BEIS0001190
BEIS0001190
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Post Office Compensation Programme Board Note
Chai
‘arl Cresswell Date: 25/04/23 — 09.00:10.00
Attendees:
DBT: Carl Creswell (CC), Rob Brightwell (RB), Eleri Wones (EW), Joel Miah (JM,) Katie Mitchell (KM),
Josh Scott (JS), Patrick Kilgarriff (PK), Kirsty Wedderspoon (KW), Ellen Wasden (EW), Beth White
(BW), Eleanor Brooks (EB), Monique Ebell (ME)
External: Josh Fleming [JF] (HMT), Tom Cooper [TC] (UKGI), James Gourlay [JG] (UKGI), Robert
Mackie [RM] (UKGI), Loran Gratton [LG] (UKGI), Simon Recaldin [SR] (POL)
Note:
Agenda Item
Discussion, Actions and Decisions
0. Introduction
CC began welcomed attendees. Explained that the purpose of the board would
be to focus on cross cutting issues, in response to comments from the Gateway
Review and Inquiry.
1. Board Terms
of Reference
CC provided a summary of the Terms of Reference. The Programme Board agreed
its inception would help provide a level of consistency across schemes.
LG suggested the ToR language should focus on resolving substantive policy
issues, and away from comms issues. RB agreed but highlighted the residual risk
on media coverage on actual and perceived success across all schemes. SR
encouraged the ToR to reflect consistency of outcome, as well as process.
JF suggested that the Programme Board be kept up to date on the progress and
substance of the Inquiry and what that might imply for solving outstanding issues
or revisiting aspects of the scheme.
2. Review of
RB asked the group if there is anything further that could be added to this section
media of the presentation. CC agreed, the third bullet “Case for Fujitsu to contribute to
coverage the costs of compensation” should remain in the pack.
3. Cross-cutting I RB put forward to the group the questions outlined in the paper.
issues
Anything missing?
LG asked if there was value in categorising issues — for example by fairness, delay
or consistency. Each required the team to do something different. A view can be
taken on which to solve first.
PK questioned if something could be included around dispute resolution, how
you get to a best and final offer and if this can be contrasted between the
schemes.
Action: Produce Document outlining the contrast of dispute resolution systems
between schemes.
RAG Ratings Discussion
LG shared the view that the RAG Ratings do not quite capture the action of
whether something should be done to address the issue in question. LG added
further that it shows the position of the media’s view on the given issue - not
whether we are going to defend our position because we think it's the right one.
BEIS0001190
BEIS0001190
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
EB suggested the addition of a new column, with conclusions, recommendations
and next steps, it would enable the capturing of Programme Board’s views on
whether we need to act and if so which mitigation to pursue.
Action: Add conclusions, recommendations and next steps columns to the issues
tracker.
JF expressed finding issue 18 to be broad, and that specific examples already
exist elsewhere in the list. JF added that differences in the principles shouldn’t be
underestimated in getting attention from the media. A suggestion was to focus
on identifying the specific differences and providing a strong justification for each
difference.
Action: Highlight specific Policy differences between schemes, and justify those
differences, with additional narrative.
KW queried if post mitigation RAG ratings were being captured — the view was
that it would be a helpful way to prioritise action. A further question was asked
around what the RAG rating itself was achieving, was there a residual level of risk
that the group would be comfortable with?
Action: Capture the issues list in the format of a risk log, outlining RAG targets,
residual risk appetite, etc.
Issues to be considered for early Advisory Board (AB) Discussion
RB kicked off with the following topics: Family Members, Tax, challenging and
hardship cases, inheritance tax and claimant support issues. RB asked the board if
these were suitable and for additions.
CC expressed that due to the AB being quite a post-master friendly forum. His
suggestion was to focus a little less on tax and focus on hardship and the other
items raised by RB.
Decision: Less focus on tax issue at the next advisory board.
JG stated the need to have a settled view to take to the AB. JG recommended
gathering more information for Issue 6, particularly around diversity and Issue 7,
while not being a DBT lead issue, AB would be interested in this area.
Action: Gather diversity information (Owner: Simon Recaldin).
LA supported Paul Marshall’s view, not being on silent on things that we are not
responsible for. LA recommended that steps are taken to get on the front foot
and influence the situation around Issue 2 - emotional submission to Inquiry from
claimant about way legal principles are applied.
Action: Explore levers of influence relating to issue 2.
RB shared that ways of communicating with the AB are being though through.
e.g., via correspondence.
BEIS0001190
BEIS0001190
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
CC expressed some concern that evidential discounting may cause some
problems in the future.
Upcoming N/A
events
Compensation I KM provided a top-level summary of the topic.
for Family
Members RB stated that there isn’t any wide-scale justification. Also, that it is a good
barometer that they are yet to feel any political pressure.
RB Added that If it was just the one case, a fair offer could be made in all
circumstances of the case, which would not in theory take into account
circumstance of the family member but would provide a significant
compensation package — though RB was unsure if such an approach was
sustainable.
RB Continued, Option B — Identifying specific harms that would apply to a small
group of claimants. The hope was for single or low double digits, but no evidence
to base this on. Dealing with the salient GLO case was the driver for this.
CC was concerned that this could open the floodgates without fully
understanding the ramifications. CC recommended that this approach was to be
taken to the Permanent Secretary subject to further work.
JF highlighted that this could set a significant precedent for other schemes in the
future and would require careful legal analysis. From the DBT & HMT perspective,
it would be of importance for the Accounting Officer to understand the scaled of
legal liability under different options.
Action: Legal analysis of options for compensating family members.
PK cautioned the group to proceed carefully. Legal principles had been used to
approach compensation. PK shared that indirect losses are not “compensatable”
according to legal principles, so there exists a question around what principles
would be compensated upon. PK further associated additional risks with going
back and undoing things. An important aspect of being fair and reasonable was to
compensate and move on.
CC reminded the group that aims of compensation haven’t included family
members in the scope. The focus was on post-masters. Recommendation for the
Permanent Secretary and Director General to be sighted on the issue. Provide
balanced assessment of pros and cons.
Action: Communicate with Gareth Davies (PS) and David Bickerton (DG) issue of
family member compensation with balanced assessment of pros and cons.