 |
| Paula Vennells, CBE |
Paula Vennells has temporarily stepped down from her role on the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group.
An email dated 23 June from Anna McDonald, Secretary to the EIAG states Ms Vennells: "has taken a leave of absence as she engages with the BEIS Select Committee Review."
The two line email was a response to Tom Hedges, a church warden and former postmaster who queried Paula Vennells' fitness to advise on ethical matters, given her stewardship of the Post Office during what one MP has described as "one of the worst disasters in public life since the infected blood scandal". Ms McDonald told Mr Hedges: "The EIAG is not conducting an investigation into this matter."
It is curious that Paula Vennells' reason for taking a leave of absence from her position as an EIAG group member is engaging with a BEIS Select Committee "Review".
Ms Vennells was due to give oral evidence to the BEIS Select Committee Inquiry on 24 March. Covid-19 did for that. The new chair of the select committee wrote to Ms Vennells on 2 June asking her some excitingly direct questions. He requested her answers by 16 June.
Maybe the EIAG lady got confused between the Select Committee Inquiry and the government's promised upcoming Independent Review - and it is that which Ms Vennells is preparing for.
Either way, Paula Vennells, who has only spoken once in public about the Horizon scandal during her seven year tenure as Post Office CEO, is a woman under pressure.
She left the Post Office in 2019 ("And with that... she was gone"), slap bang in the middle of a litigation which was to take her organisation for more than a hundred million pounds in (ongoing) costs, fees and compensation. She had been at best misinformed or misadvised. At worst, she was complicit in a corporate cover-up which prolonged the agony for hundreds of people.
Ms Vennells' reward for running the Post Office was a CBE, millions of pounds in salary, and two cushy numbers - a non-executive position on the Cabinet Office board and the chairmanship of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
The new government has taken some steps to address this. Shortly after Martin Callanan was appointed as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the Lords, Ms Vennells was stood down from the Cabinet Office.
On 18 June, Lord Callanan also told his fellow peers:
"it would be very helpful if she would account much more fully in public for what she knew and for the actions that she took at the time. I have written to the Department of Health to make clear our position on her future. The Care Quality Commission is, I believe, looking at whether she is a fit and proper person for the role that she holds. I hope that it will conduct that review swiftly. Obviously, I cannot predict that, and it is not a matter directly for me, but I have written to the Department of Health to make my views clear."
I suspect, in that letter, he isn't giving her a massive thumbs up.
As the noble lord mentioned, further scrutiny of a sort is also being brought to bear via a Care Quality Commission investigation into whether Ms Vennells is a Fit and Proper Person (FPPR) to chair a large NHS Trust.
Six months after asking for the investigation to take place, and the same day Lord Callanan mentioned them in parliament, the CQC sent an email to Dr Alexander stating: “We are making some further enquiries with the trust and we will be discussing the referral at the next FPPR meeting on the 8 July 2020.”
Perhaps Lord Callanan's desire to move "swiftly" led to someone at the CQC pulling their finger out.
Bishop Alan washes his hands
As well as ministering to the sick in her NHS role, the Reverend Vennells is a non-stipendiary vicar in the Bromham Benefice in Bedfordshire. Alan Smith, the Bishop of St Albans, has recently been asked to explain why someone who is partially responsible for what has been described by a Labour shadow minister as possibly "the largest miscarriage of justice in our history", still gets to be held up as a paragon of moral virtue.
As well as complaining about Paula Vennells to the EIAG, Tom Hedges made a formal complaint directly to the Bishop. He spoke on 14 June about it on Radio 4's Sunday Programme. The Bishop of St Albans refused to be interviewed, but he did offer a statement, which was précised by the programme as follows:
"It is not my purpose in making this statement to defend or excuse the way that Post Office Limited was run. It is clear to me that these events, which have been reviewed by the High Court, were a terrible tragedy which have had an appalling effect on the lives of a large number of people, some of whom are still suffering.
The law - which I must apply when dealing with complaints against priests - only allows me to act on the basis of allegations, supported with evidence, of wrongdoing by the priest. My view, taken following legal advice, is that I cannot simply impute to Ms Vennells all of the failures found to have been committed by Post Office Limited.
The Church of England has a formal system by which complaints may be made against clergy. Complainants are required to furnish me with evidence of misconduct and to demonstrate a proper interest in bringing the complaint. If any formal complaints are made within those parameters, which are legally defined, I will consider them upon the evidence and make a decision."
The statement looks like it was drafted in close consultation with some half-decent lawyers and now it appears to be being sent to anyone who contacts Bishop Alan. I have the full text, which was sent to one complainant on 12 June. The complainant had originally been told by the Bishop to direct her complaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who passed the buck straight back to Bedforshire.
The full statement reads like a masterful exercise in simultaneous hand-washing and hand-wringing. Put on your best internal bishop's voice as you read:
"I am aware of the recent court action, with regard to Post Office Limited and the Horizon software system, which was brought by a number of individuals who are or were at one time employees of the company.
It is not my purpose in making this statement to defend or excuse the way that Post Office Limited was run. It is clear to me that these events, which have been reviewed by the High Court, were a terrible tragedy which have had an appalling effect on the lives of a large number of people, some of whom are still suffering.
I am the son of a former sub post-mistress, so I have a pretty shrewd idea of what it is to run a post office as it was a significant part of my childhood. I can only begin to imagine the extent to which the actions of the Post Office have affected and still affect the lives of many people. All those affected continue to be in my prayers.
I have maintained a close watch on developments and I note that Post Office Limited reached a settlement agreement with some of the plaintiffs. It is my understanding that the action taken was against Post Office Limited as a corporation and that no culpability was attributed to any specific individuals. Ms Vennells has made a personal apology. I am also aware that there are many legal processes still underway which I, and anyone else, would hesitate to pre-empt.
Ms Vennells is a Clerk in Holy Orders and is authorised to minister in the Diocese of St Albans. She is a self-supporting minister, meaning that she does not receive a stipend for carrying out her duties as a priest.
I have received correspondence from a number of people detailing what went wrong. Some of these describe events which took place before Ms Vennells worked for Post Office Ltd and for which she cannot be held responsible.
One of the significant factors in this case is that there is a difference between allegations made against Post Office Limited and allegations of personal wrongdoing by Ms Vennells. I entirely appreciate that the Chief Executive Officer is the lead officer in an organisation. However, the law - which I must apply when dealing with complaints against priests - only allows me to act on the basis of allegations, supported with evidence, of wrongdoing by the priest.
My view, taken following legal advice, is that I cannot simply impute to Ms Vennells all of the failures found to have been committed by Post Office Limited. If I were to do so, I would be making assumptions about the management practices at Post Office Limited, and of Ms Vennells’ state of knowledge throughout the period of this dispute.
I have to be conscious that, in an organisation of the size and complexity as the Post Office, the company is not simply a manifestation of the Chief Executive Officer’s personal will and diktat. Leaders, including the Chief Executive Officer, will be responsible to the Board, and knowledge and decision-making will be dispersed over a wide range of executives, department heads, professional advisers and contractors.
It is possible for complaints about clergy to be brought in relation to their secular or business lives. In such cases I must make decisions based on evidence of personal misconduct, and I cannot assume that evidence to exist, based solely on findings against a company.
The Church of England has a formal system by which complaints may be made against clergy. Complainants are required to furnish me with evidence of misconduct and to demonstrate a proper interest in bringing the complaint.
If any formal complaints are made within those parameters, which are legally defined, I will consider them upon the evidence and make a decision. To find the formal process please see:
+Alan St AlbansJune 2020"
The Bishop is essentially saying he realises the Post Office has done some horrible things and that Paula Vennells was in charge whilst it was doing some of those horrible things, but he doesn't know what personal culpability she has for those horrible things, so he has to shrug his shoulders and let her get on with it. Of course, he could always ask her what she did. Perhaps he'd prefer not to know.
Whatever, Ms Vennells is turning into a useful human shield. I suspect there are plenty of senior people within the Post Office, Fujitsu, and government who are as culpable as she is. They will point campaigners in her direction simply because it takes the heat off them.
That said, it would be a relatively simple thing for Paula Vennells to come out from behind the lawyers and explain herself.
I wonder why she doesn't?
**********************
This blog is entirely funded by donation. You can donate any amount through the secure payment portal I have set up for this purpose (click here for more info or to donate).
If you contribute £20 or more you will be added to the secret email list. This alerts you to the latest developments on this story before they happen, as well as links to new articles and stories, whether posted here on this blog or elsewhere. Thank you for your support.
This blog is entirely funded by donation. You can donate any amount through the secure payment portal I have set up for this purpose (click here for more info or to donate).
If you contribute £20 or more you will be added to the secret email list. This alerts you to the latest developments on this story before they happen, as well as links to new articles and stories, whether posted here on this blog or elsewhere. Thank you for your support.