The Post Office commissioned an inside report on the efficiency of its controversial Horizon system in 2010, setting out to give the software a clear bill of health by solely focusing on the positives amid claims subpostmasters had been being blamed and prosecuted for the accounting shortfalls it induced.
The newest listening to in section three of the Post Office scandal statutory public inquiry heard that the report’s creator didn’t even examine alleged issues with the software, however merely requested the IT workforce and workers from Fujitsu, the provider of the software, who reassured him it was dependable.
The report was commissioned after questions started to be requested about unexplained accounting shortfalls in Post Office branches and Computer Weekly revealed issues being skilled by subpostmasters, which they believed had been brought on by pc errors.
Between Horizon’s introduction in 1999 and up till 2014, greater than 700 subpostmasters and department staff had been prosecuted for theft and fraud after being blamed for the phantom losses. Hundreds had been prosecuted, with some despatched to jail, and hundreds misplaced large sums of cash, with many going bankrupt.
It was later proved within the High Court that pc errors trigger the shortfalls, and to date, 86 former subpostmasters have had wrongful convictions for fraud and theft overturned, with many extra anticipated.
There had been no phrases of reference for the report, which was instigated by then Post Office managing director David Smith, however it was made clear to head of product and department accounting (P&BA) Rod Ismay, who was tasked with finishing the report, that he ought to simply report on “positive reasons to be assured about Horizon” to give a clear bill of health to the software.
The Post Office had thought of an exterior assessment and report, in accordance to Ismay, however determined towards that for causes together with that folks would nonetheless have doubts over the system and ask questions regardless of the result, and that the businesses that might perform the audit would have “significant caveats” of their report, which might sow doubt about conclusions.
Merits thought of
Back in 2012, when the report was revealed, the Post Office mentioned it “actively considered the merits of an independent review”. “This has been purely from the perspective that we believe in Horizon, but that a review could help give others the same confidence that we have,” it mentioned. “Our decision between IT, legal, P&BA, security and press office [departments] has continued to be that no matter what opinions we obtain, people will still ask ‘what if’ and the defence will always ask questions that require answers beyond the report.”
It added: “Ernst & Young and Deloitte are both aware of the issue from the media, and we have discussed the pros and cons of reports with them. Both would propose significant caveats and would have limits on their ability to stand in court, therefore we have not pursued this further.”
Ismay agreed that he was “asked to present one side of the coin”, as inquiry barrister Jason Beer put it.
There had been no phrases of reference for the report, however Ismay mentioned: “I think I felt at the time that the question was quite clear: ‘Please can you list out the reasons for assurance?’” Ismay admitted he was given free rein to write what he wished, and solely gave reassurances on Horizon’s reliability.
During the listening to on the Post Office Horizon scandal statutory public inquiry, Ismay mentioned the Post Office stance on unexplained losses was that if there was no discernible error it was assumed to be brought on by the subpostmaster, both intentionally by theft or because of this of their errors.
He admitted that when he was head of Risk and Control on the Post Office, questions had been raised over an incident at a department, however his investigation into alleged pc issues amounted to asking the IT division and workers at Fujitsu, which provided the software, whether or not there was any basis to allegations of unreliability.
“I did ask a question into the team of, ‘Well, look, if we’ve got this allegation being made, is this – you know, is there a foundation to this?’,” mentioned Ismay. “And the very strong view coming to me from colleagues in the IT team at that time was that it was – there was no foundation to the allegation that had been made.”
When Ismay compiled his 2010 report, he used data from Fujitsu senior tech executive Gareth Jenkins. Beer requested him: “In what sense did you assume that asking the individual chargeable for designing and sustaining the system whether or not the system he had designed and maintained had integrity was in any manner goal?
Ismay mentioned: “People separate to Gareth who I asked the question of were telling me that it was reliable. So people within our own IT team. Gareth is saying the same here. Short of doing an audit, I don’t know what else I could have done, other than take those assertions from individuals. Now, I think the report should have said these are untested assertions, as in untested by me during the course of collating this report, and my report doesn’t say that.”
Ismay mentioned time stress and his workload had been to blame for this critical omission. Public inquiry chair Wyn Williams intervened. He mentioned: “I don’t wish to be crude, but some people call that a whitewash. Do you think that’s what you were engaged in?”
Ismay mentioned: “No, I think they – allegations had been made, but somebody like David Smith coming into the organisation wasn’t hearing – and he was finding his feet in the organisation.”
Williams replied: “But just telling him one side of the story was hardly educating him, was it?” Ismay mentioned: “That was what [David Smith] asked for.”
The inquiry questioned an assertation within the report that it was “compiled as an objective, internal review of [the Post Office’s] processes around branch accounting”. Beer requested Ismay: “Do you understand ‘objective’ to mean based on real facts, not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings, or not constrained by a pre-determined set of criteria?”
Ismay agreed to the understanding of the phrase. Beer responded: “This report was none of those things, was it?”
Benefit of reflection
Williams requested Ismay: “With the benefit of reflection, do you agree that the decision not to commission a fully independent investigation and audit of the Horizon System in 2010 and, instead, for you to prepare a report that had as its object to demonstrate the robustness and reliability of Horizon, was a crass mistake?”
Ismay agreed that an unbiased report ought to have been accomplished.
The Post Office repeatedly claimed there have been no errors within the Horizon system that had been inflicting unexplained department losses and continued to prosecute subpostmasters, and demanded that any losses at any department had been coated by them.
Investigation
In 2009, Computer Weekly revealed an investigation into the issues skilled by seven subpostmasters who had been utilizing Horizon. The Post Office told every of them that no one else was experiencing issues and coated up the pc errors. It’s a typical grievance of subpostmasters that the helpdesk didn’t assist them examine unexplained accounting shortfalls.
Earlier in section three of the general public inquiry, it was revealed that senior Post Office executives told workers as half of its inside messaging not to reveal issues brought on by its Horizon IT system, due to considerations the organisation would face critical enterprise and authorized difficulties.
Shaun Turner, a former executive working within the Post Office National Business Support Centre, which supported subpostmasters utilizing the controversial accounting system, mentioned he was conscious “as a general theme” of considerations within the organisation that if the issues had been recognized it could trigger an absence of confidence in Horizon.
“From my recollection, the Computer Weekly article and the early days of the [campaign group] Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance were certainly things that were mentioned in the business, and where messaging was coming out to internal staff, like myself, around the robust nature of Horizon.”
He mentioned he doesn’t keep in mind particularly the place the messages had been coming from, however that they had been from the highest of the organisation: “My impression was that messaging was coming from senior leadership. I imagine that messaging was coming from board level down.”
When an unbiased report into the reliability of the Horizon system was lastly commissioned by the Post Office in 2012 after stress from MPs, work accomplished by forensic accountancy agency Second Sight revealed main issues with the software, processes and know-how supporting it. When Second Sight started to get to the reality, the Post Office sacked the corporate.
…. to be continued
Read the Original Article
Copyright for syndicated content material belongs to the linked Source : Computer Weekly – https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366537461/Post-Office-executive-produced-one-sided-report-giving-Horizon-system-a-false-bill-of-heath