Good morning and welcome to Week 5 of Phase 5&6 (Day 133) of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Today we'll hear from Belinda Cortes-Martin, Programme Director of Project Sparrow, a project so secret, the Post Office tried to claim the word "Sparrow" was privileged... 
... during the group litigation, much to the bemusement of Mr Justice Fraser. True story - link here, to find the discussion, search "privilege".
postofficetrial.com/2019/01/common…
postofficetrial.com/2019/01/common…
I have upgraded to Twitter Premium over the weekend, which apparently allows me longer tweets and to edit them if I mess them up. And if I send them from a phone, the opportunity to have a good think about what I just sent before actually sending it. This feels slightly disorientating.
I actually bought it to explore bookmark folders as I'm hoping to start a new project shortly after this phase of the inquiry ends and I need to start compartmentalising stuff.
Anyway, Belinda Cortes-Martin (Crowe) is here. She is being sworn in and is currently going through...
Anyway, Belinda Cortes-Martin (Crowe) is here. She is being sworn in and is currently going through...
... corrections to her Witness Statement (WS).
ITV News featured a bit of Belinda (BC) on the Post Office tapes recently...
itv.com/news/2024-04-0…
ITV News featured a bit of Belinda (BC) on the Post Office tapes recently...
itv.com/news/2024-04-0…
And if you want a catch-up on where we are with the Inquiry so far, do have a read of @TomWitherow's piece from yesterday, here:
thetimes.co.uk/article/will-t…
thetimes.co.uk/article/will-t…
@TomWitherow I'd also thoroughly recommend @RichardMoorhead's triple fisking of Martin Smith's evidence last week. is the first. The rest will come up alongside it.richardmoorhead.substack.com/p/fundamentall…
Right, we're properly away now. BC apparently "does not have access" to her cv.
Sorry, "no longer" has "access" to her cv. Good start Wallis.
BC tells the Inquiry she has an NVQ6 in strategic management, two A levels and some O Levels, but can't remember how many.
She worked in the civil service from 1999 to 2011 and finished up as the Information Director for the MoJ.
BC tells the Inquiry she has an NVQ6 in strategic management, two A levels and some O Levels, but can't remember how many.
She worked in the civil service from 1999 to 2011 and finished up as the Information Director for the MoJ.
Nothing is a direct quote unless in "direct quotes".
BC was Bill Manager for the Gender Recognition Bill whilst at the MoJ.
BC was Bill Manager for the Gender Recognition Bill whilst at the MoJ.
Became in Independent Consultant in 2011 working mainly in information security. She was asked to get involved in the Post Office in 2012 by the Chair of the Post Office, Alice Perkins.
Apparently to help sort out the mutualisation project, reporting Susan Crichton (the PO GC) and Alwen Lyons (PO company secretary).
BC says this was about the future of the Post Office. Says the challenge facing the PO was its transformation programme. Does not recall being told anything about challenges to the Horizon (H) IT system.
BC says this was about the future of the Post Office. Says the challenge facing the PO was its transformation programme. Does not recall being told anything about challenges to the Horizon (H) IT system.
BC WS says in Oct 2013 she was asked to take on a role in the Post Office's complaint and mediation scheme. Can't remember who asked her. Wasn't interviewed. Paula Vennells (PV - PO CEO) wrote her job spec.
BC was not sure of her exact role. Picked things up as she went along.
Emma Price (EP) asks if she knew her role was to be independent when working for the Complaint and Mediation Scheme Working Group (WG)
BC It was made clear to me I should do what the WG Chair (Sir Anthony Hooper SAG) asked of me
EP did you see a potential conflict
BC not at the time
EP what about now
BC I feel some discomfort now because I can see how it looks - but I felt no pressure at the time
Emma Price (EP) asks if she knew her role was to be independent when working for the Complaint and Mediation Scheme Working Group (WG)
BC It was made clear to me I should do what the WG Chair (Sir Anthony Hooper SAG) asked of me
EP did you see a potential conflict
BC not at the time
EP what about now
BC I feel some discomfort now because I can see how it looks - but I felt no pressure at the time
We are shown the PV email which as well as her job spec says BC will be writing a "lessons learned" report into Second Sight's interim report
BC recalls being told very little about the Interim Report (IR) - says it was a source of confusion as to what she should be covering about the lessons to be learned. She was aware of internal tensions within the PO which included Susan Crichton who left at the time BC was becoming involved in this. I do recall becoming very clear that I wasn't going to do an exercise in who was to blame for whatever problem PO wanted to address in terms of lessons learned. It was more to do with PO's ability to set up a project at short notice, rather than anything to do with the IR itself.
EP what were you told about the reason for the IR?
BC that a number of MPs had approached PV or Alice Perkins (AP) and particularly AP was keen to engage with this in her new role as Chair and agreed to investigate H
BC that a number of MPs had approached PV or Alice Perkins (AP) and particularly AP was keen to engage with this in her new role as Chair and agreed to investigate H
EP you say you imagine you would have read the IR
BC yes
EP would it be right to assume you read it quite soon after taking up your Oct 2013 role [the IR was published on 8 July that year]
BC yes
EP would it be right to assume you read it quite soon after taking up your Oct 2013 role [the IR was published on 8 July that year]
BC I saw an email saying I asked for the IR in Oct 2013 as I hadn't seen it yet.
EP so is it safe to assume you'd seen it shortly after asking for it?
BC yes
EP you became Programme Director of Project Sparrow (PS) in Nov 2013
BC yes
EP takes her to a PS steering group meeting
EP so is it safe to assume you'd seen it shortly after asking for it?
BC yes
EP you became Programme Director of Project Sparrow (PS) in Nov 2013
BC yes
EP takes her to a PS steering group meeting
BC says that as her PS work ramped up, her work on potentially mutualising the PO ramped down. It was left to Comms and Strategy.
EP you also developed a support function with Chris Aujard (PO GC after Crichton imploded)
EP you also developed a support function with Chris Aujard (PO GC after Crichton imploded)
BC agrees - a pulling together of anything he needed pulling together in matters relating to the scheme
EP you left in the PO in 31 March 2015 when you retired.
BC correct
EP wants to know about H's bugs errors and defects and BC's understanding of their significance
EP you left in the PO in 31 March 2015 when you retired.
BC correct
EP wants to know about H's bugs errors and defects and BC's understanding of their significance
EP says from her WS, BC did not know bugs, errors and defects was shortened to BEDs, but was aware of the IR reporting of bugs and Subpostmaster complaints
BC but not necessarily about BEDs or H, just general complaints.
EP takes her to the IR conclusions
BC but not necessarily about BEDs or H, just general complaints.
EP takes her to the IR conclusions
[you can read the full IR here ]postofficescandal.uk/post/the-secon…
EP reads ALL of this out to BC
EP apologises for taking BC through this at some length. Notes the IR raises 3 bugs in total which the PO had told Second Sight (2R) about. Notes that BC says in her statement she was not made aware of BEDs in the H system, yet here she is being informed of BEDs in a report she asked for, and presumably read.
EP were the IR BEDs section not a notification of BEDs
BC at the time it was my understanding taht the PO had addressed teh matters in the IR and therefore it had confidence H was working as it should. Because these BEDs had been highlighted, publicised and addressed, my understanding was that a line had been drawn. Going forward there was a considerable level of confidence that H was working as it should.
EP notes the IR prelim concs that the PO was bad at discovering bugs - did that not cause you concern?
BC at the time, no.
BC at the time it was my understanding taht the PO had addressed teh matters in the IR and therefore it had confidence H was working as it should. Because these BEDs had been highlighted, publicised and addressed, my understanding was that a line had been drawn. Going forward there was a considerable level of confidence that H was working as it should.
EP notes the IR prelim concs that the PO was bad at discovering bugs - did that not cause you concern?
BC at the time, no.
EP were you aware the PO brought prosecutions against people using H data
BC was aware they brought prosecutions, but didn't know the sort of data presented in these cases.
BC was aware they brought prosecutions, but didn't know the sort of data presented in these cases.
EP when you read the report in 2013 that civil and debt recovery actions against SPMs did you see the significance of the IR report to those SPMs?
BC no
BC no
EP takes her to an email dated 27 Feb 2014
BC can't recall this cases
EP why were you the person to help
BC I was on the secretariat to the scheme. We did have some late applicants which either came through the scheme or 2S. And I put them into the WG to assess whether they could be accepted. Eventually they decided not to and that all cases would go through Angela van den Bogerd (AvdB)
[allowing the PO could control and deny problems. I (and the audience in Hayes) found out on Sunday that AvdB's letter to Parmod Kalia in 2015 denying any problems with his case (without any investigation) was directly responsible for his suicide attempt]
EP why were you the person to help
BC I was on the secretariat to the scheme. We did have some late applicants which either came through the scheme or 2S. And I put them into the WG to assess whether they could be accepted. Eventually they decided not to and that all cases would go through Angela van den Bogerd (AvdB)
[allowing the PO could control and deny problems. I (and the audience in Hayes) found out on Sunday that AvdB's letter to Parmod Kalia in 2015 denying any problems with his case (without any investigation) was directly responsible for his suicide attempt]
EP raises par 80 of BC's WS
Then takes her to a Steve Darlington email saying the Helen Rose report is of critical significance
The email chain following shows Ron Warmington (RW) from 2S forwarding it to BC and BC forwarding it asking colleagues how to deal with it ahead of a WG meeting
Andy Parsons from Bond Dickinson provides the corporate response
EP notes AP's reply re the Helen Rose report flags up problems with Gareth Jenkins [Fujitsu engineer] - did that concern you
BC no I didn't read it like that
EP did it concern you - the issue with GJ
BC no
BC no I didn't read it like that
EP did it concern you - the issue with GJ
BC no
EP takes BC to this email which attaches the Helen Rose report (HR) and the First Clarke Advice (CA). Did you read the CA?
BC amazed to see it. no recollection of doing so
EP did you read documents sent to you
BC not always
BC amazed to see it. no recollection of doing so
EP did you read documents sent to you
BC not always
EP did you ask anyone about the advice
BC no recollection
EP did Chris Aujard raise it with you?
BC no
EP takes her to the Clarke Advice - highlighting the following
BC no recollection
EP did Chris Aujard raise it with you?
BC no
EP takes her to the Clarke Advice - highlighting the following
And more...
EP were you aware of this at the time
BC no - I have to assume I didn't because reading it here now with you I am pretty sure I would have started asking questions. I struggle to understand why AP sent it to me as matters relating to disclosures are totally outside my brief
EP had you read it at the time, what would you have done?
BC asked questions of AP, Jarnail Singh (JS) and Chris Aujard (CA). I would say I took most things I was told which weren't within my direct line of my responsibility at face value - ie what I was told.
BC no - I have to assume I didn't because reading it here now with you I am pretty sure I would have started asking questions. I struggle to understand why AP sent it to me as matters relating to disclosures are totally outside my brief
EP had you read it at the time, what would you have done?
BC asked questions of AP, Jarnail Singh (JS) and Chris Aujard (CA). I would say I took most things I was told which weren't within my direct line of my responsibility at face value - ie what I was told.
BC I did continue to insert into briefings comments about the PO's confidence in the safety of its prosecutions and I can't believe I would continue to do that if I had read this and hadn't asked questions.
We go to an email chain [which we've seen at the Inquiry before] from June 2014. The email from AP is highlighted.
End of AP's email.
EP asks if AP is joining the dots here between the HR report and the Clarke Advice
BC yes
EP in light of that did you think AP's approach was appropriate?
BC looking at them separately - the linking of the HR report with GJ's evidence.... now I read it again... knowing what I now know, the statement about the SPM - I expect I would have skated over that. THe issue which is a matter of regret for me (among many, if I may say so). Regardless of my lack of knowledge and approach to play down the importance of the HR report is satifactory advice. if it were not important - then that should have been stated and the reasons why. I should have challenged that. I can't say why I didn't.
EP asks if AP is joining the dots here between the HR report and the Clarke Advice
BC yes
EP in light of that did you think AP's approach was appropriate?
BC looking at them separately - the linking of the HR report with GJ's evidence.... now I read it again... knowing what I now know, the statement about the SPM - I expect I would have skated over that. THe issue which is a matter of regret for me (among many, if I may say so). Regardless of my lack of knowledge and approach to play down the importance of the HR report is satifactory advice. if it were not important - then that should have been stated and the reasons why. I should have challenged that. I can't say why I didn't.
BC we segregated the matters we were dealing with and I wasn't involved in putting together the investigation reports and i would not have read a lot of the documentation
EP did you know anything about Simon Clarke's Shredding Advice [read it here ]
BC no
Sir Wyn Williams [SWW - Inquiry chair] intervenes.postofficescandal.uk/post/the-shred…
EP did you know anything about Simon Clarke's Shredding Advice [read it here ]
BC no
Sir Wyn Williams [SWW - Inquiry chair] intervenes.postofficescandal.uk/post/the-shred…
SWW you said if you had read the Clarke Advice you would query Jarnail Singh, Andy Parsons and Chris Aujard
BC yes
SWW what about your duty to inform Sir Anthony Hooper, chair of the WG.
BC If I had read this and I was not satisfied with the responses I got, I would have taken this to SAH
[1st MORNING BREAK]
BC yes
SWW what about your duty to inform Sir Anthony Hooper, chair of the WG.
BC If I had read this and I was not satisfied with the responses I got, I would have taken this to SAH
[1st MORNING BREAK]
[Okay we're back.]
EP turning to remote access. you define this as the ability for Fujitsu (F) to alter branch data without SPM knowledge
EP brings up email chain re the Winn/Lusher email
EP turning to remote access. you define this as the ability for Fujitsu (F) to alter branch data without SPM knowledge
EP brings up email chain re the Winn/Lusher email
EP brings up BC's response "new one on me"
EP was the issue of remote access new - or just the contents of this email
BC the contents of this email. I was aware of Michael Rudkin's allegation of seeing branch data being changed in Fujitsu HQ
EP was the issue of remote access new - or just the contents of this email
BC the contents of this email. I was aware of Michael Rudkin's allegation of seeing branch data being changed in Fujitsu HQ
In the same email chain Belinda starts asking questions
Her concern appears not to be the issues raised by the Winn/Lusher emails, but how Howe and Co got hold of it.
EP asks about her involvement in this matter based on her email
BC gives a generic response about her responsibilities - says she doesn't remember this matter.
EP asks about her involvement in this matter based on her email
BC gives a generic response about her responsibilities - says she doesn't remember this matter.
Here we see another email from BC who is asking for lines to take publicly on remote access, rather than doing her supposed job which was providing the WG secretariat.
EP asks about "our lines" to "dust off" re remote access - where had they originated from
BC "I don't recall"
EP takes her to the same day response from Mel Corfield at the PO Press Office. Mel's lines have (earlier in the inquiry) all been noted as misleading.
BC "I don't recall"
EP takes her to the same day response from Mel Corfield at the PO Press Office. Mel's lines have (earlier in the inquiry) all been noted as misleading.
BC is asked if she was troubled by MC's response, given there appears to be a press strategy at work here to give untrue information and as little as possible
BC - I think it depends on the question which is being asked. By October (2014) I was getting a little bit confused about the way remote access was being defined and answered. We neeeded to define the specific questions and answers and many of us had a different question in our minds when we were trying to answer it.
[that is a response worthy of Sir Humphrey]
BC - I think it depends on the question which is being asked. By October (2014) I was getting a little bit confused about the way remote access was being defined and answered. We neeeded to define the specific questions and answers and many of us had a different question in our minds when we were trying to answer it.
[that is a response worthy of Sir Humphrey]
EP takes her up the email chain from MC which revises the statement in the light of Fujitsu comms' changes.
EP then moves on to Andy Parsons' response.
And shows BC where she enters the chain.
EP can you recall your involvement in this at the time.
BC no
EP anything more widely
BC I can't recall - it might have been if a question was asked in relation to remote access on the back of the release of a report to an applicant who then might speak to the press it was helpful to have a statement in response.
EP can you recall your involvement in this at the time.
BC no
EP anything more widely
BC I can't recall - it might have been if a question was asked in relation to remote access on the back of the release of a report to an applicant who then might speak to the press it was helpful to have a statement in response.
[this is going nowhere - I'll tweet if anything more interesting happens]
Here's something by James Christie whilst we're waiting for the inquiry to get interesting.
https://x.com/james_christie/status/1787772790453465490
We are going through a complicated set of emails regarding remote access to a branch. An issue was identified in 2010 which was spotted by an SPM - it was fixed by F using a balancing transaction. BC is on a chain of emails where someone on the chain expresses relief that the fault was no involving any applicants to the scheme.
EP asks why someone at the PO might be pleased the fault did not relate to someone in the scheme
BC don't know
EP asks if BC was pleased
BC gives another Sir Humphrey response
EP asks why someone at the PO might be pleased the fault did not relate to someone in the scheme
BC don't know
EP asks if BC was pleased
BC gives another Sir Humphrey response
EP takes her back to her WS and asks if that was accurate given she knows remote access was possible as per the Oct 2014 email
BC yes I was reassured by people I spoke to that Mr Rudkin's visit to Bracknell whether transaction data could be altered remotely without the knowledge of the SPM and that on the face of it was my understanding of the situation
[wish Emma Price would push her on these answers]
BC yes I was reassured by people I spoke to that Mr Rudkin's visit to Bracknell whether transaction data could be altered remotely without the knowledge of the SPM and that on the face of it was my understanding of the situation
[wish Emma Price would push her on these answers]
EP brings up this statement from her WS. Was your job title - Programme Director - mis-titled
BC yes - I should have been Programme Manager or Project Manager. The governance for the entirety of the programme changed when the Project Sparrow board sub-committee was set up. The steering group had ceased to meet.
BC yes - I should have been Programme Manager or Project Manager. The governance for the entirety of the programme changed when the Project Sparrow board sub-committee was set up. The steering group had ceased to meet.
BC somewhere between Feb and April [2014] this was not a programme director role.
EP You say PV oversaw Project Sparrow. Did you raise this with PV? Were you dissatisfied with your role
BC no - my recollection was that I provided a secretariat to the WG. Then in Nov 2013, there was a meeting of the steering board and PV said at that meeting I would be the PD for Sparrow. I had no conversation with anyone before that. I think AvdB was as surprised as I was. I did not challenge that announcement, but I was not worried or concerned. But then I started running the scheme and supporting the scheme which was as I had anticipated.
EP You say PV oversaw Project Sparrow. Did you raise this with PV? Were you dissatisfied with your role
BC no - my recollection was that I provided a secretariat to the WG. Then in Nov 2013, there was a meeting of the steering board and PV said at that meeting I would be the PD for Sparrow. I had no conversation with anyone before that. I think AvdB was as surprised as I was. I did not challenge that announcement, but I was not worried or concerned. But then I started running the scheme and supporting the scheme which was as I had anticipated.
EP takes her to WS where she seems to have no prior knowledge to Project Sparrow. Did you seek to understand the project's genesis at all.
BC no - I wanted to look into where it went going forward. Following 2S's IR and the Scheme being set up meant a line had been drawn under what had gone before.
BC no - I wanted to look into where it went going forward. Following 2S's IR and the Scheme being set up meant a line had been drawn under what had gone before.
EP brings up a doc entitled Project Sparrow which appears to be written by BC - did you write this?
BC I think so yes
BC I think so yes
EP highlights some areas of scope and asks what BC"s understanding of criminal cases was
BC that PO has an enduring responsibility of disclosure and anything that came up in that light on the scheme had to be considered. Some people were doing that in Cartwright King (CK) and that was an ongoing piece of work.
EP what does "completed" mean.
BC that the review of criminal cases was complete
BC that PO has an enduring responsibility of disclosure and anything that came up in that light on the scheme had to be considered. Some people were doing that in Cartwright King (CK) and that was an ongoing piece of work.
EP what does "completed" mean.
BC that the review of criminal cases was complete
EP asks her about the ending of 2S's involvement - was it the PO's view that 2S stop their involvement after concluding the scheme rather than any wider involvement investigating H?
BC 2S's role changed following the publication of the IR into reviewing reports of complaints made to the scheme
EP where did you get that understanding from?
BC not sure - must have spoken to a number of people who were involved - in some of the docs I've seen for the Inquiry there is an email from AP saying that a decision had been taken to remove 2S from the process. Looking at the timescale in this success criteria that by the end of April the scheme would have completed is optimistic.
BC 2S's role changed following the publication of the IR into reviewing reports of complaints made to the scheme
EP where did you get that understanding from?
BC not sure - must have spoken to a number of people who were involved - in some of the docs I've seen for the Inquiry there is an email from AP saying that a decision had been taken to remove 2S from the process. Looking at the timescale in this success criteria that by the end of April the scheme would have completed is optimistic.
EP takes her to the mention of prosecutions in this section and asks her if it was a PO priority to re-establish prosecutions
BC no. certainly from Chris Aujard's perspective there was no rush to start prosecutions. No pressure was exerted on me and I was not aware of it
BC no. certainly from Chris Aujard's perspective there was no rush to start prosecutions. No pressure was exerted on me and I was not aware of it
EP takes here to BC's lessons learned exercise. You reported on 15 May 2014 to ARC
EP do u remember delivering this report
BC yes
EP why were you looking into lessons learned
BC I felt I was being asked to see if someone was to blame for the establishment of the scheme. The heart of this was the departure of Susan Crichton. I did not want to do that. I assumed that I was to look at decisions made by Paula and Alice by engaging MPs and not the wider business. Then having made the announcement of the scheme without having the capacity to gear up to do the scheme. I have not been provided with my report.
EP so the points here are about the discussion arising from your report
BC yes
BC yes
EP why were you looking into lessons learned
BC I felt I was being asked to see if someone was to blame for the establishment of the scheme. The heart of this was the departure of Susan Crichton. I did not want to do that. I assumed that I was to look at decisions made by Paula and Alice by engaging MPs and not the wider business. Then having made the announcement of the scheme without having the capacity to gear up to do the scheme. I have not been provided with my report.
EP so the points here are about the discussion arising from your report
BC yes
[We go to our second break of the morning. This is going slowly...]
[We're back]
EP should 2S had a proper engagement letter
BC yes
EP why wasn't this done? Appreciate this was before you started
BC this links to the the Lessons Learned piece. There was a desire to follow 2S's report with an announcement very quickly. It was my view that not enough thought went into how this whole thing might work going forward so I felt we were retrofitting things. I had no idea if anyone had a convo with 2S about this and and the engagement letter was not necessary... but there was a haste in announcing the scheme and some basics were not done
EP should 2S had a proper engagement letter
BC yes
EP why wasn't this done? Appreciate this was before you started
BC this links to the the Lessons Learned piece. There was a desire to follow 2S's report with an announcement very quickly. It was my view that not enough thought went into how this whole thing might work going forward so I felt we were retrofitting things. I had no idea if anyone had a convo with 2S about this and and the engagement letter was not necessary... but there was a haste in announcing the scheme and some basics were not done
EP as Prog Dir of PS what was your view of 2S's remit in the complaint and mediation scheme...?
BC to review PO's investigations into the complaints and support the WG
BC to review PO's investigations into the complaints and support the WG
EP you say at the start of par 58 of your WS...
... about there being no difference between the public attitude of the PO and the PO internal thoughts...
This is an email from PV which is cc\d to BC. Chris Aujard provides a response in RED to PV's q's in black.
This is an email from PV which is cc\d to BC. Chris Aujard provides a response in RED to PV's q's in black.
EP focuses on 3.6 - asks what the message BC understood PV and AP\s view on what compensation might be.
BC much lower than Bond Dickinson and some analysis by PA consulting might have suggested
EP what was PV asking for advice on in this email?
BC isn't sure. one thing came up via the mediation firm CEDR - this was established as a mediation scheme and not a compensation scheme, and yet the worry was that it was now being seen as a compensation scheme. another thing was to get something which was out of control back under control
EP did you give any advice to PV re that par
BC don't recall. I may have done.
[ask her what she may have done!!]
EP does sight of this par change your view stated on your WS about the lack of difference in public and private about the scheme?
BC much lower than Bond Dickinson and some analysis by PA consulting might have suggested
EP what was PV asking for advice on in this email?
BC isn't sure. one thing came up via the mediation firm CEDR - this was established as a mediation scheme and not a compensation scheme, and yet the worry was that it was now being seen as a compensation scheme. another thing was to get something which was out of control back under control
EP did you give any advice to PV re that par
BC don't recall. I may have done.
[ask her what she may have done!!]
EP does sight of this par change your view stated on your WS about the lack of difference in public and private about the scheme?
BC actually think the opposite is true - that what is happening is a concern we are moving away from the originally public stated intention
We move to a new doc which is an email chain about a new proposed 2S engagement letter, from Ian Henderson (IH) from 2S. It is a complaint it is moving away from 2S's original scope as agreed with MPs
BC is shown to send the letter to Andy Parsons - saying she has made comments in caps
EP what do you seek to fetter and how do you tread carefully
BC replies she is speaking in the abstract and says that commenting in this way one doesn't expect to be asked questions about it ten years later. Has not chosen her words as she might have done. Saying she needs to think carefully about about fettering them. So we need to be sure 2S aren't being fettered. Though she sees how that might not look like it from the language used.
[Again EP lets this go. As does SWW to be fair. But BC seems to be misrepresenting that email in pretty obvious terms]
[Again EP lets this go. As does SWW to be fair. But BC seems to be misrepresenting that email in pretty obvious terms]
EP takes her to an email from Alan Bates
EP takes her to the top of the chain - an email sent by a PO public affairs person to the PO comms team
EP was Alan Bates (AB) right in trying to say the new WG members were trying to hijack the process?
BC asks to look at AB's comments again.
BC Right. When I first read this I though this was about something said at a WG meeting. Now I see it wasn't.
EP what was said at a WG meeting
BC occasionally AB had an issue with what was said at WG meetings, but this is not it. Looking at it it is possible 2S had told AB that they were being limited in their scope, but i"m speculating.
EP was the PO trying to limit 2S's scope
BC no - it became apparent throughout the process there were differing views on the role of 2S and I don't think PO's view did change
BC asks to look at AB's comments again.
BC Right. When I first read this I though this was about something said at a WG meeting. Now I see it wasn't.
EP what was said at a WG meeting
BC occasionally AB had an issue with what was said at WG meetings, but this is not it. Looking at it it is possible 2S had told AB that they were being limited in their scope, but i"m speculating.
EP was the PO trying to limit 2S's scope
BC no - it became apparent throughout the process there were differing views on the role of 2S and I don't think PO's view did change
EP takes her to an email dated 1 Feb 2015 from Rodric Williams on the difficult questions/boxes document. What was the difficult questions doc
BC don't know, but looking at the timing this may have been to do with the Q&A's for PV before the select committee. Not sure, but that's the only thing I think it could be.
BC don't know, but looking at the timing this may have been to do with the Q&A's for PV before the select committee. Not sure, but that's the only thing I think it could be.
Goes to specific sections on 2S.
Fettering and challenging their findings, 2S make recommendations, not decisions.
EP did you agree with Mr Williams' findings in this - that PO always had the power of decision?
BC it's difficult to answer in the abstract as I don't know the contents of the boxes, but I don't think they did ever have any decision-making power.
EP where did "fettering" come from?
BC can't help. I didn't introduce the term. It was shorthand for "is PO trying to control 2S"...
Fettering and challenging their findings, 2S make recommendations, not decisions.
EP did you agree with Mr Williams' findings in this - that PO always had the power of decision?
BC it's difficult to answer in the abstract as I don't know the contents of the boxes, but I don't think they did ever have any decision-making power.
EP where did "fettering" come from?
BC can't help. I didn't introduce the term. It was shorthand for "is PO trying to control 2S"...
EP brings up BC's lack of involvement in the investigations of cases on the Mediation Scheme as stated in her WS
EP takes her to an email from Ron Warmington to PV, which PV forwards to Mark Davies, AvdB and BC in which PV has read some applicant cases and calls them "disturbing reading"
EP did she want your comments on the substance of the claims?
BC no I think she just wanted me to read them
EP your response is at the top - it is a request to see the 2S report - why do you say you saw her point that it was "disturbing reading"
BC can't tell you
[!!!]
EP did you get a sense at this stage of what PO was dealing with?
BC I don't think so and I don't remember what it is I discussed with AvdB subsequently.
BC no I think she just wanted me to read them
EP your response is at the top - it is a request to see the 2S report - why do you say you saw her point that it was "disturbing reading"
BC can't tell you
[!!!]
EP did you get a sense at this stage of what PO was dealing with?
BC I don't think so and I don't remember what it is I discussed with AvdB subsequently.
[we break for lunch. there will be 20 more mins of EP asking questions then core participants will have a go]
... the Inquiry ante-room is vast with tea and coffee-making facilities. Then there is a media area and a further huge room which has private rooms off it used by various Core Participants' legal representatives. Most people disappear off for lunch. Saddoes like me bring their own and sit at their laptops in the ante-room. Witnesses have their own entrance to the hearing room and are kept separate. There is no canteen in the building. Sorry, that's a very boring answer, but that's the way it is.
[We're back]
Emma Price (EP) is taking Belinda Cortes-Martin (then Crowe - BC) to a meeting minutes of Project Sparrow Board Sub-Committee.
BC is not sure the date is correct. EP thinks it might be April. BC thinks it might be Jan 2015.
EP is not sure. BC is pretty sure it's not Jan 2014. How confusing.
Emma Price (EP) is taking Belinda Cortes-Martin (then Crowe - BC) to a meeting minutes of Project Sparrow Board Sub-Committee.
BC is not sure the date is correct. EP thinks it might be April. BC thinks it might be Jan 2015.
EP is not sure. BC is pretty sure it's not Jan 2014. How confusing.
EP takes her to another section of the minutes and asks if this helps her date the meeting to Jan 2015.
BC remains unsure but thinks it might be end 2014 or early 2015 based on other documents she's being provided with.
BC remains unsure but thinks it might be end 2014 or early 2015 based on other documents she's being provided with.
EP takes her to another point - why might the business want to stop 2S's report being produced
BC there was no ability to do that
EP why would the business want to
BC can't explain that sentence. I can't imagine why it thought it was possible
[she's not answering the q, EP!!]
EP did this wording cause you any concern at the time
BC don't know if I saw the minutes
EP was that sentiment expressed during discussion
BC [she starts to say something then changes her mind] No, I don't recall
BC there was no ability to do that
EP why would the business want to
BC can't explain that sentence. I can't imagine why it thought it was possible
[she's not answering the q, EP!!]
EP did this wording cause you any concern at the time
BC don't know if I saw the minutes
EP was that sentiment expressed during discussion
BC [she starts to say something then changes her mind] No, I don't recall
We go to an email called JA handling plan which BC agrees is about James Arbuthnot
EP shows BC the whole email and asks why JA would need handling
BC JA was considered to be a very important stakeholder and anything 2S did in relation to the scheme would be considered in what and how we would communicate that to JA. We had a need to keep him onside. Or rather not do anything which would damage a relationship with a key stakeholder.
BC JA was considered to be a very important stakeholder and anything 2S did in relation to the scheme would be considered in what and how we would communicate that to JA. We had a need to keep him onside. Or rather not do anything which would damage a relationship with a key stakeholder.
EP takes her to an email which BC wrote
And asks what from the attached docs she created and added in. BC isn't sure
EP Were these your additoins?
BC I can't recall. I would be more likely to change the wording rather than the substance, but I can't recall.
EP what about the understanding 2S say they'll keep going till they get to the truth - where did that come from?
BC we'd had conversations with 2S about where they were going with their investigation - which was looking at the PO business across the piece. They'll keep going beyond Horizon till they find something wrong
BC I can't recall. I would be more likely to change the wording rather than the substance, but I can't recall.
EP what about the understanding 2S say they'll keep going till they get to the truth - where did that come from?
BC we'd had conversations with 2S about where they were going with their investigation - which was looking at the PO business across the piece. They'll keep going beyond Horizon till they find something wrong
EP asks if this was BC's wording
BC can't recall, but that was the general view within PO
EP what was the basis for this confident view?
BC it was a conclusion 2S had reached - no systemic or system-wide issues with the H system
EP so that's your understanding of the issue
BC can't recall, but that was the general view within PO
EP what was the basis for this confident view?
BC it was a conclusion 2S had reached - no systemic or system-wide issues with the H system
EP so that's your understanding of the issue
[We move to a new document - a transcript of a conversation with BC, Ron Warmington and Ian Henderson on 11 August 2014]
EP do you recognise any truth in this, that the PO is acting like a litigant, trying to defend its case
BC I think as the focus of the PO became about individual cases rather than H across the piece or the PO business as a whole, it could be seen to characterise the PO's position. I make the point at the beginning of the call that because everyone's on holiday I'm speaking on behalf of the PO and to some extent Ron is correct
EP do you recognise any truth in this, that the PO is acting like a litigant, trying to defend its case
BC I think as the focus of the PO became about individual cases rather than H across the piece or the PO business as a whole, it could be seen to characterise the PO's position. I make the point at the beginning of the call that because everyone's on holiday I'm speaking on behalf of the PO and to some extent Ron is correct
EP who in particular is this view coming from
BC can't say. it's not anyone's view, just the way the PO's view was developing. In part this was informed by the Linklater's Advice.
EP turns to the disclosure of material of 2S - you refer in your WS that it was Chris Aujard and later Jane McLoed who decided what was disclosed to 2S
BC yes
[we go to an email from Chris Aujard's PA (signed by CA) to Ron Warmington]
BC can't say. it's not anyone's view, just the way the PO's view was developing. In part this was informed by the Linklater's Advice.
EP turns to the disclosure of material of 2S - you refer in your WS that it was Chris Aujard and later Jane McLoed who decided what was disclosed to 2S
BC yes
[we go to an email from Chris Aujard's PA (signed by CA) to Ron Warmington]
EP did CA discuss why docs should be withheld for reasons of privilege
BC no
BC no
EP moves to a new email chain. Why did you consider 2S's requests a "fishing expedition"?
BC we were concerned about 2S asking for raw or base data or a lot of general info which didn't relate to a specific investigation
BC we were concerned about 2S asking for raw or base data or a lot of general info which didn't relate to a specific investigation
EP goes to her last doc on disclosure. An email from CA to BC.
EP do you recognise this reference to 2S's investigation being conducted for PO's benefit.
BC no
EP did you note it with any surprise when you receive this email
BC no
BC no
EP did you note it with any surprise when you receive this email
BC no
BC Idr this, but I'm hesitating. Until I watched an inquiry evidence session last week I would not have any idea, I think this might relate to a 2S report prepared for Susan Crichton and this was being prepared for the incoming GC after Chris Aujard, Jane McLoed. I wouldn't have taken any interest in it as I was coming to the end of my contract. But I do think I know what it pertains to.
[Doesn't say what it pertains to. Doesn't get asked]
[Doesn't say what it pertains to. Doesn't get asked]
BC is taken to BC email from 27 Feb 2015
EP asks why she is reporting a 2S frustration at finding a smoking gun
BC pure speculation - I felt 2S were under pressure to find something which hadn't been found
BC pure speculation - I felt 2S were under pressure to find something which hadn't been found
EP takes her to pars in her WS
EP then picks up on BC's point in her WS about what PO wanted from the Complaint and Mediation Scheme. and takes her to a meeting she wasn't present at. Did you understand the point of the scheme to defend the Horizon system
BC No. But I did think that the PO would feel it had undertaken a thorough investigation of the complaints which had come out then there would be less dissatisfaction with the situation
BC No. But I did think that the PO would feel it had undertaken a thorough investigation of the complaints which had come out then there would be less dissatisfaction with the situation
EP was the PO's stance to defend the H system throughout the mediatin scheme
BC not at the expense of anything else - just in the absence of any evidence to suggest it was not working as it should
EP did this desired outcome stop the Mediation Scheme being successful
BC not sure I can answer that q
BC not at the expense of anything else - just in the absence of any evidence to suggest it was not working as it should
EP did this desired outcome stop the Mediation Scheme being successful
BC not sure I can answer that q
BC I didn't often have cause to look at the investigations, but my understanding was PO had an answer for everything - and whether than stopped them from having a more open mind.
BC what I did feel from processing the scheme was that a huge amount of effort into making sure the scheme was as good as it could be.
EP you said it was a matter of regret you did not challenge AP's suggestion that the HR report should be downplayed as being among many other regrets. What other regrets do you have?
BC I regret not digging down deeper into some of the issues that passed my desk. I can't guarantee it would have made any difference, but looking at the docs this far after the event I have thought I could have done something differently from this.
EP you said it was a matter of regret you did not challenge AP's suggestion that the HR report should be downplayed as being among many other regrets. What other regrets do you have?
BC I regret not digging down deeper into some of the issues that passed my desk. I can't guarantee it would have made any difference, but looking at the docs this far after the event I have thought I could have done something differently from this.
BC looking at it when I consider my workload and what I had to do, I tended to selectively look at what I needed to. my biggest regret is being involved in any of this at all.
[EP ends. Chris Jacobs for some SPMs starts asking questions]
[EP ends. Chris Jacobs for some SPMs starts asking questions]
He takes her to an email which suggests he agrees with the idea that the Working Group be disbanded
CJ says that BC sees no conflict between her work assisting the secretariat of the WG and her work for the PO trying to disband the WG
BC discos within PO at Exec and Board level about altering the scheme had been continuing for about a year
BC discos within PO at Exec and Board level about altering the scheme had been continuing for about a year
BC and although the WG was always under review and my team were asked to submit proposals for altering it, nothing ever happened. I saw my role as just running the scheme to the best of my ability. I thought there was no real prospect of the scheme closing. I didn't see my responsibilities to the WG to say what was being discussed in PO.
SWW you were learning things by virtue of your role as director of Project Sparrow, which, on occasion might have put you in conflict
SWW you were learning things by virtue of your role as director of Project Sparrow, which, on occasion might have put you in conflict
BC I see that. Looking now and looking in I can see why that might have been the case, but it didn't feel like that at the time. The moment they made a positive decision to close the scheme I felt I might be conflicted.
... and I sought guidance from Jane McLoed (the new PO GC).
CJ takes her to the section of the letter about dictating 2S's role - strong word
BC it is
CJ can you explain it
BC PO felt 2S should not be looking at prosecutions and matters of contract
CJ takes her to the section of the letter about dictating 2S's role - strong word
BC it is
CJ can you explain it
BC PO felt 2S should not be looking at prosecutions and matters of contract
CJ Alan Bates said PO were keen to control the narrative and the process - that's what PO were doing here
BC can\t speak for Andy Parsons (who wrote the email) or what was going on
CJ okay let's look at the bit from AP about aggregating funding - this is an attempt to control the process,isn't it.
BC it's andrew's view, but I'm not sure it's PO's view. And I'm not sure why andrew sent it to me.
BC can\t speak for Andy Parsons (who wrote the email) or what was going on
CJ okay let's look at the bit from AP about aggregating funding - this is an attempt to control the process,isn't it.
BC it's andrew's view, but I'm not sure it's PO's view. And I'm not sure why andrew sent it to me.
CJ moves on to later in the same email
CJ notes the word dictate comes up again in direct relation to stopping part 2. Notes BC is part of these discussions.
BC it seems to me as tho he's hazarding a view, but he's not sure how it will sit within the PO so he's only sending it to me [more Sir Humphreying]
BC it seems to me as tho he's hazarding a view, but he's not sure how it will sit within the PO so he's only sending it to me [more Sir Humphreying]
CJ brings her to non-mediation suggestion in the email. Points out the risk is that convicted claimants might be able to get their convictions overturned
BC those with criminal convictions were investigated and provided with info, I am not sure a mediation would have changed the info they were given
BC those with criminal convictions were investigated and provided with info, I am not sure a mediation would have changed the info they were given
CJ highlights final par
BC I can't speak for Andrew
BC I can't speak for Andrew
CJ he ends with "happy to discuss". Did you
BC unlikely
Cj why not?
BC it was not for me to discuss. I would (if I did anything) I would have sent it to jane McLoed or Mark Davies.
CJ do you remember this letter?
BC no - not sure why this email was sent to me. These were issues for exco and the Project Sparrow board subcommitte
BC unlikely
Cj why not?
BC it was not for me to discuss. I would (if I did anything) I would have sent it to jane McLoed or Mark Davies.
CJ do you remember this letter?
BC no - not sure why this email was sent to me. These were issues for exco and the Project Sparrow board subcommitte
CJ takes BC to a new email about WG wanting info on suspense accounts
CJ so SPMs may have paid money into suspense accounts and this info might have more info into whether the discrepancies were real or not - right?
BC yes
BC yes
CJ SAH had subsequently said I got absolutely nowhere with my questions and neither did 2S. CJ takes her to a Chris Aujard email response about giving 2S and SAH as little as info possible about suspense accounts
BC no it was about not giving them any more than necessary
BC no it was about not giving them any more than necessary
BC re the suspense account issue was something I was involved with co-ordinating. I felt this issue was something 2S and SAh and the WG wanted and it had to be provided. If PO did not want it to be provided, they had to say why and then it was on the record.
CJ takes her to more determined emails to restrict info.
BC not determined, just what was appropriate.
BC not determined, just what was appropriate.
CJ but the PO did not want this coming out because it might show serious problems with the system
BC nothing to do with me - I didn't influence these decisions
CJ you were in a position to dig into this, you didn't. do you regret that?
BC yes but it was not my responsibility
BC nothing to do with me - I didn't influence these decisions
CJ you were in a position to dig into this, you didn't. do you regret that?
BC yes but it was not my responsibility
[short break then last session of the day which will be Flora Page asking questions for 20 mins]
[we have resumed]
FP where did your loyalties lie during your period working for the PO
BC when I was working for the WG it was with the WG and when working for the PO it was with the PO
FP when working for the WG did yo owe any loyalties to 2S
BC no
FP brings up an email written by BC to AvdB on 22 Oct 2013 stating that plans were afoot to get rid of 2S that early on...
BC wriggles but as it's clear has to admit she was clear she knew by that stage that was the plan and she was part of it.
FP where did your loyalties lie during your period working for the PO
BC when I was working for the WG it was with the WG and when working for the PO it was with the PO
FP when working for the WG did yo owe any loyalties to 2S
BC no
FP brings up an email written by BC to AvdB on 22 Oct 2013 stating that plans were afoot to get rid of 2S that early on...
BC wriggles but as it's clear has to admit she was clear she knew by that stage that was the plan and she was part of it.
FP this was about kicking 2S out and allowing the PO to take sole responsibility for investigation SPM cases
BC this followed on from plans considered by PO and I was asked to do a note
FP takes her to her WS where she mentions Andy Parsons' email about removing 2S - did you forget you were the person working on removing 2S?
BC this followed on from plans considered by PO and I was asked to do a note
FP takes her to her WS where she mentions Andy Parsons' email about removing 2S - did you forget you were the person working on removing 2S?
BC I definitely didn't recall it.
FP but yo knew from the outset that the PO wanted to get rid of 2S
BC I knew the PO wanted to reduce their involvement
FP that's not what these emails say - they wanted to get rid of them
BC the plan was to remove 2S. I don't know whether that related to immediately or when the work on the Mediation scheme was up
FP but yo knew from the outset that the PO wanted to get rid of 2S
BC I knew the PO wanted to reduce their involvement
FP that's not what these emails say - they wanted to get rid of them
BC the plan was to remove 2S. I don't know whether that related to immediately or when the work on the Mediation scheme was up
FP this set the tone. This was the first thing you were asked to do. Your loyalties were with the PO. You were asked to find a way to get rid of 2S
BC I didn't have loyalties to anybody. PO were responsible for the scheme and they could run it the way they wanted it to work
BC I didn't have loyalties to anybody. PO were responsible for the scheme and they could run it the way they wanted it to work
BC I didn't feel I had a particular obligation to do anything for the PO, but if they asked me to do something, then that's what I would do.
FP takes her to another email chain. This is Flora Page btw
FP takes her to another email chain. This is Flora Page btw
This is the email.
FP these two lawyers had seen the Clarke Advice and were asking about the pausing of prosecutions - you see that
BC well it's more about getting info for a board paper.
FP you take over this line of query and you acknowledge there is a boardroom concern about their personal liability for past prosecutions
BC not sure they were concerned or they just wanted advice.
FP is that really your answer - that the Board were not concerned if they were seeking advice on their personal liability for past prosecutions
BC I'm not aware they were worried about it. They were asking advice. It could be driven by concern.
FP these two lawyers had seen the Clarke Advice and were asking about the pausing of prosecutions - you see that
BC well it's more about getting info for a board paper.
FP you take over this line of query and you acknowledge there is a boardroom concern about their personal liability for past prosecutions
BC not sure they were concerned or they just wanted advice.
FP is that really your answer - that the Board were not concerned if they were seeking advice on their personal liability for past prosecutions
BC I'm not aware they were worried about it. They were asking advice. It could be driven by concern.
FP would you not have found this out from the two lawyers who could have given you the instruction and the answer
BC I don't know
FP you weren\t curious. I see. Let's go down
BC I don't know
FP you weren\t curious. I see. Let's go down
BC my understanding was the PO had decided not to prosecute whilst the scheme was in process
FP on 6 Dec there was an email chain which began with an email attaching CIVIL CLAIMS RISK - RESPONSE
FP on 6 Dec there was an email chain which began with an email attaching CIVIL CLAIMS RISK - RESPONSE
FP this tells us the RISK - RESPONSE note does not deal with the likelihood of actions being brought against board members? yes?
BC I'm not entirely sure. I was asked to put together a board paper. I didn't analys the facets of it. I was just interested in populating a board paper for Chris to sign off.
FP let's see about that...
BC I'm not entirely sure. I was asked to put together a board paper. I didn't analys the facets of it. I was just interested in populating a board paper for Chris to sign off.
FP let's see about that...
FP takes her to another email. You've got to the nub of it here. You're analysing the lawyers' advices as to whether there will be any action taken against board members.
BC yes I think so
FP so your earlier answer that you hadn't really dug into it is not true, yes?
BC I've looked at it enough to try to ensure the questions that I think Chris wants it to answer
FP and you read the advice very clearly are you sure you didn't know about the first Clarke Advice
BC to the best of my recollection no. I agree it passed my desk
BC yes I think so
FP so your earlier answer that you hadn't really dug into it is not true, yes?
BC I've looked at it enough to try to ensure the questions that I think Chris wants it to answer
FP and you read the advice very clearly are you sure you didn't know about the first Clarke Advice
BC to the best of my recollection no. I agree it passed my desk
BC but at that point I am as sure as I can be I didn't see it
FP even tho this was central to this advice about their liability?
BC I don't know what the Board were told about the Clarke Advice
FP is this an answer you felt you had to make so you don't expose the board
BC I am not trying to protect anybody
FP even tho this was central to this advice about their liability?
BC I don't know what the Board were told about the Clarke Advice
FP is this an answer you felt you had to make so you don't expose the board
BC I am not trying to protect anybody
FP takes her to BC's statement in which she has no recollection of any concern about personal liability - you were deeply involved in this very issue. was this something else you forgot?
BC I just took the question very literally. If their underlying reason for requesting this advice was concern, then perhaps I was wrong.
FP didn't think you'd mention the fact you were deeply involved in preparing this board paper.
BC [long silence]
FP evidently not
BC I just took the question very literally. If their underlying reason for requesting this advice was concern, then perhaps I was wrong.
FP didn't think you'd mention the fact you were deeply involved in preparing this board paper.
BC [long silence]
FP evidently not
[FP lands some actual blows]
Inquiry Chair SWW has some questions
SWW how did an individual applicant get from the beginning to the end of the mediation scheme
SWW applicant applies
BC yes
SWW then PO responds
BC yes
SWW then 2S reviews it
BC yes
SWW what if PO says no to mediation and 2S says no
BC SAH makes a decision
SWW how did an individual applicant get from the beginning to the end of the mediation scheme
SWW applicant applies
BC yes
SWW then PO responds
BC yes
SWW then 2S reviews it
BC yes
SWW what if PO says no to mediation and 2S says no
BC SAH makes a decision
SWW is it binding
BC not exactly - PO can refuse to mediate
SWW what if PO says yes even though they don't want to - what happens next
BC mediators get the docs and then mediation takes place
SWW but mediation fails unless the PO and applicant agree
BC yes
SWW we know there were approx 150 applicants- how many succeeded at mediation
BC can't remember but CEDR produced a document which said the number of fully mediated cases was slightly below the average
[SWW requests the document and the day ends]
BC not exactly - PO can refuse to mediate
SWW what if PO says yes even though they don't want to - what happens next
BC mediators get the docs and then mediation takes place
SWW but mediation fails unless the PO and applicant agree
BC yes
SWW we know there were approx 150 applicants- how many succeeded at mediation
BC can't remember but CEDR produced a document which said the number of fully mediated cases was slightly below the average
[SWW requests the document and the day ends]
I am here powered entirely by subscribers to my "secret" email newsletter. Join us if you want. More details here.
Blog post on its way...postofficescandal.uk/donate/
Blog post on its way...postofficescandal.uk/donate/
@threadreaderapp unroll pls
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
