UKG1I00020855
UKGI00020855
Message
From: Callard, Richard - UKGI [/O=HMT/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=6988FBA346C64632AA2C6DDACEAC7D18-CALLARD, RICHARD (RC]
Sent: 16/02/2018 11:06:19
To: Patrick Bourke
ce:
Subject: FW: Project Sparrow meeting
Patrick — just to unpack this, following another case which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority / BEIS lost
unexpectedly, costing c£100m, there is heightened interest in legal cases which involve big numbers and reputational
risk (even if we consider that we have a good case).
Our GC here, Elizabeth O’Neill, would like to meet Jane to put in place some more formal protocols to ensure that UKGI /
BEIS are sufficiently patched in to what’s going on, and to ensure that as POL’s accounting officer, the Perm Sec is
content (with no inference whatsoever that POL has not been keeping us informed so far). On that basis we are pulling
together a sub to bring him up to speed on the case (he is aware of it, but actually the case has been pretty quiet during
his tenure). In preparing that advice, there are a couple of questions I wouldn’t mind an answer to please:
¢ I want to put the estimated claims of the litigants in the context of the recovery of funds POL made from them
over the years. Is there an average or total I can quote, which would serve to demonstrate the rather inflated
expectations from the litigants compared to the losses actually recovered by POL? I realise you don’t have a
firm figure for the size of the claim.
e AmIright in saying that you are currently appealing against a temp postmaster who won a case claiming that
s/he should have had employee status? This is relevant because a) it might have a bearing on the case, or vice
versa, but b) as you are aware BEIS is the Department with responsibility for employment and “contractor” law
so there are wider ramifications for the Department here.
e = Andam I right in saying that once an spm joins the litigation you can’t recover any missing funds from them?
e Finally, at the last Board Al or Jane referred to a perceived uptick in fraud or other cases because SPMss realised
it was harder for POL to seek to recover funds or prosecute due to sparrow issues. Is there any objective
evidence of that that I can quote (presumably its harder to compare like with like because you now have better
management information and are performing more targeted audits).
Many thanks, and apologies if I should be asking someone else these questions, but I’d be copying you in anyway.
Richard
From: Callard, Richard - UKGI
Sent: 16 February 2018 10:53
To: McAlister, Marcus - UKGI
Ce: Jane MacLeod!
Lambert, Helen - UKGI!
Patrick Bourke
‘Subje
roject Sparrow meeting
Hi Marcus
Further to a discussion I have just had with Jane just now, please could you arrange a meeting between Jane MacLeod of
POL, and Elizabeth, Helen and I on “project sparrow”. Ideally we’d get this in next week if we could, and Tom may want
to join us. Happy to go to POL if that’s easier for Jane, and we probably need an hour.
UKGI00020855
UKGI00020855
Kind regards
Richard
Richard Callard I Executive Director I Post Office Shareholder Team, Geospatial Commission Set Up Team
UK Government Investments
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET