Thread by @nickwallis

Let’s have a look at Post Office CEO Nick Read’s letter to the BEIS Select Committee inquiry. Following the fine tradition of publicly-funded Post Office execs over the last five years…

#PostOfficeScandal

… Mr Read refused to be interviewed by Panorama or Radio 4 so this is his attempt to control the current narrative.

Opening remarks: “… As Chief Executive, ensuring that the business conducts itself with integrity is of upmost importance to me….

… That requires addressing the issues of the past which gave rise to the Group Litigation Order (GLO) and this Inquiry with energy and transparency. Bluntly, there can be no new beginning without an appropriate reckoning with the past."

“… We accept that we got some things wrong in the past. We all need to recognise this and focus on finding the best way forward.
The joint settlement went further than the £57.75 million which has been the focus of comment...

… . Our joint agreement also included the establishment of the Historical Shortfall Scheme. This provides those outside the GLO proceedings with an accessible means (including an independent panel) of bringing forward concerns...

… over any shortfalls they may have experienced while using the versions of the Horizon point of sale system criticised by the judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Fraser...

… I want to encourage postmasters, past or present, who meet the eligibility criteria, to apply to this scheme. To date, well over 500 applications have been made with a further two months before the scheme closes on 14 August 2020.”

[Comment: 500 is interesting -

… add those to the 555 in the group litigation, you have more than 1055 Subpostmasters who feel they’ve been ripped off by the PO added to the 900 who the PO prosecuted using Horizon data. Also worth noting the Historical Shortfall Scheme is being run by Herbert Smith...

… Freehills who got the Post Office such a good deal out of the group litigation settlement AND worked with Lloyds banking group to run a similar scheme for victims of fraud, later decreed as “neither fair nor reasonable” for failing to make a single...

…. award to any applicant for direct and consequential loss caused by the banking fraud (see the Cranston Review).]

Mr Read continues: "Beyond this, the Committee is aware that we are making strenuous efforts regarding postmasters with historical convictions that may be affected and have fully co-operated with applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)….

… The criminal appeal courts will now determine these complex issues, with each case resolved on its own specific facts.”
And on the forthcoming government “review”: "The Committee should understand that, while the terms of reference and...

…. standing of the review are a matter for Government, that commitment extends to an inquiry in whatever form is ultimately determined appropriate to help postmasters and Post Office move forward with mutual trust and improved commitment.”

[I reported this latter point..

… a while back here: postofficetrial.com/2020/05/post-o…]

On the state of the PO now: "The Post Office faces significant challenges on several fronts. To overcome them the business needs to make fundamental changes to its culture and practices...

… Foremost is the need to forge a new relationship with the postmasters that run the network. In the past nine months we have begun to do so by implementing a plan that is focused on trust, flexibility and giving a proper voice to those who choose to work with us."

Then he addresses the BEIS inquiry’s questions.

Q: Do you now accept that there was a major problem with Horizon and, if so, when did Post Office Ltd identify this problem and what was the nature of that problem?

A: Post Office accepts...

… that there were deficiencies in previous versions of the Horizon system.
The extent of issues became apparent to Post Office during the Group Litigation and is set out in the High Court judgment which found that the potential for bugs...

… to affect branch balances in historical versions of Horizon was greater than Post Office believed. The judgment did not determine whether bugs, errors or defects...

… did in fact cause shortfalls in the individual claimants’ accounts but it found that they had the potential to create apparent discrepancies in postmasters’ branch accounts.

[This is disingenuous. The actual judgment said "It was possible for bugs...

… errors or defects of the nature alleged by the claimants to have the potential both (a) to cause apparent or alleged discrepancies or shortfalls relating to Subpostmasters’ branch accounts or transactions, and also (b) to undermine the reliability...

… of Horizon accurately to process and to record transactions as alleged by the claimants… Further, all the evidence in the Horizon Issues trial shows not only was there the potential for this to occur, but it actually has happened, and on numerous occasions.”

The cleverly...

…. worded part of Mr Read’s statement is that the trial was not designed to find bugs errors in defects in the claimants’ branch accounts, so it is therefore not news that none were found. The trial was set up to see if there was a POTENTIAL for bugs...

… errors and defects to affect ANY Subpostmasters’ branch accounts and not only was the answer: yes there was potential, but that it had definitely happened.]

Mr Read is asked about when the Post Office became aware remote access was possible (a central theme of our recent Panorama) - he replies:
"I first became aware of the position as found by the High Court when the Horizon judgment was handed down...

… As I was not involved at the time, I do not wish to speculate how Post Office’s knowledge of remote access issues evolved over time.”

Well, hang on a minute here, buddy. You’ve got a tongue in your head, haven’t you? Why not ask? You can say you must address the...

… issues of the past, and then when it comes to one of the single biggest issues you decide you better not find out. That really is a load of bollocks.

Q: Can sub-postmasters now park significant shortfalls in suspense accounts and can they expect that Post Office Ltd’s first response will be to assist them in identifying possible errors?

A… A postmaster can put a shortfall into their suspense account, trade normally...

… and ask for our help and investigation if they do not understand the reason for the discrepancy.

[Yay. Should never have been removed. A lack of ability to put things into suspense on Horizon has been the cause of so much human misery, it doesn’t bear thinking about.]

Q. You have said that Post Office Ltd will “take on board some important lessons”. Can you tell us what these lessons are?

A. guff guff... blah blah… No.

[I paraphrase - read the full answer here: committees.parliament.uk/publications/1…]

Q: Have you reviewed the role of the Post Office Investigation Branch in light of Horizon and the powers Post Office Ltd has to prosecute sub-postmasters and postal workers?

A: Post Office no longer exercises a private prosecutorial function. I believe...

… that the last private prosecution of a postmaster or branch assistant was brought by Post Office in 2015 but there have been very few since 2013.

[This confirms what the minister told us last week. Interesting he can ask his colleagues questions about this, but not about...

… remote access, isn’t it? Both were before his time. He won’t speculate on the latter, but happy to tell us about the former.]

Q: Will you, for example, ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service is fully involved in and will conduct future legal proceedings involving sub-postmasters or postal workers?

A: As Post Office has ceased bringing private prosecutions, any such...

… prosecutions brought in England and Wales will be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Good. At this rate Mr Scully will probably claim we don’t even need his lessons learned review.]

Q: Why does it appear that when an individual sub-postmaster was questioned by one of your investigation teams that they were told that they were the only sub-postmaster experiencing shortfalls with Horizon?

A: I know that this has been said by some of the postmasters involved..

… but I have no direct knowledge of the background as I was not at the Post Office at the time. I am not aware of any documents held by Post Office that would help the Committee resolve whether such statements were consistently made by member of the investigation teams...

… What I can say is that any postmaster who raises issues with shortfalls today will have the matter properly and fairly investigated.

[Oh yes, this one of the reasons why people are calling for an inquiry - to find out which malevolent individuals perpetrated...

… this particular line. Mr Read very keen to keep this one under wraps.]

Q: Have you reviewed the duty of care you exercised towards sub-postmasters who experienced shortfalls in Horizon?

A: Yes. The High Court found that there is a mutual duty of good faith...

… between Post Office and postmasters, including a duty that Post Office must properly, fully and fairly investigate any alleged or apparent shortfalls. The legal findings are hugely important...

…. but I want our culture to go further – the Post Office essentially exists to serve its postmasters and customers. We have implemented changes, some of which I have outlined above, and there will be many more.

[Fair enough.]

Q: How many of your current management team or those in senior positions were involved with the Horizon case? [i.e. took key decisions and/or gave evidence]

A: Post Office is led by its Group Executive (GE), which currently has 10 members...

… none of whom gave evidence during either the Horizon Issues or Common Issues trials during the High Court litigation.
In terms of key decisions, Alisdair Cameron, our Chief Financial Officer, is the only member of the current...

… Group Executive who sat on the Main Board sub-committee, with majority non-executive membership, that managed the High Court litigation. This sub-Committee of the Main Board operated from March 2018 to the end of the Group Litigation.

[You won’t be surprised to know...

… Alisdair Cameron has repeatedly refused to be interviewed about the decisions he took during this period where the Post Office’s extremely aggressive strategy of trying to sack the judge and burn out the claimants cash became their only realistic hope of winning.]

Q: Has anybody within your management team who was involved in decisions relating to Horizon been disciplined or dismissed?

A: The original Horizon system was introduced from late 1999 and there have been considerable changes, including of personnel, over subsequent decades...

… A number of the management team have left Post Office in recent years. As the Committee will appreciate, I am not at liberty to reveal the circumstances or terms of their departures.

[Translation: “No.”]

Q: How are you responding to the Judge’s criticism in Bates v Post Office Ltd that your organisation has a culture of “secrecy and excessive confidentiality”?

A: This goes to the heart of the need for the wholesale reform. I am undertaking to drive a culture...

… of genuine commercial partnership between Post Office and postmasters with openness and transparency at its core.

[I’ll be honest with you, this letter does not seem like a good example of openness and transparency at all.]

[Also how can an organisation be committed to openness and transparency and then refuse all requests for interviews since Mr Read has been in post?! Clearly bollocks.]

Q: Lord Callanan has stated that on Horizon, Post Office Ltd “clearly misled” BEIS officials, while the Minister has told this Committee that the advice Post Office Ltd gave BEIS was “flawed”.
What action are you taking to address...

… the serious charges levelled by Lord Callanan and the Minister? o Are you investigating which advice was misleading or flawed and who gave it? Will there be any sanctions for those who may have given misleading or flawed advice?

A: I should make clear that, since the...

… beginning of my tenure (which began a few months before settlement was reached in the Group Litigation), BEIS has been kept fully involved in all key decisions relating...

…. to this matter including being on the Board GLO Subcommittee which was put in place March 2018.
I am not able to comment on matters before my time.

[This is neither open nor transparent, is it? The government knew everything because it was with us all the way...

… and I’m not going to find out if we did mislead anyone because that would involved asking difficult questions which I’m not prepared to do. For reasons which are unclear.]

Q: How much has Horizon cost Post Office Ltd in addition to the settlement agreement, including legal and other costs such as hiring and diverting resources to deal with issues relating to it?

A: It is very difficult to be precise about how much the High Court litigation...

… and its consequences have cost Post Office.
However, we estimate that, since 2016/17, Post Office has incurred costs of approximately £43m in relation to the litigation (which began in April 2016)….

…. This figure includes expenditure on legal and professional consultancy fees connected with the litigation and other costs indirectly related to the litigation...

… Please note that this figure excludes the settlement amount which was ultimately paid by Post Office in December 2019.

[Which was £57.75m - so a total of £103.75m excluding the costs of the Historical Shortfall Scheme which we know will have at least 500 applicants...

… and the costs incurred by Peters and Peters reviewing the 900 prosecutions, and the costs of examining each CCRC referral as it is put before the High Court. Paula Vennells and Alisdair Cameron bang on about their duty to protect public funds - they’ve spunked...

… quite a lot more than any Subpostmaster could manage in pursuit of trying to prove they were criminal scum!]

Q: Are you paying the legal and other costs of former Post Office Ltd employees related to Horizon?

A: Post Office is not making payments to former employees in respect of the High Court litigation or issues
connected to it.

[Ooh. Wonder who is paying for Paula Vennells’ ...

… expensively drafted letters?]

Q: How much have you put aside for meeting costs and compensation if sub-postmaster convictions are overturned on appeal?

A: Should the criminal courts decide to overturn any convictions on appeal...

… and any subsequent civil claims are made, Post Office will work with its shareholder, UK Government Investments, to consider what provision should be made consistent with its trading position and other liabilities.

[Remind us how that “arms length” thing is working out?]

Q: On 1 May 2020, Post Offce Ltd launched a new scheme to independently assess applications from sub- postmasters who believe they had experienced shortfalls related to previous versions of the Horizon system.
Bearing in mind Bates v Post Office Ltd and...

… , as we heard in our first evidence session, the lack of faith many former sub-postmasters have in your organisation, how can you be trusted to deliver such a scheme?

A: I am determined that past events are resolved fairly. The scheme is an...

… important milestone in restoring trust.
Post Office is financing the scheme and will play a role in its overall governance. However, eligible applications will be assessed by an independent advisory panel…. If a postmaster is not content with the outcome of the assessment...

… of their case there is a dispute resolution procedure which includes independent mediation (fully funded by Post Office) provided by The Wandsworth Mediation Service, a charitable community mediation service chaired by Stephen Ruttle QC...

… who co-mediated the resolution of the Group Litigation.

[Sounds good. The lawyers running the scheme had their last high profile scheme deemed “unfair” and “unreasonable” by the Cranston review. One high profile lawyer has already expressed his reservations about...

… the scheme here: hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/news/group-act… - @NeilHudgell.]

That will do for me on these documents for now. Expect a full blog post before the day is out.

My current work on this story is crowdfunded. If you like what you read on postofficetrial.com and want to make a donation (and join the secret emailers!) I’d be grateful.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls