took the
decision not to pursue separation on the basis of its own analysis of the options
without reference to the views of HMG. As a result, there was no sponsorship of
the idea, either from POL or at official level within HMG and so at that point the
idea was effectively moribund. BEIS subsequently took responsibility for managing
the GLO compensation workstream in 2022, but this was a result of claimant
pressure rather than a revisiting of the separation idea discussed at the Board
meeting in July 2020.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 6 of 7
Index to Fourth Witness Statement of Thomas Cooper
No.
Inquiry URN
Document Description
Inquiry Control
Number
WITNO0200300
Third Witness Statement of
Thomas Cooper
WITNO0200300
UKGI00045655
Draft Liabilities Funding
Concept Paper
UKGI053482-
001
UKG100047894
Email from Tim Mclnnes to
Nicke Read, Alisdair
Cameron, Ben Foat and
others RE: POL - Liabilities
Funding Concept Paper
UKGI055005-
001
UKGI00030517
Email from Joshua Scott to
Mark Underwood, Tim
Mcinnes ccing Ben Foat re:
Managing Liabilities Arising
from GLO Related Matters and
Project Starling: I Options
Available to POL - Ring-
Fencing Vs Separate Legal
Entity
UKGI039412-
001
UKGI00012084
Email from Joshua Scott to
Brooks White, Vanisha Patel,
Jane Corera and others re:
POL and Managing Historical
Liabilities - Next Steps
UKGI022881-
001
BEISO000022
Post Office Ltd Board Report -
GLO Separation Solution:
Managing Issues Arising from
GLO Related Matters &
Project Starling
VIS00001332
UKGI00017761
Minutes of a Meeting Of The
Board Of Directors Of Post
Office Limited Held On
Tuesday 28 July 2020
UKGI027768-
001
Page 7 of 7
WITNO0200400
WITNO0200400