info for him further for more info for without talking to paula first. who are you referring to there? paula vennells. why did you need to talk to her first? vennells. why did you need to talk to herfirst? i vennells. why did you need to talk to her first?— to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously _ to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought _ to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it _ to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it was - to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it was a - to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it was a good i i obviously thought it was a good idea to the time. this was a network issue and she was responsible for the network. there were two lines i could go down, i the operations director line responsible for the technology, or i could go down the network line, which was paula. we were focusing, i was focusing too much on the operations line and pollinated to be brought into the picture. pollinated to be brought into the icture. ., ., ., picture. could we go to the page before, please, _ picture. could we go to the page before, please, just _ picture. could we go to the page before, please, just to _ picture. could we go to the page before, please, just to see - picture. could we go to the page before, please, just to see the l before, please, just to see the e—mail chain? thank you. if you

carry ongoing up, please. so, that e—mail which is on the 15th of october is forwarded by ruth barker to paula venables on the 5th of november. —— paula vennells. the next day we see paula vennells replies to ruth barker and your copy then. it says, the attachment needs to be in the e—mailformat then. it says, the attachment needs to be in the e—mail format please. alan and i are out of the office so need to view it on blackberries. we also need the original e—mails. do you recall what conversation you had with paula vennells about this e—mail? 1 with paula vennells about this e-mail? ., �* ., , with paula vennells about this e-mail?_ del with paula vennells about this i e'mail?_ do you e-mail? i don't no. sorry. do you remember— e-mail? i don't no. sorry. do you remember discussing _ e-mail? i don't no. sorry. do you remember discussing anything i e-mail? i don't no. sorry. do you remember discussing anything to i e-mail? i don't no. sorry. do you i remember discussing anything to do with an investigation into these issues with paula vennells? i with an investigation into these issues with paula vennells? i issued the investigation _ issues with paula vennells? i issued the investigation request _ issues with paula vennells? i issued the investigation request down - issues with paula vennells? i issued the investigation request down the l

the investigation request down the operations line, because i was seeing it as a technology issue. it was the reference to the federation demented topology be in the loop, plus it was her branches, if you like. we were dealing with questions from them. in like. we were dealing with questions from them. , ., like. we were dealing with questions from them. ,, , ., like. we were dealing with questions from them. , ., , ., ., from them. in your statement, that documents — from them. in your statement, that documents can _ from them. in your statement, that documents can come _ from them. in your statement, that documents can come down, - from them. in your statement, that | documents can come down, please, from them. in your statement, that i documents can come down, please, in your statement you say in paragraph 101, that i gave notice of my resignation to adam crozier around late october or early november of 2009 and it was accepted. so around the time that she forwarded this e—mail, sorry, not you, the e—mail was forwarded to paula vennells. yes. do you think at that time you had resigned over thinking about it? it is embarrassing that i can't tell

you the actual dates, but i kept all the correspondence, but i kept it for the seven years for tax purposes and then bend it all. i can't remember the exact date, but i would have said it was late october or early november that i went to see adam and i said i would like to resign. i said adam and i said i would like to resign. isaid i adam and i said i would like to resign. i said i would like to see out the financial year because one of my criteria for success is with the business get back into profit. he asked me to not say anything until the new year. following that i then realised that if i said something at the beginning of the new year that parliament would be in recess and pat mcfadden, the minister, i was very supportive of, he worked quite closely with me so i rang adam and said, can i tell pat

before parliament recesses? i rang pat mcfadden in december and i told him, then i told my top team of the 4th him, then i told my top team of the 11th of january. him, then i told my top team of the 4th ofjanuary-_ 4th of january. that was the public osition, 4th of january. that was the public position, effectively. _ 4th of january. that was the public position, effectively. so _ 4th of january. that was the public position, effectively. so i - 4th of january. that was the public position, effectively. so i told - 4th of january. that was the public position, effectively. so i told the | position, effectively. so i told the to team position, effectively. so i told the top team and _ position, effectively. so i told the top team and there _ position, effectively. so i told the top team and there was _ position, effectively. so i told the top team and there was an - position, effectively. so i told the | top team and there was an internal communication and we told the world, as it were, that i was going. standing back, why do you think on the 6th of november you were speaking about your e—mail of the 15th of october with paula venables? let's bring the e—mail back—up. i wasn't planning on leaving until the end of march. me resigning

wouldn't change my behaviour. 1 wouldn't change my behaviour. i think it is page 22. we have the e—mail at the bottom on the 15th of october 2009. at the top is paula venables, second november, in which your copied and it sets ruth, the attachment needs to be in e—mailformat ruth, the attachment needs to be in e—mail format please. alan and ruth, the attachment needs to be in e—mailformat please. alan and i ruth, the attachment needs to be in e—mail format please. alan and i are out of the office, so it is implied that the two of you are together. no, necessarily. we didn't go out together much at all. we would be in different parts of the network, would be my guest.— different parts of the network, would be my guest. does that imply that because — would be my guest. does that imply that because she _ would be my guest. does that imply that because she has _ would be my guest. does that imply that because she has requested - would be my guest. does that imply that because she has requested thisi that because she has requested this e—mail with your own copy, does it imply that you are working on it together or discussing it together? yes, i'm sure we would have done. so

my question is, why at this stage would you discussing it with paula vennells? ~ ., ., , vennells? well, for the reasons i said, this was _ vennells? well, for the reasons i said, this was an _ vennells? well, for the reasons i said, this was an important - vennells? well, for the reasons i said, this was an important issue i said, this was an important issue and she needed to be aware of it. that can come down, and move on. going back in the chronology slightly, the last topic on the impact programme. [30 slightly, the last topic on the impact programme.- slightly, the last topic on the impact programme. slightly, the last topic on the imact rorramme. i. ., impact programme. do you recall what it was? yes- — impact programme. do you recall what it was? yes- a — impact programme. do you recall what it was? yes. a major— impact programme. do you recall what it was? yes. a major change _ impact programme. do you recall what it was? yes. a major change to - impact programme. do you recall what it was? yes. a major change to the - it was? yes. a major change to the accounting procedures, effectively. before the impact programme, sub—postmaster should balance a cash account, correct? sub-postmaster should balance a cash account, correct?— account, correct? yes. and that cash account, correct? yes. and that cash account would _ account, correct? yes. and that cash account would be _ account, correct? yes. and that cash account would be completed - account, correct? yes. and that cash account would be completed on - account, correct? yes. and that cash account would be completed on a - account would be completed on a wednesday, on a weekly basis, yes? i couldn't have told you that, but it sounds right, yes. do couldn't have told you that, but it

sounds right, yes.— couldn't have told you that, but it sounds right, yes. do you remember the chance sounds right, yes. do you remember the change that _ sounds right, yes. do you remember the change that came _ sounds right, yes. do you remember the change that came about - sounds right, yes. do you remember the change that came about because i the change that came about because of the impact? i the change that came about because of the impact?— of the impact? i probably don't, to be honest- — of the impact? i probably don't, to be honest. before _ of the impact? i probably don't, to be honest. before the _ of the impact? i probably don't, to be honest. before the impact - be honest. before the impact programme. _ be honest. before the impact programme. fs _ be honest. before the impact i programme, fs sub-postmaster be honest. before the impact _ programme, fs sub-postmaster balance programme, fs sub—postmaster balance their books and had a discrepancy which they couldn't explain. then they were able to ask for authorisation to put it in a suspense account, correct? 1 authorisation to put it in a suspense account, correct? i have learnt this— suspense account, correct? i have learnt this sense, _ suspense account, correct? i have learnt this sense, parading - suspense account, correct? i have learnt this sense, parading over . learnt this sense, parading over correspondence. bud learnt this sense, parading over correspondence.— learnt this sense, parading over correspondence. and then roll over to the next — correspondence. and then roll over to the next trading _ correspondence. and then roll over to the next trading period - correspondence. and then roll over to the next trading period while - correspondence. and then roll over to the next trading period while it | to the next trading period while it was investigated? following the impact programme, rather than weekly, the sub—masters had to balance every four or five weeks. if there was a discrepancy that they couldn't explain, they no longer to keep it in a suspense account and roll it into the next trading

period, correct? and the post office sought debt recovery from them at the end of the trading period, or it could be settled and paid off in due course. keep return please to pol 0003217? this is a board meeting on the 17th of august, you are there as a nonexecutive director. return to page seven, please. if you could go down to the impact programme, thank you. it says the objective of the

programme is to save costs, replace obsolete back—office systems, include branch accounting, include improved debt recovery. from whom are those debts being recovered? from sub—postmasters and offices, franchisees. i assume that is what it meant. irate franchisees. i assume that is what it meant. ~ ., ., ., . franchisees. i assume that is what itmeant. ., ., ., . . ., it meant. we had a finance function in chesterfield _ it meant. we had a finance function in chesterfield and _ it meant. we had a finance function in chesterfield and in _ it meant. we had a finance function in chesterfield and in my _ it meant. we had a finance function in chesterfield and in my head - it meant. we had a finance function| in chesterfield and in my head when we were in this meeting this was new technology for chesterfield that flowed out into the branches. the board is effectively discussing how you can improve debt recovery from sub—postmasters? you can improve debt recovery from sub-postmasters?_ sub-postmasters? amongst other thin . s, sub-postmasters? amongst other things. yes- _ sub-postmasters? amongst other things, yes. notice _ sub-postmasters? amongst other things, yes. notice to _ sub-postmasters? amongst other things, yes. notice to save - sub-postmasters? amongst other things, yes. notice to save time i sub-postmasters? amongst other l things, yes. notice to save time and branches, as well. it was a very

labour—intensive process. this branches, as well. it was a very labour-intensive process. this was for the benefit _ labour-intensive process. this was for the benefit of _ labour-intensive process. this was for the benefit of post _ labour-intensive process. this was for the benefit of post office - for the benefit of post office limited? �* ,., for the benefit of post office limited? �* , ., . , limited? and save time in branches, which is of benefit _ limited? and save time in branches, which is of benefit to _ limited? and save time in branches, which is of benefit to all— limited? and save time in branches, which is of benefit to all branches. i which is of benefit to all branches. mr corbett says that the roll—out was not expected to be noise free and one of the risks was concerned regarding debt recovery. do you remember what that concern was? h0. remember what that concern was? no, i don't. i remember what that concern was? no, i don't- i can — remember what that concern was? its, i don't. i can remember the higher call volumes. this was about the chesterfield operation and the procedures would generate a lot more phone calls coming from people coming to terms with the different procedures, as is often the case with these things, you introduce a labour—saving device but there is a bump to get through when people are coming to terms with the procedures, different buttons to press on the system or whatever, that produce

produces more activity, more mistakes for a while and then things settled down. i think what peter was highlighting in general but this was quite a material change and there would be our disruption as a result of it. he then goes on to outline what risk litigants he had in place to counter it. if we can turn over the page, please? planned completion of the new finance system on the 24th of august 2005, a branch trading palette would commence on the 14th of september and a full branch roll—out was planned for the 30th of november. branch trading, that is the specific terminology used for balancing and

trading periods, isn't it? i terminology used for balancing and trading periods, isn't it?— trading periods, isn't it? iwould assume so. _ trading periods, isn't it? iwould assume so, yes. _ trading periods, isn't it? iwould assume so, yes. there - trading periods, isn't it? iwould assume so, yes. there is - trading periods, isn't it? i would l assume so, yes. there is probably trading periods, isn't it? i would - assume so, yes. there is probably a word missing, it might have been branch trading statement or something, i don't know. in branch trading statement or something, i don't know. in your statement. _ something, i don't know. in your statement. it — something, i don't know. in your statement, it is _ something, i don't know. in your statement, it is page _ something, i don't know. in your statement, it is page 13, - something, i don't know. in your statement, it is page 13, the - something, i don't know. in your statement, it is page 13, the top| statement, it is page 13, the top paragraph, he refers to the impact programme my understanding of your evidence is that you weren't told that the ability to perch discrepancies into the suspense account was taken away. i discrepancies into the suspense account was taken away. i didn't know that _ account was taken away. i didn't know that then, _ account was taken away. i didn't know that then, no. _ account was taken away. i didn't know that then, no. is _ account was taken away. i didn't know that then, no. is your - account was taken away. i didn't - know that then, no. is your evidence wasn't discussed _ know that then, no. is your evidence wasn't discussed at _ know that then, no. is your evidence wasn't discussed at that _ know that then, no. is your evidence wasn't discussed at that board - wasn't discussed at that board meeting? 1 wasn't discussed at that board meetin: ? . . , wasn't discussed at that board meetin? . ., ,

meeting? i certainly recall it. it was an item — meeting? i certainly recall it. it was an item of— meeting? i certainly recall it. it was an item of detail _ meeting? i certainly recall it. it was an item of detail that - meeting? i certainly recall it. it was an item of detail that they | was an item of detail that they probably felt they didn't need to share. subsequent knowledge indicates that was quite an important development, really. could we look please _ important development, really. could we look please add _ important development, really. could we look please add pol _ important development, really. could we look please add pol 00021419? it isa it is a risk and compliance note. it sees your apologies, you are not in attendance. you would have read the minutes? , ., ., ., , minutes? yes, i would have hoped so. can we turn — minutes? yes, i would have hoped so. can we turn to — minutes? yes, i would have hoped so. can we turn to page _ minutes? yes, i would have hoped so. can we turn to page five, _ minutes? yes, i would have hoped so.

can we turn to page five, please? - it talks about the impacts, the programme status, several problems, but workarounds are in place to service clients and there are issues with system response times, mapping and systems. and if we go down, please come out to the 3.4, branch audit findings. we have positive action has been taken through branch control from last year. this has reduced the incidence of suspense accounts being used to conceal fraud, whether there is an increase in numbers of losses covered by inflating cash figures, impact on the longer term will improve cash am i hear. but short—term action is needed between teams involved in

cash to improve the analysis and clean—up of data. this was a major piece of expenditure. this was about upgrading the financial, it was initiated before ijoin, but it was about equipping chesterfield correctly to do the finances, and how that flowed through into branches of all types. that would have not been the motive. did anyone, when ever you are in discussion about the impact programme, question how it would

affect sub—postmasters? i programme, question how it would affect sub-postmasters?_ affect sub-postmasters? i don't recall a conversation _ affect sub-postmasters? i don't recall a conversation like - affect sub-postmasters? i don't recall a conversation like that. l