POL00102431
POL00102431
Message
From: Alisdair Cameron ~
on behalf of — Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 03/08/2015 07:
To: Jane Macleod’ Paula Vennells
cc: Mark R Davies} GRO
Subject: RE: Sparrow ~
Thanks Jane. My feeling is that anything we give that is process oriented ~ another review etc ~ will not satisfy our critics
but simply make them hungrier. Our position today should be, I think, “You can’t make them happy with this stuff, the
only way to reduce the noise is to hold your nerve and let them go to law if they have a case.” I am very supportive of
getting another MP in there to balance Bridgen. The issue in BNR’s mind, turns, I suspect, on Panorama, which airs while
she is on holiday. I also gently reminded officials last week that we are still playing nice but that doesn’t have to be the
case with the others making stuff up and breaching confidentiality. Would we, for example, start counter-briefing a
couple of journalists, using some of the MPs who felt Bridgen misled them? Al
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 02 August 2015 18:30
To: Paula Vennells
Cc: Alisdair Cameron; Mark R Davies
Subject: Sparrow
Paula
Apologies for interrupting your holiday, but I wanted to give you a heads up on further Sparrow developments while you
have been away, and which you will need to be aware of before Thursday.
In summary, the Minister has had incoming from Andrew Bridgen last week, as a result of which she has asked for a
meeting with you this week (likely to be Thursday) and has asked for ‘options’. Both Al and I have had conversations
with BIS regarding this, and Mark and I will be working further on this over the next few days, and will brief you as soon
as you are back in the office.
The background to this week’s issue is as follows:
As I think you are aware, although SS have now completed their work and we have agreed to mediate all cases which do
not involve a court finding, the majority of applicants have now advised that are withdrawing from mediation pending
some sort of government sponsored enquiry. We have written to them asking them to re-engage with us, but stating
that if we have not heard from them by early September, we will consider that they have withdrawn permanently from
the Scheme.
Last Monday (27) we wrote to Second Sight advising that as their work had concluded, they should return all
documentation to us in accordance with the terms of the confidentiality undertakings contained in their Engagement
letter. We also addressed a data protection point which is not relevant to this discussion, but may become an issue
going forward.
POL-0102014
POL00102431
POL00102431
It is clear that following receipt of that letter, Second Sight (in breach of their confidentiality undertakings) ensured that
Andrew Bridgend was immediately aware of our instruction to return/ destroy materials, and he then complained to the
Minister that we were destroying materials. As a result, I wrote to the Minister on Wednesday and have given her an
undertaking that any materials returned to us by SS would be held by Bond Dickinson. This undertaking was (mis)-
reported in the Sunday Telegraph today:
“The Government assured MPs in June that an independent report had found “no evidence” of difficulties with the
Horizon IT software used in 11,500 post offices. However, the authors of the report have now written to ministers to
complain that their findings have been misrepresented... Mr Bridgen said he had asked ministers to order the Post
Office to pass its evidence to a firm of solicitors to ensure it was not destroyed. The minister responsible, Baroness
Neville-Rolfe, told Mr Bridgen last week that she had taken up the issue with the Post Office, which had agreed to pass
on its evidence.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/11778288/Post-Office-under-fire-over-IT-
system.html)
I spoke to Laura Thompson from BIS on Friday and asked what she thought the issues were from the Minister’s
perspective. The messages from LN-R are clearly mixed and Laura wasn’t really clear whether the concerns were as to
merit or process. The three points I took away are:
‘no one is opining on the merits of the case’
LN-R wants something to happen
LN-R wants options.
The latter two are consistent with the conversation that Al had with BIS on Tuesday. We have proposed (and had
accepted) a further meeting between Post Office and the Minister this week (likely to be Thursday) and subject to your
thoughts, this should be you, plus Mark and me.
I have also suggested to Laura that we will:
prepare a pack for the Minister which we will send ahead of the meeting, and which we will then talk to in more detail in
the meeting.
ask CEDR if they would be prepared to speak to either LN-R or BIS regarding their observations of the mediation process
which they conduct. In particular why mediations are ‘failing’ (we have 8/20 mediations which failed to reach a
resolution). CEDR issued us a letter on Friday setting out their observations of the process and have confirmed that
they would be prepared to meet LN-R/BIS. Their letter is consistent with the one they issued in March. It confirms that
one of the issues is that applicants expect the scheme to be about compensation and are therefore dissatisfied when
that is not the outcome.
reach out to the MPs that we have spoken to and see if they would be prepared to have a discussion with LNR about
their observations. Patrick has initiated this and we are waiting to hear back.
As regards ‘options’ —we are all very nervous about this, particularly as it is unclear whether the issue is ‘merit’ or
process. The focus now seems to be on ‘non-criminal cases’ given that the CCRC is reviewing criminal cases. The
difficulty is that a review as to ‘merits’ effectively replicates a judicial process, and is not a process that we could deliver
in so far as we do not have access to the applicants’ materials, so we are only able to give ‘our side’. This doesn’t really
take us any further than what we have done to date through the investigation and review process undertaken by SS.
POL-0102014
POL00102431
POL00102431
There are 3 law firms who have, over the last 3-4 years, been instructed to act for multiple applicants; however to date,
nothing has emerged from that process (and indeed, despite assertions from JFSA that there are many other affected
postmasters, no one new has come forward other than those who originally sought to be included in the scheme). We
have already funded each applicant in so far as we have (a) paid Second Sights’ costs to review each applicants’ file, and
(b) made a contribution towards the applicants’ professional adviser’s costs of preparing for mediation.
As you are aware, we have had over 40 applicants lodge Data Subject Access Requests (‘DSARs’). I don’t have with me
the split of criminal/non-criminal cases, nevertheless my expectation is that these materials will make their way to the
various law firms that are now involved with a view to those firms considering whether there are grounds for a civil
action (possibly a class action) against PO.
It is clear that disgruntled applicants (JFSA, Bridgen and others) believe that we should be paying
compensation. Accordingly any ‘option’ that does not result in compensation is bound to fail to meet expectations and
will only prolong the issue. Financial settlements have been made in certain cases through mediation, although this is
not a pre-determined outcome.
lam therefore struggling to identify what further ‘options’ are available that we could propose that would be an
appropriate use of PO money (eg I am not advocating payments to applicants outside the mediation process) in addition
to the significant amounts that we have already spent, or that would give rise to a different outcome. Clearly the
Minister is entitled to call for some kind of public enquiry at government cost but again, she would need to be certain
that this will produce a different outcome from that already available to applicants. Details of what we have spent to
date (including though mediation) will be included in the briefing pack.
We are meeting with Laura tomorrow (Monday) so that we can review where we have got to. Laura & Richard Callard
are briefing LN-R on Tuesday on another matter, and Laura is concerned that Sparrow will come up.
We will brief you on developments as soon as you are back in the office, but should you wish to discuss, we are all
available to do so.
With apologies for interrupting your holiday,
Kind regards,
Jane.
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
«ate Di ‘ ‘ Ground Floor
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 5), nsbury Street
>> LONDON
EC2Y 9Q
Mobile number!
POL-0102014