POL00155496
POL00155496
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF POST OFFICE LIMITED HELD ON TUESDAY 29
OCTOBER 2019 AT 20 FINSBURY STREET, LONDON EC2Y 9AQ AT 11.45 HRS
Present: Tim Parker Chairman (TP)
Nick Read Group Chief Executive Officer (NR)
Ken McCall Senior Independent Director (KM)
Tom Cooper Non-Executive Director (TC) I
Tim Franklin Non-Executive Director (TF) I
Carla Stent Non-Executive Director (CS)
Alisdair Cameron Group Chief Financial Officer (AC)
In attendance: Veronica Branton Company Secretary (VB)
Dan Zinner Chief Transformation Officer (DZ) (Items 4. & 5.)
Robin Nuttall Partner, McKinsey (RN) (Item 5.)
Debbie Smith CEO — Retail (DS) (Items 6. & 7.)
Owen Woodley CEO — FST&I (OW) (items 8. & 9.)
Cathy Mayor Finance Director — Retail (CM) (Item 6.)
Amanda Jones Retail Director (AJ) (Item 6.)
Nick Beal Head of Agents’ Development and Remuneration (NB)
(Item 6.)
Andrew Goddard MD — Payzone Bill Payments Limited (AG) (Item 7.)
Mark Siviter MD — Mails (MS) (Item 7.) I
Meredith Sharples Telecoms Director (MS) (Item 8.)
Alan Watts Herbert Smith Freehills (AW) (Item 10.)
Ben Foat General Counsel (BF) (items 10. & 11.)
Laurence O'Neill Senior Legal Counsel HR & IR (LO) (Item 11.)
Action
1. Welcome and Conflicts of Interest
A quorum being present, the Chairman opened the meeting. The Directors declared that they had no
conflicts of interest in the matters to be considered at the meeting in accordance with the
requirements of section 177 of the Companies Act 2006 and the Company’s Articles of Association.
Minutes of Previous Board meetings including Status Report
The Board APPROVED the minutes of the Board meetings held on 23 September 2019 and 3 October
2019.
The Board NOTED progress with the completion actions as shown on the action log. It was reported
that the action from 23 September 2019 to set out the points at issue between us and Royal Mail and
what a good outcome would look like would be covered in the November Board paper.
It was requested that the month in which papers would come to Board should be specified.
CEO Report I
IRRELEVANT
Page 1 of 10 I
POL00155496
POL00155496
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
NR wanted to hold regional meetings with postmasters. We had to signpost that the relationship was
going to change. The narrative on this needed to be written. We were already working with small I
groups of selected postmasters to discuss the work on “Big Bets.” I
Anumber of points were raised, including:
© What did NR need from the Board? NR requested some patience initially as questions such as
agents’ remuneration and Payzone covered in today’s Board papers were inconclusive. He would
be seeking the views of the directors individually about the construction of GE and GE minus 1.
and who we should be looking to keep and develop. KM noted that we also needed to consider
how you we structured communications and engagement with postmasters
To do:
I AC/ Lisa
Cherry
A
A
Mm
rr
<
>
=
—
© Tim Parker would contact our Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, to request that the approval of the POL P
Non-Executive appointments were agreed as soon as possible to avoid the delays that would occur
if Parliament went into recess
that it would be helpful to get some decisions on the shape of NR’s leadership team by the end
of the year
* that poor compliance with the Dangerous Goods Act was a concern. The Board requested to see —_ Executive
the process map for how we sought to ensure compliance.
Finance
Financial Performance Report
Al Cameron introduced the report. There had been change in P6 with travel stabil
market remaining poor!
insurance broker was not able to explain the increase in cancelled protection policies which had led
to us increasing the provision by £1m in P6. P6 trading profit was £0.7m adverse on an underlying
basis, £0.4m year to date (YTD). The first consolidation of the 6 + 6 forecast showed us missing plan
by £4m (£70m against a £74m target). Action was underway to correct the position, including
accelerating the work on spans and layers and minimising discretionary spend.
Russell Hancock, the Supply Chain Director, had negotiated with the Bank of England to vary the vault
opening hours before Christmas which would improve our position with holding cash and cash REMs.
A number of points were raised, including:
* that we needed to make sure we had the right coverage in the Risk and Compliance functions.
The Risk Team leadership had taken voluntary redundancy so coverage in that area needed to be
Page 2 of 10
4.2
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
monitored closely. It was reported that we were working through our core baseline requirements
which linked to our ability to deliver the PSG work
*® Network dependency:
- how developed was our work on contingency planning in the event of a partner going into
administration?
- how were we addressing network numbers and considering both current partnerships and our
future partnership requirements?
~ was there scope to re-designate any Payzone locations? We had 22,000 network locations so it
would be helpful to understand the minimum viable proposition for a Post Office.
It was reported that re-designation of Payzone locations could be challenging because of SGEI
requirements and any such change was likely to require re-negotiation with Government. Until we
could change the access criteria it would be better for us to have a buffer of a few hundred branches.
Provision of a buffer could include acquiring more vans for outreach services but this would take
some months to put in place. It was AGREED that we would return to Board with a network
dependency strategy.
© where were we on considering the implications of the expiry of support for Oracle? It was
reported that Shikha Hornsey, CIO, was focussed on this question as part of the wider questions
on the Horizon system and this would be discussed at the GE meeting in a fortnight. SH was
confident about being able to exit the Belfast Data Centre over the next year but we needed to
see and review the plan. This plan would be shared as part of the November CEO report to the
Board.
Quarterly Delivery and Funding Report
Dan Zinner introduced the report. There had been underspend in the quarter, largely driven by
greater scrutiny of business cases. Large investment spends would not be approved until PSG was
completed and there was likely to be underspend in the next quarter for this reason.
It was reported that the interest rate assumptions included in the Peregrine (Bank of Ireland
negotiations) business case were not as predicted but total benefits over the period remained on
track. Al Cameron would arrange to take Tom Cooper through these figures offline.
The Board NOTED the contents of the paper, including the approach of FY19/20 Budget for Change
Spend, and DELEGATED AUTHORITY to Al Cameron to finalise the precise details and supporting
documents with UKGI.
Purpose, Strategy, Growth (PSG) presentation
Nick Read introduced the item much of which flowed from the first survey of the L40 on the purpose
of the Post Office. We were also working with BEIS to make sure that our thinking was aligned and
that the outcome would be suitable for all stakeholders. The whole business was being assessed,
including carrying out an Organisational Health Index (OHI), understanding where we were profitable
and building a base case.
Robin Nuttall provided an overview of objectives and timing; early thinking on purpose; the culture
and behaviours of the business which was being tested through the OHI; technology, both critical
risks and enablers, how we wanted to serve customers and the enabling model. The Board’s input
was sought on all these issues.
RN noted that the work on purpose went beyond a mission statement. It was looking at what was
unique about Post Office. The social purpose and the commercial purpose. The markets we played in
and those we did not. This work would be informed by a customer survey.
The work on the culture and behaviours of the business would be informed by the OHI and would be
translated into a prioritised set of business initiatives.
This was set against a backdrop of Post Office having an exceptional physical network with a wide
reach; the rise of super convenience in retail which Post Office could tap into; a strong brand with the
scope to move online. It was a common trend across Europe to franchise out branches and we could
not make the economics of DMBs work. The costs associated with delivering the SGEI needed to be
clearly defined. Most postal services in Europe received direct government subsidies. We would
need to consider whether there was scope to use cross subsidies to fund our social purpose and/ or
Page 3 of 10
POL00155496
POL00155496
Executive
Executive
AC
POL00155496
POL00155496
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
we needed to change our network so that over time there were, for example, a smaller number of
branches with more pick up points.
A number of points were raised, including:
* how would the work interface with postmasters? It was reported that we would be engaging
with postmasters and requesting that they complete a short survey
© It was felt that we should be looking wider than the UK postal landscape to be able to benchmark
our position. We also needed to consider disruptors such as Amazon I
e that other postal services did not separate out the front office from the distribution network. We
were not realising the proper synergies of being the front office for Royal Mail. We should be
managing a much smaller cost structure
«there were lessons to be learnt in parcels e.g. Deutsche Post, which had taken the strategic
decision to be owner of the first mile and the last mile I
* we needed to think strategically about how we managed the short, medium and longer term,
including our partnerships. A player like Amazon could be a customer in the short term anda
competitor in the longer term
© we needed to understand the value of our assets (e.g. the trust relationship we had with
vulnerable customers)
* we needed to understand our demographic. The over 65 population would grow and had greater
access to wealth than many demographics I
* we needed to strip everything back to see where we made profit in the network and where were I
should make profit in the network (the true direct contribution). We should not confuse
arguments about public purpose and ownership. It was noted that currently we did not make
much money from mails and banking but broadly through our financial services products. We had
to set out what the most efficient solution would be and then say, if, and why, elements of it
were not achievable
* most of the products we sold made a reasonable contribution but our central costs were too high.
The danger of focussing on moving products in and out was that this was not likely alter central
costs such as IT significantly
* we needed to understand the cost of sales and what we had given up by being separated out
from RM
© did we have an unavoidable obligation to be the last provider of cash? It was thought that the
shareholder saw the provision of cash as a primary role for the Post Office and that it needed to
be accessible in most branch locations. The Shareholder was aware that the network was not fit
for purpose currently and the work being undertaken would give us the scope for a proper
discussion with BEIS. We needed to explore whether there was a better way to configure the
network for customers and for us with Government funding compliance with SGEI measures. We
needed to understand what Government was trying to achieve with the Post Office and make
these objectives explicit. We needed to be clear what we were delivering, at what price and what
the social objectives were, 11,500 branches was not likely to be the right number but there
needed to be a case to change this
* we needed to compartmentalise aspects of the business and answer questions such as a) what I
was the most efficient way to be front office for RM? b) what does it means to be a cash
business? c) what do we mean by social purpose? d) which vulnerable customers are we trying to
reach and through which channels? Once we could answer these questions we should consider all
our other business lines and whether they aligned with our core purpose. This had to be informed }
by how other postal services and disruptors were developing. We then had to overlay our unique
circumstances (e.g. social welfare provision. Decline in government services through Post Office)
we needed to define what we meant by a cash utility. For example, does this entail an ATM being
within a specified distance of a specified percentage of the population? It was noted that deposit
transactions were largely driven by business customers
© weneeded to test the value of our brand in different parts of our business (e.g. did it have
particular relevance in post but less in insurance? Would the brand be valued by a third party and
what would they do with it?).
Page 4 of 10
POL00155496
POL00155496
I
I
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING I
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD I
Big Bets
RN noted that potential “Big Bets” were being evaluated against financial return, do-ability and fit Todo:
i oo odo:
with purpose (convenience, ease of use). It was requested that we add to this risk and the degree of McKinsey
control we had over outcome.
A number of points were raised, including:
© that a number of new services (e.g. energy) were included on the list and we had discussed
previously potential new services such as prescription delivery. How would we get to a complete
list? It was reported that this would be an iterative process. Any proposed “Big Bet” would have
to meet the criteria and as we were already trying to do too much the list would need to be pared
down. A test of a good strategy was also what it excluded. The “Big Bets” had to be resourced
properly and that required taking resources away from other areas. We should be more tolerant
of smaller initiatives and investments where these supported our core, including strength in
parcels
we could explore the synergies achievable through a merger with another organisation.
Partnerships would be critical.
A landscape overview on postal services (and some analysis on disruptors) in other parts of the world, —jyickinsey
including their networks, what subsidies they received, how they sought to drive growth etc., would
be produced for the November Board discussion.
Agents’ Remuneration
Debbie Smith provided an overview of the paper. The development of the retail strategy had
originally been discussed by the Board in July 2018 since when the Common Issues Trial Judgment
had been issued, the Select Committee hearing on the Post Office network had taken place and calls
for increases in agent remuneration had increased. The fragility of the network, the struggle to
attract new postmasters and churn all supported the need review agent remuneration. An additional
£17m funding into the network had already been announced, largely linked to the increased
transaction fees supported by Banking Framework 2. We had already communicated that there
would be further announcements on agents’ pay in November 2019.
The executive had been discussing options and were moving to the view that we should be spending
a further £20m now and retaining £10m for potential further spend which might to link to incentives
for postmasters. This was seen as a minimum requirement to stabilise the network in the short term
pending a more thorough review. The proposals had been informed by insight from 50 postmasters
from different parts of the network. We were attempting to focus the most benefit in the right
places,
Anumber of points were raised, including:
* were the proposals sufficiently targeted at securing our desired outcome of stabilising the
network? To what extent was this a network subsidy payment driven by wanting to avoid any
postmaster operating below the national minimum wage and to what extent something we were
funding to drive growth?
© there was a danger of trying to do too many small things (for example, spending money on store
standards) and careful design would be required to achieve the outcomes we wanted. It was
noted that we would need to measure the outcome of the investments and look at what was
going to provide sustainable value in the longer term
© ourstarting proposition appeared to be that we were paying postmasters too little but could this
be evidenced (for example, other franchises like PayPoint had much less generous arrangements
in place on the provision of equipment and we knew that we were overpaying for some
transactions)? An 8% increase in the overall bill was significant. It was reported that the adverse
feedback on remuneration/ value associated with running a Post Office was coming for our
multiples as well as individual postmasters
* how did the figures map across to the most vulnerable areas? We needed to remember that Post
Office created significant footfall for multiples like the Coop
e that the retail team was handicapped by a lack of data about branch profitability and the position
of our multiples. Employment costs were key and there was a step change in costs for agents if
they had to employ an additional employee
Page 5 of 10
71
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
that we were not solving the issues systemically and there was nothing to stop ongoing requests
for additional funding when we were already failing to operate profitably
that the proposals were focussed on stabilising the network over the next couple of years. Gaps
would emerge as Banking Framework volumes dropped. We needed to consider whether we
wanted to restructure the network
* that we still needed a deeper review on remuneration rates
the paper needed to be clear whether any element of the remuneration increases were
dependent on BEIS funding
* an efficiency lens would be helpful because our attractiveness as a franchise was not just about
remuneration but also about how we make things simpler for postmasters. It was noted that part
of PSG work was looking at the simplification of setting up and running a Post Office and linking
everything back to our attractiveness as a franchise
* we were working on the assumption that these measures would allow us to maintain the network
at its current level but could this be substantiated? It was noted that it was difficult to evidence a
“tipping point” that led to a postmaster leaving and if we had a better understanding of the
triggers this is what we would be targeting
* whether this work had been aligned with the work on Starling (workers’ rights case). It was
reported that this had been factored in, including when looking at potential arrangements for
leave cover
* we were not thinking sufficiently about the future shape of our network when setting postmaster
remuneration. We needed to strike a sustainable economic relationship with our postmasters
and could not yet identify the “tipping point” for leaving Post Office or for being an attractive
franchise proposition
* we were a franchise operation overlaid by a social purpose but we had to be clear that social
purpose linked to customers rather than postmasters
* the narrative and communications for the announcement on the additional investment and
agents’ remuneration would be critical.
Chairman’s summary:
The Board was concerned that we could be committing to investments which would not achieve the
desired outcome. There was a danger of a continuing demand for additional funds that we could not
afford. Agents’ remuneration and network stability needed to be analysed further. Post Office
needed to be attractive as a franchise and be able to attract the right postmasters but we did not
know enough about financial situation of postmasters. We needed to be paying the right fee for the
right transactions and understand the different segments of postmasters and the challenges they
faced. As a starting point the Board would like to see the workings behind the model.
The Board APPROVED an additional £20m investment in agents’ remuneration and support for
changes which would be introduced from April 2020. The Board DELEGATED AUTHORITY to the
Group CEO and CFO to finalise the list of initiatives included. The Board APPROVED holding a further
£10m in the budget for potential additional spend on agents’ remuneration and support which might
include incentivising desired behaviours. Any additional spend would first need to be approved by
the Board. The Board APPROVED the announcement of the changes in November 2019.
It was noted that the Group Chief Executive would be briefing the Minister in advance of the public
announcement.
Payzone Bill Payments Limited
Strategy and Update
Debbie Smith introduced the paper, explained the drivers for the acquisition and how we were
looking at the network. Some income had been received later than expected, revenue from ticketing
was under performing and integration costs were higher than estimated. However, while the shape
of returns was different we anticipated that the benefits would be realised overall.
Anumber of points were raised, including:
that a 7% growth in market share through a non-Royal Mail pick up and drop off service (PUDO)
seemed low? It was reported that the PUDO market comprised 160m items a year. We had
around a 33% market share with RM with click and collect
Page 6 of 10
POL00155496
POL00155496
AJ/ NB
7.2
73
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
* what impact would buying Doddle have on POL systems? It was reported that Doddle would
work outside Horizon. It was an application that would sit on the Payzone network and would
drive footfall
* that the acquisition had been rational and we were making progress in gaining market share but
we still had to consider whether this was an area we wanted to invest in when considering our
other investment options if the quantum was small
* were we committed to signing the contract with British Gas? It was reported that we had not
made an announcement but the position was already known publically because PayPoint had
reported its loss of the contract
¢ how did we think PayPoint’s business would develop?
e that POL could not risk reputational damage linked to the operation of the Payzone business.
Therefore, the business and the risks needed to be managed in the right way with accountability
resting with its Managing Director
* would we make additional money from the BG contract? What were the incremental economics?
It was reported that the British Gas contract was an enabler and facilitator for future contracts
* we needed to understand the future value we would be creating and understand all the
opportunities owning the network provided us. It was thought that we might be underplaying
these opportunities. It was noted that future value depended in part on IT costs because
development of the service hinged on us moving to the cloud
© the Board was being asked to take decisions without a full understanding of all the moving parts,
such as IT costs and it not been clear when we were bidding for the acquisition that we would
need to invest more to win additional contracts. It was noted that the risks of not moving to the
cloud were significant and the worst case outcome would be to sign up to the BG contract and
then only use Horizon integration Hub (HiH) for this. We would need to take a commercial view
on future deals and also consider how PayPoint was likely to react to Payzone acquiring additional
market share.
It was AGREED that a better explanation of how the integration costs had been developed compared
to the business case approved by the Board when the acquisition was made would be provided.
British Gas Contract
The Board APPROVED the request for £5,6m Project Authority to facilitate Payzone’s delivery of the
British Gas contract.
Panther (Payzone) Change Request
The Board APPROVED the request for £8.96m Project Authority for the 2019/20 post-acquisition
funding within the Panther business case required for separating (from prior owners), stabilising,
securing and integrating Payzone with Post Office.
Telecoms Strategy
Owen Woodley introduced the paper. A decision was sought from the Board to allow Fujitsu to
submit a de-unified bid and accept the risks associated with this approach. We were not bound by
full PCR (Public Contract Regulation) requirements but the process needed to be fair and transparent.
There was a possibility that we accepted the risk and Fujitsu nevertheless dropped out of the process.
if they were to drop out we would face exit and migration costs to a new supplier although the cost
savings might be significant. A further paper would be brought to the November Board meeting
with an update on initial bids received.
Meredith Sharples noted that there was a reasonable prospect that we would decide to sell the
business but that we would have no indication of sale price for some while and would need Fujitsu’s
ongoing co-operation. We had the option of stopping the RFP at any time but needed to inform
Fujitsu what we intended to do by 17 February 2020. Timings would be communicated to the bidders
today and as early December 2019 potential bidders would be notified of intention to seek a possible
sale. Bidders would be informed that we were seeking to maximise the value of the business on sale.
The Board noted that an ongoing involvement for POL in telecoms should only be considered if there
was a compelling offer from one of the bidders.
Page 7 of 10
AG
POL00155496
POL00155496
10.
POL00155496
POL00155496
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
Tom Cooper asked how robust our RFP process was. It was reported that the Telecoms Team had
worked closely with the procurement team on documenting the process.
The Board discussed the option of a possible extension to the current agreement with Fujitsu which
would be pursued, partly driven by the uncertainty on the timescales for Government approval to any
outcome
The Board APPROVED the acceptance of the procurement risk associated with inviting the submission
of a disaggregated bid and DELEGATED AUTHORITY to the CEO — FST&I and the Telecoms Director to
make a counter offer to Fujitsu and invite them to make a disaggregated bid.
Next Steps on the Digital Identity Strategy
Owen Woodley introduced the paper. The Board NOTED the proposed short term approach and
APPROVED a short-term extension with Digidentity, with sign-off of the terms delegated to the Group
CEO and CFO. The contract expired in November 2019 but there was an option of a one year
extension.
Group Litigation Update — subject to legal privilege
Ben Foat introduced the paper. The figures under consideration for the mediation would be discussed
at the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee. We would need to make a reasonable offer? to show that
we were entering the mediation in good faith. Part 36 offers would be made if we were not
successful and we would then need to go to a second mediation. The Horizon Issues Trial judgment
would be issued shortly and we would receive 24 hours’ notice of the embargoed judgment being
released. An update on the known evidence logs (KELs) had been sent to the Board last weekend.
The Court hearing on leave to appeal was taking place on 12 November 2019 and if we were
successful the claimants were more likely to consider settlement. Mr Justice Fancourt had recently
ruled on the Sheffield United case and had disagreed with Mr Justice Fraser’s view on relational
contracts in the Common Issues Trial judgment.
Anumber of points were raised, including:
* weneeded to look at the whole picture including what costs might be associated with the
convicted claimants. Delegated authority should be sought for the total mediation figure. Alan
Watts reported that it was not necessarily a question of making an offer but looking at the figures
based on a 12 month termination figure. We did not think the claimants’ solicitors would be in a
position to go through claimant by claimant and we were giving serious thought to what
information we could share on our analysis of the claimants’ cases without releasing all the work
we had done. Our limiting factor was what we thought we would pay if we went through a court
process, the other sides was their funding position. There was a potential to agree a number with
the claimants’ solicitors which covered all claimants and they could decide how to share this
money
* how would a mediator assess all of the elements of the case such as expectation damages and
stigma damages? It was reported that the mediator would have to look at the gap in the figures
between the two sides. The absence of clear figures from the claimants would make it difficult
for the mediator. The mediator’s role was to help each party see the case through the other's
lens
* we needed to reach a view on sums that might be associated with stigma damages and other
elements that were more difficult to define
* areview of convicted cases had been discussed at the last Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
meeting, had any work taken place? BF reported that we were considering how this work might
be undertaken and by whom. Any consideration of reviewing how Post Office Limited dealt with
Post-meeting note: POL’s Articles of Association require that Shareholder consent is obtained for spend above
£50m. However, we have been advised that BEIS/ HMT’s view is, that in the case of settlement, approval would
be required for any figure. This is for a number of reasons, including that the potential settlement amount
being discussed is only for part of the claimant group and so the eventual number could exceed £50m and that
the expenditure could be considered to be “novel, contentious or repercussive” circumstances under which
Managing Public Money guidance requires prior approval to be sought.
Page 8 of 10
I
I
I
I
11.
12.
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
13.
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
the convicted cases would need to be discussed with Ministers. AW noted that we would have to
satisfy ourselves that we had enough information to make those judgement calls and we were
unlikely to have enough information to consider that before the mediation. The Horizon Issues
Trial judgment would be issued shortly and the criminal claimants’ position would need to be
considered in light of that. Individual payments could not be made to convicted claimants. TC
noted that the primary concern of the convicted claimants was for their conviction to be
overturned. It was noted that these claimants had been convicted through the courts and we
could only seek to offer help if we had information to suggest that any of these convictions were
unsound.
The Board NOTED the updates in the paper including the approach being taken to mediation. The
Board AUTHORISED the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee to delegate to the General Counsel
authority to make settlement offers at mediation on terms to be determined by the Subcommittee.
Starling (Workers’ rights case) Update
The Board NOTED the approach, update and next steps. It was reported that we were satisfied with
the 10 lead witnesses and our understanding of the risks associated with each case. Our witnesses
would be prepared properly.
The Board DELEGATED decisions (including instructions on settlement receipt of making offers) for
Starling to the Group Chief Executive Officer, CEO Retail and General Counsel. Significant decisions
should be referred back to the Board.
Noting and governance items
Horizon integration Hub
The Board NOTED the intention to continue with the development of the Horizon integration Hub in
order to deliver the next set of features that ensured delivery of services at scale to the appropriate
service levels.
It was noted that approval for the development of RPos had been granted as it was required for the
delivery of the British Gas contract. Self Service Kiosk development proposals (SSKs) had not yet been
considered because a number of Horizon system issues had first to be determined.
Health & Safety Report
The Board NOTED the Health & Safety Report.
Anumber of points were raised, including:
© whether we taking enough action in response to the increase in knife attacks, such as providing
stab jackets? AC reported that we were having another look at the use of stab jackets which were
always provided where requested. We would keep the position under review but demand for
stab jackets had tended to be limited because of their weight but with lighter materials available
that might change. Other responses to the increase in knife attacks, such as issuing more fogging
devices, were being considered. AC would make sure that the review of the use of stab jackets
was accelerated as quickly as feasible
« How many of the high risk ATMs had we got under gas suppression? AC reported that all the high
risk ATMs were covered. If was clear that if criminals knew that the cash would be destroyed
when an ATM or van was targeted they would not attempt the theft.
Sealings
The Board APPROVED the affixingof the Common Seal of the Company to the documents set out
against itemsnumber 1827 to 1841 inclusive in the seal register.
Future Meeting Dates
The future meeting dates were NOTED.
Forward Agendas
The forward agenda was NOTED.
Date of next meeting:
26 November 2019
Page 9 of 10
POL00155496
POL00155496
To do:
AC
POL00155496
POL00155496
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege - DO NOT FORWARD
Zz
z
E
i
n
Nv
Qo
a2
Chairman Date
Page 10 of 10