WITN11290100
WITN11290100
Witness Name: Benjamin James
Cuthbert Tidswell
Statement No.: WITN11290100
Dated: 27 An ust Q02y
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN JAMES CUTHBERT TIDSWELL
Introduction
1 My name is Benjamin James Cuthbert Tidswell. I was a Non-Executive
Director on the Post Office Limited (“POL”) Board from 27 July 2021 to 8 July
2024
2. I make this statement to comply with a request made on 7 July 2024 by the
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (“Inquiry”) for a witness statement pursuant to
Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (“Rule 9 Request”). This is my first
statement to the Inquiry
3. I have prepared this statement following meetings with my solicitors, in
respect of which I intend no waiver of privilege. Save where otherwise stated,
Page 1 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I make this statement from facts within my own knowledge, and I believe them
to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, I identify the source
of that information, and I believe it to be true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
4. I have prepared this statement within a tight time frame, mainly during late
July and early August, as required by the Rule 9 Request. There is a very
large number (many tens of thousands) of documents that relate to my time at
the Post Office. Most of these are not relevant to the Rule 9 Request, but in
any event it has not been possible in the time available either for me or my
solicitors to conduct an extensive document review. I have instead sought to
focus on identifying the key documents that I consider will most assist the
Inquiry. Notwithstanding these limitations, I am comfortable that this statement
is correct and covers everything that is material to the Rule 9 Request.
5. I now address the questions in the Rule 9 Request, in the order in which the
questions appear in that request.
Professional Background
Please summarise your educational and professional qualifications.
6. I attended the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, and graduated in
1987 with a Bachelor of Laws and a Bachelor of Commerce.
Page 2 of 39
7.
I qualified as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand in 1988 and requalified
as a solicitor in England and Wales in 1994.
Please summarise your career background and your appointment to the POL Board
including relevant dates).
10.
I began my career as a disputes lawyer at Bell Gully in New Zealand in 1987.
I worked at Bell Gully until February 1992, after which I travelled and then
moved to England and worked at Ashurst Morris Crisp (as the firm was called
then (“Ashurst”)) from March 1993 to February 1995. I returned to Bell Gully
in New Zealand for a further two years from January 1996 to February 1998. I
then moved back to England and re-joined Ashurst in March 1998.
I became a partner in Ashurst's London litigation practice in May 2000. I was
elected as Global Chair of the firm in November 2013. I held this position until
I left Ashurst in July 2021.
Upon leaving Ashurst, I was appointed as a part time, fee paid Chair of the
Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Page 3 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
11. I also became a Non-Executive Director of POL, joining the POL Board on 27
July 2021. I remained in this role until the expiry of my term, at the end of the
board meeting which took place on 8 July 2024. During my time on the POL
Board, I carried out a variety of roles:
a. I was chair of the Historical Remediation Committee, later renamed the
Remediation Committee, throughout my time on the Board.
b. I was appointed a member of the Remuneration Committee at the end
of 2021, with my first meeting taking place on 25 January 2022, and
remained in that role for the remainder of my time on the Board.
c. I agreed to act as Interim Chair of the POL Board for the period from 1
October 2022 to 30 November 2022, to cover the gap between the
retirement of Tim Parker and the appointment of Henry Staunton.
d. I was asked by Mr Staunton to act as Senior Independent Director
(“SID”) on the POL Board and carried out this role from 14 March 2023
for the remainder of my time on the Board.
e. I was appointed as a member of the Nominations Committee in June
2023, with my first meeting taking place on 6 June 2023, and remained
in that role for the remainder of my time on the Board.
Please summarise your understanding of and experience with the Horizon IT
system.
12. As part of my preparations for my application to become a Non-Executive
Director, I read Mr Justice Fraser’s Common Issues and Horizon Issues
Page 4 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
judgments, as well as the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Hamilton and others.
Apart from that, I had no knowledge of Horizon before I joined the POL Board.
That of course changed very quickly once I joined the Board - Horizon was
discussed frequently at board level given its central importance to many of the
issues that we were dealing with. Those concerned not only the system's
historical failings and the serious issues which these had caused, but also the
considerations involved in continuing to run the system and the plans to
replace it. Over time, I became very familiar with aspects of the operation of
Horizon through my work on the Remediation Committee.
Experience on the POL Board
Please summarise the nature of any training and induction that you received prior to
or on your appointment to the POL Board.
13.
As part of my interview process, I met a number of POL Board members,
including Tim Parker, Zarin Patel, Tom Cooper, Ken McCall, Nick Read and
Alisdair Cameron. I also spoke to Robert Swannell, the then Chair of UKGI.
These were in part interviews by them of me, but also in part due diligence by
me on the role and the organisation. The meetings gave me an understanding
of the challenges faced by POL and how the POL Board operated.
Page 5 of 39
14.
15.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
Upon my appointment being confirmed, I had a variety of further meetings,
including: Mr Cooper; Mr Swannell; the Chief People Officer, Angela Willams;
the Company Secretary, Veronica Branton; Mr Cameron and his colleague
Kathryn Sherratt; the General Counsel, Ben Foat; and I believe other
meetings with executives which I cannot now precisely recall or find records
of. I also attended the annual board strategy session, which took place almost
immediately after I joined the POL Board and occupied a day and a half of
discussion about various issues in the organisation. At that time, I met and
had the opportunity to speak with the remaining board members I had not yet
met by that stage.
I also received a briefing pack, which was loaded onto Diligent, the board
meeting app used by the POL Board. This included a lot of very useful
material, such as:
a. Information about the structure, personnel and business operations of
POL and its subsidiaries;
b. Information about the regulatory environment;
c. Governance material, dealing with duties, conflicts, decision making
authorities and so on;
d. Group policies applicable to Directors;
e. Constitutional documents and information about POL’s relationship
with its Shareholder;
f. The terms of reference for a number of board committees;
Page 6 of 39
16.
17.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
g. The most recent board effectiveness review;
h. Statutory accounts; and
i. Information about practical matters, such as meeting dates and contact
information.
I read all this material. As I said earlier, I also read key judgments relating to
issues with Horizon and the problems that those issues had caused.
Part of my role was to get the Remediation Committee up and running very
quickly (the first meeting took place in August 2021), so I was quickly
immersed in the issues relating to appeals of convictions and compensation
for past wrongs. In that context I was given briefings by POL’s external legal
counsel as well as having multiple discussions with internal legal and
operational people, although I cannot now identify precisely when and with
whom those meetings took place.
Please set out your reflections on the quality and completeness of any training and
induction that you received
18.
I thought that the training and induction process was adequate and if I had not
thought so I would have asked for further material at the time. The reading
material that I was provided with seemed comprehensive. In relation to how
POL might improve the onboarding process for the future, I think it would be
Page 7 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
useful for incoming board members to have more face-to-face induction
meetings with people who have hands-on involvement with the products that
POL delivers and with Postmasters.
What briefings, if any, did you receive on the issues addressed by the Inquiry, such
as the Horizon IT system, the prosecution of SPMs and the Group Litigation Order
(GLO) before or on joining the POL board? If you received any such briefings, please
provide details of the briefing received and reflect on their quality.
19. AsI have explained earlier in this statement, I read the relevant judgments
and then received briefings on these issues in particular as part of my role in
setting up and operating the Remediation Committee, to which they were
central.
Please set out your reflections as to the adequacy and effectiveness of POL’s
current corporate governance arrangements
20. The easiest way to answer this question is by reference to recent work carried
out by external consultants, Grant Thornton, which I understand the Inquiry
has already seen. The POL Board engaged Grant Thornton to look into the
adequacy of POL’s corporate governance arrangements. Grant Thornton
analysed these arrangements and produced a detailed report
[POL00446477]. The report made a number of observations about the
Page 8 of 39
21.
22.
23.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
effectiveness of the Post Office’s corporate governance and identified areas in
which this could be improved.
A key theme of the Grant Thornton report is that there is a lack of clarity
regarding POL’s strategic goals. More specifically, they found that there is a
lack of clarity regarding how POL’s goals regarding commercial sustainability
ought to be balanced against its potentially conflicting goal of serving a vital
social purpose. The report noted that this lack of clarity fostered a culture
where it is difficult to make decisions and to evaluate people's performance.
The report also noted that there is confusion regarding the respective roles of
the Shareholder and the Board, which means that they do not work
particularly effectively together. It noted that while the Shareholder has a
representative on the board, the representative's role is not articulated clearly
in the Framework Agreement, or other constitutional documents. It noted that
this exacerbates the lack of clarity regarding POL’s strategic goals and
whether it is meant primarily to aim to achieve commercial sustainability or to
achieve social goals.
Further, the report identified that the fear of having decisions publicly
scrutinised, combined with this lack of a clear strategic direction and a clear
relationship between the POL Board and the Shareholder, exacerbates the
institutional reluctance to make decisions.
Page 9 of 39
24.
25.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
In my view, Grant Thornton's analysis is a good diagnosis of the issues that
arise in relation to POL’s current corporate governance arrangements. I have
a slightly different view of the correct weight to attach to the various points
they identify — in particular, I consider the first point about clarity in POL’s
strategic goals to be a primary driver of many of the points that follow. That
lack of clarity, together with the extreme nature of the events that have
happened in the past, have created a pressure that mean that the Board and
the Shareholder would struggle in any structure to manage the extent and
complexity of the challenges POL faces. While I agree that there is potential
for confusion about the role of the Shareholder representative on the board,
generally this has in my view worked quite well in the circumstances. In my
view, the bigger issue has been the lack of an overarching strategic vision
which has meant that there is insufficient clarity about what the Shareholder
wants POL to achieve, especially in light of the past wrongs.
While the Grant Thornton report is a good summary of the governance issues
at POL, little of it has come as a surprise to the POL Board. Some of it is
already the subject of remedial action (for example, the restructuring of the
executive team and the layers below that). Other aspects are being
addressed through a strategic review which is currently underway. One major
objective of that strategic review, as I understand it, is to obtain closer
alignment between the Shareholder (in the broadest sense, including all
government stakeholders) and the POL Board on the main strategic goals for
Page 10 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
POL. That in turn will allow POL to identify and make the structural,
operational and cultural changes to address the issues Grant Thornton
identify.
Please describe the culture of POL at Board level and set out your reflections as to
the ways in which the culture has or has not changed following the findings of Fraser
LJ in the Common Issues Judgment or resulting from evidence arising in the Inquiry.
26. I joined the POL Board sometime after the Common Issues Judgment was
handed down. I can therefore only speak directly to my understanding of the
work done to address cultural matters after I joined the POL Board. Broadly
speaking, that involved structured programmes in which matters arising from
the Common Issues Judgment or the Inquiry were identified, formally logged
and then made subject to an appropriate remediation activity. The Board
received regular reports on progress in addressing the Common Issues
Judgment items and my recollection is that work was well advanced when I
arrived and substantially complete by the time I left.
27. The Board had less visibility of the programme to address matters coming out
of the Inquiry, but I understand that it was treated as an important part of the
POL Inquiry team’s work, and I am sure that others will be able to provide
more detail.
Page 11 of 39
28.
29.
30.
31.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
In relation to the culture at board level, it is important to note that there has
been considerable change on the POL Board since my arrival. The only
directors who remain on the Board from that time are the two Postmaster
Non-Executives, Elliot Jacobs and Saf Islam, and Mr Read. Everyone else is
new to the board since my arrival, with the majority arriving in the last twelve
to eighteen months.
Mr Read joined POL at around the time that the Common Issues Judgment
was handed down, and I expect he would have been unaware of the issues it
documented at the time he started. Everyone else who joined the Board since
then has been aware of the wrongs of the past and (certainly in my case and I
have no doubt in the case of everyone else) has joined the organisation
wanting to lend their skills and experience to addressing and putting right as
far as possible those issues from the past (including making full and fair
compensation) and ensuring the Post Office is able to play its vital role in our
communities going forward.
I can also say with confidence that every board member I have served with
has been fully committed to dealing properly with the wrongs of the past and
also to the transition to a well-functioning organisation which operates with
integrity and acts appropriately in relation to all its stakeholders.
It is also important to recognize that the challenges that POL faces, and in
particular the public scrutiny which accompanies almost everything it does,
Page 12 of 39
32.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
means that for much of my time on the Board there has been the sense of
dealing with crisis after crisis. Largely because of that feature, I doubt that any
of the board members is satisfied with the progress we have made.
Throughout my time on the POL Board, and despite the governance issues
addressed in the Grant Thornton report, board members have worked
constructively together, for the most part in a collegiate manner. In my
experience, every board member has always been given the opportunity to
speak at board meetings. The chair at the time of my arrival, Mr Parker, made
considerable efforts to create an environment where people felt comfortable in
raising challenges and speaking their minds. As I address later in this
response, the subsequent chair, Mr Staunton, was not as effective in building
a team spirit, but I still consider the level of board challenge and engagement
to have been satisfactory throughout.
Please summarise your understanding of the actions POL has taken to change the
culture of the organisation following the findings of Fraser LJ or resulting from
evidence arising in the Inquiry. Please set out your reflections on how effective these
changes have been.
33.
As I have noted above, Mr Read joined the Board around the time that Mr
Justice Fraser's judgments were released. I understand his immediate
reaction was to seek to reset the relationship with Postmasters and to put that
Page 13 of 39
34.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
group at the centre of the organisation. This was done through a variety of
means, such as:
Relational changes (for example, restatement of the postmaster
contracts and the contractual arrangements with the NSFP);
Operational changes: (for example, setting up a stronger area manager
network to liaise with Postmasters);
Governance changes (for example, adding two Postmaster N-
Executives to the board);
Policy changes (for example, the operating procedures to deal with
discrepancies in branches); and
Behavioural changes (for example, through the setting of incentive
programmes aligned to postmaster satisfaction and through constant,
senior level messaging to the business).
All of these have in my view had a positive impact on the culture at POL.
However, as the Grant Thornton report illustrates, it has not been sufficient. In
my view (which I believe is widely shared by the POL Board) a more
significant resetting of the culture is required, which can only be achieved as
part of a wider transformational plan. That is one of the key outputs expected
from the strategy project which POL is currently undertaking.
Does the culture at POL support the building and maintaining of trust between POL
and SPMs, managers and assistants?
Page 14 of 39
35.
36.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
In many respects, the answer to this question is the same as for the previous
question. I believe that the efforts to make POL more postmaster centric have
led to a culture in which there is more trust between POL on the one hand and
Postmasters and their colleagues on the other.
However, there is further work to do in that regard. For example, people would
occasionally give presentations to the Board about new ideas or processes,
without having consulted with Postmasters. The Board, often through the
Postmaster Non-Executives, would pick up on this and remind them of the
importance of understanding the Postmaster perspective. We did on occasion
receive feedback on initiatives which Postmasters felt had not been thought
through from their perspective, particularly in relation to the economic impact
on Postmasters. Those incidents suggested to me not only that some people
were still thinking in terms of POL’s interests, rather than putting Postmasters
first, but also that it was likely to be necessary for there to be more
fundamental change in the way in which the relationship between POL and
Postmasters is structured and operates. Now that I have left POL, I have little
visibility of the current thinking in the strategic review, but my understanding
when I left was that this would be a major theme in that exercise.
Please summarise your experience of the Board's relationship with and approach
towards SPMs.
Page 15 of 39
37.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I have largely answered this in my response to the previous questions.
However, to summarize, I joined the board approximately two years after Mr
Read became CEO. He was attempting to bring about culture change at POL,
by putting Postmasters at the centre of the organization. While I did not feel
that this had been completely achieved by the time I left the board in July
2024, I thought that progress had been made. I consider that this progress is
likely to advance materially as a result of the current strategy exercise.
Please summarise your understanding and experience of the Board's relationship
with key relevant external stakeholders, such as the National Federation of
SubPostmasters (NFSP), Communications and Workers Union (CWU), Fujitsu, UK
Government Investments (UKGI) and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT).
NFSP/CWU/VoTP.
38.
39.
I believe that both the National Federation of SubPostmasters (‘NFSP”) and
the Communications and Workers Union (“CWU”), as well as the social
media-based union or advocacy group called Voice of The Postmaster, are all
considered to be key external stakeholders for POL. They all present valuable
ways for the POL Board to hear and understand Postmasters’ concerns.
I am aware that the NFSP was criticized by Mr Justice Fraser for being
ineffective. This was in part due to the nature of the contract between NFSP
and POL, which prevented, or discouraged, NFSP from advocating for
Page 16 of 39
40.
41.
42.
43.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
Postmasters when doing so may have been adverse to POL’s interests. I
understand that this issue has been addressed and that the NFSP is now
active in challenging POL and holding it to account.
CWU has a smaller membership base of Postmasters but has been a forceful
voice for Postmasters on certain issues and has demonstrated their
willingness to advocate for Postmasters.
Voice of The Postmaster is a newer, largely social media based, group. It is
more of an advocacy group than a trade union in the traditional sense, but it
represents another way for Postmasters to communicate their views to POL.
With the encouragement of the Board, POL increased its engagement with
the Voice of The Postmaster significantly during my time on the POL Board
and it has become an influential channel of engagement between POL and
Postmasters.
During my time on the POL Board, we took all three of these groups very
seriously. While most board members had limited or no direct engagement
with them, we were regularly briefed on the engagement which the executive
team, Chair or Postmaster Non-Executives had with them.
Fujitsu
During my time on the Board, POL had a complicated relationship with
Fujitsu. The relationship has been very strained as a result of the historical
Page 17 of 39
44,
45.
46.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
issues relating to Horizon. However, at the same time, POL has needed to
maintain a working relationship with Fujitsu, in order to continue to operate the
current version of Horizon. This relationship has largely been managed at the
executive level. I have never met anyone from Fujitsu.
UKGI/DBT
The Department of Business and Trade (“DBT”) is obviously a crucial
stakeholder, as the body managing the Government's shareholding in POL.
The relationship is multifaceted, in the sense that there are multiple
touchpoints between POL and DBT. I had relationships with senior civil
servants and my dealings with them were always sensible and constructive.
There were tensions from time to time, largely about the degree of oversight
that DBT wished to have over POL and also in relation to funding. Some of
these are recorded in the Grant Thornton report and are the obvious
consequence of both POL’s past and the challenges it faces going forward.
The Minister responsible for the Post Office (from time to time) was a regular
visitor to POL Board meetings and the Secretary of State also attended a
board meeting shortly before I left. I always felt that they were well briefed and
supportive of the efforts the POL Board was making.
UK Government Investments Ltd (“UKGI”) also has multiple touchpoints with
POL. There is a reasonably large team at UKGI dealing with POL matters and
Page 18 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
they had very good visibility of POL’s activities across a wide range of
subjects. The most obvious interface with the POL Board is through the
Shareholder representative on the board. Grant Thornton has commented on
some of the difficulties in this aspect of the relationship and there were also
comments in board effectiveness reviews about the influence which the
shareholder representative had on the Board.
47. IMy experience of dealing with the shareholder representative (first Mr Cooper
and then Lorna Gratton) has always been a positive one. My view is that their
role is an extremely difficult one, in the circumstances in which POL finds
itself, and they have both tried hard to fulfil their duties to POL and to act as
an effective conduit for the views of the Shareholder.
48. I also had contact with the Chair of UKGI at the time I joined the board and
subsequently with the UKGI Chief Executive, Charles Donald, who attended
POL board meetings on occasion and who I also met with on a one-to-one
basis.
Do you think the culture in POL actively encourages whistleblowers to speak openly
and honestly about their concerns? Please provide reasons for your answer.
49. I do think that POL’s culture actively encouraged whistleblowers to speak
actively and openly about their concerns. POL has a team dedicated to its
Page 19 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
whistleblowing programme (which is called Speak Up). I met with some of this
team, and I saw reporting from this team (although only at a high level, given
confidentiality requirements). From what I could see, the team appeared to be
very professional in their approach, to take great care in relation to
confidentiality, and to have good support from both external legal advisors
and POL’s internal legal team. I understood that they were actively involved in
spreading the message throughout POL that there was a reliable
whistleblowing process.
50. While this is somewhat of an oversimplification, the effectiveness of this team,
and POL’s culture regarding whistleblowing, can be seen by the fact that there
was a fairly constant stream of whistleblowing reports during my time on the
board.
Are you aware of anyone having ‘blown the whistle’ within POL since the findings of
Fraser LJ in a matter relevant to the issues being explored by the Inquiry? If so.
please summarise the nature of the complaint(s) made and the response of both the
Board and any individuals named in the complaint, insofar as you are able whilst
protecting the identity of the whistleblower.
51. While I was not directly involved in the Speak Up team, I am aware of the
subject matter of some whistleblowing during my time on the POL Board. In
very broad terms, I was aware of whistleblowing relating to the way in which
people were remunerated, allegations of bullying, and other aspects of POL’s
Page 20 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
culture. It is difficult for me to form a view on the relevance of these subjects
to the Inquiry as I have no detailed knowledge of these whistleblowing
complaints (other than the whistleblowing complaints that I refer to below in
the context of Mr Staunton’s departure).
Please set out your reflections as to the adequacy and effectiveness of POL’s
current whistleblowing policies and procedures.
52. I have largely dealt with this question already. However, to summarize, I think
POL’s current whistleblowing policies and procedures are effective (or at least
were effective while I was on the Board). POL has an experienced team which
deals with whistleblowing, and it is well-resourced and supported. The
process is publicised internally. There was also a constant stream of
whistleblowing reports during my time on the Board, which indicates that
people felt comfortable doing so.
To what extent do you consider you understand issues of legal professional privilege
and the extent to which such information may be shared with the Board ofa
company? Do you consider the provision of legal information to the Board (and the
relevant mechanisms) to be sufficient? Please set out any concerns that you may
have in this respect.
Page 21 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
53. I have a good understanding of legal professional privilege and the extent to
which legally privileged information can be shared with the board of a
company.
54. I understand that this question is likely being asked because in the past
information was withheld from the POL Board on the basis that it was
privileged. As far as I am aware, this did not occur while I was on the Board.
Legal advice from external sources was often summarized for the Board by
the internal legal function, but this is not unusual in my experience, and I did
not feel that important information was omitted or withheld. There were also
instances where we were provided with advice from external counsel directly
(often in person), rather than being provided with a summary of this advice
prepared by POL’s in-house legal team.
Key Events
Please consider the Times article dated 19 February 2024 (RLIT0000201). Please
set out in detail your understanding of the matters raised in this article, including the
relevant background, chronology and actions of any individuals involved. Please set
out your reflections on the quoted statement of Mr Jacobs that he and Mr Ismail were
“ignored and seen [...] as an annoyance” by other members of the POL board.
Page 22 of 39
55.
56.
I consider that there are two important points arising from the Times article
[RLIT0000201] which it would be useful for me to respond to. The first is Mr
Jacobs's statement that he and Mr Ismail were “ignored and seen [...] as an
annoyance” by other members of the POL Board. The second is Mr
Staunton’s claim that he was told to stall compensation to Postmasters who
had been harmed by the previous wrongful actions of POL in order to help the
Conservative party at the general election. I will deal with these two issues
separately. While the article also addresses Mr Staunton’s removal from the
Board, I do not address that here, as I deal with that in my response to the
next question.
In relation to the first issue, I was not directly involved in the conversation
between Mr Staunton, Mr Jacobs and Mr Ismail on 10 January 2024.
However, I have seen the email from Mr Staunton which summarises that
conversation and contains the quote from Mr Jacobs that he and Mr Ismail
were “ignored and seen [...] as an annoyance’ by other members of the POL
Board, which subsequently appeared in the Times article [POL00448511].
This email exchange occurred on the 14" and 15" of January 2024. This
email chain was later forwarded to Mr Read who inadvertently forwarded it to
a number of people who were mentioned in the original email including Mr
Foat and Mr Roberts [POL00448301]. I feel that I can assist the Inquiry
through my recollection of the context within which these email exchanges
occurred and my understanding of the relationship between the Postmaster
Non-Executives and the rest of the POL Board.
Page 23 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
57.
58.
59.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
Personally, I do not think that the Postmaster Non-Executives were ignored
and seen as an annoyance by other members of the Board. My perception
was that the Postmaster Non-Executives were very much valued. They
brought a unique and vital perspective to the Board, which was necessary if
the Board was to achieve its aim of making POL a more Postmaster centric
organization. This is reflected in the Board Report from 6 June 2023, which
summarised a recent Board evaluation exercised, and noted that “Board
Directors were pleased about a number of aspects of the way the Board
operated during FY22/23, including . (vi) the contribution of the Postmaster
Non-Executive Directors, particularly in bringing the Board closer to the
business.” [POL00448515] I also considered that both Mr Jacobs and Mr
Ismail were astute and capable directors. I had a good working relationship
with them, and I got on well with them on a personal level.
l infer from the Times Article and from conversations that I had with them after
I saw the Project Pineapple email exchange that the Postmaster Non-
Executives were very frustrated by POL’s inability to deal properly with certain
employees who had been involved in what are now seen as flawed and
unacceptable investigations in the past into Postmaster discrepancies.
In the email chain, Mr Jacobs refers to the fact that there were about 40 such
investigators who were still employed by POL. I believe that this number is
incorrect and that in reality there was a much smaller number of such people.
Page 24 of 39
60.
61.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I understand that while this was a concern for many Postmasters (past and
present), it was also a sensitive topic for the Postmaster Non-Executives
personally, as they had both been investigated about potential discrepancies
at their branches and considered that these investigations had been handled
poorly.
Mr Jacobs and Mr Islam had raised the issue of investigators from the past
remaining in the business many months before and it had been discussed at
several board meetings. However, it seems that insufficient progress had
been made by January 2024. I understand that Mr Jacobs and Mr Islam felt
that their concerns were not being listened to. In fact, I (and I believe other
Board members) shared their concerns. However, we were being told by the
executive that it was a complicated subject, and that work was being done to
try and resolve the issue. I suspect that Mr Jacobs and Mr Islam mistook the
rest of the Board's willingness to let the executive progress the issue as being
a lack of support for them on what they saw as a very serious issue which
they felt was not being properly confronted.
The Board has discussed this issue on a number of further occasions
following the publication of the Times article. I believe there is now a common
view at the board about the seriousness of the issue and also the complexity
of the problem and the options for resolving it.
Page 25 of 39
62.
63.
64.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I also note that Mr Staunton claimed that Mr Read referred to these former
investigators as “untouchables”. This is referenced in the Times article
[RLIT0000201]. I cannot recall Mr Read using this phrase in my presence and
I do not believe that it would have been used to say that former investigators
could not be held accountable if they had acted wrongfully.
I also think that it is important to understand the background leading to the
email which the Times article quotes from, as this goes some way to
explaining the blunt language which was used. As I describe in more detail in
response to the next question, at the time the email exchange occurred Mr
Staunton was personally subject to an investigation. He had attempted to stop
the investigation on a number of occasions. He appeared to me to be trying to
gain support from the Postmaster Non-Executives by inviting them to air their
views about POL’s investigators. He had a private conversation with them
during which he encouraged them to speak frankly about their concerns. In
my view, the wording Mr Staunton then used to reflect those views was
entirely inappropriate for the purposes of putting the issue before Mr Read
and the Board. Mr Jacobs later emailed me and others saying that, while they
stood by the substance of their complaints, he and Mr Islam realised that the
tone of the complaints and the way in which they were delivered and
circulated was unfortunate [POL0044851 4].
I now address Mr Staunton’s claim that he was told to stall compensation to
Postmasters who had been harmed by the previous issues with Horizon in
Page 26 of 39
65.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
order to help the Conservatives in the general election. I understand from
reading the transcripts of the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee
that Mr Staunton claims that Sarah Munby, who was the Permanent Secretary
of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) at the
time, gave him this instruction in January 2023. I was not involved in the
conversations between Mr Staunton and Ms. Munby, but I do not believe that
Mr Staunton is correct in his assertion that he was told to stall compensation
payments.
Throughout my time on the POL Board, our priority has always been to
provide compensation to the affected Postmasters as quickly as possible. I
was consistently given the same message by every official at BEIS/DBT that I
dealt with. I can categorically state that I have never been told by anyone
within government that we ought to slow down compensation, nor did I hear
from anyone at any time, including Mr Staunton, that they had been told to do
so. If anyone on the POL Board had told me that the government was
intentionally trying to slow compensation for Postmasters then I would have
resigned immediately. I expect my fellow board members would have done
the same. If Mr Staunton genuinely thought that was the instruction he was
given, it is a mystery to me why he was prepared to continue in his role.
Please set out in detail your understanding of the circumstances which led to the
dismissal of Henry Staunton on 27 January 2024, including the relevant background.
chronology and actions of any individuals involved.
Page 27 of 39
66.
67.
68.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
First, I should note, as set out further below, that Mr Staunton’s dismissal
resulted from his personal conduct. My understanding is that Mr Staunton was
removed from his position because his behaviour was inconsistent with POL’s
(and the Shareholder’s) values. These issues were specific to Mr Staunton
and do not relate to the general operation of POL.
POL started an investigation into Mr Staunton’s behaviour in December 2023.
The investigation was in response to an allegation made by Jane Davies, the
former Chief People Officer, to the effect that Mr Staunton had made racist
and misogynistic comments in a meeting with a recruitment consultant in early
2023. The allegation arose in the context of an investigation into other
allegations that Ms Davies had made, by way of a whistleblowing complaint,
in or about May 2023 about Mr Read, around the time of her departure from
POL at the end of her probation period. The allegations against Mr Read were
investigated and were not upheld in due course.
Ms. Davies did not specifically identify Mr Staunton when she first made the
relevant allegation, saying only that the comments had been made by a
member of the POL Board. After meeting with the independent barrister
instructed by POL to investigate her complaint, Ms Davies clarified that she
alleged that the comments had been made by Mr Staunton. As a result, the
investigation was widened to include an investigation into whether Mr
Staunton had made the comments.
Page 28 of 39
69.
70.
71.
I was asked by the POL Non-Executive Directors overseeing the investigation
(Amanda Burton and Ms. Gratton) to call Mr Staunton, in my capacity as the
SID, to inform him about the commencement of the investigation into his
conduct. I did that on 12 December 2023.
Following that discussion, I emailed Mr Staunton the exact wording of the
allegation, as had been provided to me by the investigations team. The
allegation was marked up to show how it had changed from the initial
allegation regarding an unspecified board member [POL00448512]. I spoke
to Mr Staunton again the next day, at his request. He was angry and upset
that he was being investigated and he said he was considering getting legal
advice about the matter.
By mid-January 2024, I became aware that Mr Staunton had been putting
pressure on a number of people to stop the investigation which the barrister
was carrying out into the allegations against Mr Staunton and Mr Read. I
cannot now say precisely when I first started hearing concerns about this, but
I believe that Mr Foat told me that he was having a difficult time with Mr
Staunton during one of the fortnightly catch ups I had with him. Mr Staunton
also complained about Mr Foat to me.
Page 29 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
72.
73.
74.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I believe Ms Burton also indicated to me in early January that she and Ms
Gratton had been put under pressure to stop the investigation. I also had
conversations with Mr Staunton in which he expressed the view to me that the
investigation should be stopped.
The conversation I recollect most clearly was a video call on 16 January 2024.
It was initially a difficult call, as Mr Staunton was very aggressive and accused
me of having initiated or promoted the allegations which had in fact been
made by Ms Davies. He did not seem very rational, and I had to be very firm
with him in order to get him to listen to me. I explained that I had been acting
as nothing more than a messenger when I had told him about the allegations
in December 2023. I also told him I thought he needed to be very careful not
to interfere with the investigation, as he had a conflict of interest. He accused
me of threatening him.
I was by that stage concerned that Mr Staunton’s motivation was to prevent
the investigation into the allegations concerning him personally. He seemed to
fail to recognize the gravity of interfering with any whistleblowing investigation,
let alone one in which allegations were made against him personally. In the 16
January discussion, and other discussions about whistleblowing investigations
generally, I thought that Mr Staunton expressed a lack of respect for those
processes, indicating that he thought that there were too many whistleblowing
complaints being investigated and that they should not be taken so seriously.
Page 30 of 39
75.
76.
77.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I spoke with Ms Burton and Ms Gratton separately on 19 January 2024, and
my recollection is that they agreed that Mr Staunton was trying to interfere
with the investigation into his conduct. Both of them confirmed to me that he
had put pressure on them to stop the investigation.
On Friday 19 January 2024 I had a video call with Ms McKeown, the new
Chief People Officer, and Ms. Burton. During that conversation, Ms McKeown
told Ms Burton and me that Mr Staunton had been behaving aggressively with
a number of executives, in relation to stopping the investigation and also in
relation to resolving the Employment Tribunal claim of Ms Davies. The
executives included Ms McKeown, Mr Foat and Ms Sherratt. Ms McKeown
said she thought that Mr Staunton’s behaviour was inconsistent with POL’s
values and that it was causing problems for the running of the business.
After that call, I spoke separately to Ms Burton. She told me that she thought
we needed to raise Mr Staunton’s behaviour with the Shareholder
immediately. I said I thought we should wait for the conclusion of the ongoing
investigation, as that seemed close to an outcome and, if the investigator
concluded that Mr Staunton had made the alleged comments then I expected
that the Shareholder would be uncomfortable about him remaining in post in
any event. I was also concerned that people were likely to conflate these
newer complaints with the allegations which were the subject of the
confidential whistleblowing complaint which was still ongoing.
Page 31 of 39
78.
79.
80.
That evening (19 January 2024), I called Mr Read and relayed the information
I had just heard from Ms McKeown. I told him that Mr Staunton’s position was
likely to be under scrutiny and I asked him what his view would be if Mr
Staunton left his role. He said that he would not be unduly concerned if Mr
Staunton left, as Mr Staunton had not been providing him with any material
support as Chair, notwithstanding the issues Mr Read was dealing with as a
result of the significant public scrutiny POL was now facing following the
recent airing of the ITV drama.
The next day, 20 January 2024, I received an email which Mr Staunton had
sent to the board and copied to the Company Secretary about the SID role.
By way of background, in mid to late 2023, I had told Mr Staunton that I would
not be continuing with a second term when my first term ended in July 2024.
POL was therefore carrying out an external search for my replacement as
SID, with the support and approval of the Shareholder.
The 20 January 2024 email referred to a meeting of directors which had taken
place at short notice on Thursday 18 January, which I had not been able to
attend, and which I understood Ms Gratton had not been invited to. The email
recorded a decision to appoint an existing Non-Executive, Andrew Darfoor, as
SID and Mr Staunton instructed the Company Secretary to stop the external
search.
Page 32 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
81.
82.
83.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
I was concerned that this represented poor governance, as there had not
been a formal board or nominations committee meeting to discuss the
proposal, Ms Gratton had not been involved in the discussion, the
Shareholder had not been consulted at all (and would need to consent to the
change of approach), I was told by Ms Burton that she had not been
consulted about Mr Darfoor’s appointment (having left the 18 January meeting
early) and I understood that another Non-Executive, Brian Gaunt, had not
been able to join the meeting either. In those circumstances I thought it
premature and inappropriate for Mr Staunton to be instructing the Company
Secretary to stop the search. I responded to Mr Staunton’s email along those
lines, and he replied, as did Ms. Burton [POL00448510].
As a consequence of this episode, I decided that Ms Burton had been right
and that I needed to act sooner rather than later, before Mr Staunton could
take further inappropriate steps which might damage POL. I therefore told Ms
Burton and Ms Gratton that I thought it was now appropriate formally to raise
Mr Staunton’s behaviour with DBT. Ms Gratton arranged for me to speak with
Carl Cresswell at DBT.
In anticipation of the call, I made a note on the Notes App on my iPad setting
out what I intended to say to Mr Cresswell. I added some further information
to this note after the call, as I made a few points on the call that I had not
included in my initial note (I also added a section under the heading “next
steps” which I had not discussed with Mr Cresswell, for my own personal
Page 33 of 39
84.
85.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
reference). I was very careful to have a comprehensive note of the topics
covered with Mr Cresswell, as I wanted to use the note to give an accurate
report to my fellow directors as and when I next spoke to them.
I also spoke to Ms. Burton in the late afternoon of 20 January 2024, to run
through my note and to get her confirmation that my observations were, as far
as she knew, accurate. She confirmed that was the case and added some
points for me to make.
I spoke to Mr Cresswell in the late morning of 22 January 2024. As set out in
my note, the main message that I conveyed to Mr Cresswell was that Mr
Staunton’s values and behaviour were inconsistent with his role as Chair of
the POL Board. I then gave three reasons, with examples, as to why this was
the case. These reasons were the steps he had been taking to impede
investigations, including into allegations against him personally, his
inappropriate behaviour, and his lack of leadership. In order to assist with
understanding the note, I set out below the people whose names are given in
abbreviated form:
a. BF is Mr Foat.
b. KM is Ms. McKeown.
c. KS is Ms. Sherratt.
1I later exported the Note to an app called Pages and sent it to my solicitors in that form.
Page 34 of 39
86.
87.
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
d. MR is Mr Roberts.
e. JB is John Bartlett, who led POL’s Assurance and Complex
Investigations team.
f. AB is Ms. Burton.
g. LG is Ms Gratton
h. BG is Mr Gaunt.
i. NR is Mr Read.
je “Rose” is Project Rose, which was the project name for the issues
relating to Ms. Davies.
On 23 January 2024, Mr Foat sent an email to Mr Read, Ms. McKeown and
me about the Project Pineapple email chain. He said in that email that Mr
Staunton had been “very angry with him on several occasions when I [he]
refused to make the investigation “go away” and that this had taken a toll on
his mental health [POL00448513].
Following my call with Mr Cresswell, I did not hear anything further until 25
January 2024, when Ms Gratton told me that the Secretary of State had
decided that Mr Staunton needed to be removed from his post. I then saw a
news story on 27 January 2024 saying that Mr Staunton had been dismissed
with immediate effect. I convened a call with the other Non-Executive
Directors on Sunday, 28 January 2024 and explained to the other Non-
Executives what had happened, including my call with Mr Cresswell and why I
had said the things that I did.
Page 35 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
Please set out in detail your understanding of the circumstances which led to the
resignation of Alisdair Cameron on 25 June 2024, including the relevant background,
chronology and actions of any individuals involved.
88. I had no direct involvement in the process that led to Mr Cameron’s
resignation and my knowledge of it is limited to the periodic updates I received
as a board member. I know that Mr Cameron became unwell and was unable
to work for over a year. In due course, it was agreed that Mr Cameron should
retire on the grounds of long-term ill health.
General
Please set out any other comments, reflections or concerns (if any) you may have
about your experience on the POL board.
89. I consider my responses to the questions above to cover the issues relevant
to the Inquiry and do not have any other comments, concerns, or reflections
about my experience on the POL Board.
Please set out any other matters that you consider the Chair of the Inquiry should be
aware of
Page 36 of 39
90.
Over the course of three years, I have been involved with or aware of a great
many issues in which the Inquiry might in principle be interested. However, I
know that the Inquiry will be seeking evidence from a number of witnesses
who will be better placed than me to deal with those issues, because of their
direct involvement with those issues. Against that background, I believe that
my answers to the earlier questions set out all the information that the Chair of
the Inquiry should be aware of as far as I am concerned.
Additional questions
Please confirm when you left the POL Board.
91.
I left the POL board at the expiry of my term on 8 July 2024.
Please set out in detail the reasons for your departure from the POL Board, including
the relevant background, chronology and actions of any individuals involved.
92.
It was apparent to me during 2023 that my commitments at the Competition
Appeal Tribunal were increasing, such that I could not commit to making
adequate time available to the Board of POL for a second term. I therefore
informed Mr Staunton in mid to late 2023 that I would not serve a second
Page 37 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
WITN11290100
term. This would not have been a surprise to him, as I had indicated in early
2023 (when he asked me to take on the SID role) that I thought it a likely
outcome. I also discussed my decision with Ms Gratton and Mr Donald at
UKGI, who said they understood the reasons for my decision.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
vated: A? Fujcrvi 202¢
U
Page 38 of 39,
Index to First Witness Statement of Benjamin James Cuthbert Tidswell
No. I URN Document Descriptions Control Number
1. I POL00446477 I Grant Thornton Post Office Limited POL-BSFF-099-
Governance review - Final 0000003
2. I RLITO000201 I News article from the Times titled RLIT000201
Postmasters on Post Office board
ignored and unwanted dated 19
February 2024
3. I POL00448511 I Email chain involving Mr Staunton, Mr I POL-BSFF-
Jacobs, and Mr Ismailon 14 and 15 I WITN-004-
January 2024 with the subject line 0057993
Project Pineapple
4. I POL00448301 I Email from Mr Staunton 18 January POL-BSFF-
2024 WITN-005-
0010781
5. I POL00448515 I POL Board Report 6 June 2023 pages 210 to 213
POL-BSFF-
WITN-015-
0013469
6. I POL00448514 I Email from Mr Jacobs on 31 January I POL-BSFF-
2024 WITN-005-
0010866
7. I POLO0448512 I Email exchange between Mr POL-BSFF-
Staunton and Mr Tidswell on 12 WITN-005-
December 2023 0010581
8. I POL00448510 I Email exchange on 20 January 2024 I POL-BSFF-
WITN-004-
eaten 0055750...
9. I WITN11290101 } Note with title Henry I WITN11290101 }
10.} POL00448513 I Email from Ben Foat 23 January POL-BSFF-
2024 WITN-005-
0010810
Page 39 of 39
WITN11290100
WITN11290100