WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
Witness Name: Jeremy Ewart Cope
Statement No: WITNO3410100
Dated: 30 July 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF Jeremy Ewart Cope (“Jerry Cope”)
I, Jeremy Ewart Cope (“Jerry Cope”), will say as follows
1. I understand that the purpose of this witness statement is to set out matters of
fact of which I have personal knowledge.
2. This witness statement was drafted on my behalf and in my own words by my
solicitor during a process including the preparation of successive drafts after
communications between me and those advisers in writing, by telephone and
by video conference.
3. The facts within this witness statement are either within my own knowledge, or
derive from the records provided by the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry.
However, as it relates to events that occurred over twenty three years ago
there are several areas that I do not recall. Where that is the case I have said
so. This statement responds to the request for a written witness statement
pursuant to Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 reference JCR9-1/LS/20220526
dated 17 June 2022. My witness statement responds to the questions asked
Page 1 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
regarding the development and roll out of the Post Office Horizon computer
project during the period 1997 to 2001.
4. There is now produced and shown to me a paginated bundle of copy
documents marked JCR9-1. All references to documents in this statement are
to Exhibit JCR9-1 unless otherwise stated.
Background
5. I have attached my CV containing my professional history at JCR9-1
6. I started working in the Post Office in 1973, my first role was in the
management services unit of the Letters Business, followed by a spell in the
Managing Director Letters’ office.
7. My career then followed a variety of roles in the Letters/Royal Mail part of the
Post Office, specialising in HR and Industrial Relations (Assistant Director and
then Director Personnel), before broadening out into postal operational
management (General Manager postal Delivery Services and General
Manager London Letters Territory) and then Director Strategy Development.
Apart from one brief period on secondment very early in my career, I have not
worked within Post Office Counters, nor had any business-specific relationship
with that part of the Group.
8. During the period 1997-2001, I was Group Managing Director, with a variety of
titles (MD Personnel, Strategy and Business Development), and was
responsible for, alongside the Board Member for Finance, almost any major
issue that crossed the boundaries of Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office
Counters eg Senior Appointments, Pensions, Corporate Planning (alongside
Page 2 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
the Finance Director), IT cross-business Networks, the Group’s Catering
Business (Quadrant), all where common to all Post Office businesses. I was
also responsible for new business development and spent a good deal of my
time on developing Royal Mail’s International Business and strategy, and on
hybrid mail opportunities. As far as I can recollect, I was not involved directly
in the Horizon project, as this was solely a project for Post Office Counters
Limited. Because this project was of little to no day-to-day visibility to me,
outside Board and Counter Automation Steering Group (CASG) meetings, my
memory of its development, some twenty plus years later is very limited.
9. Since 2003 I have had no involvement with Royal Mail/POL, except for
through my role as Trustee of the Senior Manager Pension Scheme. I have
been in this role for seven years. My role involves attending meetings once a
quarter, although as we are now winding up the scheme it is more like once a
month. Royal Mail attend the meetings in an observation capacity only. Post
Office Ltd do not attend the meeting although they have a few ex-employees
in the Scheme
10. I had no technical experience of IT projects at, or indeed after, 1999, other
than as a customer of major postal automation projects, where the substance
of the project was the engineering rather than the IT wrap-around.
Counter Automation Steering Group Meeting of 23 July 1997
11. I have no recollection of attending the Counter Automation Steering Group
(CASG) meeting on 23 July 1997. From reviewing the minutes (JCR9 01/1
POL00031128 Counter Automation Steering Group 23 July 1997) provided to
me by the inquiry, the meeting appears to have focused on the high level
Page 3 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
timetable and lessons learned to date on the Horizon project including
financial viability given the escalation in costs.
12. The minutes suggest that there were a number of issues, not untypical of a
significant project, still to be ironed out. I have no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the minutes and there is nothing I can add to what is contained in
the minutes regarding my understanding of the causes of delay, robustness,
technical issues and feedback.
13. None of the matters identified in the minutes fell within my area of
responsibility.
Counter Automation Steering Group Meeting (CASG) of 26 January 1998
14. I have no memory of attending this meeting. I do not recall regularly attending
CASG meetings, but having been provided with the minutes (JCR9-01/2
POL00031131 Counter Automation Steering Group 26 January 1998) the
focus of the meeting was on the financial viability of the Horizon project given
the escalation in costs. Given my cross-group focus I assume I was in
attendance to keep an eye on the viability of the Network to provide services
for Royal Mail.
15. My understanding from reading the minutes, is that the issues seem to
continue to centre around the financial viability of the project for both the Post
Office and DSS. It seemed as if strategically DSS envisaged a future paying
benefits outside the post office network, mainly through bank transfer, but in
the short term this had to be balanced by ensuring the post office Network, not
least in rural areas, remained viable, given huge public support for maintaining
Page 4 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
their local post offices. From the minutes, DSS were clearly concerned with
the escalating costs.
16. I have no recollection of my understanding of the reasons for delay,
robustness, technical issues or feedback from users in relation to Horizon from
this time. These were not my area of expertise or focus and would have been
issues for the project Director.
17. To the best of my knowledge and recollection I was not involved in any follow
up from the meeting and did not take any actions as these were not in my area
of responsibility; my point of interest would have been the viability of the
network and ensuring there was a credible ‘Plan B’ not least to serve the Mails
Businesses in the event that Counter Automation in some form was not
financially sustainable, which in turn undermined the viability of the universal
post office network.
Board Meetings of 12 May 1998, 10 November 1998, and 8 December 1998
18. I have additionally been asked to consider minutes of board meetings on
dates 12 May 1998 (RMG00000027), 10 November 1998 (RMG00000015)
and 8 December 1998 (RMG00000012) and to provide any further information
that I recall regarding the discussion of Horizon at those meetings. In the case
of each of these meetings, I am unable to recall the discussions and am
entirely reliant on the minutes and their record of the matters discussed. I
have not therefore addressed each of these documents individually.
19. I cannot remember what my understanding was at the time regarding the
robustness of Horizon, technical issues, and end user feedback. My main
Page 5 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
memory of Horizon was that it was severely delayed and over budget. I do not
recall what the problems were, as the detail is not set out in the minutes. They
would appear to have been software development issues discovered during
testing, which were putting pressure both on the financial viability of the
project and the timing of rollout
20. Given the length of time that has passed, I cannot remember what I
understood of the issues at the time. If any concerns existed it would not have
fallen to me to follow these up as they were not in my area of responsibility. I
would have expected the Counters Business and its expert project team to
progress them and report back openly to the Board.
21. I have no recollection of the issue of the 13 week notice of cure to ICL
Pathway — the minutes of 12" May 1998 seem to be clear that the Post Office
had firm legal advice from Slaughter and May that it was not in our interests to
join DSS in any cure notice. I do not recall the substance of that advice.
22. I have no detailed recollection of the detailed positions of the various parties
involved in the Horizon project, but everyone would have wanted to ensure the
viability of the Post Office network, which needed modernising to make it
competitive, whilst delivering an acceptable return on investment for all
parties.
Cancellation of the Benefits Payment Card
23. As far as I can recall, I was not involved in meetings with Government on
Horizon, and therefore my knowledge is limited to what I have read in the
papers provided to me by the inquiry. Further I have no recollection of the
Page 6 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
Prime Minister's involvement, other than an over-arching government
objective to protect the viability of the network.
24. I have no recollection of the Treasury Review but from other experience I
would expect the options to centre on financial effectiveness for UK plc. As I
have no memory of the Treasury Review, I am unable to comment on the Post
Office’s position on the options identified. The Post Office would have been
focussed on ensuring the viability of all parts of the Post Office Group both
financially and operationally.
25. Given my lack of memory of these events which occurred over twenty two
years ago, my lack of involvement in the meetings with government, or public
sector negotiations I cannot add anything further to what is in the papers I
have been provided.
Board Meetings of 20 July 1999, 14 September 1999, 26 October 1999, 11
January 2000
26. _I have further been asked to consider minutes of board meetings on 20 July
1999 (POL00000352), 14 September 1999 (POL00000353), 26 October 1999
(POL00000354) and 11 January 2000 and to provide any further information
that I recall regarding the discussion of Horizon at those meetings. I was
aware of the progress of Horizon through the Board and my recollection is that
my knowledge derived from what we were told in those meetings. In the case
of each of these meetings, I am unable to recall the discussions and am
entirely reliant on the minutes and their record of the matters discussed. I
have not therefore addressed each of these documents individually.
Page 7 of 15
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
I am not an expert on technical issues. Generally, at that time if a matter on
the Board required technical expertise, and was not routine, I would ask
Duncan Hine, the Group IT Director for a brief including if there was anything
material and whether I should be asking any questions; and probably have a
pre-discussion with him prior to the Board.
These events happened over twenty years ago, but I have no recollection of
Duncan briefing me on any potential show stopping issues. Further, whilst my
recollection is hazy, I have no memory of any material problems.
At the time I was not aware of problems experienced by sub-postmasters. The
system was not in general use, it was being trialled. During trials you would
expect there to be issues but these are generally reported and ironed out.
These issues would not have come to the attention of the Board unless the
problems were unusual. I cannot remember what was known at this time,
above what is recorded in the Board minutes.
I cannot remember what my understanding was regarding the robustness of
Horizon at that time. It is clear from reading the minutes that any issues, which
are not unusual in a major new IT development project, were ironed out and
resolved.
Given the passage of time, I cannot remember if I had concerns, and if I raised
them at the time. If I had concerns I would have raised them with the
Managing Director of Counters or the Chairman. However, I believe that if I
had, had such concerns and had raised them I would remember this.
The Horizon project appears to have been an ongoing discussion, and was on
Page 8 of 15
33.
34.
35.
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
the agenda for each Board meeting. According to the minutes the Board
seems to have received a report that Horizon’s operational issues were being
satisfactorily addressed. At the time there was a collegiate work atmosphere
where you could give constructive criticism without it being taken wrongly.
I do not remember why the decision to sign the contract with ICL was remitted
to the Chairman and Chief Executive, but I am not surprised. From reviewing
the Minutes it is clear that as the Board had approved the conditions it was a
matter of ensuring that those conditions were being met. It therefore would
make sense for this to be remitted to them to confirm the conditions had been
met and then sign accordingly.
My focus on Horizon would have been whether the new system provided any
strategic new product opportunities across the Group as opposed to within
Post Office Counters, and my (vague) memory is that I concluded that the
opportunities were limited. My style, given my limited IT knowledge, in
preparation for Main Board discussions on Horizon, would, as set out above,
have been to ask Duncan Hine, the Group IT Director for a brief; and probably
have a pre-discussion with him prior to the Board. I do not recall him advising
that the project should be red flagged on operational or technical grounds. I
also had a lot of respect for David Miller, who was leading on the project from
Post Office Counters, to be robust in telling the Board of difficulties although I
had no direct contact with him on Horizon, that I recall.
In summary, but only from reading the Board minutes not from any clear
recollection, I was aware that there were hurdles to overcome in terms of
technical issues and robustness but got no sense that these were show-
Page 9 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
stoppers; b) As set out above, Duncan Hine would have briefed me, but I have
no recollection of specific technical issues; c) I have no recollection of sub-
postmasters’ problems. d) I would have taken part in the Board discussions,
but unless Duncan Hine had briefed me that there were serious concerns at
that time, (and I am reasonably sure that he did not, as I would probably
remember that), I do not recall raising any issues outside the Board meeting. I
was not as a matter of course involved in meetings about Horizon, as far as I
recollect; e) As I do not recall the discussion, it is difficult to answer the
question directly, but in style-terms the Board, having set out some clear
parameters for signing the contract would have been content that if those
parameters were met, the Chair and Chief Executive in tandem would be
authorised to sign and report back accordingly — this is fairly normal practice
on a number of Boards on which I have sat.
Board Meeting of 12 June 2001
36. I have no recollection other than reading these Board minutes (POL00021476)
which strongly suggest the implementation was proceeding well. I have no
reason to doubt the accuracy of the meeting minutes.
37. I have no recollection of any material technical issues or any problems with
sub-postmasters being reported at this time.
38. My understanding around Horizon would almost certainly have again been
limited to the favourable report set out in the Board minutes. I would not, for
reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs of this statement, have been
involved further.
General
Page 10 of 15
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
I do not recall attending any other significant meetings around the operation of
the Horizon Project — but I would not, given the nature of my role, be due to
attend such meetings as a matter of course, only when there was potential
impact on my cross-Group responsibilities.
I have no recollection of whether any steps were taken to seek reassurance
from ICL/Fujitsu, which does not mean they were not requested as it is
unlikely I would either remember or be directly involved.
I do not recall any political pressures in respect of agreeing the contract or in
relation to the timing of the roll out and would offer the observation that the
Post Office was very robustly chaired at that time, so doubt those pressures
would have had much if any impact if they had existed. Horizon was not
substantively mentioned, again as far as I recall, in meetings which I
personally attended with government, which were focussed on corporate and
cross-Group issues.
This was a major project being run by an experienced project team. The
Board's role was and should be to ensure risks were being managed, and
appropriate controls and expertise were in place. The Board, not least the
non-executives were experienced in such oversight. It would have been very
unusual at that time for ‘experts’ to be on a Group Board for specialist
projects
I believe, based on the culture at the time, that the project was transparently
reported to the Board.
This project was not being operationally run by the Group Board but by Post
Page 11 of 15
45.
46.
47.
48.
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
Office Counters. The Board would have trusted, based on their track record
and that of ICL/Fujitsu, that operational issues were being identified and
solved and this is backed up by the Board minutes. The Board’s appropriate
concerns were that the business case was sound, and that controls,
governance and risk management were in place — the reporting at that time,
according to the minutes, rather than my memory, suggests all this was being
addressed and progressed, issues were being identified and solved.
I feel that at the time the Board effectively scrutinised the procurement, pilot
and roll out of Horizon— although as I have no knowledge of how/why the
Horizon project ran into its subsequent difficulties, I cannot therefore comment
on whether this Board should have been capable of anticipating those
difficulties.
I have been asked some further questions on 25 July 2024 and I answer these
below.
I am asked to what extent, if at all, I was aware that the Post Office prosecuted
SPMs for theft, fraud and false accounting? As a long-term Royal Mail
employee, I was generally aware that the Post Office prosecuted for fraud and
theft, but not sure that I was aware that this also embraced false accounting.
All such prosecutions were matters for the Post Office.
I am asked to describe the corporate governance structures in place to
oversee the Post Office’s prosecutions against SPMs for theft, fraud and false
accounting, and the extent to which I or the board involved in those processes.
My responsibilities were focussed on Royal Mail, within the Royal Mail Group,
Page 12 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
and the Royal Mail Group Board was not, as far as I recall, generally involved
in operational issues within Post Office Counters Ltd, other than any
highlighted in the monthly report to that Board. I do not recall any flags about
prosecutions being raised by Post Office Counter Ltd to the Royal Mail Group
Board, but I did leave that Board in 2003, perhaps before any trends became
apparent. I have no recollection of what governance processes were in place
within Post Office Counters Limited, as governance of prosecutions was a
matter for them.
49. Lastly, I am asked to describe my reflections on the adequacy of oversight of
Post Office prosecutions by the board. If I am being asked about the Royal
Mail Group Board, the governance process was normal for what in effect was
a holding Company Board, namely monitoring of finances, strategic direction
and KPIs. If anything else was off target or of major issue, this was due to be
flagged up in the monthly report of the Chief executive (Managing Director) of
Post Office Counters Limited. Such an approach is normal for Subsidiaries of
any major Board. I have no knowledge of the more detailed operational
governance, including prosecutions, that would have been in place within Post
Office Counters Limited
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the content of this witness statement are true.
Page 13 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
Signed: i G RO ;
Date: 30 July 2024
Index to First Witness Statement of Jerry Cope
URN Document Description Control Number
Page 14 of 15
WITNO3410100
WITNO3410100
POL00031128
Counter Automation Steering Group
minutes of meeting of 23/07/1997
POL-0028721
POL00031131
Counter Automation Steering Group
minutes of meeting of 26/01/1998
POL-0028724
RMG00000027
Minutes: Post Office Board Minutes
of 12/05/1998
VIS00007435
RMG00000015
Minutes: Post Office Board Minutes
of 10/11/1998
VIS00007423
RMG00000012
Minutes: Post Office Board Minutes
of 08/12/1998
VIS00007420
POL00000352
Post Office Board Minutes of 20/-
07/1999
VIS00001326
POL00000353
Post Office Board Minutes of
14/09/1999
VIS00001327
POL00000354
Post Office Board Minutes of
26/10/1999
VIS00001328
POL00021476
Consignia Pic Board Meeting
Minutes of 12/06/2001
POL000009
Page 15 of 15