POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
POL00447940
POL00447940
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF POST OFFICE LIMITED HELD ON TUESDAY 27
SEPTEMBER 2022 AT 20 FINSBURY STREET, LONDON EC2Y 9AQ AT 13:00 PM
A quorum being present, the Chairman opened the meeting. The Chairman called for the
Directors to disclose any conflicts of interest. 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.
The Board acknowledged the attendance of RA as an observer at the meeting. As an
observer, the Board was aware that all contributions made by RA to meeting were
observations only, and did not constitute advice, recommendations, directions or
instructions. The Board confirmed that it would take due care not to be unduly influenced
solely by a contribution made by RA and that it would reach its conclusion based on a
balanced and diligent assessment of all the facts available to it.
Minutes and Matters Arising
TABLED and NOTED were draft Minutes from the Board Meetings of 12 July 2022, 13 July
2022 and 18 August 2022. Subject to the incorporation of comments provided by LH on
the draft Minutes of 12 and 13 July 2022, and the comments of SI on the draft Minutes of
18 August 2022, the Board RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meetings held on 12 July
Page 1 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Present: Tim Parker Chairman (TP)
Carla Stent Non-Executive Director (CS)
Zarin Patel Senior Independent Director (ZP)
Lisa Harrington Non-Executive Director (LH)
Saf Ismail Non-Executive Director (SI)
Elliot Jacobs Non-Executive Director (EJ)
Ben Tidswell Non-Executive Director (BT)
Brian Gaunt Non-Executive Director (BG)
Nick Read Group Chief Executive Officer (NR)
Alisdair Cameron Group Chief Finance Officer (AC)
In attendance: Rachel Scarrabelotti Company Secretary (RS)
Roshana Arasaratnam UKGI - Observer (RA)
Owen Woodley Group Chief Commercial Officer (OW)
Max Jacobi Finance Director — Retail (MJ)
Navin Batra Strategic Financial Planning & Analysis Director (NB)
Tim Mcinnes Strategy and Transformation Director (TM)
Neill O'Sullivan Managing Director - Parcels and Mails (NO)
Zdravko Mladenov Group Chief Digital and Information Officer (ZM)
Ben Foat Group General Counsel (BF)
Simon Recaldin Historical Matters Director (SR)
Fintan Canavan Inquiry Director (FC)
Kate Gallafent KC Blackstone Chambers — Inquiry Counsel (KG)
Jeff Smyth Enterprise Cloud & Data Transformation Director (JS)
Apologies: Tom Cooper Non-Executive Director (TC)
Action
1. Welcome and Conflicts of Interest
POL-BSFF-107-0000024
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
2022, 13 July 2022 and 18 August 2022 be APPROVED as a correct record of those
Meetings and be signed by the Chair.
The Board NOTED the action log and status of the actions shown. ZP queried whether the
action log could be condensed to remove items that were semi-concluded or where there
was no prospect of change in the near future. The Chair agreed with this and requested
that a shorter list be compiled and provided for the next Board Meeting.
RS
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘ATM Banking Strategy Programme: Lessons Learnt and
AEI Assurance Review’.
The Chair passed to NR and asked NR whether he wished to make any comments on the
paper. NR advised that a Central Operations Director had been recruited who was due to
join in October to assist the Retail team to manage all change that effected the network;
there was confidence that this appointment would help. There had also been issues at the
beginning of the year as to whether JS or ZM should be involved in which projects; this
issue was now resolved and ZM was doing a great job. NR advised the Board that whilst
some issues remained, that the executive team were making progress.
EJ contributed that he had had a conversation with TM following the 12 July 2022 Board
Meeting and that he thought the revised paper tabled was much more accurate.
The Chair drew the Board’s attention to the key themes and learnings that came out of the
review. CS advised that she hoped we could take the lessons from this exercise, as it felt in
some ways the project was a repetition of what had happened when change had been
implemented previously. NR took the point however reiterated the new appointee who
would be looking at the capacity of the network to absorb change at any one time. LH
shared her experience from other organisations, who used a change Calendar, and advised
that change projects in the network needed to be mapped out ahead of the rollout of
NBIT. ACTION ZP agreed with this and requested that whether it was in 3- or 6-months’ M Roberts/
time, that M Roberts attend the Board to speak about the specifics of the NBIT roll-out in zM
the network, to ensure that we were ahead of this. NR agreed with this approach.
Sl asked NR whether, on the findings of the review, we were going to communicate
anything to the network. NR replied that he thought the November Postmaster
conference could be the time to discuss this and that he knew there needed to be a degree
of humility in the communication.
Sl asked whether management had followed through with all the branches we had
switched over to tablets, as SI still had some Postmaster’ s contacting SI to say that there
were issues. S! asked whether EJ had heard of issues. EJ replied that he had not. SI
emphasised that delays in implementation did not help Postmasters at all and that
Postmasters needed to be appropriately sighted on upcoming changes in order to allow
implementation in good time. The Chair agreed with this and advised that there needed
to be tight control over the number of change projects affecting the network in flight at
any one time.
The Chair noted a theme that had emerged from the review was that when we were
rolling things out, we needed to be sure that we were receiving the right feedback, to
ensure that we are refining the implementation as required. Sometimes we assumed that
things were going better than what they were, and this was the value of having EJ and SI
on the Board to provide their views on implementation. EJ advised that EJ and SI had been
Page 2 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0001
3.1
3.2
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
consulted ahead of the rollout of the ATMS however their recommendations had not been
addressed. ZP commented that the Postmaster Director should have been involved in the
pre-consultation also. EJ agreed with this in principle however pointed out that the
Postmaster Director had only just joined at this time.
The Chair advised that an issue for some companies was the empowering of more junior
people. People in this band were tasked with starting a program and found themselves
between their manager and people who were telling them that what was proposed was
not going to work. We needed to empower more junior people to speak up — this was
very important as it was typically middle management who often knew the specifics. The
Chair advised that he was unsure as to whether this was an issue at the Company.
SI advised that issues remained with some tablets, in that Postmaster’s still needed to click
on install certificates every time; this should have been resolved. NR replied that this
could be a great case for the Central Operations Director when she joined next month;
part of the problem was that we needed to remind ourselves to behave as a retailer. BG
shared that from his experience of working in a retail environment that a strong
operational team was key.
Committee Reports (verbal)
Remuneration Committee
The Chair invited LH to provide an update on the work of the Remuneration Committee.
LH advised:
© Proposed rules in respect of the STIP and LTIP had been prepared which detailed
eligibility and defined terms such as ‘good leaver’. Rules around the STIP and LTIP
had not been in place at the Company historically;
* Plans were underway to communicate the Future Pay Framework in respect of the
2022/23 STIP, 2022-25 LTIP, and 2021-24 LTIP. Malus and clawback were to be
introduced into the schemes;
e — Inrelation to some payments issued under the 21/22 STIP questions had arisen as
to whether the correct approvals process had been followed. This issue was being
considered with urgency.
Historical Remediation Committee
The Chair asked BT to provide an update on the work of the Historical Remediation
Committee.
BT advised that the HMU and Inquiry update papers included in the Board pack were quite
comprehensive, however drew the Board’s attention to the following items:
© Late applications (being late applicants to the HSS scheme) had been sitting in
abeyance for some time. Although not announced as yet, funding for this had
been secured. As soon as the funding was announced, we would need to
administer the applications quickly. The issue of late applications and the delay
around these had become a significant issue at the Inquiry;
ON OHC, the issue there was finding the right alternate option to HSF. The HRC
were trying to find an option that would be supported by all stakeholders. We had
Page 3 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0002
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
had a lot of good news on OHC however the HRC needed to tackle what OHC
administration would look like in the next few months;
¢ Inrelation to detriment, the 14 workstreams remained ongoing. On the paused
payments issue, there had been quite a debate as to whether we should be
pausing payments for Postmaster’s who are repaying debts. It was a very difficult
issue as we didn’t have the detail as yet in respect of the underlying issues and we
needed to establish if/ how this related to detriment. However, the HMU team
were starting to bring some of the categories together so we could move forward,
including on the funding front;
© Good progress had been made in respect of HSS; although we may not hit the 95%
stretch target for offers issued by the end of October.
The Chair called for questions. In relation to pause payments, AC requested that the Board
set a time limit for when this matter would need to be returned to the Board for decision,
delays could result in us being subjected to heavy criticism. There would simply come a
point when we needed to act, and this was likely to be pre-Christmas. BT agreed with this
and advised that the HRC was prompting the team to work hard on this issue, and that his
expectation was that the HRC should receive additional information in October. BT shared
his view that he did not think that we had sufficient information at present to make a
decision. AC replied that he had some scepticism about whether the information would
help us to move forward — even if we worked through all the individual pieces successfully
the equation would still not add up — so the only way we could resolve this was by
speaking to Postmasters. BT noted that there were 2 groups of Postmasters here; the first
group was Postmasters who were paying monies back now. If we went back to go the CJ
the Company was criticised for taking the re-payments without having undertaken
investigations. The second group of Postmasters were those who had paid back monies
historically and we didn’t know why. CS observed that this potentially sounded like
another whole scheme. BT queried whether the underlying issue was shortfalls and if so
whether we were really going to run another scheme for shortfalls. NR noted that the
potential quantum was £375M and that the issue went back over 25 years; D Bickerton
had shared his view with an analogy, if you reversed into a parked car then you would put
a note with your details under the windscreen wiper — this is what we should be doing
here. CS queried how many times we needed to go and ask the same population if there
was an issue. BT replied that paused payments had a slightly different complexion, in that
they spread horizontally across the business; we had been constructing vertically. If we
could get the vertical pillars constructed that would give us a universe as currently, we did
not have visibility. AC contributed that the fact that we were unfunded for a potential
liability did not mean that the liability did not exist; we could only play the we don’t have
funding card for so long. AC shared his view that he thought that the HRC should bring the
matter back to the Board for either the next Board Meeting in November or the final
Board in December before the end of the year.
The Chair reminded the Board that their job was to articulate the problem — we needed to
explain to government what the issue was. The second component was that as an
organisation we needed to take a stance quite broadly that we wanted to compensate
Postmasters for everything that has been unfairly and wrongfully done to them. The
problem was that we were being criticised for non-payment of compensation. Given that
the government was providing the funding we needed to make sure that we make it clear
where responsibility sits. Despite best efforts to resolve historical matters the Company
had to hear the continual theme of Postmasters not receiving compensation in good time.
Page 4 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0003
3.3
3.4
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
We have one shareholder however we have a single brand, and we have to be careful that
that brand is not being unfairly discounted for decisions that we cannot take. BT pointed
out here however that BEIS would say that we had not asked them for funding as yet. BT
noted that the approach could be that we moved to investigate, as opposed to running
another process to administer this. AC agreed that this was where we needed a decision.
The Chair observed that we would reach a stage where a limit has to be declared. In an
environment where there was an expectation on us to meet any claim we needed to signal
when the limit was reached. NR advised that he thought that we are arriving towards this
point.
Nominations Committee
The Chairman provided an update on the work of the Nominations Committee, advising
that the Nominations Committee had noted that the Chairman was due to step down from
the Board come 30 September 2022, and that the Committee had resolved to recommend
to the Board the appointment of BT as Interim Chair of the Board for the period from 1
October until 30 November 2022.
Noting that BT did not participate in the decision, the Board RESOLVED that:
(i) BT be and is hereby appointed as Interim Chairman of the Board of Directors
for the period 1 October until 30 November 2022; and
(ii) The Company Secretary be instructed to file form TMO1 with the Registrar of
Companies and update the Company’s Register of Directors to reflect the
Chairman stepping down from the Board 30 September 2022.
The Chairman further advised that the Committee had resolved to recommend to the
Board a number of appointments to the Board’s committees.
Noting that the Directors did not vote on their corresponding proposed appointments, the
Board RESOLVED that:
(i) LH be appointed as Interim Chair of the Nominations Committee for the period
1 October until 30 November 2022;
(ii) BG be appointed as a member of the Remuneration Committee;
(iii) EJ be appointed as a member of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee;
and
(iv) SI be appointed as a member of the Nominations Committee.
The Chairman also advised that the Committee had noted the external appointments of
CS, LH, EJ and SI to other boards.
In addition to the above the Chairman advised that an update had been provided to the
Committee on the recruitment of 3 new NEDs. There was an obvious diversity issue
looming here with 3 women leaving the Board and it was very important in the
recruitment to maintain a degree of diversity around the Board table.
The Chairman called for questions. There were no questions.
Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee
Page 5 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0004
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
The Chairman requested CS to update the Board on the work of the Audit, Risk and
Compliance Committee.
CS advised:
© ARC had met earlier in the day. An interesting meeting had ensued: with limited
funding there were a number of risks that we had to accept. The ARC would
review the final 3YP and assess where that left the Company on risks, then write to
the shareholder to advise them of the position. The shareholder was consistently
issuing correspondence to us on best practice, for example in relation to cyber
security, however we were not ina financial position to be able to support this.
Although we were exposed on cyber security there was some comfort in that given
the age of Horizon it was difficult to hack;
® On Postmaster losses the numbers were starting to creep up;
The corporate insurance renewal levels had been approved, and in terms of cover
we were holding level for cyber;
© In terms of the RMPP issue, the team had progressed the matter to a point where
we could sign a MOU that was still within the financial envelope provided by the
Board. If this needed to be exceeded the matter would come back to the Board;
® Some Postmaster and other Company policies had been considered and approved
by ARC;
© Deloitte had been re-appointed as co-sourced IA;
* Correspondence had been received from the FRC querying how we had treated
some matters in the accounts. A reply was being prepared to address the queries
and the team had confidence in the response.
CEO Report
TABLED and NOTED was the CEO report.
The Chair invited NR to speak to the Report. NR advised as follows:
¢ we had made our first trading loss for the period, which was slightly alarming;
e Industrial Action was going to cause further operational dislocation, and we would
be impacted in addition by the RMG strike action;
¢ The Industrial Action aligned with the cost-of-living crisis saw the Voice of the
Postmaster group mobilising themselves. Correspondence had been received at 3
distinct times, the first of these being on 5 August when NR had received 100
emails that there were circa 550 Postmasters who had joined the Voice of the
Postmaster. The last date of receiving a group of correspondence was on 14
September when Postmaster’s pay statements became available. The Postmasters
who reacted on 14 September were from branches who had a large amount of
fixed income rather than variable pay, so would benefit the least from the raft of
changes to Postmaster remuneration. NR advised that his response had been that
the Company could not solve for macro-economic conditions. The issue of
Postmaster remuneration would be considered carefully again ahead of the
November Postmaster conference;
¢ In terms of a pay award, although originally, we had spoken about a 2-3% increase,
this was more likely to be 5% and a £500 lump sum payment. This offer had been
rejected by the CWU at present. This was a very difficult issue, when we were
seeing our cost base rise;
e The new Minister for Postal Affairs had been announced yesterday and NR would
meet with the new Minister in the next couple of weeks;
Page 6 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0005
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
¢ Combined with Her Majesty the Queen’s death it had been quite difficult to get a
handle on trade. All retailers seemed to be struggling with trade at present. If our
Postmaster’s are subjected to further rising costs, we have a difficult cocktail
brewing ahead of peak;
© Inrelation to the 3YP, what we are trying to do is to bring some life to the
challenges and the consequences that we are presented with. A list of anticipated
decisions for Board had been prepared for the next few months; these calls were
not easy, and the Board would need to discuss whether we had the capacity and
the funding to make some of these decisions;
© Regarding the social purpose of the Post Office, we were looking to see whether
we could achieve vulnerable business status with the government. C Creswell had
pushed back on this initially, however. LH queried how an entity obtained
vulnerable business status. NR advised that when he had spoken to C Creswell, he
had asked what we needed to demonstrate. EJ referenced the pay outs currently
being distributed by the Post Office. NR further advised that he had been clear
with R Taylor that we needed to punch quite hard here.
NR paused and called for questions.
LH noted the update to publish the ARA in December and advised that we could not
publish the DRR whilst there were outstanding approvals issues to be addressed with the
Shareholder. AC confirmed that the Company were not going to publish the ARA until
December.
NR advised that from a trading perspective we were in pretty good shape, and that the
churn numbers were extraordinary, however we needed to understand why. It might be
that our elderly Postmasters had no alternative and could not pass in their keys. The cost-
of-living crisis was likely to hit them very hard with business rates and energy costs where
they were. Management were looking to get under the skin of this issue to understand it;
there was a concern as to whether we were just storing up a problem, as it did not feel
right. SI queried whether management had spoken to any of these Postmasters? NR
replied that he reviewed the Voice of the Postmaster correspondence and he thought that
Postmasters were perhaps hanging on for the peak. EJ reflected that in the absence of
selling their business, it was not the easiest exit for Postmasters who needed to wait for a
break in their lease. ZP asked for confirmation that we did not know when the lease
breaks were. NR advised that this was correct. We projected 500 branches of churn, and
that has been revised down to 300 given we had had an extraordinary 6 months. EJ
reflected that the recent remuneration announcements could assist Postmasters to hang
on for a bit longer.
Sl advised that he had found out about the additional banking hubs via another
Postmaster. NR took the point however asked SI to please remember that we did not run
the process and advised that we also knew nothing about the launch and that there had
been no prior consultation with us. The challenge for us was how to roll these out and we
needed to come up with a set of rules for the pipeline as to who could apply and how. A
further challenge was getting the banks to recognise that we were the only ‘gig in town’
left to do this.
EJ advised that Postmasters were being very badly eroded online by RMG and shared his
view that this was the biggest issue for Postmasters. EJ referenced the stamps that were
being discontinued and advised that Post Offices were taking in all RMG stamps which
involved considerable work however Postmasters were not being remunerated for it.
Page 7 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0006
5.1
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
SI noted a rise in the number of BRP cards to distribute in branch. NR queried why the
numbers had risen at present. SI advised that he thought this could be attributed to
student:
ZP requ
discussi
update
's. ACTION NR advised that he would speak to M Roberts about this.
ested that NR provide an update on! land also requested that during the
ion on the 3YP the Policy Review was considered. NR proceeded to provide an
on including the number of Post Offices potentially to be closed and the
possible timing.
EJ raised the issue of the limits banks were imposing on cash deposits and the difficulties
Post Offices were experiencing as a result. NR advised that he had spoken to M Kearsley
on this on Friday and provided assured that he was on this.
The Chair called for questions. There were no further questions.
Finance
Financial Performance Report
TABLED
joined tl
and NOTED was a report, ‘August 2022 (P5) — Performance Overview’. MJ and NB
he Meeting at 14:05.
AC spoke to the report, advising as follows:
The Company had performed better than budget, largely because of FRES.
However, we could see travel returns levelling off;
The position on mails was ugly. The Chair queried what the feeling for September
was. AC replied that this was difficult to assess with the additional bank holiday
due to the Queen’s death and industrial action. Despite this however, AC saw no
grounds for thinking that the trend was incorrect, and AC was not confident about
Christmas trading. LH queried whether we had any market context data. AC
replied that it was the market definitely. BG noted that Evri as a business were
tracking 10% down. AC shared his view that RMG appeared to be uniquely
troubled. RMG were threatening to split the business into 2, selling off the
international business and repatriating those funds to the shareholders, then
leaving a UK business;
a revised forecast was being prepared; we had been comfortably ahead of budget
until this point;
Our strategy on Postmaster losses needed to be reviewed. The Company had a
policy and a process to recover losses from Postmasters; what we think we need
to do in these situations is instigate the conduct of thorough investigations.
Postmaster losses were becoming material for the Company and had the capacity
to hurt Postmaster remuneration. In August Postmaster losses were !
{mmsisaer} We cannot afford this. We had been hoping that we would
not start actively disputing Postmaster losses until we were off Horizon however
on these numbers we could not wait. We could have lots of tactical conversations
Page 8 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
NR/M
Roberts
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0007
5.2
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
janagement did not think that
this was an issue that could wait. EJ queried whether there were any themes
around the losses. AC advised that a common theme was a Postmaster
distributing money and then recording it as zero. When we rolled out NBIT in
2024 we would go into branches and count everything on the day we did the
change-over so nothing historical was carried into NBIT. SI queried who would do
this. NR queried whether this needed to be an independent. EJ shared his view
that this would not need external verification and could be completed with the
Postmaster. AC advised that we would need to prepare over the next 12 months
to undertake this activity;
branch numbers were quite good, and it was mostly outreaches that had been
closed.
The Chair asked if MJ or NB had any points they wished to contribute. NB advised that we
presently had comfortable head room. MJ noted the volatility on mails however banking
performance remained strong.
The Chair called for questions. ZP observed that the numbers on PUDO were tiny. MJ
replied that this was due to delays and getting devices working. NR advised that
management were on this.
Working Capital Facility Increase
TABLED and NOTED was a report, ‘Working Capital Facility Increase for peak trading period
FY22/23’.
AC spoke to the paper advising that, given conditions, the request was coming slightly
early this year, as opposed to in previous years when the request was made around
Christmas.
BT queried the nature of the approval sought; was it approval to reduce the buffer if and
when required or \ o reduce the buffer now. AC replied that the reduction
in the buffer from: ould be implemented now. With strike action and
the impending peak management were attempting to make sure no Postmasters were
carrying a really dangerous level of cash. SI queried whether management were
monitoring this and assisting. AC replied that they were. SI queried whether reporting on
this was undertaken. NR replied that it was, then the team reviewed the reporting and
acted. EJ queried whether we were looking at recirculating our cash to the ATM networks.
AC replied that we would like to do this, however it would cause an issue on the Bank of
England facility, although this was something which we could likely resolve. SI commented
that on the cash counting front he had been trialling some Glory counting machines and
these were game changing. In addition, the new ATMs were phenomenal; customers liked
the new machines, and these were much easier to fill.
The Chair called for questions. There were no questions.
The Board RESOLVED to APPROVE the delegation of authority to the Group Chief Financial
Officer and the Group Financial Controller, to authorise temporary increases in the level of
the £950m BEIS Working Capital Facility for the period 27 September 2022 through 31
January 2023.
Ashort recess was taken between 14:25 — 14:31.
Page 9 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0008
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
Three Year Strategic Plan Overview and Risk Tolerance Considerations
TABLED and NOTED were the following papers:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
‘Three Year Plan’;
‘Accelerating the Network Strategy’;
‘Mails 3YP’;
‘HMBU Cost Challenge’; and
‘Risk in the 3YP’.
TM joined the Meeting at 14:30.
AC outlined the paper, advising as follows:
What was sought from the Board today was high level alignment on the challenges
and an appreciation of the decisions to come. Decisions in relation to the 3YP
would be sequenced over the 2 Board Meetings in November and December;
We have seen quite clearly that the Company is not going to remain viable if we
keep going on as is, and there is no way we can finesse this. We need to tackle
this head on and forcibly;
To get more support from government we need to demonstrate self-help. We had
made this point to the shareholder and the shareholder had in turn made this
point back to us;
Management still had more work to do — the paper represented a hypothesis not a
plan;
one of the things worth enforcing was that it was the
“that is, it is a cash measure
‘fundamentally and that creates a simplicity about how we focus our efforts going
forward. Postponing! will help. We are going to have to be sensible
about this and we will take advantage of this where we can;
the next 2 years look fundamentally differently to what we thought;
on the basis of the submissions the business put in, in September, we would
next year. The peak deficit is
We need to make changes in the cash flow now to deal
with this. We need to be careful however as the numbers are quite volatile — for
example the security headroom in PS looks quite good however this needs to be
matched against the compensation payments that will need to go out. We will
update on these quarterly;
the change in mails is the biggest change;
the HMU spend has gone up significantly, with the budget submission detailing an
increase offi ‘or HMU and the Inquiry;
we were seeing higher costs on pay and inflation increasing materially;
in relation to Postmaster remuneration, having falling Postmaster remuneration
over the next few years did not feel right, so this has been increased although was
not keeping pace with inflation;
the paper set out a high-level hypothesis on how we could close this gap. AC
spoke to each of the items including stopping Belfast Exit and the approach to
NBIT. In relation to HMU the business submission was being challenged and we
would have to insource things. On the Inquiry, the team has attempted to reduce
the additional spend forecast, however we do not think we will be able to
Page 10 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0009
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
unpick this entirely given the Inquiry is going to run for a longer period than first
thought;
NR queried what the Finance team thought the effect of I __
would be, and whether the increases would be linear. MJ replied that whilst the
increases were not linear, they were predictable;
LH noted that whilst the 3YP required us to focus short term we needed to be
looking beyond this as well, and there needed to be a growth angle to what we
were doing if we could afford it. MJ replied that there was, however NBIT would
limit what we could handle. LH replied that NBIT should not limit what we could
sell online. EJ advised that he was indifferent to where products were sold,
provided Postmaster could share in the reward. LH noted that there were going to
be many customers who didn’t go into store anymore, and we needed to think
about this. EJ emphasised that we needed to think beyond the 3YP, and that we
needed to make to selling products online, and not miss this opportunity;
NR would be chairing a key steering group every 2 weeks tracking progress against
the 3YP. In terms of vacancies, the ask was to bring hiring proposals including that
of contractors to the steering group to see if any capacity could be created;
AC was concerned about the November Postmaster conference as there was the
expectation that we were going to make more announcements on Postmaster
remuneration, however AC did not know where this money was going to come
from. AC was also concerned that if we sought government assistance, yet went
back a second time to help Postmasters, that that may not be well perceived by
government;
out of operating costs over the next 3 years was very considerable.
it had been put aside for redundancies;
The roll-out of NBIT was being discussed in earnest. Area managers in 2024 were
not going to be able to do their day jobs, so there would be an impact on the call
centres. We needed to work this through;
We were going to need to have a lot of discipline and we needed to re-balance the
relationship with Postmasters. NR agreed with this and the need to raise the bar
on the relationship. This would involve moving to the use of Branch Hub rather
than operating on a multi-channel basis, and requiring end of week balancing to be
performed as we would simply not have the infrastructure to assist in a manual
way;
AC's view was that we were going to have to focus!”
In terms of the policy review, the assumption
‘had been made that nothing would change over the course of the 3YP in this
respect;
AC shared his view that we would need to operate more pushily within the rules,
t IRRELEVANT
IRRELEVANT
will have to be prepared to face a lot of noise in communities and with
Postmasters. Some of these things we could do in tandem with the roll-out of
NBIT such as closing branches. NR advised that there were changes that the Retail
team thought could be executed now;
AC advised that we could! IRRELEVANT }
We would need to build’a case seeking funding from government
‘to enable these activities.
Page 11 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0010
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
The Chairman observed that the immediacy of solving for the gap was inextricably linked
to defining the shape of a viable network. Putting aside historical issues, there were
problems we were grappling with, particularly in that as the business of our main partner
RMG went down, so did ours. The inescapable solution was that we needed to reduce our
cost base. This seemed to be premised on achieving 2 key elements, firstly whether we
I then secondly articulating the!
pa for that. We needed to run a commercial network: the I"
hese are the self-help measures we could take. BG queried whether the
‘Beard was satisfied that a debate on the insurance business was called for. It was agreed
that a discussion on the}! business was required. The Chair cautioned that the
Board needed to be very careful that we did not have a repeat of the sale of the telecoms
business.
AC advised that the 3YP and accompanying decisions would be brought back to the Board
in November, then in December, with approval then sought from the shareholder.
LH queried whether in the 3YP we were trying to!
and asked TM to speak to this, as there was a political overlay
here. Before passing to TM NR spoke briefly to the timeframes for the policy review and
shared his view that the shareholder was not exactly running at the exercise; no Chair had
been appointed as yet. TM detailed phase 1 and phase 2 of the policy review and noted
that the intent would be to consult from Spring next year, although the timetable had not
been complied with to date, particularly i in relation to the appointment of the Chair. There
was a risk that of i
In relation to the:
decisions in respect of the 3YP ahead of the policy review. TM took the point however
advised that this would create a catalyst for the necessary conversations.
AC advised that the i issue that was as adding a lot of urgency ¥ was 5 NBIT; if we were going to
“IRRELEVANT
could potentially be in strikes for another year.
with us.
-however others were not.
AC advised that he did not propose to go into the supporting papers unless anyone wished
to. There being no desire expressed to consider the supporting papers AC moved on to
the risk tolerance paper, stating that to execute a plan that looked commercially
acceptable we were going to have to take a lot more risk and a lot more risk in the
network, This was going to be incredibly noisy. What would be helpful would be feedback
from the Board on the proposals and the calling out of any red lines. SI advised that a red _
line in his view was the potential to reduce the current!
I IRRELEVANT Postmasters had adhered to the
‘fules fora number of years, so how would it look if this was changed now. AC replied that
if we don’t do this then we would be unable to realign the remuneration. TM queried
whether it was format type that was the issue; for example, if a Postmaster had a main,
then we would assume they wouldn’t want a main introduced within the proximity or was
it that they would not want a Drop & Collect. SI replied that they would not want either.
Page 12 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0011
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
j ¥ e Retail team would like it would
cost another I __ IRRELEVANT _ __. [AC noted that there was a
suggestion that the training could be prepared inhouse, however this had been pushed
back on. EJ queried. the cvber.tisks in.relation.to.NBIT.AC replied that the proposal was
y over the next couple of years
The discussion turned to HMU matters and AC noted that one of the difficult decisions to
come was in relation to late applications and how this would be administered. BT queried
how costs could be pushed down in relation to the Inquiry. NR advised that he was in
dialogue with BF on this, and that the quality of the HSF team was not what we needed it
to be. We needed something more operational to assist us in the next 15 months. This
was a question that we knew we needed to answer.
ZP shared her view that when we spoke to BEIS as shareholder that we would need to use
a different voice, cautioning them that we would not be a going concern if the mails
trajectory continued. Once we have a plan, we needed to have a different conversation
with Postmasters and that voice needed to change as well.
The Chairman drew the discussion to a close. TM, MJ and NB left the meeting at 15:27.
Mails 3YP
OW and NO joined the meeting at 15:28. A paper was provided in the meeting.
OW introduced the paper advising:
© the team were looking to get under the skin of the 3YP in relation to Mails;
the boost in volumes for mails during covid had fallen away;
when looking at RMG what was very clear was that RMG was only going in one
direction and that the pay dispute was worsening as time went on. It was
assumed that this pressure would continue for the foreseeable future. It was not
only the industrial action however, there was an active risk to the investor, and
they had restructured. There was a query whether RMG would be able to deliver
their USO. Some of RMG’s business was going to their competitors;
¢ the current circumstances raised whether we would need to take more actions on
cost base in the 3YP and illustrated the! IRRELEVANT. ad
BT queried whether we had any sense of what the government's interaction with RMG
was. OW replied that we did not have any intelligence on this although we had asked. The
scrutiny BEIS was applying was only 10 days old, however they would be worried about
delivery of the USO. ZP queried whether the team could do some more work on war
gaming. ACTION OW replied that the team had included some materials on this in the
pack for the Board Strategy Day in July and that the team would need to come back on
this.
Page 13 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0012
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
OW passed to NO. NO advised:
« he wished to look at the 3YP in terms of Mails and why that had changed in the
latest version versus the previous submission;
he would also speak about RMG and what the team were doing to sure up the
relationship;
e the mails business was facing into some extreme challenges including the decline
in mails post covid, migration to sales online away from in branch,
disintermediation from RMG, and that falling away of the international market due
to Brexit and customs declarations. Given these challenges the latest 3YP showed
a different trading profit from mails;
There were 3 key reasons, the first one being that we were working off the wrong
baseline, there had been an assumption that levels post pandemic would remain
however levels had dropped back down. ZP queried whether this was just because
we were in an economic crisis; that is, if we looked at a 5-year period would this
unwind. OW replied if the pandemic period was removed, then then trend looked
pretty stable. We had flat lined for the outer period of the 3YP, and we thought
that this was appropriate. The cost-of-living crisis may conclude earlier so the
trading may not be as bad, however. BG referenced other businesses operating in
this market, and, that whilst we were seeing trading ease off, other businesses
were.retaining earnings from the covid period, which suggested the issue is with
O agreed with this and advised that RMG were simply losing market share;
© Moving to the second reason, this was the extent of disintermediation by RMG,
who were desperately trying to find ways to sell outside Post Office, for example
by collecting from homes;
The third reason was the change in international which had had a huge impact on
our business particularly parcels. The mails team were currently looking at
solutions with RMG to try to digitise the customs declaration;
The Chair referenced the incremental mail from non RMG sources and queried how much
of the aggregator was built into the revised figures. OW advised that this was fully built in.
We were trying to build a new business in this respect and the benefits would be from
years 3 and 4. It was hard to escape the conclusion that in the short term that there was
not much more we could do. It was very hard to model the travails of the current RMG
who had fixed cost issues the same as us and they had not invested in automation.
ACTION OW noted that in the July Board Strategy papers the mails team had included
numbers for the outer period, however this work would be revisited to understand what ow/NO
an Armageddon situation might look like.
The Chair queried, whether, given the USO, if government controlled the fortunes of RMG.
The problem was that the fortunes of both the Post Office and RMG were driven by the
same issues. BT shared his view that there must be war gaming going on within BEIS, as
they were going to have to deal with this and the USO. AC advised that there had been
high level discussions with RMG about putting the businesses back together, however the
industrial issues had to be resolved. EJ shared his view was that the problem was that Joe
Public thought that the Post Office was RMG. On strike days the Post Office was losing
business as people thought that we were closed. NR replied that he thought that the
Company was quite busy online in terms of communicating the message that we were
open. EJ continued, that if the industrial action was ongoing, we needed a better strike
strategy.
Page 14 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0013
tl
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
The Chair provided an overview, advising that if we looked at this from a market
perspective, that society was simply not very interested in letters, and that we had a very
unhealthy market that relied on USO and a very ineffective method of distribution. We
could be revolutionary and say that a big chunk of this activity is not needed and change
that marketplace. The knock on of this would be what did we need the Post Office for and
how would it make money. We needed to re-shape the Post Office so that it was less
We needed to extrapolate forward and determine what was the shape of
nS years and then make the changes for this today. OW agreed with this
and advised that the mails team were doubling down on implementing the strategy and
would report back to the Board before the end of the year. EJ queried where the work in
relation to the online aggregator was up to. NO provided an update advising that there
had a lot of progress and that Parcels to Go were very interested. OW advised that the
mails team would likely have a pretty good idea of where this was at by the end of the
next month. BG queried the potential time for launch. NO advised that we still looking at
Q3 next year and that the team were working on procurement. EJ exclaimed at this and
queried whether we were going to lose a year in execution. OW replied that the mails
team were going to implement as quickly as they could. LH and SI both expressed concern
on the timeline.
The Chair called for further questions. There being no further questions OW and NO left
the meeting at 15:59.
CS queried whether there were any aspects of the mails strategy could be brought to
fruition prior to Christmas. NR advised that the GE would look at this Thursday. LH shared
her view that she did not think that the online piece was that technical. BG advised that
the proposed implementation period was a lot longer than he was expecting.
Belfast Exit
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Belfast Exit Programme’. ZM and JS joined the Meeting
at 16:02. The Chair spoke briefly to the paper and advised ZM and JS that they should take
the paper as read.
JS outlined the paper. Key discussion points were as follows:
¢ CS noted that there was no fail over plan. We had not tested, and we needed to
do this. CS referenced the scope that would need to continue in relation to NBIT,
and that we needed to ensure that this was sured up;
© CS queried what our plan B was, if we didn’t get there in 2025. CS advised that she
would reluctantly support the proposal however CS had a number of concerns
including the lack of fail over testing and engagement with Fujitsu. ACTION In
response to CS’s first concern in relation to the fail over plan, ZM advised that the
team had commenced the fail over plan yesterday and should have an update on
this at the next Board Meeting in November. In terms of how we were engaging
with Fujitsu, Fujitsu had put in place mechanisms for retention through to 2025,
however ZM thought that if by 2023 it did not look likely that we would be exited
by 2025, that that could make a difference to Fujitsu and that we could have some
further leeway with ZM;
® CSraised a further concern being the accounting treatment and that we would
likely have a large write off on this investment and queried whether there would
be public cost issues;
zM
Page 15 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0014
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
¢ BT shared his view that he felt that we were getting the worst of every option
here, unless it could be established that we can hit March 2025, and the team
appeared reluctant to give this assurance. NR responded that ZM was not
reluctant. AC advised that the de-risking of NBIT would be returned to the Board;
proposals such as removing lottery from our product set were being worked on by
ZM and the team;
* ZM advised that whilst difficult decisions would need to be made so as to deliver
NBIT in March 2025, if we could not exit Belfast in 2023, the likely cost to stay
would be circa Icuvar} JS provided a breakdown on the {w===!, being service fees
for Fujitsu, as well'as an upgrade for the centres. BT noted that the team were
assuming that Fujitsu would continue to provide the services on the same basis
that they were doing so currently. AC clarified that if we went to Fujitsu and asked
them to extend beyond March 2025, if we assumed that they could be persuaded
this would be a cost of } then there would also be further capital investment
‘for the first year, then j=
‘Year thereafter. BT advised that he was trying to balance these costs against the
Jo complete; it seemed that we were being told it was too risky and
full visibility here. AC advised that if we continued with mesmthere was no
guarantee on cost or time so this would not obviate the 2 tisk of having to extend
with Fujitsu;
© The Chair shared his view that we needed to look at the deliverables for March
2025 and ascertain what was the least risky way to get to that point. What
concerned the Chair was our track record on previous projects. AC replied that
NBIT was scheduled to commence roll out in February 2024, then to be fully rolled
out in throughout the balance of 2024;
* J queried whether we would receive any funds back from fi
we would not, and that we needed a strong relationship with
relevant scope for NBIT. LH noted that discontinuing the Belfast Exit would not be
good news for their pitch had been that they would crack wh:
could not;
¢ ACTION ZP advised that she wished to have more clarity on the economics of the zy
proposal and asked for a separate session on this. ACTION AC noted this, and that 7M
management would need to return with a roll out plan and committed to
arranging sessions for these for the end of next month;
¢ ACTION ZP queried whether we were sure that we were not giving our successors
a problem on inflated operations costs and asked that management come back on
this. The Chair agreed and noted that this represented a large element of our cost
structure. The Chair advised that when we were imposing a large amount of
change the benefits needed to be significant. ZM advised that we could not stay
indefinitely on Horizon. LH contributed that we needed to take responsibility in
house;
* ACTION The Chair asked for further details as to the risks and outcomes associated
with the options; bad decisions were sometimes made because the alternatives zM
were not fully understood. AC agreed that when the matter was returned to the
Board that the team would include this analysis. The Chair emphasised the
importance of understanding the other options.
zM
The Board RESOLVED:
Page 16 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0015
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
(i) the cessation of the Belfast Exit programme be and is hereby approved, save to
the extent necessary to continue with scope required to deliver NBIT;
(ii) the reinforcement of the legacy data centres be and is hereby approved;
(iii) I programme funding for October be and is hereby approved to enable
programme activity to be wound down and Belfast fortification and
components shared with NBIT to be implemented.
Fujitsu Contract Extension
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Request for Delegated Authority to execute the final 1-
year extension of the Fujitsu Horizon Services’.
JS spoke briefly to the paper, advising that an extension in respect of the data centre
contracts with Fujitsu would be required also, and that this would be brought to the next
Board meeting.
The Board RESOLVED that the following be and are hereby APPROVED:
(i) The exercise by the Company of the final 1-year extension of the Fujitsu
Horizon Services Agreement for the period 1 April 2024 — 31 March 2025;
(ii) The issuing of notice to Fujitsu in respect of the extension; and
(iii) Signing of the notice to Fujitsu by any Company Director or the Company
Secretary.
SPMP Funding Request
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘SPMP Oct 22 — Jan 2023 drawdown’.
The Chair called for questions. LH queried whether there was anything different we could
do on key employee risk. ZM replied that he had 3 FTE concentrating on this as well as
external resource. LH queried when it would be possible to see the new counters. ZM
replied that this would be possible shortly and Directors could view the new counters in
the model branch.
The Board RESOLVED that the following be and are hereby APPROVED:
(i) the programme funding o for the planned deliverables from October
2022 to January 2023 { apex an xceptional); and
(ii) the programmes’ end date be moved from 31 March 2024 to 31 March 2025 with a
new set of key milestones.
ZM and Js left the meeting at 16:44.
Historical Matters
Historical Matters Unit Update
TABLED and NOTED were the following papers:
(i) ‘Historical Matters Programme Update’;
(ii) “HMBU Finance Update’;
(iii) ‘HSS Pre-Offer Funding October 2022’; and
(iv) ‘HSS Post-Offer Funding October 2022’.
Page 17 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0016
9.2
9.3
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
SR and BF joined the Meeting at 16:45.
SR proceeded to speak to the papers advising as follows:
* The total number of overturned historical convictions was now up to 81;
* OnHSS the team had passed the 80% target of offers out by the end of August.
The team were on a trajectory to deliver 95% of offers out by the end of October
although this would be a stretch;
«The ENE process conducted before summer break was a success and delivered a
good outcome. The process had seen good behaviours and had been very
collaborative. The process had given us a template to implement against;
© Ondetriment 1, suspension payments, we were waiting for HM Treasury to make
a decision;
© On OHC we were moving from a negotiation approach to the mediation approach;
* On detriment 2, outstanding balances, there remained a lot of work to be done;
¢ Pre-offer and Post-offer funding for October had been approved by way of
delegated authority. Further funding approvals would be requested for
November.
The Chair called for questions. EJ commented on the high calibre of the process and the
HMU lead team.
Public Inquiry Update and Funding Request
TABLED and NOTED were the following papers:
(i) ‘Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Update’;
(ii) ‘Briefing Note on the Inquiry’s confidentiality undertakings’; and
(iii) ‘Horizon - Opening Statement’.
FC joined the Meeting at 16:53 and KG at 16:54.
Inquiry — Opening Statement
Confidential: to discuss legally privileged advice
BF provided an overview and that he would take the draft Opening Statement as read. BF
introduced KG and advised that KG was in attend:
specifics in relation to the draft Opening Statemer
KG advised that:
Page 18 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0017
POL00447940
POL00447940
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
The Board RESOLVED:
(i) That the form of the Company's Opening Statement to the Inquiry and submission
thereof in the form tabled be and is hereby APPROVED;
(ii) to DELEGATE authority to the Company’s Group General Counsel and Inquiry
Director to make any minor amendments to the form of the Opening Statement
tabled; and
(iii) that funding in the amount of £1.8m funding for October be and is hereby
APPROVED.
BF, KG and FC left the Meeting at 17:11.
10. Approval Requests
10.1 Procurement
TABLED and NOTED were the following papers:
Page 19 of 21
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0018
11.
11.1
11.3
11.4
11.5
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
(i) ‘Procurement Report’;
(ii) “Appendix A - CCS Procurement Gas and Electricity for POL Estate’; and
(iii) ‘Appendix B - SPMP Branch Point of Sale (POS) Equipment and Peripherals
award’.
The Board RESOLVED that:
(i) The award of a contract for Gas and Electricity Supply for DMB’s, Secure
Warehouses and Administration Centres for mainland UK via CCS
Framework RM6011 — Supply of Energy and Ancillary Services on a 24-
month contract commenci il 1 2023 with a total value for the call
off in the vicinity of I be and is hereby retrospectively
APPROVED;
(ii) the form of the Electricity and Gas contract, being the standard form
Crown Commercial Services Framework RM6011 — Supply of Energy
and Ancillary Services contract (the ‘Contract’) be and is hereby
retrospectively APPROVED; and
(iii) any one executive Director and/ or the Company Secretary be
authorised to sign the Contract.
Noting Papers with no Presentation
Health & Safety Report
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Health & Safety Monthly Report’.
ACTION EJ noted the revised approach in relation to Covid set out in the Report and
queried whether this was going to be shared with Postmasters. AC advised that it would
be.
AC
POL Control Framework
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘DRAFT Internal Control Framework’.
CS spoke briefly to the paper advising that the paper had been considered by the ARC.
Improvement Development Group Update
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘IDG Update’.
Pensions — Augmentations to RMPP.
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Project (Pensions) Assurance — Post Office Section Royal
Mail Pensions Plan (RMPP)’.
The Board RESOLVED to APPROVE any 2 executive Directors or an executive Director and
the Company Secretary be authorised to execute the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Company and Royal Mail Pensions Trustees Limited in the form provided.
Common Issues Judgement/ Horizon Issues Judgment Dashboard
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Common Issues Judgment Dashboard PS’.
Page 20 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0019
12.
12.1
12.3
12.4
12.5
13.
14.
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
Investigations
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Post Office Investigations: Next Steps’.
The Chair called for questions. LH advised that she thought the approach was sensible
however queried the tone of the paper. ZP advised that J Bartlett was very experienced
and competent. BT agreed with this and shared his view that J Bartlett was the right
person for this.
Noting and Governance Items
Officer Changes
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Officer Changes’. This matter was dealt with previously
in the Meeting during the Chair’s update to the Board on the work of the Nominations
Committee.
Committee Memberships
TABLED and NOTED was a paper, ‘Appointments to Board Committees’. This matter was
dealt with previously in the Meeting during the Chair’s update to the Board on the work of
the Nominations Committee.
Sealings Report
The Board APPROVED the affixing of the Common Seal of the Company to the documents
set out against itemsnumber 2146 — 2155 inclusive in the Seals Register.
Future Meeting Dates
The future meeting dates were NOTED.
Forward Agenda
The Forward Agenda was NOTED.
Any Other Business
There being no other business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 17:15.
Date of next scheduled meeting
1 November 2022 10:00 — 14:25.
: Tim Parke
#4442092-47:27
Chairman
Page 21 of 21
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00447940
POL00447940
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0020
POL00447940
POL00447940
Voting Results for Board Minutes from 27.09.2022 (approved on 01.11.2022)
The signature vote has been passed. 1 votes are required to pass the vote, of which 0 must be independent.
Vote Response Count (%)
For 1 (100%)
Against 0 (0%)
Abstained 0 (0%)
Not Cast 0 (0%)
Voter Status
Name Vote Voted On
Tidswell, Ben For 01/11/2022 17:27
POL-BSFF-107-0000024_0021