Getty Images
The appearance of former Post Office boss Paula Vennells at the inquiry was eagerly awaited
After months of evidence, the postal inquiry heard its final witnesses this week.
Final statements will follow next month before the inquiry's chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, publishes his final report next year.
Much of the evidence focused on who knew what and when, so what did we learn from the key players? And what questions still remain to be answered?
What did Paula Vennells know about computer problems?
Key moments from Paula Vennells' three days of questioning at the Post Office investigation
Paula Vennells was chief executive of the Post Office from 2012 to 2019. Her appearance before the inquiry, over three days in May, was eagerly awaited.
The key questions were: what did she know about the problems with Horizon and when did she discover them?
In the end, we had a lot of tears, as she repeatedly seemed to wilt under probing questions but few concrete answers. She claimed there was a lot she didn't remember, and even more, she said she was never told.
“You are not responsible for everything that happens under your command. We must rely on the advice of internal and external experts,” she maintained.
A lawyer for the subpostmasters accused her of living in “a cloud of denial.” The inquiry's lead lawyer asked her sardonically if she was “the unluckiest CEO in history.”
Many questions have been asked about whether she has focused more on protecting the Post Office brand than that of her employees, with her attitude to media coverage under the spotlight.
We saw scathing text messages from Dame Moya Greene, the former director of Royal Mail, who questioned Ms Vennells' honesty. But amid all the tears and apologies, there were few certainties.
Yet those three days of embarrassing testimony and a 775-page witness statement will still provide plenty of food for thought for Sir Wyn as he prepares his report.
When did Fujitsu become aware of the issues with expert witnesses?
Getty Images
Few people played a more crucial role in the Post Office scandal than Gareth Jenkins. Fujitsu's lead engineer helped build the flawed Horizon system and provided expert evidence in several court cases, testifying that the system was robust.
In July 2013, the Post received an explosive legal opinion that Mr. Jenkins had “manifestly failed in his duty as an expert witness,” which placed the Post “in breach of its duty as prosecutor.”
After that, the Post suspended its prosecution and decided to replace Mr. Jenkins as an expert witness. Which Fujitsu executives knew about it?
Questioned at the inquest, former Fujitsu chief executive Duncan Tait said he could not recall ever being informed of any problems with Mr Jenkins.
However, a November 2013 Post Office briefing seen by the BBC suggests that Post Office executives were considering raising the issue of Gareth Jenkins with him, and that a subsequent meeting had been planned between Fujitsu and the Post Office to discuss the search for “an independent expert”. to testify about the Horizon system.
If Fujitsu executives were aware of concerns about Mr. Jenkins' past testimony, it raises serious questions about why Fujitsu used Mr. Jenkins in the 2019 Bates v. Post Office trial. 'ever appeared as an expert witness, he provided behind-the-scenes technical support and information to other witnesses.
What did politicians know?
Getty Images
Kemi Badenoch claimed officials gave him a 'vanilla view of what's happening'
How much did politicians in positions of power know what was happening at the Post Office? Not enough, most investigators said.
Several said that the Postal managers they met with or the civil servants did not give them a true picture of the situation. Former minister Jo Swinson told the inquiry she has since discovered what was really happening during her time in office and realized it was “actually the opposite of what I had been told”.
New Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has complained that when she was business secretary, civil servants gave her a “vague view of what was happening”.
Another theme that emerged was that people didn't stay in their positions long enough and weren't transferred properly. Ministers would come into office without knowing the challenges of Horizon – and just as they began to understand them, an election or reshuffle would occur and they would leave office.
One of the lawyers representing the deputy postmasters highlighted the problems caused by this “revolving door of ministers”, listing the eight business secretaries in the last five years alone.
All the politicians who participated in the survey had reasons why they were not responsible for not doing more while in office.
But they couldn't pretend they were completely oblivious – campaigners and MPs were begging them to pressure the Post Office for answers about Horizon.
As Jo Swinson said in her testimony: “I asked myself why didn’t I push harder?
What future for Horizon and La Poste?
The investigation also looked at the here and now. But what needs to change to prevent this scandal from happening again?
Horizon is still in branch. This week we learned that there are currently 16 bugs in the system.
The European boss of Fujitsu said he was “very worried” about any extension of a project which should have been abandoned long ago. He even refused to confirm whether the company was able to produce reliable accounts.
However, in an extraordinary admission, Paul Patterson revealed that the Post Office contacted him on his way to the investigation room to ask if they could use him for another four years.
Sir Wyn also questioned witnesses about how the Post Office should be run, and whether it is even worth saving.
The new boss took the plunge somewhat by announcing his plans this week. Nigel Railton said their aim was to put subpostmasters at the “heart” of the business. This could involve job cuts and branch closures.
The problem ? One: Deputy postmasters have heard this before. Two: money. These plans depend on government cash. Replacing Horizon will be particularly expensive.
Post office bosses claim to have had “positive” discussions with the government. But as the saying goes, talking costs nothing.
Kemi Badenoch warned the inquiry that the organization would always lose out if it had to compete with the NHS or schools for funding.
What the survey says about the future could be just as consequential as what it says about the past.
Reporting by Theo Leggett, Nalini Sivathasan, Tom Beal and Peter Ruddick
