em in he development of horizon? not in the sli . htest, development of horizon? not in the slightest. n0- _ development of horizon? not in the slightest. no. it— development of horizon? not in the slightest, no. it would _ development of horizon? not in the slightest, no. it would be _ development of horizon? not in the slightest, no. it would be quite - slightest, no. it would be quite unusualfor slightest, no. it would be quite unusual for people to be taken back eight years or five years or whatever. i eight years or five years or whatever-— eight years or five years or whatever. ., ., ., ., whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which _ whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any _ whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any of _ whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any of that - whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any of that back | extent to which any of that back history— extent to which any of that back history was revealed to you. where you are _ history was revealed to you. where you are aware of the collapse of the contract _ you are aware of the collapse of the contract between the post office, icl, contract between the post office, k1. and _ contract between the post office, icl, and the benefits agency? no. that was a matter of quite some controversy in the late 90s, before you joined — controversy in the late 90s, before you joined at royal mail, that was something of which you were unaware? were you _ something of which you were unaware? were you aware of or told about on arrival _ were you aware of or told about on arrival the — were you aware of or told about on arrival the issue of the withdrawal of the _ arrival the issue of the withdrawal of the benefits card, benefits payment card, and therefore the benefits — payment card, and therefore the benefits agency from a joint programme with the post office,

which _ programme with the post office, which was — programme with the post office, which was seen as an existential crisis _ which was seen as an existential crisis for— which was seen as an existential crisis for the post office? no. you don't mean _ crisis for the post office? no. you don't mean when _ crisis for the post office? no. you don't mean when they _ crisis for the post office? no. you don't mean when they decided - crisis for the post office? no. you don't mean when they decided to | crisis for the post office? no. you l don't mean when they decided to no longer pay benefits through the post office? . i longer pay benefits through the post office? yes. iwas longer pay benefits through the post office? yes. i was aware of that because that — office? yes. i was aware of that because that was _ office? yes. i was aware of that because that was a _ office? yes. i was aware of that because that was a dramatic loss of revenue for the post office which actually caused quite a lot of the initial subsidies to be required from the government. and initial subsidies to be required from the government. and was that aned from the government. and was that linked in your— from the government. and was that linked in your briefings _ from the government. and was that linked in your briefings or _ from the government. and was that linked in your briefings or readings l linked in your briefings or readings in in any— linked in your briefings or readings in in any way with originally the benefits— in in any way with originally the benefits agency being part of a joint _ benefits agency being part of a joint programme to procure the system? — joint programme to procure the s stem? . . . , joint programme to procure the s stem? . .,, , ~ joint programme to procure the s stem? . , ~ ., system? that was entirely linked to the fact that — system? that was entirely linked to the fact that this _ system? that was entirely linked to the fact that this was _ system? that was entirely linked to the fact that this was coming - system? that was entirely linked to the fact that this was coming from i the fact that this was coming from the fact that this was coming from the dwp, which was their role unsurprisingly to get value for money in terms of the public purse and effectively the cost as it was

described to me, the cost of providing a benefits payment to a particular individual through the post office, i don't remember the exact figures, but roughly speaking it might be £1, and if it was done directly into the bank account it might be a matter of five or 6p, so from a spending tax payers' money point of view, that was a change they felt they had to make, so in that sense the government was both causing inadvertently the difficulty of taking a lot of money away from the post office and the sub—postmasters, but was then also trying to solve the problem in another part of the field by providing a subsidy to help allow the company to continue to trade. and you were not told or did not read _ and you were not told or did not read about — and you were not told or did not read about onjoining the company that part _ read about onjoining the company that part of the equation for the wp _ that part of the equation for the dwp opting for direct payments was that they— dwp opting for direct payments was that they had lost trust in fujitsu

icl pathway, and the quality and reliability — icl pathway, and the quality and reliability of the computer system that they — reliability of the computer system that they were selling? its reliability of the computer system that they were selling? fits it reliability of the computer system that they were selling?— that they were selling? as it was told to me. _ that they were selling? as it was told to me. it— that they were selling? as it was told to me, it was _ that they were selling? as it was told to me, it was all— that they were selling? as it was told to me, it was all about - that they were selling? as it was told to me, it was all about the i told to me, it was all about the cost benefit analysis for them and the use of public money. istature cost benefit analysis for them and the use of public money. were you told that the _ the use of public money. were you told that the post _ the use of public money. were you told that the post office _ the use of public money. were you told that the post office had - the use of public money. were you told that the post office had to - told that the post office had to take the — told that the post office had to take the horizon system from fujitsu, — take the horizon system from fujitsu, against many of its employees' wishes, because they too thought— employees' wishes, because they too thought that it lacked and its supplier— thought that it lacked and its supplier lacked credibility and reliability? supplier lacked credibility and reliabili ? ~ . . supplier lacked credibility and reliability?— supplier lacked credibility and i reliability?_ that reliability? when was that? that carried on for— reliability? when was that? that carried on for many _ reliability? when was that? that carried on for many years. - reliability? when was that? that carried on for many years. i - reliability? when was that? that carried on for many years. i am | reliability? when was that? that i carried on for many years. i am not aware. carried on for many years. i am not aware- long _ carried on for many years. i am not aware. long before _ carried on for many years. i am not aware. long before my _ carried on for many years. i am not aware. long before my time. - carried on for many years. i am notj aware. long before my time. when carried on for many years. i am not - aware. long before my time. when the s stem was aware. long before my time. when the system was being _ aware. long before my time. when the system was being developed, - aware. long before my time. when the system was being developed, tested i system was being developed, tested and then— system was being developed, tested and then rolled out, there were a series— and then rolled out, there were a series of— and then rolled out, there were a series of so—called acceptance

incidents, _ series of so—called acceptance incidents, ie problems or issues with the — incidents, ie problems or issues with the system or processes that contractual provisions regulated as to whether they needed to be solved before _ to whether they needed to be solved before a _ to whether they needed to be solved before a national roll—out. were you briefed _ before a national roll—out. were you briefed about that process, the acceptance incident is issue? no. were ou acceptance incident is issue? no. were you aware _ acceptance incident is issue? no. were you aware of _ acceptance incident is issue? firm were you aware of the national acceptance incident is issue? fin. were you aware of the national audit office _ were you aware of the national audit office report, which criticised post office _ office report, which criticised post office management and the government in the management of the arrangements in the contractual history— arrangements in the contractual history for the procurement of horizon? _ history for the procurement of horizon? ., history for the procurement of horizon? no. when you took up your role horizon? no when you took up your role in horizon?- when you took up your rule in 2003, _ horizon? tin. when you took up your role in 2003, did you have any appreciation at all although you briefed — appreciation at all although you briefed about any issues with the contracting for development of rolling — contracting for development of rolling out of horizon? the system had effectively _ rolling out of horizon? the system had effectively been _ rolling out of horizon? the system had effectively been rolled - rolling out of horizon? the system had effectively been rolled out - rolling out of horizon? the system had effectively been rolled out and people were as far as i was aware

just dealing with that as the company had used. in my experience, organisations have a habit, there is a tendencyjust to get on with things. 50 a tendency 'ust to get on with thins. ., ., .,, a tendency 'ust to get on with thins. ., ., ., , things. so horizon was relatively well established _ things. so horizon was relatively well established by _ things. so horizon was relatively well established by 2003 - things. so horizon was relatively well established by 2003 and . things. so horizon was relativelyl well established by 2003 and was working? — well established by 2003 and was working? fits well established by 2003 and was workin: ? �* . . well established by 2003 and was workinu? �* . . .,, well established by 2003 and was workint? a ., ., ., well established by 2003 and was workint? a ., ., , , working? as far as i was aware, yes. did nobody — working? as far as i was aware, yes. did nobody brief— working? as far as i was aware, yes. did nobody brief you _ working? as far as i was aware, yes. did nobody brief you about _ working? as far as i was aware, yes. did nobody brief you about the - did nobody brief you about the rather— did nobody brief you about the rather problematic birth that it had? _ rather problematic birth that it had? . rather problematic birth that it had? no. at any of the future meetings _ had? tin. at any of the future meetings that you attended, did any of those _ meetings that you attended, did any of those who had been imposed at the time of— of those who had been imposed at the time of the _ of those who had been imposed at the time of the rather difficult development of horizon, for example david miller orjonathan evans, ever tell you _ david miller orjonathan evans, ever tell you about those issues? jonathan _ tell you about those issues? jonathan did not, and part of my briefing when i arrived at the

company was meeting dave miller, and i do not believe he mentioned it at all. ~ ., , ., i do not believe he mentioned it at all. ~ ., ,, . i do not believe he mentioned it at all. ~ ., i. ., ., all. would you agree that the horizon system _ all. would you agree that the horizon system was - all. would you agree that the horizon system was one - all. would you agree that the horizon system was one on i all. would you agree that the - horizon system was one on which the effective _ horizon system was one on which the effective and efficient running of the business was greatly dependent? yes, the business was greatly dependent? yes. i_ the business was greatly dependent? yes, i would. the business was greatly dependent? yes, iwould. it the business was greatly dependent? yes. iwould— yes, i would. it was a business critical system? _ yes, i would. it was a business critical system? yes. _ yes, i would. it was a business critical system? yes. but- yes, i would. it was a business critical system? yes. but what| yes, i would. it was a business - critical system? yes. but what steps did the critical system? yes but what steps did the mainboard take in your seven year period _ did the mainboard take in your seven year period to ensure it was running reliably— year period to ensure it was running reliably and — year period to ensure it was running reliably and with integrity? | year period to ensure it was running reliably and with integrity?— reliably and with integrity? i don't recall exactly. _ reliably and with integrity? i don't recall exactly, but _ reliably and with integrity? i don't recall exactly, but naturally - reliably and with integrity? i don't recall exactly, but naturally i - recall exactly, but naturally i would assume it would have been part of the internal audit plan. flan would assume it would have been part of the internal audit plan.— of the internal audit plan. can you recall whether _ of the internal audit plan. can you recall whether any _ of the internal audit plan. can you recall whether any steps - of the internal audit plan. can you recall whether any steps were - of the internal audit plan. can you l recall whether any steps were taken by the _ recall whether any steps were taken by the management board or the risk committee? the by the management board or the risk committee? ., .,

by the management board or the risk committee? . ., , ., committee? the internal audit plan would all be _ committee? the internal audit plan would all be approved _ committee? the internal audit plan would all be approved and - committee? the internal audit plan would all be approved and come i committee? the internal audit plan would all be approved and come to| would all be approved and come to the management board and the audit committee and for debate. share the management board and the audit committee and for debate.— committee and for debate. are you aware of an — committee and for debate. are you aware of an internal— committee and for debate. are you aware of an internal audit - aware of an internal audit conducting any review or investigation in your seven years of the reliability and accuracy of the data that — the reliability and accuracy of the data that horizon produced? | data that horizon produced? i genuinely cannot remember, sorry. would internal audit, genuinely cannot remember, sorry. would internalaudit, if genuinely cannot remember, sorry. would internal audit, if they did conduct — would internal audit, if they did conduct such an investigational review, — conduct such an investigational review, be the appropriate people to do so? _ review, be the appropriate people to do so? . review, be the appropriate people to do so? yes. what skills did internal audit have. — do so? yes. what skills did internal audit have. so _ do so? yes what skills did internal audit have, so far as the operation of a computer system have? well, it is a financial— of a computer system have? well, it is a financial accounting _ of a computer system have? well, it is a financial accounting system, - is a financial accounting system, they have those skills and abilities, that is what good audit teams do, they know how to get under the skin of projects like that to

understand how the mechanics of the system work. if they were concerned about anything like that, they would have the ability to call on further expertise in any particular area and then bring forward a report on as i said earlier we encouraged, you will have noticed on some of the papers, some of the once sent to me, that our internal audit reports were pretty brutal, and we asked them to be that way because we wanted to understand the worst of what we were dealing with. as to when and if they did, i genuinely can't remember, i would have thought so underground of, over those years and an important issue, but i don't remember the individual report, and very sorry. i remember the individual report, and ve sor . . remember the individual report, and ve sor. . very sorry. i have sailed past three o'clock. very sorry. i have sailed past three o'clock- how _ very sorry. i have sailed past three o'clock. how is _ very sorry. i have sailed past three o'clock. how is the _ very sorry. i have sailed past three o'clock. how is the transcriber - o'clock. how is the transcriber fairin: ? o'clock. how is the transcriber fairing? l _ o'clock. how is the transcriber fairing? i think _ o'clock. how is the transcriber fairing? i think she _ o'clock. how is the transcriber fairing? i think she said - o'clock. how is the transcriber fairing? i think she said she i o'clock. how is the transcriber - fairing? i think she said she wanted a ten minute _ fairing? i think she said she wanted a ten minute break. _ fairing? i think she said she wanted

a ten minute break. ok. _ fairing? i think she said she wanted a ten minute break. ok. so - fairing? i think she said she wanted a ten minute break. ok. so we - fairing? i think she said she wanted a ten minute break. ok. so we will| a ten minute break. ok. so we will beain a ten minute break. ok. so we will begin again — a ten minute break. ok. so we will begin again at _ a ten minute break. ok. so we will begin again at 3:15pm, _ a ten minute break. ok. so we will begin again at 3:15pm, yes? - a ten minute break. ok. so we will begin again at 3:15pm, yes? thankj begin again at 3:15pm, yes? thank ou, sir. begin again at 3:15pm, yes? thank you. sir- so _ begin again at 3:15pm, yes? thank you. sir- so the — begin again at 3:15pm, yes? thank you, sir. so the inquiry _ begin again at 3:15pm, yes? thank you, sir. so the inquiry there, - you, sir. so the inquiry there, takin: a you, sir. so the inquiry there, taking a short _ you, sir. so the inquiry there, taking a short break, - you, sir. so the inquiry there, taking a short break, a - you, sir. so the inquiry there, taking a short break, a ten i you, sir. so the inquiry there, i taking a short break, a ten minute break, and this afternoon, we have been hearing from adam crozier who has been giving evidence at the inquiry, let's listen to some of what he said.— inquiry, let's listen to some of what he said. ~ ., ., ., ., what he said. would another way of describin: what he said. would another way of describing it — what he said. would another way of describing it be _ what he said. would another way of describing it be that _ what he said. would another way of describing it be that you _ what he said. would another way of describing it be that you let - what he said. would another way of describing it be that you let them i describing it be that you let them -et describing it be that you let them get on _ describing it be that you let them get on with it? | describing it be that you let them get on with it?— describing it be that you let them get on with it? i would not have put it that way. — get on with it? i would not have put it that way. but _ get on with it? i would not have put it that way. but i — get on with it? i would not have put it that way, but i understand - get on with it? i would not have put it that way, but i understand why i it that way, but i understand why you might take that reference. let’s you might take that reference. let's have a listen — you might take that reference. let's have a listen to _ you might take that reference. let's have a listen to a _ you might take that reference. let's have a listen to a little _ you might take that reference. let's have a listen to a little bit _ you might take that reference. let's have a listen to a little bit more of what he had to say. the whole company. _ of what he had to say. the whole company, because _ of what he had to say. the whole company, because of— of what he had to say. the whole company, because of what i of what he had to say. the whole company, because of what we i company, because of what we inherited, effectively on the royal mail side, inherited, effectively on the royal mailside, broken inherited, effectively on the royal mail side, broken company that had been not invested in or hit its

quality of services, was the least modernised postal company in europe. what that meant was on the royal mail side, there was no option other than to be fundamentally transparent and the fact that most of what we inherited was not working, and that encouraged a lot of transparency, and we set up a properly functioning internal audit unit, one of the ways we could also find out what was happening elsewhere in the group, and we strengthened that, we created and we strengthened that, we created a whole risk agenda in the business where we got from the ground up people to let everyone know what their key risks were. they looked at that risk register, that risk register was debated. to that risk register, that risk register was debated. to stop you there, register was debated. to stop you there. can — register was debated. to stop you there. can you _ register was debated. to stop you there, can you recall— register was debated. to stop you there, can you recall when - register was debated. to stop you there, can you recall when the i there, can you recall when the conduct — there, can you recall when the conduct of— there, can you recall when the conduct of prosecutions and the possibility of bringing

sub—postmasters to justice, including _ sub—postmasters to justice, including by imprisoning them, and the issues — including by imprisoning them, and the issues that arise when conducting prosecutions was on the royal— conducting prosecutions was on the royal mail holdings risk register? | royal mail holdings risk register? i don't believe so. i don't believe recall seeing it on the post office register. is recall seeing it on the post office reuister. . . . recall seeing it on the post office reuister. , . ., ., register. is that a failing? with the benefit _ register. is that a failing? with the benefit of _ register. is that a failing? with the benefit of hindsight, i register. is that a failing? with the benefit of hindsight, yes. | the benefit of hindsight, yes. conducting an activity which is unusual— conducting an activity which is unusual for a company? would you agree? _ unusual for a company? would you auree? . so unusual for a company? would you agree? yes. so there are two bits of the evidence — agree? yes. so there are two bits of the evidence we _ agree? fies so there are two bits of the evidence we heard there from adam crozier, among other things thatis adam crozier, among other things that is stark, some of the questioning about the lines of communication that existed in royal mail and post office around the time that all those prosecutions were taking place. to discuss this in a bit more detail, i am joined by our

correspondent, who was at that inquiry in central london. let's pick up on that point first of all, we heard from mr crew ca who said he had real regrets that the royal mail was structured in a way that he and senior board members were not aware of the scale of the prosecutions that were being launched by the post office, that is pretty alarming stuff, isn't it?— office, that is pretty alarming stuff, isn't it? yes, there was a real dance _ stuff, isn't it? yes, there was a real dance going _ stuff, isn't it? yes, there was a real dance going on _ stuff, isn't it? yes, there was a real dance going on there i stuff, isn't it? yes, there was a i real dance going on there between the council and adam crozier because adam crozier first kept insisting that he did not have any knowledge of these post office prosecutions, and jason bay was trying to determine whose responsibility was when he asked adam crozier out right, he said that lies with the post office having not communicated this to royal mail, he tried to

instil a culture of transparency, he said, had instil a culture of transparency, he said, bad news would travel fast, clearly that did not happen. but the point that jason beer was trying to make was, who set up that structure, does that not lie with the responsibility of the board, do not haveissues responsibility of the board, do not have issues like this go unnoticed and not have it travel all the way up and not have it travel all the way up to leadership? that was something adam crozier was not willing to accept. and that is why the words he used were regret rather than saying that responsibility lies with him. and in the end, a lot of this comes down to accountability and who should be held responsible, one of the largest miscarriages ofjustice in uk legal history? that the largest miscarriages of 'ustice in uk legal history?i in uk legal history? that is right. and that would _ in uk legal history? that is right. and that would have _

in uk legal history? that is right. and that would have made i in uk legal history? that is right. and that would have made for. and that would have made for uncomfortable listening for alan cook because his name came up in this line of questioning as well, jason beer made a point of asking adam crozier, given their time overlapped, what he made of alan cook, saying that for most of his tenure as managing director of the post office, for the first three years, in 2006—9, he would not have been aware that the post office was initiating prosecutions of hundreds of sub—postmasters, and adam crozier said he would find that hard to believe and pressed further he said that alan cook seemed like someone who was on top of his brief and made a point of speaking to lots of post office managers, so, when it comes to accountability, adam crewe ca's answer will weigh heavily when it comes to alan cook knowledge of all

these events. —— adam crewe ca. this these events. -- adam crewe ca. this all comes down _ these events. -- adam crewe ca. this all comes down to _ these events. —— adam crewe ca. this all comes down to the sub—postmasters and mistresses, who were caught up in this tragedy, it had a huge toll on them, you have been speaking to some of those personally impacted, tell us more about what they have been saying over the past few days. {line about what they have been saying over the past few days.— about what they have been saying over the past few days. one of them i soke to over the past few days. one of them i spoke to earlier _ over the past few days. one of them i spoke to earlier was _ over the past few days. one of them i spoke to earlier was in _ over the past few days. one of them i spoke to earlier was in tears - i spoke to earlier was in tears because of course when we discussed it and when the council presses these questions, you get a lot of it on the legality of it all, the who, wet, white, whereas for these people, this is about their lives, many people lost their homes, some were left bankrupt, some were shunned by their communities, a woman was sentenced to jail in 2010

when eight weeks pregnant, her husband said he was beaten up after she ended up on the front cover of the local paper, branded a thief, these people were shunned by their communities and some of their children were said to have been bullied in school, so the impact for them, when listening to these top bosses saying they either did not understand when presented with the reports or rather there was a structure that meant the people at the top had no idea this was even happening, that does not wash with them, the words complete disgrace were said to me, when he took over his post office, and immediately started running into shortfalls, running into the tens of thousands. thank you very much for the moment and as we say that post office inquiry is just taking and as we say that post office inquiry isjust taking a and as we say that post office inquiry is just taking a short break, about ten minutes, then it will resume and we will hear more

from adam crozier, we were discussing all of that and we will return to that inquiry when it resumes. a25—year—old who murdered someone and injured four others has been jailed for someone and injured four others has beenjailed for a minimum of someone and injured four others has been jailed for a minimum of 28 years.j kill fatally been jailed for a minimum of 28 years. j kill fatally wounded a man and stand more victims with a tactical combat knife. —— jake and stand more victims with a tactical combat knife. ——jake hill. in other news from bradford, a provisional trial date has been set for a man accused of murdering his wife, who was stabbed to death as she pushed her baby in a pram, he was charged with murdering his wife in an attack in bradford city centre, he is also charged with possession of a bladed article and appeared via bradford crown court.

habibur masum was arrested on tuesday, 170 miles away from where his wife was stabbed. let's return to our main story we have been following the day and that is the post office inquiry, which has been taking place in central london, we have been hearing from adam crozier, giving evidence today, let's go back to my colleague, who has been monitoring events at that inquiry for us. so, we are expecting another half an hour or so of questions in the inquiry?— the inquiry? that is right. what the inquiry? that is right. what they have _ the inquiry? that is right. what they have started _ the inquiry? that is right. what they have started to _ the inquiry? that is right. what they have started to drill i the inquiry? that is right. what they have started to drill there| the inquiry? that is right. what i they have started to drill there and what will be the focus of this next part of the inquiry is now what adam crozier knew about the horizon system. i believe he will actually start answering those questions now, so let's go back to the inquiry. its

so let's go back to the inquiry. its board draw your attention also far as you _ board draw your attention also far as you are — board draw your attention also far as you are aware and you're bored's attention— as you are aware and you're bored's attention to — as you are aware and you're bored's attention to any bugs, errors or defects— attention to any bugs, errors or defects in— attention to any bugs, errors or defects in horizon. as attention to any bugs, errors or defects in horizon.— defects in horizon. as far as i recall, defects in horizon. as far as i recall. they — defects in horizon. as far as i recall, they did _ defects in horizon. as far as i recall, they did not. - defects in horizon. as far as i recall, they did not. could i. defects in horizon. as far as i i recall, they did not. could ijust mention one more point, if i may? just in case i misunderstood an earlier question, you asked me about external audit of the horizon system. obviously, the external auditors were constantly testing when they were reviewing the accounts and numbers at the half and full year, that the system was working as it should work. just sto -|n~ working as it should work. just stopping you _ working as it should work. just stopping you there, if i may, and without— stopping you there, if i may, and without wishing to probe on a clarification point you raised, you said obviously the external auditors were examining the operation of horizon. — were examining the operation of horizon, why was that obvious to

you? _ horizon, why was that obvious to ou? . . horizon, why was that obvious to ou? . , . ., horizon, why was that obvious to ou? , ., ., , ., you? just a word, sorry, no particular— you? just a word, sorry, no particular meaning, - you? just a word, sorry, no particular meaning, i i you? just a word, sorry, no particular meaning, i just i you? just a word, sorry, no i particular meaning, ijust meant you? just a word, sorry, no - particular meaning, ijust meant in the sense, obviously they would be checking the quality of earnings and quality of the numbers in the work they were doing for half again for half year and four year audits. just in case i misunderstood. needless clarification. it's not needless at all because we have seen the audits and the extent to which they do undertake that function. stand and the extent to which they do undertake that function. and that is a very open — undertake that function. and that is a very open question. _ undertake that function. and that is a very open question. why - undertake that function. and that is a very open question. why did i undertake that function. and that is a very open question. why did you | a very open question. why did you believe _ a very open question. why did you believe that external auditors, as part of— believe that external auditors, as part of their external accounting audit— part of their external accounting audit function, would assess the reliability — audit function, would assess the reliability of the horizon system? they would look at the numbers and

the quality of the numbers and the consistency of the numbers that they were looking at, so i assume there would be crosschecking all the time. does this amount to you would expect. — does this amount to you would expect. if— does this amount to you would expect, if they were to sign off the accounts. — expect, if they were to sign off the accounts, where in circumstances, where _ accounts, where in circumstances, where the — accounts, where in circumstances, where the data within them is produced _ where the data within them is produced by computer system, they would _ produced by computer system, they would make some inquiries and conduct — would make some inquiries and conduct some investigation on an annual— conduct some investigation on an annual basis into the reliability of the date — annual basis into the reliability of the date itself? i annual basis into the reliability of the date itself?— the date itself? i would have thouuht the date itself? i would have thought so- _ the date itself? i would have thought so. again, - the date itself? i would have thought so. again, i - the date itself? i would have thought so. again, i am i the date itself? i would have thought so. again, i am a i the date itself? i would have i thought so. again, i am a layman the date itself? i would have - thought so. again, i am a layman on this, but i would have thought so. was anything ever said or shown to you so— was anything ever said or shown to you so far— was anything ever said or shown to you so far as— was anything ever said or shown to you so far as you can recall that suggested _ you so far as you can recall that suggested that that is what they in fact did? _ suggested that that is what they in fact did? ., ., , suggested that that is what they in fact did? ., .,, , ., ., ., fact did? nothing was shown to me to sun est fact did? nothing was shown to me to suggest they — fact did? nothing was shown to me to suggest they had _ fact did? nothing was shown to me to suggest they had a — fact did? nothing was shown to me to suggest they had a concern _ fact did? nothing was shown to me to suggest they had a concern about i fact did? nothing was shown to me to suggest they had a concern about the | suggest they had a concern about the quality of the numbers. stand suggest they had a concern about the quality of the numbers.— quality of the numbers. and was an hinu quality of the numbers. and was anything shown _ quality of the numbers. and was anything shown to _ quality of the numbers. and was anything shown to you _ quality of the numbers. and was anything shown to you to - quality of the numbers. and was| anything shown to you to suggest quality of the numbers. and was i anything shown to you to suggest so far as _ anything shown to you to suggest so

far as you _ anything shown to you to suggest so far as you can now recall that there audit— far as you can now recall that there audit in— far as you can now recall that there audit in fact — far as you can now recall that there audit in fact involved in the examination of the integrity of the horizon _ examination of the integrity of the horizon system? | examination of the integrity of the horizon system?— horizon system? i don't recall, sor . horizon system? i don't recall, sorry- can _ horizon system? i don't recall, sorry- can we _ horizon system? i don't recall, sorry. can we then _ horizon system? i don't recall, sorry. can we then turn - horizon system? i don't recall, sorry. can we then turn back. horizon system? i don't recall, | sorry. can we then turn back to horizon system? i don't recall, i sorry. can we then turn back to the bus, sorry. can we then turn back to the bugs. errors _ sorry. can we then turn back to the bugs. errors and — sorry. can we then turn back to the bugs, errors and defects _ sorry. can we then turn back to the bugs, errors and defects issue? it. bugs, errors and defects issue? it remains _ bugs, errors and defects issue? it remains the — bugs, errors and defects issue? it remains the case that you say in your— remains the case that you say in your seven—year tenure, had no remains the case that you say in your seven—yeartenure, had no time did the _ your seven—yeartenure, had no time did the post— your seven—yeartenure, had no time did the post office draw your attention to any bugs, errors and defects— attention to any bugs, errors and defects in— attention to any bugs, errors and defects in the horizon system? know, and the operations _ defects in the horizon system? know, and the operations team, _ defects in the horizon system? know, and the operations team, whether- and the operations team, whether that was david miller or paula venables, they attended lots of different meetings but i don't recall them doing that. you different meetings but i don't recall them doing that.- different meetings but i don't recall them doing that. you i think robabl recall them doing that. you i think probably know _ recall them doing that. you i think probably know now _ recall them doing that. you i think probably know now in _ recall them doing that. you i think probably know now in general- recall them doing that. you i think. probably know now in general terms that as _ probably know now in general terms that as a _ probably know now in general terms that as a result of the findings of a series— that as a result of the findings of a series of— that as a result of the findings of a series of court cases, it has been established — a series of court cases, it has been established that, within the period 2000-10. — established that, within the period 2000-10, so established that, within the period 2000—10, so including your period of office _ 2000—10, so including your period of office from _ 2000—10, so including your period of office from 2003—10, there were a

series— office from 2003—10, there were a series of— office from 2003—10, there were a series of bugs, errors and defects in the _ series of bugs, errors and defects in the horizon system, of which the post office — in the horizon system, of which the post office new and which either caused _ post office new and which either caused or— post office new and which either caused or were capable of causing financial— caused or were capable of causing financial irregularities and balancing problems. | financial irregularities and balancing problems.- financial irregularities and balancing problems. i am now aware of that, balancing problems. i am now aware of that. yes- — balancing problems. i am now aware of that, yes. would _ balancing problems. i am now aware of that, yes. would you _ balancing problems. i am now aware of that, yes. would you expect i balancing problems. i am now aware of that, yes. would you expect the i of that, yes. would you expect the post office. _ of that, yes. would you expect the post office, the _ of that, yes. would you expect the post office, the people _ of that, yes. would you expect the post office, the people within i of that, yes. would you expect the post office, the people within the | post office, the people within the post office, the people within the post office, the people within the post office who you have just listed. — post office who you have just listed. if _ post office who you have just listed, if they had been aware of them. _ listed, if they had been aware of them. to— listed, if they had been aware of them, to draw them to you and your board's— them, to draw them to you and your board's attention? i them, to draw them to you and your board's attention?— board's attention? i would have exected board's attention? i would have expected them _ board's attention? i would have expected them in _ board's attention? i would have expected them in the _ board's attention? i would have expected them in the first i board's attention? i would have i expected them in the first instance to draw them to the attention of the exec team and board and to absolutely, yes, if they were serious and systematic, to the management team and the holdings board, yes. 50 management team and the holdings board, es. , ., management team and the holdings board, es. ,~. ., management team and the holdings board, es. , ., ., ., board, yes. so you would have expected _ board, yes. so you would have expected it — board, yes. so you would have expected it not _ board, yes. so you would have expected it not to _ board, yes. so you would have expected it not to have - board, yes. so you would have expected it not to have been i board, yes. so you would have expected it not to have been a j expected it not to have been a direct— expected it not to have been a direct communication to you but to have gone — direct communication to you but to have gone through the post office board _ have gone through the post office

board route? to have gone through the post office board route?— board route? to simplify, i would have expected — board route? to simplify, i would have expected them _ board route? to simplify, i would have expected them to _ board route? to simplify, i would have expected them to tell i board route? to simplify, i would have expected them to tell the i board route? to simplify, i would i have expected them to tell the chief executive and i would expected the chief executive to tell the board and myself very quickly and simultaneously. did and myself very quickly and simultaneously.— and myself very quickly and simultaneously. and myself very quickly and simultaneousl . , ,, ., ., simultaneously. did you know about post office stock _ simultaneously. did you know about post office stock line _ simultaneously. did you know about post office stock line on _ simultaneously. did you know about post office stock line on horizon, i post office stock line on horizon, namely— post office stock line on horizon, namely one in which it was said that the system — namely one in which it was said that the system is robust? onlyt namely one in which it was said that the system is robust?— namely one in which it was said that the system is robust? only from what the system is robust? only from what the inuui the system is robust? only from what the inquiry has _ the system is robust? only from what the inquiry has sent _ the system is robust? only from what the inquiry has sent me _ the system is robust? only from what the inquiry has sent me in _ the system is robust? only from what the inquiry has sent me in terms i the system is robust? only from what the inquiry has sent me in terms of i the inquiry has sent me in terms of some of the responses sent by alan cook to various parties. i some of the responses sent by alan cook to various parties.— cook to various parties. i think you are referring _ cook to various parties. i think you are referring to _ cook to various parties. i think you are referring to some _ cook to various parties. i think you are referring to some internal- cook to various parties. i think you are referring to some internal post office _ are referring to some internal post office e—mails, which refer to what i have _ office e—mails, which refer to what i have just — office e—mails, which refer to what i have just said as being our stock line~ _ i have 'ust said as being our stock line. a, , i have 'ust said as being our stock line. i, , i, i, i, i have 'ust said as being our stock line. i,, i, i, i, i, i have 'ust said as being our stock line. i, i, i, i, i, line. ok. i was not aware of that. were you — line. ok. i was not aware of that. were you aware _ line. ok. i was not aware of that. were you aware or— line. ok. i was not aware of that. were you aware or had _ line. ok. i was not aware of that. were you aware or had you - line. ok. i was not aware of that. were you aware or had you heardj line. ok. i was not aware of that. - were you aware or had you heard the phrase, _ were you aware or had you heard the phrase, when in office, that the post _ phrase, when in office, that the post office believes that its system is robust _ post office believes that its system is robust and has integrity? |

is robust and has integrity? certainly is robust and has integrity? i certainly never heard, i did not hear that statement, but i never heard anyone say that it wasn't. find heard anyone say that it wasn't. and so ou heard anyone say that it wasn't. and so you hadn't. _ heard anyone say that it wasn't. and so you hadn't. as — heard anyone say that it wasn't. and so you hadn't, as you recall, heard the stock_ so you hadn't, as you recall, heard the stock line, nor did you know it was called — the stock line, nor did you know it was called a — the stock line, nor did you know it was called a stock line? no, sorry. is that because _ was called a stock line? no, sorry. is that because from _ was called a stock line? no, sorry. is that because from your - is that because from your perspective the integrity or lack of it in horizon was not an issue? it it in horizon was not an issue? wasn't an it in horizon was not an issue? it wasn't an issue that was being flagged up by anyone in that chain of checks and balances i outlined earlier, no. if of checks and balances i outlined earlier. no— earlier, no. if horizon's integrity was in question, _ earlier, no. if horizon's integrity was in question, but _ earlier, no. if horizon's integrity was in question, but a _ earlier, no. if horizon's integrity was in question, but a stock- earlier, no. if horizon's integrityj was in question, but a stock line was in question, but a stock line was being — was in question, but a stock line was being used in which it was said that it _ was being used in which it was said that it was — was being used in which it was said that it was robust, that would be a serious _ that it was robust, that would be a serious matter for not only the post office, _ serious matter for not only the post office, but — serious matter for not only the post office, but for royal mail group. it would indeed and it would also be entirely wrong. in would indeed and it would also be entirely wrong-— entirely wrong. in late 2009 and early 2010. _ entirely wrong. in late 2009 and early 2010. i _ entirely wrong. in late 2009 and early 2010, | think _ entirely wrong. in late 2009 and early 2010, | think the _ entirely wrong. in late 2009 and early 2010, i think the business | entirely wrong. in late 2009 and i

early 2010, i think the business had onlyiust _ early 2010, i think the business had onlyjust secured state subsidy to bring _ onlyjust secured state subsidy to bring barely into profitability, is that right? i bring barely into profitability, is that riuht? .. bring barely into profitability, is that riuht? ~ i, , bring barely into profitability, is that riuht? ~' i, , that right? i think it finally came throuuh that right? i think it finally came through after— that right? i think it finally came through after i _ that right? i think it finally came through after i left, _ that right? i think it finally came through after i left, sometime i that right? i think it finally came i through afteri left, sometime late through after i left, sometime late in 2010, i believe. find through afteri left, sometime late in 2010, i believe.— in 2010, i believe. and had the securin: in 2010, i believe. and had the securing of _ in 2010, i believe. and had the securing of that _ in 2010, i believe. and had the securing of that state - in 2010, i believe. and had the securing of that state subsidy i in 2010, i believe. and had the - securing of that state subsidy been a major— securing of that state subsidy been a major issue for most of your period — a major issue for most of your period of— a major issue for most of your period of time in office? | a major issue for most of your period of time in office? i think there were _ period of time in office? i think there were three _ period of time in office? i think there were three occasions - period of time in office? i think there were three occasions i i period of time in office? i think. there were three occasions i think when that became an enormous debate, probably one of the biggest was around 2006. because at that point they had announced that the post office card account was also going so in terms of looking forward on a long—term basis, there was yet more revenue going to be disappearing from the post office, and that required, part of the agreement then was a particular subsidy, i can't remember the exact number, but it also meant a reduction in the number of post offices by around 2500, i

think, so from a post office point of view, for almost every sub—postmaster, an issue was the declining income and the closures of the post office, and i think for mps, the select committees, the government, that almost took over the whole agenda for the post office, and at roughly the same time there was a thing called the hooper review, an independent government review, an independent government review, which they adopted which came up with four things, one that the royal mail should be allowed private capital, to that the post office should stay in public ownership, three, there should be a change of regulator and for the government should look to try and take care of the post office pension. the code for outside capital was actually that was a request from the shareholder to try to look to see if royal mail could

be sold in part to another european player or private equity.— player or private equity. would you a . ree that player or private equity. would you agree that the _ player or private equity. would you agree that the significance - player or private equity. would you agree that the significance of- player or private equity. would you agree that the significance of the i agree that the significance of the dire financial situation of the business _ dire financial situation of the business would have been apparent to everyone _ business would have been apparent to everyone in_ business would have been apparent to everyone in the post office executive team track your time in post? _ executive team track your time in ost? i, i , executive team track your time in post?_ and - executive team track your time in j post?_ and would executive team track your time in - post?_ and would you post? not necessarily. and would you arree post? not necessarily. and would you a . ree that post? not necessarily. and would you agree that if — post? not necessarily. and would you agree that if any _ post? not necessarily. and would you agree that if any question _ post? not necessarily. and would you agree that if any question marks - agree that if any question marks over— agree that if any question marks over the — agree that if any question marks over the integrity of horizon and the data — over the integrity of horizon and the data produced would be a very significant — the data produced would be a very significant matter, not only for the post office, but also for the shareholder?— post office, but also for the shareholder?- in - post office, but also for the shareholder?- in part| post office, but also for the - shareholder?- in part because shareholder? word. in part because that shareholder _ shareholder? word. in part because that shareholder was _ shareholder? word. in part because that shareholder was also _ that shareholder was also responsible for the investment by word of— responsible for the investment by word of the subsidy?— responsible for the investment by word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it would. word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it would- you _ word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it would- you say — word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it would. you say that _ word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it would. you say that royal- word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it would. you say that royal mail- word of the subsidy? indeed. -- it| would. you say that royal mail met with the shareholder _ would. you say that royal mail met with the shareholder executive - would. you say that royal mail met with the shareholder executive on | would. you say that royal mail metj with the shareholder executive on a roughly— with the shareholder executive on a roughly quarterly basis. yes. when

ou were roughly quarterly basis. i'ezs when you were providing roughly quarterly basis. iezs when you were providing feedback and updates— you were providing feedback and updates to the government through that shareholder executive, were you entirely— that shareholder executive, were you entirely reliant, if the matter concerned the post office, on the information that the post office hoard _ information that the post office board and chief executive relate to you? _ board and chief executive relate to ou? i i, i, , board and chief executive relate to ou? ii, i, , i, i, you? the conversations that we had with the shareholder _ you? the conversations that we had with the shareholder executive, - you? the conversations that we had with the shareholder executive, asl with the shareholder executive, as the royal mail management team, were mostly around i think, if i can find the right space, in my statement, were around the financial performance of the company, how far we were getting with our modernisation programme, relationships with the unions, and of course questions of ownership, i have mentioned one around the potential sale in part of royal mail, there was another large debate where myself and alan and the board,

we wanted to try to turn royal mail into ajohn we wanted to try to turn royal mail into a john lewis partnership, we wanted to try to turn royal mail into ajohn lewis partnership, we wanted 20% of the company to be owned by our people, and i include in that sub—postmasters, we valued the sub—postmasters, alan is an ex retailer understood the importance of front—line managers, and we wanted the sub—postmasters to actually have an ownership of the post office, so we discussed things like that but obviously we discussed funding. at the same time, the post office had very regular meetings with shareholder executives, but separate team within that, and that was the constant day—to—day on post office business, closure programmes, revenue, all of those things. so a parallel, if you like, conversation going on. parallel, if you like, conversation hoin on, i parallel, if you like, conversation auoin on. ~ i, i, parallel, if you like, conversation hoin on, i ., i, parallel, if you like, conversation atoin on. ~ i, i, going on. was anyone from royal mail group present — going on. was anyone from royal mail group present any _ going on. was anyone from royal mail group present any of— going on. was anyone from royal mail

group present any of those _ going on. was anyone from royal mail group present any of those meetings i group present any of those meetings or