Who knew what and when? | EUROtoday

After months of proof, the Post Office Inquiry heard from its closing witnesses this week.

Closing statements will comply with subsequent month earlier than inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams publishes his closing report subsequent yr.

Much of the proof centred round who knew what and when, so what did we study from the important thing gamers? And what questions nonetheless should be answered?

Paula Vennells was the chief govt of the Post Office from 2012 to 2019. Her look earlier than the inquiry, over three days in May, was hotly anticipated.

The key questions had been: what did she find out about issues with Horizon, and when did she discover out about them?

In the top, we obtained loads of tears, as she appeared to repeatedly wilt beneath probing questioning, however few concrete solutions. There was an important deal she claimed she couldn’t keep in mind, and much more she mentioned she had by no means been advised.

“You are not responsible for everything that happens underneath you. You have to rely on the advice of internal and external experts,” she argued.

A lawyer for the sub-postmasters accused her of residing in “a cloud of denial”. The inquiry’s personal lead counsel requested sardonically whether or not she was “the unluckiest CEO in history”.

There had been a number of questions on whether or not she had been extra targeted on defending the Post Office model than its folks, together with her perspective in direction of press protection positioned beneath a harsh highlight.

We noticed scathing textual content messages from Dame Moya Greene, the previous head of Royal Mail, which solid doubt on Ms Vennells’ honesty. But amid all of the tears and apologies, there have been few certainties.

Yet these three days of awkward testimony, and a 775-page witness assertion, will nonetheless present loads of meals for thought for Sir Wyn as he prepares his report.

Few folks performed a extra pivotal function than Gareth Jenkins within the Post Office scandal. The senior engineer from Fujitsu helped construct the flawed Horizon system and offered skilled proof in a number of courtroom instances testifying that the system was sturdy.

In July 2013 the Post Office acquired bombshell authorized recommendation that Mr Jenkins was “in plain breach of his duty as an expert witness”, and this put the Post Office “in breach of its duty as a prosecutor”.

After this the Post Office paused its prosecutions and decided to replace Mr Jenkins as an expert witness. Which Fujitsu executives knew about this?

When asked at the inquiry, former Fujitsu chief executive Duncan Tait said he had never recalled being told of any issues with Mr Jenkins.

However, a Post Office briefing from November 2013 seen by the BBC means that Post Office executives did plan to boost the problem of Gareth Jenkins with him, and a subsequent assembly had been deliberate between Fujitsu and the Post Office to debate discovering “an independent expert to give evidence about the Horizon system”.

If Fujitsu executives knew about concerns over Mr Jenkins’ past evidence, it raises serious questions about why Fujitsu used Mr Jenkins in the 2019 Bates v Post Office trial. Although he never appeared as an expert witness, he provided behind-the-scenes technical support and information to other witnesses.

How much did politicians in positions of power know about what was going on at the Post Office? Not enough, most have told the inquiry.

Several said they weren’t given a true picture by the Post Office executives they met with, or by civil servants. Former Minster Jo Swinson told the inquiry she has since found out what was really happening during her time in power and realised it was “actually the opposite of what I was being told”.

New Conservative chief Kemi Badenoch complained that when she was enterprise secretary she was given the “vanilla view of what’s going on” from civil servants.

Another theme that has emerged is that individuals weren’t of their roles lengthy sufficient, and weren’t given correct handovers. Ministers would come into their posts with no data of the Horizon points – and simply as they had been starting to understand them, an election or a reshuffle would intervene and they might go away the function.

One of the barristers representing sub-postmasters pointed to the issues attributable to this “revolving door of ministers”, as he listed the eight enterprise secretaries within the final 5 years alone.

Every politician who got here to the inquiry had the explanation why they weren’t in charge for not doing extra throughout their time in energy.

But they couldn’t declare they had been completely oblivious – there have been campaigners and MPs pleading with them to push the Post Office for solutions on Horizon.

As Jo Swinson mentioned in her proof: “I have asked myself why did I not push harder?”

The inquiry has additionally been investigating the right here and now. But what wants to vary to stop this scandal from taking place once more?

Horizon remains to be in branches. This week, we discovered there are 16 bugs within the system proper now.

The European boss of Fujitsu mentioned he was “very worried” about any extension to a mission that ought to have been retired way back. He even refused to substantiate if it was in a position to produce dependable accounts.

However, in a unprecedented admission, Paul Patterson revealed the Post Office contacted him as he was heading into the inquiry room to ask if they may use it for one more 4 years.

Sir Wyn has additionally been asking witnesses about how the Post Office needs to be run, and even whether it is price saving in any respect.

The new boss jumped the gun considerably by saying his plans this week. Nigel Railton mentioned they’re all about placing sub-postmasters on the “heart” of the enterprise. It may contain job cuts and department closures.

The downside? One: sub-postmasters have heard this earlier than. Two: cash. These plans are depending on authorities money. Replacing Horizon can be notably costly.

Post Office bosses say they’ve had “positive” discussions with the federal government. But, because the saying goes, discuss is affordable.

Kemi Badenoch warned the inquiry that the organisation will at all times lose out if it has to compete with the NHS or colleges for funding.

What the inquiry says in regards to the future might be simply as consequential as what it says in regards to the previous.

Reporting by Theo Leggett, Nalini Sivathasan, Tom Beal and Peter Ruddick