WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Witness Name: Andy Furey
Statement No.: WITN00340100
Dated: 17" October 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANDY FUREY
I, MR ANDY FUREY, will say as follows...
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
1. I was employed by Post Office as a 16-year-old in 1978 as a Postal Officer
(Counter Clerk) working in the Harrow Head Post Office area. This was my first
full time job after leaving school.
2. From 2002 to date I have held the role of National Officer (Assistant Secretary)
employed by the Communication Workers Union, with direct responsibility for
the Union's members employed by Post Office. This includes members working
in Crown Offices (now referred to by Post Office as Directly Managed Branches
- DMBs), Supply Chain (Crew and Cash / Stock Processing Centres) and
Page 1 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Admin such as Call Centres, Finance and HR (including Payroll). I was first
elected to this role and have held it on a continuous basis since 1% July 2002
and prior to this I performed the role from December 2001 on an Acting basis.
The key responsibilities of being the Union’s National Officer for our Post Office
members primarily involves engagement and negotiation with Senior Post
Office Directors in respect of Collective Bargaining on a wide range of issues,
including:
a. annual pay negotiations (including wider contractual terms & conditions)
b. general Industrial Relations and strategic issues
c. dealing with job losses and redundancies.
I also have oversight and direction of the Union’s Representative structures
within Post Office and I am accountable to the Union’s Postal Executive and
our Annual Conference.
. I was elected to the Union of Communication Workers (UCW) Postal Group
Management Committee in May 1993 and continued to be elected annually to
the Union's Postal Executive subsequently known (from 25'" January 1995) as
the CWU until becoming a National Officer. Prior to holding National Office I
held various Local roles (from 1984) and Regional roles (from 1987) with
responsibility for Post Office members including:
a. Section Secretary (Local), Harrow Amalgamated Branch
b. Assistant District Organiser, London
c. Regional Counters Representative, London
d. Regional Counters Representative, North Thames / East Anglia.
Page 2 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
All of the above roles had responsibility for UCW / CWU members working in
Crown Post Offices, along with Administration members. As a Local / Regional
Representative, my responsibilities would have included collective negotiations
with Local / Regional management on all matters impacting on our members’
jobs, including ways of working, changes to job location / job losses, and
individual representation arising from discipline, attendance procedure and
grievances.
4. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
“Inquiry’) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 18 May 2024
(the “Request”).
5. I have been asked to provide a first witness statement covering my involvement
in matters relating to Phases 4, 5 and 6 of the Inquiry.
THE CWU’S ACTIVITIES AND THE NATURE OF MEMBERSHIP
6. The CWU is an independent trade union with over 170,000 members, certified
as such by the statutory regulator, the Certification Officer. The CWU is the
recognised Trade Union for non-managerial employee grades working for Post
Office, amongst many other companies such as Royal Mail / Parcelforce, BT /
Openreach, and Capita.
7. The Union's objectives as set out in the CWU’s Rule Book are:
a) To unite and organise all those entitled to be members
Page 3 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
b) To protect and promote members’ interests and maintain and improve their
working lives.
8. The methods adopted by the CWU to represent our members’ interests
between 2000 and 2019 include (as they still do today) the following:
a) Maintaining strong, democratic representative structures so that members
are represented at every level from individual workplaces through their local
Branch and Area / Regional Representatives, up to national level including
the Postal Executive and via annual national conferences.
b) Legal advice and representation, including in Employment Tribunals,
through the CWU’s law firm UnionLine and other legal service providers.
c) Campaigning for and on behalf of our members and the wider trade union
and Labour movement, including the TUC, both industrially and politically
on a wide range of issues, from employment rights to health and safety
related concerns.
Ro
Political engagement with MPs / Peers (including the All Party Parliamentary
Group for Post Offices), Scottish MPs, Welsh Assembly Members, local
authorities, Metro Mayors, the Labour Party and the Government on many
areas of policy, including workers’ rights and industrial matters, to ensure
our members’ interests are best represented at every level and in all
circumstances relating to their employment including legislation.
CWU LEGAL SERVICES (RULE 11.2.1 OF THE CWU RULE BOOK 2001 AND
RULE 4.1.7 OF THE CWU RULE BOOK 2004)
Page 4 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
9. Between 2000 and 2019, the CWU provided a broad range of legal services to
our members as we do today.
10.In 2014, the CWU jointly set up trade union law firm UnionLine alongside the
GMB in response to changes to the regulatory environment for the personal
injury claims market. These changes were part of the Jackson reforms that
came into force in April 2013. Prior to 2014, the CWU delivered legal services
in conjunction with employment law firms such as Simpson Millar and others.
11.The creation of UnionLine changed the structure and organisation of much of
CWU legal services, but the scope of the union’s legal services offering has
remained fundamentally the same since 2000. This includes legal advice and
representation on:
a) Employment matters (both collective and individual) such as TUPE, unfair
dismissal, working time and payment issues (such as unlawful deductions
of wages)
b) Personal injury cases, helping individuals to win compensation if they suffer
an accident or injury that wasn’t their fault
c) Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs)
12. The CWU may, dependent on circumstances, offer legal advice on other issues,
e.g. consumer disputes and motoring offences. However, we do not offer legal
advice or support for criminal cases.
Page 5 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
13.1 have been asked to set out to what extent the rule changes in or around 2004
affected the legal representation to which CWU members may be entitled.
14.1 can confirm that the rule changes in or around 2004 did not materially affect
members’ entitlement to legal services. The changes were designed to simplify
and summarise the rule in relation to the provision of legal services.
15.I have been asked to provide an overview of the types of Post Office employees,
worker or contractors that the CWU represented between 2000 and 2019
(inclusive), limited to those who used the Horizon IT system.
16.From 2000 to 2019, the CWU represented Post Office employees who used the
Horizon IT system in a range of non-managerial grades working in Crown Post
Offices. This includes:
a. Counter Clerks (grade - Postal Officer - PO, then changed to Customer
Service Consultant - CSC)
b. Postal Officer with a monetary allowance for being a Product Specialist
(Mails and Travel)
c. former Financial Specialists (grade now obsolete)
d. former Retail Assistants (for “Post Shops” — a public facing unit within a
Crown Office) - grade now obsolete due to cessation of Post Shops
within Crown Offices
e. PO(A) grade (Postal Officer with a responsibility for supervisory support)
— grade now obsolete
Page 6 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
The CWU has also endeavoured to represent Postmasters from c.2011 (who
would use the Horizon IT system) via the establishment of a dedicated National
CWU Postmasters Branch.
17.Mark Baker, Branch Secretary has successfully intervened on behalf of
individual Postmasters many times in respect of grievances. However, CWU
has been held back in its effectiveness as Post Office has consistently refused
to recognise the CWU as having bargaining and representative rights for
Postmasters. Mark was the Branch Secretary until his retirement in 2023 and
his primary role was to support individual Postmaster members. In doing so,
he encountered massive resistance from managers to even acknowledge the
CWU when supporting individual Postmasters. Indeed, Post Office
management always insisted that he accompanied Postmasters as a “friend”
and not as a CWU Representative. As a result of Post Office’s attitude towards
the CWU and our Postmaster members, and our members’ desire to be
represented by an independent trade union, the CWU represented Postmasters
via a Group Employment Tribunal claim for “worker status”. The outcome in
respect of 10 test cases (in March 2022) found in favour of Post Office and
determined that Postmasters were self-employed agents of Post Office.
KNOWLEDGE OF HORIZON
18.1 have been asked to consider the extent of my knowledge of the integrity of the
Horizon IT system from 2000 to 2008 (inclusive), including a) the existence of
bugs, errors or defects and b) the ability of Fujitsu staff to alter transaction data
or data in Branch Accounts without the knowledge or consent of SPMs (“remote
Page 7 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
access”. In doing so, I have been asked to consider a range of documents
provided by the Inquiry, including minutes of Horizon Working Group meetings
and correspondence between the CWU and the Government.
19.1 have also been asked to what extent did you discuss the matters set out in the
paragraph above with others in the CWU.
20.1 have also been asked to summarise any steps I or the CWU took to develop
a better understanding of the matters between 2000 and 2008.
My personal knowledge of Horizon system integrity (2000-2008)
21.During this period, to the best of my knowledge, neither I, as the Union’s
National Officer, or the CWU had any insight or awareness of any material
problems (BEDs) being reported by our members or Representatives regarding
the integrity of the Horizon system.
22.In view of the fact there were no known challenges from either CWU members
or Representatives in respect of the Horizon system integrity between 2000 and
2008, I have no reason to believe there would have been any discussions with
others in the CWU on this matter.
23. Neither myself or the Union took any steps between 2000 and 2008 as we were
unaware of any integrity issues with the Horizon system. There was no need
to develop a better understanding of matters as there were no known problems
flagged or escalated to the CWU HQs as far as I know.
Page 8 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
POST OFFICE INVESTIGATIONS, CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS
Understanding of Post Office branch audits/investigations (2000-2008)
24.My long-established understanding of how Post Office traditionally undertook
audits and investigations into alleged shortfalls in branch accounts (2000-2008)
is as follows:
a. Firstly, the audit team led by Managers (and including CWU members
acting under the instruction of the managers), which were invariably
called “The Checkers” by staff, were liable to turn up at Post Offices first
thing in the morning (before the Post Office opened) unannounced and
therefore would be a surprise to potentially the Manager of a Crown
Office, and definitely the staff, or a Postmaster. Generally, these audits
would take place on a Thursday morning, following the weekly balance
the night before. Although special / emergency audits could take place
on other occasions, particularly when they were instigated as a
consequence of perceived concerns or suspicions surrounding the
accuracy of Branch accounts and financial reporting of a particular Post
Office. This information is likely to have arisen from the central finance
teams based in Chesterfield.
b. In respect of the mechanics of the actual audits, for Crown Offices, the
Audit team would automatically check all of the tills, cash and stocks
(stamps and value items such as Postal Orders) of the Counter staff,
along with the main safe for the Branch Manager. A similar process
would be adopted for Sub Post Offices. The audit would check against
Page 9 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
the weekly Balance Sheets for individuals or against the cash declaration
made the previous night. The same principle applied for the overall
weekly cash account for the Crown Office.
c. The perception of CWU members was that the Audit team’s role in the
main was designed to operate as a deterrent whereby Counter staff
would be aware that an Audit team could descend on the workplace at
any time. This in turn would help create the environment whereby staff
would declare an accurate statement of accounts, even if this entailed
showing a loss or a gain, and therefore refrain from any falsification of
accounts. Whereas in practice, the Audit team visits in the main would
be driven by information gleaned from the centre that gave cause for
concern; hence the surprise visit.
25.1 am not aware of any changes in practice during this period. Also, any
investigations that may have led to disciplinary action, including dismissal, and
ultimately criminal prosecutions would have been undertaken by the Post
Office's Investigation Department, POID (who were all Managers and not
members of the Audit Team). The Investigation Department was a separately
run function, distinct from the Audit Team. In essence, the Audit Team would
discover a discrepancy and if this was serious enough, it would warrant the
POID being called in to instigate an investigation which invariably entailed
interviewing the employee (for a Crown Office) or SubPostmaster.
26. If a significant loss had occurred at a Crown Office and was attributable to an
individual stock, this may have led to an interview with the Investigation Team,
Page 10 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
at which a CWU Representative was entitled to be present, if requested by the
member. If theft was suspected, this position would lead to precautionary
suspension from duty and subsequent disciplinary charges and potentially
dismissal.
Mandatory Losses & Gains Policy in the Crown Office Network, Page 21
27. The Post Office mandatory Losses & Gains Policy in the Crown Office network
of September 2008 (POL00084075) was a Post Office policy document rather
than an actual Collective Agreement. However, it should be noted that pre-
dating this document was the Branch Office Staffing Agreement (BOSA)
reached in May 2001 (CWU00000093) which contained the following sections:
e section 10: Multi-User Till Working
e section 11 Single Till Working
28. These two sections of BOSA essentially amended the original Losses & Gains
Postal Instruction of November 1983 (CWU00000092) to take account of new
ways of working in respect of the introduction of multi-user tills and outdated
financial numbers that hadn't risen with inflation.
29.In essence, the Post Office 2008 Document was part informed by the BOSA
Agreement of 2001 in regard to multi user tills and the cash thresholds for
Losses & Gains escalation process, which is commonly known amongst CWU
Representatives and members as the stages for “3 losses in 3 months, 6 losses
in 6 months, 9 losses in 9 months”.
Page 11 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
30. The CWU would have been provided with various earlier drafts of the 2008 Post
Office policy document and would have sought to amend unsatisfactory
language or direction if it was outwith our Collective Agreements. Whilst the
CWU was not invited to formally agree the 2008 Post Office policy document,
we would have had an input via the consultation referred to at the bottom of
Page 3. Had we objected to any aspect of the policy document at the time, we
would have written a letter / email outlining our rationale for the objection and
articulating what we were seeking to change.
3
=
.In 2008, the BOSAAgreement was updated and replaced with the Crown Office
Staffing Agreement (COSA) (CWU00000094). Section 7 of this Agreement at
Page 21 was Losses & Gains, with the escalation process contained at Annex
F, Pages 34 and 35 for both multi-user stocks and individual stocks. The stages
within Annex F are broadly consistent with the Post Office Policy Document
2008 at Pages 11 and 12 under the heading “Loss Escalation Process”.
Support for Postmasters by CWU (2000 - 2008)
32.The National Federation of SubPostmasters (NFSP) was the only Union
between 2000 - 2008 recognised by Post Office as the representative body for
Postmasters. As such, the role of providing support for Postmasters was
therefore the sole responsibility of the NFSP. It follows that there would have
been no requirement for support to be offered by the CWU during this period.
Page 12 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
33. The CWU did not organise or recruit within the Postmaster community between
2000 and 2008 and therefore was not required to provide any support for
Postmasters. In simple terms, the Union did not recruit Postmasters into the
CWU between 2000 and 2008 and as a consequence did not need or indeed
seek to make any representations whatsoever on behalf of Postmasters.
34.Consequently, the CWU would not have been aware of or needed to raise any
concerns about the Horizon IT or related training and support services for
Postmasters. This position would also have equally applied for the conduct of
Branch audits and investigations into alleged shortfalls in Branch accounts. This
would have naturally been the role of the NFSP as the recognised Postmaster
representative body.
35.Also, the CWU would not have been involved in any civil or criminal
proceedings against Postmasters arising from alleged shortfalls in Branch
accounts.
36.1 have been asked to describe the nature and extent of any support the CWU
offered to SPMs between 2000 and 2008 in relation to Horizon, branch audits
and alleged shortfalls and civil and criminal proceedings.
37.For the reasons given above, the CWU did not provide support or
representation for any Postmaster involved in Horizon cases between 2000 and
2008. Therefore, there is no knowledge to impart in respect of Postmasters
who were accused of misconduct or incompetence in relation to a shortfall ina
Page 13 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Branch account. Similarly, this also applied to Postmasters who could not
explain the cause of the shortfall or if they alleged it was caused by the Horizon
IT system.
RESPONSE TO THE EMERGING SCANDAL
Personal awareness of JFSA and the Horizon IT problem raised by Computer
Weekly in 2009
38.1 am unable to say when I first became aware of the creation of the JFSAas the
JFSA did not formally or informally reach out to the CWU at any point following
its creation.
39.Whilst I cannot be certain, I assume the Computer Weekly article of 11!" May
2009 (POL00041564) would have come to my attention at some point not long
after publication due to it being a Post Office related article. That said, ordinarily
Computer Weekly wouldn’t have been a publication I was familiar with at the
time. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the allegations made by Postmasters in
the 2009 Computer Weekly article were on the CWU'’s radar in any meaningful
way as the CWU did not represent Postmasters at that time and crucially there
had been no reports of problems with Horizon from our Representatives or
members working in Crown Offices.
Establishment of the CWU Postmasters Branch 2011
40. The CWU Postmasters Branch was formed around 2011 as a result of two main
drivers:
Page 14 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
a. Dissatisfaction of Postmasters / NFSP members with the inability of the
NFSP Executive / Leadership to improve Postmasters pay, and the
constant support the NFSP Leadership gave to Post Office policies that
were often perceived as detrimental to a Postmasters'’ livelihood.
b. Network Transformation: This transformation programme commenced
around 2010 as a voluntary exercise but some of the new models were
not popular amongst many Postmasters, especially as the fixed element
of Postmasters’ pay (known as the Core Tier Payments) would be
removed. Eventually, Post Office had to advise Government / BIS that
the programme was not going to meet its target deadline date and the
NT program was therefore made compulsory which would require further
Government funding. The funding was approved and NT was made
compulsory. This caused much upset amongst elements of the
Postmaster community, especially as the only representative and
recognised body for Postmasters, the NFSP, fully endorsed the
programme going compulsory. It is my understanding that two Regions
within the NFSP rebelled against this decision as they believed the NT
programme would be bad for the Network and their livelihoods due to
the remuneration changes. These two regions, led by their respective
National Executive Officers Nippy Singh and Mark Baker, campaigned
against this change.
I was told that, as this was seen by the Executive Council of the NFSP
as going against NFSP Policy, Mr Singh was disciplined and thrown out
of the NFSP and Mark Baker resigned in protest.
Page 15 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Following this, Mr Baker and Mr Singh, supported by their regional
members approached the then CWU General Secretary Billy Hayes and
the CWU Postmasters Branch was launched. As the National Officer
with responsibility for Post Office members, I played a key part in
welcoming them into the CWU and integrating them into my area of
responsibility. Seemingly, the establishment of a CWU Postmasters
Branch caused a degree of panic amongst the NFSP Leadership, along
with Post Office, both of whom saw the prospect of a well organised
independent alternative to the NFSP as a serious threat and a disruptor
to the cosy relationship between the two organisations. It would be fair
to say that a concerted effort was made to sully the reputation of the
CWU with the aim of dissuading Postmasters from joining the Union. In
this regard Post Office and the NFSP have been relatively successful as
our membership has not grown significantly from the original base.
41.Although the CWU has struggled to achieve a major breakthrough in
membership levels amongst Postmasters, since its launch, there have been a
number of notable activities, for example:
a. The CWU Postmasters Branch set up a closed Facebook group for
Postmaster members, led by Mark Baker, so they could keep in touch,
share experiences, ask questions and request assistance etc. as well as
all the other CWU benefits available to its members. This Facebook
group is very active and members are supportive of each other in sharing
problems and solutions.
Page 16 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
b. Mark Baker was elected as Branch Secretary and he regularly travelled
the length and breadth of the UK representing CWU members in
meetings with Post Office management on individual contractual
disputes as well as engaging and being involved with Government
Officials and Committees. The Postmasters Branch represented its
members, as part of the wider CWU, at Select Committees, All
Parliamentary Party Group (APPG) on Post Offices, Post Office Advisory
Group and for a period played a prominent role as part of the Post Bank
Coalition. Mark Baker was also designated to sit on a Working Group
established by Post Office to look into Mutualisation.
c. When the Horizon Group litigation was being pursued, the CWU
Postmasters Branch reached out to the JFSA and in particular with their
managing solicitors Freeths. Mark Baker offered all the assistance
Freeths requested as well as assisting members of the Press with their
questions about Horizon and how Post Offices operated.
d. Mark Baker attended many of the High Court hearings and I understand
at one point he submitted a witness statement and was about to be
sworn in to give verbal evidence but was not needed in the end.
e. Mark Baker, on behalf of the Union (although not formally recognised by
management) frequently challenged the Post Office and has
represented CWU Postmasters over its treatment of individuals
particularly since the Common Issues Judgment was handed down.
f. We continue to press Nick Read, the current CEO for representational
rights for Postmasters and for formal recognition in order to be able to
engage in collective bargaining on behalf of Postmasters. However, the
Page 17 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
CEO is proving fiercely resistant to the very idea and has continued to
maintain the mantra that the NFSP is the only organisation recognised
by Post Office for Postmaster matters. He has also pointed to the legally
binding Grant Framework Agreement between Post Office and the NFSP
which has recently been renewed and extended as a purported reason
to exclude the intervention of an independent trade union.
CWU action to raise concerns about Horizon Integrity (2009 — 2019)
42.The earliest record of the CWU communicating with our Branches in relation
to the potential Horizon IT problem and the role of the JFSA is the Letter to
Branches (LTB 489/13) from myself of 12'" July 2013 (CWU00000001). It is
likely that awareness, following the Computer Weekly publications, gradually
came to the CWU's attention.
43.The key reason for a slow burn of awareness and knowledge surrounding the
Horizon system and the problems we know of today was the fact that CWU HQ
didn’t receive any escalation or reports from our Representative structures of
specific or general concerns in relation to the Horizon system in Crown Post
Offices. Furthermore, there had been no reported individual discipline cases,
including dismissals, relating to discrepancies arising from Horizon, to myself
as the Union's National Officer for Post Offices during this period. Indeed,
during this timeframe, the Union, at National level, was completely unaware of
any Horizon-related prosecutions by Post Office of our former members in
Crown Offices. I understand the process of instigating prosecutions is a lengthy
activity and transpires following the dismissal of the employee; hence the
reference to “former member”. It follows that overall, due to the lack of
Page 18 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
involvement of Crown Office employees in the scandal (as far as we were
aware), it was believed by my Representatives with responsibility for Crown
Offices that Horizon problems was only an issue for Sub Post Offices and
Postmasters / their staff. This was also my belief.
44.As a consequence of the above, aside from the developing scandal for
Postmasters, to the best of my knowledge, we had no reason to and did not
raise directly with Post Office, the Government, the Shareholder Executive /
UKGI any major concerns regarding the integrity of the Horizon IT system on
behalf of our members. This is due to the fact there was no reporting by the
Union's Representatives of any Horizon-related concerns. Also, at that time we
didn’t have any specific discipline cases escalated to HQ that were identified as
Horizon related from across our Crown Office membership.
45.In respect of MPs, we did submit, in January 2015, following discussions with
Mark Baker, written evidence to the BIS Committee Inquiry on Horizon, when
we stated: “We believe there are serious failures with...Horizon and the
infrastructure over which it runs. This includes problems with training,
accounting practices, losses and gains policies, disciplinary policies, technical
and operational help desk support, telecommunication and power related
issues, interface development issues, hardware maintenance and data centre
integrity.” (RLIT0000220)
46.On 3% February 2015, Mark Baker and I gave oral evidence to the BIS
Committee Inquiry on Horizon expressing serious concerns about the system
Page 19 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
as well as Post Office’s mediation scheme. During the session, Mark Baker
said (UKGI00003229): “What has been systemic and consistent throughout
Horizon’s life is the failure to recognise that parts of the infrastructure could be
to blame for some of these discrepancies occurring.” Additionally, I stated “We
are concerned about the pace of the process of mediation, and the number of
cases that seem to have fallen out of the process. Overall, we are not
particularly happy with the way that the mediation scheme has been
conducted.”
47.In April 2015, the CWU called for an independent inquiry into the Horizon
debacle and justice for postmasters who claim they had been wrongfully
accused of theft, false accounting etc. We also called on the Post Office to
formally recognise the CWU to represent postmasters with immediate effect
(CWU00000004), CWU letter to branches from myself, 21 April 2015). This
reiterated the position we had advocated at the Select Committee.
48.Latterly, as an active invitee and member of the APPG for Post Offices, Mark
Baker and I would have periodically participated in various discussions with
MPs and Peers regarding the developing and ongoing Horizon scandal. Much
of these discussions would have centred on raising the profile of the campaign
with parliamentarians and the media, whilst developing a strategy of exposing
the Post Office’s attitude towards Horizon and Postmasters. These meetings
are relatively informal and I’m unaware of any minutes being available. Suffice
to say, generally speaking, the participants of the APPG have consistently been
very concerned with the actions of Post Office in denying, up to and including
Page 20 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
the Group Litigation Claim, any problems with Horizon. It should be noted, Lord
Arbuthnot was an office holder of the APPG.
49.The CWU in April 2019 sent a parliamentary briefing to MPs (CWU00000020)
to alert them to the outcome of the Post Office Horizon Trial known as the
Common Issues Trial. The briefing contained a number of recommendations,
including that Post Office’s right to prosecute without CPS scrutiny needs to be
assessed, that an investigation be undertaken into the appropriateness of using
a public authority grant to fund the NFSP and an overhaul of Post Office’s
governance is needed.
50.In December 2019, the CWU reiterated its call for a public inquiry into the whole
Horizon scandal (CWU00000029).
51. The CWU did not liaise or communicate with senior individuals at Post Office in
respect of the integrity of the Horizon IT system for the following reasons:
a. Firstly, to the best of my knowledge at the time, I was unaware of any
CWU members working in Crown Offices who had been caught up in the
scandal. Specifically, there had been no escalation by our
Representatives of any discipline case to CWU HQ _ involving
discrepancies through Horizon and crucially no correspondence from
members raising concerns about Horizon.
b. Secondly, the CWU was unaware of any CWU members from our
Postmasters Branch who had been dismissed and / or prosecuted for
Page 21 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Horizon related matters. Had Mark Baker come across any case of this
nature, he would have immediately brought it to my attention.
c. Thirdly, the CWU would have expected the NFSP, as the recognised
representative body for SubPostmasters, to have raised problems
directly with Post Office in respect of its SubPostmaster members.
52.With regards to POL00417089, which is a Post Office internal briefing
document in preparation for meeting with Lord Arbuthnot and specifically Page
6 which references the CWU. Firstly, it should be borne in mind the CWU was
not a party to the meetings that Lord Arbuthnot was holding with Post Office in
and around 2012 and therefore was not conversant with the specific cases
under scrutiny or the strategy being adopted by Lord Arbuthnot in pursuing
justice. Secondly, none of the cases Lord Arbuthnot was raising emanated from
CWU or involved CWU members. Consistent with previous answers, the CWU
had not experienced and was unaware at HQ level of any of our members being
dismissed due to Horizon-related matters and subsequently prosecuted. The
Post Office document suggests I had been “supportive” of the system to date.
The document suggests that there would be an action from Kevin Gilliland to
share the press position with me. I don’t believe this transpired and I certainly
don't recall ever, publicly or privately, saying I had been “supportive” of Horizon.
53.In respect of the internal Post Office emails at POL00117004, POL00386319,
POL00162290 regarding preparation for the BEIS Select Committee. I am
bemused by much of the language and tone of these documents. My reasoning
for this is that the CWU would always welcome the opportunity to present oral
Page 22 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
evidence to a Select Committee on behalf of our members. This would
definitely be the case if there were serious matters or concerns that we wished
to draw to the attention of a Committee of MPs. I would expect Post Office to
know and understand this.
. Ordinarily, prior to giving oral evidence, we would provide a written submission
in advance and this is what happened on this occasion (early 2015). The written
evidence would accurately reflect the CWU’s position and would invariably
include recommendations from the Union which we would want the Committee
to support or embrace. Also, our submission would help to inform questions to
be put by MPs at the oral evidence session. We are therefore careful to ensure
our accurate views are contained within our submissions.
Specifically turning to the comments made by Mark Davies and Tom Moran, I
am unable to state they are accurate, although there is no reason why I
wouldn't have given confirmation that I would be giving evidence to the Select
Committee. Also, the CWU’s position relating to the Crown Network was that
at the time we believed that Horizon had no impact upon our members working
in Crowns for the various reasons stated above. Similarly, there is no reason
why I would have held back from saying this. It is also my recollection that
Mark Baker was also concerned about problems / delays being encountered
by a couple of our Postmaster members in regard to the Mediation scheme.
In regard to the comments from Tom Moran, I am at a loss to understand who
he thinks I would be “on orders” from as the Union does not take instruction or
orders from the Post Office or any of its managers. This may have been wishful
thinking on Tom Moran’s part. Equally, as an independent Trade Union, whose
full endeavours are to represent members to the best of our abilities, our
Page 23 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
primary objective would be to be “supportive” of our membership, including any
Postmaster caught up in the Mediation scheme.
Appearance before Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, 34
February 2015.
55.1 confirm that the evidence I gave to the Select Committee was an accurate
position of the knowledge and awareness I had of the issues at that time and
as such I do not dispute the evidence given.
56.1 can confirm Dave Ward, General Secretary, and I held a brief meeting with
Baroness Neville-Rolfe on or around 5'" August 2015 against the backdrop of
there being a newly elected Conservative Government that replaced the
Coalition Government. Given that Baroness Neville-Rolfe was a newly
appointed Government Minister, we wanted to raise our key priorities
surrounding the wider Post Office issues at that time, as contained within in
Dave Ward's letters to Baroness Neville-Rolfe of 15'" June and 3 July 2015,
(UKG1I00005210, UKGI00005211). The main issues in terms of our agenda
related directly to the future viability of the Post Office network and our concern
around its long-term sustainability and the ongoing long-term need for
Government Funding. As a result of feedback from Mark Baker and our
Postmaster members, we had particular concerns over Network Transformation
along with the NFSP's Memorandum of Understanding with Post Office, which
appeared to facilitate support by the NFSP for Network Transformation. I
believe the meeting, which was time limited following introductions, focused
mainly on these issues, all of which would have warranted significant
discussion. My recollection is we ran out of time, which is often the case when
Page 24 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
meeting with busy Ministers and I don’t recall the Horizon IT system being
discussed. We certainly wouldn't have had time beyond the issues within the
General Secretary's letter to raise any other business.
Losses & Gains Joint Working Group
57.Our Representatives started to report in early 2018 a high degree of managerial
activity surrounding the attempts to lay disciplinary charges on our Crown Office
members as a consequence of Post Office instigating a policy decision to set
aside the Losses & Gains Procedure. It should be noted the L&G Procedure
was contractual and by operation of TUPE was a contractual term that formed
part of our members’ terms at the point of separation from Royal Mail.
Management activities resulted in an increase in the use of the Discipline
Procedure against our members in Crown Offices when incurring losses,
instead of the agreed L&G Procedure. Seemingly, the action of Post Office
management was designed to reduce the cost of losses across the Crown
Office Network.
58.One particular case, which involved a member from Llandudno Crown, who
was precautionary suspended for at least nine weeks due to balancing errors
provoked me to write to Paula Vennells on 21St March 2018 (WITN00340105),
challenging the ill-conceived actions of Post Office managers and seeking the
return to work for the individual concerned and no disciplinary action being
taken. Thankfully this case was resolved to our member's satisfaction and they
did in fact return to normal duties.
Page 25 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
59.As a consequence of the upsurge in the use of the Discipline Procedure, a
Letter to Branches (no.200/18 dated 6' April 2018 — WITN00340116) was
published advising Representatives of the inappropriate use of the Discipline
Procedure for counter losses. The LTB outlined the Union's challenge to the
actions of Post Office and the steps we planned to take to address this situation.
It should be noted, at no point in this communication was there any reference
to Horizon.
60. Following the publication of LTB 200/18, I wrote to John Whitefoot, Employee
Relations & Policy Director on 16" April 2018 (WITN00340102) advising him of
the terms of an Emergency Motion that had been submitted to be heard at the
Union’s Annual Conference the following week.
6
=
. The Conference debate surrounding the Emergency Motion brought into sharp
focus the concerns of our members in respect of the heightened use of the
Discipline Procedure and the discarding of the Losses & Gains Procedure. The
Motion included calling for an amnesty of any member who had been
disciplined. The Motion below, which doesn’t refer to Horizon, was unanimously
endorsed following debate:
This Conference is deeply concerned by the contents of LTB 200/18,
which was issued on 6th April 2018. In particular, the abuse of the
Conduct Code in the Post Office, and the breach of the Losses and Gains
Procedure, as outlined in the Crown Office Staffing Agreement are issues
that Conference believes cannot be tolerated. Whilst Conference accepts
that there may be elements of the agreements that could be updated,
Page 26 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Conference believes that this should happen by negotiation and
agreement, and not by allowing breaches of these existing agreements
that have served our members well for many years.
Therefore, Conference instructs the Postal Executive that it takes steps
to ensure that:
1. The Post Office reaffirms its commitment to, and abides by the
Nationally Agreed procedures in the Conduct Code and the Losses and
Gains Procedure until such time as they are renegotiated and any
replacement or amended version is agreed.
2. The £30 trigger contained in the Losses and Gains Procedure be
updated to take into account inflation since the level was set in 2001.
3. There is an amnesty for any disciplinary penalties that members have
already received through this abuse of the Conduct Code, so they are
expunged from their records.
Glasgow and District Amal
Plymouth and East Cornwall Amal
62.Following the carriage of the Emergency Motion, I instigated further
correspondence to John Whitefoot, dated 4" May 2018 (WITN00340103) and
took measures to provide our members (via two emails dated 4"" and 14° May
2018 to my Representatives -— WITN00340104 and WITN00340106), when
facing disciplinary hearings, with five model letters (WITN00340110,
WITN00340111, WITN00340112, WITN00340113, WITN00340114) designed
to object to the actions of management and the ignoring of the Losses & Gains
Procedure.
Page 27 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
63. Following my letter to John Whitefoot of 4'" May, a response was received from
Lee Kelly, Senior Employee Relations Manager dated 12 June 2018
(WITN00340108). This letter went some way towards satisfying the terms of
the Emergency Motion and I viewed this as good progress. In particular, Lee
Kelly confirmed that the Conduct Code (Discipline Procedure) “would only be
used in circumstances relating to Losses and Gains where there is a
reasonable suspicion of theft, dishonesty, or false accounting”. Lee Kelly also
confirmed that Post Office would follow the described escalation process as per
the Losses & Gains Procedure in all other circumstances.
64.A further LTB was published (LTB 368/18 — WITN00340117) was published to
our Branches and Representatives on 26" June 2018 confirming the progress
made, described above.
65. Throughout the summer, further talks took place at a National level with the aim
of negotiating a revised Losses & Gains Procedure as well as delivering in full
the terms of the Conference Motion. We established a Joint Working Group to
undertake this activity. However, this failed to get off the ground properly, not
least due to disagreements around the wording of the draft Terms of Reference.
In essence, on a positive note, the pressure put on management arising from
the Emergency Motion and our actions in respect of the five model letters had
the desired effect and along with a change in management in both the Industrial
Relations teams and the Senior Management of the Crown Network, matters
settled down considerably. Accordingly, to all intents and purposes, although
Page 28 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
we did not achieve the amnesty the Motion called for, the Union achieved its
aims of management ceasing to use the Discipline Procedure rather than the
Losses & Gains Procedure. In respect of the amnesty, the vast majority of
warnings were of a year’s duration and with the passage of time most of these
were due to expire anyway.
66.Prior to the Panorama documentary of August 2015, the Union issued a press
release (POL00152928) condemning the behaviours of Senior Post Office
Directors towards Postmasters, resulting from Horizon. The Union also issued
a Letter to Branches (CWU00000013) highlighting the forthcoming Panorama
programme and Parliamentary activity including a Question raised at PMQs on
48t July 2015.
67.Following the Panorama programme, we published a further LTB (534/15 —
WITN00340115) on 18'" August 2015 in which we reiterated our criticism of Post
Office and once again called for a full judicial Inquiry. Our strong view at the
time was that there needed to be a political solution to the Horizon scandal and
to bring about justice for Postmasters. As a consequence, I felt that any
engagement with Post Office would be fruitless as Post Office was still in denial
about system bugs, errors and defects. Additionally, as far as we knew, at this
juncture, there weren't any CWU Postmaster members subjected to disciplinary
measures, including dismissal and prosecution. Therefore, to the best of my
recollection, there wasn’t any communication between CWU and Post Office
on this matter.
Page 29 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
68. The CWU did not have any involvement in claims submitted by SubPostmasters
represented by Shoosmiths in 2011 as we had no Postmasters members
involved in the Horizon scandal at the time. Similarly, as we had no Postmaster
members prosecuted, the CWU was not involved in representing any
SubPostmasters convicted of theft, fraud offences or false accounting to
overturn convictions.
69.In respect of the initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme, my
understanding is that Mark Baker, Postmasters Branch Secretary was involved
at that time to the extent of supporting one member who actually went to a
Mediation hearing. I personally didn’t have any involvement in this matter.
70. The CWU was not directly involved in the Group Litigation Order proceedings
— Bates & Others vs POL, although I’m given to understand that Mark Baker
offered to support the claimants by submitting a witness statement and was
prepared to give evidence. Ultimately, this wasn’t necessary. The CWU was
of course principally publicly and politically supportive of the JFSA’s ambitions
in seeking to secure justice for the Horizon victims.
7
=
. The CWU did not have any liaison or communication with either the NFSP or
the JFSA in relation to the integrity of Horizon as far as I am aware. To the best
of my knowledge, neither the NFSP or JFSA contacted CWU to discuss
Horizon. In regard to the NFSP, this is hardly a surprise as they remained
steadfastly in support of the “robust” system up to and including the GLO. Also,
Page 30 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
the JFSA did not contact CWU to seek our support for or involvement in their
GLO.
72.\t is fair to say that following the decision by the CWU to recruit Postmasters
into our organisation, that we do not have a “relationship” with the NFSP. This
position didn’t change following the NFSP’s conversion to the status of Trade
Association from Trade Union in 2014, following a decision of the Certification
Officer that the NFSP did not satisfy the definition of the trade union.
73. Our long-held view is that the NFSP merely performs the role of cheerleader for
Post Office and that the grant funding agreement is wholly inappropriate,
unhealthy and essentially props up the NFSP, to the detriment of the
SubPostmasters’ interests. From the CWU'’s perspective, a strong indication of
the loyal support the NFSP gives to Post Office was seen when the NFSP
actively opposed the CWU’s claim for Postmasters to gain Worker status.
Obviously the NFSP was hostile to a CWU successful claim as this could have
been the precursor to securing a recognition agreement whereby the CWU
would be able to collectively bargain for Postmasters.
74.The reality is, the CWU, as an independent Trade Union, generally has a
different perspective and policies on Post Office matters to the NFSP. There
are obviously areas where we would be aligned, such as protecting the long-
term viability of the service to customers and the need for gaining new work
and revenue. However, our Postmaster members feel very strongly that the
NFSP let Postmasters down badly in respect of Network Transformation and
Page 31 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
wider remuneration matters and of course we now know that their support for
the Horizon system was unstinting up until at least the GLO proceedings. This
position is an anathema to the CWU and our members who are not slow in
challenging and criticising Post Office Leadership when it is treating them badly.
Whistleblowing
75.Our members employed by Post Office and Postmasters are able to raise
matters of concern directly with our Representative structures, which included
Representatives at Area and Regional (now Territorial) levels and the
Postmasters Branch Secretary. This organisation and CWU structure enables
matters of concern to be escalated through its Branches up to and including
National level.
76.Our members’ voices are of paramount importance to the Union, particularly in
the establishment of our policies. Accordingly, there are various regular forums
where Representatives meet with the CWU National leadership. These include
National Briefings, Senior Field Officials Briefings and Annual Conferences.
Also, our members are able to email or write to CWU HQ complaining of matters
relating to their day to day working lives, although they are encouraged to
initially raise matters via their Representative and Branch structures. We have
also, for many years had in place a members only closed Facebook group for
directly employed staff and members are encouraged to raise matters of
concerns via this platform. In parallel to this, we also run a dedicated close
Postmasters Facebook group.
Page 32 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
77.Whilst the CWU does not have a specific whistleblowing policy for members to
raise allegations about their treatment in the workplace, as a result of our
extensive network of Representatives, many of whom are very experienced, I
am confident that any major area of concern would quickly find its way to myself
as the National Officer. In essence, our members are very vocal and do not
hesitate to complain about Post Office procedures, policies and actions if they
think management are behaving inappropriately. Basically, we have a very
active membership, this is demonstrated by the fact that it has on numerous
occasions taken strike action when in conflict with Post Office.
78. Similarly, Mark Baker our Postmasters Branch Secretary was well known to all
Postmaster members and his contact details have been regularly shared when
communicating with members. Additionally, Mark was the main administrator
for our dedicated closed Postmasters facebook group which is very active in
discussing all matters relating to the wellbeing of Postmasters. Mark, due to
his extensive knowledge and commitment, even to this day, is a frequent poster
on this group and still regularly provides advice and guidance and support
whenever necessary and has performed this role since the establishment of our
Postmasters Branch. Sean Hudson, our new Branch Secretary, has quickly
taken up the mantle and is passionate about providing decent and independent
representation for Postmasters.
General
79.My strong personal view is that SubPostmasters collectively (not just those that
were unjustly prosecuted and convicted) have been severely let down by both
Post Office and the NFSP and this happened over a significant period of time.
Page 33 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Therefore, the simple answer is that adequate support and representation
available to SubPostmasters caught up in the scandal was completely non-
existent and support only materialised once the JFSA was established and the
resultant political pressures started to grow. There were, however, in my
opinion, a number of major factors that contributed to this position. For example:
a. There was, amongst the Senior Leadership of Post Office, an
institutionalised attitude that every SubPostmaster who had an
accounting discrepancy was guilty of theft. The inappropriate methods
of investigating by the POID meant that the onus was on
SubPostmasters to prove their innocence, which in my opinion clearly
conflicts with natural justice. These attitudes permeated down from the
top management to even the junior levels of management.
b. Post Office was obsessed with its wider reputation and branding and as
a consequence, Senior Directors / management couldn't in any way
accept that the Horizon system was flawed, even when all indications
pointed to this. It follows that the mantra the NFSP readily bought into
was that the Horizon system was robust and as a consequence they
didn’t support any SubPostmaster that was caught up in the scandal.
c. In my opinion, a high degree of the toxic culture that was prevalent at
Senior levels of management was driven by a pay at risk model for
Directors and Senior Managers whereby the potential to receive LTIP
and STIP bonuses incentivised the wrong behaviours and actions as
individuals were motivated by self-benefit. The CWU believed that this
toxic culture at the top of Post Office was primarily driven by Government
targets linked to various bonus schemes and payments. Overall, the
Page 34 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
combined mentality of being in denial of any bugs, errors and defects in
the Horizon system and bonus-driven targets evidently led to significant
levels of managerial tiers believing that many Postmasters were
dishonest in their accounting. This culture was aided and abetted by the
NFSP who the CWU has reasonable grounds to believe betrayed their
members as they readily accepted Post Office management's mantra of
Horizon being robust over the experiences and views of many
SubPostmasters who had turned to them for help. Additionally, the more
recent funding of the NFSP by Post Office evidently creates a conflict of
interest, whereby the NFSP has been shown to put its commercial self-
interest, along with the interests of Post Office ahead of its own
members.
80. In closing, the main issues I wish to make the Chair, Sir Wyn Williams aware of
are as follows:
81.The CWU, as a recognised and independent Trade Union, has robust
Representative structures and long-established good protections and
safeguards in place which have been negotiated for our directly employed Post
Office members. It is my strongly held belief that the combination of these two
key fundamentals has contributed greatly to the job protection for many of our
members who might otherwise have been victims of the Horizon scandal. I
fervently believe the CWU’s policies, allied to its determination to ensure
protection of employment for members wherever possible has enabled the
Union to provide the strongest possible representation on behalf of our directly
Page 35 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
employed members. Accordingly, I am not aware of any case in which the
CWU has failed to support a member who has requested help in relation to
Horizon.
82.Furthermore, since the Horizon system was introduced, no CWU member or
former member has come forward to CWU HQ to say they were denied /
refused representation or support. Similarly, to the best of my knowledge,
nobody has claimed they felt let down by the CWU. Indeed, if there was any
former CWU member who needed support and representation, due to being a
victim of Horizon, we would have expected them to have come forward by now
and definitely after the widespread national news coverage and publicity due to
the ITV Drama — Mr Bates vs Post Office. The fact remains that no former CWU
member has raised any concerns or complaint in respect of CWU
representation at Post Office disciplinary hearings, including Appeals
specifically in relation to accounting problems associated with Horizon.
83.Prior to the commencement of the Inquiry, the CWU wasn’t aware and
therefore had no details (names / workplaces) of any of our directly employed
members being dismissed and subsequently prosecuted due to problems with
Horizon. This position is consistent with the oral evidence I gave at the Select
Committee in February 2015.
84.We are now aware from evidence given to the Inquiry by Andrew Wise on 20"
September 2023 of the dismissal of Elena Herd who was a Counter Clerk and
CWU member (our records show that Elena was a member between 2009 and
Page 36 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
2011) at Stockport Crown Post Office. We understand Elena was convicted of
fraud following a POID investigation into the use of rejected postage labels.
We were pleased to find out that Elena's fraud conviction was overturned by
the CCRC in November 2022 due to the conviction being unsafe because it
relied on data from Horizon. We do not have any record of Elena having
contacted a Local / Area CWU Representative for support in relation to her
discipline case. It is however, possible that she did in fact receive support in
her disciplinary hearing and appeal from CWU, although we have checked with
our Representatives from the Greater Manchester area and nobody currently
in post or retired has any recollection of being involved in Elena's case.
85. Tracy Felstead is the only other case I am now aware of in respect of a Post
Office employee being convicted as a consequence of the Horizon scandal.
The CWU has no record of Tracy having been a CWU member. I do not recall
when I heard about Tracy’s case (it would have been as part of the publicity
gained due to the campaigning by the JFSA and the political scrutiny). By
March 2020 the CWU was obviously aware of Tracy's conviction as she gave
oral evidence to the BEIS Committee on the same day as me. Additionally, we
have no knowledge of Tracy approaching CWU for support at the time of her
employment when facing dismissal or at any time since.
86.CWU members and Post Office have experienced a high degree of conflict
since 2007 in the main surrounding pay disputes and the future of the Crown
Office Network. The following ballot results were declared and, in most cases,
significant levels of strike action followed:
Page 37 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
a. 2007 - Future of Network and Pay - 2,740 Yes votes — 73%, 993 No
votes, - . Turnout 74%.
b. 2011 — Crown Office Pay. Yes votes 2,365 — 93%. No votes 172 —-7%.
Turnout 66%. Resolved with a two-year pay deal without having to resort
to strike action.
c. 2013 - Pay and the Future of the Crown Office Network. Yes votes —
2,367 — 88.1%. No votes 321 — 11.9%. Turnout 74.7%
d. 2014 - Pay. Yes votes 664 —- 75.9%. No votes 211 — 24.1%. Turnout
62%.
e. 2016 — Future of the Post Office, Job Security and Pensions dispute.
Yes votes 1,459 — 83.2%. No votes 295 — 16.8%. Turnout 50.3%.
f. 2022 - Pay. Yes votes 923 - 97.3%. No votes 26 - 2.7%. Turnout
70.2%.
g. Further ballot in November 2022 due to the expiry of the previous ballot,
the life of which was only six months. Yes votes 802 - 91.24%. No votes
77 — 8.76%. Turnout 65.2%.
The ballots above were the main national disputes; however, there would have
been other ballots of certain grade groups or functions / areas in respect of
various trade disputes applicable to ways of working etc.
87.Whilst none of these ballots were in respect of Horizon, it does nonetheless
demonstrate that the CWU and its members have been in regular conflict with
Post Office during the tenures of Alan Cook, Paula Vennells and Nick Read. In
the main, negotiated settlements were ultimately secured, with our members
voting to support the outcome.
Page 38 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
88.Clearly, the CWU has engaged with its membership on many occasions to seek
legal mandates for industrial action. This position proves the CWU is
independent of Post Office. We have never taken these steps lightly and have
always believed that the confrontational attitude of Post Office Senior
Leadership has centred around provocation which has led to our members
taking action when they believed it necessary.
89.The CWU also, due to the overall strategic direction of the Board in respect of
our members’ job security, pay and the future of the Post Office, conducted an
individual members’ survey whereby we posed eight critical questions including
the following key question “Do you support a vote of No Confidence in the
leadership of Paula Vennells, Chief Executive and the Post Office
Board?”. I wrote to Paula Vennells on 16" March 2017 (WITN00340109)
advising her of the decision to conduct the survey. I also provided her with a
copy of LTB 160/17 also dated 16" March 2017.
The survey closed on 318 March 2017 and 910 members responded with a Yes
to the No Confidence question, equating to 92% of voters. 74 (8%) voted No.
The membership communication in respect of this activity is at WITN00340118.
I also wrote again on 31% March to Paula Vennells (WITN00340101) to inform
her of the survey results.
90.Finally, as early as 2015, CWU has campaigned politically for an Independent
judicial Inquiry in order that Postmaster victims could receive justice and
crucially Post Office and its senior leadership be held to account. We were
obviously very pleased when the then Government agreed to give the Inquiry
Page 39 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
statutory status. Consequently, the CWU fully supports the current Inquiry and
wishes to assist with its investigations.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 17" October 2024__
Page 40 of 46
Index to First Witness Statement of Andy Furey
WITNO0340100
WITNO00340100
No.
URN
Document
Description
Control Number
POL00084075
Mandatory Losses
& Gains Policy in
the Crown Office
Network
POL-0081133
Cwuo00000093
0:00 Agreement
between Post
Office Network and
the
Communication
Workers Union for
Staff Contractual
Terms and
Conditions, and for
Resourcing and
Staffing of Branch
Offices
Cwuo00000093
Cwuo00000092
Post Office postal
instructions re: pay
and conditions and
counter losses and
gains policy
Cwuo00000092
Cwu00000094
Agreement
between CWU and
the Post Office re:
Crown Office
Staffing Agreement
on Staff
Contractual Terms
and Conditions,
Resourcing and
Staffing of Crown
Offices
Cwu00000094
POL00041564
Bankruptcy,
prosecution and
disrupted
livelihoods -
Postmasters tell
their story;
reported by
Rebecca Thomson
- Article
POL-0038046
Cwuo00000001
CWU letter to all
branches with
VIS00007675
Page 41 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
postal members,
Post Office:
Findings of
Second Sight
report into Horizon
computer system,
from Andy Furey,
CWU Assistant
Secretary, dated
42" July 2013
RLIT0000220
Written evidence
submitted by CWU
(POM 12)
RLIT0000220
UKGI00003229
Business,
Innovation and
Skills Committee,
Oral evidence
Transcript: Post
Office Mediation,
HC 935
UKGI014043-001
Cwuo00000004
CWU letter to
branches from
Andy Furey, CWU
Assistant
Secretary, dated
218' April 2015
VIS00007678
10
Cwuo00000020
CWuU letter to
branches from
Andy Furey, dated
12" April 2019
VIS00007694
11
Cwuo00000029
CWU letter to
branches from
Andy Furey dated
23" December
2019
VIS00007703
12
POL00417089
Email from Mike
Whitehead to
Peter Batten, RE:
Will Gibson
Meeting -
Feedback/actions
attaching
Arbuthnot
meetings
communication
plan.
POL-BSFF-
0237240
13
POL00117004
Email to Mark R
Davies from
Thomas P Moran
Re: Select
POL-0117839
Page 42 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Committee: initial
briefing material
and other actions
14
POL00386319
Email from Mark
Davies to Jane Hill
re Select
Committee initial
briefing material
POL-BSFF-
0213206
15
POL00162290
Email from
Thomas P Moran
to Mark R Davies
and Jane Hill RE:
Notes from Andy
Furey
conversation re
Horizon
POL-0150724
16
UKGI00005210
Letter from Dave
Ward, CWU
General Secretary,
to Baroness
Neville-Rolfe,
Minister for
Business,
Innovation and
Skills, dated 15"
June 2015
UKGI016024-001
17
UKGI00005211
Letter from Dave
Ward, CWU
General Secretary,
to Baroness
Neville-Rolfe,
Minister for
Business,
Innovation and
Skills, dated 3rd
July 2015
UKGI016025-001
18
WITNO00340105
Letter sent to
Paula Vennells by
Andy Furey (CWU)
Re: Llandudno
Crown —
precautionary
suspension
WITN00340105
19
WITNO00340116
CWU Letter to
Branches Re: Post
Office
Inappropriate Use
of the Discipline
WITN00340116
Page 43 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Procedure for
Counter Losses
20
WITNO00340102
Letter to John
Whitefoot
(Employee
Relations & Policy
Director at POL),
from Andy Furey
(CWU) Re:
Collective
Agreement for
losses & gains —
Emergency
Motion:
Inappropriate use
of Discipline
WITNO00340102
21
WITN00340103
Letter to John
Whitefoot
(Employee
Relations & Policy
Director at POL),
from Andy Furey
(CWU) Re:
Collective
Agreement for
losses & gains —
Emergency Motion
Carried
WITN00340103
22
WITN00340104
Email from Lorna
Pearson (CWU) to
Christopher Roche
(POL); David
Bowmaker (POL)
and others Re:
Losses & Gains —
Letter to John
Whitefoot — update
& model letters
WITN00340104
23
WITN00340106
Email from Andy
Furey (CWU) to
Christopher Roche
(POL); David
Bowmaker (POL)
and others Re:
Losses & Gains —
Model Letters —
Final Versions
WITN00340106
24
WITN00340110
CWU Letter
Template Re:
WITN00340110
Page 44 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Invitation to Fact
Finding Interview
25
WITNO00340111
CWU Letter
Template Re:
Invitation to
Conduct Code
Interview
WITNO00340111
26
WITN00340112
CWU template
letter Re: Issuing
of Penalty /
Disciplinary Action
concerning use of
the Conduct Code
WITN00340112
27
WITN00340113
CWU letter
template —
addressed to 2™
line manager Re:
Invitation to Appeal
Hearing
WITN00340113
28
WITN00340114
CWU Template
Letter to 2"4 line
manager Re:
Outcome of
Appeal
WITN00340114
29
WITNO00340108
Letter addressed
to Andy Furey
(CWU) from Lee
Kelly (POL) Re:
Collective
Agreement for
Losses & Gains —
Emergency Motion
Carried
WITN00340108
30
WITNO00340117
CWU Letter to
Branches Re: Post
Office and
inappropriate use
of the discipline
procedure for
counter losses —
emergency motion
E1
WITN0034117
31
POL00152928
00:00 Email chain
from Martine
Munby to Melanie
Corfield, Ruth
Barker and Mark
Davies cc'ing
others RE: FW:
POL-
BSFF0012040
Page 45 of 46
WITNO00340100
WITNO00340100
Post Office -
Monitoring I
Trouble at the Post
Office
32
Cwuo00000013
Letter: CWU letter
to all branches No.
533/15 with postal
members re:'Post
Office: Panorama
Programme on
Horizon Issues"
VIS00007687
33
WITN00340115
CWU Letter to
Branches Re:
Panorama
Broadcast —
“Trouble at the
Post Office”
POL-BSFF-
0012040
34
WITN00340109
Letter addressed
to Mrs Paula
Vennells (POL),
from Andy Furey
(CWU) Re: CWU
Members Survey —
an opportunity for
the Members
voices to be heard
VIS00007687
35
WITNO00340118
CWU publication
“Pay 2017 and the
Future of the Post
Office”
WITN00340118
36
WITNO00340101
Letter to Paula
Vennells from
Andy Furey (CWU)
Re: CWU
Members Survey
results
WITNO00340101
Page 46 of 46