WITN10200120
WITN10200120
From: NEVILLE-ROLFE, Baroness
Sent: 26 August 2015 16:55
To: Neville-Rolfe MPST
Ce: Neville-Rolfe Lucy
Subject: Re: Post Office - Horizon
Iwill leave this until I get back. This will give you time to provide something fuller on the issues and on all the
accusations in the programme, provide a substantive and objective letter to the 3 MPs bearing in mind that we now
have 4 important people who are not going along with our approach. We also need to assess our tactical handling
options and how these will play out, including the involvement of Tim Parker and how we use this to best effect.
You will also want to involve Harriet on her return and senior officials bearing in mind that all external voices seem
very uneasy with the Post Office on this.
Lucy
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Aug 2015, at 07:33, Neville-Rolfe MPST
“i wrote:
Minister,
Apologies I forgot to attach the advice it is now copied below:
Further to your email and our conversation from yesterday please see below a little background on
the points raised by Andrew Bridgen and a proposed response to his email. I have discussed the
proposed response with Richard.
Post Office have also confirmed that the subpostmaster in Oliver Letwin’s constituency is Tracey
Merritt, who was mediated in November 2014. No prosecution was mounted against her, and while
settlement options were discussed in the mediation process no agreement was ultimately reached.
As I am sure you understand, Post Office are unable to share the details of this mediation process. In
addition Post Office have assured us that they did everything in their power to try and reach a
reasonable outcome, and that this has been confirmed by a confidential email from the mediator
involved.
If any of this is unclear, or you have any questions please give me a call.
Many thanks,
Tim
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.) Fujitsu Remote Access
Horizon does not have functionality that allows Post Office or Fujitsu to edit or delete the
transactions recorded by branches. There has been no evidence in any case reviewed as
part of the Scheme that shows that these controls have failed or that the above statement is
incorrect.
e It has however always been possible for Post Office to correct errors in and/or update a
branch's accounts. This is most commonly done by way of a transaction correction however
1
WITN10200120
WITN10200120
it could also be by way of a balancing transaction or transaction acknowledgement. A Post
Office employee could also, in special circumstances, log on to a branch terminal locally (i.e.
by being physically in a branch) using a new User ID and password and then conduct
transactions (though these would register against that unique User ID).
e All of the above processes for correcting / updating a branch's accounts have similar
features. All of them involve inputting a new transaction into the branch's records (not
editing or removing any previous transactions) and all are shown transparently in the
branch transaction records available to Subpostmasters (as well as in the master ARQ data).
2.) Second Sight Allegations
e Second Sight has written to Ministers to complain its report has been misrepresented and
now appear to be asserting that systemic flaws in Horizon do exist. Second Sight’s reports
have not identified any link between Horizon and the losses to the postmasters in the cases
they reviewed, nor has it identified any transaction caused by a technical fault in Horizon
which has resulted in a postmaster wrongly being held responsible for a loss. There is no
evidence that the Horizon system does not work as it should.
© There is, in fact, overwhelming evidence that the losses complained of were caused by user
actions, including in some cases, deliberate dishonest conduct.
From: NEVILLE-ROLFE, Baroness [mailto{ GRO. i
Sent: 25 August 2015 15:28
To: Neville-Rolfe MPST
Cc: Neville-Rolfe Lucy
Subject: Re: Post Office - Horizon
lam not happy with this and I would prefer to have substantive advice including an analysis of the
points the MPs make after my return and how we can respond to them persuasively
Is there a case for alerting Tim Parker?
We are dealing with senior people like Letwin and Arbuthnot and this is not easy as I have said all
along
Lucy
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Aug 2015, at 12:50, "Neville-Rolfe MPST'
“> wrote:
Minister,
It has been suggested that you might like to send a hold reply to Andrew Bridgen as
drafted below. You can offer a meeting if you would like. This has been cleared
with SpAds.
I have also sent a webmarking quote to your Dame Lucy account for you to
clear. This is attached
Have an enjoyable and safe trip
Kind regards
Andrew Smith
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your recent email.
As you are aware I am meeting with James Arbuthnot in September regarding Post
Office and I expect that discussion to touch on a range of points, including the
allegations raised in the recent BBC Panorama broadcast.
[At that meeting I will also make sure we discuss what further action might be
appropriate. If a meeting with you represents the right course of action at that point
I would be more than willing to consider it.]
You will also be aware that I have asked Tim Parker, Post Office Limited’s new Chair,
to take a close look at Horizon when he takes up his role in October. Tim has a
strong background working in a range of complex organisations, as a senior
executive and as a Board member, and I am confident that his fresh pair of eyes will
provide some further reassurance to you.
In light of the above and, in addition, given both Post Office’s ongoing commitment
to the mediation scheme and the applications by subpostmasters that have been
made to the Criminal Case Review Commission, I do not believe that it would be
appropriate for Government to take any further action at this time. This includes
launching an independent investigation into Horizon.
I look forward to discussing the matter with James Arbuthnot next month.
Kind regards,
From: BRIDGEN, Andrew [mailto:
Sent: 24 August 2015 12:50
To: Neville-Rolfe MPST
Cc: JONES, Kevan; LETWIN, Oliver
Subject: RE: Post Office - Horizon
Dear Lucy,
We write further to your letter dated 14th August 2015 regarding the Post Office
Horizon software. In light of the subsequent BBC Panorama programme broadcast
on the 17th August, all three of us representing those of our constituents who have
been affected, now request a further meeting to discuss this matter.
There were several allegations in the broadcast which we feel need urgent attention
-- the two principal issues being (1) the statement from the Fujitsu whistle blower
that transactions could be remotely manipulated and (2) the statements by Second
Sight which contradicted the version of the Second Sight report that the Post Office
has presenting to Ministers, MPs and the media.
In light of these serious developments, we are convinced that the interests of our
constituents require this matter to be independently investigated -- ideally by a
private sector entrepreneur with experience of managing organisations of this scale.
We would suggest someone with the standing of Sir Terry Leahy or Baron Rose of
Monewden to undertake such a review.
WITN10200120
WITN10200120
WITN10200120
WITN10200120
We very much hope you will be willing to meet us to discuss this matter as soon as
possible.
Kind Regards,
Andrew Bridgen MP Kevan Jones MP Oliver Letwin MP
UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended
recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it
from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not
permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is
accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
This email was received from the INTERNET.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes
<mime-attachment>
UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised
use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no
liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
This email was received from the INTERNET.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes
UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in
error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying
is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
This email was received from the INTERNET.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.