BEIS0001197
BEIS0001197
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Post Office Compensation Programme Board Minutes
Chair: Rob Brightwell
06 July 2023 — 10:00 - 11:00
Programme Board Members:
Rob Brightwell (RB) — Chair (deputising for Carl Creswell) Deputy Director, DBT Post Office Policy
Ciara Lawrence (CL) — Senior Policy Advisor, DBT Post Office Policy (deputising for Beth White)
Eleri Wones (EWo) - DBT Legal (deputising for Patrick Kilgarriff)
Kirsty Wedderspoon (KW) - Deputy Director, DBT Finance
Matt Barnes (MB) - Head of Business & Trade Spending and Strategy, HMT (deputising for Joshua
Fleming)
Ellen Wasden (EWa) - Senior Economist, DBT (deputising for Monique Ebell)
Other Attendees:
Milo Kershaw (MK) - Policy Advisor, Business and Trade Spending, HMT (Observer)
Joshua Scott (JS) - Head of GLO Compensation, DBT (Observer)
Diane Wills (DW) — Head of Legal, Remediation Unit, POL (deputising for Simon Recaldin) (Observer)
Rob Mackie (RM) - Executive Director, UKGI (Observer)
James Gourlay (JG) - Assistant Director, UKGI (Observer)
Martin Gunther (MG) — Analyst, DBT (Observer)
Rachel Evans — Analyst, DBT (Observer)
Emily Snow - Senior Policy Advisor, DBT Post Office Policy (Observer)
Apologi
Carl Creswell (CC) - Chair - Director, Business Resilience, DBT
Beth White (BW) - Deputy Director, DBT Post Office Policy
Patrick Kilgarriff (PK) - Director, DBT Legal
Monique Ebell (ME) - Deputy Director, Business Resilience and Industry Sectors Analysis, DBT
Joshua Fleming (JF) - Deputy Director, HMT
Simon Recaldin (SR) — Remediation Unit, POL
Note:
Agenda Item Discussion, Actions and Decisions
1. Scheme Data IRB presented the scheme data, noting it was slightly out-of-date. The
slide should be updated to include date at which data is accurate (RB
action).
IEWa updated that the plan is still to publish scheme data online but
lhad been de-prioritised. Action: EWa and RB to discuss when to
publish.
2. Upcoming events _ Subsumed into strategic communications item.
3. Cross-cutting issues [RB noted the issue on family members will be covered in the meeting;
IIHT issue had been resolved.
IRM raised the issue of GLO de minimis. RB updated the Board on the
advice and stated there needs to be decisions on whether to continue
imaking offers where there may be a change in policy. Action: JS to
confirm GLO DM is included in the issues list.
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
BEIS0001197
BEIS0001197
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
IEWo raised there are some tentative issues in the list which need to be
looked at closely. RB agreed this was the function of the Board.
4.
Strategic
communications
plan
ICL presented the slides.
(Objectives, key messages, stakeholder groups
IEWo suggested unrepresented claimants should be a stakeholder to
jengage, RB agreed but not necessarily strategically.
IRM suggested amending the objective on encouraging claims should
be updated to capture ‘claims and appeals’. Action: James Lovesey to
lupdate.
IRM asked to include measures to track success/that behaviours are
hanging. Action: James Lovesey to add a measure to each objective,
jone may be to gather feedback from stakeholder groups.
IMK asked about the HMT funding condition attached to the HSS tax
lapproval on reviewing all issues raised by Inquiry or Advisory Board. CL
explained it is closely linked to the issues list, which could be amended
to add the tracking of where the criticism was raised and the rationale.
Action: JS to pick up with PB WG; RB to add closer look at the issues
ist as agenda item for next meeting.
IMilestones/comms moments
(CL spoke through and explained both micro and macro are covered as
the Minister would like to keep updating on progress. RB made clear
ithe slide is live and has changed.
IG suggested to add Postmaster Detriment. Action: CL/Harry
Fallowfield to add.
(CL explained comms moments are often pitched at a scheme level (e.g.
imilestone) but refer back to the wider strategic purpose (i.e. the
IMinister’s commitment to full and fair compensation).
Areas of criticism
ICL presented. JG suggested adding the longer-term Inquiry timetable
land at a lower level what the expected criticisms and how to response.
Action: to review through the issues list as the ‘lower level’ - JS and
IPB WG to review areas of criticism against the issues list to
align/enable working towards a response.
Stakeholders
IRB noted a further group, claimant advisers. The Board agreed that
IDBT and POL should align their communications, especially to claimant
ladvisers. Examples include approach to policy issues such as GLO
(deductions or LoE calculations — there should be a clear and consistent
jmessage for POL schemes and DBT schemes.
5.
Family members
CL presented the slides, covering:
- Objectives
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
BEIS0001197
BEIS0001197
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
- Risks
- Options:
1. Donothing
Small scale option (personal injury)
3. Medium scale option (personal injury and/or financial losses
unrelated to personal injury)
4. Large scale option (personal injury or financial losses unrelated
to personal injury or non-financial losses)
Ld
IRB noted there is one high profile case in the GLO and that the
Minister may not wish to ‘do nothing’. CL explained the views of CC
land BW (not in attendance), that there is a low likelihood that there is
jegal liability and the focus is on the policy objective to compensate
jpostmasters.
KL explained that there are difficulties aligning with Windrush as the
scheme generally has lower thresholds for both primary claimants and
family members. RM and DW raised there will be severe family
members cases within POL Horizon and there would need to be
analysis to decide what is proportionate.
[The Board generally agreed that if the intervention was pursued,
joption 2 feels the most viable, as options 3 and 4 are too wide. RM
raised that VfM and costs are different and that VfM should be
captured as pursuing benefits (such as addressing potential criticism
land closing off claims). EWo noted that VfM is not an objective but an
aim in all projects.
[Members noted that, regardless of the option chosen, it would be
Kdifficult to maintain the position. ‘Do nothing’ may be unsustainable;
land the other options present difficulties in where to draw thresholds
for compensation. JS raised there would be a risk of needing to
backtrack in the ‘small scale’ option (option 2) and EWo noted the
issue of retro-fitting according to the Windrush approach.
IEWo commented that legal advisers will be aware of the legal principle
lbut may be pushing the policy point.
Action: the group to give Ciara Lawrence any further feedback.
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE