And Corporate.
2 Likes
Respectfully HH, I don’t think I used a wide brush here and the likes of the financial media and the stock market illustrate corporate failures of even greater scale and impact. The PO had many issues before it post separation, including developing it in to a financial services business offering products from commercial tie-ups with other providers, often seizing on opportunity from the mainstream banks thinning their networks. But, and I stand by this, if you don’t have strong foundations (e.g. a robust IT system) and management & control structures (with a wide gene pool of experience), you’re building on pillars of sand.
IMHO, there are so many weird things about the construct of the PO e.g. why HMG saw fit to have it as an arm’s length report, with only one non-exec director.
It’ll be interesting to listen to more today, and learn whether JB KC was simply setting down some testimony which may be challenged, even repudiated, today?
4 Likes
You are, Ian, assuming that you pay Income Tax! She is almost certainly funded, directly or indirectly, by HM Treasury.
Any witness to such an Inquiry is entitled to receive public funding for legal advice and/or representation.
1 Like
Indeed. I’m off watching the mirror.
Thanks. It was your line ‘Of course, the genesis of all this was the public sector-style procurement of Horizon in the first instance.’ that rankled, as it does rather suggest that the ‘style’ of procurement that lead to the buying a duff product. I’m not sure what exactly ‘public-sector’ style might mean. I’d suggest that the public sector procures in a far more rigorous way - or at least councils do, but the less we say about central government the better, PPE anyone? I was at the PO the other day and there were a couple of bags on the desk with Horizon labels attached. It’s very much still in use and therefore Fujitsu will still be being paid for use of a system they brought so much misery.
1 Like
Should it be taxable as a benefit in kind?
Probably, but it won’t.
I watched chunks yesterday. For somone who had so long to prepare, and presumably a considerable amount of professional advice and coaching, I thought she was a poor witness.
She struck me as hesitant and weak. I struggled to imagine her as an effective leader of a large complex organisation. Perhaps we saw only one version but I seriously wondered if she could really handle the post, whether she was able to make decisions or challenge behaviours as the issues emerged. I wonder if rather more dynamic individuals just bypassed or ignored her? This is not to abdicate her from responsibility, just an observation. Perhaps this was the mpression she wished to convey, but I am not sure.
She struck me as actually trying to have good intentions but above all rather weak. Ms van den Bogerd rather the reverse in her evidence. I am basing this on watching parts of the enquiry, not the dramatisation; although those characterisations are pretty pervasive!
She is far from the only witness to appear incompetent. The PO lawyer who said he did not know how to save or print an email comes to mind.
Bruce
4 Likes
I’d suggest reading the background to the commissioning of Horizon, which was described as ‘the largest non-military IT project in Europe’ (or somesuch), this due to the complexity of the PO’s operations, coupled with the need for modular flexibility. They have far more complicated needs than (say) a large commercial bank, which tends to develop standalone systems for regulatory reporting et al. Thing was, there is strong evidence the contract award was heavily central govt. influenced – and you, of course, are entirely correct to delineate between central and local here.
Anyhow, we’re off-piste here – not even the scriptwriters of the The Thick of It, Yes Minister/PM and other quality political comedies (equally ironic commentaries) could have come up with something so bizarre as it’s now playing out.
2 Likes
I’m fascinated by how the thing has got this far with people wondering whether there will be prosecutions when there appears to be not a single eye on the other huge failing in this case i.e. that of the justice system from start to end.
Here you have multiple people convicted of the theft of money and lots of people wringing their hands about the perils of trusting IT but no-one asking how on earth those prosecutions ever got to court or to conviction.
If someone steals money then the easiest way to show that is through showing it to be in their possession. Here you have IT showing a shortfall. Okay, so where is the actual money? If it was electronic then was it transferred and, if so, to where? If it was paper money then where is it? I see zero evidence the PO investigators ever found 1 pence of “stolen” cash. There’s no “beyond reasonable doubt” or even “on the balance of probabilities” here. There was literally no case and yet…
How on earth does such an awful case get to court? How on earth does every single court manage to overlook such a fundamental and obvious issue?
I’m married to a judge. I work with the law daily. I’m very much pro the judiciary. Here though is a major and repeated failure of the most basic kind and no-one wants to look at it. It’s indefensible but the focus is so much on blaming individuals that no-one wants to look at what went so fundamentally wrong with the legal process again and again.
2 Likes
That’s a big issue for sure but two things.
Of course many were guilty in that they did alter the accounts in trying to make them balance and they did have contracts that made them responsible for deficits etc. The problem was being unable to show convincing explanations for the apparent fraud to exonerate themselves.
Also many pleaded guilty to lesser charges and were punished accordingly, so their cases were not put to trial. The way these pleas were advised is another matter.
The way that the cases accumulated without being examined critically en masse, the funding issues for Bates et all in this sort of litigation and many other things relating ro the Court processes need serious scrutiny without doubt. Not sure this will be part of the enquiry?
Bruce
2 Likes
I think you’ll find this general matter will be the subject of output from the Inquiry, as they’ve heard from prosecuting barristers about the challenges involved in framing things (perhaps poor words!) and, equally, how ineffective defence positions have been, the latter limited by access to resources.
You’re right @BruceW in that they avoided theft charges because false accounting was easier given the many sign offs after a failure to reconcile. That’s worrying on many levels.
Firstly, when the PO started coming across these on their helpline the correct reaction ought to have been to send in genuine investigators rather than ones predisposed to theft and no other option.
However, not one defence solicitor made the point that the courts were talking about money which didn’t exist. Money which could not be found in POs; in sub-masters homes; in money transfers etc. and not one disputed the assumption of theft which lay behind the charge of false accounting. Not one asked why the PO investigators didn’t follow the money. Not one posed the question as to why the PO thought increasing amounts of false accounting required prosecution rather than an investigation as to why their accounting processes could allow that to repeatedly happen.
It won’t be part of the current process but the legal profession is getting off very lightly here and yet the same lack of curiosity accusation being thrown at senior PO staff applies equally here.
Interesting to me partly because of Mrs. H. day job and partly because of my own. I handle recoverable benefit overpayment appeals regularly and tend to win easily. Occasionally these come with accusations of fraud and we have to work hand in hand with solicitors/barristers handling that element. It is genuinely scary the number of times they assume that any accusation of a failure to disclose is simply indisputable and thus they start from the perspective that the person should simply plead guilty. I have had to step in repeatedly to point out that there isn’t even evidence of failure let alone fraud.
When we occasionally see major individual fraud cases in the media I’m afraid the reaction of myself and colleagues is rarely that benefit fraud has taken place. More likely in our experience that they have been very poorly represented. Indeed I can think of several convictions over the years where you wonder how it even got near a court without some significant degree of legal incompetence being involved. That’s not to disrespect the legal profession as there are many complex issues at play and in other areas we have repeated and astonishingly good outcomes.
We kind of assume solicitors et al know the law but they often don’t. What I see here is a conspicuous and repeated failure to gather basic evidence and to even offer up a question mark.
8 Likes
Great post, thanks Mike
I have in recent years had considerable experience of Solicitors and Barristers in criminal Courts. I no longer assume they know what they are talking about, or indeed have integrity. Most perhaps but definitely not all.
Bruce
2 Likes
Presumably PV and her lawyers have decided that the penalty for ineptitude is likely to be less than that for cynical mismanagement and persecution of the innocent…
1 Like
I bet she’s absolutely delighted that she’s been knocked off the headlines by another newsworthy item.
7 Likes
One has to wonder what was in the 775 page witness statement PV provided (that took 7 months to write), when there are clearly numerous facts she claims not to have known about.
2 Likes
Lookout! I had a very similar post (made at around 5.25pm yesterday) removed.
I think JB answered that yesterday, when he said the comments in the WS only spoke around the documents she’d been provided with, and not around filling in the gaps to aid understandings.
1 Like
Actually yes, I do recall JB saying that!
1 Like
Staggering to hear that legal advice (from a QC) suggested that a wide-ranging review of Horizon (and the prosecutions) could open up the PO to issues they may not wish to face, when the core issue (for business assurance) is to make sure your key operating platform isn’t spewing out erroneous outputs – which they should have already of known about through their own business controls and experiences.
At every turn IMV, PO management appear to have gone ‘the wrong way’, and simply dug the hole deeper.
7 Likes