WITNO6050100
WITN06050100
Witness Name: Kathryn Frances Parker
Statement No: WITN06050100
Exhibits: None
Dated: 10" December 2022
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT ENQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF KATHRYN FRANCES PARKER (FORMERLY
COOk)
I, Kathryn Frances Parker will say as follows:
1.
I was employed by the Post Office in 1984 as a member of its graduate
programme direct from university. I had a number of roles during my
employment with the Post Office and with Royal Mail Group, including two
stints working with Post Office Counter Services / Post Office Counters/POCL.
My second stint working for POL finished in 2001 and I left Royal Mail Group
in 2006. I have been largely self-employed since then - running my own
company and providing interim services to clients (mainly in the public sector
but also for a small number of private companies) in the UK. I am currently
working as Head of Organisation Development for a West London council
(Harrow Council). I regret that my recollection of some of the specifics is not
good given the passage of time.
Page 1 of 11
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
2. I was not involved in either the procurement or design of the Horizon IT
project. I was involved in the work around training provision for the roll out of
the system albeit that as I did not have operational expertise in counter
transactions/ balancing I worked with others in the team who did have
expertise in this area. I do not recall if my involvement predated January 1999.
3. I have considered documents sent to me by the Inquiry, including the Post
Office Network Policy For Releasing to attend training [FUJ001 19699] and
the POCL Processing for Training and Awareness Scheduling to Support
National Rollout [POLO00 89741]. Whilst I do not specifically recall these
documents they were clearly the source documents for ensuring that there
were practical measures in place to make sure the training was attended as
required by the programme. The documents also set out the arrangements for
competency testing of staff, sub postmasters and their assistants.
4. I have considered a memorandum dated January 1999
[POL00039748}. Sadly, I do not recall the specific background to this
memorandum which refers to concerns about “the entry level of competency”.
I clearly recall that there was concern across the business that the move from
an often manual operation to one using technology to complete transactions
would be challenging and would require significant attention and investment.
This was especially the case for those who had very limited, if any, exposure
to using technology previously. It was also the belief that those using paper
based ways of completing transactions had developed, over time, their own
ways of working - Horizon would require transactions to be done in a standard
Page 2 of 11
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
way across the entire network and using prescribed methodologies i.e. to
move to a much more of a “conformance culture”. I do not recall if the team
that was created following this letter was the same as the Horizon Training
Competencies Development Group. I do not recall its terms of reference or
purpose.
I have considered a letter dated 19 February 1999 with the title Horizon
Training: Competency and Conformance and its annexes; and a report dated
11 December 1998 titles Project Initiation Document: Conformance Strand 3,
Business case [POL00039781], [POL00039782], [POL00039783],
[POL00039784], [POL00039785] and [POL00089738]. Regrettably after the
passage of time since this meeting was held I do not recall it. As set out
earlier I clearly recall concerns about introducing technology into an often
manual operation at a time when the use of technology was much more
limited than itis now. Sub postmasters and their staff were highly skilled at
using existing processes to complete multiple transactions. From recollection,
these numbered over 200 at the time. Each required different forms, different
documentation to be validated and different processes etc. Annex C [POL
00039784] sets this challenge out well (although I do not recall the meeting
that produced it). Annex D [POL00039785] appears to be a brainstorm of
gaps - it refers to a potential gap being “not starting from the competence we
want” - although I do not recall the conversation that led to this, my reading of
it now is that it refers to the left hand column in Annex C [POL00039784].
Annex D looks to be a document that set out possible gaps, not all of which
were known to exist for certain. The Project Initiation Document
[POL00089738} (which I do not recall) suggests to me now a comprehensive
Page 3 of 11
WITNO6050100
WITN06050100
understanding of the need to ensure POL moved to a compliance culture that
had previously not been required.
. I am asked if I feel that the training programme offered to sub postmasters
was
“adequate at this point in time”. My assessment following my reading of the
documents you supplied to me, was that there were signs that the
achievement of competency by all those required to achieve it was a concern
- changing very long established ways of working and introducing technology
at the same time certainly put pressure on those operating the new system.
The training and post training support required a considerable investment in
both time and money by Post Office Counters - the Horizon system could not
have successfully gone live without it. I have considered an email from Clare
Dryhurst to myself dated 23 February 1999 ([POL00039712]). I am asked
why this email was sent to me and what I did with the information.
Regrettably I do not recall this.
. [have considered another email from Clare Dryhurst to myself dated 23
February 1999 [POL00039724]. Regrettably, I do not recall the background to
this e-mail. I do not know what the reference to “ICL remedies” refers to.
. I have been asked a number of questions about a memorandum dated 9 April
1999 with an enclosed report [POL00039735] . My response to each
question is set out below:
Page 4 of 11
a)
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
!'am asked to expand on the quote the “business has never had a detailed
definition - other than the recently introduced one for new entrant counter
clerks... of what we mean by competency” and I am asked what effect, if any
this had on the Post Office. As mentioned earlier, people working in Post
Offices had, over time, developed ways of working that delivered the
outcomes that were required (good levels of customer service etc) but didn't
have standard processes that had to be followed - each sub postmaster had,
from recollection, accountability for training their assistants and assuring their
capability. This meant that over time, different sub post offices had developed
their own ways of working. Given this, it was difficult, I believe, to set a
common competency standard because there was no standardised way of
working. Pre the use of technology it was clearly a system that worked - the
introduction of technology meant that this way of working had to be
transitioned into a new (much more rigorous and uniform) way of working.
This in itself does lend of course to more rigorous fixed and effective ways of
measuring competence. This was not something I believe that we were able
to do prior to that (other than to a limited extent in branch offices). Iam asked
to consider the reasoning behind the competency statement at page 11.
Although I do not recall this specifically, this appears to set out the differences
we expected to see once the Horizon system had been introduced across the
network
lam asked to what extent; if at all the group gave consideration to whether
the ability to establish the cause of discrepancies in branch accounts reports
produced by the Horizon system ought to be included in the definition of
Page 5 of 11
Cc
d
)
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
competency. I regret that I do not recall whether I or the group gave
consideration to that point - we would certainly I’m sure, have given
consideration to the ability of sub postmasters to carry out all necessary
requisite reconciliations and there was consideration given to that in the
training proposal.
lam asked for my views on why the commissioned research found that pre
course competency was measured at 79% and a course completion rate of
97.63% and what steps if any were taken to confirm the reason for this
difference. I do not recall what steps were taken to confirm the reason for this
difference.
Iam asked to expand on all points raised in the bullet point beginning “both
the end to end” and ending “recognising individual training needs” on page 7.
Having reminded myself through reading this document I believe that this
paragraph raises questions about that the duration of the Horizon training. I
note that the document suggests this research did not include some of the
additional support subsequently made available. With a large training roll out
such as that for Horizon, it would have been incredibly difficult to tailor
training to each individual's needs. The approach taken I believe was to
provide standard training for all users and then to supplement this where
required with specific support through one to one measures and helpline
support. The competency tests themselves identified where some of that
additional support might be required.
Page 6 of 11
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
e) I am asked for my views and on whether or not the competence of sub
postmasters across the post office network was such to materially affect the
training programme. It's my recollection that we were dealing with a very
diverse population. Whilst it's true to say that some were using technology to
a limited extent, some people were not using a lot of technology and were
reliant on manual systems that had been in place for many years. The
competence of any person to pick up a new technology quickly was always a
concern and this was why the training was provided and the additional
support measures were put in place post training. I am asked whether the
training programme was adequate to train sub masters across the network to
use the Horizon IT system. I don't have access to the figures for how many
sub postmasters required additional support or at this distance, nor how many
had to repeat the competency tests so it is difficult to comment on that
particular point. The system did though go live and most people were able to
use the system albeit that it took time for some to become fully proficient. I am
also asked I what steps if any were taken in respect of improving training
generally, the training programme and /or competence across the post office
network following this report. I am sure that improvements were made
following this report but regrettably I do not have access to the documentation
to confirm what these improvements were. I moved on to another role in 2001
and didn’t have any involvement in Horizon after that point — 1 cannot
therefore provide any insights into the data that was collected about
competence levels as the roll out proceeded.
Page 7 of 11
9.
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
I have considered an electronic memo dated 25 June
1999([POL00090408]. I do not recall the background to this research, nor who
commissioned it or for what purpose. I do not recall what steps I took in
relation to the report but it was clearly an important insight that should have
influenced our approach. I have been asked to review the POCL Policy On
Competency Training dated 13 August 1998 [FUJ00001287]. My recollection
is somewhat hazy but I recall that competency testing focused on a number of
transactions but not all because of the very large number of transactions that
were done at the time. I believe that testing focused on the most frequently
required transactions including balancing.
10.1 have been asked if I felt in hindsight if anything more could have been done
in respect of training or competency testing. I have thought about this carefully
given what we now know about the operation of Horizon in practice. This was
a massive programme of change, affecting thousands of people. The
investment in training was considerable (both in time and money terms) and in
re reading the documents it looks to me that the design of the training and
competency were proportionate. Given the passage of time and the issues
which the Inquiry is now looking at I wonder however if there should have
been a change to the pacing and phasing of roll out ie although the approach
to training design and competency felt proportionate at the time, it may be the
case that training duration should have been looked at in the light of data
coming back from the competency testing processes (and other measures of
effectiveness). Potentially this could have resulted in slowing down roll out to
ensure that all of the competency issues had the chance to emerge before
Page 8 of 11
1
Dated:
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
driving the roll out further. This could I suppose have been achieved by going
live much more slowly - learning as region by region went live or by type of
office in batches. I do not know the financial implications of this of course, so
do not know if this would have been financially possible. It is worth stating
that I do not recall seeing any impact data while I was working on the
programme.
I have been asked if there is anything else in relation to the inquiry of which I
think the Chair should be aware. I do not other than to say that at no point did
we consider that there were issues with the design of the system or how it
operated. In relation to training and competency we took it as a given that the
Horizon system was secure and operated as it was supposed to in terms of
serving customers and in the balancing/reconciliation processes. It was
shocking to hear subsequently of the issues that have arisen.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
lO -12-22
Page 9 of 11
Index to First Witness Statement of Kathryn Parker
No.
URN
[Document Description
(Control Number
IFUJ001 19699
Post Office policy for
releasing individuals to
jattend training. V 2.0 dated
[22/11/2000
POINQ0125891F
IPOLO0089741
POCL Processes for
\Training and Awareness
Scheduling to Support
National Role Out v1.0
dated 10/08/1998
IPOL-0086717
IPOL00039748
Memo from Kathryn Cook
jto multiple recipients re:
Horizon Training
(Competency and
(Conformance dated
January 1999
IPOL-0036306
IPOL00039781
Letter from Ms Kathryn Cook
ito Ms Sue Smith and others
re: Horizon Training:
(Competency and
(Conformance dated 19
[February 1999
POL-0036339
POL00039782
Annex on Horizon
iTraining: Competency and
Conformance Action
Points
IPOL-0036340
IPOL00039783
Horizon Training
(Competencies
Development Group:
Meeting on 3 February
1999.
IPOL-0036341
IPOL00039784
Report detailing
{Competence In Front Line
Service
IPOL-0036342
IPOL00039785
(Annex on Brainstorm of
Gaps
POL-0036343
POL00089738
Post Office Project
Initiation Document:
I\Conformance Strand 3,
POL-0086714
Page 10 of 11
WITN06050100
WITNO06050100
Business Case v0.3 by
(Clare Dryhurst and Glenys
Davies dated 11/12/98
10
IPOL00039712
[Email from Clare Dryhurst
Ito Kathryn Cook dated
23/02/1999
POL-0036270
14
IPOL00039724
[Email from C Dryhurst to
Kathryn Cook dated
23/02/1999
IPOL-0036282
12
IPOL00039735
Letter from Kathryn Cook
ito Bruce McNiven
regarding Horizon Training
+ dated 09/04/1999
POL-0036293
13
IPOLO0090408
Electronic Memorandum
from Alan Bourne to
Dolores O'Conner, Neil
Barrett, Lorna Green,
[Kathryn Cook and others
re: FWD: Horizon
qualitative research —
\dated 25/06/1999
IPOL-0087377
14
IFUJ00001287
IPOCL Policy On
(Competency Testing. V
1.0 dated 13/08/1998
IPOINQ0007458F
Page 11 of 11
WITN06050100
WITN06050100