Four things we learned from Post Office inquiry as former chair Tim Parker questioned
![](https://wp.inews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SEI_211386708.jpg?w=1200&h=675&crop=1)
Tim Parker, the former chairman of the Post Office gave evidence during the Horizon Inquiry on Wednesday.
Mr Parker, who was Post Office chairman between October 2015 to September 2022 after resigning just a few days before the launch of the inquiry, defended his role during his time at the organisation during the session. and issued an apology to the subpostmaters impacted by the scandal.
In particular, Mr Parker said the organisation had been in âdeep crisisâ when he took over as chair and claimed that the Horizon IT issue was âjust âone of a number of very significantâ.
He was also questioned on the Post Officeâs refusal to accept the overturned conviction of a former subpostmaster three years after they were cleared.
Mr Parker â who has held a swathe of business briefs including chair of the National Trust and His Majestyâs Courts and Tribunals Service â previously said he was âextremely sorryâ to those affected by the Horizon scandal and their families. He blamed âhistoric failuresâ on the scandal.
His evidence comes a week after Gareth Jenkins, a former senior engineer at Fujitsu was quizzed on the role he played in creating Horizon, the accounting system used by postmasters and postmistresses.
Post Office still rejects subpostmasterâs overturned conviction
The Post Office is refusing to accept the overturned conviction of a former subpostmaster three years after they were cleared, the Horizon Inquiry has heard.
According to Edward Henry KC, who has been representing Teju Adedayo throughout proceedings, the organisation provided a written submission to the inquiry which said it âdoes not acceptâ that the now-quashed conviction of Ms Adedayo from 2005 was âunsafeâ.
Ms Adedayo had falsely confessed to being responsible for the shortfalls at her post office in Kent to avoid the risk of ending up in prison. She was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing in 2021.
A quote from Post Officeâs submission was read out during the questioning of the organisationâs former chair, Tim Parker, on Wednesday.
Mr Henry asked Mr Parker his view on the Post Office âeffectively branding (Ms Adedayo) a criminal despite her conviction having been quashedâ.
Quoting the submission, he said: âThe inquiry will be aware that this (Ms Adedayoâs case) is the sole case study where the Post Office does not accept that the conviction was unsafeâ.
Mr Henry described it as a âvictimisationâ of his client and asked Mr Parker if he rejected it, to which he responded: âUnless I have got all the facts at my disposal ⌠I donât think you can expect me to deliver a black and white response on this.â
![Screen grab taken from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry of Tim Parker, former chair of Post Office Ltd, giving evidence to the inquiry at Aldwych House, central London, as part of phases five and six of the probe, which is looking at governance, redress and how the Post Office and others responded to the scandal. Picture date: Wednesday July 3, 2024. PA Photo. See PA story INQUIRY Horizon. Photo credit should read: Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry/PA Wire NOTE TO EDITORS: This handout photo may only be used for editorial reporting purposes for the contemporaneous illustration of events, things or the people in the image or facts mentioned in the caption. Reuse of the picture may require further permission from the copyright holder.](https://wp.inews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SEI_211386833.jpg?w=760)
He added: âIâm no longer obviously at the Post Office which precludes me a little bit from knowing what all the background is.â
Mr Parker was appointed chair of Post Office Ltd in October 2015 and held the position until he resigned on 30 September 2022.
He joined the organisation in the midst of an ongoing dispute between the company and numerous subpostmasters regarding its Horizon computer system.
More than 700 subpostmasters were prosecuted by the Post Office and handed criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 as Fujitsuâs faulty Horizon IT system made it appear as though money was missing at their branches.
Speaking at the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Parker said: âToday I was toying with making an opening statement. Stand up, you say, âIâm deeply, deeply sorryâ as many people have done, and there ensued a discussion with people.
âShould I do this? Because I would like to say sorry. And the response I got was that âwell you could do this but actually people have kind of got a bit tired of that and it all rings a bit hollow and youâre probably just going to annoy people more than give them any sense of your real desire to say sorryâ.â
Ex-chair could ânot recallâ being told of previous discussions to remove Vennells a year before he became chair
Mr Parker told the inquiry that he did ânot recallâ being told of discussions to remove Ms Vennells as CEO a year after he took over the chairmanship of the company.
Mr Parker was asked if any concerns were expressed to him about Ms Vennellâs performance and capabilities as CEO before he took on the role of chair in 2015 â to which he responded: âI donât recallâ.
The inquiry was shown a document from February 2014 that was presented to the Shareholder Executive â a now-defunct body previously responsible for managing the governmentâs financial interest in a range of state-owned businesses. It started: âAdvice from the recent annual review suggested that the Post Office team give careful consideration to the continued suitability of Paula Vennells as CEO.â
It continued: âThere is a general consensus that Paula is no longer the right person to lead the Post Office but justification is anecdotalâ and that the Shareholder Executive âexamine the options availableâ to them.
Mr Parker was shown more conclusions from the 2014 document which said Ms Vennells was ânot the optimum person to lead the Post Office to deliver its commercial strategyâ as she struggled to âmaintain good working relationshipsâ and âretain key staffâ.
The document suggested Ms Vennells be replaced some five years before she eventually stood down in 2019.
âI canât recall a conversation that I had about the capability of Paula Vennells at the time I became chair,â Mr Parker said, following the inquiryâs review of the document.
Asked again if he was aware of the concerns from shareholders and the board about Ms Vennellâs performance, and if he was told about the reservations by his successor, Mr Parker said: âThe honest answer to that is I canât remember.â
He said he met his predecessor Alice Perkins for lunch before taking over, but could ânot recallâ any formal handover.
Mr Parker added that when he took over: âMy impression looking back was that she was quite well thought of â so much so that a few years later she was made a non-executive director of the Cabinet Office.
âMy sort of feeling was that whatever my own views of her ability in terms of running a business, I didnât get the impression that there was some enormous doubt and that the starter for ten was âyou need to look at Paulaâ.â
Post Office was in âdeep crisisâ and was âabsorbing millions of pounds of taxpayer moneyâ
The former Post Office chair admitted that the business was in âdeep crisisâ when he took over as chair and claimed that the Horizon IT issue was âjust âone of a number of very significantâ problems he faced.
Addressing the commercial side of the Post Office, Mr Parker noted that Post Office has a turnover of âjust under a billion pounds which makes it a sort of medium-sized companyâ but said it was âan incredibly complex businessâ.
He said this complexity was due to âoperating over 11,500 sitesâ, offering a âwide range of productsâ, and dealing with cash â which added a security complication. He said this was furthered due to operating in the public sector.
He noted that when he was chair, the Post Office âfaced some very significant commercial challengesâ.
Mr Parker told the inquiry: âThis is a business that absorbed billions of pounds of taxpayersâ money and was still losing moneyâ.
The former chair said concerns raised about the Horizon IT system were just âone of a number of very significant and pressing issuesâ at the Post Office.
Upon arriving at the business, Mr Parker was informed by the Post Officeâs leadership team in a briefing note that it had been âinvestigating claims made by a small number of largely former postmasters that faults in the Horizon computer system were the cause of losses in their branchâ. It noted that, at the time, 136 people had raised concerns and 43 had been handed criminal convictions related to losses. He said ânothing had emerged to suggestâ that the Horizon IT system was âunsafeâ.
While Mr Parker admitted to the inquiry that the concerns about the IT system were âan issueâ, he said he had to ask himself at the time âon how bigger scale is this issue?â
He said the Horizon system was doing âmillions of transactionsâ but âa few people who are complainingâ. This was âthe perspective youâre drawn to,â he said.
âI had no vested interest in trying to protect the Post Officeâ
Mr Parker later told the inquiry that he âhad no vested interest in trying to protect the Post Officeâ as he was quizzed about the Swift report â a secret investigation that may have helped wrongfully accused postmasters to prove their innocence, before it was ditched
Mr Parker was told by the government to review the Horizon situation in 2015, where he commissioned barrister Jonathan Swift to investigate. This was written in 2016 but was not publicly disclosed until 2022.
Mr Parker said there was no intention to hide the Swift report but noted that he was told it was a legally privileged document. Legal privilege protects confidential material from being disclosed to anyone other than a lawyer and their client.
Mr Parker at the time said he understood that the Swift report would investigate and make recommendations, at which point it would be shared.
He said he was advised that the document was legally privileged by the Post Officeâs top lawyer, Jane MacLeod.
âItâs one of my regrets that I got that advice and I took it,â he said.
The former chair was asked if Ms MacLeod advised his directly, to which he responded: âI canât confirm one way or the other.â
âI had no vested interest in trying to protect the Post Office,â he added.
He said had the Post Office shared the Swift report, it may have led to a different approach to High Court action which the the Post Office lost at the cost of ÂŁ100m.