Good morning and welcome to Aldwych House for day 163 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Today we hear from former government man on the Post Office board, Richard Callard. 
I'll live tweet as much of this as I can - I might have to duck in and out of the Inquiry today and possibly leave early, but I will write up what Callard has to say. You can read about his successor on the govt board (who gave evidence on Wed) here:
postofficescandal.uk/post/poor-tom/
postofficescandal.uk/post/poor-tom/
My presence here is powered by crowdfunding. If you want to get my irregular newsletter and make a small (or large) one-off donation, there's more info here.
postofficescandal.uk/donate/
postofficescandal.uk/donate/
It's all very sparsely attended today, nonetheless the BBC's @andyverity is here alongside me, fellow @HSFforSPMs trustee @ElCShaikh is here as is Jo Hamilton and assorted lawyers...
@andyverity @HSFforSPMs @ElCShaikh Callard is being sworn in
Jason Beer KC is asking the questions.
We're just going through mistakes in Callard's Witness Statement (WS).
Please note nothing I tweet is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes". I'm just providing summaries and characterisations of what's being said.
Please note nothing I tweet is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes". I'm just providing summaries and characterisations of what's being said.
JB you were appointed PO NED in March 2014
RC yes
JB and you ran the shareholder team for the PO within ShEx/UKGI at the same time
RC yes
RC yes
JB and you ran the shareholder team for the PO within ShEx/UKGI at the same time
RC yes
JB when you started at the PO you had no experience as a NED
RC correct
JB found your role as head of shareholder team at UKGI overwhelming partly because previously it was done by two people
RC yes
JB did you raise this?
RC no
RC correct
JB found your role as head of shareholder team at UKGI overwhelming partly because previously it was done by two people
RC yes
JB did you raise this?
RC no
RC it was more about the sheer number of issues on the agenda rather than the workload
JB did you get any training for being a NED
RC went on a course
JB did you know a core part of the role of a board was that you had to provide appropriate challenge to the exec
JB did you get any training for being a NED
RC went on a course
JB did you know a core part of the role of a board was that you had to provide appropriate challenge to the exec
RC yes
JB and independent oversight
RC yes
JB did you have any understanding of the risk that an organisation might develop entrenched views - groupthink
RC didn't have any specific worries about that at the time
JB and independent oversight
RC yes
JB did you have any understanding of the risk that an organisation might develop entrenched views - groupthink
RC didn't have any specific worries about that at the time
RC everyone on the board was new
JB were you alive to the risk of ingrained thinking and be the one who ought to challenge it
RC didn't think that specifically but I was aware it was part of my role and I did ask questions
JB you say you did ask questions, but there was no...
JB were you alive to the risk of ingrained thinking and be the one who ought to challenge it
RC didn't think that specifically but I was aware it was part of my role and I did ask questions
JB you say you did ask questions, but there was no...
... significant challenge to the exec
RC disagree - I asked why people hadn't appealed their convictions
JB that's a request for information - not a challenge
RC when I got there I inherited a relatively established position. Second Sight (2S) had produced a report...
RC disagree - I asked why people hadn't appealed their convictions
JB that's a request for information - not a challenge
RC when I got there I inherited a relatively established position. Second Sight (2S) had produced a report...
... and the PO's response to that report (mediation scheme, business improvement scheme and a look at prosecutions) I thought was appropriate. So I felt no need to challenge at the time. I also volunteered to join the [Project] Sparrow subcommittee as I thought the minister...
... would want to know what happens.
JB did that remain throughout your time
RC no we were worried about Sparrow
JB did you ever challenge them
RC I will have done, but I can't remember anything specifically. I probably should ahve asked more questions about the specifics...
JB did that remain throughout your time
RC no we were worried about Sparrow
JB did you ever challenge them
RC I will have done, but I can't remember anything specifically. I probably should ahve asked more questions about the specifics...
... of the IT itself, but we were focused on the mediation scheme.
JB was your role on the board to represent the interests of taxpayers
RC yes - and to bring a govt perspective to the board and the board's perspective to the govt
JB was your role on the board to represent the interests of taxpayers
RC yes - and to bring a govt perspective to the board and the board's perspective to the govt
JB you say you saw very little difference between the PO board and a private commercial company's board - given you're spending public money, did you not think it was different
RC we did think about the fact it was taxpayers' money - we thought about costs
JB that would be...
RC we did think about the fact it was taxpayers' money - we thought about costs
JB that would be...
... the same as a commercial entity.
RC yes we tried to keep it as close to a commercial entity as possible. We look after companies which for whatever reason can't be sold off, eg the PO has 3000 unviable branches it must keep open, but we want them to act like comm entities
RC yes we tried to keep it as close to a commercial entity as possible. We look after companies which for whatever reason can't be sold off, eg the PO has 3000 unviable branches it must keep open, but we want them to act like comm entities
JB so public money wasn't part of your thinking
RC it very much was - value for money and departmental priorities etc
RC it very much was - value for money and departmental priorities etc
JB you absented yourself from several board decisions because of a perceived conflict of interest you felt when financing decisions which were being made.
RC yes The PO wanted govt cash. The govt might not want to give it. I represented both so I felt there could be conflicts
RC yes The PO wanted govt cash. The govt might not want to give it. I represented both so I felt there could be conflicts
RC I only recused myself twice - when they were discussing strategy when the PO didn't get the money it wanted and what it wanted to do next - but I was often in the room re funding discussions.
JB did the board see a conflict in you acting as a board member and a member of ShEx
JB did the board see a conflict in you acting as a board member and a member of ShEx
RC there was a concern about them sharing board papers with me.
JB any conflict over Horizon (H) issues
RC no
JB what about NDAs when you got board papers
RC no they were structured so I could share them with govt
JB any conflict over Horizon (H) issues
RC no
JB what about NDAs when you got board papers
RC no they were structured so I could share them with govt
JB you say you spoke sometimes with your govt hat on and your NED hat on in board meetings - what were your responsibilities as a NED to the company
RC to promote the success of the company... we needed to reduce headcount in the cash supply chain - something I agreed with, but..
RC to promote the success of the company... we needed to reduce headcount in the cash supply chain - something I agreed with, but..
... was also politically sensitive so I made it my business to ensure the minister was aware.
JB when were your duties as a NED ever not aligned with the govt when it came to Sparrow
RC some of the decisions of the Sparrow sub-committee had to be take back to ministers for...
JB when were your duties as a NED ever not aligned with the govt when it came to Sparrow
RC some of the decisions of the Sparrow sub-committee had to be take back to ministers for...
... consent. That's what I did.
JB in pars 61 - 62 of your WS you shared the vast majority of your info you got from Sparrow to the ShEx shareholder team
RC yes
JB did you share it with ministers?
RC no
JB in pars 61 - 62 of your WS you shared the vast majority of your info you got from Sparrow to the ShEx shareholder team
RC yes
JB did you share it with ministers?
RC no
JB did you feel there was a restriction on you doing so
RC no
JB so you could share board papers with ministers and civil servants if the need arose
RC yes but this happened v v rarely.
RC no
JB so you could share board papers with ministers and civil servants if the need arose
RC yes but this happened v v rarely.
JB was there anything you didn't share with the shareholder team at ShEX
RC I was asked to join the pensions committee - I didn't share much of that but that's because circs didn't warrant it
RC I was asked to join the pensions committee - I didn't share much of that but that's because circs didn't warrant it
JB you say you found it difficult to gauge the balance re govt interest in H issues [takes him to this in his WS]
RC yes - there was a lot in the news which was v distressing and ministers would want to do something, but there was a business there...
RC yes - there was a lot in the news which was v distressing and ministers would want to do something, but there was a business there...
... and this was its business - so it was quite difficult to keep this balanced. There wasn't much ministers could do, but the PO needed to be doing the right thing. We never quite got to the bottom of where the problem was. There were lots of investigations.
RC and we never quite managed to understand how H could be causing losses in branches
JB was that down to not looking hard enough, given what we now know
RC fair question. Problem I had was that after around 2 years of investigation was that...
JB was that down to not looking hard enough, given what we now know
RC fair question. Problem I had was that after around 2 years of investigation was that...
... there wasn't a problem with the IT. So you end up trying to prove a negative. In the end I felt it had to go to court
JB isn't that a bit fatalistic
RC well we'd had independent views. It was more about how do we draw a line under it. The JFSA were certain there is a problem
JB isn't that a bit fatalistic
RC well we'd had independent views. It was more about how do we draw a line under it. The JFSA were certain there is a problem
... but 2S were saying there wasn't a problem
[reader, they were]
it seems like the courts were the only place.
JB did you show undue deference to what the PO was telling you
RC probably yes...
[reader, they were]
it seems like the courts were the only place.
JB did you show undue deference to what the PO was telling you
RC probably yes...
... but the info we got from PO was full and analytical. The response to Panorama, the briefings to ministers, response to debates always seemed quite well thought through. I thought it was competent. Not a brush off
JB you say you wre guilty of a lack of curiosity.
RC yes...
JB you say you wre guilty of a lack of curiosity.
RC yes...
... we were curious, but clearly not curious enough. We got a lot of info from the PO, and it was quite analytical and we accepted it.
[we go to a doc]
[we go to a doc]
Here is a pic of RC sitting down whilst we wait for the doc to come up
Email from report of RC at ShEx to Belinda Crowe and Richard Callard
Belinda Crowe replies (very keen to keep things off paper, it seems)
JB why was ShEx drafting a letter and asking the PO if it was okay to send
RC we'd received a letter from Alan Bates wanting us to intervene and we didn't want to because we wanted to let the scheme play out
JB why was ShEx drafting a letter and asking the PO if it was okay to send
RC we'd received a letter from Alan Bates wanting us to intervene and we didn't want to because we wanted to let the scheme play out
RC so we told Alan and we alerted Sir Anthony Hooper. And we got Belinda on this because she ran the scheme from at the PO
JB so they vetted your letters?
RC no
JB did you ever write to Alan Bates...
JB so they vetted your letters?
RC no
JB did you ever write to Alan Bates...
... and say we want to send this letter to the PO, is that okay?
RC no
JB so the PO was your sole source of info on this scheme
RC [essentially] yes
RC no
JB so the PO was your sole source of info on this scheme
RC [essentially] yes
JB takes him to another email chain
The responses
RC we were providing advice to Jo Swinson or they'd volunteered one on the back of the second 2S report
JB so they sent you something and you asked them to beef it up a bit - is this you as a PO NED
RC no - as a member of govt dealing with the minister
JB so they sent you something and you asked them to beef it up a bit - is this you as a PO NED
RC no - as a member of govt dealing with the minister
JB takes him to an email where RC is asking the PO to vet the minister's statement to parliament for the Dec 2014 Westminster Hall debate
RC I was checking to ensure no factual inaccuracies
JB would you routinely seek advice from the PO before you informed the govt, the public or the JFSA
RC it was not unusual to do so
JB would you routinely seek advice from the PO before you informed the govt, the public or the JFSA
RC it was not unusual to do so
RC the PO were very close to the minister - they would come in and talk to the minister
JB what steps did you take to verify the lines the PO gave you
RC we wouldn't always verify it
JB on the occasions you did - what did you do?
RC don't know to be honest...
JB what steps did you take to verify the lines the PO gave you
RC we wouldn't always verify it
JB on the occasions you did - what did you do?
RC don't know to be honest...
... we'd ask a question or two to get a better understanding of their answer, but there was rarely paper to back this up.
JB takes him to an email from RC and reads it out
JB is that how you viewed matters at the time
RC you could feel teh pressure building - we'd tried to keep this as an operational matter for the PO, but it was widening
JB what did you mean by "find a smoking gun which does not exist"
RC you could feel teh pressure building - we'd tried to keep this as an operational matter for the PO, but it was widening
JB what did you mean by "find a smoking gun which does not exist"
RC we had no proof there was a problem with the IT system and given that no bug had been found which affected SPM balances
JB this suggests a settled view - no bugs and none will be found
RC yes that's probably fair
JB this suggests a settled view - no bugs and none will be found
RC yes that's probably fair
JB why were you so sure the smoking gun did not exist
RC 2S had looked, the PO had looked
JB what did the PO do
RC as part of the mediation scheme the PO investigated each case and 2S also investigated each case. I trusted the PO
JB why so credulous of the PO investigations
RC 2S had looked, the PO had looked
JB what did the PO do
RC as part of the mediation scheme the PO investigated each case and 2S also investigated each case. I trusted the PO
JB why so credulous of the PO investigations
... and not listening to the JFSA and MPs
RC because I thought everyone was looking for a bug in the system which caused losses
JB why
RC I thought that was the fundamental point
RC because I thought everyone was looking for a bug in the system which caused losses
JB why
RC I thought that was the fundamental point
... and by Feb 2015 - this had been going on for more than 2 years, and one had not been found. It gave me the feeling there wasn't a smoking gun knocking round. 2S were trying to widen the scope because they hadn't yet found a problem.
[we go to a new email]
JB reads from the final par - what's the context to this
RC can't remember
JB say you have been too reliant on PO to deliver
RC yes
JB was that a theme over the years
RC in terms of comms - which is what this is about it's doing it in a way which is appropriate. can't remember
RC can't remember
JB say you have been too reliant on PO to deliver
RC yes
JB was that a theme over the years
RC in terms of comms - which is what this is about it's doing it in a way which is appropriate. can't remember
[JB goes to an email from Neil Hayward at the PO to Paula Vennells]
... here's the rest
JB would you have said this to NH?
RC can't remember, but yes...?
JB would you have said this to NH?
RC can't remember, but yes...?
Paula Vennells replies to NH [see below]
JB notes RC has not picked up on Sparrow - generally at the time you joined the PO as a NED - did the PO have the highest profile of all your businessse
RC yes
JB notes RC has not picked up on Sparrow - generally at the time you joined the PO as a NED - did the PO have the highest profile of all your businessse
RC yes
JB how did that affect the way you managed the business
RC it was a question of degree - putting crown offices in WHSmith, Network transformation etc created public interest and therefore parliamentary interest
RC it was a question of degree - putting crown offices in WHSmith, Network transformation etc created public interest and therefore parliamentary interest
JB how did you get under the skin of things
RC we'd be on the phone every day about everything - closing the pension scheme, closing branches - we'd want to know what they were up to...
RC we'd be on the phone every day about everything - closing the pension scheme, closing branches - we'd want to know what they were up to...
JB was there a document which governed UKGI's management of companies
RC no - we had articles of association, and chairman's letters etc each company was different
JB want about this the ShEx handbook
RC no - we had articles of association, and chairman's letters etc each company was different
JB want about this the ShEx handbook
[what, sorry]
JB remember this
RC not really
JB given this was a handbook - did people not refer to it?
RC not really
[JB takes him to a section on corporate governance]
JB remember this
RC not really
JB given this was a handbook - did people not refer to it?
RC not really
[JB takes him to a section on corporate governance]
JB in order for this to be effective it would have to be shared
RC yes not sure it was
JB that's a bit odd - let's not tell our businesses what we expect of them
RC you're putting a lot of weight on a 2007 doc - by 2014 things had changed
RC yes not sure it was
JB that's a bit odd - let's not tell our businesses what we expect of them
RC you're putting a lot of weight on a 2007 doc - by 2014 things had changed
JB was this updated?
RC not sure
JB we haven't found anything. I've been looking for a document which tells the PO what is expected of it
RC not sure
JB we haven't found anything. I've been looking for a document which tells the PO what is expected of it
RC looking at them they seem pretty standard
[JB reads from the principles section]
JB so these are so obvious you didn't need to tell the PO about them
RC yes, tho bear in mind I was at the time more lowly
[JB reads from the principles section]
JB so these are so obvious you didn't need to tell the PO about them
RC yes, tho bear in mind I was at the time more lowly
JB so when you joined did the PO tell you about the bugs it was aware of?
RC I was told they'd been sorted
JB what about the PO's possession of reports from civil litigations which cast doubt on Horizon
RC no
RC I was told they'd been sorted
JB what about the PO's possession of reports from civil litigations which cast doubt on Horizon
RC no
JB were you told several SPMs had been acquitted in court when they raised problems with H
RC no
JB would you expect to be told
RC yes
JB who by
RC anyone to do with Sparrow
RC no
JB would you expect to be told
RC yes
JB who by
RC anyone to do with Sparrow
JB whose fault was it the govt was not informed about this
RC legal team?
JB was ShEx ever made aware of the Clarke Advice
RC no - first heard about it in the GLO
JB as far as we know Clarke Advice didn't get a public airing till the crim appeals
RC that's what I mean
RC legal team?
JB was ShEx ever made aware of the Clarke Advice
RC no - first heard about it in the GLO
JB as far as we know Clarke Advice didn't get a public airing till the crim appeals
RC that's what I mean
JB in the light of the qs you were asking is taht the kind of doc you'd expect to know about
RC yes and I'd expect the board to know about it immediately given its about the safety of prosecutions
JB this cuts both ways - ShEx had a duty of professional curiosity
RC yes
RC yes and I'd expect the board to know about it immediately given its about the safety of prosecutions
JB this cuts both ways - ShEx had a duty of professional curiosity
RC yes
JB you accept you personally that you were insufficiently curious
RC yes because I didn't get to the bottom of it
JB is that it? or is it more nuanced about what you did or didn't do
RC it's difficult to ask q about things you don't know about
RC yes because I didn't get to the bottom of it
JB is that it? or is it more nuanced about what you did or didn't do
RC it's difficult to ask q about things you don't know about
JB when you were first appointed as NED what was your understanding of the PO's prosecution function
RC there was a board paper around the change of policy which was quite detailed
JB you say there was a reassuring review in 2013 by Brian Altman and CK - but now that...
RC there was a board paper around the change of policy which was quite detailed
JB you say there was a reassuring review in 2013 by Brian Altman and CK - but now that...
... reassurance seems misplaced. Did you understand CK was marking its own homework?
RC didn't clock that
JB did you ever see any PO legal advice - rather than one PO said an advice said
RC no
JB did you ever ask to look at underlying advice?
RC no
RC didn't clock that
JB did you ever see any PO legal advice - rather than one PO said an advice said
RC no
JB did you ever ask to look at underlying advice?
RC no
JB was there a prohibition on board members seeing legal advice
RC didn't understand that to be the case
JB did anyone at board level ask to see any underlying legal advice
RC don't recall that ever happening...
[break time - first of the day]
RC didn't understand that to be the case
JB did anyone at board level ask to see any underlying legal advice
RC don't recall that ever happening...
[break time - first of the day]
[Andy Verity has disappeared, but @PrivateEyeNews @rbrooks45 has appeared. Which is nice]
[we're back]
[we're back]
@PrivateEyeNews @rbrooks45 JB is it right that one of the key roles of ShEx had to identify risks in its assets
RC yes
JB risk register
RC yes for each business
JB and that was your responsibility for the PO risk register as leader of the PO shareholder team
RC yes
RC yes
JB risk register
RC yes for each business
JB and that was your responsibility for the PO risk register as leader of the PO shareholder team
RC yes
JB so you had to ensure you had sufficient information in order to assess risk
RC yes
JB takes him to 13 Feb 2014 risk register. HEAT MAP KLAXON!
RC yes
JB takes him to 13 Feb 2014 risk register. HEAT MAP KLAXON!
JB notes this is 7 months after 2S report and in the middle of the mediation scheme
RC wants to check the date as Leonie Lambert joined at end of 2014 so he thinks this is Dec 2014
JB takes him to the date - is this wrong
RC wants to check the date as Leonie Lambert joined at end of 2014 so he thinks this is Dec 2014
JB takes him to the date - is this wrong
RC not sure but risks in Dec 2014 were broadly the same as in Feb 2014
JB tries to bottom this out - are you saying we should not rely on the dates of the UKGI risk registers being true
RC not sure what to take - I think this is more than 7 months on
JB tries to bottom this out - are you saying we should not rely on the dates of the UKGI risk registers being true
RC not sure what to take - I think this is more than 7 months on
JB okay so what reliance can we place on UKGI's documents... [together they find something which suggests RC is right]
JB this says last updated 13 Feb 2014...
RC I am not sure this front page was changed as p2 was where the more interesting info is
JB this says last updated 13 Feb 2014...
RC I am not sure this front page was changed as p2 was where the more interesting info is
JB so where it says "last updated"... that's not true
RC yep. sorry...
JB no it's fine I just want to know what reliance the Inquiry can place on UKGI documents
[they agree that the inquiry should not look at the date of the publication of the document, but the date on...
RC yep. sorry...
JB no it's fine I just want to know what reliance the Inquiry can place on UKGI documents
[they agree that the inquiry should not look at the date of the publication of the document, but the date on...
... whichever section was last updated as being the earliest possible date of publication]
JB what was the point of the risk register
RC looking at risk
JB looking at it and then doing nothing about it
RC no both - seeing it and acting on it
JB what was the point of the risk register
RC looking at risk
JB looking at it and then doing nothing about it
RC no both - seeing it and acting on it
[we go to line 11 on risk register - Project Sparrow - v hard to read]
JB nothing here that suggests PO may have wrongly prosecuted people on data which lacked integrity
RC correct
JB nothing here that suggests PO may have wrongly prosecuted people on data which lacked integrity
RC correct
JB the risks are recorded as financial, reputational and people - no legal
RC it might be an option - can you use the drop down
JB ought it be an option
RC yes
JB which orgs did the risks on this register relate to
RC ought to be ShEx/UKGI, but the organisational risks crept in
RC it might be an option - can you use the drop down
JB ought it be an option
RC yes
JB which orgs did the risks on this register relate to
RC ought to be ShEx/UKGI, but the organisational risks crept in
... as they're related.
JB Project Sparrow has a risk rating of 9 - one of the lowest in this document
RC yes
JB so you thought Project Sparrow was low risk
RC yes - relative to other risks
JB Project Sparrow has a risk rating of 9 - one of the lowest in this document
RC yes
JB so you thought Project Sparrow was low risk
RC yes - relative to other risks
JB so each numbered risk appears in a circle in a heat map
RC only the top 6
JB so that's why Project Sparrow doesn't even make it onto the heat map
RC yes at least six more higher risks
JB and there's nothing about H might lack data integrity
RC agree
RC only the top 6
JB so that's why Project Sparrow doesn't even make it onto the heat map
RC yes at least six more higher risks
JB and there's nothing about H might lack data integrity
RC agree
JB and the risk is reputational and brand risk - is that how things were seen
RC yes cos of potential collapse of the mediation scheme
JB are these failure to mention data or legal risks an omission
RC yes
JB so this is lax
RC no
RC yes cos of potential collapse of the mediation scheme
JB are these failure to mention data or legal risks an omission
RC yes
JB so this is lax
RC no
JB ?
RC in 2014 there had been an interim report saying no systemic failures in H
JB is that how you read the report
RC it was the position I felt I had inherited - the PO still reviewed prosecutions, underwent a business improvement prog and set up mediation scheme
RC in 2014 there had been an interim report saying no systemic failures in H
JB is that how you read the report
RC it was the position I felt I had inherited - the PO still reviewed prosecutions, underwent a business improvement prog and set up mediation scheme
RC by Oct 2014 both PO and 2S had both investigated individual cases and I had not seen any link between bugs and losses in branch
JB so wrongful prosecutions and H data integrity was such a remote possibility it needn't be recorded on a risk register
RC that's probably right
JB so wrongful prosecutions and H data integrity was such a remote possibility it needn't be recorded on a risk register
RC that's probably right
Chair Sir Wyn Williams (SWW) intervenes
SWW Item 11 is the introduction of a topic which might give rise to a risk?
RC yeah
SWW so what, in terms of this register do you understand Project Sparrow (PS) to be
RC mediation scheme, essentially
SWW Item 11 is the introduction of a topic which might give rise to a risk?
RC yeah
SWW so what, in terms of this register do you understand Project Sparrow (PS) to be
RC mediation scheme, essentially
SWW so PS in the narrow sense of the mediation scheme, then the risk register (RR) makes sense. What's lacking is any recognition of any risk arising from the use of H
RC yes. Of the things we were seeing the risk was so small it wasn't there.
RC yes. Of the things we were seeing the risk was so small it wasn't there.
RC we were v much focused on the mediation scheme
[JB takes him to 28 Feb 2015]
JB is this right date?
RC yes
JB so this is 2 weeks after Paula Vennells appeared before Select Committee and relationship between 2S and PO had deteriorated still further
RC yes
[JB takes him to 28 Feb 2015]
JB is this right date?
RC yes
JB so this is 2 weeks after Paula Vennells appeared before Select Committee and relationship between 2S and PO had deteriorated still further
RC yes
JB is PS refmstill here about the mediation scheme and 2S's work
RC Sparrow became a catch all for everything to do with H, but the mediation scheme was our primary focus
JB so PS in this spreadsheet is different from the 2014 one?
RC yes it had widened slightly
RC Sparrow became a catch all for everything to do with H, but the mediation scheme was our primary focus
JB so PS in this spreadsheet is different from the 2014 one?
RC yes it had widened slightly
JB the risk rating has not changed at all from 2014 and PS does not make it onto the heat map - had it really not changed
RC we're saying it has not changed
RC we're saying it has not changed
JB takes him to the final PS column - who had kept ministers distant from the issue
RC this was about arm's length
JB the arms seem to get shorter and longer according to govt interest - who kept ministers distant
RC our team
RC this was about arm's length
JB the arms seem to get shorter and longer according to govt interest - who kept ministers distant
RC our team
JB how?
RC we'd tell people when we thought it was an operational matter for the business
JB if there was unchanged and small risk, why need to keep it from ministers
RC it was still an operational matter for the business - there was a lot of parliamentary noise but the fundamentals hadn't changed
RC we'd tell people when we thought it was an operational matter for the business
JB if there was unchanged and small risk, why need to keep it from ministers
RC it was still an operational matter for the business - there was a lot of parliamentary noise but the fundamentals hadn't changed
JB so this RR was about the risk to govt rather than to itself or the public
RC my job as a civil servant was to protect ministers from undue or sometimes due criticism
JB should the RR record the risk to the PO
RC that was for the PO to do
JB did you ask to see any
RC not...
RC my job as a civil servant was to protect ministers from undue or sometimes due criticism
JB should the RR record the risk to the PO
RC that was for the PO to do
JB did you ask to see any
RC not...
... initially. But when I joined the PO ARC committee I would have seen them
[JB takes him to 29 Feb 2016. A year further on]
[JB takes him to 29 Feb 2016. A year further on]
Risk has massively increased to 20 with comments
JB reads out a further comment on Sparrow [see below] - this records an intention to keep this independent of govt
RC yes we tested this with ministers and they agreed
JB Parker was undertaking a review with a QC etc - what had happened to increase the risk assesment
RC yes we tested this with ministers and they agreed
JB Parker was undertaking a review with a QC etc - what had happened to increase the risk assesment
RC mediation finished, but it hadn't put the matter to bed
JB how did that increase the risk to you
RC we had a minister interested in the topic and the issue had not been dealt with
JB takes him to column P - mitigating actions
JB how did that increase the risk to you
RC we had a minister interested in the topic and the issue had not been dealt with
JB takes him to column P - mitigating actions
JB what does "noise" mean
RC shorthand for inbound correspondence, parliamentary debates
JB stuff without substance
RC no I think it means criticism
RC shorthand for inbound correspondence, parliamentary debates
JB stuff without substance
RC no I think it means criticism
JB were wobbles from the centre emerging
RC Baroness Neville-Rolfe was interested
JB that's different from a wobble
RC BNR was sometimes comfortable with what was happening and sometimes less happy - but we agreed ministers would allow this to be an ops matter.
RC Baroness Neville-Rolfe was interested
JB that's different from a wobble
RC BNR was sometimes comfortable with what was happening and sometimes less happy - but we agreed ministers would allow this to be an ops matter.
JB so arms length position being tenable was a choice - they could get longer and shorter
RC yes - the position was still evolving
RC yes - the position was still evolving
[we jump forward to Jan 2017]
We go to the PS line
JB reads it out
Risk has dropped to 12
More comments
Finishing with
JB risk has gone down from 20 to 12. Why?
RC depends on who's risk it is - it's more the PO's risk - so it's more out of ShEx's hands - so the risk was lower for our team - everything had died down a bit
JB how much reliance can we place on these RRs?
RC depends on who's risk it is - it's more the PO's risk - so it's more out of ShEx's hands - so the risk was lower for our team - everything had died down a bit
JB how much reliance can we place on these RRs?
JB PS seems to mean different things at different times and the risks ascribed appear to change from ShEx to PO depending on the whims of who is writing it
RC agrees its all a bit vague
JB no reference to Swift here
RC I'd never seen Swift - I only had a letter from TP
RC agrees its all a bit vague
JB no reference to Swift here
RC I'd never seen Swift - I only had a letter from TP
RC the TP (Tim Parker) letter provided assurance
JB records BEIS legal were involved and up to speed
RC when Freeths launched litigation we notified BEIS legal so they were aware. BEIS legal met PO legal. They were patched in
JB did they review any of the legal advice?
JB records BEIS legal were involved and up to speed
RC when Freeths launched litigation we notified BEIS legal so they were aware. BEIS legal met PO legal. They were patched in
JB did they review any of the legal advice?
RC no
JB you tell us by the time of March 2018 the GLO claim would fail and the outcome of the GLO would endorse the H system
RC yes
JB you tell us by the time of March 2018 the GLO claim would fail and the outcome of the GLO would endorse the H system
RC yes
[another heat map - 10 April 2018]
JB this was during your handover to Tom Cooper
RC yes
JB top rated risk now is PS, under your name - was this your risk now
RC yes
JB this was during your handover to Tom Cooper
RC yes
JB top rated risk now is PS, under your name - was this your risk now
RC yes
We rattle through the PS boxes
More... risk remains 20... (4 x 5)
More...
Ends
JB why is risk now the highest PO risk given you were confident the GLO would fail
RC could not get much info out of the PO and it had been v procedural up to this point - now the trial was imminent
JB but you thought the claim would be dismissed and H integrity upheld
RC could not get much info out of the PO and it had been v procedural up to this point - now the trial was imminent
JB but you thought the claim would be dismissed and H integrity upheld
JB this risk assesment seems to be about the information protocol. What about the bigger issue? H being found to lack integrity
RC nothing suggested that would be the case. We hadn't seen the Swift report and we were being told there was nothing new in the litigation claims
RC nothing suggested that would be the case. We hadn't seen the Swift report and we were being told there was nothing new in the litigation claims
JB so in summary the risk of the PO losing the claim and that having an impact on H and crim convictions it didn't even deserve to be included on a risk register
RC it should have been - we were very much focused on the litigation - and so it is part of it
JB where does it say?
RC it should have been - we were very much focused on the litigation - and so it is part of it
JB where does it say?
RC it doesn't - we should have got an opinoin on that
JB why didn't you -
RC cos govt's position was to be hands off. It wasn't until the Magnox lessons learned case came forward
JB even if the gov's attitude was that this was an arms length body, its operational in nature...
JB why didn't you -
RC cos govt's position was to be hands off. It wasn't until the Magnox lessons learned case came forward
JB even if the gov's attitude was that this was an arms length body, its operational in nature...
... there's a risk to the existence to the PO here - why is this not recorded
RC I didn't see anything which changed my view that there hadn't been an issue with H found which caused losses to SPMs and when I asked about that and when Jane MacLeod gave board updates...
RC I didn't see anything which changed my view that there hadn't been an issue with H found which caused losses to SPMs and when I asked about that and when Jane MacLeod gave board updates...
... this information was not there.
JB should that perspective not have been recorded in this RR?
RC with hindsight probably, yes
JB should that perspective not have been recorded in this RR?
RC with hindsight probably, yes
[we have our second break of the morning. Andy Verity has returned. Richard Brooks is still here, tho juggling several stories as its an "on" week at the Eye]
[we were just chatting about the determination of the PO to rubbish media reports and ShEx/UKGI's failure to take them seriously - including the Panorama - which featured a Fujitsu whistleblower saying there was remote access AND real problems with Horizon.]
[we're back - last session before lunch]
JB takes him to an email from Jane MacLeod (PO GC) to Paula Vennells (PO CEO). This is Aug 2015
JB so this is a prospective briefing by ShEx of Baroness Neville Rolfe (BNR) and Laura from your dept is worried Sparrow would come up - why
RC we weren't - we saw BNR on a weekly basis
JB did you have to formulate lines with the PO before briefing ministers
RC we'd fact check
RC we weren't - we saw BNR on a weekly basis
JB did you have to formulate lines with the PO before briefing ministers
RC we'd fact check
RC what Laura means here is BNR is interested in PS - what's the latest
JB to what extent did you and ShEx adopt PO's line when reporting to the minister
RC we had our own lines but adopted PO's
JB would you keep information from the minister or Perm Sec
RC not with the express
JB to what extent did you and ShEx adopt PO's line when reporting to the minister
RC we had our own lines but adopted PO's
JB would you keep information from the minister or Perm Sec
RC not with the express
... intent to deny info
RB would you not tell them everything
RC yes - that was down to our discretion as to what was relevant or important
RB would you not tell them everything
RC yes - that was down to our discretion as to what was relevant or important
JB takes him to his WS where RC says he saw his role was protecting ministers from criticism- was that as a NED or civil servant
RC i saw it as my job to protect the minister as a civil servant from undue or due crit
RC i saw it as my job to protect the minister as a civil servant from undue or due crit
[sorry here's the WS section covering this]
JB do you consider that ShEx's overarching approach was the correct one
RC wrestled with this. Not sure what gov could do to insert itself into the situation and deal with it
RC wrestled with this. Not sure what gov could do to insert itself into the situation and deal with it
JB takes him to an email about underprovisioning of compensation -
RC this is about something entirely different - this was the mis-stating of accounts in Network Transformation - we had to restate our annual accounts v embarrassing as we pulled incorrect info
RC this is about something entirely different - this was the mis-stating of accounts in Network Transformation - we had to restate our annual accounts v embarrassing as we pulled incorrect info
JB nothing to do with H
RC correct
JB you mention Sparrow in the next par, but these are separate?
RC yes
RC correct
JB you mention Sparrow in the next par, but these are separate?
RC yes
JB takes RC to his WS - where he says there were dangers of giving the minister sight of 2S's thematic report (which set out a lot of serious problems)
RC my concerns were legitimate, but on reflection she should have seen it
RC my concerns were legitimate, but on reflection she should have seen it
RC we tried to maintain an operational independence line
JB 2S had just been sacked in controversial circs
RC not see it like that - PO had investigated all mediation scheme cases. 2S retained to look at the cases and produce their thematic report...
JB 2S had just been sacked in controversial circs
RC not see it like that - PO had investigated all mediation scheme cases. 2S retained to look at the cases and produce their thematic report...
... this was the conclusion of the mediation scheme
JB why should the minister not see the report
RC she'd have to take a view - and whatever answer she gave she'd get criticised
JB if a doc addresses a difficult issue about which there is more than one view - a minister...
JB why should the minister not see the report
RC she'd have to take a view - and whatever answer she gave she'd get criticised
JB if a doc addresses a difficult issue about which there is more than one view - a minister...
... shouldn't see it?
RC no this is because we'd agreed this was an operational matter - she overruled me - which was right
JB there's a fundamental conflict here in the ALB model - want to be independent, and leave operational matters - so there's no oversight
RC no this is because we'd agreed this was an operational matter - she overruled me - which was right
JB there's a fundamental conflict here in the ALB model - want to be independent, and leave operational matters - so there's no oversight
RC not always - hard to see how govt could improve situation
JB had you not been overruled govt might not have seen report
RC possibly
JB had you not been overruled govt might not have seen report
RC possibly
JB takes him to an email from 20 Aug 2014 sent by RC to Swinson's office. It attaches a document seen by Alice Perkins - what's all this?
RC we were preparing for a meeting with Jo Swinson - we'd provided advice re replacement of the CFO... (Mr Day with Alisdair Cameron)
RC we were preparing for a meeting with Jo Swinson - we'd provided advice re replacement of the CFO... (Mr Day with Alisdair Cameron)
Sorry here's the email
Here's the attachment - more notes about concerns Paula Vennells' ability JB says there will be more questions about PV's ability this afternoon.
JB up to this point you had not told the minister about any concerns re PV
RC yes - early in my tenure I didn't have any real evidence about PV, so telling them early could destabilise the situation
RC yes - early in my tenure I didn't have any real evidence about PV, so telling them early could destabilise the situation
JB what was the board's concern about her approach to business areas like Horizon
RC the response to the 2S interim report seemed right, but was rather badly managed, and whilst I don't think she was personally responsible it was part of a lack of general grip she had
RC the response to the 2S interim report seemed right, but was rather badly managed, and whilst I don't think she was personally responsible it was part of a lack of general grip she had
... on the business.
JB reads the June away day where PV was acting like a NED rather than leading from the front. She asked questions of people leading a strategy whereas it should be her job...
JB goes over the page
JB reads the June away day where PV was acting like a NED rather than leading from the front. She asked questions of people leading a strategy whereas it should be her job...
JB goes over the page
JB reads out the establishment of subcommittees and asks if this is the litigation subcommittee
RC no it's Sparrow - it should never have needed a subcommittee...
RC no it's Sparrow - it should never have needed a subcommittee...
More pages on how crap PV was
and more...
and more...
JB what's the situation.
RC we couldn't pay Chris Day's exit payment as ministers said no, but we couldn't sack him. Al Cameron was waiting in the wings, but he couldn't wait forever... we were trying to throw the kitchen sink at this to get the minister to change her mind
RC we couldn't pay Chris Day's exit payment as ministers said no, but we couldn't sack him. Al Cameron was waiting in the wings, but he couldn't wait forever... we were trying to throw the kitchen sink at this to get the minister to change her mind
JB and you concerns around Vennells were her inability to get a grip on H
RC not H other things - and her NED-like stance rather than being a proper CEO
RC not H other things - and her NED-like stance rather than being a proper CEO
JB takes him to Jo Swinson's Witness Statement on this
And this direct criticism of Callard from Jo Swinson
JB disco with the minister on whether she should meet 2S
RC can't remember
JB so can't remember if you told her not to or not
RC correct
JB what about the sacking of 2S
RC she was appraised of it - it shouldn't come as a complete surprised
[lunch break!!!]
RC can't remember
JB so can't remember if you told her not to or not
RC correct
JB what about the sacking of 2S
RC she was appraised of it - it shouldn't come as a complete surprised
[lunch break!!!]
[we're back]
JB takes RC to an email chain about prepping Jo Swinson for her return from maternity leave in 2014
JB takes RC to an email chain about prepping Jo Swinson for her return from maternity leave in 2014
Callard forwards the email to his team - wants to get Swinson to the "right place" on Sparrow
JB what place did you want to get her to
RC that over the 5 months she's been away there have been problems and that might require some difficult decisions
JB why not write that if that was the case - what was the place you wanted to get her to?
RC that over the 5 months she's been away there have been problems and that might require some difficult decisions
JB why not write that if that was the case - what was the place you wanted to get her to?
RC In Oct/Nov 2013 it looked like it was working, by the time she came back it wasn't - there were capacity issues with 2S and there might be a difficult decision coming
JB what place did you need her in?
RC to warn her she might need to make a difficult decision
JB what place did you need her in?
RC to warn her she might need to make a difficult decision
JB did you ever try to manoeuvre a minister
RC not sure what that means, but we tried to provide the best advice on the best info we had
RC not sure what that means, but we tried to provide the best advice on the best info we had
JB and were you doing this as a NED
RC no as a civil servant
JB takes him to another email re RC's attempts to have a chat with PV re BNR's thoughts
RC no as a civil servant
JB takes him to another email re RC's attempts to have a chat with PV re BNR's thoughts
JB takes him to the response
JB why was it appropriate for you to advise the PO about BNR's position ahead of a meeting
RC so they are properly briefed and have expectations as to what could be achieved
JB did you tell the minister
RC no but she would know this was happening as an experienced minister
RC so they are properly briefed and have expectations as to what could be achieved
JB did you tell the minister
RC no but she would know this was happening as an experienced minister
JB and she'd be fine about you tipping the PO off about her mood and position
RC it's perfectly normal - it's so no time is wasted
JB NED hat here or shareholder hat?
RC shareholder
JB conflict of interest
RC not in this case
RC it's perfectly normal - it's so no time is wasted
JB NED hat here or shareholder hat?
RC shareholder
JB conflict of interest
RC not in this case
JB BNR says this email chain is clear evidence that ShEx was taking steps to provide advance warning about my intentions and they were trying to deflect me - any substance to this
RC no I don't think so - we were just trying to make this the best use of time
RC no I don't think so - we were just trying to make this the best use of time
JB so BNR has got the wrong end of the stick
RC on this occasion yes, it's a good chance for BNR to speak to the PO directly and for them to answer her questions
JB any reason to believe she didn't trust your advice?
RC no
RC on this occasion yes, it's a good chance for BNR to speak to the PO directly and for them to answer her questions
JB any reason to believe she didn't trust your advice?
RC no
JB takes him to an email from Laura Thompson - did you know BNR wanted advice or someone attending outside ShEx
RC yes
JB why would she want this
RC it's shareholder vs policy - we were both at the time and it can sometimes clash
RC yes
JB why would she want this
RC it's shareholder vs policy - we were both at the time and it can sometimes clash
RC we told her we were both
JB were you involved in that pushback to the minister
RC no that was Laura
JB is this a concern where a minister is saying she wants a senior official outside your organisation
RC yes I suppose so - legal were coming
JB were you involved in that pushback to the minister
RC no that was Laura
JB is this a concern where a minister is saying she wants a senior official outside your organisation
RC yes I suppose so - legal were coming
... a senior member of ShEx was coming and there were spads too
JB who wins the day here?
RC she could take Laura's view and the minister could go to the Perm Sec
JB what happened
RC there was biz legal and spads present
JB does this happen often - a minister says she's not...
JB who wins the day here?
RC she could take Laura's view and the minister could go to the Perm Sec
JB what happened
RC there was biz legal and spads present
JB does this happen often - a minister says she's not...
... happy with the info she's getting from you
RC no
JB should you have been concerned
RC in retrospect, yes
RC no
JB should you have been concerned
RC in retrospect, yes
[we now move on to the open secret in government, only revealed at the inquiry after vennells gave evidence that Paula Venells was a rubbish CEO]
From RC's WS
JB to what extent were the concerns shared with Alice Perkins (PO chair).
RC she definitely knew about it. Rumblings beforehand, then June 2014 awayday crystallised the issue.
JB when did the rumblings start -
RC it grew from when I started in early 2014 and I saw...
RC she definitely knew about it. Rumblings beforehand, then June 2014 awayday crystallised the issue.
JB when did the rumblings start -
RC it grew from when I started in early 2014 and I saw...
... her performance at the board, I spoke to other board members
JB was this shared by fellow board members
RC yes
JB all of them?
RC yes
JB was this shared by fellow board members
RC yes
JB all of them?
RC yes
[we zoom forward to Spring 2016 and an email about the PO's IT renewal]
JB takes him to a response about there being something "teflon" about Vennells
RC says something about Vennells failing to recognise their IT procurement had failed, cost money and it wasn't nec her fault...
JB so she avoided criticism - nothing stuck to her
RC bit harsh it was an off-the-cuff comment
JB which can reveal the truth
RC yes but I meant it
JB so she avoided criticism - nothing stuck to her
RC bit harsh it was an off-the-cuff comment
JB which can reveal the truth
RC yes but I meant it
... in terms of her behaving like it was water off a duck's back
JB takes him to the ShEx risk and assurance committee. RC had been asked to do a deep dive into PV's suitability.
Sorry here's the date and title page
And this is the PV issue
... over the page...
JB did the independent board review happen
RC don't think so
JB what would it look like?
RC not sure. chat between NEDs so we could come to a view
JB we can't find any evidence it did - what would be its purpose
RC get a review of possible replacements
RC don't think so
JB what would it look like?
RC not sure. chat between NEDs so we could come to a view
JB we can't find any evidence it did - what would be its purpose
RC get a review of possible replacements
JB what happened
RC we did a board summary, Alice Perkins continued to mentor her, we got our recruitment consultant to look for candidates, there weren't any out there for the pay we were offering
JB so nothing happened
RC we did a board summary, Alice Perkins continued to mentor her, we got our recruitment consultant to look for candidates, there weren't any out there for the pay we were offering
JB so nothing happened
RC it's a difficult job and I think it would be hard for anyone to do it properly
[new topic - RC's understanding of issues or problems with H]
JB takes RC to his WS
JB what do you mean stated decisions of numerous different criminal proceedings
RC I was reassured that the independent courts had stood up our prosecutions
RC I was reassured that the independent courts had stood up our prosecutions
JB what reassurances did you get around H
RC recites what we've heard before about getting info from the PO saying it was all fine
JB the Project Zebra report contradicts this and Swift review
RC yes
JB why didn't you see these?
RC recites what we've heard before about getting info from the PO saying it was all fine
JB the Project Zebra report contradicts this and Swift review
RC yes
JB why didn't you see these?
RC explains
JB seems coincidental rather than deliberate
RC yes
JB takes him to Laura from ShEx cc'd to RC
JB seems coincidental rather than deliberate
RC yes
JB takes him to Laura from ShEx cc'd to RC
JB does this email suggest you think SPMs were after wads of cash?
RC by March 2015 we had not seen a link between a bug in H to SPM accounts and without we can't provide compensation
RC by March 2015 we had not seen a link between a bug in H to SPM accounts and without we can't provide compensation
JB dismissive attitude to plight of individuals from you
RC possibly - but there's no link
JB had you forgotten the individuals here
RC hadn't forgotten, just didn't know what to do about it - everything we heard led us to believe there wasn't an issue
RC possibly - but there's no link
JB had you forgotten the individuals here
RC hadn't forgotten, just didn't know what to do about it - everything we heard led us to believe there wasn't an issue
JB takes RC to a UKGI lessons learned document about a procurement with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which had gone wrong, leading to legal action
Recommendations at the end of the report
Reads on...
More
More
And more...
Finally
JB This is Oct 2017. When were these recommendations carried into effect?
RC towards end of 2017/2018 the Shareholder team on PO at UKGI liaising heavily with GC
JB so all recommendations either accepted or rejected and carried into effect by the first trial of the litigation
RC towards end of 2017/2018 the Shareholder team on PO at UKGI liaising heavily with GC
JB so all recommendations either accepted or rejected and carried into effect by the first trial of the litigation
RC this was getting after my time.
[final break of the day - JB has finished. Core participant questions to come shortly]
[final break of the day - JB has finished. Core participant questions to come shortly]
[we're back]
Angela Patrick starts - she has Jo Hamilton sitting next to her, who Callard disparaged in an email shown to the Inquiry in the last session.
Angela Patrick starts - she has Jo Hamilton sitting next to her, who Callard disparaged in an email shown to the Inquiry in the last session.
We got first to the circulation of a JFSA press release within the PO
Here is the press release
AP takes RC to his response
"seriously though" "sabre rattle"
"seriously though" "sabre rattle"
AP had you convinced yourself that all lawyers would think the SPMs had no case?
RC mediation scheme had come to an end the PO had disengaged
AP look at your language "they pull away" - you want your view confirmed
RC mediation scheme had come to an end the PO had disengaged
AP look at your language "they pull away" - you want your view confirmed
RC I wanted an answer to my question from MD about how many times this had been attempted so I can tell the minister
AP line to take - you wanted to tell her this had no chance
RC it might be
AP there's no question mark after "do you know how many legal firms they've had"
AP line to take - you wanted to tell her this had no chance
RC it might be
AP there's no question mark after "do you know how many legal firms they've had"
... it's a statement.
RC I can see why you say that
AP let's look at your first response
RC I can see why you say that
AP let's look at your first response
AP this was a frank conversation between colleagues wasn't it
RC I was right - they hadn't launched a class action. I am trying to remind myself how many times it had happened before
AP you'd already taken a view
RC yes
RC I was right - they hadn't launched a class action. I am trying to remind myself how many times it had happened before
AP you'd already taken a view
RC yes
Better shot of AP JH and TM KC
AP H was a business critical system.
RC yes
AP the PO was trying to break even
RC yes
AP if H didn't work you had a problem
RC yes
AP did you focus too much on the PO's financial goals
RC no
RC yes
AP the PO was trying to break even
RC yes
AP if H didn't work you had a problem
RC yes
AP did you focus too much on the PO's financial goals
RC no
AP did you simply fail to see the public/govt interest in the broader sense that innocent people were not being prosecuted
RC prosecutions were stopped before I got there
AP yes but was there not a wider public or govt interest in finding out if there had been false prosceutions
RC prosecutions were stopped before I got there
AP yes but was there not a wider public or govt interest in finding out if there had been false prosceutions
RC we had the Altman review which reassured us
AP did the potentially awful implications of the SPMs being right, blind you to the possibility they were right
RC my position was not informed by the ramifications of us being wrong
AP is it possible that the prospect...
AP did the potentially awful implications of the SPMs being right, blind you to the possibility they were right
RC my position was not informed by the ramifications of us being wrong
AP is it possible that the prospect...
... of false prosecutions scuppering plans for mutualisation made you incurious
RC no
AP finishes. Chris Jacobs now asks qs
CJ takes him to a Project Sparrow board subcommittee meeting
RC no
AP finishes. Chris Jacobs now asks qs
CJ takes him to a Project Sparrow board subcommittee meeting
CJ points out the words in bold - says were you aware that idea the scheme was established etc etc was untrue
RC the interim report said there were no systemic failres [again, reader, it didn't] and I thought it was best to investigate each problem
CJ but that statement in bold type is not true - didn't it strike you as odd that a PS subcommittee meeting wouldn't want to investigate
CJ but that statement in bold type is not true - didn't it strike you as odd that a PS subcommittee meeting wouldn't want to investigate
RC it was a reassertion of the executive's POV
CJ when Ron Warmington (2S - RW) he said the PO was being investigated and the paymaster and what we see here to be taking what is understood, probably incorrectly, to be the INTERIM understanding of the 2S report...
CJ when Ron Warmington (2S - RW) he said the PO was being investigated and the paymaster and what we see here to be taking what is understood, probably incorrectly, to be the INTERIM understanding of the 2S report...
... isn't this an example of the abuses of having investigators you were paying
CR what I thought was happening was that PO investigate and then 2S investigate and that's what needed to happen. I don't recall taking decisions on the basis of cost
CR what I thought was happening was that PO investigate and then 2S investigate and that's what needed to happen. I don't recall taking decisions on the basis of cost
CJ as the shareholder NED are you concerned that as the govt rep you were told something that was plainly untrue - didn't that worry you?
RC I didn't see it like that at the time
[CJ finishes Ed Henry KC starts]
RC I didn't see it like that at the time
[CJ finishes Ed Henry KC starts]
EH what was your knowledge of IT systems before you became NED
RC v little
EH so you didn't know that intermittent, random bugs could cause discrepancies
RC I did think about that - but 2S said no systemic and the SPMs individual cases would be investigated individually
RC v little
EH so you didn't know that intermittent, random bugs could cause discrepancies
RC I did think about that - but 2S said no systemic and the SPMs individual cases would be investigated individually
EH my clients were complaining about losses caused by H and you did not get a grip on that, did you?
RC I was expecting the PO to get on top of that
EH at the end of this sorry tale in 2019 Tim Parker said 959 people had been prosecuted on H evidence - did you ask for data...
RC I was expecting the PO to get on top of that
EH at the end of this sorry tale in 2019 Tim Parker said 959 people had been prosecuted on H evidence - did you ask for data...
... on this up to that point?
RC that data was first provided in 2014 - it was benchmarked at 0.1% - that struck me as low
[RC has got confused with the 136 people accepted onto the mediation scheme. EH corrects him]
RC even so it's still 0.1% [pretty sure that's still not right]
RC that data was first provided in 2014 - it was benchmarked at 0.1% - that struck me as low
[RC has got confused with the 136 people accepted onto the mediation scheme. EH corrects him]
RC even so it's still 0.1% [pretty sure that's still not right]
EH why did the risk of wrongful prosecutions being uncovered not make its way into the RMG float
RC no
EH why did ShEx board not recognise the risk
RC don't know
EH why did you lose all objectivity when it came to the SPMs
RC no
EH why did ShEx board not recognise the risk
RC don't know
EH why did you lose all objectivity when it came to the SPMs
RC some objectivity from reading documents
EH Sparrow was a cynical containment strategy and you were part of that
RC no I wasn't. My fellow NEDs wanted to know if their IT system worked
EH Sparrow was a cynical containment strategy and you were part of that
RC no I wasn't. My fellow NEDs wanted to know if their IT system worked
EH takes him to an email exchange from Tim McInnes to Callard which EH says contains "a certain tone of derision" towards the current minister
Callard's response
EH the minister got it right, didn't she - this reflected your groupthink - that H is safe these SPMs are on the take
RC this is by June 2015 by that point there had been three years of investigation
EH I'm asking you about the groupthink - a cynical closed minded approach
RC this is by June 2015 by that point there had been three years of investigation
EH I'm asking you about the groupthink - a cynical closed minded approach
RC we'd seen the data points and the reports
EH you're seeing this at a high level as an accountant - you're ignoring the humans
RC no - but I had to go on the data
EH you're seeing this at a high level as an accountant - you're ignoring the humans
RC no - but I had to go on the data
EH takes him to an email chain and suggests he's using the minister as a cannon to fire RC's cannonballs even tho she isn't fully in the picture
RC no it was about confidentiality
RC no it was about confidentiality
EH you wanted a short and punchy rebuttal to James Arbuthnot
RC of course
EH you say you were relying on 2S - that's rank hypocrisy - you wanted to get rid of them
RC they were holding up the mediation scheme's work
RC of course
EH you say you were relying on 2S - that's rank hypocrisy - you wanted to get rid of them
RC they were holding up the mediation scheme's work
Here's an email...!
EH your smug satisfaction you'd got rid of 2S and the way you'd handled it in parliament
RC 2S were retained and AP was thanking MD and didn't thank Laura who had been working long hours at the govt end
EH your smug satisfaction you'd got rid of 2S and the way you'd handled it in parliament
RC 2S were retained and AP was thanking MD and didn't thank Laura who had been working long hours at the govt end
SWW did I hear you tell EH that at the first Sparrow subcommittee hearing that there had been 959 prosecutions reliant on H data
RC in Feb 2014 there was a paper on the new prosecutions policy and there was around 50 prosecutions a year and that was 0.1% of users of H
RC in Feb 2014 there was a paper on the new prosecutions policy and there was around 50 prosecutions a year and that was 0.1% of users of H
SWW did that state those prosecutions were reliant on H
RC can't remember
[end of questioning for the day]
RC can't remember
[end of questioning for the day]
JB tells us we will return at 12 noon on Monday.
That's me, then. Thanks for reading. If you want to support my work, you can do so here.
Thanks for reading.postofficescandal.uk/donate/
That's me, then. Thanks for reading. If you want to support my work, you can do so here.
Thanks for reading.postofficescandal.uk/donate/
@threadreaderapp unroll pls
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
