WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
Witness Name: Thomas Wechsler
Statement No: WITN09790100
Dated: 11 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF THOMAS WECHSLER
I, Thomas Wechsler, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. lama former employee of Post Office Limited and held the positions of
a. Programme Manager of the Mediation Scheme
b. Chief of Staff
c. Director of Government and Payment Services
2. 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 1 October 2024
the “Request’).
Background (addressing questions 2 -3)
3. I joined Post Office Limited (POL) in September 2014 after a career in the UK
Civil Service which commenced in 1996. In that time I worked in multiple roles
across a number of Government departments, predominantly developing policy
and legislation in support of ministers’ priorities. I reached the Senior Civil
Service in 2005 and my final role before joining POL was as Principal Private
Secretary to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
1 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
4. In mid-2014 I was approached by a firm of recruitment consultants to ask if I
would consider applying for the role of Chief of Staff at POL. Following a number
of interviews, I was ultimately unsuccessful in that application (Gavin Lambert
was appointed). However, I was subsequently asked if I would like to join POL
as Programme Manager of the Mediation Scheme (Project Sparrow). I
accepted that offer and joined POL in September 2014.
5. I do not recall the precise timing but during the course of 2015, Gavin decided
to return to his career in the Civil Service. I was approached by Gavin to ask if
I would like to take on the role of Chief of Staff. Following a conversation with
Paula Vennells, I accepted the role. I remained in that role until late 2016. At
that point, I was interviewed through an internal process to take on the newly
created role of Director of Government Services and Payments. I was
successful in that process and took up that role in December 2016. (This was
part of a wider restructure of POL which also saw the role of Chief of Staff come
to an end.) I left POL in June 2018 after the decision was taken to move the
payments business into a subsidiary.
Roles (addressing questions 4 — 9)
6. As Programme Manager of the Mediation Scheme, my role was to provide
support to all members of the Mediation Scheme Working Group, and the Chair
(Sir Anthony Hooper) in particular, to ensure that the Mediation Scheme
progressed in accordance with its Terms of Reference. Specific responsibilities
included e.g. the scheduling of meetings, the distribution of papers, the
scheduling of cases for discussion and minute taking. I also oversaw record
keeping for the Scheme.
2 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
7. As Chief of Staff, my role was to provide support to the Chief Executive across
the range of her responsibilities, often in response to events. As such it had few
pre-defined specific responsibilities or scheduled tasks. Activities included e.g.
reviewing and commenting on papers for the CEO, providing a first draft of the
CEO’s report to the Board, speech-writing, following up customer complaints
and supporting colleagues through clarifying requests / questions put to them
and advising on Board / ExCo priorities. I also, at the CEO’s request, picked
up individual projects on occasion e.g. development of the POL apprenticeship
scheme.
8. Both roles were part of POL’s senior leadership team. Most of my peer group
had titles commencing with “Head of...”.
9. My move to Director of Government Services and Payments represented a
promotion. I still had no direct reporting lines to the Board, but I presented to
them on business issues as necessary e.g. the re-procurement of the Post
Office Card Account and the acquisition of Payzone Ltd.
10.As Programme Manager of the Mediation Scheme I reported to Belinda Crowe.
As Chief of Staff I reported to Paula Vennells. I had no line management
responsibilities in either role.
11.1 did not sit on any POL committees as Programme Manager of the Mediation
Scheme. As Chief of Staff I was not part of ExCo but routinely attended ExCo
meetings at the invitation of the CEO. I was, at the discretion of the CEO,
permitted to contribute to its discussions.
12.As Programme Manager of the Mediation Scheme, I met civil servants from
ShEx/UKGI on an ad hoc basis. The purpose of those meetings was to provide
information relating to the operation of the Mediation Scheme in order to
3 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
support their briefing of ministers. Although I do not recall the precise timings,
these meetings were likely to have taken place in the lead up to parliamentary
debates. I had no direct contact with ministers; nor with any other Members of
Parliament.
13.As Chief of Staff, I similarly had ad hoc meetings and conversations with ShEx
/ UKGI on a range of business issues. The nature of these varied but they
covered e.g. facilitating ministerial visits to POL; and taking questions on issues
arising from POL Board papers.
14.More broadly, POL colleagues on occasion sought my advice on an informal
basis, based on my prior civil service career, on how they might address
particular issues with government that sat outside ShEx / UKGI's
responsibilities. As an example, my advice was sought on how to raise
concerns about the proposed routing of the HS2 train line relative to the location
of one of POL’s cash-handling centres. I had no direct contact with Members
of Parliament.
15.To the best of my recollection, I do not think there was a single, explicit or
defined strategy for working with ShEx, UKGI, government and MPs. The
Communications and Public Affairs team led general engagement with
Government and MPs, notably but not exclusively in the context of branch
openings, closures and network transformation; and raising the profile of POL’s
value and social purpose with parliamentarians. Interactions with ShEx / UKGI
on particular business issues were expected to be led by the relevant Director
or ExCo member. For example, the CFO and Director of Strategy led
discussions on financial support to POL from government. The Government
Services Director would lead discussions and negotiations on the provision of
4 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
services to government (e.g. passport applications, driving licence applications,
the Post Office Card Account) with the relevant government department /
agency. In my experience, these discussions were wholly commercial i.e. POL
was treated as any other supplier would have been by government, irrespective
of government's ownership of POL.
Knowledge of the Horizon IT System (addressing questions 10 — 13)
16.1 was not employed by POL when Horizon was introduced. For avoidance of
doubt I had not heard of Horizon; nor concerns about any defects nor media
reporting about it (including the May 2009 Computer Weekly article) until I
joined POL in 2014 to support the Mediation Scheme.
17.For completeness, it was POL’s policy that all employees including senior
managers should spend a number of days in directly owned branches over the
peak Christmas sales period. This meant that I undertook an afternoon's
training on how to use the Horizon system. I do not recall the precise timing
but I believe it was in the run up to the Christmas of 2015. My personal
experience was that it was a complex system and it was easy for me to make
mistakes that could lead to financial errors. I would have wanted significantly
more training, or guidance from experienced operatives, had I been required to
use the system in branch. In the end, my duties on days in branch did not
include using the Horizon terminals.
The Mediation Scheme and Second Sight (addressing questions 14 — 29)
18.As set out above, I joined POL in September 2014 as Programme Manager of
the Mediation Scheme. My responsibilities were to support the operation of the
Working Group overseeing the Mediation Scheme, in support of the Chair, Sir
Anthony Hooper in order to deliver its Terms of Reference. I had regular contact
5 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
with all members of the Working Group (including Second Sight) in order to set
the agendas for Working Group meetings, distribute papers and manage the
reports submitted by Second Sight. As noted above, I also oversaw records
management for the Scheme and attended Working Group meetings as
secretary to the Group i.e. I wrote the draft of minutes of the Working Group
meetings for the Chair's approval, from October 2014 until the Scheme’s
closure.
19. The Working Group was established in 2013, significantly before I joined POL.
Applications to the Scheme had been sought and the application window had
closed. Prior to my joining, the Working Group had met several times and was
beginning to look at individual cases.
20.Programme and secretariat support had been provided by temporary resources
e.g. contractors and a team sourced from PA Consulting. I was invited to join
POL in order to reduce reliance on temporary labour.
2
=
.I met with Belinda Crowe prior to accepting the role. As I recall, in that meeting
Belinda shared the background to the Scheme (including sharing some prior
media reporting, probably including the Computer Weekly article referenced
earlier although I cannot recall definitively being specifically made aware of
that), how and why the Working Group was established, the different roles and
views of members of the Working Group, the structure of the Post Office team
and the role she would like me to play in it. As I recall, Belinda set out the
different views of the participants on the Working Group and the tensions that
arose between them in what I perceived to be a balanced way, without passing
judgement on the merits of any participant's position.
6 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
22.My understanding at the time was that POL had established the Initial
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme in the light of concerns about the
operation of the Horizon system and how that may have resulted in financial
losses or discrepancies for sub-postmasters. The Mediation Scheme was
overseen by a Working Group with an independent Chair (Sir Anthony). The
Working Group's role was to consider and agree which applications to the
Scheme were suitable for mediation with the aim of providing some resolution
for applicants in those cases. Participants included representatives of POL and
the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance. JFSA‘s role was to represent the
applicants to the Scheme. Second Sight had been engaged by Post Office to
review individual applications to the Scheme and provide advice on the
potential scope for mediation between the applicant and Post Office. Second
Sight attended Working Group meetings.
23.The scope of Second Sight’s work and the extent of their access to information
and documents was determined prior to my joining POL. Although I do not
recall precise details, I do recall there were a small number of occasions where
an individual case led Second Sight to ask for additional information. Where
this information existed, it would normally have been provided as requested
although I recall one instance where the POL team queried the relevance of the
request relative to the case in question. I do not recall the outcome of that
discussion.
24.1 had limited input to POL’s response to Second Sight’s reports to the Working
Group, as my role was focused on providing the secretariat function. I was on
occasion asked by others in the POL team for a view, on what the approach of
other participants on the Working Group — including the Chair - might be if the
7 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
case for or against mediation appeared balanced. With the exception of cases
involving a criminal conviction, I think that POL’s position generally was to try to
find grounds to agree to mediation. This was a position that I supported in order
to demonstrate that the Working Group’s considerations were fair and aimed at
providing resolution for applicants wherever possible.
25.1 had no role in preparing for nor attending mediation meetings themselves.
26.In my time as Programme Manager of the Mediation Scheme, I contributed to
papers and briefings regarding the Scheme for the POL Board, Chair, CEO and
ExCo. My contribution was generally focused on the operation of the Working
Group and the approach being taken to it by the different participants. I was
also on occasion asked to proof-read documents or review them to ensure that
the points made were clear.
27.1 had no role in briefing any colleagues on defects (“bugs”) in the Horizon
System nor remote access.
28.1 had no contact with Fujitsu on these issues. I believed the information that
was shared with me by other members of the Sparrow team (which I understood
to be the basis of their dialogue with POL’s IT leadership and Fujitsu).
29. It was and it remains my view that establishing the Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme was a genuine attempt by POL’s leadership to provide a
vehicle by which concerns raised by sub-postmasters could be investigated
independently and considered in a fair and balanced way. Wherever possible,
those investigations would provide the basis for mediation that could in turn
provide resolution for those who believed that they had suffered detriment. POL
had invested significant time and resource in the Scheme and provided legal
assistance to applicants. I also believe that all other parties joined the Working
8 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
Group in good faith and with similar objectives. When I joined POL and the
Sparrow team, I did so with an open mind and wish to go where the evidence
took the Working Group’s business. However, as the work of the Working Group
proceeded it became clear the different approaches of the POL team and
JFSA’'s representatives to the individual cases considered were increasingly
irreconcilable. As a consequence, the Mediation Scheme and Working Group
were unable to fulfil their objectives / Terms of Reference. This was a source
of considerable disappointment to me.
30.1 did not author the papers within POL that considered and then advised on
arrangements for the termination of the Working Group. However, I was
involved in the discussions internally that fed into that advice and I would have
contributed thoughts and text to those papers.
31.1n my view a number of factors played into the decision to advise on terminating
the Working Group.
a. Firstly, JFSA took the stance that all cases recommended for mediation
by Second Sight should be mediated; and that they were not prepared
to discuss nor consider any contrary view, at times absenting themselves
from Working Group meetings. This meant they were not engaging in
any meaningful discussions. Conversely, POL took a position that it
would enter into mediation where there was any evidence to suggest that
there was a reason to do so. POL’s assessment of Second Sight's
reports was that the great majority recommended mediation despite
providing little or no evidence to provide the grounds for mediation. As a
result, the Working Group was unable to proceed with its business in a
9 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
timely way and had in effect ceased to function as an effective means of
supporting applicants.
b. Secondly, it was POL’s stated position from the outset that it would not
and could not enter into mediation on cases involving a criminal
conviction. This covered a significant number of applications. Clearly,
this fed into JFSA’s position; and the media/ parliamentary commentary
at the time.
c. Finally, as the Scheme and the Working Group started to run into
difficulties, there was increased scrutiny and commentary in some media
outlets and in Parliament. That commentary included personal data
arising from individual cases and was highly likely to be entering into the
public domain from the Working Group. POL had given specific and clear
undertakings to all applicants to the Scheme that their confidentiality
would be protected. All members and participants in the Working Group
had given an undertaking to preserve that confidentiality. Given the
contents of the debates in Parliament and some media outlets, the
Sparrow team, including me, were no longer confident that the
undertakings given to applicants around confidentiality could be fulfilled.
This was the biggest cause for concern and central to the decision to
advise to terminate the Working Group.
32. Within that advice, the team sought to fulfill as much of the spirit of the Scheme
as possible. As such it was recommended that Second Sight should be
retained to complete their reports on individual cases; and that POL should
adopt a position to offer to mediate all cases where there was not a criminal
conviction. These recommendations were subsequently agreed.
10 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
33.1 had no direct part in seeking advice from Tom Weisselberg KC but I supported
the need to seek Counsel's advice as part of the team’s internal discussions
around how to frame advice on whether to continue or terminate the Scheme.
34. There was no specific strategy that I recall for communicating with ministers or
MPs about the integrity of Horizon; nor about the views of Second Sight, JFSA,
Lord Arbuthnot or sub-postmasters who had applied to the Scheme. My
recollection is that issues were dealt with as they arose.
35.1 recall that there was a degree of frustration that those criticising the Post Office
in Parliament and the media — often accompanied by criticism of individuals, to
which they were unable to respond — appeared to doing so in order to
pressurise POL into adopting a presumption of fault on its part where I was not
aware of any evidence having been presented (at that time) to support the claim
that Horizon was at fault. Without the ability to respond directly to e.g. the
debates in Parliament and whilst maintaining the commitment POL had made
to confidentiality of applicants to the Scheme, opportunities were taken as they
arose to put the counter arguments to e.g. individual MPs who contacted POL
about a particular case. The language quoted in question 20 around “sow the
seeds of doubt” was, with the benefit of hindsight, clumsy and not appropriate
but it is an email between colleagues and should not in my view be interpreted
as having any malign intent; nor as part of any wider strategy.
36.1 had no direct role nor involvement in POL’s response to the CCRC’s
investigations. I do recall discussing it informally with colleagues at the time.
My view, which I believe was shared by other members of the Sparrow team
and POL leadership, was that the CCRC was the appropriate body to look at
any doubts being raised about the safety of criminal convictions. For avoidance
11 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
of doubt, the collective approach was to be open and transparent with the
CCRC in the provision of information as requested.
37.Shortly after the decision to terminate the Working Group I moved to the role of
Post Office Chief of Staff. As a consequence, I moved away from day to day
contact or involvement with Project Sparrow. In my role as Chief of Staff I
periodically had contact with the Sparrow team in order to provide support to
them in processing business with the CEO, ExCo and the Board. This was in
line with the support I provided to all teams within POL in such interactions. I
also provided day-to-day support to the CEO in her considerations of how she
might respond to advice from any part of the business, including the Sparrow
team. Given the breadth of the CEO’s responsibilities; and the scale of change
in POL at the time, “Sparrow” was a small part of the volume of business that
crossed my desk.
38.1 do not think that the government's approach to oversight of POL changed
significantly following Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s appointment as minister. All
ministers have different backgrounds, interests and personal styles. I had
limited direct contact with Baroness Neville-Rolfe but to the extent that I did she
was business-like and professional. Albeit limited, my experience (in my role
as Chief of Staff) was that the Minister's background in retail business was
helpful in understanding the complexities of running a business as diverse as
POL.
Deloitte Project Bramble (addressing questions 30 — 33)
39.1 do not recall having any involvement with Deloitte’s Operation Bramble. I do
not recall seeing any of their reports referring to “Bramble” prior to them being
shared with me by the Inquiry in support of this Witness Statement. I do not
12 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
recall the circumstances in which I may have seen the document titled Deloitte’s
Sparrow Interim Report (POL00029984) but the format is familiar and it is
possible that it was shared with me.
The Group Litigation (addressing questions 34 - 47)
40.1 had very limited involvement in POL’s conduct of the group litigation. I recall
joining a number of cross-business meetings in the early stages of the litigation,
in order to be available to address any questions that could have arisen about
the operation of the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme. No such
questions arose that I recall.
41.Without a timeline of the events described in the questions set by the Inquiry I
cannot be certain of precisely how the events described in the questions
correlate to my changes of roles within Post Office and subsequent departure
in 2018. However, I believe that the litigation was in its very early stages when
I left my role as Chief of Staff in order to take up the role of Director of
Government and Payment Services in another business unit within POL.
Consequently, I would only have had contact with the relevant teams if this had
been sought by them. It was not. I also believe that some of the events referred
to in the questions happened after I left POL in 2018.
42.For clarity, I had no knowledge of nor role in determining POL’s litigation
strategy; the disclosure of documents; the preparation of evidence; any
decisions relating to Fraser J; POL’s Generic Defence and counterclaim. I also
had no responsibility for keeping the board or government informed; nor any
involvement in POL’s conduct of the litigation. I had never, prior to the Inquiry’s
questions to me, heard of KELs, PinlICLs or PEAKs.
General (addressing questions 48 — 49)
13 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
43.1 have tried to answer the questions posed by the Inquiry as thoroughly as I
can. Therefore, there is limited additional information to share. With the benefit
of hindsight and also experience gained since leaving POL, I would have been
less trusting in accepting the assurances provided to the Sparrow team about
how Horizon was constructed and operated, by Fujitsu and others.
44.1 have also reflected the transcripts of that I have read evidence provided by
colleagues I worked closely with in my time in POL. Most notably, I have
reflected on the description of POL adopting a defensive stance or culture. I
would reflect that there were times that the media and parliamentary scrutiny
felt unbalanced, especially in the context that POL had put a lot of effort and
resource into trying to meet the objectives of the Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme as set up. I do not think I contributed to any defensiveness
and it was certainly not my intention to do so. To the extent that I may have
done so, it is a source of regret. However, I am also clear that during my time
in POL I remained open to the possibility there could be issues with the Horizon
system. Had evidence been presented to me of a link between Horizon and
financial losses or discrepancies encountered by sub-postmasters I would have
acted properly upon that information. I believed that was the position of all the
colleagues during the time that I had involvement with on Project Sparrow.
14 of 16
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 11 November 2024
15 of 16
Index to First Witness Statement of Thomas Wechsler
WITNO9790100
WITNO9790100
No. URN Document Description Date Control Number
4 POL00029984 POL Sparrow - Interim POL-0026466
Report: Draft for Discussion I 08/07/2016
16 of 16