WBONO000776
WBON0000776
“GRO }
I "Richardson, Simon
Ms GRO j
Subject: FW: briefing note for Paula / JA meeting
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:49:40 +0000
Importance: Normal
Andy — I hadn’t heard that this was a suggestion from the board but clearly it is, what do you think? Could Brian
Altman help with this? Obviously I will need to flag to the team that any QC would be independent and expensive!
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 19 July 2013 13:29
To: Martin Edwards
Cc: Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker
Subject: Re: briefing note for Paula / JA meeting
All
Thanks for this.
I have a preference for a position where we appoint a QC to oversee whole process from now, including
marshalling SS.
I think this helps board positioning, would manage MP expectations and helps to provide over-arching oversight.
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
k> wrote:
On 19 Jul 2013, at 13:24, "Martin Edwards" 4
Susan, Alwen
We discussed a number of options on the call in relation to the MPs cases:
- $S to lead the overall process, but with us working closely in partnership with them to ensure they take
an orderly and impartial approach — this is probably closest to what MPs are expecting, but carries the
risk of repeating the issues we’ve experienced with SS to date;
- PO to lead the case reviews, but with SS providing independent support in terms of reviewing the
evidence — gives us more control, but might not wash with MPs;
- Anindependent third party such as a QC to chair the process, directing us and SS how to marshal the
evidence etc. This then also leads into the linked option Simon mentions below that we might have the
sam individual chairing the overall process, i.e. including the thematic review.
We didn’t reach firm conclusions on these options, but agreed we needed to document each of them with
pros/cons to arrive at a carefully considered recommendation.
We then discussed the linked question of how do we manage other cases which come out of the woodwork over
the coming months. Do these go to the new independent adjudicator/mediator (as suggested in Simon’s original
WBD_000646.000001
WBONO000776
WBON0000776
email below), or do we want to give that a blank slate and keep it focussed only on new live cases? If so, what’s
the process these for ‘new historical’ cases?
In terms of the briefing for the JA meeting, I’m happy to review/input as required, but not sure I can hold the pen
at this stage - need advice from you on how we're tackling the above questions and also the meeting handling
questions set out below.
I’m going to be tied up until 3.30, but happy to review anything then if that would be helpful. Also happy for you
to send direct to Paula if you prefer, whatever works for you.
Thanks,
Martin
From: Simon Baker
Sent: 19 July 2013 13:07
To: Mark R Davies; Martin Edwards; Susan Crichton
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Lesley J Sewell; Andy Holt; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Ruth X Barker; Sophie Bialaszewski
Subject: RE: briefing note for Paula / JA meeting
Susan
At our update call today we discussed the need to clarify the role of Second Sight for both the October thematic
report and the MP case review.
Although the POL board have given a strong steer to minimise the involvement of Second Sight, it is not realistic
to remove them, as they have the trust of the MPs.
The proposal is that we counter balance Second Sight by having the Independent Adjudicator, presumably a QC,
take an overarching role in both reviewing the MPs cases and the thematic report, with Second Sight providing
input into these. Obviously it will depend on the timing on getting Adjudicator in, but if you agree to this
approach we should raise it with Paula as an item to cover with JA on Monday.
Regards, Simon
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 19 July 2013 11:30
To: Martin Edwards
Cc: Simon Baker; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton; Lesley J Sewell; Andy Holt; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: Re: briefing note for Paula / JA meeting
Ahead of the call it is worth reminding ourselves of commitments the minister made in the House relating to this
and testing whether we are meeting them;
- any further work must be independent and seen to be so
- imperative that cases are looked at speedily
- the working party will be independent (in response to request for independent chair of working party )
- must be a procedure for new cases
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:42, "Martin Edwards"!
WBD_000646.000002
WBONO000776
WBON0000776
Thanks Simon, looks good.
I think it would be helpful to discuss the process for MPs' cases in further detail on the call, as this is still
sounding a bit woolly and potentially unconvincing. Realise we need to retain a degree of case-by-case
flexibility, but if we could come up with a unifying mechanism which provides reassurance on impartiality in all
cases I think that would be helpful in getting this agreed upfront.
My only other question on the substance below is whether we want to commit now to putting new MPs' cases
through the adjudicator. Do we need to do more work first on the gateway and terms of reference for the
adjudicator? Again, let's pick up on the call.
Alwen (and Susan) - anything else to add to the brief? Would be good to have a few lines on handling upfront,
i.e. what are JA and SS expecting from the meeting (how was it left last time), and what approach should Paula
take? Is she initiating the conversation along the lines of the script below, or does she start with listening/ open
questions etc?
Thanks,
Martin
Martin Edwards
Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive
Post Office
On 17 Jul 2013, at 19:19, "Simon Baker"
Martin, Alwen
I think you picked up the action to pull together the briefing note for the Paula / JA meeting.
My thoughts on content for the briefing:
Key Points:
1. Following the meeting on the gth July Post Office has already implemented many changes and is serious
about fully addressing all the issues raised in both the interim and final reports [some examples might be
useful]
2. To ensure we make this investigation a triumph, we need to agree the best way of conducting the rest of
investigation. There are two main objectives and we need to agree how best to deliver both of them.
The two main objectives are:
a. “getting to the truth” on the key problem themes identified by JFSA and Second Sight
b. Provide an independent review of the cases submitted by MPs
3. We propose that the Second Sight report, due in October, should focus on “getting to the truth” on the
themes that Second Sight have heard from subpostmasters. Second Sight believe is the best use of their
time. We have also discussed this with JFSA [Alwen I think you should include this in you conversation’s
with Alan]. This will also allow Post Office to get to the bottom of what we need to do to improve quickly.
4. We propose that we provide each MP and independent review of their case. This will need to be after
the October report, as those finding will be an important factor in the MPs cases. The exact nature of
each review with vary depending on the nature of the case (eg evidence availability, alignment to key
themes, nature of the problem). In essence each review will be tailored to the requirements of the MP
and their case. Second Sight will be involved in these. We propose that we meet with every MP during
the summer and agree with them how we will best provide an independent review of their case.
5. Post Office is defining the independent adjudication process. This will provide sub postmasters the
facility for an independent party to examine their cases going forward. We propose that those MP cases
that were submitted after the cut off are submitted to the independent adjudicator.
WBD_000646.000003
WBONO000776
WBON0000776
Regards, Simon
Simon Baker Head of Business Change and Assurance
<image001.png>
24 Floor, 148 Old Street, London, ECV 9HQ
@postofficenews
<image002.png>
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
WBD_000646.000004