Post Office scandal latest: Alan Bates has 'no sympathy' as ex-Post Office boss faces more questions (2024)

The barrister in charge of questioning Paula Vennells did not give her an inch yesterday and will not let up today, says business correspondent Paul Kelso.

"At times she was stunned into silence by the question, she looked like she stepped on a rake, frankly, some times," he said.

Ms Vennells apologised and admitted mistakes were made and "I think her motivation here will be to hold that line", said Kelso.

Her approach appears to be to confess to being "too trusting" of those around her and being unaware of the problems with Horizon.

"Time and again she was confronted with inconsistencies in that position," said Kelso.

"She was shown an email that she herself had written talking about how concerned she was about three cases of sub-postmasters being convicted on Horizon evidence and then appeared to change her mind to say there was nothing wrong with the system."

Lead campaigner and former sub-postmaster Alan Bates has said he has "no sympathy" for PaulaVennellsafter she broke down in tears twice yesterday.

He described her evidence as "like figure skating on the head of a pin".

"I wonder about these apologies, these are just words."

Speaking outside Aldwych House after Ms Vennells first day of testimony, Mr Bates said: "The whole thing is upsetting for everybody, including for so many of the victims. I've got no sympathy really."

Prosecutions

Mr Bates said he also met "senior" Metropolitan Police staff to discuss possible prosecutions following the Post Office Horizon scandal.

For the first time, he left certain they were going to investigate, he said.

More than 700 sub-postmasters were prosecuted by the Post Office and handed criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 as Fujitsu's faulty Horizon IT system made it appear as though money was missing at their branches.

Hundreds of sub-postmasters are still awaiting compensation despite the Government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000 payouts.

Welcome back to our live coverage of the Post Office inquiry, as former boss Paula Vennells prepares for another day of questioning.

Yesterday the ex-chief executive underwent a difficult six hours of scrutiny, at times struggling to find the words to answer questions and at others, breaking down in tears.

Her testimony was full of apologies, to sub-postmasters and their families in general and to specific people affected.

Jason Beer KC led the questioning, painting a picture of a Post Office receiving complaints about the Horizon IT system but unable to deal with them, while Ms Vennells denied her staff hid or conspired to keep bad news for her.

The inquiry was shown text messages from former head of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, telling Ms Vennells she could no longer support her, adding: "I think you knew."

Mr Beer's line of questioning ended yesterday with on Fujitsu's ability to remotely access the Post Office IT system, with one witness describing it as the "Wild West" and a 2014 review finding that "balancing transaction postings" could be made via the Horizon without sub-postmaster approval.

We'll be bringing you regular updates and analysis throughout the day, and you can watch the inquiry live at the top of this page from 9.45am.

By Paul Kelso, business correspondent

Paula Vennells arrived at the Post Office Inquiry a former chief executive, a former Church of England lay preacher and an ex-CBE, with only her reputation, and perhaps her liberty, left to defend.

After more than five hours of questioning she has done very little to restore the former, with the latter still very much a live issue.

While she was giving evidence her nemesis Alan Bates was meeting the Metropolitan Police to discuss their ongoing investigation.

The day went horribly for Ms Vennells from the moment she stepped from her car in torrential rain and was met by the sort of media scrum reserved for superstars and the shamed.

Read the rest of Paul's analysis here...

The inquiry heard evidence from the most prominent figure to date: former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells.

Her testimony was being closely watched by wrongly-convicted sub-postmasters, hoping to see the truth told.

Here are the key moments.

Apology: She began with the first of what would be several apologies to sub-postmasters and their families, saying she was "very affected" by their stories.

Alarm was sounded:Jason Beer KC showed the inquiry letters from multiple sub-postmasters complaining about the Horizon system in 2013, and Ms Vennells admitted there was a not a good enough system to deal with complaints.

Complaints branded 'noise': Ms Vennells says she regrets calling sub-postmaster's complaints "noise" in an email sent in March 2015.

'Bad news is good news': She denied that there was a conspiracy to keep information from her or that other staff hid bad news from her. She added she put in place a campaign called "Bad news is good news" to encourage people to share difficult information.

Royal Mail chief withdraws support: Text messages were displayed showing the former head of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, telling Ms Vennells she could no longer support her, adding: "I think you knew."

Tears: Ms Vennells cried several times throughout the questioning, including when recalling the death of sub-postmasterMartin Griffiths, who took his own life. She apologised for asking for information on his mental health.

Remote access: A witness described Fujitsu's remote access as the "Wild West", said Jason Beer. A review found that "balancing transaction postings" could be made via the Horizon IT system without sub-postmaster approval in 2014.

MP's letter: The inquiry was shown a letter from former Ashfield MP Gloria De Piero which asked Ms Vennells to investigate a sub-postmaster's complaint in 2015.

Select committee strategy: Jason Beer asked Ms Vennells about a purported strategy to hold back information unless she was pushed, and she said she didn't ask for it and wouldn't have gone into the meeting unprepared.

The inquiry is now being shown notes, which told Paula Vennells what she would be allowed to say to the select committee.

The notes show a list of bullet points which she would be allowed to discuss, and then another section of information she could talk about "if pushed".

You can see part of the list here:

Jason Beer KC asks her about the strategy to hold back information unless she was pushed, and she says she didn't ask for it.

She goes on to explain that she wouldn't have gone into the meeting unprepared.

"Why would the Post Office adopt a strategy of withholding information unless pushed?" Mr Beer asks her.

Ms Vennells avoids the question, saying he would have to ask Jane Hill, who was the head of public affairs at the Post Office at the time.

She insists her understanding was that Horizon did not have the remote access function, and she received the notes at "very short notice".

"Whatever anybody asks me to do, I would only tell the truth," she adds.

Turning to 2015 when Paula Vennells was preparing to stand before a select committee, Jason Beer KC shows the inquiry an email sent by her to Post Office executives.

In the email, which has been sent to Mark Davies and Lesley Sewell, she asks if it's possible for the Horizon IT system to be accessed remotely.

You can see the email below...

Mr Beer asks her why she "needed" to tell the select committee that remote access was not possible - something she alludes to in her email.

Ms Vennells says she phrased her email this way, in a bid to "get the truth in a really clear answer".

Laughs break out in the room as Mr Beer responds: "That's an odd way of going about this, isn't it? Tell me I'm wrong."

Ms Vennells says she "absolutely believed" remote access was not possible, and she wanted to be able to answer questions from the select committee correctly.

"I'm very sorry. I am giving you the completely truthful answer." she adds.

After the board briefing, Paula Vennells agrees she had no information on which to conclude whether Fujitsu had used balancing transactions before 2010.

She says she was told: "It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get the data to look at some of the questions about this because it didn't exist: Either because it had been destroyed because of data retention policies but more likely because it wasn't there any longer."

Mr Beer interrupts: "Do you know what investigation was carried out to find that documentation? Because we've got it.

"We've got the documentation which shows - one witness described it as the Wild West - the extent to which Fujitsu could inject, amend, transactions, pre-2010, completely, before 2004, unregulated, unaudited, and unauditable."

She replies: "I should have seen those documents. I didn't know they existed."

The inquiry is looking into aDeloitte board briefing for the Post Office on the design of Horizon dated 23 May 2014.

They said their report was limited by the fact that it was not possible to validate how Horizon had been implemented or operated.

The review found that "balancing transaction postings" made via the Horizon IT system did not require sub-postmaster approval.

Ms Vennells says she raised the issue, but found it was incorrect.

"Why were you focusing on remote access, which is what this is about," asks Jason Beer KC.

Paula Vennells says: "Remote access wasn't a new news item, it was a very important item. So to focus on that would have been a sensible thing to do."

Jason Beer KC draws the inquiry's attention to Paula Vennells's witness statement, in particular a section regarding a letter from services firm Ernst & Young, which carried out a management audit.

They identified a risk that unrestricted access to privileged IT functions "increased the risk of unauthorised/inappropriate access which could lead to the processing of unauthorised or erroneous transactions".

Mr Beer says it is implicit in the statement that Fujitsu had remote access to Horizon - meaning individual post office accounting systems could be accessed.

"I don't believe that I understood that degree of detail," she says.

"At the time, I had been promoted to managing director just a few months previously, and this was the first time I had come across an IT audit.

"I accept fully that this is what the document said, how much of that I really understood at the time, I'm not sure."