Davey briefed to dismiss Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance Concerns in 2010

Sir Alan Bates and Sir Ed Davey

The first meeting between Alan Bates from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) and a government minister took place on 5 October 2010. Ed Davey was, at the time, the Liberal Democrat minister responsible for the Post Office within the coalition government. The date was crucial: the trial of Seema Misra was less than a week away, and Channel 4 News were thinking of running something about the JFSA’s claims.

Today the briefing note sent to Ed Davey by Mike Whitehead (a civil servant from the Shareholder Executive which monitored the Post Office Inquiry on behalf of the Business Department) was discussed at length during the (otherwise rather tedious) evidence of former ShEx CEO Sir Stephen Lovegrove.

The briefing note was first mentioned in April this year when Alan Bates gave evidence to the Inquiry (it is the source of his “thugs in suits” quote), but has never been published in full. On my request the Inquiry have kindly put it on their website.

Davey had already refused to meet Bates in May 2010 on the high-handed grounds that the JFSA’s concerns about the Horizon IT system and miscarriages of justice had nothing do with government but were “operational and contractual matters” for the Post Office. The Post Office, was (and still is) wholly owned by the government. Angered by the response, Bates wrote back to Davey in July 2010, telling the minister:

“normally shareholders are concerned about the morality of the business they own… the letter you sent is little different to the one I received seven years ago from the minister responsible for post offices at that time, and so many more lives have been ruined in the interim because of that same attitude.”

Bates continued:

“You can listen to your civil servants telling you these issues are really an operational matter for POL [Post Office Ltd] to deal with. You can even listen to POL telling you Horizon is wonderful, that there has never been a problem, it is inherently robust and these are just a few malcontents trying to cause trouble. Or you can meet with us and hear the real truth behind Horizon and what the Post Office is actually up to.”

Mike Whitehead found Bates’ second letter “more confrontational” than the first, but advised that a meeting with Bates should take place. Not because anyone in government particularly cared for the JFSA’s concerns, but “for presentational reasons”. Explicitly Whitehead did not want to see any “potential publicity” generated by a Channel 4 News item:

“playing heavily on Government Minister ‘refusing to meet victims of Govt owned Post Office Horizon IT system which has systemic faults resulting in wrongful accusations of theft/false accounting’.”

Before the meeting happened, Whitehead set out the Business Department’s objectives – to find out whether or not the JFSA was going to sue the Post Office. Not only would this be useful information, it would also allow Davey to tell Bates he couldn’t comment on matters as “the issues are effectively sub judice.”

Whitehead advised Davey tell Bates that the “issues raised by the JFSA are operational and contractual matters for POL” and to “make clear that, as the shareholder, Government has an arm’s length relationship with the company and does not have any role in its day to day operations” – precisely the nonsense Bates was railing against in his second letter.

Whitehead told Davey to “avoid any commitment to adopting any of the JFSA’s objectives in the terms these are set” and to refuse any investigation of the Horizon system because it would be “expensive (and time consuming).

To encourage a dismissal of the JFSA’s concerns, Whitehead said the Post Office had told government that they “continue to express full confidence in the integrity and robustness of the Horizon system which has been operating for 10 years and typically processes 230 million transactions a month from over 30,000 counter positions in nearly 12,000 post office branches” – precisely the nonsense etc etc

Whitehead also wrote that the Postmasters’ union, the National Federation of Subpostmasters (NFSP) are:

“dismissive of the JFSA’s claims. They have suggested that if there were systemic faults with Horizon as claimed, there would be incidents of ‘overages’ as well as ‘shortages’. NFSP are also of the view that in some of these types of cases the subpostmaster genuinely is not to blame but that a member of his/her family or other employee is. Contractually however the subpostmaster is personally liable.”

There were incidences of “overages”, as the NFSP well knew, and that final sentence should have set alarm bells ringing throughout government – had some Subpostmasters been prosecuted for crimes perpetrated by other people? Did that sound right to the minister? Whitehead’s nothing-to-see-here tone continues to the end of the briefing. Davey is told:

around 15% of POL’s transactions have been conducted over Crown Office terminals which run exactly the same system yet no issues have been identified.

This is because none had been looked for. Staff in crown offices were being dismissed and prosecuted alongside Subpostmasters. Whitehead continued:

“If there were any systematic integrity issues within the system they would have been evident over the past 10 years. NFSP and CWU [Communications Workers Union] have expressed confidence in the system.”

I am pretty sure it wasn’t until 2020 we found out the number of Post Office prosecutions of Subpostmasters had reached triple figures. In what would have been exceptionally useful information for journalists, lawyers and the JFSA had it been made public at the time, Whitehead wrote:

“Since 2005 there have been 230 criminal cases that have proceeded to Court. Of these 169 have been found guilty and 18 defendants cautioned. Of the remaining 43, 1 was found not guilty but this was nothing to do with any Horizon challenge. 42 cases were not carried forward for a variety of reasons (but there is no suggestion that any of these reasons were related to concerns about Horizon).”

He concluded, disingenuously: “No court has ever ruled that there have been problems with the Horizon system.”

Read the full briefing note and both Alan Bates’ letters to Ed Davey below.


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

19 responses to “Davey briefed to dismiss Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance Concerns in 2010”

  1. […] Ed Davey did meet Alan Bates in October 2010. The meeting came about because in July Bates sent a second letter to Davey, which one of his civil servants, Mike Whitehead, described as “more confrontational”. […]

  2. I’ve always wondered about overages. Why weren’t there any?? I am no longer in the UK, no one I can ask about it. Can anybody in this forum explain why?

  3. Today’s questioning brought up the issue of (what we used to call) cuttings services. Lovegrove said that ShEx had such a thing but he never bothered to look at its summaries of media coverage of POL. All the levels of supervision of the deluded (to put the best construction) PO executives — the Board, the ShEx NED, ShEx as a whole, BEIS, etc — must have had these services and ought to have briefed themselves properly from the Computer Weekly, Pvt Eye and TV coverage so as to be able to challenge the fairytales being reported by the POL executives.

  4. PCOJ Investigator avatar
    PCOJ Investigator

    I look forward to Mike Whitehead’s extended public humiliation and trial.

  5. Glad I read that, and cannot believe the horrendous list of abhorrences Alan lists in his scond letter, which were inflicted upon SPM’s over the decades. The total lack of integrity and immorality is disgraceful. Also, the lack of due diligence and exhibition of callousness and malfeasance in public office by the (un)civil servant is horrendous.

    Interesting however to read that at no stage were any SPM ‘overpayments’ recorded during the Horizon errors, why only payments missing ………………strange, weird even? Is it possible, on the outer edges of paranoia, that somebody deliberately set out on a campaign of vengeance to sabotage SPM’s??? For me the plot thickens …………………………

    mmmmm very interesting and thaks for putting that doc on site

  6. Simple person that I am, I am uncomfortable with the statements in the briefing to Ed Davey.
    It seems to suggest if the case is there were no shortages in Crown offices never mind ‘overages’ ever, then does that raises the sinister spectre of potential for a single actor or like minded actors to have played a game and are now sworn to secrecy. This would naturally be owing to the inevitable consequences to be (and for) the author(s) of this mayhem. They would know that they were almost impossible to find or root out.
    That is qualified by the official line of no back doors, tamper proof logs and a separate audit file which makes me wonder why or what the civil servants and ministers were briefed upon and where the government experts were assessing potential for the course of action.

    1. For those people commenting on the “fact” that there were no problems at Crown offices and that there were also no “overages” calculated by Horizon, the enquiry has already established that neither of these statements are true.
      In fact, Alan Bates himself testified about overages at his branch, as well as it being mentioned in Fujitsu helpdesk logs (Anne Chambers). Crown office employees had been sacked for shortages too.
      The mind-boggling bending of the truth to fit a narrative seems to run through Post Office, Shex and Fujitsu correspondence across the period. From top to bottom of these organisations. Disgraceful disregard for individuals or morals.

      1. Thanks Chris, didnt pick up on that although my comments were for the date of the document and why wasnt a challenge made at the time. It leads me to be more worried about the briefings to the Civil Servants and Ministers that were clearly flawed (or stronger words) but no doubt that will be for the future.

  7. Who was the post office minister 7 years earlier ?

    1. https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1745380744149533147

      Is (Sir) Timms the only minister on the list with IT industry experience?

  8. Who briefed Whitehead as I presume he was not an IT expert. His confidence in his briefing was surpassed by his ignorance of what was actually happening & he did not come to that conclusion all by himself. Who was telling him all the porkies. There has to be a data trail to determine how his briefing came about.

  9. Whitehead advised Davey tell Bates that the “issues raised by the JFSA are operational and contractual matters for POL” and to “make clear that, as the shareholder, Government has an arm’s length relationship with the company and does have any role in its day to day operations” – precisely the nonsense Bates was railing against in his second letter.

    shouldn’t the quote say that the government does NOT have any role in the day to day operations?

  10. Why is it so important that RMG is not implicated in the PO Scandal?

    How can it be that RMG is not implicated?

    Good Ser Wyn seemed determined to push this line at cob today.

  11. Kay Feltham-Jones avatar
    Kay Feltham-Jones

    Thanks for this Nick. This afternoon was, indeed, hard going, but this document made it worthwhile. (I think Emma Price does a competent job, but I wish she could be given some training to bring some light and shade to her questioning style – today was so monotonous I actually nodded off at one point!)
    Anyway, I look forward to this Thursday and Ed Davey trying to justify his responses to Alan Bates on the basis of Mike Whitehead’s briefings. I wonder why Whitehead himself isn’t scheduled to give oral testimony?
    Tomorrow, of course, we have the second appearance of Andy Dunce, er, I mean, Dunks. That should be entertaining – for all the wrong reasons …..

  12. The figures used in the briefing to Ed Davey confirming the number of criminal cases since 2005 are remarkably precise. So is the breakdown of defendants found guilty, cautioned, found not guilty and cases not proceeded with. The statement that: ‘42 cases were not carried forward for a variety of reasons (but there is no suggestion that any of these reasons were related to concerns about Horizon)’ seems very confident and gives the impression that there had been a proper sift of those 42 cases. Or was this just bluster?

    The Post Office provided these figures to the civil servant who briefed the Minister via a note dated 5 October 2010. It would be fascinating to know who within the Post Office put the figures together and who provided them to the civil servant, Mike Whitehead. Post Office was still part of Royal Mail at that stage, but it seems most unlikely that a request to provide figures for a Ministerial briefing would not have passed through the hands – both on the way in and on the way out – of someone at a senior level within the Post Office and been thoroughly checked before being released to ShEx.

    After following so much evidence to the Inquiry, it is very difficult not to be cynical. No doubt the Post Office briefer chose January 2005 as a starting date for the figures: a) so as not to have to include the Cleveleys case from 2003 when the neutral expert brought in to look at the evidence, Jason Coyne, discovered issues with Horizon and the Post Office dropped its prosecution and b) to avoid disclosing the number of prosecutions which followed the initial introduction of Horizon in 1999.

  13. I have been following the Post Office Horizon debacle fairly closely since mid 2023, some months before the ITV docu-drama. However, only recently did I come across your blog. I have found it extremely interesting, in that you condense each day’s evidence into a short summary of all the evasion and obfuscation I have spent far too much of my day watching and listening to. So much so that I dropped you a tenner to support your continued work.
    Recently I have two irritatingly recurrent queries rattling around in my head, which you may be able to answer:
    1. Which person or body appointed Paula Vennells, and why her?
    2. The alleged shortfalls: what was short? ‘Stock’ (whatever that is – presumably items such as stamps, postal orders, cheques paid in, travellers’ cheques etc), or cash in the form of notes and coins that should have been in the till or the safe?

    I’m looking forward to watching Fujitsu Andy tomorrow, as I’m sure you are!

    1. Bryan Hewson in Amble avatar
      Bryan Hewson in Amble

      As a serving SPM I will try to explain the difference ( there isn’t any ) between cash & stock ( eg stamps ):
      Take a simple example …..
      Before opening the doors at 9 am I count my cash – say £1,000
      and my stock, say 100 first class stamps @ £1.00 each
      Plus say 100 second class stamps @ £0.50 each
      The stock is converted into “cash” ie £150

      This is added to my counter / declared cash taking total to £1,150 “cash”

      It’s a quiet day, only ONE customer who I sell 100 x 2nd class stamps to & ask & received £50.00 in exchange.

      After doors close I count my cash & I have £1,050

      Except HORIZON says I should have £1,100 so I am “under” £50
      In this situation I feel obliged to count my stock & lo and behold I learn I made an mid-keying error ….

      The customer asked for 2nd class & I charged 2nd class BUT I touched the 1st class icon on the HORIZON screen AND handed out 1st class stamps thus when I count & declare my cash & stock ( which is converted to a cash value remember) at day’s end there is a mis-match & I have a shortfall.

      This a a very simple & simplified illustration of how it works so hope this helps.
      ( yes, the difference wouldn’t be £50 as Horizon would net the different value of 1st & 2nd class stamps but I’m trying to give a basic example)

  14. Standard civil service response to any problem – deflect it rather than deal with it.

  15. So much obfuscation, so much qualification. But “everybody knows” as Leonard Cohen sang.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Tags

Alan Bates alice perkins Andrew Winn Andy Dunks Andy Parsons angela van den bogerd Bates v Post Office Bonusgate CCRC Chris Aujard Clarke Advice Fujitsu Gareth Jenkins Grabiner HCAB Horizon Hugh Flemington Ian Henderson Inquiry Interim Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh Lee Castleton Lord Arbuthnot Mark Davies Neuberger Nicki Arch Nick Read Noel Thomas Outcasts Creative Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Rebecca Thomson Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Richard Moorhead Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra ShEx Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Swift Review Tracy Felstead

Categories