A former minister of the Postal Service has stated that it was a mistake for the government to not intervene while executives of the Postal Service were developing their legal defense of the defective Horizon information technology system against a lawsuit that was launched by branch owner-operators. The lawsuit filed by the branch owner-operators was regarding the defective Horizon system. In the end, the defense was not considered successful.
During the public inquiry into the information technology system, Margot James, who held the position from the middle of 2016 until the beginning of 2018, when Sir Alan Bates and 554 other prosecuted post office operators brought the case to clear their names, stated that she should not have adhered to the line that was adopted by the executives and UK Government Investments, the body that manages state-owned assets. James’s statement was made during the conclusion of the investigation.
Through the course of their argument, the Post Office and the Government of the United Kingdom contended that the litigation and defense strategy were operational matters that the government needed to leave alone until the court case had completed its course of action.
After the public hearing that took place on Wednesday, she made the following statement: “There is a strong argument that we should have delved more closely into operational matters, especially when they involved group litigation.”
According to the information that was presented to me, the resolution of the complaints was not a matter that the government was responsible for; rather, the court was permitted to make the decision about the matter. In spite of the fact that I had demonstrated a shocking lack of skepticism at the time, I was of the belief that such a position was not flawed in any way.
The manner in which the Post Office was behaving itself made it very evident that this was something that ought to have been a matter for the government, which is the owner of the Post Office. I was able to confront the Post Office board in private despite the fact that I abstained from making any public comments. This did not prohibit me from doing so. When I look back on it, I wish that I had been more driven to complete the task than I actually could have been.
James has voiced her displeasure with the lack of information that has been supplied by both the United Kingdom Government and the United States Postal Service. Her statement was that she was not aware of the increasing number of investigations that were commissioned internally and demonstrated that the Horizon information technology system was to blame for branch deficits rather than post office workers. She maintained that she was not notified of these findings.
In the event that we had been in possession of the information that was detailed in those reports, we would not have been in the predicament that we found ourselves in at that particular instant in time. During the hearing, she made the following statement: “[We] would have been all over it demanding change.” “I have come to the conclusion that they were intentionally withheld from me.”
It was the forensic investigators from Second Sight who brought her notice to two key reports; nevertheless, she claimed that she had never sought to examine them over the course of the investigation. When she made the statement, “I should have asked for… [they],” it was likely that I had committed the most crucial mistake of my whole life.
During the period that she was in office, James indicated that she inquired about Horizon’s troubles on a few occasions. Despite the fact that she was beginning to have growing doubts that she was not being supplied with a complete picture of the situation, she maintained her position. On the other hand, she had the impression that she was “fobbed off” when she initially brought up the topic.
“The Post Office was very good at presenting themselves as the victim,” according to her statement. “The Post Office’s demeanor was that they were very good at doing that.” After some time had passed, I came to the understanding that Horizon was the absolute last topic that the board of directors of the Post Office or the chief executive ever wanted to discuss. This was the case, even though they had been discussing it for quite some time. They were unwilling to explore it in further depth, which was a sign of their hesitation.
On the other hand, James’s first meeting with Paula Vennells, who formerly held the position of chief executive officer of the Post Office from 2012 to 2019, did not include a discussion of Horizon.
“Had my initial briefing pack contained a comprehensive briefing on the Horizon issue, I would have definitely expected to cover it in my first meeting with the chief executive,” she stated in addition. “It should have been a priority for me to address this matter.”
James admitted that she did not inquire about any members of parliament who were campaigning on behalf of the post office operators, any previous parliamentary discussions that were held over Horizon, or any ministerial remarks that were made addressing the matter during the time that she was appointed as minister. She has also admitted that she did not inquire about any ministerial remarks that were made regarding the matter.
During the hearing, she said, “I’m afraid I didn’t ask about any of these things,” which she said. “It would have been fantastic to ask for all of these things, but I didn’t ask about any of them.”