A point of much interest to the Inquiry is whether the mediation scheme, set up in the aftermath of the Second Sight interim report to provide for a proper investigation of SPM complaints and mediation, as well (according to Paula Vennell’s witness statement) “closure” on Second Sight’s involvement hitherto, was conducted in good faith.
It is of course entirely normal for parties to any litigation to hold themselves out as negotiating hard but in good faith. What do we learn about how our third normal was conducted?
Early on Parsons is seen to advise to Crichton that, “mediation is usually set up with a view to reaching a resolution. As discussed yesterday I doubt we will ever reach closure on these cases.” He says he knew there was “a large delta” between the Post Office and sub-postmaster’s views of the world but also thought that mediation might help close that gap and that settlement was in fact reached in a “good number of cases”. We learn that a number of SPMs were invited to mediation meetings when there was no intention to offer an kind of settlement.
He is made to defend a comment he made at the time about correspondence from Alan Bates suggesting an expectation of compensation, “Any hint that [the Post Office] may be considering cash settlements would encourage the toxic cases, encourage Shoosmiths and play badly in the media. I think we need to put a stop to this quickly.” He explained this by suggesting compensation was possible but not the only outcome and he was just trying to stop the Post Office conceding liability and assuming they would be cash settlements in every case.
He also accepts his dealings with Second Sight were sometimes “reasonably adversarial” and that antagonism “waxed and waned” having started off as being more cooperative in the beginning. An email from Mr Parsons to Sir Anthony Hooper (chairman of the mediation scheme) saying an entire list of cases under consideration are unsuitable for mediation was not typical he said although he accepts the scheme had begun to break down around this time (the end of 2014). He’s also taken to a document where says he thought the working group didn’t offer any real value. It is suggested this may relate to Sir Anthony Hooper taking a more generous approach to allowing cases to go to mediation than PO would have done. A decision which Mr. Parsons says he disagreed with.
Mr Blake: Reflecting now on all those emails and just your recollection of the mediation process; do you think that the process itself was doomed fail?
Andrew Parsons: No, I don’t believe so. I think people went into it with good faith. I think the breakdown of – I think the relationship with Second Sight could have been better – between Post Office and Second Sight . I think that could have been more collaborative. I think that would have required more compromise on both sides to reach that stage. But I still think that the Mediation Scheme did a lot of good.
Mr Blake: Do you think, reflecting on it, you personally should have taken a less adversarial approach?
Andrew Parsons: Towards Second Sight? Yes, with hindsight I wish – I think there were some points where we were fair in criticising Second Sight but there were somewhere we were too adversarial.
