POL00205498
POL00205498
PS 14/16-14/18 POST OFFICE LTD
PROJECT 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 6 June 2014
Present: Alice Perkins (AP) Chair
Alasdair Marnoch (AM) Non-Executive Director
Richard Callard (RC) Non-Executive Director
Paula Vennells (PV) CEO
Chris Aujard (CA) General Counsel
In Attendance: Alwen Lyons (AL) Company Secretary
Belinda Crowe (BC) Programme Director, Project Sparrow
Mark Davies (MD) Communications Director
David Oliver (DO) Project Sparrow
Martin Edward (ME) CEO Chief of Staff
PS 14/16 OPENING OF MEETING
A quorum being present, the Chair opened the meeting of the Project
Sparrow Sub-Committee (“the Committee”) and welcomed Mark
Davies, Belinda Crowe, Chris Aujard, Martin Edwards and David
Oliver.
PS 14/17 INITIAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME — THE
WAY FORWARD
(a) The Committee received a paper on the current position of the
mediation scheme, the progress to date and the associated risks and
challenges.
(b) The Committee discussed the three options set out in the paper with
reference back to the three fundamental principles agreed by the
Business for its approach to Sparrow:
¢ togain a fuller understanding of the facts;
e to ensure a fair outcome; and
¢ to highlight lessons learned so that improvements can be
made to Business processes.
(c) The Committee reviewed the status of the mediation scheme and the
urgency of any decision if it meant moving away from the current
position (Option 1). The Committee agreed that Option 3 would be its
preferred option subject to the Minister’s support and there being a
low probability of a successful application for a Judicial Review. This
would be recommended to the Board.
ACTION: - (d) The Committee asked for a paper to the Board explaining the three
Mark Davies/ options. The General Counsel was asked to ascertain the risk of a
Belinda Crowe/ successful application for Judicial Review, the likelihood of it
General Counse
POL00205498
POL00205498
succeeding and the additional costs of defending such an action.
(e) The Committee recommended to the Board that:
¢ Option 1 be rejected as untenable given the challenges it
poses to the best interests of the Business and value for
money.
e The Business is asked to take the case for Option 3 to the
Minister, with detailed costs and an analysis of the likelihood of
a Judicial Review.
« The Business draws up details stakeholder plans for options 2
and 3.
e In the event that Option 3 is not possible. The Programme
team is asked to develop an approach which moves to Option
2, to be implemented as soon as the Minister has been
briefed.
PS14/18 CLOSE