PS 15/04-15/06
POL00006574
POL00006574
POST OFFICE LTD
SPARROW SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Project Sparrow Sub-Committee of the Board
held at 148 Old Street, London EC1V 9HQ on 18 February 2015
Present: Alice Perkins (AP) Chair
Alasdair Marnoch (AM) Non-Executive Director
Richard Callard (RC) Non-Executive Director
Paula Vennells (PV) CEO
In Attendance: Alwen Lyons (AL) Company Secretary
Belinda Crowe (BC) Programme Director, Project Sparrow
Jane Hill (JH) Head of Public Affairs
Jane MacLeod (JM) General Counsel
Tom Wechsler (TW) Programme Manager, Project Sparrow
Apologies: Chris Aujard (CA) General Counsel
PS 15/04 OPENING OF MEETING
A quorum being present, the Chair opened the meeting of the
Sparrow Sub-Committee (“the Committee”) and welcomed Belinda
Crowe, Jane Hill, Jane MacLeod and Tom Wechsler.
PS 15/05 PROJECT SPARROW
(a
(b
(¢
d
)
)
The Committee received an update on Project Sparrow following the
Parliamentary Select Committee meeting on the 3° February. JM
explained the background to the paper, which was asking the
Committee to authorise changes to the approach for managing the
issue.
The Committee discussed the Criminal Cases in the scheme and
supported the proposition that these should not be put forward for
mediation. The Committee received an update on the discussion with
the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and asked the
Business to consider how it could engage constructively with the
CCRC and under what circumstances it might share the report written
by Brain Altman QC.
The Committee discussed the proposal in detail as set out in
paragraph 3.3 of the paper. TW explained that there were a couple of
cases where the Business had agreed to proceed to mediation where
criminal proceedings had taken place but the applicant to the scheme
was not the guilty party. It was agreed that the decision whether or not
to mediate in such cases would be taken on an individual basis.
The Committee discussed the non-criminal cases and specifically the
cases (approximately 19) where it was considered mediation was
unlikely to reach a resolution. This could be for a number of reasons,
for example, the age of the case and therefore lack of evidence, or the
expectation gap on compensation. BC explained that the Centre for
POL00006574
POL00006574
Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) had reported a below national
average settlement rate in the first 11 cases mediated, and given the
significant proportion of cases where mediation was unlikely to
achieve resolution this rate was likely to remain low and could attract
negative comments.
The Committee agreed that if all non-criminal cases went to mediation
that there would be no future role for the Working Group which would
therefore be dissolved. There would need to be a clear plan for
managing the relationship with Sir Anthony Hooper. Second Sight
(SS) would continue to work with the Post Office but only in reviewing
cases where the applicant wished them to do so,
iS)
(f) It was agreed that Business would continue to support applicants by
offering them the services of SS, at a cost of circa £3000 per case.
The Committee asked if this would discharge the commitment made
by the Minister in Parliament. TW explained that the commitment
made 18 months ago was that ‘SS would be involved in the scheme’.
Their work over the fast 18 months and their role as set out in the
ACTION: TW/RG proposal was thought to fulfil that commitment. Richard Callard asked
for an update note that he could use to brief the Minister.
ACTION: JM {g) The Committee asked the Business to consider the relationship with
SS and the legal position should it need to be enforced.
(h)
The Committee discussed the second SS thematic report, a draft of
which could be ready at the end of February and was due to be
discussed at the March Working Group meeting.
(i) It was agreed that the Business would publish its own report to set out
the facts and figures on the operation of the Scheme and the branch
support programme. The Committee recognised the advantage of
ACTION: TW publishing this report alongside the announcement concerning the
changes to the scheme, and before the SS report. The Business
reported that it was likely to take a further two weeks to prepare.
(j) The Committee supported the proposal in principle and asked the
ACTIONS: TW Business work at speed to:
Clarify the definitions on non-criminal cases and any exception
¢ Clarify the number of cases unlikely to be resolved at mediation
and the plan to deal with these
e Consider scope for speeding up the mediation process, including
the challenge of finishing mediation in 6 months
* Clarify what was said in Parliament and provide a briefing note
for the Minister, explaining the changes
« Consider scope for NFSP to be used in the process to support
the proposition
POL00006574
POL00006574
e Produce a Post Office report with a clear and compelling
summary as an introduction.
¢ Provide a communication and stakeholder plan for the publication
of the Post Office report and announcement, to explain why we
making the changes.
« Provide a communications and stakeholder plan for the
publication of the SS report
ACTION: TW
¢ Consider the approach to CCRC
* Consider the CEDR information
(k) The Committee asked for a noting paper for the Board to explain the
proposal, as supported by the Committee,
PS15/06 CLOSE
There being no further business the meeting was closed.