WITN10880100
WITN10880100
Witness Name: Sir Sajid Javid
Statement No.: WITN10880100
Dated: 12 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF SIR SAJID JAVID
I, Sir Sajid Javid, formerly Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, will
say as follows.
Introduction
1.
I make this statement in response to the Inquiry's request for evidence dated 23
September 2024 (“the Rule 9 request’). I have prepared it with the support of the
Government Legal Department and counsel. I served as the Secretary of State for
the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) from 11 May 2015 until
14 July 2016.
Given the passage of time I have been dependent on others putting documents
before me to assist with the exact chronology of events. Nevertheless, any views
expressed in this statement are my own. I would be willing to clarify or expand
upon the evidence set out in this statement should that assist the Inquiry.
Background
3.
I first became an MP in May 2010. Prior to this, I studied Economics and Politics
at the University of Exeter and had a career in investment banking for over 18
years in various roles in Chase Manhattan Bank and Deutsche Bank, including
working in New York from 1992 — 1996 and Singapore from 2007 — 2009.
Page 1 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
4. In November 2010, I was appointed a Parliamentary Private Secretary (“PPS”) to
the Minister of State for Further Education in BIS. This was my first government
post. I then became PPS to George Osborne, who was then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in October 2011. In September 2012 I became Economic Secretary
to the Treasury and then in October 2013 I became Financial Secretary to the
Treasury. My first Cabinet position was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, which I held along with the role of Minister for Equalities from 9 April 2013.
I was made a Privy Counsellor in April 2013.
5. Following the General Election of 2015, I was appointed Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills within David Cameron’s second administration. I
held this position from 12 May 2015 until 13 July 2016.
6. After my tenure at BIS, I served as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities
and Local Government (from July 2016 to January 2018), Home Secretary (from
April 2018 to July 2019) and then as Chancellor of the Exchequer (from July 2019
until I resigned from government on 13 February 2020). I returned to the
backbenches until 26 June 2021, when I was appointed as Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. I resigned from this role on 5 July 2022, and returned to
the backbenches for a second time. I stood down as an MP at the 2024 general
election.
7. I have now returned to working in the financial sector. I am currently a partner at
Centricus, a UK-based asset management and corporate advisory firm.
Method of working
8. At this point, it is worth setting out my method of working as a Secretary of State.
During my time at BIS (and in other Departments), my general rule was to try and
see all submissions that were directly addressed to me. However, there was a
system in place so that I may not have had sight of all submissions sent to me, as
I authorised my special advisers and private office to exercise their discretion to
ask that documents be resubmitted if they considered that they did not meet the
brief or where there were gaps which needed to be answered before I could make
a decision.
Page 2 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
There was a system devised so that all submissions would first be considered by
my special advisers, who would be able to make comments or notes to me about
them, then they would go to my private office who would do the same, and finally
come to me. My private office had discretion as to when submissions would be put
into my ministerial box for me to consider. My box was generally split into three
sections: (1) a decision file containing submissions for my consideration; (2) a
correspondence file containing letters for signing; and (3) a file for ‘information
only’ which was for matters which included studies and reports. I may therefore
not have seen all submissions made on all topics during my time as: Secretary of
State at BIS but sought to read all submissions meant for me.
Oversight of POL
10.
12.
lam asked by the Inquiry to explain my involvement as the Secretary of State in
matters relating to the Post Office. I would firstly highlight that BIS was a very
large, sprawling Department, with oversight of a large number of arm’s-lengths
bodies of various kinds, amongst them the Post Office. Arm’s lengths bodies are
not under the day-to-day control of Ministers; and the Post Office was even further
removed because it essentially functioned as an arm's length body of an arm's
length body, namely UK Government Investments (“UKGI") (My tenure as
Secretary of State saw the formation of UKGI through the merging of the
Shareholder Executive (ShEx) and UK Financial Investments).
. The Inquiry has asked me about my priorities at BIS. Secretaries of State generally
have the capacity to focus on three to four key priorities during their time in office.
Post Office matters did not rank amongst my core areas of focus. There was no
particular reason why they would, save where specific issues were brought to my
attention. Post Office issues had not featured prominently in our election
manifesto, and were not central to the goals of the Government as a whole.
Instead, my primary focus as Secretary of State was on issues surrounding the
EU referendum, which required that I frequently meet with representatives of the
business community to allay their concerns. I also had to spend considerable effort
finding significant real terms savings across my department, following the public
Page 3 of 21
13.
14.
15.
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
sector spending review. Boosting apprenticeship opportunities for young people
(culminating in the Apprenticeship Levy) was another main focus. In addition to
these ongoing priorities, my capacity as Secretary of State would also be taken-
up by grappling with critical events as they arose. The most time-consuming of
these was the threatened closure of the Port Talbot steelworks. I recall that I was
on a trade mission to Australia in March 2016 when Tata Steel suddenly
announced that it may pull out of its UK operations, including Port Talbot, and
resolving this crisis took up a huge amount of time and energy. I recall having
many meetings with Mark Russell, the then CEO of UKGI, about how to respond
to the steel issue, including consideration of various financing options.
So far as the Post Office was concerned, my priorities related to the wider
imperative to find savings in the context of the spending review. POL was losing
money every year. I understood that POL was a Government-owned company
because it served a very important social purpose, but within that overarching
purpose we wanted it to be as financially sustainable as it could be and therefore
have maximum commercial freedom to be as effective as possible.
From my perspective as Secretary of State, POL appeared to exist within an
unusual context, being a private company with one shareholder in the form of the
UK government. My view was that BIS had a positive duty not to become involved
in the day-to-day running of the Post Office. If there were issues which properly
concerned Government, they were firstly for ShEx to deal with and, if ShEx felt
that there needed to be some notification to (or direction from) Government, then
their officials would liaise with the private offices of the relevant Ministers. Only in
extreme circumstances would Post Office matters be communicated up to my
private office and onto myself personally. This is all to say that there are inevitably
many administrative layers between the Secretary of State and the leadership of
the Post Office.
To the best of my knowledge and recollection, BIS monitored ShEx’s performance
generally, but did not specifically monitor ShEx’s oversight of each individual
‘asset’ or organisation within its portfolio, such as POL. I did have regular meetings
with Mark Russell, and also saw him more often in early 2016 because of the steel
Page 4 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
crisis, but I do not recall Horizon issues ever being on the agenda for these
meetings. I ensured there was time at the end of our meetings for Mark to raise
‘any other business’, especially anything not on the agenda that was troubling him,
but I cannot recall him ever raising POL or Horizon issues in that way either.
Delegation
16. I delegated responsibility for Post Office matters to Baroness Neville-Rolfe,
formally adding postal affairs to her Ministerial portfolio on 18 May 2015 (Email
from Harriet Smith to Hannah Wiskin Re: Portfolio (WITN10200101)); (BIS
Portfolio - Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and
Minister for Intellectual Property (BEIS0001221)). Therefore, Baroness Neville-
Rolfe was the primary point of contact between BIS, ShEx and the Post Office
during my tenure as Secretary of State. I have no hesitation in stating that I found
Baroness Neville-Rolfe to be a competent and hard-working junior Minister, who
was in command of her brief.
17. George Freeman MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Life Sciences at
BIS, was tasked with responding to Post Office related questions within the House
of Commons because Baroness Neville-Rolfe, as a peer, could not do so.
18. In general terms, I was content to allow my Ministers to get on with the job.
However, I retained high-level oversight of all key matters within my Department.
I held a weekly meeting with all BIS Ministers together in addition to weekly one-
to-one meetings in order to keep on top of developments. As I mentioned above
in relation to Mark Russell, I always tried to give those I was meeting with the
space to raise any other business during our meetings, to give them the
opportunity to voice important issues not on the agenda for discussion. I do not
recall Horizon issues being raised.
Meetings with POL Officials / Briefings
19. As Secretary of State, I met with officials from the Post Office relatively
infrequently, I think only annually. The postal affairs Minister met with them slightly
Page 5 of 21
20.
21.
22.
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
more frequently, in the order of 2-3 times each year (Briefing notes for the Meeting
with Paula Vennells on the 15 June (UKGI00004506)).
When I was first appointed to BIS, I received a formal introductory letter from Paula
Vennels (the then POL CEO), dated 11 May 2015. In this correspondence, she
stated that the Post Office was “at a critical point in [its] path towards commercial
sustainability,” and that “the prize is a modern, more accessible Post Office,
successful in commercial markets while retaining a strong social purpose, which
is less dependent on taxpayer subsidy’ (Letter from Paula Vennells to Rt Hon Sajid
Javid MP RE: strategy (POL00117712)). There was no mention of any issues
relating to the Horizon system.
I had my first meeting with senior Post Office officials, including Paula Vennels, on
15 June 2015. Ahead of that meeting, I received a formal briefing note, which
provided high-level information about the Post Office generally (Email from Tim
Mcinnes to Javid MPST, Richard Callard, Laura Thompson and others re: Briefing
for SoS Meeting with Post Office CEO on Monday (UKGI00004505); Post Office
Limited Meeting with Paula Vennells - Briefing Annexes’ and Supporting
Information by Shex (UKGI00004507); and UKGI00004506. Topics covered
included an overview of POL, POL's financial performance, POL funding, long-
term strategy, network transformation, and the Horizon system and mediation
scheme. On this latter point, the briefing note stated: -
“Following complaints from a small number of (mostly former) sub-postmasters
about Horizon IT system, in 2012 the Post Office commissioned an independent
firm, Second Sight, to examine the system for systemic flaws that could cause
accounting discrepancies. Second Sight’s interim report, published in July
2013, and final report, published in April 2015, both make clear that there is no
evidence of system-wide problems with Horizon”.
Following our meeting, Paula Vennells wrote to me to provide further information
about a number of matters. She emphasised the point that: “Post Office is
undergoing significant change and making good progress towards its aim of
achieving a commercial sustainability with less reliance on the taxpayer’.
Page 6 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
23. I also met with Tim Parker, then chairman of POL, on 24 November 2015. Again,
this was largely an introductory meeting, with the objective being to understand
Mr Parker's first impressions of the business, its challenges and his ideas on its
future direction. The briefing note provided by Annette Rusling (ShEx) set out what
the key topics would likely be (Email from Annette Rusling to Javid MPST cc
Neville-Rolfe MPST, SpAd Javid MPST and others Re: Briefing for SoS/Tim
Parker meeting (UKGI00006275); Briefing Notes for the Meeting with Tim Parker,
Chair of POL, 24th November 2015 (UKGI00006276)). These included POL’s
freedom to operate commercially, banking framework and negotiations with the
major banks, and apprenticeships. Within the ‘background and other notes’
section of the briefing were some comments on Horizon:
“Tim Parker agreed with Baroness Neville-Rolfe that he would undertake a
review into the Post Office ‘Horizon’ IT system and various claims that sub-
postmasters have been wrongly prosecuted as a result of faults in the system.
Tim has appointed a QC to assist him in that review and expects to report back
to baroness Neville-Rolfe early in the New Year.
We do not expect Tim will want to discuss this matter in detail. The
government's position is that, while Tim is undertaking his review, whilst Post
Office continue to work through mediation of individual cases, and while the
Criminal Cases Review Commission considers that c. 20 applications on this
matters, it would not be appropriate for government to intervene”.
24. I do not think I would have second-guessed Tim Parker's apparent reluctance to
discuss Horizon issues in detail. I was provided with plenty of other briefings which
said ‘we do not think x will want to discuss y, but you should probe further’. The
lack of any such comment meant that my officials must have agreed that this was
not a matter to be covered in detail and I relied on my officials’ advice in this regard.
If it was appropriate to probe more deeply, I would have expected this to be noted
in the briefing from ShEx. On the broader points, I viewed the appointment of a
QC positively. It was appropriate that these matters were investigated thoroughly
by an independent party, and that Government did not become involved whilst the
Page 7 of 21
WITN10880100
CCRC was undertaking its work. The reference to the CCRC would have made
me cautious; anything which engages the courts or judiciary is something which
Ministers are very wary of getting involved with, in order not to prejudice the legal
process.
Knowledge of the Horizon IT System
25. As to my knowledge of issues with the Horizon IT system, the above briefings are
characteristic of the information my private office was receiving from officials at
the Post Office and ShEx. By way of illustrative example, the POL Overview
provided by ShEx in May 2015 as part of the ministerial day one briefing pack
stated as follows (Post Office Limited (POL) Overview - May 2015 - Prepared by
ShEx (UKGI00004416)):
“A small but vocal number of mostly former sub-postmasters have raised
concerns about POL’s Horizon IT system, which they claim has caused their
businesses losses. Over two years’ worth of independent investigation has
found no systemic faults in Horizon and there is a mediation scheme to consider
individual cases, but campaigning and media interests persists, and BBC’s
Panorama is due to broadcast a programme on this on 22 June.”
26. I am not confident of whether or not I would have seen this particular document,
but it is consistent with the information I recall being provided with about the
Horizon issues.
27. I was aware that the sub-postmasters were being prosecuted for alleged theft /
false accounting in connection with the Horizon IT system. However, I was not
WITN10880100
aware of the detail that these prosecutions were being brought privately by POL; .
i I think ‘I assumed that the police and CPS handled the investigations and
prosecutions.
28. From the documents provided to me as part of the Inquiry process, I can see that
colleagues in Parliament wrote to me in relation to Horizon and the prosecution of
SPMs. For example, there is such correspondence from Alok Sharma MP.
Page 8 of 21
29.
30.
31.
32.
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
(UKGI00004460), Jim Cunningham MP (UKGI00004509), Steve Baker MP
(UKG100006768), raising specific concerns relating to their constituents.
Junior Ministers dealt with most correspondence, even if it was addressed to me
as Secretary of State. This included responding to back-bench MPs (which all of
those parliamentary colleagues were at the time). As Secretary of State, I would
generally only have sight of correspondence from and to more senior politicians,
such as Privy Councillors, other Ministers and Chairs of Select Committees. I
might also see correspondence from senior stakeholders, such as trade union
leaders or significant CEOs, if it were addressed directly to me. I would generally
only see correspondence once a response had already been drafted, and then
sign it off if I approved. In October 2015, for example, I approved a draft letter to
Jeremy Wright MP, then Attorney General: “/ understand the concerns that your
constituent has raised, and I hope you will appreciate that the Government does
not influence the day-to-day operation of the Post Office, but allows it to operate
independently as a commercial business” (UKG100006152).
As set out above, Baroness Neville-Rolfe kept me up-to-date with Post Office
matters, but I do not recall her ever highlighting Horizon issues in the sense of
alerting me to a major crisis which required my input as Secretary of State.
Similarly, Mark Russell never made a point of drawing my attention to issues with
the Horizon system and the prosecution of SPMs.
I am asked by the Inquiry to comment on a number of specific documents: -
a. Simon Clarke’s Advice, 15 July 2013 (POL00006357)
b. Simon Clarke’s advice, 2 August 2013 (POL00129453)
Deloitte's Project Zebra reports (POL00028069)
The Swift Review (POL00006355)
e. Deloitte's Bramble reports (POL00029984; POL00030009; POL00031502)
ao
I can confirm that I never had sight of the above documents, and so cannot
meaningfully comment. Likewise, I never had sight of the Second Sight interim or
final reports.
Page 9 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
Debates in Parliament and calls for a public inquiry
33. Andrew Bridgen MP called an adjournment day debate in relation to Horizon. I am
afraid I have no memory of this, but this is unsurprising as there were three or four
of these such debates a week that were relevant to my Department. These
debates are routinely dealt with by Junior Ministers, and so George Freeman was
tasked with responding in the House of Commons on behalf of BIS (Email chain
from Parly Unit Written PQs to SpAd Javid MPST, ce: Richard Callard, Laura
Thompson and others re: Named Day PQ 2015/12263 - answer date 23/6 - Mr Jim
Cunningham (Coventry South — Labour) about the Post Office Horizon IT system
(UKG100004586)).
34. In connection with the above, a question was submitted to BIS by Jim Cunningham
MP: “To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what
assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Post Office’s sub-postmaster
mediation scheme; and if he will make a statement’. A response (to be delivered
by George Freeman) was drafted by Laura Thompson and approved by Richard
Callard in the following terms (UKGI00004587):
“Post Office Limited's Complaint Review and mediation Scheme was set up on
2013 to consider cases from current and former sub-postmasters relating to the
Post Office Horizon IT system. This is an operational matter for Post Office
Limited and the Scheme has been set up to be independent of Government’.
35. What was actually said in Parliament was as follows:
“It is important to understand that the mediation scheme is independent of the
Government. That is the right approach for something that is a contractual
matter between two independent businesses, and we should remember that
sub-postmasters are independent businesspeople who have contracts with
Post Office Ltd.” (House of Commons Hansard re Post Office Horizon scandal)
(POL00232158)
Page 10 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
36. Andrew Bridgen MP repeated his complaints with the Horizon system and the
mediation scheme at Prime Minister's Questions on 1 July 2015, ultimately calling
for a public inquiry. As a Government MP he would have informed No 10 of his
question in advance of PMQs and given an opportunity to draft a response, which
would have had BIS input. The Prime Minister responded as follows: -
“My honourable friend has done a real service in campaigning tirelessly on this
issue, and I know that he has led a debate in the House on it as well. The Post
Office’s answer is to say that it set up an independent inquiry which has not
found evidence of wrongdoing, but clearly that has not satisfied many Members
on both sides of the House who have seen individual constituency cases and
want better answers. What I think needs to happen next is for the Under-
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my honourable friend the
Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to convene a meeting involving
Members of the House, the Post Office and representatives of sub-postmasters
to discuss their concerns and see what should happen next. I would hope that
it would not be necessary to have a full independent judicial inquiry to get to the
bottom of this issue, but get to the bottom of it we must’. (House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions debated on 1 July 2015 (RLIT0000431))
37. I agreed with the Prime Minister's endorsement of a meeting between concerned
MPs. and the Post Office to be facilitated by BIS. Following George Freeman’s
offer in Parliament, Baroness Neville-Rolfe wrote to Andrew Bridgen and the Post
Office on 2 July to formally arrange such a meeting, which was later held on 15
July 2015. The specifics of this meeting are dealt with in the statement of Baroness
Neville-Rolfe.
38. Eleven MPs had spoken in the adjournment debate and one of the key points
made then also was to call for a public inquiry into Horizon. The advice from ShEx
officials was squarely opposed to this. On 7 July 2015, my private office received
a briefing from Laura Thompson (Email from Laura Thompson to Javid MPST, cc:
david SpAd, Neville-Rolfe MPST and others RE Update for SoS on Post Office
Horizon (UKGI00004896); OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL, POST
Page 11 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
OFFICE HORIZON: UPDATE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE. by Laura
Thompson, Shareholder Executive (UKGI00004897)):
“We recommend strongly that a judicial inquiry is neither necessary not
appropriate. The matter is independent of Government, there is no evidence of
systemic flaws in the system or of miscarriages of justice, and legal avenues
(the Criminal Cases Review Commission) exist if individuals feel their
convictions are unsafe. Twenty people have applied to the CCRC’.
39. This line of reasoning was repeated and expanded upon in an official document
to ministers from civil servants entitled ‘Overview of Post Office Horizon Scheme
Issues,’ dated August 2015 (BEIS0001220): -
“Government faces calls to launch an independent inquiry into Post Office’s
Horizon IT system and the way that Post Office has handled cases where
money has gone missing from branches. We recommend that Government
resist these calls for the following reasons:
a. Despite three years of independent scrutiny, no systemic issues
with IT have been found.
b. Many of the allegations raised against Post Office have been
mischaracterised by campaigners and the media, and indeed in
Parliament.
c. Post Office have gone further than most commercial
organisations would in attempting to resolve this issue — however,
they cannot respond publicly to the most serious allegations while
they still respect individuals’ confidentiality.
d. Existing routes to resolution, including mediation, appeal or
litigation, remain available to individuals — it would be wrong to
create a new quasi-judicial process while these options have not
been exhausted (or even attempted, in the cases of appeal or
litigation).
e. Absent any evidence of wrongdoing by Post Office, there is no
need for a judicial inquiry.
Page 12 of 21
40.
41.
42.
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
By maintaining that Government seen no need for an inquiry ambiguity is
removed and applicants can be clear on the options available: mediation and/or
legal action. This would help bring cases to resolution as swiftly as possible.”
On the basis of this advice, I approved draft letters to be sent by Baroness Neville-
Rolfe to Andrew Bridgen MP, Oliver Letwin MP and Kevan Jones MP. I advised
Baroness Neville Rolfe’s office that it would be prudent to call Oliver Letwin MP in
order to ‘neutralise’ him. By this I meant simply addressing any potential concerns
he may have prior to sending the correspondence and satisfying him that BIS was
taking the issues seriously (UKGI00000962). I would have singled him out
because he was a Cabinet Minister who I would see regularly, at least once a
week. It was therefore courtesy to let him know about this response ahead of
receiving it. I do not recall him bringing the matter up with me in person at any
point.
In essence, these letters highlighted that Tim Parker, the new POL chair, would
give the Horizon issues fresh attention; and re-iterated the position that the correct
route for resolving individual concerns was either through mediation or through
legal channels (Letter from Laura Thompson to Baroness Neville-Rolfe re: Post
Office Horizon: next steps (UKGI00005771)).
I was content for BIS to take the position of not actively calling for an inquiry, given
the other forms of investigation or review taking place. However, even at this stage
I had some concerns about the Government taking an overly defensive stance on
the issue, and so did not feel it was appropriate to reject such potential
investigations outright either (Email from Neville-Rolfe MPST to Javid MPST,
CCing Richard Callard and Laura Thompson re Quick update on. Post Office
Horizon issues (UKGI00005093)). Dan Yorke-Smith confirmed that the Prime
Minister was content that there be no public inquiry at that stage (UKGI00004781).
The Prime Minister's office was involved because the matter had been raised in
PMQs and also because the Prime Minister is routinely required to agree any
decision to set up a public inquiry.
The Group Litigation Order
Page 13 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
43. I am asked by the Inquiry to describe my understanding of matters relating to the
group action brought against the Post Office in relation to Horizon
44. On 18 April 2015, my private office was. notified that the campaign group ‘Justice
for Subpostmasters Alliance (“JFSA”) were reported to have lodged proceedings
with the High Court regarding claims against the Post. Office in relation to the
Horizon IT system (Email from Javid MPST to Laura Thompson, Neville-Rolfe
MPST, cc'ing SpAd Javid MPST and others, re Submission to Ministers on Post
Office Horizon (UKGI00006660)).
45. The briefing from Laura Thompson stated that: “POL have informed us that they
are unaware of any new developments in the underlying disputes which might lead
them to believe they are any more exposed on the substance of these allegations
now than previously’ (Briefing e-mail from Laura Thompson to Baroness Neville
Rolfe dated 14 April 2015 with an update on JFSA group action (UKGI00006649)).
The official advice was that this was “a matter for POL, particularly when legal
action is being proposed” (UKGI00006649).
46. This advice was passed on by my private office to that of the Prime Minister. This
correspondence re-emphasised that “officials here advise we maintain the position
that this is a matter for the Post Office — particularly given there could be legal
proceedings underway” (Email from George Thomson to Will MacFarlane Re:
LEgal action against Post Office on Horizon IT issue (WITN10200134)).
47. I was not involved in any way in POL’s litigation strategy within the GLO
proceedings (which, in any event, were at an early stage during my tenure at BIS).
As noted above, it was the Government's long-held position that operational
matters, including legal matters, were for POL to handle. The JFSA was seeking
to bring proceedings against the Post Office, not against the Government so it was
for the Post Office to decide how best to navigate this situation.
48. I have been asked for my views on the Common Issues judgment, but with respect,
I am not well placed to comment on it as this was handed down in March 2019,
almost three years after my time as Secretary of State came to an end. For similar
Page 14 of 21
49.
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
reasons, I cannot assist in commenting on the POL Board's ‘decision to seek
recusal of the trial judge and to appeal the judgment.
I did not have anything to do with POL or the Horizon issues after I left BIS, nor
did I follow the story until much more recently. As a result of the Inquiry and the
ITV drama I asked my constituency staff to check whether anyone wrote to me in
my capacity as a constituency MP about these matters, and there is no record of
any such correspondence. I also cannot recall any constituent contacting me
about Horizon or prosecutions of SPMs.
Mediation Scheme
50.
51.
52.
I am asked by the Inquiry to comment on the mediation scheme.
In July 2015, my private office was informed by Laura Thompson that the
mediation scheme was still in operation, but many affected sub-postmasters were
requesting to delay their mediation until a ‘new government inquiry’ had been
established’. At this point, the information provided was that there were twenty
applications to the Criminal Complaints Review Commission (“CCRC”), and that
the CCRC was unlikely to make any decisions that year (Email chain from Laura
Thompson to avid MPST, Cc'd Richard Callard re: Post Office: submissions to
Baroness Neville-Rolfe on Network Transformation and on Horizon / BBC
Panorama (UKGI00019966)).
In essence, my position on these issues was to follow the advice I was being given
that they were “a matter of law,” and that therefore it was not appropriate for me,
as Secretary of State, to become directly involved (UKGI00019966).
Conclusion
53.
I am asked by the Inquiry to reflect on my time as Secretary of State. Looking at
the bigger picture, I consider that there are two key factors as to why BIS perhaps
did not grasp the full nature and significance of the Horizon issues during this
period, and really at all until the Common Issues judgment was handed down.
Page 15 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
54. Firstly, due to the intense demands upon the time and attention of Ministers, they
are generally reliant upon the advice that they receive from officials. If that advice
is lacking for whatever reason, the ability to make effective decisions is hampered.
There has to be an extremely compelling reason to disregard official advice and
act independently or contrary to it. It is, ‘of course, Ministers prerogative to do so.
They generally will do so if it is a key priority for them and/or the Government, if
they have their own personal expertise or experience which gives them confidence
to push back on the advice, or if a significant external source of information is
available to them which suggests the advice is wrong.
55. However, the downside if Ministers reject advice and get it wrong is much greater
than if they accept the advice and it turns out to be wrong. If the Minister goes
against advice and is right to do so, they rarely get much thanks or praise, nor is
there generally a ‘lessons learned’ process whereby the Civil Service looks at why
the advice was wrong and the Minister was right, and seeks to improve from it. On
the other hand, if the Minister goes against advice and they are wrong to do so,
they usually face significant criticism both from the media and Opposition but also
internally, with it being held against them in relation to future decisions.
56. This in turn generates a risk adverse character to Government. All of the official
advice during my time as Secretary of State, at least as far as I was aware,
essentially painted the picture that there was nothing to be concerned about as far
as the Horizon system was concerned and to the extent there were concerns these
were being appropriately investigated by independent people. In circumstances
where the Post Office was not a major priority for the Government, it was very hard
for Ministers to push back on this advice or go behind it.
57. Secondly, Ministers are loathe to be accused of becoming involved in the judicial
process, and there is a deep-seated understanding in Government that, if
something is before the courts, we should say nothing and take no action.
Ministers are very cautious indeed about prejudicing legal proceedings.
58. It is difficult to see how these issues can practically be addressed from the
Government's perspective. To some extent, the risk aversion is a feature of a
democratic system with lots of checks and balances.
Page 16 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
59. My general view of this appalling scandal is that every organisation has bad apples
(either due to incompetence or wilful wrongdoing) and the aim is always to remove
them as much as possible and do what you can to ensure that the best people
possible are put into key leadership positions. For Government, in relation to its
arms-length bodies or public corporations, the main responsibility is to ensure an
effective Board is in place, who recruit an effective CEO, with Government input
via ShEx/UKGI. That is what should have happened with POL but clearly it did
not. Other than that, I am not sure what more can be done in terms of scrutiny
over operational matters. It is simply not realistic to have a system where
complaints about any Government-owned organisation go straight to Government.
They cannot realistically go directly to the Minister, so they will be looked at by
officials, who inevitably have to ask the organisation for information to respond as
they cannot do otherwise.
Page 17 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
I believe the content of this
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
Index to First Witness Statement of Sir Sajid Javid
Document Description
URN
Control Number
Email from Harriet Smith to Hannah Wiskin
Re: Portfolio
WITN10200101
WITN10200101
BIS Portfolio - Baroness Neville-Rolfe -
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and
Minister for Intellectual Property
BEIS0001221
BEIS0001221
Briefing notes for the Meeting with Paula
Vennells on the 15 June
UKGI00004506
UKGI015320-001
Letter from Paula Vennells to Rt Hon Sajid
Javid MP RE: strategy
POL00117712
POL-0118344
Email from Tim Mcinnes to Javid MPST,
Richard Callard, Laura Thompson and
others re: Briefing for SoS Meeting with
Post Office CEO on Monday
UKGI00004505,
UKGI015319-001
Post Office Limited Meeting with Paula
Vennells - Briefing Annexes and Supporting
Information by Shex
UKGI00004507
UKGI015321-001
Email from Annette Rusling to Javid MPST
ce Neville-Rolfe MPST, SpAd Javid MPST
and others Re: Briefing for SoS/Tim Parker
meeting
UKG1I00006275
UKGI017089-001
Briefing Notes for the Meeting with Tim
Parker, Chair of POL, 24th November 2015
UKGI00006276
UKGI017090-001
Post Office Limited (POL) Overview - May
2015 - Prepared by ShEx
UKGI00004416
UKGI015230-001
Letter from Alok Sharma MP to Rt Hon Sajid
Javid MP re his constituent's, Michael A
Wilson, concerns about the Horizon
computer system used by subpostmasters
UKGI00004460
UKGI015274-001
Letter from Jim Cunningham MP to Sajid
Javid MP Re: Ref: JC/EC/9217 - clarification
re subpostmistress alleged debt through
faulty accounting
UKGI00004509
UKGI015323-001
Letter from Steve Baker MP to The Rt Hon
Sajid Jayid MP re Post Office Horizon
Scandal
UKG100006768
UKGI017582-001
13.
Letter from Sajid Javid to Jenny Wright re:
Post Office's Horizon IT System and
Mediation Scheme and Early Day Motion
UKG1I00006152
UKGI016966-001
Page 19 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
14.
Advice on the use of expert evidence
relating to the integrity of the Fujitsu
Services Ltd Horizon System
POL00006357
POL-0017625
Simon Clarke's Advice re: Disclosure - The
Duty to record and retain material - Post
Office LTD
POL00129453
POL-0134937
Deloitte Draft Board Briefing document
further to report on Horizon desktop review
of assurance sources and key control
features
POL00028069
POL-0023072
Review on behalf of the Chairman of Post
Office Ltd concerning the steps taken in
response to various complaints made by
sub-postmasters
POL00006355
POL-0017623
POL Sparrow - Interim Report: Draft for
Discussion
POL00029984
POL-0026466
19.
Deloitte Draft "Bramble" - Interim Report
POL00030009
POL-0026491
20.
‘Bramble’ — Draft Report
POL00031502
POL-0028404
21.
Email chain from Parly Unit Written PQs to
SpAd Javid MPST, ce: Richard Callard,
Laura Thompson and others re: Named Day
PQ.2015/12263 - answer date 23/6 - Mr Jim
Cunningham (Coventry South — Labour)
about the Post Office Horizon IT system
UKGI00004586
UKGI015400-001
22.
House of Commons Parliamentary Question
and Draft answer for Post Office SPM
Mediation Scheme and if the SOS will make
a statement on this
UKGI00004587
UKGI015401-001
23,
House of Commons Hansard re Post Office
Horizon scandal
POL00232158
POL-BSFF-0070221
24.
House of Commons Oral Answers to
Questions debated on 1 July 2015
RLIT0000431
RLITO000431
25.
Email from Laura Thompson to Javid
MPST, cc: Javid SpAd, Neville-Rolfe MPST
and others RE Update for SoS on Post
Office Horizon
UKGI00004896
UKGI015710-001
26.
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL,
POST OFFICE HORIZON: UPDATE FOR
SECRETARY OF STATE by Laura
Thompson, Shareholder Executive
UKGI00004897
UKGIO15711-001
27.
Overview of the Post Office Horizon
Scheme Issues: August 2015
BEIS0001220
BEIS0001220
Page 20 of 21
WITN10880100
WITN10880100
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
28.
Email from Baroness Neville Rolfe to Sajid
Javid office, Laura Thompson, Richard
Callard dated 11 September 2015 regarding
update re response to Ministers
UKGI00000962
VIS00009100
29.
Letter from Laura Thompson to Baroness
Neville-Rolfe re: Post Office Horizon: next
steps
UKG100005771
UKGI016585-001
30:
Email from Neville-Rolfe MPST to Javid
MPST, CCing Richard Callard and Laura
Thompson re Quick update on Post Office
Horizon issues
UKG1I00005093
UKGI015907-001
31.
Email chain from MPST Javid to Laura
Thompson cc SpAd Javid MPST, MPST
Nick King and others re: Post office Horizon
Issue
UKGI00004781
UKGI015595-001
32.
Email from Javid MPST to Laura
Thompson, Neville-Rolfe MPST, cc'ing
SpAd Javid MPST and others, re
Submission to Ministers on Post Office
Horizon
UKGI00006660
UKGI017474-001
33.
Briefing e-mail from Laura Thompson to
Baroness Neville Rolfe dated 14 April 2015
with an update on JFSA group action
UKGI00006649
I UKGI017463-001 I
34.
Email from George Thomson to Will
MacFarlane Re: LEgal action against Post
Office on Horizon IT issue
WITN10200134
WITN10200134
35.
Email chain from Laura Thompson to avid
MPST, Cc'd Richard Callard re: Post Office:
submissions to Baroness Neville-Rolfe on
Network Transformation and on Horizon /
BBC Panorama
UKGI00019966
UKGI028861-001
Page 21 of 21