Thread by @nickwallis

Holy shit - watching Colin Baker's evidence. The NFSP were hopelessly compromised. To call them complicit in this scandal is an understatement. NFSP refused to publicly criticise Horizon before rollout...

... despite knowing there were serious problems, failing even to inform a parliamentary select committee of the difficulties.

Baker is still giving evidence here;

Baker agrees this was "very concerning":

And when he took it to the PO "different people at different heights" he was told the Horizon system was "perfect" and that this was the "standard answer" the NFSP was getting.

Baker says "it was bad enough for the system to be not good but for the PO... security division to follow it up with browbeating of Subpostmasters was unforgiveable"

So he knew it was happening and he still didn't go public.

He took his private concerns to the PO and was told not to worry it would "work its way through".

What would? The problems? The prosecutions?

Baker describes feeling "helpless" but "he still had to keep championing the [Horizon] cause"

[sorry that quote mark in the previous tweet should be on the other side of the word "he"]

Describes the NFSP as "a very small cog in a very big wheel" and that he couldn't really do much, yet at the same time agreed that he told his members he had the power to refuse rollout if the problems weren't sorted, which he now accepts was frankly untrue.

So he lied to his membership.

Or as the he just said "we were overstating our powers"

Who is we? He said it - see screenshot:

Says he was against going public and told people not to criticise Horizon publicly because:

"we don't want to kill it... it's the best we've got... we need to make it a success"

Admits the NFSP was a union that didn't go on strike.

22 June 1999 Baker attended a Horizon working party meeting and reported back:

Asked by inquiry if this was done - "we did give them the information, yes" replies Baker.

Baker is taken to the minutes of the Horizon Working Party Group. CWU and govt ministers are present. He had just come from a meeting whereby he had heard horror stories about Horizon's early rollout. The minutes record Baker saying to Ian McCartney et al:

Inquiry barrister asked if he raised the issue of Horizon software problems. Was it perhaps missed off the minutes?

Baker says he was making a general point. Can't recall making a comment on Horizon software problems or not.

Asked if he felt he got his point across to the Working Group.

"Cautious yes" - you can get your point across but whether anyone takes any notice of it is another matter entirely.

Baker once more raises (unbidden) the behaviour of the PO's security/investigation department and its hounding of SPMs over discrepancies:

"Whilst I was talking to the Working Group and Post Office management... the people in the PO investigation dept - whether there was...

... a disconnect between the two, I don't know, but the treatment that they were meting out to SPMs, was not in any way in the spirit of discussions I was having with them."

[That's a direct quote and I'm not sure I understand its meaning, but Baker is clearly keen...

... to start pointing the torch at the PO's security and investigation team]

And here we go again:

"I was desperate to get answers about the treatment Subpostmasters were receiving from the Post Office investigation department when errors had been discovered...

... or reported. They were treated as criminals. And that was offensive to me, and I wished that I could do something about it. But whenever I pushed on that door I was told the system can't make errors. What you put it, you get out. That sort of thing."

HOLY SHIT!

He saw potential miscarriages of justice happen before his eyes and still did nothing. He saw his members being treated "as" not "like" - "as" criminals and despite what he new about the shakiness of the system he didn't do anything except express his concern internally.

This is jaw-dropping. We've just been taken to a Horizon working group meeting a new government forum is being proposed to work out how the Post Office would be funded. Baker suggests forum should be used to spread "good news" about the Horizon system to counteract...

... "scaremongering" (see screenshot).

Asked why he said:

"The people who were saying that it [Horizon] was doomed.... @ComputerWeekly maybe or something like that saying the system was buggered."

When the inquiry barrister points out that his members were telling him there were serious problems with Horizon...

He says it was a "dilemma" because without Horizon "we would be dead in the water". But "as far as the public were concerned... we didn't want them to know that it was perilous and threatened. We wanted them to think it was fine... that was my job at the time."

I mean, if you look at that screenshot above, even the ministers were saying - steady on!

Baker is taken to a note of a meeting he was present at in Oct 1999. Horizon has been accepted by the PO, but the PO's Dave Miller says rollout has been stopped because of (among other things) data integrity issues. Inquiry barrister asks Baker...

... if this rang alarm bells with him?

"No more than were already there."

Barrister: But you've previously said SPMs were responsible for losses. If there were data integrity issues, there's a possibility that they could be held responsible for losses which didn't exist...

... was this now highest on your list of priorities?

Baker: "I don't know... I was very concerned about what investigations were going on or lack of it but I can't really say if it was the highest or not"

[NFSP GS not sure if phantom accounting discrepancies which his members could be held criminally liable for was top of his list of priorities.]

Asked why he supported PO rollout and did not raise concerns Horizon was not fit for purpose to the government during the Horizon working group. Baker says those discussions were best left to PO management and those delivering programme.
Asked if he regretted not doing so.

Baker: "With what I know now. Yes"

Despite being a member of the Horizon Working group, chaired by a government minister, the GS of the NFSP did not think it was an appropriate forum to raise issues his members were having with the operation of Horizon.

As I say, this is jaw-dropping.

Watch it here, if you like:

Baker is taken to a proposal he tried to negotiate with the PO about the "punitive" treatment of Subpostmaster losses. He said he was looking for more "leniency" because "Subpostmasters were now sending their cash accounts off through Horizon and there was some funny...

... stuff happening to it when it got there, we needed another look at this, really."

Well, yes.

Taken to a 31 Jan 2000 letter from PO MD Dave smith to Baker saying that although balancing is an issue for SPMs, training appears to be the solution.

Baker says: "They were consistently saying at this stage that there was nothing wrong with Horizon...

... that it was perfect. You only get out what you put in. And so that was why they were focused on training. And I do believe that the people I was dealing with the time believed that."

Baker is taken to this letter he wrote:

He says he had no doubt it was related to a Horizon error, but the Post Office was pointing towards user error, and Baker agrees he was "forced" to accept there was no system error.

Baker in Oct 2000 when being shown a high level of Horizon cash account errors:

"I was concerned about the whole thing at this stage"

Baker is taken to an error note from the PO which says cash records may not be correct in Nov 2000:

Says he was surprised by the PO's admission here. Says he DID NOT know at this stage SPMs were being prosecuted over Horizon data ("if they were").

PO suspense accounts swelled to £10m from £2m after Horizon introduced....

Sir Wyn Williams notes that par 20 of Baker's witness statement mentions Paula Vennells ("for the first time in this phase") as being at the PO in 1999/2000. Asks what role she had. Baker thinks she was MD of Post Office Counters "a pretty high up person"

This is Baker's par 20:

Baker is rude and dismissive to the Subpostmasters' representatives Sam Stein KC and Flora Page, but he really saves the best till last:

"I always had my eye on the goal, and that goal was a network of automated Post Offices...

... and can I just remind... we set out to get counter automation for Post Offices and at the end of it, every single... I'm proud [that] not every Post Office is automated now but EVERY SINGLE COUNTER POSITION IN EVERY POST OFFICE at no cost to the Subpostmasters..."

Flora Page points out there was a cost. That 736 Subpostmasters between 2000 and 2014 were successfully criminally prosecuted on the basis of Horizon evidence. She asks "What did your organisation to join the dots and recognise this unlikely crime wave was...
Baker: "

... actually a result of implementing Horizon?"
Baker: "When I was GS of the organisation we were consistently beating a path to the Post Office's door. Consistently...

[and the live feed goes dead. The recording will be put up on the youtube channel within a couple of hours]

[Baker's response is one for the ages, though. He says he had no idea how many prosecutions there were on his watch and ends by telling Page she had no business asking the question. I'll make sure it is tweeted in all its glory as soon as the recording goes up....

.... but I didn't think it was possible to have a lower opinion of the NFSP than I did before that evidence. Now I really do. It's the first time I've heard someone tell an inquiry set up to investigate how Subpostmasters came to be erroneously prosecuted tell a barrister...

... they have no business asking what he did about protecting his members from and protesting that they were being prosecuted. Astonishing.]

Okay the recording us up (see above on this tweet thread for a heads up on what's about to come). This was Flora Page's question:

"What did your organisation to join the dots and recognise this unlikely crime wave was...

... actually a result of implementing Horizon?"

And this is Baker's response:

"When I was General Secretary of the organisation we were consistently beating a path to the Post Office's door. Consistently. And including...

... the counter losses. But I've said before, it was a slow roll, these Horizon losses. I retired in 2007, so I can't say anything about what happened after then - forgive me. But I think we did our absolutely utmost... I don't know how many of the 700 or so were pre-...

... 2007 or post-2007. I've not see that information. I don't know whether all or any were members of the Federation. I don't know whether all or any had referred it to the Federation, so it's not a question that I would attempt to answer and I would venture to suggest...

... it's not a question you should attempt to ask."

Unbelievable. The former General Secretary of the @NFSP_UK - on who cheerleaded for the Horizon system hasn't bothered to find out how many Subpostmasters were prosecuted on his watch...

@NFSP_UK ... or how many of his members who were being prosecuted contacted the NFSP either then or since. And then he told a barrister representing victims at a Statutory Inquiry set up to find out what went wrong that she shouldn't be asking him questions about it. Unbelievable.

@NFSP_UK This is the most jaw-dropping evidence (and I've heard a bit) since Baker's successor said those who were campaigning against the Horizon system were creating a "cottage industry" and "damaging the brand" whilst insinuating they were either inept or had their hands in the till.

@NFSP_UK Holy fuck.

Well - there you have it.

By the way, the number of people prosecuted every year by the Post Office was a figure I dug out via FOI and posted here in 2020 postofficetrial.com/2020/05/post-o…

@NFSP_UK It's also in my book, which Baker clearly hasn't bothered to read.

Absolutely stone cold amazing. I notice the current NFSP Chief Executive was in the room when Baker gave evidence. It would be interesting to know what he made of it. I'll ask him.

@NFSP_UK Karl has written up the NFSP's decision to keep info about Horizon errors from the public here: computerweekly.com/news/252527837…

@NFSP_UK If I get a response from the NFSP I'll post it up here and on my blog, which you can find here:

postofficescandal.uk

#PostOfficeInquiry
#PostOfficeScandal

@threadreaderapp unroll pls