Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
When the Horizon scandal began to surface, the Post Office was engaged in a “behind-the-scenes process of deception” to “deceive MPs”, former Conservative minister Lord Arbuthnot told Post Office Horizon’s IT Inquiry.
Lord Arbuthnot, who was an MP in 1987 and 2015 and held several ministerial posts, was one of the first MPs to launch a campaign for the scandal-engulfed deputy postmaster general.
More than 700 subpostmasters were prosecuted and convicted by the Post Office between 1999 and 2015 for making branches appear to be short on cash due to flaws in Fujitsu’s Horizon system. received.
Lord Arbuthnot has been criticized by his constituency’s deputy postmasters, including Joe Hamilton, who was innocently accused of stealing £36,000 from a Post Office branch he ran in South Warnborough, Hampshire. This was the first time I learned of a problem with the system.
His evidence session was followed by the testimony of Sir Anthony Hooper, a former appeals judge and former chair of the Initial Complaints Review and Conciliation Scheme Working Group, a plan to resolve concerns raised by the Deputy Postmaster General. A session was held.
Here are five important things we learned from the Two Witnesses today.
The government took a “not me, the government” attitude toward the Horizon issue.
Lord Arbuthnot wrote to the then Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, in 2009 asking what could be done to investigate complaints about Horizon IT systems by subpostmasters.
In a letter shown to today’s inquiry, Lord Arbuthnot said: “It appears that there are indeed a significant number of postmasters and postmistresses who have been accused of fraud, including at least two in my constituency, who are claiming responsibility for the Horizon system. ”
He asked for help resolving the issue, but received a response from then-minister Pat McFadden, who said the government maintained an “arm’s length” relationship with the Post Office, which had said there was no problem with the Horizon system. emphasized. .
Lord Arbuthnot said he was “frustrated and irritated” by the response. “It was clear that the government was saying it had nothing to do with us, but we didn’t know what to make of it at that stage.
“I wanted to see a problem resolved that I thought was a potential injustice, but since the post office was owned by the government, I thought the government would be in a position to solve the problem.” But they said, “No, it’s not me, Goof.”
“What this ‘arm’s length’ arrangement essentially means is that the government refuses to take on the responsibilities that come with ownership, and for a variety of reasons does not believe it is right to do so. do not have.
“One of the reasons is that when you have an organization as important to a community as the post office, if the people own it, the people should be able to properly manage it.
“Some democratic flaws are being highlighted here as the government refuses to take responsibility.”
Mr. Vennels “falsely claimed that the court had always sided with the Postal Service.”
Former Post Office CEO Paula Vennels defends the Horizon system after Lord Arbuthnot raised concerns in 2012 that there was “no evidence” to support subpostmasters’ claims about bugs in the system. sent a letter.
She continued: “We have no reason to doubt the integrity of the system. We are confident that it is robust and fit for purpose.”
In a separate letter to former Conservative minister Oliver Lewin, Ms Vennels said that the courts “in every case” [the Post Office’s] Show “favor” when prosecuting a subpostmaster for theft or false accounting.
The inquiry’s lawyer, Jason Beer KC, said this was a “false statement” and “completely untrue”.
He asked Lord Arbuthnot whether he knew at the time that it might be a false statement, to which he replied: “No, I did not.”
Lord Arbuthnot added that while he would have expected civil servants to “tell the truth”, he “would have known in the back of his mind that the Post Office was telling many secrets almost on a daily basis”. Ta. -The postmasters said they were the only ones.
“So there may have been some questions about what they said.”
He also said he was “not satisfied” with the “mismanagement” he received from Mr Vennels, adding: I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting to me that the introduction of new computerized accounting systems would uncover previously hidden fraudsters.
“If they had done so, I would have little faith in it, given the apparent honesty of the subpostmasters I met and the similar allegations that suddenly appeared shortly after the installation of the new computer system. Because of that, training was necessary.” Teething problems inevitably arise.
Ms Vennels also suggested that the “temptation” to borrow money from the till was an issue among a small number of postmasters rather than a flaw in the Horizon IT system.
The post office was “accompanied by members of Congress.”
Lord Arbuthnot told the inquiry that when issues surrounding the Horizon system became more pressing, the Post Office “involved MPs in a behind-the-scenes process of deception” to protect the organization’s “existence”. “There is,” he said.
Lord Arbuthnot said the Post Office “knew there were a number of bugs” when the system was investigated by forensic accounting firm Second Sight. […] They didn’t tell Congress members about it. ”
“They were operating some kind of behind-the-scenes deception process that I’m now suggesting is that they maintained the robustness of Horizon, the existence of Horizon, and perhaps the existence of the Post Office.” It is said that he brought along members of the Diet to do so.
“I know it now, but I didn’t know it then.”
He also said the internal investigation conducted by the Post Office was an “asset recovery process” and not an “application for justice.”
Second Sight later found that the investigation was unable to determine the “root cause” of discrepancies between Post Office branches.
The second site report presented to the inquiry stated: Cause of suspected problem. ”
The Post Office falsely claimed remote access to Horizon was not possible
Mr Vennels was briefed at a meeting with ministers in June 2012 and said that at Post Office branches “each transaction is secured with a digital signature to prevent alteration or tampering”.
This suggested that it was not possible to remotely access the Horizon system and make changes to the branch account, but we have since discovered that this is not true.
The Post Office could remotely access the Horizon system and make changes to accounts without the knowledge of subpostmasters, and the investigation found that this feature of the software caused discrepancies between Post Office branches. I had previously heard that it was possible.
Lord Arbuthnot said admitting that remote access to Horizon IT systems was possible would “completely undermine” the Post Office’s position during the 2013 inquiry.
Discussing the issue of remote access, Lord Arbuthnot told the inquiry: Perhaps it was the subpostmaster’s fault?
“It could have been an action by the Post Office or by Fujitsu. I think that would completely undermine the question of the standard of proof required in a criminal trial.”
He added that the question of whether remote access is possible is “at the heart of the whole business.”
He said if he had known that remote access was possible, it would have been clear at the time that there were “numerous miscarriages of justice”.
Cancellation of Horizon mediation plan is ‘ridiculous’
Sir Anthony Hooper, former chairman of the Post Office Reconciliation Scheme, told the Inquiry this afternoon that it was “ridiculous” that the Post Office Reconciliation Scheme was suspended in 2015.
He chaired a working group that brought together representatives from the Postal Service, forensic accountants from Second Sight, and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance.
The project was shut down in 2015 before Second Sight published its report.
He said: “The conflict gradually grew and grew and grew and grew until it was finally forced to close in March 2015.” […] It was a slow collapse. ”
When asked about the point in time when the group disbanded, he said, “I thought it would be foolish to cancel the plan at this stage, when it was still in its early stages.”
Lord Arbuthnot previously said he had spent “sleepless nights” over the breakdown in the mediation process and had unsuccessfully filed a freedom of information request when Second Sight was sacked by the Post Office. Trust the organization and let it go.
Second site will come later Said It found that “various legal challenges by the Post Office had made it increasingly difficult to proceed with the investigation” but were “concerning”.[s] In some situations, Horizon may be systemically flawed from a user perspective, and the Post Office does not necessarily provide an appropriate level of support. ”