WITN06430100
WITN06430100
Witness Name: Christopher Charles French
Statement No: WITN06430100
Exhibits: None
Dated: 17 February 2023
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
I, Christopher Charles French, will say as follows:-
1. This witness statement has been made in response to the Rule 9 Request of 6
December 2022, which asks me to comment on four documents supplied to me.
Professional Background
2. I have been asked to describe my professional background. I have a degree
in engineering and MSc in operational research and management studies.
Before Post Office (PO) Horizon I had worked as an interim manager or a
consultant for nearly twenty years often on technology related issues. I had
worked on a large government system, had been an interim IT Director for a
supermarket chain and later for a Dutch retailer, and had been an interim
manager for a transport organisation, and project manager for the
development and roll-out of a system for multiple store locations. At the time I
Page 1 of 8
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
was at Post Office Counters Limited (POCL) my employer was the French
Thornton Partnership Limited, where I was a director. I retired thirteen years
ago.
PO Horizon
3.
I was Horizon Programme Manager within POCL from the start of April 1999
to the start of February 2000 with a handover period to my successor in
January 2000. This role was over twenty two years ago and I can recall few
details of it now and do not have access to the Post Office archives of Horizon
or a glossary of abbreviations. I reported to the Programme Director and that
position was filled by three different POCL staff at various times while I was
there. I believe the Programme Manager role did not include areas such as
Contacts, Commercial, Business Systems Management (BSM) and the
Project Management Office which possibly managed Reference Data. The
Programme Manager role mainly involved coordination across the
programme.
During 1999 the objective was to help Horizon/ICL Pathway achieve an
implementation rate of 300 Post Offices per week. This aim would have
required completion of Acceptance and start of a limited Roll-out. My role was
modified over time. For example, after the contract terms were renegotiated
and signed the programme would refocus on the next steps which would have
taken account of any adjusted timescales.
Page 2 of 8
5.
The Horizon Management Team Meeting (HMT) included POCL and ICL
Pathway membership and was intended to foster progress and cooperation.
To that end Mike Coombs, the ICL Pathway Programme Director, and I would
usually meet a few days before the meeting to get clear our respective main
issues so that the meeting would be more productive; that is, directed towards
progress or what was needed for progress.
Function of Horizon and acceptance
6.
I have been asked to consider document ICL Pathway NR2 Progress
Summary for Input to Checkpoint Meeting dated 12 May 1999 [FUJ00078742]
and to explain what I understood about a Change Control Note. A Change
Control Note (CCN) was I believe a proposed alteration to the contractual
terms and could be raised by either ICL Pathway or POCL or Benefits Agency
(BA). A CCN would usually have been preceded by Change Requests (CRs)
for initial impact analysis. After negotiations, agreed CCNs could be
incorporated in an amended contract or agreement. I believe there were two
major changes to the contract during my time as Programme Manager; in May
1999 and in September 1999. There may have been others.
This document [FUJ00078742] is an internal ICL Pathway note of progress
and was prepared for a wider meeting on 12 May 1999. In Section 9, ICL
Pathway has logged delays by POCL in their response times to CCNs - some
of which are long delays. I do not recollect why there were long delays, or
any effects on ICL Pathway’s plans that may have been reported.
Page 3 of 8
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
8. I have been asked to explain why there were delays and if I felt this affected
performance. There may have been many reasons for these delays and these
could have included complexity of the issue, the need to involve many others
in the assessment, and the availability of relevant experts. It seems likely that
some CCNs would be combined if a root cause of several problems had been
identified.
9. An action from the previous Checkpoint Meeting states Mike Coombs was to
discuss this with me, but I do not recall any discussion.
10. Usually having received documents such as this they would have been
addressed with the managers concerned and if necessary at the Programme
Management Team (HMT) meeting with both POCL and ICL Pathway. I do
not have access to the agenda or minutes of such meetings.
11. The Change Request/Change Control Note (CR/CCN) status report
[FUJ00078742] states this was also copied to Keith Baines who was the
POCL Contract Manager for Horizon. There was a new Agreement with ICL
Pathway I think at about the end of May 1999 and there was then a new
timetable, which may have allowed for the effect of such CCN delays.
12.1 have been asked to consider an email from John Meagher to Chris French
re Reference Data, dated 28 October 1999 [POL00028564]. This is a note of
issues arising with Reference Data and a summary of the proposed courses
Page 4 of 8
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
of action. It is addressed to me and copied to six others in PO and appears to
be for information. Six issues are mentioned, five of which Mr Meagher
reports he has asked the appropriate person to pursue.
13. The sixth issue is more significant in that the then current Reference Data
Design produced large volumes of data, although the process that produced
these data was in accordance with the ‘agreed design’. He reports he also
‘asked Mike Coombes to document the exact problems that ICL Pathway was
experiencing and the associated risks they are facing. On receipt of this
information I [Mr Meagher - my insert] will convene a session to explore the
options available’. Mr Meagher lists likely causes, proposes to investigate
these and possibly to expect ICL Pathway to prepare a CCN concerning the
system design. These proposals seem appropriate to me. I would probably
have agreed that Mr Meagher continue to carry out his proposals, but do not
recall that or any follow-up meeting or CCN.
14.1 have been asked to consider Review of Horizon Performance and Problem
Management Reporting, Post Office Network (internal Audit) dated Nov-Dec
1999 [POL00028440]. I believe that there were several independent
assessments of the ability of PO and ICL Pathway to start the full rollout that
had been scheduled for the end of January 2000, for example: this PO
Internal Audit and a PA Consulting Review mentioned in the POIA Terms of
Reference at Appendix A.
Page 5 of 8
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
15.In the POIA Review, the section headed Transaction Processing (TP)/TIP at
3.9 indicates that ‘the level of errors will return to pre-Horizon levels after 13
weeks’. In 3.10 the Review lists the problems identified, some of which
appear to be system related and others possibly user related. At the end of
3.10 it states that the differences between information received by ICL
Pathway and Cash Account information were being dealt with as Acceptance
Incident (Al) 376. I believe this was one of the key Acceptance Incidents that
was being addressed by ICL Pathway as part of the September 1999
agreement. I believe the full roll out could not have started if Al 376 had not
been agreed as lower severity at that time. It seems some issues still existed
and were being monitored.
16. This POIA Report states in 1.4 that the action plan was agreed and in section
2.2 ‘the procedures for identifying problems and reporting performance was
good’. This would have been necessary to enable residual problems to be
addressed quickly and rectified. The report is addressed among others to
BSM for action and I would have expected the problems listed in 3.10 to be
investigated for their root causes and these resolved, and whether remedial
action was already underway, such as changes already in the pipeline, or
contained in a proposed CCN.
17.1 have been asked to consider a Memo from Chis Paynter to Andy Radka,
Review of Horizon Performance and Problem Management — Post Office
Network [POL00028699]. I assume that I would have copied this email to
Page 6 of 8
WITN06430100
WITN06430100
others. I do not recognise the job title Mr Paynter ascribed to me. At the date
of the memo, 8 February 2000, I had formally handed over my responsibilities
as Programme Manager to my successor and I would probably have also
handed this email to the new Programme Manager.
Reflection
18.1 have been asked to say what with hindsight PO would have done differently
and what I would have done differently and who is to blame for the PO
Horizon scandal. After all this time, I cannot say what the Post Office should
have done differently, or what if anything I would have done differently.
Similarly I do not know who is to blame for the scandal; who made the
decision to continue with prosecutions after the problems with the system
were known.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Signed:
Dated: 17 February 2023
Page 7 of 8
Index to First Witness Statement of Christopher Charles French
No. I URN Document Description Control Number
1 FUJ00078742 ICL Pathway NR2 Progress
Summary for Input to Checkpoint I POINQ0068330F
Meeting 12 May 1999
2 I WITNO643R9_01/2 I Email from John Meagher to Chris I POL-0025046
POL00028564
French re Reference Data, 28 Oct
1999
3 WITN0643R9_01/3 I Review of Horizon Performance POL-0024922
POL00028440 and Problem Management
Reporting, Post Office Network
(internal Audit) Nov-Dec 1999
4 WITN0643R9_ 01/4 I Internal Memo from Chris Paynter I POL-0025181
POL00028699
(PO Internal Audit) to Andy
Radka(Head of Business Service
Management PO Network) re
Review of Horizon Performance
and Problem Management Dated
08 February 2000
Page 8 of 8
WITN06430100
WITN06430100