ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Thursday, 6 June 2024
(9.45 am)
ALICE ELIZABETH PERKINS (continued)
Questioned by MR BEER (continued)
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Beer.
MR BEER: Thank you, sir.
A.
Qa
>
rPOoOP.O
Good morning, Ms Perkins.
Morning.
Yesterday we were examining the extent to which some
material did not get disclosed to, or summarised for,
the Board. I just want briefly to examine whether there
were other things going on in the business in relation
to Fujitsu that may be relevant to why that disclosure
or summary did not occur and to get your assistance on
this if possible.
Can we look, please, at POL00297877. If we scroll
down, please, this is an email from Tim Franklin to
Alwen Lyons, copied to you. Can you help us, Tim
Franklin?
I haven't seen this email before -- this email exchange
before, I don't think.
I think you have?
You think I have?
It's part of the pack, yes.
Okay, I'll take your word for it.
1
much we have tried to play hardball with them, but
I would hope that these numbers represent our maximum,
financial exposure, and that we will seek to negotiate
below this. If they want a future role in our IT
estate, they should want to be less exploitative of us
now."
Is what we read there about the relationship, or
Mr Franklin's view of the relationship, between Post
Office and Fujitsu representative or indicative of the
Board's view of the relationship between Post Office and
Fujitsu at that time, which is July 2013?
Yes, I think so and I would say, you know, over a longer
period.
Did you ever link this, what's said here, back to your
initial discussion with Angus Grant back in September
2011, where he told you, I think, that the relationship
was too nice and that the Post Office had been naive or
too naive? Was that a constant, essentially, over that
period of time, September '11 to July '13?
Absolutely, all the way through, I would say. I think
that, as the different non-executives came on Board,
they, you know, reached the same view. We all wanted to
move away from Fujitsu altogether and, when I left the
Post Office in 2015, I believed that that is indeed what
would be happening but it subsequently turned out that
3
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
But anyway.
Tim Franklin was one of the Non-Executive Directors on
the Board.
Thank you. He says, "Chri
Day.
Yeah, I would think so, yes.
"... thanks for the updated information relating to the
IT Transitional Services Agreement."
Can you recall what that was?
I think this is to do -- if I'm right about this, this
is to do with the fact that we were -- we believed that
which presumably is Chris
we were going to be transitioning away from Fujitsu to
a different provider but it was going to be difficult to
manage that transition and, over the period in question,
we had to extend the arrangement with Fujitsu to provide
us with, if you like, a kind of bridge to the new
arrangements. I think that's how I would describe it.
I see:
"Lam in agreement with the proposal as I don't see
we have any choice. Horizon is a complex Fujitsu
proprietary system and any move other than renewal would
present unacceptable risk. I agree with Lesley’s future
review and the potential to mitigate our Fujitsu
dependency in the future. I do feel like they have us
over a barrel, and that they know it. I'm not clear how
2
they were unable to extricate themselves.
Was this any cause for concern, this understanding of
a relationship of dominance or an unequal power
relationship in circumstances where the Post Office was
continuing to rely on Fujitsu for data and analysis to
support its work with Second Sight?
So I think the concerns were definitely about
an imbalance of power and, yes, I think we were
sceptical; we were sceptical about all sorts of aspects
of the Horizon -- of the relationship with Fujitsu.
This records that the system was complex and
proprietary --
Yeah.
-- and that Fujitsu had the Post Office over a barrel.
Was that a relationship that the Post Office had
essentially inherited from Royal Mail Group?
I think so, yes. I mean, certainly, that was how
I felt. Whether I would have said they had -- I think
I might have said they had us over a barrel.
I certainly came to that view early on and I now
understand that it did -- you know, it did go back
really from the very, very outset but I didn't
understand that at the time.
Against that background, how would you assess the
executives’ feeling about delivering news to the Board
4
(1) Pages 1-4
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
that a Fujitsu expert, who had given evidence, written
and oral, in criminal proceedings, was considered to be
tainted or an unsafe witness and had breached their
duties to the court in a manner which may have caused
prosecutions brought by both Royal Mail Group and Post
Office to have been undermined?
Could you go back to the beginning of the question,
sorry?
Yes. How would the executives have felt about
delivering news to the Board --
Yes, okay, yes.
-- that a Fujitsu expert witness may have given false
evidence to courts?
Well, I think that a number of the executives shared the
Board's view about -- I mean, obviously they wouldn't
have said they thought that Fujitsu had got them over
a barrel but my understanding was that the senior
executives were in agreement with the Board that we
wanted to move away from Fujitsu. I think everybody
shared that aspiration. So --
What I'm trying to explore is whether this may be
a reason or relevant to the non-revelation of
information to the Board?
So I think what I'm trying to get to here is, since
everybody was agreed that we'd rather not have Fujitsu
5
for; and what have we been doing to fulfil our
obligations under our policies?
"2) Are we safe from legal challenge in what we
are/have been doing? What is the position both since we
became independent and before?
"3) What is the worst case in relation to costs
which could result from this", et cetera.
Now, you've been asking, as a Board, I think,
questions of insurance coverage for both the
organisation and individual members of the Board since
mid-2013.
Yeah.
It seems like you hadn't got an answer, at least
a definitive answer, by this time; is that right?
Yes.
If we go, please, to the reply, which is at the foot of
page 1, from Alwen Lyons. She says:
“Alice
"Apart from making sure the business are ready to
answer these questions is there anything else you would
like me to do.
"The insurance issue is with Chris [Day] and I did
push for clarity to be included in the B48 email without
succes
I don't know what that means. Let's go up to see
7
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
as a very significant IT partner, I'm not sure why that
would have -- I mean, maybe I'm being really stupid here
but I can't really see why that would affect executives’
ability or willingness to share that information with
the Board one way or -- in fact, it might be an argument
for, you know, "We're not sure we can trust -- this
another reason why we're not sure we can trust them".
So I think you could argue it either way.
Thank you. That can come down.
Can I examine a little further the continued fallout
from the Second Sight Report --
Yes.
-- and, in particular, looking at the Board's approach
as to whether the Second Sight Report opened it up to
legal challenge, by looking at POL00344895. Can we
start, please, at page 2, and scroll down. An email
from you -- we're now March 2014 --
Mm-hm.
-- to Paula Vennells and Alwen Lyons, about Sparrow:
"Following our helpful conversation, I am setting
out what I would like on this for further substantive
discussion at the March Board meeting.
"1) The definitive view on all aspects of insurance
ie organisational and personal. What policies do we
have; what in practice do we believe they will cover us
6
what you reply. You said:
"What is B48?!"
I'm no wiser.
Yes:
"Maybe you can help by explaining to everyone what
the context is here.
"The position is intrinsically worrying (to put it
politely). The [Non-Executive Directors] are really
concerned because of the potential costs to the
business, the distraction from implementing our strategy
(which is demanding enough), the reputational issues,
and their personal positions. A bad combination made
far worse if the business does not appear to be on top
of it. So the paper needs to demonstrate that the
Board's concerns on the latter point [presumably that is
their personal positions] -- if that is possible. That
means it needs to be comprehensive, clear and
professional.”
Then there's an issue about a non-attendance at
James Arbuthnot's meeting.
Mm.
So I think this chain shows us that, by March 2014, you
and the Board were still not clear, seemingly, on what
the insurance situation was both for the company and for
Board members?
(2) Pages 5-8
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Yes.
Were there concerns, essentially, on behalf of Royal
Mail that you're expressing --
To be --
-- as well as Post Office?
I can't say that -- I can't remember that there were, if
I'm honest.
Can you help us: the Second Sight Report had, from the
Post Office's perspective, been presented as a positive
one?
Yes.
No system-wide, ie systemic, issues had been found,
albeit there were some process problems --
Yes.
-- concerning, in particular, training and support. Why
was there a continuing concern about the individual
liability of Board members if there were no problems
with the Horizon system?
I don't remember very much about this discussion about
the insurance side of things. I think that it was put
‘on the agenda by other non-executives. I can't remember
exactly but I think that Alasdair Marnoch certainly was
interested in this subject, at least in part because he
was the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee and that's
the natural place for that to be -- you know, the first
9
-- in the interim, had the Board asked any more
questions about why there may be claims against them,
given the positive -- generally positive -- outcome of
the Second Sight Interim Review?
Well, during the intervening period, you've got the
beginning of the Mediation Scheme and you've got -- I'm
sure we'll come on to this -- something that was called
the expectation gap between what it began to emerge
subpostmasters and the people representing them thought
might be on the table in relation to the Mediation
Scheme and what the Post Office thought the outcome of
the Mediation Scheme in individual cases might be. And
I think that this concern was part of the story.
So you don't have a situation where the Interim
Report has come out and we've had the view of that, and
then nothing happens. You've got a continuing story, if
you like, because of the setting up of the Mediation
Scheme and what's beginning to emerge as people make
applications to go into that and it becomes clear --
clearer what it is they're hoping to get from it.
Do I understand you to mean that you didn't think that
there were claims or were not advised that there were
claims that had merit, but you were more concerned about
claims that lacked merit being brought against the
company or the Board?
1
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
2
6 June 2024
port of call, I think, for that issue.
And I think, from what I remember, that the thing
that was beginning to get in the way for the
Non-Executive Directors was actually the delay in
answering the questions, rather than the questions
themselves, if you see what I mean.
Not really. Why would you have a continuing concern
over the individual liability of Board members, ie their
personal positions and the need to nail down insurance
as protection, if there wasn't a belief that individual
members of the Board may be open to liability?
I think there was a question in people's minds, some
people's minds, about whether members of the Board might
be vulnerable in some way and that question, having been
put on the agenda, it was obviously in everybody's minds
and I do remember over a very long period it just
wasn't -- didn't seem to be possible to get definitive
advice about this and it became frustration in itself
that we couldn't get clear answers.
Given the continuing concerns -- you first raised
personal liability of Board members for civil claims for
wrongful prosecution in July 2013 --
Yes.
-- and we're now in March 2014 --
Yes.
10
Both, I would say. I think we would always have been
concerned that there might be claims that had merit and
that we would need to deal with those, but we also, as
I've said, believed that the Horizon system was sound
and we thought that the legal side -- the work that
ought to be being done, in relation to past
prosecutions -- was being done and was being done
properly.
I'm just trying to understand how it is that there is
this focus on liability of the company and the Board,
which seems to be a continuing concern even into March
14, in the light of the positive Second Sight Report,
when we know that lurking underneath are a series of
advices that would expose the company to liability, that
may expose Board members to personal liability but
they're not revealed to you. It's as if two
conversations are going on at the same time --
Yes.
-- in parallel; do you understand?
I understand. That's very clear, thank you. I do
understand.
What you're saying in these email exchanges is not
motivated by, or a reflection of, you knowing about the
other thing that hadn't been revealed; is that right?
Absolutely right, yes.
12
(3) Pages 9 - 12
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
So I'm trying to understand what it was that was
motivating you to continue to explore the extent of the
Board's own liability and the insurance position?
Yes.
If it wasn't knowledge of the Jenkins problem, what was
it?
Well, I'm sorry to repeat myself but, if the Board asked
a question or people or somebody on the Board asked
a question, then it was important to me that the
business answered that question and I -- and I think
I wasn't alone in this -- I found it very strange that
it was taking this amount of time to get the answers to
what seemed like relatively straightforward questions.
And I think that, by this time, we were starting to
have some reservations about the way in which Chris Day
was performing his responsibilities and this was a part
of -- we just -- we didn't feel, at any rate, that he
was on top of this aspect of the job and we didn't seem
to be able to get anybody else to give us the answers,
and that was frustrating.
And I think we were, you know -- somewhere in
people's minds was always the thought that, you know, we
knew that people were interested in bringing claims
against us and you never know, when that happens, what.
the outcome might be. So I think, you know, it was
13
But, you know, given what we were being told, we
accepted it and we had -- I think, if you, you know, if
we try to put ourselves back into the shoes who were
reading that advice at that time, that wasn't
unreasonable.
Thank you. Can I move to a new topic. You suggested in
your oral evidence yesterday, and suggest in a number of
parts in your witness statement, that, in your view,
Susan Crichton was substantially to blame for the
failure to provide the Board with relevant information
and documents?
Yes.
Can we turn to POL00108058. This is an email exchange
of August 2013 between you and Paula Vennells.
Mm.
In the email that we can see at the foot of this page
here you say:
"Yes. It is the fact that she ..."
You're talking about Susan Crichton here.
Mm.
"... S@@S SO much as beyond her control which made me
most worried. It is her alibi. That is why I pushed
back and also why I asked her to flag up if there was
anything she needed which she couldn't get."
Then you go on to talk about another issue. What
15
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
2
prpre>ro
6 June 2024
a precaution -- on the part of the non-executive members
of the Board, it was a precautionary approach.
If we go back to the document we were just displaying,
POL00344895, and look at page 2., and scroll down, your
second question:
"Are we safe from legal challenge in what we
are/have been doing? What is the position both since we
became independent and before?"
Why wasn't the Board -- why weren't you -- asking to
see the external lawyers’ advice?
Because -- well, I think it depends which bit of
external lawyers’ advice we're talking about here.
Any.
So we knew that Brian Altman has -- had been asked to
give advice and we were given, at various points,
some -- well, I won't call them "summaries" because they
weren't -- as I now know, they weren't really summaries.
We were given a view of what was in that advice and I'm
sorry to say that I believed, and I think the other
Non-Executive Directors believed, what we were reading
in those papers about what was being said and we could
have asked to see that advice, you know, the original
documents and, if we had, the story might have been
very -- well, I think the story would have been very,
very different.
14
did you mean by "It is her alibi"?
So I was talking there about the subject which we
discussed yesterday, which was the fact that we'd got to
a position where the Interim Report from Second Sight
came not completely out of the blue but came very, very
unexpectedly to the Board in the run-up to its
publication, and the Board's concern as to how that had
happened, linked with the other issues that the Board
was concerned about, the length of time the work was
taking, the costs, and so on. So that's what I was
talking about there.
What do you mean by "alibi"?
That --
An alibi is normally if you're accused of a crime --
Oh, I see what you're saying, yes, yes.
-- or accused of wrongdoing --
Yes, yes, well --
-- you have an excuse or a reason to put yourself
somewhere else --
Yes, yes.
-- and, therefore, say, "I can't have committed the
crime" --
Yes.
-- or "I can't have undertaken the wrongful conduct”.
Yes. So I think an "excuse" would have been a better
16
(4) Pages 13 - 16
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
word. "Alibi" does sound as though -- as you say, as
those it's linked to a crime --
I'm not suggesting that you were here talking about
Susan Crichton committing a crime at all. I am just
seeking to understand what you meant by the use of the
word "It is her alibi"?
So what I think I'm saying here is that I didn't, and
the Board didn't, think that Susan had done that aspect
of her job well, that when I had had my conversation
with her, she had talked about -- she had given me
a variety of reasons as to why it hadn't been possible
for her to anticipate in the way that we would have
liked what was going to -- you know, the events leading
up to the publication of the Interim Report and
I thought that she was very passive, and I think that's
really what I was trying to say here.
Does this show contemporaneous knowledge by you of
a failure by Susan Crichton to do what she should have
done in her job?
In that respect. Not in the respect of her having
concealed documents from us because --
That's what I was going to ask you about.
Sorry.
Did you have any suspicion that she was deliberately not
flagging potential concems to you or to the Board?
17
a separate part of the Business Department, on the Post
Office team; and the other names, some of them
I recognise and some of them I don't. I think they were
all officials in the Business Department.
I'see. So we should read this as not a committee of
Post Office but a committee either of the Department or
of ShEx?
Yes. I mean, I may be wrong. It's possible that there
is somebody in this list who was in the Post Office but
I don't think so.
Thank you. Can we go forwards, please, to page 3 and
under "POL Management":
"The [Shareholder Executive Post Office] Team
outlined that certain key vacancies have been filled
cover the course of the past year and a more appropriate
management structure has been implemented. Yet,
vacancies have also arisen", et cetera.
Yes.
Next paragraph:
"The Review Team also discussed the suitability of
the current management team (ie capability and capacity)
and in particular whether Paula Vennells was the right
person to hold the CEO position long term. Questions
were raised and it was agreed that a confidential and
internal review would be undertaken to assess her
19
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOoOPrPOP
2
prop
6 June 2024
Absolutely not. I had no idea.
Thank you. You raise in your witness statement that one
of your achievements, I think, in your time at the Post
Office, was replacing a large number -- in fact, I think
every member -- of the Executive Committee, except Paula
Vennells.
Well, actually, it was -- the two people on the --
Kevin Gilliland?
I beg your pardon?
Kevin Gilliland as well?
Kevin Gilliland and Nick Kennett, who was the Financial
Services Director.
Can we look, please, at UKGI00042089. These are the
minutes of a Post Office Investment Review Committee.
Can you see the attendees there?
Yes, I can.
Just looking at that, of what would this be a committee?
I never had anything to do with this committee.
I probably heard about it at the time. There were
various committees inside the Business Department. This
looks to me like a Shareholder Executive committee.
Richard Callard was, at that time, the Non-Executive
Director on the Board representing the shareholder;
Roger Lowe was one of his colleagues, possibly his boss;
Tim McInnes was, I think, on the Post Office -- in
18
suitability."
Did you know this was going on?
I don't think so.
Can we look, please, at some slides in the Department's
Audit and Risk Committee from February 2014, so that's
the next month. UKGI00042677. I think this makes it
much clearer that this is not the Post Office --
Okay, yes. I think so too.
-- this is the Department and the Shareholder Executive.
Mm.
This is the Risk and Assurance Committee, or at least
a presentation to it, of February 2014. Can we go to
the second page, please, left-hand column underneath
number 1:
"Advice from the recent Annual Review suggested that
the [Post Office] team give careful consideration to the
continued suitability of Paula Vennells as CEO.
"There is a general consensus that Paula is no
longer the right person to lead [the Post Office] but
justification is anecdotal.
"This short paper aims to examine the options
available to [the Shareholder Executive]."
Then, on the right-hand side, under "Why is Paula's
position under review?", at the bottom, the Committee
was told:
20
(5) Pages 17 - 20
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
2
POoOPrOoP
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
"However, the 2010 plan, which admittedly was not
hers failed to deliver the expected revenue growth, and
the Network Transformation has required politically
awkward revisions to remain deliverable.
“Paula has not shone an understanding of political
considerations (ie presentation of plan to ministers) or
of the detail of the plan, and she has been unable to
work with the personalities that provide robust
challenge to her."
Then there is a third point.
Did you know that it was seemingly the view of
a team presenting to the Department and the Shareholder
Executive that Ms Vennells had been unable to work with
people that provided robust challenges to her.
I don't think I did, no. These papers, when I saw them,
are complete news to me.
Was that your view: that Ms Vennells had been unable to
work with people who provided robust challenges to her?
No, I don't think that was my view. You know, there was
certainly some tension between Susan Barton, whose name
appeared on the previous document and Paula. I think
their working styles were very different and Susan
was -- I mean, she was a very, very able person and she
did a very, very good job and she was robust, and
I think that there was some tension between the two of
21
Okay.
Given this isn't a committee of which you were a member.
Thank you. (Pause)
Yeah. Thank you.
Then, over the page, please, moving to the option of
"Remove", on the left-hand side of the page:
"There is a general feeling that Paula is not the
optimal person to lead [the Post Office] to deliver its
commercial strategy.
"[She] has not been able to establish good working
relationships with Jo Swinson ..."
That was the Minister at the time.
It was.
"She has been unable to retain key staff.”
Did you hold any of those three views?
At this point in time --
March 2014 -- February 2014 --
1 -- sorry?
February 2014.
Yes. In this period in 2014, I did start -- and
I wasn't alone in this -- to have reservations about
Paula's ability to lead the Post Office in the
circumstances which it found itself in.
Is it right to say those concerns included a doubt as to
her personal grip, specifically on Horizon issues?
23
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
pero
6 June 2024
them. I'm not aware -- I'm just trying -- let me just
think about this for a second as to whether I was aware
of that sort of tension with other people in her team.
I'm really asking you whether it was your view that
Ms Vennells preferred to have yes-men and yes-women --
No, I don't think that's fair.
-- around her, surrounding herself with a coterie of
trusted lieutenants: Mark Davies, Angela van den Bogerd,
Lesley Sewell, for example?
I don't think that would be a fair characterisation.
Did you have any concern that she had been unable to
work with people that provided robust challenges to her?
I didn't have that concern, no.
Can we go forwards, please, to page 5. A series of
options are outlined, one of which is, essentially,
release her from her role now; the next of which is
retain but review after a period of time.
Mm.
Then we'll go on to see that another one is a retain
until the natural course of events that she wishes to
move on.
"Retain and review’, you'll see, if you just briefly
scan what's said on that page --
The whole of this page?
Yes, I mean, this is just to give you some context.
22
Yes, and it went beyond that. I mean, that was the
example -- that's illustrated by the setting of that
personal objective, which I'm sure is what you've got in
mind, but the concern about the grip went wider than
that.
So just to summarise -- I'm not going to go to the
documents -- for the 2014/15 year, you set as one of her
objectives for that year a specific personal objective
in relation to the need to give priority to Horizon
issues?
\ did.
You tell us in your witness statement that at this time
you had doubts as to her personal grip on Horizon issues
and the level of attention that she was giving them?
Yes.
That's paragraph 180. What were your concerns about the
level of attention that Ms Vennells was giving to
Horizon issues?
I think that I felt that she was relying too much on her
colleagues.
Which colleagues?
Executive colleagues, so this --
Any in particular?
Um ... well, in this -- in the context of Horizon, this
would have been IT and Legal, primarily, and that -- I'm
24
(6) Pages 21 - 24
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
just trying to find a way of describing what I meant by
not having -- because you're asking me about whether
I felt she relied too much on other people; that was the
question?
Yes.
Yes. I think that I felt that there was too much
passing on of other people's views and that, when she
talked, say, to the Board, gave an update to the Board,
that what he was relying on were words that other people
had written for her, rather than her own words, perhaps
that's the best way of putting it.
Thank you. On the right-hand side, under "Performance
as CEO and delivery of strategy plan”, there is
a repetition of the point:
"[The Post Office] failed to deliver its 2010
strategic plan, and refused to keep the Government
properly appraised of developments in the [Network
Transformation] programme, requiring difficult revisions
in 2013. [Paula Vennells] has shown a worrying lack of
knowledge about the detail of the new plan.”
Then this:
"Paula's people management has caused concern as she
appears unable to work with personalities and approaches
that differ from hers ..."
Just stopping there, is that a concern that you
25
-- and then Post Office personnel on the other?
Exactly, yes.
I'see. The sentence continues:
"... and [she] has failed to build relationships
with key Directors."
Was that a view that you held in February 2014?
Other than -- I'm sorry, I keep repeating myself.
I mean, I was aware of the issue with Susan Barton but
I don't remember there being a -- my being aware of this
in relation to other directors, no. So I don't quite
understand where that's coming from.
Next bullet point:
"Paula's performance as CEO has been questioned by
[the Post Office] Chair, and by members of the Board.”
Had you spoken to the Department or ShEx about
Paula's performance?
As I say, Richard was party to this. I would have --
I had conversations from time to time with various
people in the Department, including Mark Russell, who
was the Head of the Shareholder Executive, and I can't
remember -- you know, I haven't got notes of those
meetings but I'm sure this would have come -- this would
have been a topic of conversation on a pretty regular
basis because, after all, it was one of my -- you know,
the key aspects of my role.
27
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
shared?
I don't think that was -- that wasn't one of my
concerns, other than, as I say, there was this tension
between her and Susan Barton, I recognised that.
Do you know where the department and ShEx would get
information, that enables them to reach a view like
this, from?
Yes, I think they would have got it from a number of
sources.
Being?
So Richard Callard, as I've already said, was
a Non-Executive Director on the Board and, therefore,
would have seen Paula operating in the context of the
Board, would have heard conversations, would have been
party to conversations that I and the other
Non-Executive Directors were having because he one of
us, in that sense. There would have been feedback, I'm
sure, from the Minister and the Minister's office, and
there would have been interactions with officials at
different levels in the department. So I would think
those would be the three main sources.
On that last one, where you say, "there would have been
interactions between officials" do you mean officials
within the Department and ShEx, on the one hand --
Yes.
26
By "other members of the Board", to your knowledge which
other members of the Board had questioned her
performance?
I think everybody had, by this stage.
Thank you. That can come down.
Did you ever advise Ms Vennells that, if you wanted
an answer to a question, you should tell the person that
you were asking the question of the answer that you
wanted to hear and then, essentially, get them to either
confirm what you said was right or persuade you that you
were wrong?
I have absolutely no recollection of saying that and
it's not -- I simply cannot imagine circumstances in
which I would have said that.
Ms Vennells told us that when she was preparing for the
Select Committee, on 3 February 2015, she sent an email
which said "What's the true answer?", which was about
the facility for remote access:
"I hope it is we know that this is not possible and
we are able to explain why that is. I need to be able
to say no it's not possible and that we're sure of this
because of XXX."
She told us that the phrasing of the email, the
framing of it, "We need to say this is not possible",
was specifically because you had told her that, if you
28
(7) Pages 25 - 28
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
want to get to the truth and a really clear answer from
somebody, you should tell them what it is you want to
say very clearly and ask for the information that backs
that up. Is that true; did you tell her that?
No, I think I might have said to her, you know, if you
want to know something is true, you need to be really
clear about what the proposition is.
That's a very different issue.
Yes.
Thank you. Can we move forward to the Post Office's
conduct during the Mediation Scheme and its attitude --
Sorry, could I just say one other thing on that last
conversation?
Yes.
I'm -- it's a surprise to me that these sorts of
detailed conversations were going on and that nobody
told me that they were going on at the time. And
I think that is -- I just find that rather
extraordinary, that, you know, I was aware of these
reservations that I and my fellow Board members had, and
I would know that Richard would be party to that, and
I knew that the Minister had some reservations, but
I had absolutely no idea that there was this machinery
inside the department that was having these
conversations, and I just find that quite surprising.
29
paragraph, Sir Anthony said that he had communicated the
following to you and Ms Vennells --
Yes.
-- "The Post Office's case didn't make sense. It didn't
make sense that reputable subpostmasters, appointed by
the Post Office after an examination of their
characters, would be stealing these sums of money but it
didn't make sense, in particular, because, in a matter
of days of any ‘alleged’ theft, they had to balance the
books. It just never made sense. I made that point
over and over again."
Did Sir Anthony make that point to you, whether over
and over again, or at all?
Not at all.
Do you recall having conversations with Sir Anthony?
I recall I had a meeting with him shortly, very shortly
after he'd been appointed, which was a sort of --
I hadn't been part of the selection process, Alasdair
Marnoch was the non-executive who was involved with that
and, after he was appointed -- and I think just after
he'd had the very first meeting of the Working Party --
he and I met and, as far as I'm aware, that is the only
time I ever actually met him.
He didn't say, on that occasion, that the Post Office's
case didn't make sense, in that, on Post Office's view
31
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
Thank you. Can we then turn to Post Office's conduct
during the Mediation Scheme proper and its attitude
towards the subpostmasters in the Mediation Scheme. Can
we start with some advice that Sir Anthony Hooper says
that he gave I think in February 2014, by looking at
POL00100335. These are the minutes of a meeting with
Sir Anthony Hooper. You can see who is in attendance:
you're not.
Yeah.
If we go down to paragraph 4:
"TH [that's Sir Anthony Hooper] agreed that [Second
Sight] were very resource challenged, and it would be
difficult for them to meet the current timetable. That
said [Sir Anthony's] view was that [Second Sight] were
trying to be objective and that they had a difficult
path to tread ... in order to do their job properly (in
his view) they would need to express an opinion on the
merits of each claim. In [Sir Anthony's] view, this was
something that they found hard to do. Some concern was
expressed by [Paula Vennells] and [Chris Aujard] that
[Second Sight] had not in their correspondence come
across as independent, and may be unduly influenced by
the need to satisfy certain MPs."
Mm.
In his evidence to the Inquiry in relation to this
30
of the contract, they had to balance the books and make
good any shortfalls of any losses within days of the
losses occurring?
He didn't say that to me. I would have remembered if
he'd said that to me and when we met it was very, very
early days, so it would have been surprising if he had
come to any sort of clear view. I think we were talking
about, you know, as it were, the future, rather than
about what he had already found, because it was very
early days.
Then over the page, please, to paragraph 6:
"[Sir Anthony's] strong contention was that [the
Post Office] should take no precipitous action until
such time as [Second Sight] had produced, say, 5
reports, and until we had seen their thematic report.
He noted the adverse [public relations] consequences of
terminating ... and offered to make himself available to
the Board
"The quantum of the compensation payments was
discussed. [Sir Anthony] noted that the applicant's
CQRs often painted a very distressing picture, where
there had been loss of livelihood, and other losses.
His view was that, should the evidence show that [the
Post Office] that not acted properly, then the amount of
compensation payable could be quite material (... this
32
(8) Pages 29 - 32
ONOaARWN
1A
12 Q
13
14
15 A.
16 Q.
17
18 AL
19 Q
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
9
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 a
24 A.
25 Q
POoPD
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
contradicts legal advice obtained by [Post Office] from
[Bond Dickinson] which categorically states that the
maximum loss [Post Office] could expect ... would be
limited to 3 months 'pay' under the subpostmasters'
contract). It was not entirely clear whether
[Sir Anthony] had in mind criminal cases only when he
had made these comments."
Was this passed on to you: that Sir Anthony's view
was that the amount, the quantum of potential
compensation, could be material, ie substantial?
No.
Was it ever explained to you that there was a difference
of view between the advice Bond Dickinson had given and
that being explained by Sir Anthony?
No.
I think, in the next month, Post Office took advice from
Linklaters.
Yes.
Can we turn to a Board meeting on 26 March 2014,
POL00021523. These are the Board minutes for 26 March
2014. You will see that you're present. Can we go,
please, to page 2 at the foot. Thank you. Under (k):
"The Board agreed that they needed to commission
a piece of work, to complement that undertaken by
Linklaters, to give them and those concerned outside the
33
to what amounts of money might be payable, and --
I'm thinking more of the phraseology, Ms Perkins.
1am coming to that. So, got -- sought this legal
advice on what the exposure was. The legal advice was
delivered on the basis -- needed -- in order to deliver
their legal advice, Linklaters said that they wanted to
be confident about the safety of the Horizon system and
they were not happy about the quality or the nature of
the work that Second Sight had done. So they were --
and we haven't looked at that -- I mean, there are --
I think in these minutes there are quotations from the
Linklaters partner.
We're going to go to the --
Yes, I'm, sorry, I'm anticipating.
Yes.
But we had heard at this Board meeting that the
Linklaters partner was sceptical about the work that had
been undertaken by Second Sight and thought that
a different kind of -- a different piece of work needed
to be done, and that was what we -- that's how we
arrived at the decision to commission a further piece of
work.
I'm asking about the phraseology.
Right.
Why is it, when I read a Board minute about commission
35
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
6 June 2024
Business, comfort about the Horizon system. The
Business was asked to revert with the terms of reference
and timescale for the work which [would] cover:
"The work undertaken by Angela van den Bogerd
explaining how the system works;
"A review of the data integrity aspects of the
system;
"A reference to all audits and tests carried out on
the system;
"A response to the most significant thematic issues
raised by Second Sight.
"These terms of reference should be tested with
Linklaters to ensure this work would satisfy them as
evidence that Horizon is reliable and then agreed by the
Board Sparrow Subcommittee."
Just go back to the previous page, at the foot --
thank you -- why did the Board wish to obtain a piece of
work to give it, or Linklaters or those concerned
outside the business comfort?
So, at this time, there were continuing questions about
the Horizon system and we -- and the Board was unclear
about what the level of exposure of the Post Office was
to claims, and I referred earlier this morning to the
different perceptions of people going into -- applying
to go in to the Mediation Scheme and the Post Office as
34
anything a piece of work about Horizon, it always says
something along the lines of "it will give us comfort,
it will establish that Horizon is reliable, it will
reassure us as to our existing view". We looked at two
of them yesterday.
Mm-hm.
You remember? Why is it always framed in that way?
I think because, by this stage, we had had the Second
Sight Interim Report, which said that it had so far not
found evidence of systemic issues with the Horizon
system. That had been interpreted by the Post Office as
an assurance of that, and had, actually, as I said
yesterday, similarly been interpreted in that way by
Lord Arbuthnot and others, and we had no reason to be --
to have doubts that that was the case.
But, here we were, being advised by this very well
respected legal firm but the evidence that we had was
not sufficient for them and, therefore, we should seek
some further advice. But I don't think that, at this
point -- we did not think that there was anything wrong
with the Horizon system at this point. But, if you're
asking me whether what we were doing was simply seeking
to commission advice which would give us the answer we
wanted, that was absolutely not my position, and I'm
completely sure it wasn't the position of other Board
36
(9) Pages 33 - 36
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
members either.
Can we display at the same time, please, POL00107317,
and page 3 of that document, please. Sorry, I should
have rested on page 1 for a bit, just so you can see
what it was.
It's the Linklaters advice of 20 March for this
board meeting, okay, and presented by Christa Band. If
we go forward to page 3, please, and go to
paragraph 2.3, if we can just highlight that, thank you.
In the first part of that, there's some information
about Jo Swinson.
Mm.
Then, in the second part of the paragraph, Linklaters
say:
"We note that there is, so far as we understand it,
No objective report which describes and addresses the
use and reliability of Horizon. We do think that such
a report [will] be helpful, though there's a decision to
be made about how broad and/or thorough it needs to be."
That was what was needed, wasn't it: an objective
report describing the use and reliability of Horizon?
Yes.
If you just look at the right-hand side, what that gets
translated into:
"... the work should cover:
37
Did the Board commission a comprehensive review of the
use and reliability of Horizon?
The Board commissioned a review by Deloitte, which was
a desktop exercise of assurances and controls of the
Horizon system.
So that does that mean: no, it did not?
We're going to come and look at the Deloitte report
with all of its limitations in a moment but what Ms Band
was saying was that there is no objective report
describing and addressing the use and reliability of
Horizon. Did that come as a surprise to you? Did you
think "Goodness me, here we are in March 2014. We
haven't got an objective report that addresses the
reliability of Horizon"?
I think it made me realise that we had gone -- probably
gone down the wrong road in the work that we had asked
Second Sight to do, the case-based review, yes.
Did you think, "How have we ended up here and what about
the times that I've said that we have had Horizon
independently assured or the times I've been present in
meetings with Parlimentarians, for example, and said we
have had Horizon independently reviewed investigated or
assured? What about the Ernst & Young audits? Don't
they count? What about the internal review that was
reviewed by Deloitte; doesn't that count? Have I said
39
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
PpPrPOPrOPrOPD
6 June 2024
"The work undertaken by Angela van den Bogerd
explaining how the system works ..."
Do you know what's meant by that: the work should
cover the work undertaken by Angela van den Bogerd?
can't help you with that, I'm afraid, now.
Secondly:
"A review of the data integrity aspects of the
system;
"A reference to all audits and tests carried out
So was that intended to mean a reference back to
previous audits?
Yes, I think so, yeah.
Then:
"A response to the most significant thematic issues
raised by Second Sight."
That's rather different from what was proposed,
wasn't it: an objective report addressing the use and
reliability of Horizon?
Well, “an objective report which describes and addresses
the use and reliability of Horizon" is a very broad
statement.
That was what was needed, though, wasn't it?
I'm sorry, I don't think that I can be of much more help
on this, I'm afraid.
38
things in the past that don't really stack up?"
To be honest, I can't remember exactly what I was
thinking when I was considering this report, other than
the fact that the work that had been done so far by
Second Sight was not the answer, was not what was
required here, and that we needed to commission some
more work. I just can't go back and dig that out of my
mind.
Okay. Was it quite sobering, though --
Yes.
-- to realise that in March 2014 --
Yes.
-- you were being told by somebody new --
Yes.
-- to the process, Linklaters, who were brought in ~
Yes.
-- to say, in fact "Here we are in March 2014, we
haven't actually got a report that addresses the
reliability of Horizon"?
Yeah, I think we were surprised by that.
Thank you. Those documents can come down.
Can we turn then to the Deloitte report.
Essentially, the Deloitte Project Zebra Report was
a consequence of the decision made at that March 2014
meeting.
40
(10) Pages 37 - 40
o>
ONOaARWN
1
12
13, AL
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 a
21 A
22
23
24 Qa.
25 A.
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
24 Q.
25 A.
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
It was.
I'm not going to look at the report itself. I want to
look, please, at the Board briefing prepared by
Deloittes, as a result of their work because that was
sent to you directly. For reference, it's -- no need to
display -- POLO00027933, and the document I'm about to
show you was emailed to you on 24 June 2014 by the
Company Secretary, Alwen Lyons.
Let's look at that document, then. POL00028069. So
this is the Board Briefing, as I say, emailed to you by
Alwen Lyons on the very day that it was created. Would
you have read this at the time?
So this document was disclosed to me after I'd finished
the -- I had submitted my written statement just before
Christmas and, when I first saw it, I had no
recollection of having seen it. But there clearly is
an email from Alwen, I think not just to me but to
fellow Board members, in which she says she attaches
this.
Yes.
The email itself doesn't appear to have the attachment
attached to it but I have no reason to think that it
wasn't attached, but I simply don't remember this.
So you don't remember whether you read it or not?
If it came to me, I would have read it.
41
timeline. Our findings below are written in the context
of the information available, which relates to the
current system.
"[3] An event occurred in 2010 which required the
use of the exceptional Balancing Transaction process in
Horizon to correct a subpostmaster's position from
a technical issue. Information has not been provided on
the circumstances that [led] to this system say and how
the issue was identified. It is assumed that verbal
assertions received from Fujitsu that this was the only
time that this process has been used hold true.
"[4] We have not had any direct contact with any
third parties other than the named contacts that you
have provided to us.
"[5] We have not validated or commented on the
quality of the documentation supplied to us."
Were you disappointed to have received a report
which was limited and caveated in such a heavy way?
Could I scroll -- could I go back to the setting for the
receipt of this report? So we had had a Board meeting,
I think it was in -- a few weeks earlier than this, at
which the partner from Deloitte, who was responsible for
this exercise, he'd come to that Board meeting --
Yes.
-- and he had given the Board an extremely positive
43
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
rPOPrPOPrPOPD
6 June 2024
Okay. Can we look, please, at page 3 and just look at
the top paragraph:
"The work we carried out to support our full report,
and thus this Board Briefing document, did not
constitute an audit or assurance engagement in
accordance with UK or international standards. In order
to deliver a formal assurance opinion, we would need to
have carried out testing to address the scope
limitations. Our conclusions and findings are therefore
limited to the design of Horizon. They are also subject
to the accuracy of the assumptions and limitations in
section 3."
If we just go down the page, "Limitations and
Assumptions":
"Our findings and conclusions are presented in the
context of the following limitations:
"[1] As a desktop exercise we have not validated
whether Horizon has been implemented or operated as
described in the documentation reviewed.
[2] Our work was limited by significant gaps
existing in the information available, relating to both
the granularity of information and the existence of
Horizon features over the entire timeline of operation
of Horizon. The effect of which is there are gaps
within what we are able to comment upon over this
42
sense of what Deloitte had found thus far, and that's
recorded in the minutes. So I think it is really,
really important to understand that. He had been
present at the meeting. He had given a very clear and
positive account of what he and his colleagues had seen
so far, and there was a discussion about further work
that should be done.
This Board Briefing that came in some weeks later,
was therefore a follow-up to that and, if we scroll up
the page a bit -- do you mind going back up?
The second paragraph from the top?
Yes. So --
I was going to come to that.
I'm sorry.
I just wanted to ~
I'm sorry.
-- deal with the limitations first.
Yes, but I was trying to explain -- I think it is
really, really important that people understand that, in
my mind, and the mind of my fellow Board members, we had
had that very clear and positive steer from Gareth
James.
So were you surprised, therefore --
Yes.
-- if we scroll back down, to read all of these
44
(11) Pages 41 - 44
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
limitations?
A. So, I think I said a minute ago, I don't recall seeing
this report and, therefore, I don't recall reading it.
Ido, however, remember that there was disappointment
that Deloitte did not feel able to give us the kind of
description of Horizon that we had expected would be
forthcoming following Gareth James’ appearance at the
Board and that there were, as I understood it from Chris
Aujard, a whole lot of reservations about the value of
doing further work, the cost of it and the time it would
take.
MR BEER: Thank you. I'll leave that there for the moment?
Sir, that would be a good time for the morning
break.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right.
MR BEER: Can we say until 11.10. Thank you.
(11.00 am)
(A short break)
(11.11 am)
MR BEER: Thank you.
Ms Perkins, I was asking you about the Board
Briefing prepared by Deloitte --
A. Yes.
Q. -- dated 4 June 2014. Just for the transcript, and for
those looking later, the document that shows that it and
45
"The Chairman thanked Gareth James for his draft
report and explained there were a number of people who
were sceptical about Horizon. The Board were concerned
to know the truth about the reliability of the system.
Deloitte's views would need to be expressed in search
a way that they would persuade reasonable lay people.
"Lesley Sewell explained that the first piece of
work Deloitte had been asked to undertake was to give
assurance that the control framework, including the
security and processes for changes in the system, were
robust from an IT perspective.
"Gareth James reported that all the work to date
showed that the system had strong areas of control and
that its testing and implementation were in line with
best practice. Work was still needed to assure the
controls and access at the Finance Service Centre.
"Chris Aujard explained that several of the
subpostmasters who were challenging Horizon had made
allegations about ‘phantom’ transactions which were
non-traceable. Assurance from Deloitte about the
integrity of the system records logs would be very
valuable.
"The Board asked what assurance could be given
pre-2010 when the different Horizon system was in use.
It was agreed that [Gareth Jenkins] would produce and
47
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
6 June 2024
the attachment was sent to you -- or it was sent to you
as an attachment, is POL00138401. No need for that to
be displayed.
No, no.
That is an email to you and others showing that the
document was emailed to you. You were making the point
that we've got to read the Board Briefing of 4 June in
the light of the earlier meeting of the Board on
30 April, at which the partner from Deloittes had made
a presentation?
Yes.
So can we look at the two documents alongside each
other, then. Firstly, the minutes of that Board
meeting, POL00021524 -- thank you -- and can we go to
page 6 of those. Thank you.
Then can we display the Board Briefing, POL00028069,
at page 3 of the Board Briefing and, in particular, the
bottom part of the page, the "Limitations and
Assumptions" -- thank you.
So dealing with the document on the right, these are
the minutes of the Board meeting of 30 April, which you
were mentioning:
"The Board welcomed Lesley Sewell, [CIO], and Gareth
James, Partner, Deloitte, to the meeting. Chris Aujard
also rejoined the meeting.
46
cost a proposal for additional work to enable assurance
for the wider system, pre-2010.
"Lesley Sewell, Gareth James and Chris Aujard left
the meeting.”
It was that that you were referring to?
It was, yes.
The "strong areas of control" is a reference to the
control framework and security and processes for changes
in the system in this minute, isn't it?
I have to confess, at this point, that my recollection
of these sorts of details from this long ago are not
good. I mean, I can't add much to what we see.
What was in the minutes?
I really can't, I'm afraid.
Okay, I understand. It's clear, reading the minute as
a whole, that the Board needed some further work to be
done by Deloitte?
Yes.
What we're reading on the left-hand side is the product
of that further work in June?
Yes.
What it says, in the five limitations and assumptions,
would you agree, does not really mean that the questions
asked by the Board were answered?
Yes. I would agree but would it be all right to scroll
48
(12) Pages 45 - 48
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
up ~~
Yes.
-- because there's one paragraph which we haven't looked
at.
Second from the top. We're going to look at that, don't
worry. I'm just looking at the limitations first.
Looking at the limitations first.
Okay.
Would you have focused on these limitations?
As I said to you before the break, I have a complete
blank about this. For a long time, when -- so if
I could just explain that, when I was putting my written
statement together, last year, in the run-up to
Christmas, it was a complete mystery to me what had
happened following the Board meeting whose minutes we're
looking at now. I simply couldn't remember what, if
anything, the Board had received from Deloitte after
that and I was, you know, kind of struggling to -- just
to work out what had happened, and then this Board
briefing and the covering email, which I think I'm right
in saying has commentary from Chris Aujard in it -- is
that right?
Sorry, the Board Briefing?
Yes, the Board Briefing. It's not covered -- that's
just a simple email from Alwen?
49
Horizon operates in practice?
I see that now. Whether I saw that -- I can't answer
the question of what I was thinking at the time, as
I don't remember having seen this at the time. But
I understand what you're saying.
We can go to various parts of the report.
Yeah.
You've referred to it as a desktop review in your
evidence earlier, which is accurate. By “desktop
review", do you mean essentially looking at documents?
Yes.
Would that be a concern, that where Christa Band had
advised that the Post Office lacked an independent
objective report on the use and reliability of Horizon,
what you've ended up with is a heavily caveated desktop
review of pieces of paper?
Yeah, I see that now. I do see that.
Wouldn't it have been obvious at the time that the ask
from the lawyer, or the suggestion from the lawyer, was
not met with a response that in any way accorded with
what was suggested?
I think it should have done, yes. But I think it would
be relevant to look at what the covering email said
because that's where I would have started and where
tam -—
51
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Po
pero
6 June 2024
No, there is commentary as well.
There is commentary as well?
Yes.
So that came with commentary. Anyway, it wasn't until
that was disclosed to me, that I saw that we had seen
this. That was the main reason why I amended my written
statement before I signed it.
Can we go to page 5 in the document on the left, please.
The way that it worked was that Deloitte were asked to
address, by Post Office, five questions. They're
described as "Matters" here, but five matters. And
question 4, you can see it's been translated into
“Matter 4" there, the question was:
"What comfort can be taken that Horizon provides
visibility to subpostmasters of all centrally generated
transactions processed to their branch ledgers?"
The answer is:
"The Horizon Audit Store reports from a complete
and unchanged record of all sealed baskets’. From the
documentation we have reviewed, it appears that Horizon
is designed such that extracts from the Audit Store
represent a complete and unchanged record of basket
data."
Reading this, would you be aware that all Deloitte
have done is looked at documents; they've not seen how
50
I'll go to that in a moment, then --
-- sure the Board members would have started.
- if we may.
“Matter 5: ‘Horizon provides visibility to
subpostmasters of all centrally generated transactions
processed to their Branch ledgers’. From the
documentation we have reviewed, it appears that Horizon
is designed such that subpostmaster has visibility of
all centrally generated transactions to their branch
ledgers in that accounting period. Central transactions
require subpostmaster approval to be processed, except
for [Balancing Transactions]. This appears to be
an exceptional process performed only by Fujitsu, and
asserted by them to have only been used once (in 2010)
between 2008 and the time of their assertion in this
area (... May 2014). Usage pre-2008 is currently not
known."
If you had read this, what would you have made of
a paragraph like that? Is it beyond your technical
understanding? What would you have drawn from it?
Well, this -- as we discussed yesterday, I think, this
does not come naturally to me, this area of work. It's
not something that I had or have any background in, so
I think, you know, I struggle with it, if 'm completely
honest. But, you know, if I -- if you read it out to me
52
(13) Pages 49 - 52
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prpro
prop
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and I look at it now, I can see that what they're saying
is, "This is how it said it works", and then it's making
some -- towards the end of this paragraph -- that there
are some reservations I suppose, is how you'd put it.
So would things like this have occurred to you -- and
then I'm going to ask about how it may have occurred to
the Board -- on reading a paragraph like this, "Oh, we
don't know anything, number 1, about pre-2008. That's
maybe a concern. Number 2, Hmmm, we've only just really
got what Fujitsu are saying here to go by. It's just
an oral assurance that they've only done it once, this
thing” --
Mm.
-- "and, number 3, doesn't that mean that Fujitsu
actually have access to the system without the
subpostmaster approving what's being done to their
data?" Would those kind of things leap out to you?
I don't know that -- I wouldn't say that they would have
leaped out at me but, if you read this, you know, as
you're reading it to me now, I understand what you're
saying.
Thinking about the Board more generally, was there
anyone on the Board that might, as I've just done, read
that paragraph --
Yeah.
53
first bits of text you come to and there was some
comfort in that, which is I think what Chris Aujard said
in his covering --
Which we're going to come to in a second.
-- note. Yes.
It's still a desktop review?
Yes.
How would a desktop review, ie looking at pieces of
paper, actually discover whether the system, as
designed, was delivering the objectives of processing
data with integrity?
It wouldn't.
Can we go to the Chris Aujard email, please,
POL00029733. If we scroll down, please, it's, in fact,
from Alwen Lyons passing on a message --
Yes.
- from Chris Aujard.
Mm-hm.
I think the point that you made earlier about the email
not showing that the Deloitte report was attached is
based on your reading of this?
Yes, it is.
Okay, and I've given an alternative reference --
Okay.
-- that shows that it was attached --
55
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
oP
oP
prorop
6 June 2024
-- admittedly with the knowledge of everything that has
happened, and pick out those three things: no assurance
pre-2008; we've only got Fujitsu's word that they've
done this once; and, if they've done it once, it means
they've got the facility to do things to the data
without a subpostmaster approving it, that's a bit
worrying?
I certainly would have thought that there would have
been members of the Board who would have seen that and
would have been more naturally -- I don't know what the
word is -- knowledgeable about looking at this sort of
description, yes.
Okay, can we go back, then, to paragraph 2 on page 3.
Thank you.
Page 3. Second paragraph from the top:
"Based on the desktop review we have performed,
except for the lack of monitoring controls and the
matters explicitly drawn out in our full report, we have
not become aware of anything to suggest that the system
as designed would not deliver the objectives of
processing of baskets of transactions and keeping copies
of them in the Audit Store with integrity.”
So you wanted to draw attention to that, as
a comforting paragraph?
That it was one of the first paragraphs -- one of the
Okay, thank you.
-- because, if we scroll up, we can see that Alwen had
missed Rod Williams off the email chain --
Oh, I see. Got it.
-- she resends it -
Yeah.
-- and on this one the Board Briefing is attached.
I see, yes, yes.
But, because this is a chain it doesn't show attachments
of earlier emails.
I understand. Thank you, that's helpful.
If we scroll down, please, Alwen says:
"Please find below a message from Chris Aujard and
Lesley Sewell [attaching the] Briefing ...
"Dear All,
"As detailed in the Board update sent last Saturday,
please find attached Deloittes final draft 'Board
Briefing’ ..."
Then scroll over to the second page:
"The briefing focuses on those features of the
Horizon system which operate to provide subpostmasters
with full ownership and visibility of their branch
ledger which maintain a complete and accurate audit
trail. The briefing thus helps address allegations made
by the Mediation Scheme Applicants that their branch
56
(14) Pages 53 - 56
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
losses may have been generated by ‘phantom’ Horizon
transactions.
"[It] strives to be succinct and intelligible.
However, given the subject matter and scope of the
review, it remains somewhat technical ... itis based on
a desktop review of currently available information ...
Itis therefore heavily caveated.
"In the Briefing, Deloitte expressly identify number
of limitations and assumptions ... The Briefing must be
read in this context. That said, its key findings are",
and then it sets them out.
So the covering email, which I think you said you
would have focused on --
Mm.
-- did actually draw attention to the fact that this is
a desktop review --
Yes.
-- and it is heavily caveated with limitations and
assumptions?
Yes.
I think it's right that Deloitte refuse to consent to
the publication of their report --
Yes.
-- and they refuse to consent to the use of their name
publicly to assert that the system was working with
57
believed that they were leading to and that we would be
able to publish that, and that was what we had intended
we would do.
I did remember that the follow-up to that meant that
we couldn't go down that route, and I did remember that
Deloitte had come to a different view after this, in
work had been done from the view that they had -- that
had been expressed at that Board meeting and that that
was something which meant that we were not able to go --
to follow the plan that we had at the time, and that --
yes, I think that was disappointing. That was
disappointing to us.
Did you get the impression that Deloitte were rather
wise to the possibility that their name might be
associated with a public assertion that the system was
working with integrity and, therefore, were
uncomfortable with that and refused to allow it to
occur?
They were clearly refusing to allow that to happen and
I think there was some discussion about why they -- why
they, you know, felt that -- that way and I think we got
the impression that they weren't really -- they weren't
really interested in doing the additional work.
Can we move forward to what impact all of this had on
the Mediation Scheme and look at POL00106889. This is
59
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pPrPoOoProOoroPr
integrity -—
Yes.
-- and they refused to do so unless they had undertaken
specific testing of the system in operation?
Yes, but they, I think, went on to say words to the
effect that weren't sure that there was value in doing
the amount of further work that would be required in
order to satisfy that.
Overall, how did you view the Deloitte report, ie taking
into account what you'd been told at the meeting on
30 April and in the light of receiving that email and
the Board Briefing?
Well, as I said, I don't remember what I felt about the
Board Briefing because I didn't remember seeing it but,
clearly, the picture that we had been given at the Board
meeting by Gareth James was not borne out by what
followed.
Was that clocked by the Board at the time? Was it
realised by the Board at the time?
So I think clearly what the Board realised -- I'll try
again. At the Board meeting which Gareth James
attended, I think the Board had the impression that
Deloitte were going to be able to write a report giving,
if you like, Horizon a clean bill of health. That's
what we believed that they were -- that's what we
58
a draft of a presentation, I think, to be given to you.
Mm-hm.
Is that right?
Looks like it.
It's a presentation --
It does look like it.
- to you rather than by you?
Oh, it's not a presentation by me.
If we go, please, to the introduction on page 7, the
author wrote:
"What does success look like?
"We bring a close the discussion on the Horizon IT
System as there is no evidence that there are systemic
issues with it (Independent assurance provided).
Then skipping over a couple of paragraphs to the
fourth:
"In the run up to the election the Horizon issue
does not cause the Minister any problems."
Then skipping over one:
"Limited internal resource (from Chairman to
administration)/money spent on Horizon and more on
profit-making activity.”
Was this a presentation, in fact, given to you?
I don't remember but probably. I mean, I don't know.
This, on its face, is dated as being in draft on
60
(15) Pages 57 - 60
6 June 2024
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
prearere>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
2 February 2014, so a couple of days before receipt of
the Board Briefing?
Yes.
Would it be fair to say that, in the light of that Board
Briefing, it would not be possible to say, "There is no
evidence that there are systemic issues with Horizon and
independent assurance has been provided"?
That would have had to have rested on the Second Sight
Interim Report.
Not the Deloitte report?
Not given what we have just seen dated 4 June, no.
No. The fourth bullet point:
"In the run up to the election the Horizon issue
does not cause the Minister any problems."
Was the handling of the Horizon issue seen by the
Board through the lens of whether it caused or did not
cause the Government problems?
Not -- no, not -- the answer to the question is no.
I think, in the sense that the Board would never have
done anything one way or another about Horizon because
of the political fallout, or otherwise. But I think
certainly I, because I was very -- because of my
Government background, would have been sensitive to
election -- you know, an election period, such as the
one we're now in.
61
Yes.
-- rather than a full Board.
Okay, yeah.
You're present?
Yes.
Yes?
Yes.
If we just go to page 5, please, and look at
paragraph 3.8. These are amongst the options. If we
just scroll up to get the heading -- thank you -- these
are options being considered at this time, "Completing
the Post Office investigation in each case and moving
the governance and management of the scheme in-house".
Yeah.
"Under this option we would publish a report on Horizon
and the Mediation Scheme setting out the legal position
around the contract and liability. The scheme
administration and management would be moved under Post
Office's sole control with the Working Group disbanded
and Second Sight's engagement ended."
Is that essentially what happened in due course?
So, in due course, not -- no, that's not quite right.
So, in due course, what happened was the Working Group
was disbanded. It was decided to give all applicants
access to the Mediation Scheme and any applicants who
63
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pero
6 June 2024
I mean, ironically at this time, June 2014 --
There wasn't an election, no.
There wasn't one; it happened in May 2015.
Indeed, you're right but, presumably, there was some
speculation as to when that election might be.
just —-
I'm just interested in the extent to which causing
problems for the Minister was a material consideration
at the handling of Horizon issues?
Well, it certainly wouldn't have been a material
consideration in terms of the -- of the substance of
doing the right thing, as far as the Board was
concerned.
Thank you. Is it right that the Post Office essentially
took control of the Mediation Scheme in June 2014?
I can't remember the exact date but --
Let's look at the documents --
-- but I thought that the Working Group was closed down
later than that.
I want to look at the genesis of that.
Okay.
Can we start, please, by looking at POL00022128. This
is a Board pack for the Board meeting of 6 June 2014.
Of the subcommittee meeting?
Yes, I'm so sorry, yes, the Sparrow Sub-Committee ~
62
wanted would -- the Post Office would fund advice to
them from Second Sight. That's what happened.
The reasons for this are given in paragraph 3.9, for the
taking of that option, as being:
“[It] would substantially reduce administration
costs and allow the Post Office to 'take control’ of the
scheme and its associated risks (such as adverse [public
relations]). We estimate the whole life cost ... at
£7.7 million. The option would also release management
time as the scheme would conclude more quickly than the
other options ...
"This could be justified publicly by setting out the
case that we are taking action in the absence of any
evidence of systemic failures with the Horizon system
during the last two years, mounting costs ... and clear
legal advice around the expectation gap."
I should say we should go to page 8 and
paragraph 7.3 -- thank you:
"It is the view of the Programme, Legal and
Communications and Corporate Affairs teams that the
third option -- where the scheme is effectively moved
in-house -- is the one which is in the best interest of
the business in a pure ‘commercial’ sense. There is
a weight of evidence to support this view, including
value for money, timescales, concerns around the cost
64
(16) Pages 61 - 64
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and quality of [Second Sight], the diversion of senior
management time and the critically important point that
in two years of investigation nothing has been uncovered
to raise doubts about the issue at the heart of this
[system] -- the operation of the Horizon computer
system."
Is it right that the subcommittee decided that this
option, Post Office taking control of the Mediation
Scheme, was the right one?
At this meeting, it appears that that was the decision
but it wasn't accepted by the Board.
Do you know what the adverse public relations risks were
that the Post Office was facing in relation to the
Mediation Scheme?
I think what was meant by this was that there was
an increasing -- sorry, can you just give me a minute
while I find the words?
Yes.
At this stage, with the Mediation Scheme, there was
a lot of noise around it, a lot of dissatisfaction with
it being expressed publicly, and I think the point here
was that it could be seen that the Mediation Scheme, on
the current -- the then current rate of progress, was
going to take very, very, very much longer to conclude
than had ever been envisaged and that, as long as that
65
Just in context, that means whether the Post Office
should offer interviews before the appointment of Second
Sight was announced.
Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you.
"... as that puts us on the defensive and it also gives
it more airspace.
"Do you agree -- you must say if not [please]!
“Hope all is well.
“Paula.”
Then top of the page, next day:
"Paula, sorry to pick this one up late. But
I agree -- absolutely nothing to be gained in giving the
story legs. Best course of action is to hold the
(strong) lines and stick with them."
Then:
“All well -- last day at Rethink."
That is the organisation that Mr Davies was working
for?
Yes.
“Really looking forward to 9 July!"
That's his start date.
Okay.
Then if we go up, please. That day, Paula Vennells
sends you that exchange:
"Thought you'd like to see this from Mark --
67
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o>
>
prop
6 June 2024
was going on, there would be more of the kind of comment
that was being experienced at that time and that that
was -- that this was seen as unhelpful. I think that's
what that's saying.
Thank you. That can come down.
Can I turn to my last topic, then, with you, and
it's essentially the role of Mr Davies, Mark Davies.
Yes.
Can we turn up, please, POL00295386. I'm going to look
at a series of emails that you weren't party to
initially and then we'll look at some when you were. If
we go to page 3, please, and if we scroll down to the
middle of the page. Thank you.
So this is 21 June 2012, okay --
Mm-hm.
-- and that's a month before Mark Davies joined the
business?
Right.
Okay?
Yes.
Ms Vennells writes to him:
"Mark, Alana was going to call you but is in Downing
Street.
"My sense is we are doing the right thing in not
offering interviews ..."
66
[supported] and excited at joining.
"The only coverage this [morning] is the Telegraph
which is balanced."
Then up, please. You reply:
"Thanks. It will great to have him on board. ([By
the way] was NL okay about it?)"
Is that a reference to Norman Lamb.
I cannot think who else it was a reference to but
I don't know.
Norman Lamb, at that time, was the Post Office Minister?
He was.
Records suggest that he was the Parliamentary
Undersecretary of State for Employment Relations and
Postal Affairs, in office between 3 February 2012 and
4 September 2012, so in office at this period. You
can't think of anyone else who "NL" may refer to?
No.
Okay.
If that does, as is suggested, refer to the
Minister, why were you concerned that the Post Office
Minister might not be okay that the Post Office had
appointed Mark Davies?
Mark Davies had worked for my husband and --
He was your husband's -- Jack Straw’s -- former Special
Adviser, SpAd?
68
(17) Pages 65 - 68
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
prop
PpPrPOPrOPrOP
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
He was, yes. One of the new posts which the Post Office
needed to create and fill was a Communications Director,
following its independence from the Royal Mail. Up
until April 2012, when the Post Office was part of Royal
Mail, that communications function was exercised through
the Royal Mail Group, and so, although there was
somebody in the Communications Directorate in the Royal
Mail, who was the Post Office person in that team, there
wasn't anybody at the level with the relevant experience
to carry out the role for the newly created Post Office,
particularly given the agenda that we were trying to
implement.
I think that decision had been taken before I came
on board. I can't remember but, anyway, that decision
was taken and there was going to be a proper process
involving headhunters and a proper selection process.
And I remember that it occurred to me that Mark, who
I knew simply through the work that he had done for my
husband, was not particularly happy. I'd heard that he
was not particularly happy where he was working and
I thought that he would be a strong candidate for the
post. And I remember thinking at the time -- I wondered
whether I should even raise that because of the
potential conflict that that -- you know, it could
look --
69
We needn't read the rest of it because she
essentially gets the wrong end of the stick. She thinks
you're speaking about have you run past Norman Lamb the
issue of whether we should proactively offer interviews
before Second Sight, okay?
Oh, I see.
She gets the wrong end of the stick.
Okay.
Then if we go to page 1 at the bottom, you put her
right.
Right.
You say:
"My query re [Norman Lamb]" --
Yes.
-- "was in relation to Mark's arrival.”
Yes.
Not the issue of substance?
Yes.
Then if we scroll up, second paragraph is her reply.
Okay.
"[Norman Lamb] was grateful that I mentioned it.
I explained the proper process that had been followed
and the calibre of the candidates he had been competing
with for the role. I had to leave a message but he
texted back and said something like: 'I appreciate the
ral
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop,
6 June 2024
It looked too cosy?
It looked too cosy and I nearly didn't suggest it and
then I thought that was completely ridiculous because he
would so obviously be very good at the role and why on
earth would you not put somebody forward who was
eminently qualified, both in terms of his experience and
also his public service values, to -- for that role,
just because he'd worked for your husband?
So I did suggest to Paula -- or, actually, I can't
remember if I suggested to Paula or I suggested to Mark
but, anyway, one way or another, Mark's name was given
to the headhunters and he was then included in the
selection process and I had absolutely nothing whatever
to do with that.
Okay, and so you're checking here that the potential for
this to be viewed as a sort of cosy stitch-up —-
Exactly.
-- hadn't occurred to, or was operating on, the mind of
the Minister?
I would have wanted to be absolutely clear, above board,
and I would have wanted it to be drawn explicitly to the
Minister's attention for all those reasons.
Okay, if we then scroll up, please, Ms Vennells replies.
If you look at the third paragraph, she says:
"I haven't mentioned specifically this week to NL."
70
information, thank you, that all sounds fine’. And we
had a great time over supper -- [he] is good company."
Then at the top of the page:
"I'm [very] glad you did this [you reply]. Right
thing to do and he responded in the right way.
I thought he would. I've no idea whether we will get
any flak about Mark but if we do, we are in a perfect
place to handle it."
Yeah.
So the flak is the cosy stitch-up suggestion?
Yeah, absolutely.
The "perfect place to handle it", you're saying that
because it's been run past the Minister?
No, I think -- well, yes, it had been run past the
Minister, that was certainly part of it, but also
because, you know, we'd done the proper thing, you know,
we'd been scrupulous about it.
To what extent, following this, did you rely on Mark
Davies’ advice as to the substance of decisions to be
taken, as opposed to the later presentation and
disclosure of such decisions to the media, ie after the
decision had been taken?
I would have relied on Mark solely for his experience
and professionalism around the public relations angle of
things.
72
(18) Pages 69 - 72
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
So not to contribute to the substance of a decision
taken, only to take advice from him on the presentation
of the decision after it had been taken?
I think when you're thinking about decisions in a very
public environment, one of the factors you want to take
into account, you want to be aware of, is, you know, how
would this come across? But that's not a basis on --
you take a decision to do the right thing and then you
work out how you're going to communicate it, but it's
helpful to know in advance whether the way you
communicate it is going to be a big issue or not.
To what extent, to your knowledge, did Paula Vennells
include Mark Davies in the taking of decisions as
opposed to the presentation and disclosure of such
decisions after they had been made?
I wouldn't have had visibility of that.
Do you know the extent to which Ms Vennells relied on
Mark Davies to shape and set the direction for the Post
Office's policy and strategy on issues?
I don't know. You know, I can't really answer that.
I mean, he was a trusted member of Paula's team and the
Board was very impressed with him but, as to the extent
to which she relied on him for the substance, rather
than the presentation, I really don't know.
Here, he's being relied on before he's joined the
73
included as well? Since we are trying to clear the
matter up in ... a robust and transparent manner, it
does seem to me that this needs further thought."
Then if we go to the bottom of page 1, please,
there's Ms Vennells reply:
"Firstly, let me reassure you that Alice and
I intend total transparency -- as I'm sure you sensed
from the meeting we arranged for you and Oliver.
".., the queries you raise are entirely valid ... we
are dealing with particularly sensitive and personal
situations ..."
Third paragraph:
“Rather than a blanket approach, we would take each
case separately -- we are dealing with individuals’
lives and livelihoods."
Then further up, please. That email is sent on to,
amongst others, Glenda Hansen, your Executive Assistant.
Mm-hm.
Ms Vennells says:
"... Lwill call Alice tomorrow pm or [not],
hopefully after meeting James or at least having a time
in the diary over the next two days. I shall also have
had a chat with Mark Davies by then, which I know we'll
reassure her too.”
So, again, before Mr Davies has even taken up his
75
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
2
6 June 2024
company.
But for a PR --
For a PR issue.
Yes, for a PR issue, yes, he clearly is. But I didn't
know that at the time, I think.
Well, I think you did, because you were on this email
exchange?
Oh, okay, well I didn't remember that.
Can we turn, please, to POL00295300, page 2 at the
bottom, please. We're in June 2012 here.
Mm-hm.
There's an email from Lord Arbuthnot to you and to
Ms Vennells about the Second Sight terms of reference.
Right.
"Thank you for sending me your proposed terms of
reference -- they are most helpful.
“A couple of issues have struck me and I wonder if
you might give me your thoughts ... The first is that
you are proposing that meetings should be held with MPs.
but not necessarily with the relevant subpostmasters
there to put their side of the story. And MPs will not
know as much as the subpostmasters will, and so the
issue will not be resolved unless the MPs are also given
the chance to have their constituents at the meeting.
What about the advisers? Surely they ought to be
74
post at the Post Office, Ms Vennells was expressing
a view that you would be assured that she had had a chat
with him before speaking to you, yes?
Looks like that, yes.
So a CEO indicating that the Chairman of the company
would be assured after she had had a call with the new
Communications Lead, than if she had not done so. Was
that because she knew that Mr Davies was somebody that
you yourself particularly trusted?
I don't know what it -- exactly what it was she was
going to have a chat with him about. I mean, it clearly
is about Lord Arbuthnot's message, but what aspect of it
is not clear from this. I think that, at the time --
and I can't remember the detail of this but there was
really almost no communications input into the Post
Office top team at that point and I think we were
feeling the lack of it. But I don't remember this
email.
Bearing in mind this was three weeks or so before
Mr Davies joined the company, why would Paula Vennells
chatting with him give you reassurance?
I don't --
He'd never worked for you, had he?
No, absolutely not. I just - I knew that he had
I knew that my husband had rated him and I knew that he
76
(19) Pages 73 - 76
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
propre
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
had a very good reputation, both within the Special
Adviser community and that he was very much trusted in
the media world.
When he joined the Post Office, did he perform the role
of a Special Adviser --
No.
-- rather than a Communications Lead?
I don't think so. Look, I don't know exactly what kind
of -- you know, all the conversations that Paula had
with Mark but, certainly, as far as I was concerned,
Mark was there to do the communications role and
that's -- you know, when I sought his advice, that's
what I was seeking his advice on.
Can we turn to POL00317714, bottom of page 1, and over
to page 2. We're now in 2015.
Yeah.
An email from Mr Davies to you directly:
"Hi Alice
"Hope all well and sorry to be bringing Sparrow to
you.
"I have drafted note below for colleagues and
thought I would let you see the update now: it is still
a live situation ..."
"I will update the Board fully on [Thursday]."
If we just scroll down, it is essentially a briefing
77
What's that about?
So I saw this correspondence very recently, I think last
week, and I have to say that, with the benefit of
hindsight, I don't think I should entered into this
conversation. But Clare Sumner was somebody who had
been a civil servant, I had known her particularly from
my role in the Cabinet Office because of her position in
the Civil Service, and she was by then working at the
BBC.
So the "TH" --
The "TH" is Tony Hall.
The then Chairman of the BBC?
No, he was the Director General.
Director General. Thank you. So what you were doing
was proposing to Mark Davies potentially contacting, by
reason of a previous connection in government, the then
Chief of Staff of the Director General about a programme
to be broadcast by Panorama about the Post Office?
That was -- I was reminding him of her existence and the
role that she was in, yes.
Presumably to exert some influence?
I thought -- I don't know what was going through my mind
at the time.
Can you help us?
Can I help you in what way?
79
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
about how the Post Office is going to engage with the
planned Panorama programme.
Yeah.
Then if we go back to page 1, and scroll down to see
your reply:
"Thanks for updating me Mark. It sounds difficult
but I am confident that nobody could be handling it
better than you."
Then you go on to describe the issues of substance.
Was it usual for you, as the Chairman of the
company, to have direct access to, or direct
communications with, Mr Davies?
I would have had direct access to communications with
any of the Executive Directors.
Without going through Ms Vennells, who is not copied in
to-
No, she's not copied in. I mean, yes, I think I did
sometimes have bilateral conversations or bilateral
correspondence with them, but I would, you know, if
there was anything new of substance, then I would have
raised that with her in one of our weekly meetings or
some other time.
You say:
"Did you know Clare Sumner from the [Ministry of
Justice]?"
78
With what was going through your mind? "Because of past
connections with government, when you were part of
government" --
Yes.
‘my husband's SpAd, did you come into contact with
this other person in government, who now occupies
a favourable position in the BBC? We're in dispute with
the BBC, maybe you should get in to Clare Sumner"?
I knew Clare Sumner in my own right, so that had nothing
to do with a connection with my husband. Mark Davies
was the person I knew through the connection with my
hers. And, yes, I obviously was suggesting -- I thought
Mark probably would have known her and I was suggesting
he might consider getting in touch with her.
If we scroll up, please. He says:
"I do know Clare. I might drop her a line.
I always worry about going too nuclear too early but
I think this is getting to that point I think."
Did the Post Office go nuclear with Panorama?
The Post Office was strong with Panorama. I wouldn't
use the word "nuclear".
Can we go back a little, please, to December 2014.
I think you're aware of Mr Davies appearing on the BBC
Radio 4 Today Programme and referring to subpostmasters
who'd been convicted of criminal offences, some of whom
80
(20) Pages 77 - 80
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
prop
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
had been imprisoned, as experiencing "lifestyle issues"?
Yes.
Were you aware of that at the time it was broadcast?
I think I may have heard it. Yes.
Presumably because this was quite a mainstream media
platform: Radio 4 Today Programme?
Because Radio 4 Today Programme was on in our house
every morning.
Was this comment that he made drawn to your attention
afterwards?
I think -- I can't remember. I think I -- I mean, I was
aware of it and I remember thinking that it was ill
judged.
Can you recall how it was handled, if at all, within the
Post Office?
No, I don't remember.
Was anything done about it?
I don't remember.
Can we turn to POL00101860. Go down, please, to page 2.
Thank you. 14 December, you're emailing Mr Davies, so
this is after the Today Programme, and the second
substantive paragraph:
"On Sparrow, the [Financial Times] piece is
obviously unhelpful. It made me think about whether it
is in our best interests to maintain confidentiality.
81
point -- with every broadcast they are putting a risk in
the way of applicants having their cases heard.
"I am calling my team this afternoon to discuss our
next steps and will certainly have your points in mind.
Part of the challenge here is that the BBC are playing
games: and it may well be that if we can't provide
a spokesperson they can't broadcast it as it would lack
balance."
So do you understand this to mean that refusing to
provide a spokesperson would be a tactic used by the
Post Office in the hope that the BBC would not broadcast
because of a perceived lack of balance?
That is what this is saying, yes.
Was what Mr Davies wrote here your view of what was
happening: that the Post Office was duelling with the
BBC?
I don't remember exactly what this is about and it would
have been -- you know, it would have been his view.
I wasn't engaged in this. I'm just listening to what
he's telling me and I am contributing -- I'm just
contributing some comments.
Was the Post Office viewing itself as being embroiled in
a battle against the campaigning subpostmasters?
I think it was, yes. I think it was.
Were staff fighting to protect the reputation of the
83,
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Qa
6 June 2024
It probably is but if we haven't already, perhaps we
should just ask ourselves that question? As long as we
stick by our rules and they don't, we will not be able
to respond to their allegations about the process. On
the other hand, it's binary. So if we start to play by
their rules we could find ourselves giving a running
commentary about it.”
Can you remember the context of this, please?
I don't know remember this Financial Times piece at all.
Can we scroll up to see what Mr Davies replies. He
says, second paragraph, so it is back to you with
Ms Vennells and Belinda Crowe copied in:
"On Horizon, it is a final balance. The team and
I have been working pretty much all weekend on the
Parliamentary debate and (frankly) duelling with the BBC
over their plans for a further round of broadcasts on
Wednesday. A legal letter will go in the morning. Our
approach will be to answer any specific points outside
confidentiality -- they are very serious (such as
alleged failure to follow due process) so we must. But
I so think we need to maintain confidentiality for the
scheme applicants."
I think that might mean, "But I also think we need
to maintain confidentiality for the scheme applicants":
"I called the BBC editor on Friday to make this
82
Post Office?
People were fighting to protect the reputation of the
Post Office, as we now know, based on a completely wrong
understanding of the facts.
Is that how the scandal was then viewed internally by
Post Office staff: a rather bloody PR battle in which
they were entrenched against the campaigning
subpostmasters?
I wouldn't use those words. I think that what was going
‘on here was that the Post Office was trying to -- we
talked a bit about this yesterday -- was trying to
protect its reputation as an organisation that could be
trusted by the public and by its subpostmasters and its
employees, under -- in a situation where allegations
were being made that it couldn't be trusted.
People within the Post Office, or at least, speaking
for myself, I -- and I am very confident that my fellow
non-executive Board members -- our understanding of the
situation was that those allegations did not have
substance and we were worried about the reputation of
the Post Office suffering from allegations that were not
substantiated.
If we scroll up, please, Belinda Crowe replies:
"Happy to join a call ...
"I didn't respond but we are on really dodgy ground
84
(21) Pages 81 - 84
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
if we get into the detail of cases. However, as you
know we have some good answers to some of the points
raised and provided we can position this in a way that
under no [circumstances] can it be construed as.
commenting on a case we should be in quite a strong
position with our statement.
"Keep trying to think of Kipling.”
I think you were familiar with Belinda Crowe; is
that right?
A. Yes, I knew -- I worked with Belinda at the Post Office,
yes.
Q. Were you responsible for her appointment?
A. I didn't know Belinda until she joined the Post Office.
Her name was, I think, suggested either to me or to
Paula as somebody who could be helpful, I think,
initially in relation to the work we'd were doing on
mutualisation, which was underresourced.
Q. She refers to getting on to "really dodgy ground" if the
Post Office got into the detail of cases. Do you know
why, at this time, the Post Office would be on "dodgy
ground" if it got into the detail of individual cases?
A. I think she's referring to the confidentiality point.
Rather than the substance?
A. Yes. I think what must have been happening here is that
either the BBC or the Financial Times or somebody else
85
2
least fails while daring greatly, so that his place
shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
neither know victory nor defeat."
I'm not sure Theodore Roosevelt quite had in mind
a government-owned entity battling its own staff over
whether it was complicit in the procurement of wrongful
convictions but does this give an insight into what
Mr Davies saw as his role at the Post Office?
>
I think that this is a -- I mean, did I see this email,
this email exchange at the time?
No. I'm asking you about how Mr Davies was acting --
No, I understand, yes.
-- what he saw his role as.
POPS
I think that he was just, you know, he must have been
feeling under a lot of pressure.
Was it your view that the Post Office team regarded
themselves as marred by dust and sweat and blood in
a worthy battle against their subpostmasters?
A. I wouldn't have put it like that.
MR BEER: Thank you. They're the only questions I ask you.
Sir, can we take the second morning break until
12.30?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Then I understand the plan is to have one
set of questioning of Ms Perkins, which will last up to
40 minutes -- is that the idea -- so we have a late
87
2
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
was -- and this does -- I've seen this happen in other
contexts -- they start to talk about personal
confidential issues about particular cases and the
organisation concerned is unable to answer those points
because it feels itself bound by confidentiality, which
the commentators are not being bound by. So it's a kind
of unequal conversation you're having.
Q. She ends, "I am trying to think of Kipling", which
presumably is "If you can keep your head whilst all
about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you".
A. I imagine that that is -- I've no idea.
Q. No. Then Mr Davies replies, and I'll try to do this
justice:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who.
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the
doer of deeds could have done them better.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and
blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short
again and again, because there is no effort without
error and shortcoming; but who actually does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms,
with great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy
cause; who at best knows in the end of the triumph of
high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
86
lunch? That's the plan?
MR BEER: That's right, yes. A ten-minute-late lunch.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. That's very good sleight of
hand, if I may say so, Mr Beer. Our lunchtime gets less
and less in time.
Right, so we will have our ten-minute break and then
whoever is first up will have 40 minutes.
MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir.
(12.19 pm)
(A short break)
(12.32 pm)
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Who is first up?
Questioned by MR JACOBS
MR JACOBS: It's me, sir. I just need to check the
microphone is so you can hear me. How is that?
Thank you, Ms Perkins, I ask questions for
subpostmasters, very many who are represented by
Howe+Co, most of whon, if not all, are following
proceedings this afternoon.
My first question for you is: did you protect the
subpostmasters in your role as Chairman of the Board?
I did my best to protect subpostmasters.
Did you succeed in protecting them, Ms Perkins?
No, obviously not.
Did you consider that the Board was under a duty to
88
prop
(22) Pages 85 - 88
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
protect subpostmasters?
The Board -- the Board was under a duty to run the
company properly and that clearly included looking after
the interests of all the people who worked in the
company.
So I think your answer is yes?
Yes.
You referred this morning to Sir Anthony Hooper's
evidence. You say that you dispute that these
conversations happened, but that's another point for
another day. Essentially, the point he was making was
that it didn't make sense that people of good character
would all turn to crime at approximately the same time
and in circumstances where they were bound to be caught
because they had to balance at the end of the balancing
period. Wasn't that a point that was obvious to the
Board or should have been obvious to the Board,
regardless of whether Sir Anthony had raised it with
you?
It was a point clearly that was not obvious to the Board
because, if it had been obvious to the Board, we would
have taken different actions.
Okay. Why do you say it wasn't obvious? We have large
numbers of people selected because they are of good
character, suddenly there's a raft of prosecutions,
89
[Martin Edwards] is briefed if you want more detail.
This is just in case."
Now, you said yesterday you took it at face value
and you shouldn't have done. Did you accept, as
Chairman of the Board that this was an enormous issue
that potentially rendered convictions unsafe.
I'm sorry what was your question?
Didn't you accept or couldn't you see from that email
that this was an enormous issue that potentially
rendered criminal convictions unsafe?
I didn't see it from that email and if I had seen it
from that email I would have done something about it.
Well, what you were being told at face value was
essentially of the Simon Clarke Advice, that
a representative from Fujitsu made statements about no
bugs?
I was told that it was not material and I was also told
that I was being told just in case.
You said in your evidence today that, some time in 2014,
you expressed concerns about the Chief Executive, Paula
Vennells; is that right?
Yes.
Did there come a time when you stopped taking her at
face value and started taking the initiative yourself?
I think I did take my initiative myself, right at the
1
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
a raft of allegations, they all claim that the system is
to blame, and it appears that large numbers of people,
who are otherwise honest, were turning to crime, roughly
at about the same time. That was what was being said in
the press, Private Eye, Computer Weekly. Surely the
Board must have been aware of this?
So your question implies that this was happening out of
the blue at the time that I and my fellow Board members
were there. In fact, this had been happening over
a very, very long period --
Yes.
-- and we became aware of it only slowly. It wasn't as
though there was suddenly a huge implosion of cases. So
I think that as a misleading way of putting it.
Well, let's move on to another issue that no action was
taken on. Yesterday, at around 4.10, you were taken to
an email that Paula Vennells sent to you on 21 October
2013. We don't need to put if up but she said:
"My concern re Sparrow currently is our obligations
of disclosure re an unsafe witness."
Then, in brackets:
"The representative from Fujitsu made statements
about no bugs which later could be seen to have been
undermined by the Second Sight Report. We don't think
it material but it could be high profile. Martin E
90
very, very beginning of this -- of my time at the Post
Office, when I was the person who decided that the Post
Office should undertake a new, independent review of the
subpostmasters' cases.
This issue, the Gareth Jenkins issue, had legal
implications; didn't you think that you should speak to
your General Counsel about this?
If I had thought I should speak to the General Counsel
I would have done so.
During your tenure as Chairman, there were a lot of red
flags which the Board should have acted on; do you
accept that?
During my tenure, there were a lot of what I would
describe as clues, I absolutely accept that. But
I think that one of the great difficulties that we are
in at the moment is that we know the truth of what
happened now and we can see it being laid out very
plainly, and it's becoming clearer and clearer as this
Inquiry goes on. But, at the time that I and my fellow
Board members were in post, that was absolutely not the
position.
Very well. Well, let's take the clues cumulatively:
there were the clues that constitute Sir Anthony
Hooper's point; there were the clues in relation to the
Gareth Jenkins issue; matters raised by Private Eye,
92
(23) Pages 89 - 92
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Computer Weekly, the JFSA and Second Sight; there were
quite a lot of clues coming together, weren't there?
I was not in receipt of the clue from Sir Anthony
Hooper. I think you need to be -- I need to be clear
about the clues that I was aware of and the clues that
I was not aware of.
Well, let's talk about the matters that you were aware
of. Do you accept that the matters that you were aware
of were relevant to the reputation of the Post Office as
a public institution?
Clearly, yes.
Do you accept that the matters that you were aware of
may have attracted public interest?
Yes.
Do you accept that these matters might have had
an impact on the value of the Post Office brand?
Yes.
Do you accept that these were matters that were
involving prosecution decisions which were material to
the interests of the Post Office Group?
But we believed that what we were doing was that we --
we believed that what we were doing was right because --
‘on the basis of what we believed to be the position.
Well, that's not the question that I asked. Do you
accept that the matters that you knew were matters
93
their duties and responsibilities under this bullet
point, don't they?
They do, yeah.
If we could scroll down further then, please, to page 3
of 5, "Matters Reserved for Board Decision", D:
"The following matters are reserved specifically for
Board decision. When indicated [with a star], the Board
may delegate authority to a Board subcommittee to bring
forward a recommendation for approval or to complete
a project or task on behalf of the Board."
If we then go to section D, scrolling down please,
sorry, keep scrolling down, please. I think it's
section 5, governance -- 6, "Governance", here we are,
and bullet point 5 -- the next one down, sorry:
"Decisions on the potential prosecution, defence or
settlement of litigation involving potential costs of
more than £1 million or being otherwise material to the
interests of the Group."
So these were the matters that the Board knew
engaged this part of the terms of reference, don't they?
Sorry, what was your question?
The matters that you say the Board were aware of, the
clues --
Yes.
-- engages this aspect of the terms of reference of the
95
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
>
6 June 2024
involving prosecution decisions which were material to
the interests of the Post Office Board?
Oh, I see, yes.
Sorry, if I am going to a quickly --
You are going extremely quickly and I have had a very
long morning.
I will slow right down.
Thank you, I will appreciate that.
Can I then ask you to look at a document, it is the
Board terms of reference, it's WITN00220103. If we can
scroll down. You'll see your name is there as Chairman
of the Board, and the other Non-Executive Directors,
Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer. If we could
go down to page 2 of 5, where it says, "Duties and
Responsibilities", it says:
"In addition to its legal duties, the Board has the
following specific responsibilities ..."
Then if we could scroll down to the next bullet
point, which is on the next page:
"Maintenance of the reputation of the Post Office as
a public institution, including consideration of new
products and activities which may attract public
interest or have an impact on the value of the Post
Office brand."
So these issues that the Board was aware of engaged
94
Board, doesn't it?
Yes.
So it was the function of the Board to be proactive in
relation to its terms of reference; is that right?
Yes, yes.
It was not the function of the Board to sit back and
accept everything that its executives were telling it;
is that fair?
Yes.
In sitting back and accepting, without challenging, what
Paula Vennells and others were telling you, do you agree
the Board did not act in accordance with its own terms
of reference?
I think that that's a big generalisation. So I would
say that, first of all, in respect of the Board's wider
responsibilities, which we're perfectly properly not
discussing here, the Board absolutely fulfilled its
responsibilities. I think it's clear from the ground
that I've covered over the last day and a half that
there are quite specific issues where I now think that
the Board should have been -- have followed things up or
should have challenged things in a way that it didn't at
the time and I've been very straightforward about that.
You said at the beginning of my questions to you that
you agree that the Board had duties towards the
96
(24) Pages 93 - 96
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
subpostmasters?
A. Yes.
Q. At paragraph 51 of your statement -- and I'll just read
it out -- you say:
"It would not have been appropriate for the Board to
be involved in the granular day-to-day operations of the
business any more than it would have been for the Board
of a large commercial company.”
That's the wrong approach, isn't it?
A. Well, if it -- if I'd thought it was the wrong approach,
I wouldn't have put it in my witness statement.
Q. Well, we are suggesting that what you put in your
witness statement is wrong. That wasn't the right
approach for you to take.
A. It wasn't -- in my view -- all Boards have a really
difficult line to tread between exercising
a strategic -- giving the company, the organisation in
question, strategic input into their business activities
and standing back and being more objective about what's
going on. They also have duties to hold the executives
to account and to challenge them. You have, all the
time, to be thinking about where is the right place to
draw that line because, if, as a board, you get too far
into the operational detail, you can't fulfil your wider
responsibilities.
97
compassionate and less corporate approach?
‘A. I am just in danger of repeating myself. I have already
said where I think we should have pursued things more
than we did. We acted in the belief that the advice
that we had received was correct and we didn't
understand what it was that we had not received.
Q. Well, wasn't it also the case that the Board saw the
subpostmasters and their claims as damaging to the brand
and that is why the Board didn't protect the
subpostmasters?
A. The reason that the Board didn't take a different line
in relation to the prosecutions was because we
mistakenly believed the position that was being
explained to us by the Post Office's executives.
Q. Which executive?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Jacobs, yes, I'm sorry to interrupt.
Can I just take one or two minutes from you because
I have still got in front of me the terms of reference,
and would just like to ask Ms Perkins a question about
the bullet point that is highlighted there, which
I interpret to mean as follows: that in relation to
litigation which has a value of £1 million or more, if
you at up the damages or costs, or whatever --
A. Yes.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I -- then the Board itself has to make
99
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
6 June 2024
So that's something that you're constantly juggling.
I think I have -- as I said a minute ago, I have already
explained where I think we should have been more
questioning or should have pursued things in more
detail. We did not get that right in every instance.
Q. You remember you said yesterday, "I was prepared to lift
the rock and see what was underneath it".
A. Yes.
Q. Our clients take the view that the Board was asleep at
the helm and no one lifted the rock: they accepted,
blandly, what Vennells and other people were telling
them?
A. Ifyou look at what happened in my early months at the
Post Office, you will absolutely see that I lifted the
rock and I pretty much did it entirely on my own at that
point.
Q. In relation to what you say about a strategic approach
in respect of large commercial companies, wasn't it all
the more important for the Board to have been proactive
in the subpostmasters' cases because this was
a publicly-owned company that was bringing actions
against people that resulted in imprisonment, desperate
financial hardship, the breakup of families, health
breaking down and real damage to subpostmasters and
their families? Shouldn't you have taken a more
98
a decision about what to do about it.
A. That --
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: But then we have this other rather
imprecise phrase:
"... or being otherwise material to the interests of
the Group."
A. Mm.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Now, forgive me, the interests of the
group, is that sort of taken from the time when it was
the Royal Mail Group and has just been drafted on, so to
speak, or was it a Post Office Group, after separation?
A. There were various iterations of these terms of
reference --
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right.
A. -- at different points and, looking at this now, I can
see that the word "Group" does look odd.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Anyway, that wasn't the main point. The
main point I wanted to ask you about is how the Board
interpreted the phrase "being otherwise material to the
interests", and let's say of the Post Office? It's
a very, as I say, imprecise phrase.
A. Itis a very imprecise phrase.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So how did you go about deciding whether
or not this should be a Board decision or a decision
made by someone else, in effect?
100
(25) Pages 97 - 100
©NOORON
9
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
A. I think that we would have been mindful of the effects
of these sorts of issues on the shareholder. I think we
would have been mindful, as has been discussed at
length, of their affect on the Post Office's reputation
and, in addition to this point about costs of more than
1 million, we were also looking at cumulative costs.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Would I be right in thinking that the
Board itself would only be in a position to make
a decision as to who should make the decision if the
particular problem was brought before the Board? In
other words, you didn't have an internal mechanism
whereby, I don't know, every three or six months, you
checked upon whether there were decisions which the
Board, as opposed to Mr X or Ms Y, should be taking?
A. In relation to prosecutions? Yes --
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mm.
A. -- you are right about that.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
A. Yes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So, effectively, in relation to criminal
prosecutions, the Board delegated the responsibility to
the relevant executives; is that it, in a nutshell?
A. Yes, itis it, in a nutshell. Can I say a little bit
more about that?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
101
a Board structure such as the Post Office, of reviewing
decisions and recording how advice given by executives
was considered and looked at? We don't see that here,
do we?
A. I'm not quite sure what you're --
Q. There should be an audit system, a risk system, where
you look at the advice that the executives are giving
you and analyse it, audit it and minute it. Did you
just accept what the executives were telling you and not
act any further?
A. No, we often questioned what -- the advice that we were
being given and -- and the other thing that I was
supported by the Board in trying to get accepted as
a kind of way of working was that, when things had gone
wrong, that we would look back at them and analyse what
had gone wrong so that we could learn lessons for the
future.
Q. Yes. Was there a practice in the Post Office whereby
the Board would review its own decision and then go back
to that decision and see if the decision was properly
made?
A. Well, that's what I'm referring to by talking about
introducing the culture of having lessons learned
reviews.
Q. Right. You said early on that you were let down by the
103
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
I think it's in my witness statement that when I -- very
early on when I arrived in the Post Office, Susan
Crichton, who was then the General Counsel, explained to
me that the Post Office took private prosecutions and
that this was handled at arm's length from the Board,
and I accepted that proposition. I think now, knowing
everything that I know, we should have really early on
taken a paper -- there should have been at least a paper
to the Board, probably leading to further discussion or
briefing, so that we really, really understood what all
that meant.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mm-hm.
A.
And what happened was that, because we were plunged into
the separation negotiations, which were way behind
schedule, because I didn't have -- I didn't inherit
a fully functioning Board and I was populating it, for
all those other reasons, this was something that we did
not get to, which, with the benefit of hindsight,
I think it would have made a very big difference if we
had got to it early on.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Jacobs, I will give you an extra
minute or two if you need it.
MR JACOBS: Thank you, sir.
2
There should always be a system, shouldn't there, in
102
executives and, at paragraph 82 of your statement, you
say that:
“Material information was only summarised in
an incomplete way.”
You say:
"The Board didn't ask questions that might have got
to the truth of the matter.”
The question I was going to ask you, Ms Perkins, is
which executives, in particular -- can you name them --
‘only gave you information in an incomplete way and
didn't give you enough information for you to properly
look at the matter?
Well, I discussed that with Mr Beer yesterday --
Can you discuss it with me as well, please.
-- and I said that I thought that both Susan Crichton
and Chris Aujard, as General Counsel, had both -- had
not given us direct access to advice that we should have
been given or explained that advice to us clearly and
that some of the advice that they received was described
in a way that didn't give a full picture of the truth.
Susan Crichton has said in her evidence that it was
unusual for there not to be a lawyer present as
a full-time Board member. Do you agree with that? In
retrospect, do you think if there had been lawyers on
the Board, these issues might have been grasped or
104
(26) Pages 101 - 104
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
understood a bit better?
I think there are two aspects to that. There's the
question of whether, had the General Counsel of the day,
been present at all Board meetings, these kinds of
issues might have been revealed to the Board. I think
on the basis of what we've seen, I don't think that we
can make that presumption in this instance.
I have said in my witness statement that, reflecting
‘on these events, which I have done at great length, I do
think that we lacked -- it was a -- we lacked having
somebody who was a non-executive member of the Board who
really had a grasp of the detail of these kinds of
issues, and that could have been -- it could have been
possible to have made the case for an extra Board
member, had I seen or had we seen that that skillset was
really necessary.
An alternative way of getting that expertise, which
I floated in my witness statement but which I'm not
completely convinced about, is whether what we should
have done is to have gone and got some external advice,
which would come directly to the Board on these matters.
But one of the reasons why -- there are several reasons
why I'm not sure that that would have made a difference
and it's very detrimental to the relationship between
a Board and its executives to bring in that kind of --
105
Do you accept, or did you know at the time, that
a subpostmaster facing prosecution, if that person knew
about the possibility of remote access to a branch, they
would be in a position to say there's scope for doubt
that the alleged shortfalls in the system emanated from
the system, and not from them.
Could you take me to that paragraph in my witness
statement?
Yes, of course. It's 225, which is on page 113 --
page 112, I'm sorry. Around about the fifth line:
"As I mentioned I was not aware that this was
an issue that could threaten the integrity of
prosecutions, and would have expected to be advised if
this was the case so that the Board could act in the
light of all the relevant information.”
Then you go on to talk about the Ismay Report and
having no backdoors. Has that refreshed your memory?
So I am saying this in the -- I'm saying this in the
context of what we were discussing at the Audit and Risk
Committee on 23 May 2012, in the context of this Ernst &
Young audit.
Yes.
That's where I'm saying that. I'm not saying I never
had any idea that remote access was an issue. What I'm
saying here is that I didn't make the connection between
107
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pProrop
6 June 2024
can be -- to bring in that kind of external advice. It
creates tensions in the relationship, which can have
adverse consequences.
Do you accept now that, if you had had a lawyer full
time on the Board, it would have been less easy for the
executives to pull the wool over your eyes?
You're talking about a Non-Executive Director, is that
what you're talking about?
Yes.
Possibly, yes. I can't be sure. It would have depended
‘on -- you know, it would have depended on a great many
things and one of the other things that we will never
know is, had the Board asked more questions than it did,
had the Board pursued some of these things that we
should have pursued in more depth, now that -- you know,
now that -- we can see that now, knowing what we know
now, would it actually have got to the truth? I don't
think we can -- I certainly can't be sure of that.
I want to move on to the question of remote access. You
say at paragraph 225 of your statement that you weren't
aware that the question of remote access was an issue
that could threaten the integrity of prosecutions and
you go on to say you would have expected to have been
advised if this was the case, so that the Board could
act in the light of all relevant information.
106
the point that was being made in this Ernst & Young
audit, about their ability to audit the accounts, and
the position of subpostmasters. That's what I'm saying
here.
Were you aware that Post Office knew about the remote
access capability from 2010?
No, I wasn't aware of that and it says -- absolutely
I wasn't aware of that. If I'd known that, I would have
behaved in a different way.
There is a document that's known to the Inquiry where
there was a discussion, a meeting in September 2010,
between Fujitsu staff and Post Office staff --
In 2010?
-- in September 2010 -- before your time --
Okay.
-- before your time --
Right.
-- in relation to the mismatch bug, and one of the
solutions -- I'm just going to read it out -- was:
".., Alter Horizon branch figure at the counter to
show the discrepancy. Fujitsu would have to manually
write an entry value to the local branch account."
Then it said:
"IMPACT -- When the branch comes to complete the
next trading period they would have a discrepancy which
108
(27) Pages 105 - 108
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
they would have to bring to account."
Then:
"RISK -- This has a significant data integrity
concern and could lead to questions of tampering with
the branch Horizon system and could generate questions
around how the discrepancy was caused. This solution
could have moral implications for Post Office changing
branch data without informing the branch.”
So they knew all about it in 2010 and my question
for you is: how is it that this information, the
knowledge of the Post Office, never came to the Board's
attention?
It was -- I'm not the person who can answer that
question, I'm afraid.
You had responsibility to protect the interests of
subpostmasters. This was a key issue that went to the
integrity of prosecutions. All the meetings, all the
papers that you read, all the consultations that you
had, why did this issue never come up? Why did you
never raise this? Why did the Board never raise this?
Because we were being given constant repeated assurances
that remote access was not possible.
You said yesterday that the problem with the Post
Office's conduct and the points that were missed were
that it was because people were not paying attention and
109
paragraph 79.2.3, in the witness statement, which is
WITNO00740100, and it's page 34. If we could scroll
down:
"The Board also received a paper on supplementary
evidence which the Post Office was trying as part of the
BIS Select Committee investigation, in which the issue
of suspense accounts was discussed. I understand from
this paper that the BIS Select Committee was informed
that the Post Office was denying Second Sight access to
information about movements into and out of the suspense
account."
"I understand that in June 2014 Second Sight asked the
Post Office to explain the operation of its suspense
account and the Post Office replied in July 2014."
Yes. Were you aware at the time why this was being
asked? Subpostmasters -- who paid money to the Post
Office, on account of alleged shortfalls, so they could
continue trading and not be prosecuted or have their
contracts terminated -- physically handed money over to
the Post Office and Second Sight believed that that
money, the subpostmasters' own money, was absorbed into
Post Office general accounts. Were you aware that that
was the nub of the issue here?
I think I have explained that I didn't understand this
at the -- I didn't know about the suspense account issue
111
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
2
prop
6 June 2024
you said maybe it was too difficult. You also said, in
your words, that "cock-up rather than conspiracy lay
behind the failures that led to Post Office defending
the Horizon system in the way that it d
Do you now accept, looking back, that there was
a conspiracy? People were lying to MPs, people were
lying to the Board. This was quite deliberate. It
wasn't just not paying attention or it being too
difficult. Can you accept that now?
I simply do not know, as I said yesterday, why people
did not pass on information that they should have passed
‘on to the Board.
Finally, I'm going to ask you about suspense accounts.
Now, I know you've said that that wasn't an issue that
you had a great deal of knowledge about but there was
a paper that the Board received after the Select
Committee meeting in February 2015, where the Select
Committee said that the Post Office was denying Second
Sight access to information about movements in relation
to suspense accounts. Do you recall that?
I think I covered that in my witness statement.
You did, yes, paragraph 79.2.3.
Would you mind putting it up -- I can't remember
everything -- it's a long statement.
Of course, it's a long statement, Ms Perkins. So
110
directly and that's what I'm saying in my witness.
statement. I've got nothing to add to that.
Well, taking suspense accounts out the question, then.
What did the Board do to look into what had happened to
the money that these people paid; was that something
that ever came up?
I don't remember that the Board did look into that.
Are you able to say why it is that, even today,
subpostmasters do not know how the money that they paid
was accounted for, where it has gone?
Ican only talk about the things that I knew about when
I was in my position.
From your experience, from when you were in your
position?
I can't give you --
You can't answer that question?
I can't answer that question.
I am just going to see if I have any more questions to
ask.
I'm asked to ask you, in relation to your opening
statement to the subpostmasters yesterday, you said:
"I'm sorry that I cannot say that, despite serious
efforts on my part to get to the bottom of what was
going on, I did not succeed in doing so during my four
years at the Post Office and, therefore, the suffering
112
(28) Pages 109 - 112
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
of those affected was prolonged.”
Those subpostmasters who we represent maintain that
your efforts as Chair of the Board were seriously
lacking. Can you respond to that, please?
A. I would say that I made some -- took some big steps to
try and deal with this issue. When I was faced -- not
faced -- when I first heard that Lord Arbuthnot had
issues that he wanted to raise in relation to this,
I agreed to see him immediately without hesitation.
I got the distinct impression from him that he had not
been able to get that kind of response from anybody in
Royal Mail or Post Office before that.
At my first meeting with him, I suggested that there
should be an independent review of those cases. I went
back to the Post Office and said that this was what
I had suggested. I was told it was a bad idea, that it
was unnecessary and that the Post Office didn't have the
capacity to handle that. Absolutely nothing happened
about it. I wouldn't let go. I went back and argued
for it. It was then agreed that we should have that
review.
I was then pushing, and pushing, and pushing for the
terms of reference of that investigation to be broadened
and not limited in the ways that were being suggested
and, later on, I and the Board, as a whole, were very
113
hindsight, I and/or the board should have taken things
further.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you, Mr Jacobs.
MR JACOBS: § Thank you. I have no further questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right, I will take back a few minutes
from Mr Beer and we will start again at 2.15 -- sorry,
2.10. Can't take too many minutes back from him!
2.10.
(1.13 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(2.10 pm)
MR BEER: Sir, it's Ms Watt on behalf of the NFSP and then
Mr Henry.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I'm just going to move a little this way
so I can see you, Ms Watt.
Questioned by MS WATT
MS WATT: Good afternoon, sir. Although, I think if
Mr Henry sits there then maybe Ms Perkins can't see me.
Sorry, thank you.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: We're fine now.
MS WATT: Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Ms Perkins. I ask questions on
behalf of the NFSP. At paragraph 4 of your witness
statement, I'm not going to turn it up, I'm just going
to return to something you say there, you say:
115
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
6 June 2024
‘open/supportive of the idea of doing a second kind of
review through Deloitte, which, as I discussed this
morning with Mr Beer, was something which was not
followed up in the way that I think with the benefit of
hindsight, it should have been.
But there were a whole load of steps that were taken
by me that made a difference, not in the way anybody
would have wanted, but --
Yes.
Is that -- I would also like to say, since I'm having
this thrown at me, that there were a number of other
steps that were taken while I was Chair of the Board,
which include the fact that we reviewed the prosecutions
policy, and I would personally have taken that further
and, had I known, and had the Board known, of the first
piece of Simon Clarke Advice, I am very, very clear that
we would have taken a decision to stop private
prosecutions at that point. And we had already been
told that, once the Second Sight review was under way,
prosecutions based entirely on Horizon evidence were
ceased.
Ms Perkins, what blame do you accept, personally?
I think we've covered a lot of that over the last day
and a half. I have talked about instances where I --
specific instances where I think, with the benefit of
114
"The failures by the Post Office and the Royal Mail
Group prior to the separation of the two companies were
considerable and devastating in their impact on the
lives of many affected subpostmasters and their
families.”
I just wanted to start off by asking if you would
expand that to acknowledge that the failures also had
a devastating impact on postmaster assistants, Crown
Office employees and their families because they were
also prosecuted and are also victims?
Yes.
Would you agree that the failures throughout, and that
includes the period 2011 to 2015, when you led the
Board, also had a considerable impact on the communities
that the affected post offices and subpostmasters
served?
Yes, they must have done.
I'm sorry, I'm not able to hear you --
Sorry, my fault. It's because I was trying to see you
and I moved away from the mic, sorry.
Thank you. Would you accept that this is a continuing
situation, in other words it is the case, isn't it, that
there is a devastating impact on the post offices and
subpostmasters of today from the damage done to the
reputation of the Post Office and, therefore, to the
116
(29) Pages 113 - 116
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
value of their investment in their businesses?
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with how the Post Office is
currently faring in that way.
Do you accept that that is caused or substantially
contributed to by the failures of you and your Board at
the material time? Just to explain, by “failures”,
I mean the failure to notice, question and act on any
material piece of information, all as discussed in your
evidence these last two days, which might have brought
a different outcome to this?
I think I have accepted over the last two days that
there were specific areas where I think that the Board
or I should have pursued things. I have, I think,
covered that ground. But, as I have also said, there
were a whole number of areas where, either as
a consequence of my personal actions or the Board
actions, things were done which made -- which led to --
I mean, the fact that we set up the Second Sight
Inquiry, notwithstanding the problems with that, did
lead to the unravelling, in the end, of all of this, and
there were a number of actions that we took which were
very positive in this context.
During the time that I was in the Chair, the number
of prosecutions being carried out by the Post Office
dropped to zero in two of the years and I think to one
117
path to breaking even. But, clearly, what's happened
has had a very, very big impact on that. But I can't,
you know, I can't elaborate on that, I'm afraid.
Well, just thinking about that financial aspect that
you've mentioned, at paragraph 36 of your witness
statement you say that the Government's vision for
turning the Post Office around was making it sustainable
by developing new streams of income, modernising it and,
in the process, making it profitable instead of
loss-making and, therefore, ready for mutualisation, if
you recall that is in your witness statement?
Can I ask you, then, was the Network Transformation
programme something that you were aware offinvolved in?
Yes, I was aware of it.
How hands on would you say the Government relevant
departments and ministers were in relation to the
Network Transformation Programme?
I think they were well aware of it. It was a central
part of their policy in relation to the Post Office.
Thinking a bit more about the Network Transformation
Programme then, can you say what work was done by the
Post Office, along with Government and relevant
departments to identify and put in place new income
streams which would have been required for Network
Transformation to actually be profitable for
119
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
‘or two in one of the years. It was a completely
different picture from the picture which I inherited.
Just picking up on that, you've said several times
during your evidence that, certainly at the start of
your tenure, you lifted the rock to see what was
underneath. Can I put it to you that, while that may
well be the case at the start, would you accept that
what then happened is you put the rock back down and
just became part of the corporate reputation protection,
which was, at the very least, completely incurious?
So I wouldn't accept that, no. I don't think there's
really anything that I can add substantively to what
Ive said on this subject.
Just finally on this part, would you accept that this
scandal and your part in it has had an impact on the
British taxpayers, who were effectively the source of
funding for the Post Office's legal fees throughout what
might be described as a war of attrition in defending
the indefensible?
Well, it certainly is the case -- I mean, I don't know
what the current state of the finances of the Post
Office are and to what extent it is dependent on
taxpayer subsidiaries. All I can say is that during the
period when I was in the chair, we were making real
inroads on that subsidy and the Post Office was on the
118
subpostmasters?
So you're talking here about new business for the Post
Office; is that what you're talking about?
Yes.
Yes. So there were, I think, three big streams of
income, Mail's was the biggest, and there was a lot of
time and energy spent on the relationship with Royal
Mail, and trying to put that partnership on a much
better footing, and to deal on the front foot with the
increase in online shopping, parcel delivery and all of
that, which was very, very, very difficult because the
Royal Mail and the Post Office were behind the game,
compared to the competition.
There was the Financial Services aspect, which was
relatively small when I began in the chair, but we
rebooted our relationship with the Bank of Ireland to
provide a proper platform on which we could develop the
Financial Services offer, and that was going well, and
there were very ambitious plans for it, which were not
realised in my time.
And then the third aspect, which I suspect may be
what you are getting at, was Government business, where
we had been told by the Government of the day was a very
important part of the -- plank in their strategy for
growing the Post Office's revenue, which was
120
(30) Pages 117 - 120
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 6 June 2024
a disappointing ~- it was a disappointment because it
wasn't coming through in the way that had been expected.
So if we take the way in which the Network
Transformation Programme was effectively sold to
subpostmasters, is it not the case that, in truth,
certainly on the Government business side, if nothing
else, there really were no revenue streams and this
programme was, effectively, falsely sold to
subpostmasters?
I don't think it was falsely sold. I think there was.
genuine intent to deliver the government services plank
of that, alongside the other things. It was not the
only thing. But I would agree that, for understandable
reasons, that government business was not won by the
Post Office because the Post Office was often not
commercially the most attractive vehicle for delivering
those services. And the Government -- in principle,
a government could decide that it was so important to
maintain a flourishing Post Office Network that you
would mandate Government departments to use those
outlets for the delivery of those services.
I don't think that would have been legal, actually,
but, in principle, you could make it legal but that was
not what was on offer, and it was a personal
disappointment to me, that. I put a huge amount of
121
Board level?
Yes, it did reach Board level.
Yes. So from the point of view of trying to assess risk
and whether or not it could have a material impact on,
to use the archaicism, the Group as a whole, or,
post-2012, the separated Post Office, that would be
something where the Board would obviously work in close
conjunction with the Executive Team and also General
Counsel?
Yes.
Now, I want to just ask you, please, at paragraph 298 of
your witness statement -- and there's no need to get it
up -- but you refer to a document that was prepared by
General Counsel, Mr Aujard, and the reference is
WITNO0740131. I wonder if we could have a look at that.
It's paragraph 298 of your witness statement, in case
you have a hard copy of your witness statement.
Unfortunately, I didn't bring my hard copy witness
statement back in with me, I'm sorry. So I would like
to look at that, please.
Q. Well, then I'm afraid, sir, my time is going to be —-
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Don't worry, we'll do it quickly,
Mr Henry. Let's have WITN00740100 on the screen, and
page 145, paragraph 298, just so that Ms Perkins can
refresh her memory about that.
123
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
9
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
effort into trying to explain to Government departments
and to ministers of Government departments what it was
the Post Office had to offer Government. But, as so
‘often happens -- and I know because I've been inside it
as well as outside it, Government departments -- it's
very, very difficult to get Government departments to
collaborate on a Government-wide initiative that doesn't
actually individually benefit an individual department,
if you see what I'm saying. So it was disappointing.
MS WATT: Thank you very much.
Those are my questions, sir.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you. You look as if you're poised,
Mr Henry.
MR HENRY: As poised as I'll ever be, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right okay, I'll stay in this same
position. I can see both of you. Yeah.
Questioned by MR HENRY
MR HENRY: Ms Perkins, can I just ask you, please,
prosecutions, you say, were kept at arm's length from
the Board.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, obviously, that is prosecuting people but
litigation risks, in other words civil and criminal
appeals which could result in massive damages being
awarded against the Post Office, that must have reached
122
MR HENRY: I'm very grateful.
A. So I'm looking at paragraph 298, is that right?
Q. Yes.
A. Can we scroll down to the rest of the paragraph, then.
Thank you.
Q. Now, can we go to the actual document WITN00740131. Can
we concentrate, please, on paragraph 2.3:
"The headline conclusion of the backward looking
report [which is the Altman General Review of October
2013] is that '... review (of the cases that had been
prosecuted over the last few years) is fundamentally
sound’ and that no ‘systemic or fundamental flaws in the
review process’ were detected. In addition, a number of
relatively small procedural recommendations were made
regarding matters such as document retention etc."
Now, "document retention" is a euphemism for
shreddin
documents that ought to be preserved under the Criminal
Procedure and Investigations Act. You tell us that your
General Counsel, of his own volition, must have decided
to use that disgraceful euphemism to mislead you and
your fellow Board members.
A. I don't think I've used those words. I don't remember
: the unlawful, the unauthorised destruction of
using words in relation to this sentence.
Q. Well, you're saying that it was kept back from you,
124
(31) Pages 121 - 124
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
paragraph 298 -- you've just read the paragraph. I may
be embroidering it but what you're saying is that this
was -- and I will put words into your mouth --
a disgraceful action by your General Counsel to not
fully apprise you of risk, not fully apprise you of what
was going on in the business.
I think if you look at that last sentence, I mean,
‘obviously, it depends who you are and it depends what
else you already know but, to me, that reads like a kind
of bland sentence. It could mean anything. To me, that
does not mean shredding of documents relating to either
past or current actions in relation to prosecutions.
I'm really sorry but I simply cannot make -- that's not
a connection that I think you would reasonably expect
somebody coming to this to see.
That is not -- and you're a very intelligent woman, that
is not the thrust of my question at all. I'm not
suggesting that you ought to have read that as.
"shredding". What I am suggesting, however, and I will
put it to you straight, is that this must have been
curated, between you, the Chief Executive and General
Counsel, that a sanitised version of the truth was
perpetuated in Board documents, as opposed to the
unvarnished truth?
That is absolutely untrue and I find that question
125
What I want to suggest to you is that the language that
Mr Aujard is using is a reflection of the reality that
you wanted to see and hear. That's why euphemisms are
being used in Board documents. It is a reflection of
what you desire, your strategy, your vision, which you
set for the company. Let's go to POL00344895 and can we
scroll up, please. Mr Beer took you to this morning
and:
"The position is intrinsically worrying (to put it
politely) [et cetera, et cetera]. The NEDs are really
concerned because of the potential costs to the
business, the distraction from implementing our strategy
(which is demanding enough), the reputational issues and
their personal positions. A bad combination made far
worse if the business does not appear to be on top of
it. So the paper needs to demonstrate that the Board's
concerns on the latter point are unnecessary ~- if that
is possible.”
I suggest to you that the "if that is possible" is
a throw away post-hyphen part of the sentence:
".., the paper needs to demonstrate that the Board's
concerns on the latter point are unnecessary ..."
This was a reflection of your style of leadership,
wasn't it?
I don't accept the premise of your question and I think,
127
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
offensive.
I'm very sorry if you find it offensive but the fact is
that you have said that things were "surprising",
“extraordinary”, "disappointing", "astonishing"; a whole
range of epithets have dropped from your lips to
apparently excuse the Board's stupifying ignorance on
matters of central importance and I'm suggesting to you
that that cannot be right, that you must have been
known?
You can suggest that to me as often as you would like,
in as many different words as you would choose: it is
absolutely categorically untrue, and I am on oath and
I ama truthful person.
I want to deal with the issue that Mr Beer took you to
very briefly about embedded commands and you deny, or
cannot recall, ever teaching Ms Vennells a lesson, but
she claimed that you taught her how to craft a question
to subordinates with an embedded command, a skill, in
other words, that you ask a question in which you
mandate the answer you require.
The famous example of that is: is it possible to
access the system remotely, et cetera, et cetera. You
remember, perhaps, or have read about, her questions
before Parliament.
I want to take you now to a document. POL00344895.
126
if I may say so, if you look at some of the other
documents, amidst the huge quantity of documents that
are available, you will see that there are examples of
where I have made it absolutely clear to colleagues, to
executive colleagues, that I was always ready to face
bad news and would deal with it head on. What I didn't
want was apparently bad news that was not properly
evidenced and that was my -- that was absolutely my
position but I do not accept that I ever, either
directly or indirectly, encouraged people not to give
the full truth.
Well, let's just change tack then and deal with that
because I suppose a demonstration of that would have
been your pushing back against the inertia demonstrated
by your colleagues and your fighting really hard to
address Mr Arbuthnot's concerns.
Is that a question?
Yes, that would be an example of you, you know, wanting
clarity and candour and wanting to get to the truth, so,
as you profess this morning, that you fought really hard
to address Mr Arbuthnot's concerns, as he then was. Do
you remember saying that?
\ did. I did try to do that, yes.
But you didn't commission an independent report at any
stage, did you?
128
(32) Pages 125 - 128
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
A. What was the -- well, I shouldn't ask you questions.
The Second Sight review was an independent review.
Q. But I'm talking about a review of the Ismay conclusions,
of which you were aware, because you had read the Ismay
Report and you were, at one point in your leadership,
concerned that, if a proper and full independent review,
contrary to Mr Ismay's conclusions, was not undertaken,
then it would look as if the Post Office was unsure of
its ground. You never commissioned, did you, a full
forensic digital review of the software system?
A. So think we have covered -- have covered this ground
already. Lord Arbuthnot raised concerns with me about
the subpostmasters' positions. I offered to look at
setting up an independent review. He and I then had
some discussions about that and it was important, if we
were going to take this initiative, which people in the
Post Office didn't want to take, some people in the Post
Office didn't want to take, that we did this on a basis
that he thought he and his colleagues would regard as
a proper basis. And there was quite a lot of discussion
with him about the best way of doing that.
It was in the light of those discussions that we
went down the route of employing Second Sight, rather
than going down the Deloitte route. We looked at that
yesterday and I spent a certain amount of time, and
129
A. That doesn't mean I didn't see it. I'm just -- we're
talking about something that happened 10 years ago.
Q. That may be right but is your evidence that you cannot
say whether you read it or not and --
A. I think I would -- since we've now established and we
have clearly established that it came to me and my
fellow Board members, I think I would have read it.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So that I'm clear, what you're
acknowledging reading is the briefing report --
A. Yes.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: -- not the full document?
A. Yes, sorry.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right.
A. And, actually, could I just say something about that ~
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
A. -- because, had I seen the full -- I mean, I don't know
whether you -- anybody here has -- well, I'm sure lots
of people have seen it -- the full report, when I looked
at it again earlier this year, has one of those colour
ratings, red, amber and green, against the different
items and, if you just take one look at that report, you
can see that there's an awful lot of red and an awful
lot of amber in there. And, if I had seen that, even if
I hadn't read a word of the text, it would have jumped
out at me.
131
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
quite a lot of energy, trying to get the terms of
reference of that piece of work as extensive and open as
I could.
Now, I have said that, with the benefit of
hindsight, I now think that that wasn't the best -- that
wasn't, in retrospect, the best way to have gone about
that and I wish that I'd had a fully populated Board by
then, and, even though I didn't have a fully populated
Board by then, that I had used the other non-executives
who were in position to help me think this through and
to put the commissioning of whatever kind of review we
decided to go for on the best possible footing, really
having gone into what is it that we were trying to
achieve here and what would be the best way of doing
that and, if need be, if we'd come to the conclusion it
would have been better to go down the route of using one
of the Big Four, to have that conversation with Lord
Arbuthnot.
Q. Ms Perkins, did you actually read the Deloitte report?
A. Well, we discussed that this morning. If you're talking
about the Board Briefing, I talked about that with
Mr Beer this morning. I didn't, until I saw that report
in the disclosures sometime earlier this year, I didn't
remember seeing it.
Q. So, I mean, it -
130
MR HENRY: You've said many times that you would have turned
over every stone and that you've been asked about that,
but could I ask you, please, in the light of what was
the highly contentious Second Sight Interim Review and
the lessons learned, can you explain why, in early
September 2013, your Chief Executive Officer resiles
from a full Lessons Learned Review, having received
advice from Andrew Parsons that it would expose the Post
Office to proactive duties of criminal disclosure? Were
you aware of that?
A. We discussed this yesterday. I was not aware of it.
Q. In fact, that reference -- no need to take you to it -
is POL00146243. But could I ask you, please, now to be
shown POL00381706, 11 September 2013.
We can see the heading "Lessons learned [terms of
reference]", PowerPoint for the Audit and Risk
Committee, and then if we could scroll up, please, from
Ms Vennells to you, 11 September -- to Alasdair Marnoch,
but copied to you. Then could we scroll up, please.
Then we see this, do we not, from Paula Vennells to
Alasdair Marnoch -- he was, of course, dealing with
insurance, wasn't he?
A. Alasdair Marnoch was the Chair of the Audit and Risk
Committee.
Q. Absolutely but he was also dealing with the notification
132
(33) Pages 129 - 132
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Qa
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
issue to the insurers, together with Chris Day?
In his -- yes, he was, yes.
Yes, copied to you, obviously to the Company Secretary
as well, and then could we scroll up, please, and then
this:
"Most of the note [so this did come to you] should
be self-explanatory, although I should explain the
rationale behind our proposed timings. As we discussed
last week, there is a choice between proceeding with the
review in the near future, while the experiences are
still relatively fresh in our memory, or waiting until
early 2014 (when we expect [Second Sight] will no longer
be involved in the process). Having de-risked the
review by narrowing its scope and running it as a short
internal exercise, on balance I think it is more
important to capture our insights sooner rather than
later. We are therefore proposing to commence the
process in October (not earlier because it would be more
appropriate for both sides to wait until Susan is no
longer working in the building).
“Alice and I had chance to discuss at our 121 this
morning and we are both comfortable. I would welcome
any comments you have.”
Why was it so important for Susan Crichton to be
gone?
133
happening in the Post Office, and this seemed to be
a good example of a way of introducing that.
No, no, Ms Perkins, this intimately connected to the
advice given from Andrew Parsons and also Hugh
Flemington, 3 September, about the risk: proactive
criminal disclosure. Now, we know that Ms Crichton knew
from an early stage, even before the drafting of the
Clarke Advice, that she knew about the unsafe witness.
I, again, want to ask you, please, why it was so
important for Ms Crichton to have left the business
before embarking on this de-risked, internal, much
narrower in scope Lessons Learned Review.
I can't add anything to what I have already said.
I see.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Can we just look at -- I am sorry, I may
have missing the threat of this, Mr Henry, it's my
fault.
The reference at the beginning "Most of the note
should be self-explanatory”, can I just be sure what the
note is that it's talking about? Is it an attachment to
this email or what?
MR HENRY: No, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So it's just that expression that you
were exploring?
25 MRHENRY: Yes, I'm afraid I may be wrong and I would be
135
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
A. I think -- I mean, I don't remember this, the reasoning
behind the change in the scope of the Lessons Learned
Review. I have wondered about that in recent weeks
myself. I think the key point about Susan was that she
had been -- I mean, this a Lessons Learned Review about
the way in which Second Sight had been appointed to run
this review. It was about things such as the absence of
an engagement letter, things that we've talked about to
do with the timetable, the costs, the lack of proper
liaison with them, and Susan had been the person who was.
in charge of that.
Obviously, as long as she was employed in the
business, it was going to be a much more sensitive issue
in respect of her and her personal position than it
would be once she had decided to go. But the need, in
my view, to look at how that had been handled and learn
lessons from it was just as great, after she had gone,
as if she hadn't gone, because the point was that it was
about improving the way the Post Office, in its newly
separated state, went about doing things like that.
And I was aware of the fact that this wasn't --
I mean, in a lot of organisations, it's absolutely
normal for people to do lessons learned reviews after
something has gone wrong or even when things --
important things have gone right, and I didn't see that
134
very happy to be corrected.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, that's fine. So the position is you
are exploring whether this note referred to the document
which Mr Parsons may have been the author of, which
makes reference to Gareth Jenkins, in effect, whereas
Ms Perkins, as I understand it, is reading that as being
a note concerned with lessons learned and something
different; that's it, isn't it?
A. Thank you very much.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. As long as I understand what's
going on here.
A. Yes.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Right.
MR HENRY: I mean, the position is that you're using Susan
Crichton as a lightning conductor, aren't you?
A. No.
Q. It’s really you and Ms Vennells resolving that this
contentious material should not come before the Board
because the material is so troubling in its implications
that it would have forced the Board to make proactive
disclosure to convicted defendants, had it seen it;
isn't that the position?
A. Itis absolutely not the position.
Q. Soasa strategy of managing the risk between you and
Ms Vennells, geld or downplay the Second Sight Report
136
(34) Pages 133 - 136
6 June 2024
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and keep Gareth Jenkins out of the picture?
No.
I mean, what would have happened on 16 July if --
because of course Ms Vennells spoke to Ms Crichton's
report, didn't she?
She did.
Yes. So, therefore, she must have been apprised of the
issues and discussed the matter with Ms Crichton
beforehand, otherwise she wouldn't be able to speak to
the report?
Well, I don't think you can necessarily infer that
because, as we discussed yesterday, it wasn't until the
morning of the Board itself that, in the light of what
had happened over the Non-Executive Directors breakfast,
that I took the decision to start the discussion on that
paper without Susan being in the room and, as
I explained yesterday, that discussion took off in such
a way that it became impossible, really, to get into
a situation where we could have that discussion with
Susan in the room.
But Paula, as she said herself, I think, didn't know
that I was going to ask to kick off that discussion
without Susan. I didn't know that we wouldn't resume
a discussion on the paper without Susan being in the
room because it -- events just overtook us -- overtook
137
had informed your Chief Executive Officer that there
were likely to be many, many claims for damages based
upon what she was aware of. So it would have been
dynamite. What I'm suggesting to you is a cordon
sanitaire, it was boxed up and never ventilated before
the Board for that reason.
If it was boxed up, it was not boxed up by me and, if
there had been dynamite, we would have dealt with it.
That was a group of people who were very independent
minded, they were thoughtful people, they had good
values. It would have been very difficult but we would
have dealt with it.
One does continue -- I mean, one does continue to wonder
why significant advices of Mr Altman, Queen's Counsel,
as he then was, did not percolate up to the Board during
the period July to October 2013. Can you think of any
reason why those significant advices of considerable
importance, in fact momentous importance, didn't
percolate their way up to the Board?
Mr Beer asked me about this yesterday and I reflected on
it. I don't know why they didn't. There are all kinds
of reasons why they might not have done and I'm not in
possession of the facts as to why they didn't.
Can you help us, please, though with your
contemporaneous knowledge at that time, because, for
139
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
me.
You're the Chair; events do not overtake the Chair; the
Chair sets the scope and the agenda.
Yes, that's absolutely true but, on this occasion -- and
this does sometimes happen -- you're in a room with
a group of people, and they're human beings, and
sometimes things kick off and sometimes it isn't the
right thing to do to try and ram on with what you had
previously thought would be what you would do. You do
sometimes have to flex things and, as I said yesterday,
I now regret that I didn't, after that Board meeting,
after what had happened, think to myself -- and I regret
that nobody else thought of it either -- that we should
have arranged a separate discussion on that paper, which
Susan would have attended.
But I'm not -- having said that, none of us know
what would have happened had we done that and we do not
know what, if anything, more Susan would have
contributed to that discussion than was in the paper.
It would have been dynamite, wouldn't it, because not
only did you have the paper -- and the paper of course,
even though she knew about Gareth Jenkins, leaves that
out --
Yes.
-- but you do have her evidence to the Inquiry that she
138
example, the announcement of the flotation of the Royal
Mail Group took place on 10 July 2013, did it not?
I don't remember the exact date but around that time,
yes.
The fact is that the Royal Mail shares were floated on
11 October 2013 at 330p per share but, on the 16th, when
they started to trade unconditionally, they were 24
times oversubscribed. That was obviously a matter that
was in your mind at the time, wasn't it?
No. Not particularly. I mean, obviously I -- from the
emails that we -- I've seen, there was an issue about
the Royal Mail prospectus but that was not looming large
in my mind at the time. It was just one of those issues
that needed to be handled.
Well, funding must be very, very important for any chair
because, of course, you've got to fulfil the vision of
the Government and the vision of the Government was to
turn around the business, eradicate losses, and
modernise it and, to do that, you needed Government
funding and support, didn't you?
Yes, but I don't see what the connection is between that
and the flotation of Royal Mail.
Well, the reason why is because, after the flotation,
which raised nearly £2 billion -- 1.98 -- the Government
announced 640 million to be invested in the Post Office,
140
(35) Pages 137 - 140
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and that was on 27 November 2013. I mean, there is
a connection, isn't there?
I have no idea. I really don't see that connection.
The fact is that we had been -- the Government's policy
in relation to the Post Office, the continuation of the
subsidy until the point at which we broke even and the
investment made in the Post Office, in order to break
even, was something which was being discussed, as far as
I was aware, completely separately from the Royal Mail
Group flotation.
I never heard anybody make that connection and I had
discussions myself with officials in the Treasury and
with the Chief Secretary; nobody ever made that
connection. I think that there were two completely
separate things going on there.
Nobody knew, at the time when the policy in relation
to the modernisation of the Post Office was announced,
whether Royal Mail would float. I mean, there had not
been a very successful history of that, in the past. So
I may be completely wrong about this but I personally do
not see those two things as being connected in that way.
From July 2013, the green light was on, because that was
the announcement by Vince Cable, the Secretary of State
and, of course, that coincided with the perfect storm of
Second Sight Interim Review and, also ~- although
144
prospectus?
I've seen -- recently re-seen those emails, and it
wasn't -- I mean, clearly, I was involved in discussions
with the CEO about that.
Yes, "I have earned my keep on this one”. Did it not
occur to you -- I mean, from the point of view -- and
I don't know your experience in this field, although
I know that you do coach and lecture on corporate
governance -- but, surely, the whole issue of
a prospectus is that you load the prospectus with
risk -- you load the prospectus with risk, so that
nobody is misled or nobody is, as it were, induced to
invest on a false basis. Yet we know for a fact that
the Post Office was in the process of notifying its
insurers concerning the prospects of civil litigation
regarding wrongful convictions.
I mean, do you not see the extraordinary
contradiction there with your CEO, who knows about
disclosure to the insurers and yet she's having matters
removed from the RMG prospectus?
I don't know the full -- I haven't got the full
documentation on this issue. It is, however, clear from
the email that this was an issue which had been being
discussed, both within the Government machine and within
the Post Office, that this prospectus was in draft,
143
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
6 June 2024
I understand your denials on the point -- the emergence
of Gareth Jenkins as a serious problem for the Post
Office. So, I mean, you have seen, surely, the
statement to Parliament by the Minister of State,
9 July, which was stressing that none of the issues in
the Second Sight Report have any impact on the Royal
Mail, which is an entirely separate business: Jo
Swinson. You probably also saw the whip's briefing,
which stated that Mr Arbuthnot's support for the
subpostmasters could be distracting to the flotation.
A. I've been reminded of those things but you were making
a completely -- what I thought -- I'm sorry if I've
misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the
Post Office wouldn't have got its money from the
Government if Royal Mail hadn't floated so successfully.
That's what I was arguing with you about.
Q. No, no, I'm not saying that, but it's obvious, however,
that, if nearly £2 billion comes in to the Treasury, it
makes it a lot easier for 640 million to go out to the
Post Office and these things cannot be looked in
hermetically sealed boxes, as it were.
But I want to come to this: if you're saying that
Post Office Limited had really absolutely nothing to do
with this, then, surely, you must have been extremely
concerned by the intervention of your CEO with the
142
representations from various different organisations
connected with the Royal Mail would be invited on that
draft, and the Post Office had -- and the officials in
the Business Department were thinking about the way in
which this was described and made some representations
to the Royal Mail Group about that.
The ultimate -- the process of putting a prospectus
together is highly regulated. Slaughter & May were in
there and, in the final analysis, it was for the Royal
Mail Group to decide what was in its prospectus or not
within its prospectus.
Q. The problem, however, cannot be separated from the fact
that the Royal Mail Group had been historically
responsible for prosecutions before separation, had it
not?
A. Yes, it had.
Q. No need to take you to it, but that was a document that
you saw earlier today, and you were enquiring as to
liability for the Post Office as well before and after
the split. Do you remember that?
A. Would you mind taking me back to that, please?
Q. Yes, certainly.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Does this add to the point, Mr Henry?
MR HENRY: It doesn't really add to the point.
Those are my questions, sir.
144
(36) Pages 141 - 144
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 6 June 2024
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you very much.
Now then, I know that Ms Patrick is going to ask
some questions.
I understand that Ms Leek wants to ask questions,
and I further understand, Ms Leek, that you're going,
please, be about ten minutes, is that right?
MS LEEK: That's right.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, let's have that now, if that
doesn't inconvenience Ms Patrick, and when we can have
our afternoon break.
Just for you to know -- well, she'll introduce
herself. Why am I speaking?
MS LEEK: Thank you, sir. I think I said 10 to 15 minutes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, we'll see how we go.
MS LEEK: Thank you.
Questioned by MS LEEK
MS LEEK: Ms Perkins, I ask questions on behalf of Paula
Vennells. I am Samantha Leek.
I just want to ask about one issue and I want to try
and clarify with you when you first knew about the
existence of bugs. II'm going to ask Mr Enright to move
alittle to the left so we can see each other, thank
you.
Mr Beer asked you yesterday if the two exceptions or
anomalies, to use the preferred language, as he said,
145
"Rod Ismay and Lesley working the detail of the 2
bugs, to understand them and then get them into language
that is clear and can be communicated.
"Mark is putting in place expert external comms
resource to be dedicated to this issue from Monday ..."
If we go down a little, to the bottom bullet point:
"We think [Second Sight] will present the 4 cases,
some of which will not be finished, but we are not sure
yet. They will also raise the issue of the ‘bugs’ which
were outside the cases but which we disclosed to them."
If we can then scroll up to the email that was
forwarded to you from Ms Vennells:
"Alice hi. I do hope your Friday is good."
We go down to the next paragraph:
"You will see below Alwen's proposed next steps. It
covers all the ground at present. We may update
following today’s phone call with [Second Sight] in
an hour; and certainly will update post-Alwen's meeting
with Janet on Monday."
"Alwen and I are staying close (two calls already
today) and I'm expecting an update later this
[afternoon]. So no need to bother you today.”
If we go to the email above, which is your reply to
Ms Vennells within the hour. You say:
"Thanks for the updates. I am glad we have the best
147
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
p>po>
regarding Horizon, were not passed on to you at
an earlier stage. You will remember that was before
3 July. You said you couldn't remember if you were
irritated, there was a lot going on.
Mm.
I just want to show you a series of emails that suggest
that you were told about bugs before 3 July. Can we
start with POL00098797. If we go down to the bottom, go
down to page 2 -- thank you -- there's an email from
Alwen Lyons to Paula Vennells on 28 June, and we will
have a look at that in a moment but we can see, if we go
up a little bit, that that was sent to you by Paula
Vennells on the same day, in fact just a couple of
minutes after she was sent that email by Alwen Lyons.
Can I look at Alwen's email for a bit longer, please?
Yes, I'm going to take you through that.
Okay.
The first thing Alwen says here, subject, "next steps on
Horizon issues -- update":
"Paula
“Rod Ismay and Lesley
MR BEER: Can we ask for the thing to be scrolled down?
MS LEEK: I'm so sorry. Could we bring that back up on the
screen and scroll down to page 2. Thank you:
"Paula
146
people on this."
We looked at the rest of this yesterday, about
Maxwellisation/Salmon letters angle. So it seems clear
from this email that you already knew about the bugs at
this point because you don't reply "What are you talking
about? What bugs? I've no idea what you're going on
about here"; you say, "Thanks for the update".
I do say that but I'm not sure what con -- you can't --
I can't draw a definitive conclusion from that, as to --
I don't recall ever having heard about these bugs before
that.
Had you received an email from Ms Vennells on 28 June,
at the point at which you knew Second Sight was about to
report, setting out what she has said here about Rod
Ismay and Lesley working out the details of the two
bugs, surely you would have said, rather than "Thanks
for the update", you would have said, "What are you
talking about? I don't know anything about bugs"?
I'm really sorry. I mean, I can see absolutely why
you're saying that but I don't remember -- I'm not sure
what I can add to this, I'm afraid.
Ofcourse. Thank you.
Perhaps we can now go back another six weeks to
emails that took place on 16 May 2013, and if we could
look at POL00098278. Ms Vennells sent you an email on
148
(37) Pages 145 - 148
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 6 June 2024
16 May:
"Hi Alice, lovely day!
"Just to let you know I haven't forgotten about
Vanquis -- I have an approach, which I have sent to Nick
and Chris. I should get back to you shortly.
“Also re James Arbuthnot -- I have asked for
an update on our work plan by the end of this week, to
make sure we are [on] track. (JA is away in committee
business, so we are meeting post-Whitsun recess.)
"One other issue arose overnight, which I may need
to brief you on over the next couple of days, so will
try to get a phone slot.”
If we scroll up, you send an email back:
"Fine thanks. I am now unexpectedly freer this
afternoon.
"So if someone let's me know when you are able to
talk I'll try and fit round that."
Can we then go to POL00029587. By this point,
a call has been arranged between you and Ms Vennells for
the afternoon and Alwen Lyons sends to Paula "speaking
notes for your call with Alice this afternoon". Can you
just scroll up a little -- scroll down:
"Paula here are my speaking notes for your call with
Alice this afternoon.
"I have a call with James on 23 May, next Thursday
149
register at the office, and old Horizon bugs.
"This is not good Alice, but from what we have seen
so far our response to bugs has been effective.
"I have asked for some time in our diaries next week
to talk through our approach, and would welcome your
counsel before the James meeting."
Do you recall a conversation that afternoon in which
you were told about those bugs?
No, I don't.
So when you received the email on 28 June, giving you
an update about what was going on with the bugs, are you
saying that you hadn't been told about that beforehand
or you simply can't remember?
I can't remember, I'm really sorry. I've only - some
of this documentation has -- only came to me at
lunchtime today. So, you know, I have had a look at it
but I'm afraid I have absolutely no recall.
MS LEEK: Okay. Thank you.
Sir, I have no further questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you, Ms Leek.
So we'll take our afternoon break now, and resume at
3.30 when Ms Patrick will ask her questions and, if they
are so advised, your legal representatives may wish to
ask a few questions of you but that's up to them, not
me. Then that will be it. All right?
151
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at 10.30, when we will discuss how he wants the
investigation to continue ..."
Just scroll up bit more, please.
“Alwen will ..."
We go down to the sixth bullet point -- I'm so
sorry, the second bullet point:
... some instances are coming to light where there
is evidence that there are bugs in Horizon, which I am
being told is normal in any large computer system. But
I am still being assured that the system's integrity is
not in doubt.
"Lesley is meeting Fujitsu tomorrow morning to go
through the technical assurance that the subpostmaster's
trading statement cannot be changed without their
knowledge.
"Alwen is meeting them on Monday to look at with
a layman's eyes and understand what it might have looked
like for a subpostmaster using the system.
"The Good News is that where we have found bugs
since HNG-X (new Horizon) they have been detected and
put right with no also for the subpostmaster, and
Fujitsu now monitor the suspense account for any such
problems."
“Alwen will specifically ask on Monday if anything
could be happening we do not know about eg too small to
150
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = So 3.30.
(3.13 pm)
(A short break)
(3.30 pm)
Questioned by MS PATRICK
MS PATRICK: Good afternoon, Ms Perkins. My name is Angela
Patrick and I ask questions on behalf of 86
subpostmasters who were convicted by the Post Office and
have since had their convictions overturned, including
Mrs Hamilton, who I'm sure you can see is sitting to my
left.
Ido see.
We want to cover three topics.
Yeah.
First, we're going to look at the Royal Mail Group
prospectus, which you've just covered briefly with
Mr Henry.
Yes.
Q. Second, Mr Beer has talked to you a little about
Mr Davies and publicity around Horizon and I want to
come back to one example of the Post Office's approach
to subpostmasters in the media; and, finally, I want to
look again at one of the first documents that Mr Beer
took you to, and I'm going to call it the Zetter notes
152
prop
>
(38) Pages 149 - 152
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
if you'll remember it from yesterday morning.
You'll have to remind me, I'm sorry.
I'll refresh your memory, when we get that far. If we
can start with the Royal Mail Group prospectus and
Mr Henry has raised the flotation and you've talked
about it not really being a topic that was looming large
but you have mentioned a few emails.
Mm-hm.
If we can look at a few of those, just to see where you
were coming in.
Yeah.
If we can start with POL00372265, please, and I want to
start about halfway down page 1, if we could.
Can you say just give me the context of this?
Iwill. This was an email sent on 16 August 2013 and,
don't worry, I was only waiting for it to be on
screen --
Of course.
-- so we could look at it together.
Okay, great.
I won't leave you hanging as to what we were looking at.
There is an email here, you can see, at the top. It's
Paula Vennells to you on 16 August and, if you see,
she's messaging at the top looking for a time when you
can have a call. I don't want to look at the detail but
153
The issue you were being told was arising it risks
section of the prospectus.
Yes.
It was very negative about the Post Office and Susan --
I presume that might be Ms Crichton?
I can't think -- well, it wouldn't have been Susan
Barton.
It wouldn't have been Susan Barton. Ms Crichton was to
flag that it might need to go to HMG, Her Majesty's
Government, and Ms Vennells thought you might need to
brief the Board properly at some stage. But she was
saying, aside from whether the Board needed to be
briefed, she was giving you this information now, wasn't
she?
She was.
Right. Can we look at the second document, a second
email, and it's POL00419640. This is an email which
moves us on a little -- and I'll wait for it to come
up -- and I want to start at the bottom of page 1, where
you'll see there's an email from you?
Yes.
We're now a little while on, a few weeks on, three weeks
on, 9 September 2013.
Yeah.
You are sort of responding "Thank you for your previous
155
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6 June 2024
she wants to catch you up on some issues and, if you can
see, there's a list of four?
Mm-hm.
If we go to the fourth bullet point and, if somebody
could expand that, I'd be grateful. It says, "RM
Prospectus”; can you see that one?
Yes.
. the language in the risks section, which refers to
[the Post Office] is very negative. We are on the
case -- it is being handled through external lawyers,
and I have asked for a revised draft by Monday. I am
not suggesting we flag this to the Board yet but you
need to be in the picture. Susan has picked this up and
insisted inaccuracies are removed and the tone improved.
However, this is in the risk section, my guess is we may
still be uncomfortable with final draft and so I have
already asked Susan to flag to Will that we may want to
escalate it to HMG. We will need to brief the Board
properly at some stage but probably best when we have
something to send out."
Now, I only have a few questions about it.
Okay.
You were, it appears, being briefed on this as an issue
as early as mid-August in 2013?
It does look like that, yes.
154
emails". We don't need to spend much time on your
response, I just want to note what you say to start
with:
".. Lappreciate no surprises even if the news is
unwelcome!"
So that was the first message you were giving to
Ms Vennells that day.
Yeah.
Can we scroll up, the rest I don't think we need to look
at in detail. I want to look at Ms Vennells' reply
above, and it is the last paragraph of Ms Vennelis'
reply:
"On the prospectus, now Mark is back I have him,
Martin and Hugh meeting this pm and they will speak to
BIS today.”
Would that be Mark Davies, Martin Edwards and Hugh
Flemington?
It could have been. I mean, I don't know. But that
sounds -- you know, that sounds a perfectly reasonable
suggestion.
So they were going to speak to BIS:
"I am still not happy with the content: although it
may be legally accurate, it is not helpful
reputationally."
Then she goes on to say, ironically, Post Office has
156
(39) Pages 153 - 156
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o>
>
pProProroyp
pPrPororyp
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
enough branches signed up to cover the distribution of
the prospectus and she is going to keep you posted.
I only have a few questions about this one. She's
telling you, even if the content was legally accurate,
her concern was primarily reputational risk, wasn't it?
Yes.
Whose? Logically, would it follow she was concerned
about the reputation of the Post Office?
I don't know what she had in mind but it's a reasonable
interpretation that she's thinking about the Post
Office, yes.
Could it be the reputation of the Royal Mail Group?
It could be.
The Government?
No --
Anyway?
You don't know, you're just speculating. Logically, it
could be the Post Office?
Yes, it could be.
If we could scroll up little.
I'm sorry, Mr Henry was trying to attract my
attention, sir.
If we could just scroll a little, we see the next
section.
157
reputational and not one of legal or technical accuracy,
do we?
No, no, you don't.
Your focus was on how important it was going to be
politically; getting this sorted for Post Office was
politically important wasn't it?
Well, I think we've had this discussion a great deal
over the last two days, haven't we, and the inference is
often being made --
Ms Perkins, can I stop you.
Yes, you can.
I don't want you to draw any inference.
Okay.
I just want you to reflect on what's in the email --
Okay.
-- that what was being exchanged contemporaneously,
here, you were sending a message here that the
importance was political, weren't you?
Yes, I - yes, I was.
It was so important, you were sure you could rely on the
Minister to step in?
Yes, well, that I thought she would, yes.
Indeed. Now, can we look at the third document. It is
POL00381730. Thank you. I want to start at the bottom
of page 1 again. Having scrolled to the very bottom, we
159
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
6 June 2024
What do you mean by the "next section"?
I apologise, can you see "No I didn't mean that", where
you reply at the bottom of the part you can see on
screen there Ms Perkins, "No I didn't mean that"; can
you see?
I didn't mean what, sorry?
I'm just trying to attract your attention. It's now
highlighted in yellow. You reply at 2.11:
"No I didn't mean that.”
We don't need to look at the first line, it's the
second line.
Okay.
"On the content of the prospectus, Will was absolutely
clear that this would be and should be properly sorted.
You only need to read the Hansard of last week's
Parliamentary debate to see how important that will be
politically. So I am sure Jo S would swing into action
on this if it were necessary."
So Will had given you some assurances, was that Will
Gibson at ShEx?
I should imagine so. I don't know.
"Jo S", is that likely to be Jo Swinson?
I would think so, yes.
Thank you. We don't see any challenge by you, in this
message, of Ms Vennells' view of the issue being
158
can see the email that's from you. Can you see that,
Ms Perkins?
Yes.
We're on Monday, 16 September now and you're writing to
Jorja Preston, who, I can see at the top there, that's
your PA; is that right?
Yes.
The subject is "Mark Russell". We've hearing that name
earlier; was he the Head of ShEx?
He was.
Great. You told Mr Beer that you would have regular
meetings with him. We'll see in the message here you're
talking:
"I think my main question is: what should my
objective be in talking to him about the Strategy and
Funding", I need to know the position, so that he is
aware of the Board and the package and what might be
needed to get the Fed on side.
You go on to talking about strategy and funding and
a number of other matters, until the second line from
the bottom, and you say -- sorry, third line from the
bottom:
“Also the update on where we are on Second Sight
etc. And the latest on the RM prospectus. So
basically, all the current hot topics."
160
(40) Pages 157 - 160
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
o>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
You say:
"I would like to talk to Paula about this at my 1:1
with her."
This is you, I think, talking about preparing for
a meeting with Mr Russell?
It looks like it.
Is that fair?
It does look like that, yes.
Anumber of topics, and the Royal Mail prospectus was
a hot topic by this point, wasn't it?
That would be the inference of this, yes.
If we can look at the fourth document, please, it's
UKGI00002057, please. This is 18 September and it's not
necessarily a message you would have seen, and you see
it's a series of exchanges between Will Gibson and Tim
McInnes.
I would like to look very briefly -- it's a long
message, I don't want to look at a lot of it, I just
want to see where you're mentioned. Can we go to
halfway through page 2, please. You can see there
there's a message from Mr Gibson, we've heard him
mentioned this morning, and I think we've heard Tim
McInnes mentioned this morning also. But you see there
he says:
".,, just to echo Tim's point re sign-off, I have
161
Martin -- I presume Martin Edwards -- in advance of your
meeting with Mark Russell; is that fair?
It would appear as though that is how it's been
described but we don't know what Martin said to Tim
McInnes and we don't know -- I mean, we -- there's a lot
we don't know.
He may come to give evidence and we may be able to ask
him about that and, if we scroll up a little way
further, you can see there on the screen -- actually,
I can see it now, please stop scrolling, it's now moved
to the bottom -- the reply there:
"Not unhelpful -- I just don't want things to go
nuclear until that's all we have remaining."
Does that fit with your recollection of this
discussion at the time? Was this discussion on the
verge of nuclear status, for the relationship with Royal
Mail Group and the Post Office?
No, absolutely not. No. I'm sure that it wasn't.
However, I mean, that is just my reaction based on what
I know about how I would be thinking about something
like this. But, just to be completely clear, until
I saw these documents, either earlier today or
yesterday, I can't even remember when I first started
seeing this email chain -- I had -- I simply hadn't
remembered anything about this issue at all.
163
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
just come from a meeting with POL's CEO where she was
voicing her concerns that not [all] POL's comments had
been picked up and they have definitely not been signed
off their wording! That said, we will ensure that we
have chapter and verse from POL on what's outstanding.”
If we can scroll up from there to the bottom of
page 1, I'd be very grateful.
We can see there, there's a message from Mr McInnes
back to Mr Gibson:
"Yes. And I just had Martin on the phone ... Alice
is properly up for a fight. I've bought some time but
let's see what Emma can set up."
Now, if we scroll up again, Mr Gibson replies, and
you can say what he says:
"Alice is coming in to see Mark tomorrow ..
That would fit with the timing of your preparation
for a meeting, and, above, we can see the message
continues. Were you up for a fight, Ms Perkins?
I simply don't remember all of this, and those are not
my words. I mean, what you're getting there is you're
getting Tim McInnes reporting to Will Gibson something
that somebody else has said to him.
Entirely. I wouldn't expect you -- as I said at the
outset, you hadn't seen this message. But that was, it
appears, how your position was being presented by
162
Okay. Well, if we can look at the last document,
I just -- this is the last one I think I need to take
you to, and it may refresh your memory a little bit
about what was being discussed. It's POL00381747. It
takes us forward to 20 September, and it's not, again,
a message you would have seen, I just want to see if it
will help your memory. It's a message you can see there
from Mr Edwards to Paula Vennells, copied to Mr Davies.
Again, it says, "Prospectus update".
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to bring it up on my
screen because that one is a little bit far away for me
to read. I apologise. You'll have to bear with me for
amoment. He's updating Ms Vennells. I won't read it
all but I'm going to read the first bullet point
alittle. Focusing on the first bullet point:
"Latest draft attached -- overall it has improved
and addresses some of our concerns, although the risks
section still, intrinsically, negative in tone. The
ShEx POL team have pushed hard for additional language
to be inserted on the strength of the relationship to
contextualise these risks, but have received firm push
back that this wouldn't be appropriate for this element
of the document. Such language is however covered
elsewhere in the document. My sense is we are going to
have to accept this position and focus now on making
164
(41) Pages 161 - 164
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
sure the positive story is brought out in the wider
comms materials -- the marketing materials for the
transaction, our own lines to take and Ministers’
statements.’
Now, focusing on that, the first bullet, it seems
there were concerns about language in the risks section,
but POL, Mr Edwards was saying, could just accept the
position and then deal with it in comms; is that a fair
summary?
I think so, yes.
So it would go on Mr Davies’ desk, possibly? He was
copied in on them?
Yeah.
Yeah, and if we scroll down, can we skip to bullet
three. It seems -- except one issue is outstanding by
this point. He writes, in the third bullet:
"I think the one remaining issue we might want to
seek to change now is the sentence on the [Second Sight]
review, copied below. Ideally this would just be
deleted because it is misleading in the context of
a section on IT risks, as we discussed before.
"In July 2013 [(this is the sentence he's talking
about, the part], an Interim Report was published into
alleged problems with [Post Office's] "Horizon" computer
system, which is used to record transactions in its
165
more likely to listen to you
Was this him, at this point, when the prospectus was
imminent? Do you recall it being bumped up to
Ms Vennells to deal with?
I don't, I'm sorry.
Okay. Now, we know and the Inquiry has heard that
Ms Vennells later reports to you by email that she
thought she had earned her keep on this and she puts it
in her review for the key achievements for the year. By
this point, we know that when she reports to you it is
going to be removed. You'd been involved, ShEx had been
involved, you'd mooted something going up to the
Minister; Ms Vennells, she did earn her keep on this
‘one, didn't she?
Well, it looks as though she got agreement to what it
was that she was proposing. Those are her words;
they're not my words.
Okay. No problem. We shall move on to the next topic,
then, Ms Perkins, and I think these can be shorter. The
next topic I wanted to look at was Horizon publicity.
Now, Mr Beer covered Mr Davies' appearance on the
Today Programme very briefly with you this morning.
I remember you saying at home you listened to Radio 4
Today every morning, and we talked about the appearance
he made in December 2014. Now, Mrs Hamilton is sitting
167
ONOaARWN
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
6 June 2024
branch network. The report confirmed that no system
wide problems had been found in relation to the
"Horizon" software, but suggests that [Post Office]
should examine its support and training processes for
subpostmasters',
Now, I read that in full just to see if it helps
with your memory but, in summary, Mr Edwards was saying
that the Post Office wanted that deleted entirely,
ideally; is that right?
I think he is saying it would be deleted in the context
of a section on IT risks. That's what he seems to be
saying.
That ideally this would be deleted. We could skim the
rest but we can get to the very bottom, and last four
bullet points, I think we can see, he says -- and we've
had this all before, the Inquiry has had this issue
raised with Ms Vennells -- ShEx had been working on it
and he says:
we've reached the end of the road in terms of
ShEx's ability to influence this", and he references
that the prospectus is essentially going in on the
Monday, so it's imminent.
He says Alwen could pick it up but they were much
more likely to listen to -- and this is a message to
Paula:
166
next to me. She also appeared on that programme that
day and she listened live, as Mr Davies pointed to
subpostmasters experiencing "lifestyle issues". Now,
when Ms Vennells gave evidence, Mr Moloney asked her
about a late evening message she sent later that month,
on 17 December, having watched an episode of the One
Show.
I vaguely remember --
Do you recall?
Vaguely. Only vaguely.
I might be able to refresh your memory. Can we look at
POL00150352. If we could start -- it's a multiple-page
document, if we could start at page 3, we can find the
email from 17 December.
You see there there's a message from Ms Vennells and
it goes to Mark Davies, to Belinda Crowe, Gavin Lambert,
Patrick Bourke and it's cc'd to you and it's sent in the
late evening, at around 9.45.
The Inquiry is very familiar with this. I'm not
going to read much more than I need to but I think it is
worth repeating. She writes:
"Hi all, I managed to catch The One Show on iPlayer.
“Not denying the fact that it is unhelpful and
inaccurate (especially the focus on Horizon -- but see
below re thoughts on that), Mark has achieved a balance
168
(42) Pages 165 - 168
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
of reporting beyond anything I could have hoped for.
The statements stamped across the screen with the [Post
Office] sign as a backdrop were really powerful. They
emphasised everything we have done, and came across as
... fact! Very good.
"The rest was hype and human interest. Not easy for
me to be objective but I was more bored than outraged.
The MP quoted (who?) was full of bluster, and
inaccurate. Jo Hamilton lacked passion and admitted
false accounting on TV. [James Arbuthnot] was nowhere
to be seen. And the bulletin was too long.
“What I thought was helpful was that it presented
Horizon as the problem, which is exactly what [Second
Sight] say they haven't found. And so easier for us to
refute. There was nothing about intimidation, poor
coaching and the message about not knowing how to use
the system, in my eyes made the [subpostmasters] look
inadequate.”
Now, we can pause there and we can come back to the
language. Mr Moloney asked Ms Vennells if she might
have regretted that message the morning after she'd sent
it and copied it to you. I'd like to look at the day
after. If we could scroll up through this message
slowly, I'd be grateful.
We can see the next morning, Belinda Crowe
169
talking about campaigning SPMs? "Wilfully collaborated
in bringing us into disrepute", what do you think of
that language?
Well, looking at this now, obviously it looks absolutely
dreadful.
This is language being used by Ms Vennells herself,
isn't it?
Yes, in this email it is, yes.
You weren't copied in on this email but, if we can
scroll up, we see Thursday, 18 December, 7.24, very
early in the morning after the original message:
"Hi Alice, if you get the chance probably worth
a view of The One Show. (From both your directorships,
actually -- the BBC produced a very viewable 5-minute
bulletin, pity it is so wrong.)
"The note below refers."
There's some personal message: it's very close to
Christmas and she's talking about some cards getting
off.
Now, she writes to you again, directly copying the
whole of that thread, including her message from the
last night. She sent you her One Show (unclear) twice.
Now, if we can turn back to that original message on
page 3, just so we have it in front of us. Did you take
issue with what Ms Vennells was saying?
171
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
6 June 2024
circulates it to Angela van den Bogerd, if we can scroll
up. What happens is Mrs van den Bogerd engages with
a request from Ms Vennells about one of the
subpostmasters who appeared in the programme, not
Mrs Hamilton. I'm not suggesting we look at that
detail, I just want to see where it goes next.
Can we scroll up a little way. We see Ms Vennells
replies. I just want to stop there one moment. I don't
want to look at the detail but I just want to raise
a point which Ms Vennells uses about the language she
used here. This isn't copied to you at this moment but
it is later. At the very last paragraph of this, she
says, "Chris," and it's copied to Chris Aujard:
"... If you didn't see The One Show, please can you
watch the clip -- again I expect we are best to do
nothing at this stage but [references the subpostmasters
name] is completely out of order, inaccurate at best,
lying at worst."
This is the part I want to look at, whether it is
right or wrong, she says: "
“And has wilfully collaborated to [I presume that's
‘bringing]] us into disrepute."
Now, briefly, and we don't have to look at the
detail, is this just another example of the belligerent
language we had seen being used in the business when
170
I don't -- I'm afraid I'm really sorry, but I've not --
I don't think I've seen this before. I may have done
but I simply do not remember this.
We've seen the first and I've read it out, she was
congratulating Mark Davies for a job well done. This
was a win she wanted you to see, wasn't it?
It would look like it, yes. It would look like it.
She was saying Mrs Hamilton lacked passion,
subpostmasters looked inadequate. Did this simply
reflect the attitude that was being adopted by the Post
Office leadership team at that time in late 2014 to the
campaigning SPMs, the subpostmasters?
I can't add anything to this, I'm afraid. I mean, it
looks -- as I've just said, it looks absolutely
dreadful, given what we know now, and I am -- I'm
very --
I'm going to stop you there, Ms Perkins.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Not dreadful according to what we know now. Looking
back, she sent it to you twice?
She sent it to me twice?
Yes. She sent it to you on 17 December when she copies
you in, she sent it to you the next morning, with the
rest of the thread. Did you have any issue with the
language she was using at the time? Can you remember
172
(43) Pages 169 - 172
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
taking it up with her? "Oh Paula, what have you done?",
can you remember?
A. I'm terribly sorry, I simply cannot remember any of
this. I do remember the Today Programme because
I remember hearing it but I don't remember this.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Is there any written response?
MS PATRICK: I haven't found one, sir.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Okay, fine.
6 June 2024
MS PATRICK: Looking at Ms Vennelis' language, she says she
is "more bored than outraged". Had the business become
bored by the subpostmasters campaign by this point?
That's not how I would describe how I thought about it.
Did the business simply just want to move on and get on
with the job of making the Post Office sustainable for
the future?
Well, the business did want to make the Post Office
sustainable for the future but, as far as I was
concerned and as far as I am aware my Board colleagues
were concerned, we weren't wanting to do anything
different from what we'd wanted to do all along, which
was to handle the issues properly.
Handle the issues properly, but your CEO is "more bored
than outraged”.
We can move on. Can we look at the final topic and
that is the Zetter note, and I do want to help your
173
Mr Arbuthnot's office, as he was then, Lord Arbuthnot.
Mm-hm.
If we skim through, we see some notes on the side, we
see some handwritten notes there, if we scroll up, skim
through 6 -- I don't want to go alll the way to page 9,
which is where Mr Beer took you yesterday. I want to go
to page 7 in the little pack. Ah, it may be page 8 but
I think it's page 7.
There's a page, if we keep scrolling up, you see
“Faults with Horizon", there, somebody has annotated it
on the right with a little mark next to it. Scroll up
a little further, keep going, please -- stop.
We see a little scribbled note there and I want to
look at it from the bottom up, it says, I think, there's
a helpline -- it says, "There is a helpline available".
It's underlining there is a helpline available. The
Inquiry has heard a lot about the helpline. I don't
want to go to that.
The next one up, "Much cash around". Now, you told
Mr Beer yesterday you'd been taken aback by the fact
that there was so much cash in the business.
This is not my handwriting.
It's not your handwriting. Is it possibly a note that
was scribbled at some point during the meeting?
It's not my handwriting.
175
1 memory. Mr Beer started with this very early on
2 yesterday and you said when you were looking at it --
3 you were looking at handwritten notes, if you remember.
4 A. Oh, yes.
5 Q. You can be sure, of course, that you said in meetings
6 sometimes you'd scribble on the papers and sometimes
7 you'd go back and add a note afterwards to keep your
8 memory fresh.
9 A. Mm-hm, yeah.
10 Mr Beer took you to a lot of notes, and I just want to
1 look at one scribbled note that he didn't look at and,
12 if we look at the document, it's POL00413669, and that
13 should bring us up with the diary page, if you remember,
14 which referred to the Bistrot at The Zetter. If you
15 remember, the date was 19 March, this was yesterday
16 morning Mr Beer brought this up. It's between your
17 first meeting with James Arbuthnot -- I think was
18 13 March, and you were preparing for a meeting on
19 28 March, which Paula couldn't attend, Ms Vennells
20 wouldn't be able to go to. There was a pack of papers
21 disclosed to the Inquiry behind this diary entry.
22 I'd like to scroll -- we don't need to scroll, but
23 if we could go to page 5 of the pack, Mr Beer skimmed
24 through this yesterday to get to the main note but this,
25 I think, was described as a meeting prepared by
174
1 Not your handwriting. Can we just explore the top
2 message there "Reputation key"?
3 It's not my handwriting.
4 Can you help with whose handwriting it might be?
5 I'm sorry, I don't know whose handwriting that was. All
6 I can tell you is that it's not mine.
7 It's in a pack of notes behind the same diary entry and
8 with the same notes that you were taking, and you can't
9 assist us on who took it?
10 Well, it obviously, it could be Paula's writing. All
11 I can tell you is that it is not my writing.
12 Okay, was this a message you were being given from
13 within the business by Ms Vennells, or somebody else,
14 that reputation was key, even at this time in 2012?
15 I don't remember this coming up at this meeting.
16 I mean, it is a responsibility of any Board to protect
17 the reputation of the organisation. It's one of the,
18 you know, it's one of the many responsibilities a Board
19 has, and I think we have talked a lot in the last two
20 days about why I thought, and other people thought, it
21 was important to protect the reputation of the Post
22 Office business, on the basis that I believed that the
23 Horizon system was sound and that we didn't -- that --
24 and the prosecutions had been properly conducted.
25 Q. We've looked reputation in the context to of the RMG
176
(44) Pages 173 - 176
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
A
a
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
prospectus. We've looked at fighting -- we've talked
about fighting for the reputation of the Post Office
this morning. This is 2012, before your bulk of
engagement with James Arbuthnot. I'm going to suggest
reputation really was the key question for the business,
not just as --
Not mine.
-- a responsibility, it was a goal from the start, and
throughout, wasn't it, Ms Perkins?
Not mine. I've made absolutely clear what my motivation
was in relation to Lord Arbuthnot's concerns.
Thank you.
I wanted to set up an independent review to get to the
bottom of it and I made it clear in a number of
contemporaneous documents that I wasn't afraid of
getting bad news, if bad news were to come.
Can we stop and pause there for a minute. Others have
talked to you about the future of the Post Office, all
the work that was going on, the Network Transformation,
the shareholder, the Government's real goal for the
business was to get to profitability and a mutualised
Post Office that could stand on its own feet with less
dependence on Government subsidy, wasn't it?
It was, yes.
Would that be made more difficult if the Post Office was
177
MS PATRICK: Thank you, Ms Perkins. I have no further
A
MR BEER:
questions.
Thank you.
I have spoken to Ms Berridge, who represents
Ms Perkins, and she said, as long as I deal with one
issue, which will take about three minutes; she is
content not to ask questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine.
MR BEER:
Further questioned by MR BEER
It's a very small point of detail, and I don't
think it will stop the world turning, but it's
an important point of detail, perhaps.
Can we look, please, for the last three minutes of
questions, Ms Perkins, at POL00029587. You remember you
were shown this email --
Yes.
-- about half an hour ago, an hour ago --
Yeah.
-- by Ms Leek?
Yeah.
When she was introducing it to you, she said -- and the
draft transcript reference is page 148, line 12:
"Alwen Lyons sends to Paula, ‘speaking notes for
your call with Alice this afternoon’.
Mm-hm.
179
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
no longer the nation's most trusted brand but, instead,
faced public investigation and opprobrium for the
wrongful prosecution of hundreds of its own people?
‘A. Of course it would but -- I'm sorry, I am repeating
myself, but this is really, really important.
Q. Ms Perkins, I don't want you to repeat yourself.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I I think I've got this point.
A. Okay, thank you.
MS PATRICK: I just want to ask one last question, sir.
Was this prospect that the Post Office was
responsible for wrongfully criminalising people like
Mrs Hamilton something that, during your time in the
chair, the business simply could not or would not
contemplate?
A. Notas far as I was concerned and, as far as I can
possibly be aware, that was not the position of my
fellow Non-Executive Board Directors.
Q. Looking back, do you think the Board might or ought to
have been less bored by the subpostmasters and more
‘outraged by the possibility of miscarriages of justice
that had ruined hundreds of its own people?
A. The Board was not bored of this issue. I have said on
a number of occasions over the last two days that
I think that there were inns instances where the Board
should have acted differently.
178
Q._In fact, if we look at the email, we can see that, on
the face of the email, it's not sent to Paula Vennells.
It's sent by Alwen Lyons to Alwen Lyons. Can you see
that?
A. Yes, I do see that.
Q. The first sentence reads:
"Paula, here are my speaking notes for your call
with Alice this afternoon."
So it could be, I suppose, that this is a draft that
didn't get sent. It could be a way of sending something
to yourself for printing off and handing over?
A. Mm-hm.
Q. But, on the face of the document, it wasn't sent to
Paula Vennells, can you see that, as a speaking note,
for her --
A. I do see that.
Q. - conversation with you?
A. Yes.
Q. We haven't got any other evidence that this email was
sent to Paula Vennells as a speaking note prior to the
conference call that had been teed up with you.
A. Isee.
Q. I should say, if we just look lastly at WITNO1020100 --
this is Ms Vennells' witness statement --
A. Right.
180
(45) Pages 177 - 180
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
- at page 168 --
Mm-hm.
-- paragraph 360, she says, “At 13.05", that's the time
of the email.
Right.
"At 13.05 on 16 May, Alwen sent me a speaking note to
use on a call with Alice that afternoon", and then she
gives you the reference —
Okay.
-- or gives us the reference to the document we've just
looked at.
I see.
So it looks like the mistake was made there, as well,
that this was a note sent to Paula Vennells at 1.05 pm.
But in fact it was Alwen sending it to herself.
Alwen sent it to herself.
Yes, I understand. Thank you. That's really helpful.
I'm sorry, I have got a bit - I think I'm suffering
from brain fog.
MR BEER: Sir, they're the only questions I ask. Thank you.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So that brings an end to the questioning
of you, Ms Perkins. I am very grateful to you for
having provided a very detailed witness statement, and
for giving evidence over the last two days.
THE WITNESS: = Thank you very much.
181
INDEX
ALICE ELIZABETH PERKINS (continued)
Questioned by MR BEER (continued) ....
Questioned by MR JACOBS .... 88
Questioned by MS WATT .. 115
Questioned by MR HENRY 122
Questioned by MS LEEK ... 145
Questioned by MS PATRICK .... 152
Further questioned by MR BEER 179
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 June 2024
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. So we will adjourn now until
Tuesday at 9.45, when we will resume.
MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir.
(4.12 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 9.45 am on Tuesday,
11 June 2024)
182
(46) Pages 181 - 183
/
MR BEER: [13] 1/6
45/12 45/16 45/20
87/20 88/2 88/8
115/12 146/22 179/4
179/10 181/20 182/3
MR HENRY: [8]
122/14 122/18 124/1
132/1 135/22 135/25
136/14 144/24
MR JACOBS: [3]
88/14 102/24 115/4
MS LEEK: [6] 145/7
145/13 145/15 145/17]
146/23 151/18
MS PATRICK: [5]
152/7 173/7 173/9
178/9 179/41
MS WATT: [3]
115/17 115/21 122/10}
SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
[47] 1/5 45/15 87/23
88/3 88/12 99/16
99/25 100/3 100/8
100/14 100/17 100/23}
101/7 101/16 101/18
101/20 101/25 102/12}
102/21 115/3 115/5
115/14 115/20 122/12]
122/15 123/22 131/8
131/41 131/13 134/15}
135/15 135/23 136/2
136/10 136/13 144/23}
145/1 145/8 145/14
151/20 152/2 173/6
173/8 178/7 179/8
181/21 182/1
THE WITNESS: [2]
152/1 181/25
"41 [1] 3/19
"43 [1] 3/19
"44 [1] 12/12
‘alleged’ [1] 31/9
"Board [1] 56/17
"bringing’ [1] 170/22
"bugs' [1] 147/9
‘commercial’ [1]
64/23
"Horizon [1] 52/4
IA] 71/25
‘I appreciate [1]
71/25
"In [1] 165/22
‘pay’ [1] 33/4
‘phantom’ [2] 47/19
57/1
"speaking [1] 179/23
"systemic [1] 124/12
‘take [1] 64/6
‘The [1] 50/18
Imoney [1] 60/21
=
1 million [3] 95/17
99/22 101/6
1.05 pm [1] 181/14
1.13 [1] 115/9
1.98 [1] 140/24
10 [1] 145/13
10 July [1] 140/2
10 years [1] 131/2
10.30 [1] 150/1
11 June 2024 [1]
182/6
141 October [1] 140/6
11 September [2]
132/14 132/18
11.00 [1] 45/17
11.10 [1] 45/16
11.14 [1] 45/19
412 [1] 107/10
113 [1] 107/9
12 [1] 179/22
12.19 [1] 88/9
12.30 [4] 87/22
12.32 [1] 88/11
124 [1] 133/21
13 March [1] 174/18
13.05 [2] 181/3 181/6
14 December [1]
81/20
145 [1] 123/24
148 [1] 179/22
15 [2] 24/7 145/13
16 [2] 153/23 181/6
16 August [1] 153/15
16 July [1] 137/3
16 May [2] 148/24
149/1
16 September [1]
160/4
168 [1] 181/41
16th [1] 140/6
17 December [3]
168/6 168/14 172/22
18 [1] 171/10
18 September [1]
161/13
180 [1] 24/16
19 [4] 174/15
4:1 [1] 161/2
2
2 billion [2] 140/24
142/18
2 February [1] 61/1
2.10 [3] 115/7 115/8
115/11
2.11 [4] 158/8
2.15 [1] 115/6
2.3 [2] 37/9 124/7
20 March [1] 37/6
20 September [1]
164/5
2008 [4] 52/15 52/16
53/8 54/3
2010 [11] 21/1 25/15
43/4 47/24 48/2 52/14
108/6 108/11 108/13
108/14 109/9
2011 [2] 3/16 116/13
2012 [9] 66/14 68/14
68/15 69/4 74/10
107/20 123/6 176/14
177/13
2013 [19] 3/11 7/11
10/22 15/14 25/19
90/18 124/10 132/6
132/14 139/16 140/2
140/6 141/1 141/22
148/24 153/15 154/24
155/23 165/22
2014 [31] 6/17 8/22
10/24 20/5 20/12
23/17 23/17 23/19
23/20 27/6 30/5 33/19)
33/21 39/12 40/11
40/17 40/24 41/7
45/24 52/16 61/1 62/1
62/15 62/23 80/22
91/19 111/12 111/14
133/12 167/25 172/11
2014/15 [1] 24/7
2015 [6] 3/24 28/16
62/3 77/15 110/17
116/13
2024 [2] 1/1 182/6
21 June [1] 66/14
21 October [1] 90/17
225 [2] 106/20 107/9
23 May [2] 107/20
149/25
24 [4] 140/7
24 June [1] 41/7
26 March [2] 33/19
33/20
27 November [1]
141/1
28 June [3] 146/10
148/12 151/10
28 March [1] 174/19
298 [5] 123/11
123/16 123/24 124/2
125/1
3
3 February [2] 28/16
68/14
3 July [2] 146/3
146/7
3 September [1]
135/5
3.13 [1] 152/3
3.30 [3] 151/22 152/2
152/5
3.8 [1] 63/9
3.9 [1] 64/3
30 April [3] 46/9
46/21 58/41
330p [1] 140/6
34 [1] 111/2
36 [1] 119/5
360 [1] 181/3
4
4 June [2] 45/24
61/11
4 September [1]
68/15
4.10 [1] 90/16
4.12 [4] 182/4
40 [1] 87/25
40 minutes [1] 88/7
5
5-minute [1] 171/14
51 [1] 97/3
6
6 June [1] 62/23
6 June 2024 [1] 1/1
640 million [2]
140/25 142/19
7.24 [1] 171/10
7.3 [4] 64/18
7.7 million [1] 64/9
79.2.3 [2] 110/22
111/41
Bo
82 [1] 104/1
86 [1] 152/8
9
9 July [2] 67/20
142/5
9 September [1]
155/23
9.45 [4] 1/2 168/18
182/2 182/5
A
aback [1] 175/20
ability [4] 6/4 23/22
108/2 166/20
able [19] 13/19 21/23
23/10 28/20 28/20
42/25 45/5 58/23 59/2
59/9 82/3 112/8
113/11 116/18 137/9
149/16 163/7 168/11
174/20
about [224]
above [4] 70/20
147/23 156/11 162/17}
absence [2] 64/13
134/7
absolutely [33] 3/20
12/25 18/1 28/12
29/23 36/24 67/12
70/13 70/20 72/11
76/24 92/14 92/20
96/17 98/14 108/7
113/18 125/25 126/12)
128/4 128/8 132/25
134/22 136/23 138/4
142/23 148/19 151/17
158/13 163/18 171/4
172/14 177/10
absorbed [1] 111/21
accept [25] 91/4 91/8
92/12 92/14 93/8
93/12 93/15 93/18
93/25 96/7 103/9
106/4 107/1 110/5
110/9 114/22 116/21
117/4 118/7 118/11
118/14 127/25 128/9
164/25 165/7
accepted [6] 15/2
65/11 98/10 102/6
103/13 117/11
accepting [1] 96/10
access [16] 28/18
47/16 53/15 63/25
78/11 78/13 104/17
106/19 106/21 107/3
107/24 108/6 109/22
110/19 111/9 126/22
accordance [2] 42/6
96/12
accorded [1] 51/20
according [1] 172/19
account [11] 44/5
58/10 73/6 97/21
108/22 109/1 111/11
111/14 111/17 111/25)
150/22
accounted [1]
112/10
accounting [2] 52/10
169/10
accounts [6] 108/2
110/13 110/20 111/7
111/22 112/3
accuracy [2] 42/11
159/1
accurate [4] 51/9
56/23 156/23 157/4
accused [2] 16/14
16/16
achieve [1] 130/14
achieved [1] 168/25
achievement [1]
86/25
achievements [2]
18/3 167/9
acknowledge [1]
116/7
acknowledging [1]
131/9
across [4] 30/22 73/7
(47) MR BEER: - across
A
169/4
act [6] 96/12 103/10
106/25 107/14 117/7
124/19
acted [4] 32/24 92/11
99/4 178/25
acting [1] 87/11
action [6] 32/13
64/13 67/13 90/15
125/4 158/17
actions [6] 89/22
98/21 117/16 117/17
117/21 125/12
activities [2] 94/22
97/18
activity [1] 60/22
actual [1] 124/6
actually [20] 10/4
18/7 31/23 36/12
40/18 53/15 55/9
57/15 70/9 86/17
86/21 86/21 106/17
119/25 121/22 122/8
130/19 131/14 163/9
171/14
add [9] 48/12 112/2
118/12 135/13 144/23}
144/24 148/21 172/13
174/7
addition [3] 94/16
101/5 124/13
additional [3] 48/1
59/23 164/19
address [5] 42/8
50/10 56/24 128/16
128/21
addresses [5] 37/16
38/20 39/13 40/18
164/17
addressing [2] 38/18
39/10
adjourn [1] 182/1
adjourned [1] 182/5
Adjournment [1]
115/10
administration [3]
60/21 63/18 64/5
admitted [1] 169/9
admittedly [2] 21/1
54/1
adopted [1] 172/10
advance [2] 73/10
163/1
adverse [4] 32/16
64/7 65/12 106/3
advice [38] 10/18
14/10 14/12 14/15
14/18 14/22 15/4
20/15 30/4 33/1 33/13,
33/16 35/4 35/4 35/6
36/19 36/23 37/6 64/1
across... [2] 169/2
64/16 72/19 73/2
77/12 77/13 91/14
99/4 103/2 103/7
104/19 105/20 106/41
114/16 132/8 135/4
135/8
advices [3] 12/14
139/14 139/17
advise [1] 28/6
advised [6] 11/22
36/16 51/13 106/24
107/13 151/23
Adviser [3] 68/25
77/2 77/5
advisers [1] 74/25
Affairs [2] 64/20
68/14
affect [2] 6/3 101/4
affected [3] 113/1
116/4 116/15
48/14 109/14 117/2
119/3 123/21 135/25
148/21 151/17 172/1
172/13 177/15
31/6 31/17 31/20
31/20 41/13 49/17
75/21 76/6 81/21 89/3
140/23 144/19 146/14)
169/21 169/23 171/11
afternoon [15] 83/3
88/19 115/17 115/22
145/10 147/22 149/15)
149/20 149/21 149/24)
151/7 151/21 152/7
180/8 181/7
afternoon’ [1] 179/24
afterwards [2] 81/10
174/7
again [16] 31/11
31/13 58/21 75/25
86/20 86/20 115/6
131/19 135/9 152/24
159/25 162/13 164/5
164/9 170/15 171/20
against [11] 4/24
11/2 11/24 13/24
83/23 84/7 87/18
98/22 122/25 128/14
131/20
agenda [4] 9/21
10/15 69/11 138/3
ago [6] 45/2 48/11
98/2 131/2 179/17
179/17
agree [10] 2/22 48/23
48/25 67/7 67/12
96/11 96/25 104/23
116/12 121/13
103/11 104/17 104/18)
afraid [13] 38/5 38/25]
after [28] 22/17 27/24I
59/6 72/21 73/3 73/15)
100/11 110/16 134/17,
134/23 138/11 138/12)
30/11 33/23 34/14
47/25 113/9 113/20
agreement [4] 2/8
2/19 5/18 167/15
Ah [1] 175/7
aims [1] 20/21
airspace [1] 67/6
Alana [1] 66/22
Alasdair [5] 9/22
31/18 132/18 132/21
132/23
albeit [1] 9/13
alibi [6] 15/22 16/1
ALICE [18] 1/3 7/18
75/6 75/20 77/18
133/21 147/13 149/2
149/21 149/24 151/2
162/10 162/15 171/12
179/24 180/8 181/7
183/3
all [73] 3/20 3/22 4/9
6/23 17/4 19/4 27/24
31/13 31/14 34/8 38/9
39/8 44/25 45/15
47/12 48/25 50/15
50/19 50/24 52/5 52/9
56/15 59/24 63/24
67/8 67/16 70/22 72/1
77/9 77/19 81/14 82/9
82/14 86/9 88/18 89/4
89/13 90/1 96/15
97/15 97/21 98/18
102/10 102/17 105/4
106/25 107/15 109/9
109/17 109/17 109/18
117/8 117/20 118/23
120/10 122/15 125/17]
139/21 147/16 151/25]
160/25 162/2 162/19
163/13 163/25 164/14
166/16 168/22 173/20
175/5 176/5 176/10
177/18
allegations [7] 47/19
56/24 82/4 84/14
84/19 84/21 90/1
alleged [4] 82/20
107/5 111/17 165/24
allow [3] 59/17 59/19
64/6
almost [1] 76/15
alone [2] 13/11 23/21
along [3] 36/2 119/22
173/20
alongside [2] 46/12
121/12
already [12] 26/11
32/9 82/1 98/2 99/2
114/18 125/9 129/12
135/13 147/20 148/4
154/17
also [36] 12/3 15/23
agreed [8] 5/25 19/24I
16/12 16/14 17/1 17/6
19/17 19/20 42/10
46/25 64/9 67/5 70/7
72/15 74/23 75/22
82/23 91/17 97/20
99/7 101/6 110/1
111/4 114/10 116/7
117/14 123/8 132/25
135/4 141/25 142/8
147/9 149/6 150/21
160/23 161/23 168/1
Alter [1] 108/20
alternative [2] 55/23
105/17
although [7] 69/6
115/17 133/7 141/25
143/7 156/22 164/17
Altman [3] 14/14
124/9 139/14
altogether [1] 3/23
36/1 36/7 80/17
102/25 128/5
Alwen [25] 1/18 6/19
TINT 41/8 41/11 41/17,
49/25 55/15 56/2
56/12 146/10 146/14
146/18 147/20 149/20}
150/4 150/16 150/24
166/23 179/23 180/3
180/3 181/6 181/15
181/16
Alwen's [3] 146/15
147/15 147/18
am [36] 1/2 2/19 6/20
17/4 35/3 45/17 45/19)
51/25 78/7 83/3 83/20
84/17 86/8 94/4 99/2
107/18 112/18 114/16}
125/19 126/12 126/13}
135/15 145/12 145/18)
147/25 149/14 150/8
150/10 154/11 156/22}
158/17 172/15 173/18}
178/4 181/22 182/5
amber [2] 131/20
131/23
ambitious [1] 120/19
amended [1] 50/6
amidst [1] 128/2
amongst [2] 63/9
75/17
amount [6] 13/12
32/24 33/9 58/7
121/25 129/25
amounts [1] 35/1
analyse [2] 103/8
103/15
analysis [2] 4/5
144/9
Andrew [2] 132/8
135/4
anecdotal [1] 20/20
Angela [6] 22/8 34/4
116/10 116/10 116/14}
always [7] 12/1 13/22
38/1 38/4 152/7 170/1
angle [2] 72/24 148/3
Angus [1] 3/15
annotated [1] 175/10
announced [3] 67/3
140/25 141/17
announcement [2]
140/1 141/23
Annual [1] 20/15
anomalies [1] 145/25
another [10] 6/7
15/25 22/19 61/20
70/11 89/10 89/11
90/15 148/23 170/24
answer [20] 7/13
7/14 7/20 28/7 28/8
28/17 29/1 36/23 40/5I
50/17 51/2 61/18
73/20 82/18 86/4 89/6
109/13 112/16 112/17
126/20
answered [2] 13/10
48/24
answering [1] 10/5
answers [4] 10/19
13/12 13/19 85/2
Anthony [13] 30/4
30/7 30/11 31/1 31/12!
31/15 32/20 33/6
33/14 89/8 89/18
92/23 93/3
Anthony's [4] 30/14
30/18 32/12 33/8
anticipate [1] 17/12
anticipating [1]
35/14
any [44] 2/20 2/21
4/2 11/1 13/17 14/13
17/24 22/11 23/15
24/23 31/9 32/2 32/2
32/7 43/12 43/12
51/20 52/23 60/18
61/14 63/25 64/13
72/7 78/14 82/18 97/7I
103/10 107/24 112/18)
4117/7 128/24 133/23
139/16 140/15 142/6
150/9 150/22 158/24
159/12 172/24 173/3
173/6 176/16 180/19
anybody [6] 13/19
69/9 113/11 114/7
131/17 141/11
anyone [2] 53/23
68/16
anything [21] 7/20
15/24 18/18 36/1
36/20 49/17 53/8
54/19 61/20 78/20
81/17 118/12 125/10
135/13 138/18 148/18)
150/24 163/25 169/1
172/13 173/19
anyway [6] 2/1 50/4
(48) across... - anyway
A
anyway... [4] 69/14
70/11 100/17 157/16
Apart [1] 7/19
apologise [2] 158/2
164/12
apparently [2] 126/6
128/7
appeals [1] 122/24
appear [4] 8/13 41/21
127/15 163/3
appearance [3] 45/7
167/21 167/24
appeared [3] 21/21
168/1 170/4
appearing [1] 80/23
appears [8] 25/23
50/20 52/7 52/12
65/10 90/2 154/23
162/25
applicant's [1] 32/20
applicants [6] 56/25
63/24 63/25 82/22
82/24 83/2
applications [1]
11/19
applying [1] 34/24
appointed [5] 31/5
31/17 31/20 68/22
134/6
appointment [2] 67/2
85/12
appraised [1] 25/17
appreciate [3] 71/25
94/8 156/4
apprise [2] 125/5
125/5
apprised [1] 137/7
approach [12] 6/13
14/2 75/13 82/18 97/9)
97/10 97/14 98/17
99/1 149/4 151/5
152/22
approaches [1]
25/23
appropriate [4] 19/15]
97/5 133/19 164/22
approval [2] 52/11
95/9
approving [2] 53/16
54/6
approximately [1]
89/13
April [4] 46/9 46/21
58/11 69/4
Arbuthnot [10] 36/14
74/12 113/7 129/12
130/18 149/6 169/10
174/17 175/1 177/4
Arbuthnot's [7] 8/20
76/12 128/16 128/21
142/9 175/1 177/11
archaicism [1] 123/5
are [103] 7/3 7/4 7/19
8/8 12/13 12/17 14/6
14/7 18/13 21/16
22/15 28/20 30/6
33/20 35/10 35/11
39/12 40/17 42/9
42/10 42/15 42/24
42/25 43/1 46/20
48/11 53/4 53/10
57/10 60/13 61/6 63/9)
63/11 64/3 64/13
66/24 72/7 74/16
74/19 74/23 75/1 75/9)
75/10 75/14 82/19
83/1 83/5 84/25 86/6
86/10 88/17 88/18
89/24 90/3 92/15 94/5)
95/6 95/13 96/20
97/12 101/17 103/7
105/2 105/22 112/8
116/10 118/22 120/22)
122/11 125/8 127/3
127/10 127/17 127/22)
128/3 128/3 133/10
133/17 133/22 136/3
139/21 144/25 147/8
147/20 148/5 148/17
149/8 149/9 149/16
149/23 150/7 150/8
151/11 151/23 154/9
154/14 155/25 160/23}
162/19 164/24 167/16)
170/15 180/7
are/have [2] 7/4 14/7
area [2] 52/16 52/22
areas [4] 47/13 48/7
117/12 117/15
aren't [1] 136/15
arena [1] 86/18
argue [1] 6/8
argued [1] 113/19
arguing [1] 142/16
argument [1] 6/5
arisen [1] 19/17
arising [1] 155/1
arm's [2] 102/5
122/19
arm's length [1]
122/19
arose [1] 149/10
around [15] 22/7
63/17 64/16 64/25
65/20 72/24 90/16
107/10 109/6 119/7
140/3 140/18 152/21
168/18 175/19
arranged [3] 75/8
138/14 149/19
arrangement [1] 2/15]
arrangements [1]
217
arrival [1] 71/15
arrived [2] 35/21
102/2
as [217]
aside [1] 155/12
ask [39] 17/22 29/3
51/18 53/6 82/2 87/20
88/16 94/9 99/19
100/18 104/6 104/8
110/13 112/19 112/20
115/22 119/12 122/18
123/11 126/19 129/1
132/3 132/13 135/9
137/22 145/2 145/4
145/17 145/19 145/21
146/22 150/24 151/22
151/24 152/8 163/7
178/9 179/7 181/20
asked [26] 11/1 13/7
13/8 14/14 14/22
15/23 34/2 39/16 47/8
47/23 48/24 50/9
93/24 106/13 111/12
111/16 112/20 132/2
139/20 145/24 149/6
151/4 154/11 154/17
168/4 169/20
asking [10] 7/8 14/9
22/4 25/2 28/8 35/23
36/22 45/21 87/11
116/6
asleep [1] 98/9
aspect [7] 13/18 17/8
76/12 95/25 119/4
120/14 120/21
aspects [6] 4/9 6/23
27/25 34/6 38/7 105/2I
aspiration [1] 5/20
assert [1] 57/25
asserted [1] 52/14
assertion [2] 52/15
59/15
assertions [1] 43/10
assess [3] 4/24
19/25 123/3
assist [1] 176/9
assistance [1] 1/14
Assistant [1] 75/17
assistants [1] 116/8
associated [2] 59/15
64/7
assumed [1] 43/9
assumptions [6]
42/11 42/14 46/19
48/22 57/9 57/19
assurance [13] 20/11
36/12 42/5 42/7 47/9
47/20 47/23 48/1
53/11 54/2 60/14 61/7,
150/13
assurances [3] 39/4
109/21 158/19
assure [1] 47/15
assured [5] 39/20
39/23 76/2 76/6
150/10
astonishing [1]
126/4
at [289]
at page 2 [1] 14/4
attached [7] 41/22
41/23 55/20 55/25
56/7 56/17 164/16
attaches [1] 41/18
attaching [1] 56/14
attachment [4] 41/21
46/1 46/2 135/20
attachments [1] 56/9
attend [1] 174/19
attendance [2] 8/19
30/7
attended [2] 58/22
138/15
attendees [1] 18/15
attention [11] 24/14
24/17 54/23 57/15
70/22 81/9 109/12
109/25 110/8 157/23
158/7
attitude [3] 29/11
30/2 172/10
attract [3] 94/22
157/22 158/7
attracted [1] 93/13
attractive [1] 121/16
attrition [1] 118/18
audit [15] 9/24 20/5
42/5 50/18 50/21
54/22 56/23 103/6
103/8 107/19 107/21
108/2 108/2 132/16
132/23
audits [4] 34/8 38/9
38/12 39/23
August [4] 15/14
153/15 153/23 154/24}
Aujard [14] 30/20
45/9 46/24 47/17 48/3)
49/21 55/2 55/13
55/17 56/13 104/16
123/14 127/2 170/13
author [2] 60/10
136/4
authority [1] 95/8
available [8] 20/22
32/17 42/21 43/2 57/6
128/3 175/15 175/16
awarded [1] 122/25
aware [40] 22/1 22/2
27/8 27/9 29/19 31/22
50/24 54/19 73/6
80/23 81/3 81/12 90/6
90/12 93/5 93/6 93/7
93/8 93/12 94/25
95/22 106/21 107/11
108/5 108/7 108/8
111/15 111/22 119/13
119/14 119/18 129/4
132/10 132/11 134/21
139/3 141/9 160/17
173/18 178/16
away [7] 2/12 3/23
5/19 116/20 127/20
149/8 164/11
awful [2] 131/22
131/22
awkward [1] 21/4
B
B48 [2] 7/23 8/2
back [46] 3/14 3/15
4/21 5/7 14/3 15/3
15/23 34/16 38/11
40/7 43/19 44/10
44/25 54/13 71/25
78/4 80/22 82/11 96/6
96/10 97/19 103/15
103/19 110/5 113/15
113/19 115/5 115/7
118/8 123/19 124/25
128/14 144/21 146/23)
148/23 149/5 149/13
152/22 156/13 162/9
164/22 169/19 171/23)
172/20 174/7 178/18
backdoors [1]
107/17
backdrop [1] 169/3
background [3] 4/24
52/23 61/23
backs [1] 29/3
backward [1] 124/8
bad [7] 8/12 113/16
127/14 128/6 128/7
177/16 177/16
balance [8] 31/9 32/1
82/13 83/8 83/12
89/15 133/15 168/25
balanced [1] 68/3
balancing [3] 43/5
52/12 89/15
Band [3] 37/7 39/8
51/12
Bank [1] 120/16
barrel [4] 2/25 4/14
4/19 5/17
Barton [5] 21/20 26/4)
27/8 155/7 155/8
based [8] 39/17
54/16 55/21 57/5 84/3}
114/20 139/2 163/19
basically [1] 160/25
basis [9] 27/24 35/5
73/7 93/23 105/6
129/18 129/20 143/13)
176/22
basket [1] 50/22
baskets [1] 54/21
baskets’ [1] 50/19
battle [3] 83/23 84/6
87/18
battling [4] 87/5
BBC [12] 79/9 79/12
80/7 80/8 80/23 82/15
82/25 83/5 83/11
(49) anyway... - BBC
B
BBC... [3] 83/16
85/25 171/14
be [224]
bear [1] 164/12
Bearing [1] 76/19
became [6] 7/5 10/18
14/8 90/12 118/9
137/18
because [75] 8/9
9/23 11/17 14/11
14/16 17/21 25/2
26/16 27/24 28/22
28/25 31/8 32/9 36/8
41/4 49/3 51/24 56/2
56/9 58/14 61/20
61/22 61/22 69/23
70/3 70/8 71/1 72/13
72/16 74/6 76/8 79/7
80/1 81/5 81/7 83/12
86/5 86/20 89/15
89/21 89/24 93/22
97/23 98/20 99/12
99/17 102/13 102/15
109/21 109/25 116/9
116/19 120/11 121/1
121/15 122/4 127/11
128/13 129/4 131/16
133/18 134/18 136/19
137/4 137/12 137/25
138/20 139/25 140/16}
140/23 141/22 148/5
164/11 165/20 173/4
become [2] 54/19
173/10
becomes [1] 11/19
becoming [1] 92/18
been [150] 3/17 5/6
7/1 7/4 7/8 9/9 9/12
10/14 12/1 12/24 14/7)
14/14 14/23 14/24
16/25 17/11 19/14
19/16 21/7 21/13
21/17 22/11 23/10
23/14 24/25 26/14
26/17 26/19 26/22
27/13 27/23 31/17
31/18 32/6 32/22
35/18 36/11 36/13
39/20 40/4 42/18 43/7
43/11 44/3 47/8 50/12)
51/18 52/14 54/9
54/10 57/1 58/10
58/15 59/7 59/8 61/7
61/23 62/10 65/3
65/25 69/13 71/22
71/23 72/13 72/14
7217 72/22 73/3
73/15 79/6 80/25 81/1
82/14 83/18 83/18
85/24 87/14 89/17
89/21 90/6 90/9 90/23,
96/21 96/23 97/5 97/7
98/3 98/19 100/10
101/1 101/3 101/3
102/8 104/18 104/24
104/25 105/4 105/5
105/13 105/13 106/5
106/23 113/11 114/5
114/18 119/24 120/23)
121/2 121/22 122/4
124/10 125/20 126/8
128/14 130/16 132/2
134/5 134/6 134/10
134/16 136/4 137/7
138/20 139/3 139/8
139/11 141/4 141/19
142/11 142/24 143/23)
144/13 149/19 150/20)
151/3 151/12 155/6
155/8 156/18 162/3
162/3 163/3 166/2
166/17 167/11 167/11
175/20 176/24 178/19)
180/21
BEER [24] 1/4 1/5
88/4 104/13 114/3
115/6 126/14 127/7
130/22 139/20 145/24)
152/20 152/24 160/11
167/21 174/1 174/10
174/16 174/23 175/6
175/20 179/9 183/4
183/10
before [35] 1/20 1/21
7/5 14/8 41/14 49/10
50/7 61/1 66/16 67/2
69/13 71/5 73/25
75/25 76/3 76/19
101/10 108/14 108/16)
113/12 126/24 135/7
135/11 136/18 139/5
144/14 144/19 146/2
146/7 148/10 151/6
165/21 166/16 172/2
177/3
beforehand [2] 137/9
151/12
beg [1] 18/9
began [2] 11/8
120/15
beginning [7] 5/7
10/3 11/6 11/18 92/1
96/24 135/18
behalf [6] 9/2 95/10
115/12 115/23 145/17,
152/8
behaved [1] 108/9
behind [7] 102/14
110/3 120/12 133/8
134/2 174/21 176/7
being [63] 6/2 11/24
12/6 12/7 12/7 14/21
15/1 26/10 27/9 27/9
33/14 36/16 40/13
53/16 60/25 63/11
64/4 65/21 66/2 73/25)
83/22 84/15 86/6 90/4
91/13 91/18 92/17
95/17 97/19 99/13
100/5 100/19 103/12
108/1 109/21 110/8
111/15 113/24 117/24
122/24 127/4 136/6
137/16 137/24 141/8
141/21 143/23 150/9
150/10 153/6 154/10
154/23 155/1 158/25
159/9 159/16 162/25
164/4 167/3 170/25
171/6 172/10 176/12
beings [1] 138/6
belief [2] 10/10 99/4
believe [1] 6/25
believed [13] 2/11
3/24 12/4 14/19 14/20}
58/25 59/1 93/21
93/22 93/23 99/13
111/20 176/22
Belinda [7] 82/12
84/23 85/8 85/10
85/13 168/16 169/25
belligerent [1]
170/24
belongs [1] 86/17
below [8] 3/4 43/1
56/13 77/21 147/15
165/19 168/25 171/16}
benefit [6] 79/3
102/18 114/4 114/25
122/8 130/4
Berridge [1] 179/4
best [16] 25/11 47/15
64/22 67/13 81/25
86/24 88/22 129/21
130/5 130/6 130/12
130/14 147/25 154/19!
170/15 170/17
better [6] 16/25 78/8
86/16 105/1 120/9
130/16
between [22] 3/8
3/10 11/8 15/14 21/20
21/25 26/4 26/23
33/13 52/15 68/14
97/16 105/24 107/25
108/12 125/21 133/9
136/24 140/21 149/19]
161/15 174/16
beyond [4] 15/21
24/1 52/19 169/1
big [7] 73/11 96/14
102/19 113/5 119/2
120/5 130/17
biggest [1] 120/6
bilateral [2] 78/18
78/18
bill [1] 58/24
ion [2] 140/24
142/18
binary [1] 82/5
BIS [4] 111/6 111/8
156/15 156/21
Bistrot [1] 174/14
bit [14] 14/11 37/4
44/10 54/6 84/11
101/23 105/1 119/20
146/12 146/15 150/3
164/3 164/11 181/18
bits [1] 55/1
blame [3] 15/9 90/2
114/22
blaming [1] 86/10
bland [1] 125/10
blandly [4] 98/11
blank [1] 49/11
blanket [1] 75/13
blood [2] 86/19 87/17
bloody [1] 84/6
blue [2] 16/5 90/8
bluster [1] 169/8
board [224]
Board's [11] 3/10
5/15 6/13 8/15 13/3
16/7 96/15 109/11
126/6 127/16 127/21
Boards [1] 97/15
Bogerd [6] 22/8 34/4
38/1 38/4 170/1 170/2I
Bond [2] 33/2 33/13
books [2] 31/10 32/1
bored [6] 169/7
173/10 173/11 173/22}
178/19 178/22
borne [1] 58/16
boss [1] 18/24
both [16] 5/5 7/4 7/9
8/24 12/1 14/7 42/21
70/6 77/1 104/15
104/16 122/16 133/19}
133/22 143/24 171/13}
bother [1] 147/22
bottom [20] 20/24
46/18 71/9 74/10 75/4
77/14 112/23 146/8
147/6 155/19 158/3
159/24 159/25 160/21
160/22 162/6 163/11
166/14 175/14 177/14}
bought [1] 162/11
bound [3] 86/5 86/6
89/14
Bourke [1] 168/17
boxed [3] 139/5
139/7 139/7
boxes [1] 142/21
brackets [1] 90/21
brain [1] 181/19
branch [13] 50/16
52/6 52/9 56/22 56/25)
107/3 108/20 108/22
108/24 109/5 109/8
109/8 166/1
branches [1] 157/1
brand [4] 93/16
94/24 99/8 178/1
breached [1] 5/3
break [10] 45/14
45/18 49/10 87/21
88/6 88/10 141/7
145/10 151/21 152/4
breakfast [1] 137/14
breaking [2] 98/24
119/1
breakup [1] 98/23
Brian [1] 14/14
bridge [1] 2/16
brief [3] 149/11
154/18 155/11
briefed [3] 91/4
154/23 155/13
briefing [26] 41/3
41/10 42/4 44/8 45/22
46/7 46/16 46/17
49/20 49/23 49/24
56/7 56/14 56/20
56/24 57/8 57/9 58/12)
58/14 61/2 61/5 77/25
102/10 130/21 131/9
142/8
Briefing’ [1] 56/18
briefly [7] 1/11 22/22
126/15 152/17 161/17)
167/22 170/23
bring [9] 60/12 95/8
105/25 106/1 109/1
123/18 146/23 164/10)
174/13
bringing [4] 13/23
77/19 98/21 171/2
brings [1] 181/21
British [1] 118/16
broad [2] 37/19
38/21
broadcast [5] 79/18
81/3 83/1 83/7 83/11
broadcasts [1] 82/16
broadened [1]
113/23
broke [1] 141/6
brought [7] 5/5 11/24)
40/15 101/10 117/9
165/1 174/16
bug [1] 108/18
bugs [16] 90/23
91/16 145/21 146/7
147/2 148/4 148/6
148/10 148/16 148/18)
150/8 150/19 151/1
151/3 151/8 151/11
build [1] 27/4
building [1] 133/20
bulk [1] 177/3
bullet [16] 27/12
61/12 94/18 95/1
95/14 99/20 147/6
150/5 150/6 154/4
164/14 164/15 165/5
165/14 165/16 166/15}
(50) BBC... - bullet
B
bulletin [2] 169/11
171/15
bumped [1] 167/3
business [38] 1/12
7/19 8/10 8/13 13/10
18/20 19/1 19/4 34/1
34/2 34/19 64/23
66/17 97/7 97/18
120/2 120/22 121/6
121/14 125/6 127/12
127/15 134/13 135/10
140/18 142/7 144/4
149/9 170/25 173/10
173/13 173/16 175/21
176/13 176/22 177/5
177/21 178/13
businesses [1] 117/1
but [177] 2/1 2/13 3/1
3/25 4/22 5/17 6/3
9/22 11/23 12/3 12/15
13/7 15/1 16/5 19/6
19/9 20/19 22/17 24/4
27/8 27/22 29/22 31/7
35/16 36/16 36/17
36/19 36/21 39/8
41/16 41/17 41/22
41/23 44/18 48/25
50/11 51/4 51/22
52/25 53/19 56/9 58/5
58/14 60/24 61/21
62/4 62/16 62/18
65/11 66/22 67/11
68/8 69/14 70/11
71/24 72/7 72/15 73/7,
73/9 73/22 74/2 74/4
74/20 76/12 76/14
76/17 77/10 78/7
78/19 79/5 80/17 82/1
82/20 82/23 84/25
86/21 87/7 89/10
90/18 90/25 92/14
92/19 93/21 100/3
105/18 105/22 110/15
114/6 114/8 117/14
119/1 119/2 120/15
121/13 121/23 121/23)
122/3 122/22 123/13
125/2 125/9 125/13
126/2 126/16 128/9
128/24 129/3 131/3
132/3 132/13 132/19
132/25 134/15 137/21
138/4 138/16 138/25
139/11 140/3 140/6
140/12 140/21 141/20
142/11 142/17 142/22)
143/9 144/17 146/11
147/8 147/10 148/8
148/20 150/9 151/2
151/17 151/24 153/7
153/25 154/12 154/19)
155/11 156/18 157/9
161/23 162/11 162/24,
163/4 163/21 164/14
164/21 165/7 166/3
166/7 166/14 166/23
168/20 168/24 169/7
170/9 170/11 170/16
171/9 172/1 172/3
173/5 173/17 173/22
174/22 174/24 175/7
178/1 178/4 178/5
179/11 180/13 181/15)
c
Cabinet [1] 79/7
Cable [1] 141/23
calibre [1] 71/23
call [17] 10/1 14/16
66/22 75/20 76/6
84/24 147/17 149/19
149/21 149/23 149/25)
152/25 153/25 179/24)
180/7 180/21 181/7
Callard [2] 18/22
26/11
called [2] 11/7 82/25
calling [1] 83/3
calls [1] 147/20
came [13] 3/21 4/20
16/5 16/5 41/25 44/8
50/4 69/13 109/11
112/6 131/6 151/15
169/4
campaign [1] 173/11
campaigning [4]
83/23 84/7 171/1
172/12
can [179] 1/16 1/18
2/9 6/6 6/7 6/9 6/10
6/15 8/5 9/8 15/6
15/13 15/16 18/13
18/15 18/16 19/11
20/4 20/12 22/14 28/5
29/10 30/1 30/3 30/7
33/19 33/21 37/2 37/4
37/9 38/24 40/21
40/22 42/1 45/16
46/12 46/14 46/16
50/8 50/12 50/14 51/6
53/1 54/13 55/13 56/2
59/24 62/22 65/16
66/5 66/6 66/9 74/9
77/14 79/24 79/25
80/22 81/14 81/19
82/8 82/10 85/3 85/4
86/9 87/21 88/15
92/17 94/9 94/10
99/17 100/15 101/23
104/9 104/14 105/7
106/1 106/2 106/16
106/18 109/13 110/9
112/11 113/4 115/15
118/6 118/12 118/23
119/12 119/21 122/16)
122/18 123/24 124/4
124/6 124/6 126/10
127/16 131/22 132/5
132/15 135/15 135/19!
137/11 139/16 139/24
145/9 145/22 146/7
146/11 146/15 146/22
147/3 147/11 148/19
148/21 148/23 149/18
149/21 152/11 153/4
153/9 153/12 153/14
153/22 153/25 154/1
154/6 155/16 156/9
158/2 158/3 158/4
159/10 159/11 159/23
160/1 160/1 160/5
161/12 161/19 161/20}
162/6 162/8 162/12
162/14 162/17 163/9
163/10 164/1 164/7
165/14 166/14 166/15}
167/19 168/11 168/13
169/19 169/19 169/25}
170/1 170/7 170/14
171/9 171/23 172/25
173/2 173/24 173/24
174/5 176/1 176/4
176/6 176/11 177/17
178/15 179/13 180/1
180/3 180/14
can't [42] 6/3 9/6 9/6
9/21 16/21 16/24
27/20 38/5 40/2 40/7
48/12 48/14 51/2
62/16 68/16 69/14
70/9 73/20 76/14
81/11 83/6 83/7 97/24
106/10 106/18 110/23
112/15 112/16 112/17
115/7 115/18 119/2
119/3 135/13 148/8
148/9 151/13 151/14
155/6 163/23 172/13
176/8
candidate [1] 69/21
candidates [1] 71/23
candour [1] 128/19
cannot [11] 28/13
68/8 112/22 125/13
126/8 126/16 131/3
142/20 144/12 150/14
173/3
capability [2] 19/21
108/6
capacity [2] 19/21
113/18
capture [1] 133/16
cards [1] 171/18
careful [1] 20/16
carried [5] 34/8 38/9
42/3 42/8 117/24
carry [1] 69/10
case [21] 7/6 31/4
31/25 36/15 39/17
63/12 64/13 75/14
85/5 91/2 91/18 99/7
105/14 106/24 107/14}
116/22 118/7 118/20
121/5 123/16 154/10
case-based [1] 39/17
cases [14] 11/12
33/6 83/2 85/1 85/19
85/21 86/3 90/13 92/4
98/20 113/14 124/10
147/7 147/10
cash [2] 175/19
175/21
catch [2] 154/1
168/22
categorically [2] 33/2!
126/12
caught [1] 89/14
cause [5] 4/2 60/18
61/14 61/17 86/24
caused [5] 5/4 25/22
61/16 109/6 117/4
causing [1] 62/7
caveated [4] 43/18
51/15 57/7 57/18
cc'd [1] 168/17
ceased [1] 114/21
central [3] 52/10
119/18 126/7
centrally [3] 50/15
52/5 52/9
Centre [1] 47/16
CEO [10] 19/23 20/17
25/13 27/13 76/5
142/25 143/4 143/18
162/1 173/22
certain [3] 19/14
30/23 129/25
certainly [16] 4/17
4/20 9/22 21/20 54/8
61/22 62/10 72/15
77/10 83/4 106/18
118/4 118/20 121/6
144/22 147/18
cetera [6] 7/7 19/17
126/22 126/22 127/10}
127/10
chain [4] 8/22 56/3
56/9 163/24
chair [13] 9/24 27/14
113/3 114/12 117/23
118/24 120/15 132/23}
138/2 138/2 138/3
140/15 178/13
Chairman [9] 47/1
60/20 76/5 78/10
79/12 88/21 91/5
92/10 94/11
challenge [7] 6/15
7/3 14/6 21/9 83/5
97/21 158/24
challenged [2] 30/12
96/22
challenges [3] 21/14
21/18 22/12
challenging [2] 47/18)
96/10
chance [3] 74/24
133/21 171/12
change [3] 128/12
134/2 165/18
changed [1] 150/14
changes [2] 47/10
48/8
changing [1] 109/7
chapter [1] 162/5
character [2] 89/12
89/25
characterisation [1]
22/10
characters [1] 31/7
charge [1] 134/11
chat [3] 75/23 76/2
76/11
chatting [1] 76/21
check [1] 88/14
checked [1] 101/13
checking [1] 70/15
Chief [8] 79/17 91/20
94/13 94/13 125/21
132/6 139/1 141/13
choice [2] 2/20 133/9
choose [1] 126/11
Chris [19] 2/4 2/4
7/22 13/15 30/20 45/8I
46/24 47/17 48/3
49/21 55/2 55/13
55/17 56/13 104/16
133/1 149/5 170/13
170/13
Christa [2] 37/7
51/12
Christmas [3] 41/15
49/14 171/18
CIO [1] 46/23
circulates [1] 170/1
circumstances [6]
4/4 23/23 28/13 43/8
85/4 89/14
civil [5] 10/21 79/6
79/8 122/23 143/15
claim [2] 30/18 90/1
claimed [1] 126/17
claims [10] 10/21
11/2 11/22 11/23
11/24 12/2 13/23
34/23 99/8 139/2
Clare [5] 78/24 79/5
80/8 80/9 80/16
clarify [1] 145/20
clarity [2] 7/23
128/19
Clarke [3] 91/14
114/16 135/8
clean [1] 58/24
clear [29] 2/25 8/17
8/23 10/19 11/19
12/20 29/1 29/7 32/7
33/5 44/4 44/21 48/15
(51) bulletin - clear
Cc
clear... [16] 64/15
70/20 75/1 76/13 93/4,
96/18 114/16 128/4
131/8 143/22 147/3
148/3 158/14 163/21
177/10 177/14
clearer [4] 11/20 20/7I
92/18 92/18
clearly [14] 29/3
41/16 58/15 58/20
59/19 74/4 76/11 89/3
89/20 93/11 104/18
119/1 131/6 143/3
clients [1] 98/9
clip [1] 170/15
clocked [1] 58/18
close [4] 60/12 123/7
147/20 171/17
closed [1] 62/18
clue [1] 93/3
clues [8] 92/14 92/22
92/23 92/24 93/2 93/5
93/5 95/23
Co [1] 88/18
coach [1] 143/8
coaching [1] 169/16
cock [1] 110/2
cock-up [1] 110/2
coincided [1] 141/24
cold [1] 87/2
collaborate [1] 122/7
collaborated [2]
170/21 171/1
colleagues [11]
18/24 24/20 24/21
24/22 44/5 77/21
128/4 128/5 128/15
129/19 173/18
colour [1] 131/19
column [1] 20/13
combination [2] 8/12
127/14
come [32] 6/9 11/7
11/15 27/22 28/5
30/21 32/7 39/7 39/11
40/21 43/23 44/13
52/22 55/1 55/4 59/6
66/5 73/7 80/5 91/23
105/21 109/19 130/15}
133/6 136/18 142/22
152/22 155/18 162/1
163/7 169/19 177/16
comes [3] 86/19
108/24 142/18
comfort [5] 34/1
34/19 36/2 50/14 55/2
comfortable [1]
133/22
comforting [1] 54/24
coming [9] 27/11
35/3 93/2 121/2
125/15 150/7 153/10
162/15 176/15
command [1] 126/18
commands [1]
126/15
commence [1]
133/17
comment [3] 42/25
66/1 81/9
commentary [5]
49/21 50/1 50/2 50/4
82/7
commentators [1]
86/6
commented [1]
43/15
commenting [1] 85/5
comments [4] 33/7
83/21 133/23 162/2
commercial [3] 23/9
97/8 98/18
commercially [1]
121/16
commission [7]
33/23 35/21 35/25
36/23 39/1 40/6
128/24
commissioned [2]
39/3 129/9
commissioning [1]
130/11
committed [1] 16/21
committee [22] 9/24
18/5 18/14 18/17
18/18 18/21 19/5 19/6
20/5 20/11 20/24 23/2
28/16 62/25 107/20
110/17 110/18 111/6
111/8 132/17 132/24
149/8
committees [1]
18/20
committing [1] 17/4
comms [3] 147/4
165/2 165/8
communicate [2]
73/9 73/11
communicated [2]
31/1 147/3
communications [10]
64/20 69/2 69/5 69/7
76/7 76/15 77/7 77/11
78/12 78/13
communities [1]
116/14
community [1] 77/2
companies [2] 98/18
116/2
company [17] 8/24
11/25 12/10 12/14
41/8 72/2 74/1 76/5
76/20 78/11 89/3 89/5)
97/8 97/17 98/21
127/6 133/3
compared [1] 120/13
compassionate [1]
99/1
compensation [3]
32/19 32/25 33/10
competing [1] 71/23
competition [1]
120/13
complement [1]
33/24
complete [8] 21/16
49/10 49/14 50/18
50/22 56/23 95/9
108/24
completely [14] 16/5
36/25 52/24 70/3 84/3
105/19 118/1 118/10
141/9 141/14 141/20
142/12 163/21 170/17
Completing [1] 63/11
complex [2] 2/20
4/11
complicit [1] 87/6
comprehensive [2]
8/17 39/1
computer [5] 65/5
90/5 93/1 150/9
165/24
con [1] 148/8
concealed [1] 17/21
concentrate [1]
124/7
concern [17] 4/2
9/16 10/7 11/13 12/11
16/7 22/11 22/13 24/4
25/22 25/25 30/19
51/12 53/9 90/19
109/4 157/5
concerned [19] 8/9
11/23 12/2 16/9 33/25)
34/18 47/3 62/13
68/20 77/10 86/4
127/11 129/6 136/7
142/25 157/7 173/18
173/19 178/15
concerning [2] 9/15
143/15
concerns [19] 4/7
8/15 9/2 10/20 17/25
23/24 24/16 26/3
64/25 91/20 127/17
127/22 128/16 128/21
129/12 162/2 164/17
165/6 177/11
conclude [2] 64/10
65/24
conclusion [3] 124/8
130/15 148/9
conclusions [4] 42/9
42/15 129/3 129/7
conduct [4] 16/24
29/11 30/1 109/24
conducted [1]
176/24
conductor [1] 136/15)
conference [1]
180/21
confess [1] 48/10
confident [3] 35/7
78/7 84/17
confidential [2]
19/24 86/3
confidentiality [6]
81/25 82/19 82/21
82/24 85/22 86/5
confirm [1] 28/10
confirmed [1] 166/1
conflict [1] 69/24
congratulating [1]
172/5
conjunction [1]
123/8
connected [3] 135/3
141/21 144/2
connection [10]
79/16 80/10 80/11
107/25 125/14 140/21
141/2 141/3 141/11
141/14
connections [1] 80/2
consensus [1] 20/18
consent [2] 57/21
57/24
consequence [2]
40/24 117/16
consequences [2]
32/16 106/3
consider [2] 80/14
88/25
considerable [3]
116/3 116/14 139/17
consideration [4]
20/16 62/8 62/11
94/21
considerations [1]
21/6
considered [3] 5/2
63/11 103/3
considering [1] 40/3
conspiracy [2] 110/2
110/6
constant [2] 3/18
109/21
constantly [1] 98/1
constituents [1]
74/24
constitute [2] 42/5
92/23
construed [1] 85/4
consultations [1]
109/18
contact [2] 43/12
80/5
contacting [1] 79/15
contacts [1] 43/13
contemplate [1]
178/14
contemporaneous
[3] 17/17 139/25
177/15
contemporaneously
[1] 159/16
content [4] 156/22
157/4 158/13 179/7
contention [1] 32/12
contentious [2]
132/4 136/18
context [16] 8/6
22/25 24/24 26/13
42/16 43/1 57/10 67/1
82/8 107/19 107/20
117/22 153/14 165/20)
166/10 176/25
contexts [1] 86/2
contextualise [1]
164/21
continuation [1]
141/5
continue [5] 13/2
111/18 139/13 139/13}
150/2
continued [6] 1/3 1/4
6/10 20/17 183/3
183/4
continues [2] 27/3
162/18
continuing [8] 4/5
9/16 10/7 10/20 11/16I
12/11 34/20 116/21
contract [3] 32/1
33/5 63/17
contracts [1] 111/19
contradiction [1]
143/18
contradicts [1] 33/1
contrary [1] 129/7
contribute [1] 73/1
contributed [2] 117/5
138/19
contributing [2]
83/20 83/21
control [8] 15/21
47/9 47/13 48/7 48/8
62/15 63/19 65/8
control’ [1] 64/6
controls [3] 39/4
47/16 54/17
conversation [9]
6/20 17/9 27/23 29/13}
79/5 86/7 130/17
151/7 180/17
conversations [10]
12/17 26/14 26/15
27/18 29/16 29/25
31/15 77/9 78/18
89/10
convicted [3] 80/25
136/21 152/9
convictions [5] 87/7
91/6 91/10 143/16
152/10
convinced [1] 105/19)
copied [13] 1/18
(62) clear... - copied
Cc
copied... [12] 78/15
78/17 82/12 132/19
133/3 164/8 165/12
165/19 169/22 170/11
170/13 171/9
copies [2] 54/21
172/22
copy [2] 123/17
123/18
copying [1] 171/20
cordon [1] 139/4
corporate [4] 64/20
99/1 118/9 143/8
correct [2] 43/6 99/5
corrected [1] 136/1
correspondence [3]
30/21 78/19 79/2
cost [4] 45/10 48/1
64/8 64/25
costs [11] 7/6 8/9
16/10 64/6 64/15
95/16 99/23 101/5
101/6 127/11 134/9
cosy [4] 70/1 70/2
70/16 72/10
coterie [1] 22/7
could [81] 5/7 6/8 7/7
14/21 29/12 32/25
33/3 33/10 43/19
43/19 47/23 49/12
64/12 65/22 69/24
78/7 82/6 84/12 85/15}
86/16 90/23 90/25
94/13 94/18 95/4
103/16 105/13 105/13)
106/22 106/24 107/7
107/12 107/14 109/4
109/5 109/7 111/2
111/17 120/17 121/18)
121/23 122/24 123/4
123/15 125/10 130/3
131/14 132/3 132/13
132/17 132/19 133/4
137/19 142/10 146/23
148/24 150/25 153/13}
153/19 154/5 156/18
157/12 157/13 157/19}
157/20 157/21 157/24
159/20 165/7 166/13
166/23 168/12 168/13)
169/1 169/23 174/23
176/10 177/22 178/13}
180/9 180/10
couldn't [8] 10/19
15/24 49/16 59/5
84/15 91/8 146/3
174/19
counsel [12] 92/7
92/8 102/3 104/16
105/3 123/9 123/14
124/20 125/4 125/22
139/14 151/6
count [2] 39/24 39/25]
counter [1] 108/20
counts [1] 86/14
couple [5] 60/15 61/1
7AI17 146/13 149/11
course [17] 19/15
22/20 63/21 63/22
63/23 67/13 107/9
110/25 132/21 137/4
138/21 140/16 141/24)
148/22 153/18 174/5
178/4
court [1] 5/4
courts [1] 5/13
cover [6] 6/25 34/3
37/25 38/4 152/14
157/1
coverage [2] 7/9 68/2)
covered [10] 49/24
96/19 110/21 114/23
117/14 129/11 129/11
152/17 164/23 167/21
covering [4] 49/20
51/23 55/3 57/12
covers [1] 147/16
CQRs [1] 32/21
craft [1] 126/17
create [1] 69/2
created [2] 41/11
69/10
creates [1] 106/2
credit [1] 86/17
Crichton [14] 15/9
15/19 17/4 17/18
102/3 104/15 104/21
133/24 135/6 135/10
136/15 137/8 155/5
155/8
Crichton's [1] 137/4
crime [6] 16/14 16/22
17/2 17/4 89/13 90/3
criminal [9] 5/2 33/6
80/25 91/10 101/20
122/23 124/18 132/9
135/6
criminalising [1]
178/11
critic [1] 86/14
critically [1] 65/2
Crowe [5] 82/12
84/23 85/8 168/16
169/25
Crown [1] 116/8
culture [1] 103/23
cumulative [1] 101/6
cumulatively [1]
92/22
curated [1] 125/21
current [8] 19/21
30/13 43/3 65/23
65/23 118/21 125/12
160/25
currently [4] 52/16
57/6 90/19 117/3
D
damage [2] 98/24
116/24
damages [3] 99/23
122/24 139/2
damaging [1] 99/8
danger [1] 99/2
daring [1] 87/1
data [9] 4/5 34/6 38/7
50/23 53/17 54/5
55/11 109/3 109/8
date [5] 47/12 62/16
67/21 140/3 174/15
dated [3] 45/24 60/25
61/11
Davies [30] 22/8 66/7
66/7 66/16 67/17
68/22 68/23 73/13
73/18 75/23 75/25
76/8 76/20 77/17
78/12 79/15 80/10
80/23 81/20 82/10
83/14 86/12 87/8
87/11 152/21 156/16
164/8 168/2 168/16
172/5
Davies’ [3] 72/19
165/11 167/21
day [20] 2/5 7/22
13/15 41/11 67/10
67/16 67/23 89/11
96/19 97/6 97/6 105/3
114/23 120/23 133/1
146/13 149/2 156/7
168/2 169/22
days [13] 31/9 32/2
32/6 32/10 61/1 75/22}
117/9 117/11 149/11
159/8 176/20 178/23
181/24
de [2] 133/13 135/11
de-risked [2] 133/13
135/11
deal [12] 12/3 44/17
110/15 113/6 120/9
126/14 128/6 128/12
159/7 165/8 167/4
179/5
dealing [5] 46/20
75/10 75/14 132/21
132/25
dealt [2] 139/8
139/12
Dear [1] 56/15
debate [2] 82/15
158/16
December [7] 80/22
81/20 167/25 168/6
168/14 171/10 172/22
December 2014 [1]
167/25
decide [2] 121/18
144/10
decided [6] 63/24
65/7 92/2 124/20
130/12 134/15
deciding [1] 100/23
decision [22] 35/21
37/18 40/24 65/10
69/13 69/14 72/22
73/1 73/3 73/8 95/5
95/7 100/1 100/24
100/24 101/9 101/9
103/19 103/20 103/20}
114/17 137/15
decisions [10] 72/19
72/21 73/4 73/13
73/15 93/19 94/1
95/15 101/13 103/2
dedicated [1] 147/5
deeds [2] 86/16
86/22
defeat [1] 87/3
defence [1] 95/15
defendants [1]
136/21
defending [2] 110/3
118/18
defensive [1] 67/5
definitely [2] 4/7
162/3
definitive [4] 6/23
7/14 10/17 148/9
delay [1] 10/4
delegate [1] 95/8
delegated [1] 101/21
deleted [4] 165/20
166/8 166/10 166/13
deliberate [1] 110/7
deliberately [1] 17/24
deliver [7] 21/2 23/8
25/15 35/5 42/7 54/20)
121/11
deliverable [1] 21/4
delivered [1] 35/5
delivering [4] 4/25
5/10 55/10 121/16
delivery [3] 25/13
120/10 121/21
Deloitte [27] 39/3
39/7 39/25 40/22
40/23 43/22 44/1 45/5)
45/22 46/24 47/8
47/20 48/17 49/17
50/9 50/24 55/20 57/8
57/21 58/9 58/23 59/6
59/13 61/10 114/2
129/24 130/19
Deloitte's [1] 47/5
Deloittes [3] 41/4
46/9 56/17
demanding [2] 8/11
127/13
demonstrate [3] 8/14
127/16 127/21
demonstrated [1]
128/14
demonstration [1]
128/13
den [6] 22/8 34/4
38/1 38/4 170/1 170/2I
denials [1] 142/1
deny [1] 126/15
denying [3] 110/18
111/9 168/23
department [14]
18/20 19/1 19/4 19/6
20/9 21/12 26/5 26/20I
26/24 27/15 27/19
29/24 122/8 144/4
Department's [1]
20/4
departments [7]
119/16 119/23 121/20)
122/1 122/2 122/5
122/6
depended [2] 106/10
106/11
dependence [1]
177/23
dependency [1] 2/24
dependent [1]
118/22
depends [3] 14/11
125/8 125/8
depth [1] 106/15
describe [4] 2/17
78/9 92/14 173/12
described [7] 42/19
50/11 104/19 118/18
144/5 163/4 174/25
describes [2] 37/16
38/20
describing [3] 25/1
37/21 39/10
description [2] 45/6
54/12
design [1] 42/10
designed [4] 50/21
52/8 54/20 55/10
desire [1] 127/5
desk [1] 165/11
desktop [10] 39/4
42/17 51/8 51/9 51/15)
54/16 55/6 55/8 57/6
57/16
desperate [1] 98/22
despite [1] 112/22
destruction [1]
124/17
detail [18] 21/7 25/20
76/14 85/1 85/19
85/21 91/1 97/24 98/5)
105/12 147/1 153/25
156/10 170/6 170/9
170/24 179/10 179/12)
detailed [3] 29/16
56/16 181/23
details [2] 48/11
148/15
detected [2] 124/13
(53) copied... - detected
D
detected... [1] 150/20
detrimental [1]
105/24
devastating [3] 116/3)
116/8 116/23
develop [1] 120/17
developing [1] 119/8
developments [1]
25/17
devotions [1] 86/23
diaries [1] 151/4
diary [4] 75/22
174/13 174/21 176/7
Dickinson [2] 33/2
33/13
did [91] 1/10 1/14
3/14 4/21 4/21 7/22
16/1 17/24 20/2 21/11
21/15 21/24 22/11
23/15 23/20 24/11
28/6 29/4 31/12 34/17,
36/20 39/1 39/6 39/11
39/11 39/18 42/4 45/5
57/15 58/9 59/4 59/5
59/13 61/16 70/9 72/4
72/18 73/12 74/6 77/4
78/17 78/24 80/5
80/19 84/19 87/9
88/20 88/22 88/23
88/25 91/4 91/23
91/25 96/12 98/5
98/15 99/4 100/23
102/17 103/8 106/13
107/1 109/19 109/19
109/20 110/4 110/11
110/22 112/4 112/7
112/24 117/19 123/2
128/23 128/23 128/25}
129/9 129/18 130/19
133/6 137/6 138/21
139/15 140/2 143/5
167/13 171/24 172/9
172/24 173/13 173/16}
didn't [65] 4/22 10/17)
11/21 13/17 13/18
17/7 17/8 22/13 31/4
31/4 31/8 31/24 31/25
32/4 58/14 70/2 74/4
74/8 84/25 85/13
89/12 91/8 91/11 92/6
96/22 99/5 99/9 99/11
101/11 102/15 102/15}
104/6 104/11 104/20
107/25 111/24 111/25}
113/17 123/18 128/6
128/24 129/17 129/18}
130/8 130/22 130/23
131/1 134/25 137/5
137/21 137/23 138/11
139/18 139/21 139/23}
140/20 158/2 158/4
158/6 158/9 167/14
180/10
differ [1] 25/24
difference [4] 33/12
102/19 105/23 114/7
different [23] 2/13
3/21 14/25 21/22
26/20 29/8 34/24
35/19 35/19 38/17
47/24 59/6 89/22
99/11 100/15 108/9
117/10 118/2 126/11
131/20 136/8 144/1
173/20
differently [1] 178/25
difficult [12] 2/13
25/18 30/13 30/15
78/6 97/16 110/1
110/9 120/11 122/6
139/11 177/25
difficulties [1] 92/15
dig [1] 40/7
digital [1] 129/10
direct [5] 43/12 78/11
78/11 78/13 104/17
direction [1] 73/18
directly [6] 41/5
77/17 105/21 112/1
128/10 171/20
Director [8] 18/12
18/23 26/12 69/2
79/13 79/14 79/17
106/7
Directorate [1] 69/7
directors [11] 2/2 8/8
10/4 14/20 26/16 27/5)
27/10 78/14 94/12
137/14 178/17
directorships [1]
171/13
disappointed [1]
43/17
disappointing [5]
59/11 59/12 121/1
122/9 126/4
disappointment [3]
45/4 121/1 121/25
disbanded [2] 63/19
63/24
disclosed [5] 1/10
41/13 50/5 147/10
174/21
disclosure [8] 1/13
72/21 73/14 90/20
132/9 135/6 136/21
143/19
disclosures [1]
130/23
discover [1] 55/9
discrepancy [3]
108/21 108/25 109/6
discuss [4] 83/3
104/14 133/21 150/1
discussed [18] 16/3
170/14 174/11 176/23)
19/20 32/20 52/21
101/3 104/13 111/7
114/2 117/8 130/20
132/11 133/8 137/8
137/12 141/8 143/24
164/4 165/21
discussing [2] 96/17
107/19
discussion [19] 3/15
6/22 9/19 44/6 59/20
60/12 102/9 108/11
137/19 137/22 137/24
138/14 138/19 159/7
163/15 163/15
discussions [4]
129/15 129/22 141/12
143/3
disgraceful [2]
124/21 125/4
display [3] 37/2 41/6
46/16
displayed [1] 46/3
displaying [1] 14/3
pute [2] 80/7 89/9
disrepute [2] 170/22
171/2
dissatisfaction [1]
65/20
distinct [1] 113/10
distracting [1]
142/10
distraction [2] 8/10
127/12
distressing [1] 32/21
ribution [1] 157/1
diversion [1] 65/1
do [103] 2/10 2/11
2/24 6/24 6/25 7/21
10/16 11/21 12/19
12/20 16/12 17/18
18/18 26/5 26/23
30/16 30/19 31/15
37/17 38/3 39/17
44/10 45/4 51/10
51/17 54/5 58/3 59/3
65/12 67/7 70/14 72/5
72/7 73/8 73/17 77/11
80/10 80/16 83/9
85/19 86/12 86/22
89/23 92/11 93/8
93/12 93/15 93/18
93/24 95/3 96/11
100/1 103/4 104/23
104/24 105/9 106/4
107/1 110/5 110/10
110/20 112/4 112/9
114/22 117/4 123/22
128/9 128/21 128/23
132/20 134/9 134/23
138/2 138/8 138/9
138/9 138/17 138/25
140/19 141/20 142/23
143/8 143/17 144/20
129/20 137/15 137/17]
147/13 148/8 150/25
151/7 152/13 158/1
159/2 167/3 168/9
170/15 171/2 172/3
173/4 173/19 173/20
173/25 178/18 180/5
180/16
document [31] 14/3
21/21 37/3 41/6 41/9
46/20 50/8 94/9
108/10 123/13 124/6
131/11 136/3 144/17
164/1 164/23 164/24
168/13 174/12 180/13}
181/10
documentation [6]
42/19 43/16 50/20
52/7 143/22 151/15
documents [18]
14/23 15/11 17/21
24/7 40/21 46/12
50/25 51/10 62/17
124/18 125/11 125/23}
127/4 128/2 128/2
152/24 163/22 177/15}
dodgy [3] 84/25
85/18 85/20
doer [1] 86/16
does [25] 8/13 17/1
17/17 39/6 48/23
52/22 60/6 60/11
60/18 61/14 68/19
75/3 86/1 86/21 87/7
100/16 125/11 127/15}
138/5 139/13 139/13
144/23 154/25 161/8
163/14
doesn't [9] 39/25
41/21 53/14 56/9 96/1
122/7 131/1 144/24
145/9
doing [18] 7/1 7/4
14/7 36/22 45/10 58/6
59/23 62/12 66/24
79/14 85/16 93/21
93/22 112/24 114/1
129/21 130/14 134/20}
dominance [1] 4/3
don't [108] 1/21 2/19
7/25 9/19 11/14 19/3
19/10 20/3 21/15
21/19 22/6 22/10 26/2,
27/9 27/10 36/19
38/24 39/23 40/1
41/23 41/24 45/2 45/3
49/5 51/4 53/8 53/18
54/10 58/13 60/24
60/24 68/9 73/20
73/24 76/10 76/17
76/22 77/8 77/8 79/4
79/22 81/16 81/18
41/13 42/4 45/25 46/6
124/15 124/16 126/25)
155/16 159/23 161/12)
82/3 82/9 83/17 90/18
90/24 95/2 95/20
101/12 103/3 105/6
106/17 112/7 118/11
118/20 121/10 121/22!
123/22 124/23 124/23)
127/25 131/16 134/1
137/11 139/21 140/3
140/21 141/3 143/7
143/21 148/5 148/10
148/18 148/20 151/9
153/16 153/25 156/1
156/9 156/18 157/9
157/18 158/10 158/21
158/24 159/3 159/12
161/18 162/19 163/4
163/5 163/6 163/12
167/5 170/8 170/23
172/1 172/2 173/5
174/22 175/5 175/17
176/5 176/15 178/6
179/10
done [39] 12/6 12/7
12/7 17/8 17/19 35/9
35/20 40/4 44/7 48/17)
50/25 51/22 53/11
53/16 53/23 54/4 54/4
59/7 61/20 69/18
72/16 76/7 81/17
86/16 91/4 91/12 92/9
105/9 105/20 116/17
116/24 117/17 119/21
138/17 139/22 169/4
172/2 172/5 173/1
doubt [3] 23/24 107/4I
150/11
doubts [3] 24/13
36/15 65/4
down [46] 1/17 6/9
6/16 10/9 14/4 28/5
30/10 39/16 40/21
42/13 44/25 55/14
56/12 59/5 62/18 66/5I
66/12 77/25 78/4
81/19 94/7 94/11
94/14 94/18 95/4
95/11 95/12 95/14
98/24 103/25 111/3
118/8 124/4 129/23
129/24 130/16 146/8
146/9 146/22 146/24
147/6 147/14 149/22
150/5 153/13 165/14
Downing [1] 66/22
downplay [1] 136/25
draft [11] 47/1 56/17
60/1 60/25 143/25
144/3 154/11 154/16
164/16 179/22 180/9
drafted [2] 77/21
100/10
drafting [1] 135/7
draw [5] 54/23 57/15
97/23 148/9 159/12
(64) detected... - draw
D
drawn [4] 52/20
54/18 70/21 81/9
dreadful [3] 171/5
172/15 172/19
drop [1] 80/16
dropped [2] 117/25
126/5
due [4] 63/21 63/22
63/23 82/20
duelling [2] 82/15
83/15
during [13] 11/5
29/11 30/2 64/15
92/10 92/13 112/24
117/23 118/4 118/23
139/15 175/24 178/12)
dust [2] 86/18 87/17
duties [7] 5/4 94/14
94/16 95/1 96/25
97/20 132/9
duty [2] 88/25 89/2
dynamite [3] 138/20
139/4 139/8
E
each [5] 30/18 46/12
63/12 75/13 145/22
earlier [13] 34/23
43/21 46/8 51/9 55/19
56/10 130/23 131/19
133/18 144/18 146/2
160/9 163/22
early [15] 4/20 32/6
32/10 80/17 98/13
102/2 102/7 102/20
103/25 132/5 133/12
135/7 154/24 171/11
174/1
earn [1] 167/13
earned [2] 143/5
167/8
earth [1] 70/5
easier [2] 142/19
169/14
easy [2] 106/5 169/6
echo [1] 161/25
editor [1] 82/25
Edwards [6] 91/1
156/16 163/1 164/8
165/7 166/7
effect [4] 42/24 58/6
100/25 136/5
effective [1] 151/3
effectively [5] 64/21
101/20 118/16 121/4
121/8
effects [1] 101/1
effort [2] 86/20 122/1
efforts [2] 112/23
113/3
eg [1] 150/25
either [11] 6/8 19/6
28/9 37/1 85/14 85/25)
117/15 125/11 128/9
138/13 163/22
elaborate [1] 119/3
election [6] 60/17
61/13 61/24 61/24
62/2 62/5
element [1] 164/22
ELIZABETH [2] 1/3
183/3
else [12] 7/20 13/19
16/19 68/8 68/16
85/25 100/25 121/7
125/9 138/13 162/22
176/13
elsewhere [1] 164/24
email [61] 1/17 1/20
1/20 6/16 7/23 12/22
15/13 15/16 28/16
28/23 41/17 41/21
46/5 49/20 49/25
51/23 55/13 55/19
56/3 57/12 58/11 74/6
74/12 75/16 76/18
77/17 87/9 87/10
90/17 91/8 91/11
91/12 135/21 143/23
146/9 146/14 146/15
147/11 147/23 148/4
148/12 148/25 149/13)
151/10 153/15 153/22)
155/17 155/17 155/20)
159/14 160/1 163/24
167/7 168/14 171/8
171/9 179/15 180/1
180/2 180/19 181/4
emailed [3] 41/7
41/10 46/6
emailing [1] 81/20
emails [8] 56/10
66/10 140/11 143/2
146/6 148/24 153/7
156/1
emanated [1] 107/5
embarking [1]
135/11
embedded [2]
126/15 126/18
embroidering [1]
125/2
embroiled [1] 83/22
emerge [2] 11/8
11/18
emergence [1] 142/1
eminently [1] 70/6
Emma [1] 162/12
emphasised [1]
169/4
employed [1] 134/12
employees [2] 84/14
116/9
employing [1] 129/23)
Employment [1]
68/13
enable [1] 48/1
enables [1] 26/6
encouraged [1]
128/10
end [9] 53/3 71/2
71/7 86/24 89/15
117/20 149/7 166/19
181/21
ended [3] 39/18
51/15 63/20
ends [1] 86/8
energy [2] 120/7
130/1
engage [1] 78/1
engaged [3] 83/19
94/25 95/20
engagement [4] 42/5
63/20 134/8 177/4
engages [2] 95/25
170/2
enormous [2] 91/5
91/9
enough [4] 8/11
104/11 127/13 157/1
enquiring [1] 144/18
Enright [1] 145/21
ensure [2] 34/13
162/4
entered [1] 79/4
enthusiasms [1]
86/22
entire [1] 42/23
entirely [7] 33/5 75/9
98/15 114/20 142/7
162/23 166/8
entity [1] 87/5
entrenched [1] 84/7
entry [3] 108/22
174/21 176/7
environment [1] 73/5
envisaged [1] 65/25
episode [1] 168/6
epithets [1] 126/5
eradicate [1] 140/18
Ernst [3] 39/23
107/20 108/1
error [1] 86/21
errs [1] 86/19
escalate [1] 154/18
especially [1] 168/24
essentially [15] 3/18
4/16 9/2 22/15 28/9
40/23 51/10 62/14
63/21 66/7 71/2 77/25
89/11 91/14 166/21
establish [2] 23/10
36/3
established [2] 131/5I
131/6
estate [1] 3/5
estimate [1] 64/8
et [6] 7/7 19/17
126/22 126/22 127/10
127/10
et cetera [6] 7/7
19/17 126/22 126/22
127/10 127/10
ete [2] 124/15 160/24
euphemism [2]
124/16 124/21
euphemisms [1]
127/13
even [16] 12/11
69/23 75/25 112/8
119/1 130/8 131/23
134/24 135/7 138/22
141/6 141/8 156/4
157/4 163/23 176/14
evening [2] 168/5
168/18
event [1] 43/4
events [5] 17/13
22/20 105/9 137/25
138/2
ever [11] 3/14 28/6
31/23 33/12 65/25
112/6 122/14 126/16
128/9 141/13 148/10
every [7] 18/5 81/8
83/1 98/5 101/12
132/2 167/24
everybody [3] 5/19
5/25 28/4
everybody's [1]
10/15
everyone [1] 8/5
everything [5] 54/1
96/7 102/7 110/24
169/4
evidence [27] 5/1
5/13 15/7 30/25 32/23
34/14 36/10 36/17
51/9 60/13 61/6 64/14)
64/24 89/9 91/19
104/21 111/5 114/20
117/9 118/4 131/3
138/25 150/8 163/7
168/4 180/19 181/24
evidenced [1] 128/8
exact [2] 62/16 140/3
exactly [8] 9/22 27/2
40/2 70/17 76/10 77/8
83/17 169/13
examination [1] 31/6
examine [4] 1/11
6/10 20/21 166/4
examining [1] 1/9
example [9] 22/9
24/2 39/21 126/21
128/18 135/2 140/1
152/22 170/24
examples [1] 128/3
except [4] 18/5 52/11
54/17 165/15
exceptional [2] 43/5
52/13
exceptions [1]
145/24
exchange [5] 1/20
15/13 67/24 74/7
87/10
exchanged [1]
159/16
exchanges [2] 12/22
161/15
excited [1] 68/1
excuse [3] 16/18
16/25 126/6
executive [33] 2/2
8/8 10/4 14/1 14/20
18/5 18/21 18/22
19/13 20/9 20/22
21/13 24/22 26/12
26/16 27/20 31/19
75/17 78/14 84/18
91/20 94/12 94/13
99/15 105/11 106/7
123/8 125/21 128/5
132/6 137/14 139/1
178/17
executives [17] 3/21
5/9 5/14 5/18 9/21
96/7 97/20 99/14
101/22 103/2 103/7
103/9 104/1 104/9
105/25 106/6 130/9
executives’ [2] 4/25
6/3
exercise [4] 39/4
42/17 43/23 133/15
exercised [1] 69/5
exel ing [1] 97/16
exert [1] 79/21
existence [3] 42/22
79/19 145/21
existing [2] 36/4
42/21
expand [2] 116/7
154/5
expect [5] 33/3
125/14 133/12 162/23)
170/15
expectation [2] 11/8
64/16
expected [5] 21/2
45/6 106/23 107/13
121/2
expecting [1] 147/21
experience [5] 69/9
70/6 72/23 112/13
143/7
experienced [1] 66/2
experiences [1]
133/10
experiencing [2]
81/1 168/3
expert [3] 5/1 5/12
147/4
expertise [1] 105/17
explain [8] 28/20
44/18 49/12 111/13
1417/6 122/1 132/5
(65) drawn - explain
E
explain... [1] 133/7
explained [12] 33/12
33/14 47/2 47/7 47/17
71/22 98/3 99/14
102/3 104/18 111/24
137/17
explaining [3] 8/5
34/5 38/2
explanatory [2]
133/7 135/19
explicitly [2] 54/18
70/21
exploitative [1] 3/5
explore [3] 5/21 13/2
176/1
exploring [2] 135/24
136/3
expose [3] 12/14
12/15 132/8
exposure [3] 3/3
34/22 35/4
express [1] 30/17
expressed [5] 30/20
47/5 59/8 65/21 91/20)
expressing [2] 9/3
76/1
expression [1]
135/23
expressly [1] 57/8
extend [1] 2/15
extensive [1] 130/2
extent [8] 1/9 13/2
62/7 72/18 73/12
73/17 73/22 118/22
external [6] 14/10
14/12 105/20 106/1
147/4 154/10
extra [2] 102/22
105/14
extracts [1] 50/21
extraordinary [3]
29/19 126/4 143/17
extremely [3] 43/25
94/5 142/24
extricate [1] 4/1
Eye [2] 90/5 92/25
eyes [3] 106/6
150/17 169/17
F
face [8] 60/25 86/18
91/3 91/13 91/24
128/5 180/2 180/13
faced [3] 113/6 113/7
178/2
facility [2] 28/18 54/5
facing [2] 65/13
107/2
fact [27] 2/11 6/5
15/18 16/3 18/4 40/4
40/17 55/14 57/15
60/23 90/9 114/13
117/18 126/2 132/12
134/21 139/18 140/5
141/4 143/13 144/12
146/13 168/23 169/5
175/20 180/1 181/15
factors [1] 73/5
facts [2] 84/4 139/23
failed [3] 21/2 25/15
27/4
fails [2] 86/25 87/1
failure [4] 15/10
17/18 82/20 117/7
failures [7] 64/14
110/3 116/1 116/7
116/12 117/5 117/6
fair [7] 22/6 22/10
61/4 96/8 161/7 163/2
165/8
fallout [2] 6/10 61/21
false [3] 5/12 143/13
169/10
falsely [2] 121/8
121/10
familiar [3] 85/8
117/2 168/19
families [4] 98/23
98/25 116/5 116/9
famous [1] 126/21
far [19] 8/13 31/22
36/9 37/15 40/4 44/1
44/6 62/12 77/10
97/23 127/14 141/8
151/3 153/3 164/11
173/17 173/18 178/15)
178/15
faring [1] 117/3
fault [2] 116/19
135/17
Faults [1] 175/10
favourable [1] 80/7
features [2] 42/23
56/20
February [10] 20/5
20/12 23/17 23/19
27/6 28/16 30/5 61/1
68/14 110/17
Fed [1] 160/18
feedback [1] 26/17
feel [3] 2/24 13/17
45/5
feeling [4] 4/25 23/7
76/17 87/15
feels [1] 86/5
fees [1] 118/17
feet [1] 177/22
fellow [9] 29/20
41/18 44/20 84/17
90/8 92/19 124/22
131/7 178/17
felt [7] 4/18 5/9 24/19
25/3 25/6 58/13 59/21
few [9] 43/21 115/5
124/11 151/24 153/7
153/9 154/21 155/22
157/3
field [1] 143/7
fifth [1] 107/10
fight [2] 162/11
162/18
fighting [5] 83/25
84/2 128/15 177/1
177/2
figure [1] 108/20
fill [1] 69/2
filled [4] 19/14
final [5] 56/17 82/13
144/9 154/16 173/24
finally [3] 110/13
118/14 152/23
Finance [1] 47/16
finances [1] 118/21
financial [10] 3/3
18/11 81/23 82/9
85/25 94/13 98/23
119/4 120/14 120/18
find [10] 25/1 29/18
29/25 56/13 56/17
65/17 82/6 125/25
126/2 168/13
findings [4] 42/9
42/15 43/1 57/10
fine [8] 88/3 115/20
136/2 136/10 136/13
149/14 173/8 179/8
fine' [4] 72/1
finished [2] 41/13
147/8
firm [2] 36/17 164/21
first [32] 9/25 10/20
31/21 37/10 41/15
44/17 47/7 49/6 49/7
54/25 55/1 74/18 88/7
88/12 88/20 96/15
113/7 113/13 114/15
145/20 146/18 152/16
152/24 156/6 158/10
163/23 164/14 164/15}
165/5 172/4 174/17
180/6
Firstly [2] 46/13 75/6
fit [3] 149/17 162/16
163/14
five [3] 48/22 50/10
50/11
flag [4] 15/23 154/12
154/17 155/9
flagging [1] 17/25
flags [1] 92/11
flak [2] 72/7 72/10
flaws [1] 124/12
Flemington [2] 135/5
156/17
flex [1] 138/10
float [1] 141/18
floated [3] 105/18
140/5 142/15
flotation [6] 140/1
140/22 140/23 141/10}
142/10 153/5
flourishing [1]
121/19
focus [4] 12/10 159/4I
164/25 168/24
focused [2] 49/9
57/13
focuses [1] 56/20
focusing [2] 164/15
165/5
fog [1] 181/19
follow [5] 44/9 59/4
59/10 82/20 157/7
follow-up [1] 59/4
followed [4] 58/17
71/22 96/21 114/4
following [11] 6/20
31/2 42/16 45/7 49/15)
69/3 72/18 88/18
94/17 95/6 147/17
follows [1] 99/21
foot [5] 7/16 15/16
33/22 34/16 120/9
footing [2] 120/9
130/12
forced [1] 136/20
forensic [1] 129/10
forgive [1] 100/8
forgotten [1] 149/3
formal [1] 42/7
former [1] 68/24
forthcoming [1] 45/7
forward [7] 29/10
37/8 59/24 67/20 70/5
95/9 164/5
forwarded [1] 147/12
forwards [2] 19/11
22/14
fought [1] 128/20
found [11] 9/12 13/11
23/23 30/19 32/9
36/10 44/1 150/19
166/2 169/14 173/7
four [4] 112/24
130/17 154/2 166/14
fourth [4] 60/16
61/12 154/4 161/12
framed [1] 36/7
framework [2] 47/9
48/8
framing [1] 28/24
Franklin [3] 1/17 1/19)
2/2
Franklin's [1] 3/8
frankly [1] 82/15
freer [1] 149/14
fresh [2] 133/11
174/18
Friday [2] 82/25
147/13
front [3] 99/18 120/9
171/24
frustrating [1] 13/20
frustration [1] 10/18
Fujitsu [26] 1/13 2/12!
2/15 2/20 2/23 3/9
3/11 3/23 4/5 4/10
4/14 5/1 5/12 5/16
5/19 5/25 43/10 52/13
53/10 53/14 90/22
91/15 108/12 108/21
150/12 150/22
Fujitsu's [1] 54/3
fulfil [3] 7/1 97/24
140/16
fulfilled [1] 96/17
full [18] 42/3 54/18
56/22 63/2 104/20
104/23 106/4 128/11
129/6 129/9 131/11
131/16 131/18 132/7
143/21 143/21 166/6
169/8
fully [6] 77/24 102/16
125/5 125/5 130/7
130/8
function [3] 69/5
96/3 96/6
functioning [1]
102/16
fund [1] 64/1
fundamental [1]
124/12
fundamentally [1]
124/11
funding [5] 118/17
140/15 140/20 160/16)
160/19
further [25] 6/10 6/21
35/21 36/19 44/6
45/10 48/16 48/20
58/7 75/3 75/16 82/16
95/4 102/9 103/10
114/14 115/2 115/4
145/5 151/19 163/9
175/12 179/1 179/9
183/10
future [9] 2/22 2/24
3/4 32/8 103/17
133/10 173/15 173/17
177/18
G
gained [1] 67/12
game [1] 120/12
games [1] 83/6
gap [2] 11/8 64/16
gaps [2] 42/20 42/24
Gareth [15] 44/21
45/7 46/23 47/1 47/12)
47/25 48/3 58/16
58/21 92/5 92/25
136/5 137/1 138/22
142/2
gave [4] 25/8 30/5
104/10 168/4
Gavin [1] 168/16
geld [1] 136/25
(66) explain... - geld
G
23/7 79/13 79/14
104/16 105/3 111/22
123/8 123/14 124/9
124/20 125/4 125/21
generalisation [1]
96/14
generally [2] 11/3
53/22
generate [1] 109/5
generated [4] 50/15
52/5 52/9 57/1
genesis [1] 62/20
genuine [1] 121/11
get [41] 1/10 1/14
11/20 13/12 13/19
15/24 26/5 28/9 29/1
85/1 97/23 98/5
113/11 122/6 123/12
128/19 130/1 137/18
147/2 149/5 149/12
153/3 160/18 166/14
gets [4] 37/23 71/2
71/7 88/4
getting [10] 80/14
80/18 85/18 105/17
120/22 159/5 162/20
Gibson [6] 158/20
161/15 161/21 162/9
162/13 162/21
Gilliland [3] 18/8
18/10 18/11
give [23] 13/19 14/15
20/16 22/25 24/9
33/25 34/18 36/2
36/23 45/5 47/8 63/24
65/16 74/18 76/21
87/7 102/22 104/11
104/20 112/15 128/10)
153/14 163/7
given [32] 5/1 5/12
10/20 11/3 14/15
14/18 15/1 17/10 23/2)
33/13 43/25 44/4
47/23 55/23 57/4
58/15 60/1 60/23
61/11 64/3 69/11
70/11 74/23 103/2
103/12 104/17 104/18}
109/21 135/4 158/19
172/15 176/12
gives [3] 67/5 181/8
181/10
giving [11] 24/14
24/17 58/23 67/12
general [17] 20/18
79/17 92/7 92/8 102/3,
5/24 10/3 10/17 10/19
59/13 63/10 72/6 80/8,
102/18 103/13 112/23)
171/12 173/13 174/24)
177/13 177/21 180/10}
162/21 171/18 177/16)
82/6 97/17 103/7
151/10 155/13 156/6
181/24
glad [2] 72/4 147/25
Glenda [1] 75/17
go [80] 4/21 5/7 7/16
19/11 20/12 22/14
22/19 24/6 30/10
33/21 34/16 34/25
35/13 37/8 37/8 40/7
42/13 43/19 46/14
50/8 51/6 52/1 53/10
67/23 71/9 75/4 78/4
78/9 80/19 80/22
81/19 82/17 94/14
95/11 100/23 103/19
124/6 127/6 130/12
145/14 146/8 146/8
146/11 147/6 147/14
150/5 150/12 154/4
155/9 160/19 161/19
163/12 165/11 174/7
174/20 174/23 175/5
175/6 175/18
goal [2] 177/8 177/20
goes [4] 92/19
156/25 168/16 170/6
going [77] 1/12 2/12
2/13 12/17 17/13
17/22 20/2 24/6 29/16
29/17 34/24 35/13
39/7 41/2 44/10 44/13)
49/5 53/6 55/4 58/23
65/24 66/1 66/9 66/22
69/15 73/9 73/11
76/11 78/1 78/15
79/22 80/1 80/17 84/9)
94/4 94/5 97/20 104/8)
108/19 110/13 112/18)
112/24 115/14 115/24)
115/24 120/18 123/21
125/6 129/16 129/24
134/13 136/11 137/22)
141/15 145/2 145/5
145/21 146/4 146/16
148/6 151/11 152/16
152/25 156/21 157/2
159/4 164/10 164/14
164/24 166/21 167/11
167/12 168/20 172/17)
175/12 177/4 177/19
gone [13] 39/15
39/16 103/14 103/16
105/20 112/10 130/6
130/13 133/25 134/17)
134/18 134/24 134/25)
good [22] 1/7 21/24
23/10 32/2 45/13
7/25 11/19 14/3 15/25)
54/13 55/13 59/5 59/9)
60/9 63/8 64/17 66/12
106/23 107/16 113/19)
130/16 134/15 142/19)
147/23 148/23 149/18)
48/12 70/4 72/2 77/1
115/17 115/22 135/2
151/2 152/7 169/5
Goodness [1] 39/12
got [34] 5/16 7/13
11/5 11/6 11/16 16/3
24/3 26/8 27/21 35/3
39/13 40/18 46/7
53/10 54/3 54/5 56/4
59/21 85/19 85/21
99/18 102/20 104/6
105/20 106/17 112/2
143/21 167/15 178/7
180/19 181/18
governance [4]
63/13 95/13 95/13
143/9
government [33]
25/16 61/17 61/23
79/16 80/2 80/3 80/6
87/5 119/15 119/22
120/22 120/23 121/6
121/18 121/20 122/1
122/2 122/3 122/5
122/6 122/7 140/17
157/14 177/23
Government's [3]
119/6 141/4 177/20
Grant [1] 3/15
granular [1] 97/6
granularity [1] 42/22
grasp [1] 105/12
grasped [1] 104/25
grateful [6] 71/21
124/1 154/5 162/7
169/24 181/22
great [12] 68/5 72/2
86/22 86/23 92/15
105/9 106/11 110/15
134/17 153/20 159/7
160/11
greatly [1] 87/1
green [2] 131/20
141/22
grip [3] 23/25 24/4
24/13
ground [8] 84/25
85/18 85/21 96/18
117/14 129/9 129/11
147/16
group [26] 4/16 5/5
62/18 63/19 63/23
69/6 93/20 95/18
100/6 100/9 100/10
100/11 100/16 116/2
123/5 138/6 139/9
140/2 141/10 144/6
144/10 144/13 152/16}
85/2 88/3 89/12 89/24
139/10 147/13 150/19}
113/10 140/16 142/14
121/11 121/14 121/17]
140/17 140/19 140/24
142/15 143/24 155/10
153/4 157/12 163/17
growing [1] 120/25
growth [1] 21/2
H
had [232]
hadn't [11] 7/13
12/24 17/11 31/18
70/18 131/24 134/18
163/24
half [3] 96/19 114/24
179/17
halfway [2] 153/13
161/20
Hall [1] 79/11
Hamilton [6] 152/11
167/25 169/9 170/5
172/8 178/12
hand [9] 20/13 20/23
23/6 25/12 26/24
handed [1] 111/19
handing [1] 180/11
handle [5] 72/8 72/12
handled [5] 81/14
102/5 134/16 140/14
154/10
handling [3] 61/15
62/9 78/7
hands [1] 119/15
handwriting [7]
175/22 175/23 175/25}
176/1 176/3 176/4
176/5
handwritten [2]
174/3 175/4
hanging [1] 153/21
Hansard [1] 158/15
Hansen [1] 75/17
happen [3] 59/19
86/1 138/5
happened [21] 16/8
49/15 49/19 54/2 62/3)
63/21 63/23 64/2
89/10 92/17 98/13
102/13 112/4 113/18
118/8 119/1 131/2
137/3 137/14 138/12
138/17
happening [7] 3/25
83/15 85/24 90/7 90/9)
135/1 150/25
happens [4] 11/16
13/24 122/4 170/2
happy [6] 35/8 69/19
69/20 84/24 136/1
156/22
hard [6] 30/19 123/17
123/18 128/15 128/20
164/19
hardball [1] 3/1
guess [1] 154/15
142/15 151/12 162/24)
37/23 48/19 82/5 88/4
113/18 173/21 173/22)
hardship [1] 98/23
has [52] 11/15 14/14
19/16 21/3 21/5 21/7
23/10 23/14 25/19
25/22 27/4 27/13
42/18 43/7 43/11
49/21 52/8 54/1 61/7
65/3 75/25 94/16
99/22 99/25 100/10
101/3 104/21 107/17
109/3 112/10 118/15
119/2 131/17 131/19
134/24 148/14 149/19)
151/3 151/15 152/20
153/5 154/13 156/25
162/22 164/16 166/16
167/6 168/25 170/21
175/10 175/17 176/19)
have [335]
haven't [14] 1/20
27/21 35/10 39/13
40/18 49/3 70/25 82/1
143/21 149/3 159/8
169/14 173/7 180/19
having [24] 10/14
17/20 25/2 26/16
29/24 31/15 41/16
51/4 75/21 83/2 86/7
103/23 105/10 107/17)
114/10 130/13 132/7
133/13 138/16 143/19}
148/10 159/25 168/6
181/23
he [83] 2/4 3/16 9/23
13/17 25/9 26/16 30/5I
31/1 31/20 31/22
31/24 32/4 32/6 32/9
32/16 33/6 43/25 44/3
44/4 44/5 68/11 68/12
68/24 69/1 69/18
69/19 69/20 69/21
70/3 70/12 71/23
71/24 72/2 72/5 72/6
73/21 74/4 76/23
76/24 76/25 77/2 77/4I
77/4 79/13 80/14
80/15 81/9 82/10
86/25 87/13 87/14
87/14 89/11 113/8
113/10 128/21 129/14}
129/19 129/19 132/21
132/22 132/25 133/2
139/15 145/25 150/1
160/9 160/10 160/16
161/24 162/14 163/7
165/11 165/16 166/10}
166/11 166/15 166/18)
166/20 166/23 167/25)
174/11 175/41
he'd [6] 31/17 31/21
32/5 43/23 70/8 76/23}
he's [5] 73/25 73/25
83/20 164/13 165/22
head [4] 27/20 86/9
(7) general - head
H
160/9
headhunters [2]
69/16 70/12
heading [2] 63/10
132/15
headline [1] 124/8
health [2] 58/24
98/23
hear [4] 28/9 88/15
116/18 127/3
heard [13] 18/19
26/14 35/16 69/19
81/4 83/2 113/7
141/11 148/10 161/21
161/22 167/6 175/17
hearing [3] 160/8
173/5 182/5
heart [1] 65/4
heavily [3] 51/15
57/7 57/18
heavy [1] 43/18
held [2] 27/6 74/19
helm [1] 98/10
help [12] 1/18 8/5 9/8
38/5 38/24 79/24
79/25 130/10 139/24
164/7 173/25 176/4
helpful [9] 6/20 37/18
56/11 73/10 74/16
85/15 156/23 169/12
181/17
helpline [4] 175/15
175/15 175/16 175/17)
helps [2] 56/24 166/6
Henry [11] 115/13
115/18 122/13 122/17
123/23 135/16 144/23}
152/18 153/5 157/22
183/7
her [64] 15/21 15/22
15/23 16/1 17/6 17/9
17/10 17/12 17/19
17/20 19/25 21/9
21/14 21/18 22/3 22/7
22/12 22/16 22/16
23/25 24/7 24/13
24/19 25/10 25/10
26/4 28/2 28/25 29/4
29/5 71/9 71/19 75/24,
78/21 79/6 79/7 79/19
80/13 80/14 80/16
85/12 85/14 91/23
104/21 123/25 126/17)
126/23 134/14 134/14
138/25 151/22 155/9
157/5 161/3 162/2
167/8 167/9 167/13
167/16 168/4 171/21
171/22 173/1 180/15
here [45] 3/14 5/24
6/2 8/6 14/12 15/17
head... [2] 128/6
36/16 39/12 39/18
40/6 40/17 50/11
53/10 65/21 70/15
73/25 74/10 83/5
83/14 84/10 85/24
95/13 96/17 103/3
107/25 108/4 111/23
120/2 130/14 131/17
136/11 146/18 148/7
170/11 180/7
hermetically [1]
142/21
hers [3] 21/2 25/24
80/12
herself [6] 22/7
137/21 145/12 171/6
181/15 181/16
hesitation [1] 113/9
hi [5] 77/18 147/13
149/2 168/22 171/12
high [2] 86/25 90/25
ighlight [1] 37/9
lighted [2] 99/20
158/8
highly [2] 132/4
144/8
him [24] 31/16 31/23
66/21 68/5 73/2 73/22
73/23 76/3 76/11
76/21 76/25 79/19
113/9 113/10 113/13
115/7 129/21 156/13
160/12 160/15 161/21
162/22 163/8 167/2
himself [2] 32/17
86/23
hindsight [5] 79/4
102/18 114/5 115/1
130/5
his [23] 13/16 18/24
18/24 30/17 30/25
32/23 44/5 47/1 55/3
67/21 70/6 70/7 72/23
75/25 77/12 77/13
83/18 87/1 87/8 87/13
124/20 129/19 133/2
historically [1]
144/13
history [1] 141/19
hm [15] 6/18 36/6
55/18 60/2 66/15
74/11 75/18 102/12
153/8 154/3 174/9
175/2 179/25 180/12
181/2
HMG [2] 154/18
155/9
Hmmm [1] 53/9
HNG [4] 150/20
HNG-X [1] 150/20
hold [5] 19/23 23/15
15/19 17/3 17/7 17/16
148/14 149/23 153/22)
159/17 159/17 160/12)
43/11 67/13 97/20
home [1] 167/23
honest [4] 9/7 40/2
52/25 90/3
Hooper [4] 30/4 30/7
30/11 93/4
Hooper's [2] 89/8
92/24
hope [6] 3/2 28/19
67/8 77/19 83/11
147/13
hoped [1] 169/1
hopefully [1] 75/21
hoping [1] 11/20
Horizon [75] 2/20
4/10 9/18 12/4 23/25
24/9 24/13 24/18
24/24 34/1 34/14
34/21 35/7 36/1 36/3
36/10 36/21 37/17
37/21 38/19 38/21
39/2 39/5 39/11 39/14
39/19 39/22 40/19
42/10 42/18 42/23
42/24 43/6 45/6 47/3
47/18 47/24 50/14
50/18 50/20 51/1
51/14 52/7 56/21 57/1
58/24 60/12 60/17
60/21 61/6 61/13
61/15 61/20 62/9
63/15 64/14 65/5
82/13 108/20 109/5
110/4 114/20 146/1
146/19 150/8 150/20
151/1 152/21 165/24
166/3 167/20 168/24
169/13 175/10 176/23}
hot [2] 160/25 161/10
hour [4] 147/18
147/24 179/17 179/17!
house [3] 63/13
64/22 81/7
how [47] 2/17 2/25
4/17 4/24 5/9 12/9
16/7 34/5 35/20 37/19}
38/2 39/18 43/8 50/25
53/2 53/4 53/6 55/8
58/9 73/6 73/9 78/1
81/14 84/5 86/15
87/11 88/15 100/18
100/23 103/2 109/6
109/10 112/9 117/2
119/15 126/17 134/16
145/14 150/1 158/16
159/4 162/25 163/3
163/20 169/16 173/12]
173/12
Howe [1] 88/18
however [11] 21/1
45/4 57/4 85/1 125/19
142/17 143/22 144/12
154/15 163/19 164/23}
huge [3] 90/13
121/25 128/2
Hugh [3] 135/4
156/14 156/16
human [2] 138/6
169/6
hundreds [2] 178/3
178/21
husband [5] 68/23
69/19 70/8 76/25
80/10
husband's [2] 68/24
80/5
hype [1] 169/6
hyphen [1] 127/20
l absolutely [1] 92/14
l accepted [1] 102/6
lagree [2] 2/22 67/12
l agreed [1] 113/9
also [1] 82/23
l always [1] 80/17
Iam [30] 6/20 17/4
35/3 51/25 78/7 83/3
83/20 84/17 86/8 94/4
99/2 107/18 112/18
114/16 125/19 126/12}
126/13 135/15 145/18}
147/25 149/14 150/8
150/10 154/11 156/22,
158/17 172/15 173/18}
178/4 181/22
I amended [1] 50/6
land [5] 26/15 29/20
90/8 92/19 113/25
l apologise [2] 158/2
164/12
l appreciate [1]
156/4
lare [1] 147/20
larrived [1] 102/2
lask [8] 87/20 88/16
115/22 132/3 132/13
145/17 152/8 181/20
l asked [2] 15/23
93/24
Ibe [4] 1041/7
I beg [1] 18/9
I began [1] 120/15
I believed [3] 3/24
14/19 176/22
I called [1] 82/25
I came [1] 69/13
Ican [15] 18/16
38/24 53/1 100/15
112/11 115/15 118/12
118/23 122/16 148/19}
148/21 163/10 176/6
176/11 178/15
I can't [29] 6/3 9/6
9/6 9/21 16/21 16/24
27/20 38/5 40/2 48/12
51/2 62/16 69/14 70/9
73/20 76/14 81/11
106/10 110/23 112/15}
112/17 119/2 119/3
135/13 148/9 151/14
155/6 163/23 172/13
I cannot [2] 68/8
112/22
I certainly [3] 4/20
54/8 106/18
I could [3] 49/12
130/3 169/1
I covered [1] 110/21
Ideal [1] 179/5
I did [13] 7/22 21/15
23/20 24/11 59/4 59/5]
70/9 78/17 88/22
91/25 112/24 128/23
128/23
I didn't [27] 4/22 17/7)
22/13 58/14 74/4 74/8)
84/25 85/13 91/11
102/15 102/15 107/25)
111/24 111/25 123/18)
128/6 130/8 130/22
130/23 131/1 134/25
137/23 138/11 158/2
158/4 158/6 158/9
I discussed [2]
104/13 114/2
Ido [15] 2/24 10/16
12/20 45/4 51/17
80/16 105/9 128/9
147/13 148/8 152/13
173/4 173/25 180/5
180/16
I don't [78] 1/21 2/19
7/25 9/19 19/3 19/10
20/3 21/15 21/19 22/6I
22/10 26/2 27/9 27/10
36/19 38/24 45/2 45/3I
51/4 53/18 54/10
58/13 60/24 60/24
68/9 73/20 76/10
76/17 76/22 77/8 77/8I
79/4 79/22 81/16
81/18 82/9 83/17
101/12 105/6 106/17
112/7 118/11 118/20
121/10 121/22 124/23)
124/23 127/25 131/16
134/1 137/11 139/21
140/3 140/21 143/7
143/21 148/10 148/18)
148/20 151/9 153/25
156/9 156/18 157/9
158/21 159/12 161/18)
167/5 170/8 172/1
172/2 173/5 175/5
175/17 176/5 176/15
178/6 179/10
lever [2] 31/23 128/9
lexpect [1] 170/15
l explained [2] 71/22
137/17
I felt [5] 4/18 24/19
(68) head... - I felt
58/13
I find [2] 65/17
125/25
I first [2] 41/15
163/23
I floated [1] 105/18
I found [1] 13/11
I further [1] 145/5
Igo [1] 43/19
I got [1] 113/10
I had [19] 17/9 18/1
27/18 29/23 31/16
41/14 41/15 52/23
70/13 71/24 79/6
91/11 92/8 113/16
130/9 131/23 133/21
141/11 163/24
I hadn't [2] 31/18
131/24
Ihave [42] 1/23
28/12 41/22 48/10
49/10 77/21 79/3
82/14 94/5 98/2 98/2
99/2 99/18 105/8
105/9 111/24 112/18
114/24 115/4 117/11
117/13 117/14 128/4
130/4 134/3 135/13
141/3 143/5 149/4
149/4 149/6 149/25
151/4 151/16 151/17
181/18
I haven't [6] 1/20
27/21 70/25 143/21
149/3 173/7
I help [1] 79/25
I hope [1] 28/19
l imagine [1] 86/11
linherited [1] 118/2
lintend [1] 75/7
linterpret [1] 99/21
I just [28] 1/11 29/12
29/18 29/25 40/7
44/15 62/6 76/24
88/14 99/17 116/6
122/18 131/14 135/19}
145/19 146/6 156/2
159/14 161/18 162/10
163/12 164/2 164/6
170/6 170/8 170/9
174/10 178/9
I keep [1] 27/7
I knew [9] 29/22
69/18 76/24 76/25
76/25 80/9 80/11
85/10 112/11
I know [7] 75/23
102/7 110/14 122/4
143/8 145/2 163/20
I felt... [3] 25/3 25/6
151/19 154/11 154/16)
156/13 161/25 178/22)
I known [1] 114/15
Ieft [1] 3/23
I lifted [1] 98/14
Hook [1] 53/4
looked [1] 131/18
I made [3] 31/10
113/5 177/14
I may [10] 19/8 81/4
88/4 125/1 128/1
149/10 172/2
6/2 10/6 19/8 21/23
48/12 60/24 62/1
73/21 76/11 78/17
81/11 87/9 117/7
117/18 118/20 125/7
130/25 131/16 134/1
134/5 134/22 136/14
137/3 139/13 140/10
141/1 141/18 142/3
143/3 143/6 143/17
163/5 163/19 172/13
176/16
I meant [1] 25/1
I mentioned [2]
71/21 107/11
I met [1] 31/22
I might [4] 4/19 29/5
80/16 168/11
I move [1] 15/6
I moved [1] 116/20
I nearly [1] 70/2
I need [5] 28/20 93/4
160/16 164/2 168/20
I never [3] 18/18
107/23 141/11
I now [5] 4/20 14/17
96/20 130/5 138/11
l obviously [1] 80/12
I offered [1] 129/13
lonly [2] 154/21
157/3
I personally [1]
141/20
I presume [3] 155/5
163/1 170/21
I pretty [1] 98/15
I probably [1] 18/19
I pushed [1] 15/22
I put [2] 118/6 121/25
lread [2] 35/25 166/6
I really [3] 48/14
73/24 141/3
recall [1] 31/16
I recognise [1] 19/3
I recognised [1] 26/4
lreferred [1] 34/23
I reflected [1] 139/20
I regret [1] 138/12
I remember [6] 10/2
I managed [1] 168/22)
135/15 135/25 141/20)
I mean [44] 4/17 5/15
22/25 24/1 27/8 35/10
148/19 156/18 162/20)
69/17 69/22 81/12
167/23 173/5
I said [11] 36/12
39/25 45/2 49/10
58/13 98/2 104/15
162/23
I saw [5] 50/5 51/2
79/2 130/22 163/22
I say [5] 26/3 27/17
41/10 100/21 101/23
I scroll [1] 43/19
I see [15] 2/18 16/15
19/5 27/3 51/2 51/17
56/4 56/8 67/4 71/6
87/9 94/3 135/14
180/22 181/12
I seen [2] 105/15
131/16
I shall [1] 75/22
I should [10] 37/3
64/17 69/23 79/4 92/8
117/13 133/7 149/5
158/21 180/23
I shouldn't [1] 129/1
I signed [1] 50/7
I simply [9] 28/13
41/23 49/16 110/10
125/13 162/19 163/24
172/3 173/3
Iso [1] 82/21
I sought [1] 77/12
I speaking [1] 145/12
I spent [1] 129/25
I stop [1] 159/10
I struggle [1] 52/24
I suggest [1] 127/19
I suggested [3] 70/10
70/10 113/13
I suppose [3] 53/4
128/13 180/9
I suspect [1] 120/21
I talked [1] 130/21
I then [1] 94/9
I think [170] 1/22
2/10 2/17 3/12 3/16
3/20 4/7 4/8 4/17 4/18
5/14 5/19 5/24 6/8 7/8
8/22 9/20 9/22 10/1
10/2 10/12 11/13 12/1
13/10 13/14 13/21
13/25 14/11 14/19
14/24 15/2 16/25 17/7I
17/15 18/3 18/4 18/25)
19/3 20/6 20/8 21/21
21/25 24/19 25/6 26/8
28/4 29/5 29/18 30/5
31/20 32/7 33/16
35/11 36/8 38/13
39/15 40/20 41/17
43/21 44/2 44/18 45/2
49/20 51/22 51/22
52/21 52/24 55/2
55/19 57/12 57/21
110/10 138/10 145/13
58/5 58/20 58/22
59/11 59/20 59/21
60/1 61/19 61/21
65/15 65/21 66/3
74/6 76/13 76/16
78/17 79/2 80/18
80/18 80/23 81/4
81/11 81/11 82/23
85/14 85/15 85/22
90/14 91/25 92/15
93/4 95/12 96/14
96/18 98/2 98/3 99/3
101/14 101/2 102/1
102/6 102/19 105/2
105/5 110/21 111/24
114/4 114/23 114/25
415/17 117/11 117/12
117/13 117/25 119/18}
120/5 121/10 125/7
125/14 127/25 129/11
131/5 131/7 133/15
134/4 137/21 141/14
145/13 159/7 160/14
161/4 161/22 164/2
165/10 165/17 166/10}
166/15 167/19 168/20}
174/17 174/25 175/8
175/14 176/19 178/7
178/24 181/18
I thought [14] 17/15
62/18 69/21 70/3 72/6)
79/22 80/12 104/15
142/12 142/13 159/22)
169/12 173/12 176/20}
I took [1] 137/15
I turn [1] 66/6
l understand [15]
11/21 12/20 48/15
51/5 53/20 56/11
87/12 87/23 111/7
111/12 136/6 136/10
142/1 145/4 181/17
l understood [1] 45/8
I vaguely [1] 168/8
I want [16] 41/2
62/20 106/19 123/11
126/14 126/25 127/1
142/22 145/19 152/21
152/23 153/12 155/19
159/24 170/19 175/6
I wanted [3] 100/18
167/20 177/13
I was [53] 16/2 16/10
17/16 17/22 22/2 27/8
29/19 40/2 40/3 44/13)
44/18 45/21 49/12
49/18 51/3 61/22
77/10 77/13 79/19
80/13 81/11 91/17
91/17 91/18 92/2 93/3}
93/5 93/6 98/6 102/16
69/13 72/14 73/4 74/5)
83/24 83/24 84/9 85/8
85/24 87/9 87/14 89/6
103/12 104/8 107/11
112/12 113/6 113/16
113/22 114/12 116/19)
117/23 118/24 119/14)
128/5 132/11 134/21
141/9 142/16 143/3
153/16 159/19 169/7
173/17 178/15
I wasn't [6] 13/11
23/21 83/19 108/7
108/8 177/15
I went [2] 113/14
113/19
Iwill [9] 75/20 77/24
94/7 94/8 102/22
115/5 125/3 125/19
153/15
I wish [1] 130/7
I won't [3] 14/16
153/21 164/13
I wonder [2] 74/17
123/15
I wondered [1] 69/22
I worked [1] 85/10
I would [42] 2/6 2/17
3/2 3/12 3/20 4/18
6/21 12/1 26/20 27/17
28/14 29/21 32/4
41/25 48/25 51/24
70/20 70/21 72/23
77/22 78/13 78/19
78/20 91/12 92/9
92/13 96/14 108/8
113/5 114/10 114/14
121/13 123/19 131/5
131/7 133/22 135/25
158/23 161/2 161/17
163/20 173/12
I wouldn't [9] 53/18
73/16 80/20 84/9
87/19 97/11 113/19
118/11 162/23
I'd [10] 41/13 69/19
97/10 108/8 130/7
154/5 162/7 169/22
169/24 174/22
Nil [14] 1/25 45/12
52/1 58/20 86/12 97/3
122/14 122/15 149/17
153/3 155/18
I'm [134] 2/10 2/25
5/21 5/24 6/1 6/2 8/3
9/7 11/6 12/9 13/1
13/7 14/18 17/3 17/7
22/1 22/1 22/4 24/3
24/6 24/25 26/17 27/7I
27/22 29/15 31/22
35/2 35/14 35/14
35/23 36/24 38/5
38/24 38/25 41/2 41/6
44/14 44/16 48/14
49/6 49/20 52/24 53/6)
62/7 62/25 66/9 72/4
75/7 83/19 83/20 87/4
(59) I felt... - I'm
I'm... [83] 87/11 91/7
99/16 103/5 103/22
105/18 105/23 107/10
107/18 107/23 107/23
107/24 108/3 108/19
109/13 109/14 110/13
112/1 112/20 112/22
114/10 115/14 115/24}
115/24 116/18 116/18)
117/2 117/2 119/3
122/9 123/19 123/21
124/1 124/2 125/13
125/17 126/2 126/7
129/3 131/1 131/8
131/17 135/25 138/16
139/4 139/22 142/12
142/17 145/21 146/16)
146/23 147/21 148/8
148/19 148/20 148/21
150/5 151/14 151/17
152/11 152/25 153/2
157/22 158/7 163/18
164/10 164/10 164/14}
167/5 168/19 170/5
172/1 172/1 172/13
172/15 172/17 172/18
173/3 176/5 177/4
178/4 181/18 181/18
I've [28] 12/4 26/11
39/19 39/20 53/23
55/23 72/6 86/1 86/11
96/19 96/23 112/2
118/13 122/4 124/23
140/11 142/11 142/12)
143/2 148/6 151/14
162/11 172/1 172/2
172/4 172/14 177/10
178/7
idea [10] 18/1 29/23
72/6 86/11 87/25
107/24 113/16 114/1
141/3 148/6
ideally [3] 165/19
166/9 166/13
identified [1] 43/9
identify [2] 57/8
119/23
ie [9] 6/24 9/12 10/8
19/21 21/6 33/10 55/8}
58/9 72/21
ie after [1] 72/21
ie capability [1]
19/21
ie looking [1] 55/8
ie organisational [1]
6/24
ie presentation [1]
21/6
ie substantial [1]
33/10
ie systemic [1] 9/12
ie taking [1] 58/9
ie their [1] 10/8
if [201]
ignorance [1] 126/6
ill [1] 81/12
illustrated [1] 24/2
imagine [3] 28/13
86/11 158/21
imbalance [1] 4/8
immediately [1]
113/9
imminent [2] 166/22
167/3
impact [12] 59/24
93/16 94/23 108/24
116/3 116/8 116/14
116/23 118/15 119/2
123/4 142/6
implement [1] 69/12
implementation [1]
47/14
implemented [2]
19/16 42/18
implementing [2]
8/10 127/12
implications [3] 92/6
109/7 136/19
implies [1] 90/7
implosion [1] 90/13
importance [4] 126/7
139/18 139/18 159/18)
important [20] 13/9
44/3 44/19 65/2 98/19
120/24 121/18 129/15)
133/16 133/24 134/25)
135/10 140/15 158/16)
159/4 159/6 159/20
176/21 178/5 179/12
impossible [1]
137/18
imprecise [3] 100/4
100/21 100/22
impressed [1] 73/22
impression [4] 58/22
59/13 59/22 113/10
imprisoned [1] 81/1
imprisonment [1]
98/22
improved [2] 154/14
164/16
improving [1] 134/19
inaccuracies [1]
154/14
inaccurate [3]
168/24 169/9 170/17
inadequate [2]
169/18 172/9
include [2] 73/13
114/13
included [5] 7/23
23/24 70/12 75/1 89/3
includes [1] 116/13
including [6] 27/19
47/9 64/24 94/21
152/10 171/21
income [3] 119/8
119/23 120/6
incomplete [2] 104/4
104/10
inconvenience [1]
145/9
increase [1] 120/10
increasing [1] 65/16
incurious [1] 118/10
indeed [3] 3/24 62/4
159/23
indefensible [1]
118/19
independence [1]
69/3
independent [14] 7/5
14/8 30/22 51/13
60/14 61/7 92/3
113/14 128/24 129/2
129/6 129/14 139/9
177/13
independently [2]
39/20 39/22
indicated [1] 95/7
indicating [1] 76/5
tive [1] 3/9
indirectly [1] 128/10
individual [7] 7/10
9/16 10/8 10/10 11/12
85/21 122/8
individually [1] 122/8
individuals’ [1] 75/14
induced [1] 143/12
inertia [1] 128/14
infer [1] 137/11
inference [3] 159/8
159/12 161/11
influence [2] 79/21
166/20
influenced [1] 30/22
information [24] 2/7
5/23 6/4 15/10 26/6
29/3 37/10 42/21
42/22 43/2 43/7 57/6
72/1 104/3 104/10
104/11 106/25 107/15}
109/10 110/11 110/19}
111/10 117/8 155/13
informed [2] 111/8
139/1
informing [1] 109/8
inherit [1] 102/15
inherited [2] 4/16
118/2
initial [1] 3/15
initially [2] 66/11
85/16
initiative [4] 91/24
91/25 122/7 129/16
inns [1] 178/24
input [2] 76/15 97/18
Inquiry [10] 30/25
92/19 108/10 117/19
138/25 166/16 167/6
168/19 174/21 175/17
inroads [1] 118/25
inserted [1] 164/20
inside [3] 18/20
29/24 122/4
insight [1] 87/7
ights [1] 133/16
insisted [1] 154/14
instance [2] 98/5
105/7
instances [4] 114/24
114/25 150/7 178/24
instead [2] 119/9
178/1
institution [2] 93/10
94/21
insurance [8] 6/23
7/9 7/22 8/24 9/20
10/9 13/3 132/22
insurers [3] 133/1
143/15 143/19
integrity [12] 34/6
38/7 47/21 54/22
55/11 58/1 59/16
106/22 107/12 109/3
109/17 150/10
intelligent [1] 125/16
intelligible [1] 57/3
intend [1] 75/7
intended [2] 38/11
59/2
intent [1] 121/11
interactions [2]
26/19 26/23
interest [4] 64/22
93/13 94/23 169/6
interested [4] 9/23
13/23 59/23 62/7
interests [9] 81/25
89/4 93/20 94/2 95/18)
100/5 100/8 100/20
109/15
interim [10] 11/1
11/4 11/14 16/4 17/14}
36/9 61/9 132/4
141/25 165/23
internal [6] 19/25
39/24 60/20 101/11
133/15 135/11
internally [1] 84/5
international [1] 42/6
interpret [1] 99/21
interpretation [1]
157/10
interpreted [3] 36/11
36/13 100/19
interrupt [1] 99/16
intervening [1] 11/5
intervention [1]
142/25
interviews [3] 66/25
67/2 71/4
intimately [1] 135/3
intimidation [1]
169/15
into [31] 11/19 12/11
15/3 34/24 37/24
50/12 58/10 73/6
76/15 79/4 80/5 85/1
85/19 85/21 87/7
97/18 97/24 102/13
111/10 111/21 112/4
1412/7 122/1 125/3
130/13 137/18 147/2
158/17 165/23 170/22)
171/2
intrinsically [3] 8/7
127/9 164/18
introduce [1] 145/11
introducing [3]
103/23 135/2 179/21
introduction [1] 60/9
invest [1] 143/13
invested [1] 140/25
investigated [1]
39/22
investigation [6]
63/12 65/3 111/6
113/23 150/2 178/2
Investigations [1]
124/19
investment [3] 18/14
117/1 141/7
invited [1] 144/2
involved [7] 31/19
97/6 119/13 133/13
143/3 167/11 167/12
involving [4] 69/16
93/19 94/1 95/16
iPlayer [1] 168/22
Ireland [1] 120/16
ironically [2] 62/1
156/25
irritated [1] 146/4
is [367]
Ismay [6] 107/16
129/3 129/4 146/21
147/1 148/15
Ismay's [1] 129/7
isn't [10] 23/2 48/9
97/9 116/22 136/8
136/22 138/7 141/2
170/11 171/7
issue [56] 7/22 8/19
10/1 15/25 27/8 29/8
43/7 43/9 60/17 61/13)
61/15 65/4 71/4 71/17
73/11 74/3 74/4 74/23}
90/15 91/5 91/9 92/5
92/5 92/25 106/21
107/12 107/24 109/16
109/19 110/14 111/6
111/23 111/25 113/6
126/14 133/1 134/13
140/11 143/9 143/22
143/23 145/19 147/5
147/9 149/10 154/23
155/1 158/25 163/25
(60) I'm... - issue
I
issue... [7] 165/15
165/17 166/16 171/25)
172/24 178/22 179/6
issues [34] 8/11 9/12
16/8 23/25 24/10
24/13 24/18 34/10
36/10 38/15 60/14
61/6 62/9 73/19 74/17,
78/9 81/1 86/3 94/25
96/20 101/2 104/25
105/5 105/13 113/8
127/13 137/8 140/13
142/5 146/19 154/1
168/3 173/21 173/22
it [558]
it's [82] 1/24 12/16
17/2 19/8 28/13 28/21
29/15 37/6 41/5 48/15
49/24 50/12 52/22
53/2 53/10 55/6 55/14,
57/21 60/5 60/8 66/7
72/13 73/9 82/5 86/6
88/14 92/18 94/10
95/12 96/18 100/20
102/1 105/24 107/9
110/24 110/25 111/2
115/12 116/19 122/5
123/16 134/22 135/16
135/20 135/23 136/17
142/17 153/22 155/17)
157/9 158/7 158/10
161/12 161/13 161/15}
161/17 163/3 163/10
164/4 164/5 164/7
166/22 168/12 168/17)
168/17 170/13 171/17)
174/12 174/16 175/8
175/16 175/23 175/25}
176/3 176/6 176/7
176/17 176/18 179/10
179/11 180/2 180/3
items [1] 131/21
iterations [1] 100/12
its [37] 4/6 16/6 23/8
25/15 29/11 30/2 39/8
47/14 57/10 60/25
64/7 69/3 84/12 84/13
84/13 87/5 94/16 96/4
96/7 96/12 96/17
103/19 105/25 111/13)
129/9 133/14 134/19
136/19 142/14 143/14}
144/10 144/11 165/25)
166/4 177/22 178/3
178/21
itself [9] 10/18 23/23
41/2 41/21 83/22 86/5)
99/25 101/8 137/13
J
JA [1] 149/8
Jack [1] 68/24
JACOBS [5] 88/13
99/16 102/22 115/3
183/5
James [15] 8/20
44/22 46/24 47/1
47/12 48/3 58/16
58/21 75/21 149/6
149/25 151/6 169/10
174/17 177/4
James' [1] 45/7
Janet [1] 147/19
Jenkins [8] 13/5
47/25 92/5 92/25
136/5 137/1 138/22
142/2
JFSA [1] 93/1
Jo [7] 23/11 37/11
142/7 158/17 158/22
158/22 169/9
job [7] 13/18 17/9
17/19 21/24 30/16
172/5 173/14
join [1] 84/24
joined [5] 66/16
73/25 76/20 77/4
85/13
joining [1] 68/1
Jorja [1] 160/5
judged [1] 81/13
juggling [1] 98/1
July [13] 3/11 3/19
10/22 67/20 111/14
137/3 139/16 140/2
141/22 142/5 146/3
146/7 165/22
July 2013 [4] 141/22
jumped [1] 131/24
June [16] 1/1 41/7
45/24 46/7 48/20
61/11 62/1 62/15
62/23 66/14 74/10
111/12 146/10 148/12)
151/10 182/6
June 2014 [1] 62/1
just [125] 1/11 10/16
12/9 13/17 14/3 17/4
18/17 22/1 22/1 22/22
22/25 24/6 25/1 25/25
29/12 29/18 29/25
31/10 31/20 34/16
37/4 37/9 37/23 40/7
41/14 41/17 42/1
42/13 44/15 45/24
49/6 49/12 49/18
49/25 53/9 53/10
53/23 61/11 62/6 62/7
63/8 63/10 65/16 67/1
70/8 76/24 77/25 82/2
83/19 83/20 87/14
88/14 91/2 91/18 97/3
99/2 99/17 99/19
100/10 103/9 108/19
110/8 112/18 115/14
115/24 116/6 117/6
118/3 118/9 118/14
119/4 122/18 123/11
123/24 125/1 128/12
131/1 131/14 131/21
134/17 135/15 135/19}
135/23 137/25 140/13
145/11 145/19 146/6
146/13 149/3 149/22
150/3 152/17 153/9
153/14 156/2 157/18
157/24 158/7 159/14
161/18 161/25 162/1
162/10 163/12 163/19}
163/21 164/2 164/6
165/7 165/19 166/6
170/6 170/8 170/9
170/24 171/24 172/14
173/13 174/10 176/1
177/6 178/9 180/23
181/10
justice [3] 78/25
86/13 178/20
justification [1]
20/20
justified [1] 64/12
K
keep [13] 25/16 27/7
85/7 86/9 95/12 137/1
143/5 157/2 167/8
167/13 174/7 175/9
175/12
keeping [1] 54/21
Kennett [1] 18/11
kept [2] 122/19
124/25
Kevin [3] 18/8 18/10
18/11
key [11] 19/14 23/14
27/5 27/25 57/10
109/16 134/4 167/9
176/2 176/14 177/5
kick [2] 137/22 138/7
kind [15] 2/16 35/19
45/5 49/18 53/17 66/1
77/8 86/6 103/14
105/25 106/1 113/11
114/1 125/9 130/11
kinds [3] 105/4
105/12 139/21
Kipling [2] 85/7 86/8
knew [24] 13/23
14/14 29/22 69/18
76/8 76/24 76/25
76/25 80/9 80/11
85/10 93/25 95/19
107/2 108/5 109/9
112/11 135/6 135/8
138/22 141/16 145/20}
148/4 148/13
know [122] 2/25 3/12
3/22 4/21 6/6 7/25
9/25 12/13 13/21
13/22 13/24 13/25
14/17 14/22 15/1 15/2!
17/13 20/2 21/11
21/19 26/5 27/21
27/24 28/19 29/5 29/6
29/19 29/21 32/8 38/3
47/4 49/18 52/24
52/25 53/8 53/18
53/19 54/10 59/21
60/24 61/24 65/12
68/9 69/24 72/16
72/16 73/6 73/10
73/17 73/20 73/20
73/24 74/5 74/22
75/23 76/10 77/8 77/9)
77/12 78/19 78/24
79/22 80/16 82/9
83/18 84/3 85/2 85/13)
85/19 87/3 87/14
92/16 101/12 102/7
106/11 106/13 106/15)
106/16 107/1 110/10
110/14 111/25 112/9
118/20 119/3 122/4
125/9 128/18 131/16
135/6 137/21 137/23
138/16 138/18 139/21
143/7 143/8 143/13
143/21 145/2 145/11
148/18 149/3 149/16
150/25 151/16 156/18
156/19 157/9 157/18
158/21 160/16 163/4
163/5 163/6 163/20
167/6 167/10 172/15
172/19 176/5 176/18
knowing [4] 12/23
102/6 106/16 169/16
knowledge [10] 13/5
17/17 25/20 28/1 54/1
73/12 109/11 110/15
139/25 150/15
knowledgeable [1]
54/11
known [8] 52/17 79/6
80/13 108/8 108/10
114/15 114/15 126/9
knows [3] 86/22
86/24 143/18
L
lack [6] 25/19 54/17
76/17 83/7 83/12
134/9
lacked [6] 11/24
51/13 105/10 105/10
169/9 172/8
lacking [1] 113/4
laid [4] 92/17
Lamb [5] 68/7 68/10
71/3 71/13 71/21
Lambert [1] 168/16
language [14] 127/1
145/25 147/2 154/8
164/19 164/23 165/6
169/20 170/10 170/25}
171/3 171/6 172/25
173/9
large [8] 18/4 89/23
90/2 97/8 98/18
140/12 150/9 153/6
last [29] 26/22 29/12
49/13 56/16 64/15
66/6 67/16 79/2 87/24
96/19 114/23 117/9
117/11 124/11 125/7
133/9 156/11 158/15
159/8 164/1 164/2
166/14 170/12 171/22)
176/19 178/9 178/23
179/13 181/24
lastly [1] 180/23
late [6] 67/11 87/25
88/2 168/5 168/18
172/11
later [11] 44/8 45/25
62/19 72/20 90/23
113/25 133/17 147/21
167/7 168/5 170/12
latest [2] 160/24
164/16
latter [3] 8/15 127/17
127/22
lawyer [4] 51/19
51/19 104/22 106/4
lawyers [2] 104/24
154/10
lawyers’ [2] 14/10
14/12
lay [2] 47/6 110/2
layman's [1] 150/17
lead [7] 20/19 23/8
23/22 76/7 77/7 109/4
117/20
leadership [3]
127/23 129/5 172/11
leading [3] 17/13
59/1 102/9
leap [4] 53/17
leaped [1] 53/19
learn [2] 103/16
134/16
learned [9] 103/23
132/5 132/7 132/15
134/2 134/5 134/23
135/12 136/7
least [8] 7/13 9/23
20/11 75/21 84/16
87/1 102/8 118/10
leave [3] 45/12 71/24
153/21
leaves [1] 138/22
lecture [1] 143/8
led [4] 43/8 110/3
116/13 117/17
ledger [1] 56/23
ledgers [2] 50/16
52/10
ledgers’ [1] 52/6
(61) issue... - ledgers
L
Leek [7] 145/4 145/5
145/16 145/18 151/20)
179/19 183/8
left [9] 3/23 20/13
23/6 48/3 48/19 50/8
135/10 145/22 152/12)
left-hand [3] 20/13
23/6 48/19
legal [21] 6/15 7/3
12/5 14/6 24/25 33/1
35/3 35/4 35/6 36/17
63/16 64/16 64/19
82/17 92/5 94/16
118/17 121/22 121/23)
151/23 159/1
legally [2] 156/23
157/4
legs [1] 67/13
length [5] 16/9 101/4
102/5 105/9 122/19
lens [1] 61/16
Lesley [9] 22/9 46/23
A7IT 48/3 56/14
146/21 147/1 148/15
150/12
Lesley's [1] 2/22
less [7] 3/5 88/4 88/5
99/1 106/5 177/22
178/19
lesson [1] 126/16
lessons [11] 103/16
103/23 132/5 132/7
132/15 134/2 134/5
134/17 134/23 135/12)
136/7
let [6] 22/1 75/6
77/22 103/25 113/19
149/3
let's [13] 7/25 41/9
62/17 90/15 92/22
93/7 100/20 123/23
127/6 128/12 145/8
149/16 162/12
letter [2] 82/17 134/8
letters [1] 148/3
level [6] 24/14 24/17
34/22 69/9 123/1
123/2
levels [1] 26/20
liability [10] 9/17
10/8 10/11 10/21
12/10 12/14 12/15
13/3 63/17 144/19
liaison [1] 134/10
ieutenants [1] 22/8
life [1] 64/8
lifestyle [2] 81/1
168/3
lift [1] 98/6
lifted [3] 98/10 98/14
118/5
light [11] 12/12 46/8
58/11 61/4 106/25
107/15 129/22 132/3
137/13 141/22 150/7
lightning [1] 136/15
like [39] 2/16 2/24
6/21 7/13 7/21 11/17
13/13 18/21 26/6
52/19 53/5 53/7 58/24
60/4 60/6 60/11 67/25)
71/25 76/4 87/19
99/19 114/10 123/19
125/9 126/10 134/20
150/18 154/25 161/2
161/6 161/8 161/17
163/21 169/22 172/7
172/7 174/22 178/11
181/13
liked [1] 17/13
likely [4] 139/2
158/22 166/24 167/1
limitations [14] 39/8
42/9 42/11 42/13
42/16 44/17 45/1
46/18 48/22 49/6 49/7
49/9 57/9 57/18
limited [7] 33/4 42/10
42/20 43/18 60/20
113/24 142/23
line [11] 47/14 80/16
97/16 97/23 99/11
107/10 158/10 158/11
160/20 160/21 179/22)
lines [3] 36/2 67/14
165/3
link [1] 3/14
linked [2] 16/8 17/2
Linklaters [10] 33/17
33/25 34/13 34/18
35/6 35/12 35/17 37/6
37/13 40/15
lips [1] 126/5
list [2] 19/9 154/2
listen [2] 166/24
167/1
listened [2] 167/23
168/2
listening [1] 83/19
litigation [4] 95/16
99/22 122/23 143/15
little [22] 6/10 80/22
101/23 115/14 145/22)
146/12 147/6 149/22
152/20 155/18 155/22)
157/21 157/24 163/8
164/3 164/11 164/15
170/7 175/7 175/11
175/12 175/13
live [2] 77/23 168/2
livelihood [1] 32/22
livelihoods [1] 75/15
lives [2] 75/15 116/4
load [3] 114/6 143/10
143/11
local [1] 108/22
Logically [2] 157/7
157/18
logs [1] 47/21
long [15] 10/16 19/23
48/11 49/11 65/25
82/2 90/10 94/6
110/24 110/25 134/12
136/10 161/17 169/11
179/5
longer [7] 3/12 20/19
65/24 133/12 133/20
146/15 178/1
look [83] 1/16 14/4
18/13 20/4 37/23 39/7
41/2 41/3 41/9 42/1
42/1 46/12 49/5 51/23
53/1 59/25 60/6 60/11
62/17 62/20 63/8 66/9
66/11 69/25 70/24
77/8 94/9 98/13
100/16 103/7 103/15
104/12 112/4 112/7
122/12 123/15 123/20
125/7 128/1 129/8
129/13 131/21 134/16
135/15 146/11 146/15)
148/25 150/16 151/16}
152/16 152/24 153/9
153/19 153/25 154/25]
155/16 156/9 156/10
158/10 159/23 161/8
161/12 161/17 161/18}
164/1 167/20 168/11
169/17 169/22 170/5
170/9 170/19 170/23
172/7 172/7 173/24
174/11 174/11 174/12
175/14 179/13 180/1
180/23
looked [16] 35/10
36/4 49/3 50/25 70/1
70/2 103/3 129/24
131/18 142/20 148/2
150/17 172/9 176/25
177/1 181/11
looking [27] 6/13
6/15 18/17 30/5 45/25
49/6 49/7 49/16 51/10
54/11 55/8 62/22
67/20 89/3 100/15
101/6 110/5 124/2
124/8 153/21 153/24
171/4 172/19 173/9
174/2 174/3 178/18
looks [9] 18/21 60/4
76/4 161/6 167/15
171/4 172/14 172/14
181/13
looming [2] 140/12
153/6
Lord [8] 36/14 74/12
76/12 113/7 129/12
130/17 175/1 177/11
Lord Arbuthnot [4]
74/12 113/7 129/12
175/1
Lord Arbuthnot's [2]
76/12 177/11
losing [1] 86/10
loss [3] 32/22 33/3
119/10
loss-making [1]
119/10
losses [5] 32/2 32/3
32/22 57/1 140/18
lot [21] 45/9 65/20
65/20 87/15 92/10
92/13 93/2 114/23
120/6 129/20 130/1
131/22 131/23 134/22,
142/19 146/4 161/18
163/5 174/10 175/17
176/19
lots [1] 131/17
lovely [1] 149/2
Lowe [1] 18/24
lunch [2] 88/1 88/2
lunchtime [2] 88/4
151/16
lurking [1] 12/13
lying [3] 110/6 110/7
170/18
Lyons [12] 1/18 6/19
7/17 41/8 41/11 55/15)
146/10 146/14 149/20
179/23 180/3 180/3
machine [1] 143/24
machinery [1] 29/23
made [41] 8/12 15/21
31/10 31/10 33/7
37/19 39/15 40/24
46/9 47/18 52/18
55/19 56/24 73/15
81/9 81/24 84/15
90/22 91/15 100/25
102/19 103/21 105/14)
105/23 108/1 113/5
114/7 117/17 124/14
127/14 128/4 141/7
141/13 144/5 159/9
167/25 169/17 177/10}
177/14 177/25 181/13}
Mail [29] 4/16 5/5 9/3
69/3 69/5 69/6 69/8
100/10 113/12 116/1
120/8 120/12 140/2
140/5 140/12 140/22
141/9 141/18 142/7
142/15 144/2 144/6
144/10 144/13 152/16}
153/4 157/12 161/9
163/17
Mail's [1] 120/6
main [6] 26/21 50/6
100/17 100/18 160/14,
174/24
mainstream [1] 81/5
maintain [6] 56/23
81/25 82/21 82/24
113/2 121/19
Maintenance [1]
94/20
Majesty's [1] 155/9
make [21] 11/18 31/4
31/5 31/8 31/12 31/25
32/1 32/17 82/25
89/12 99/25 101/8
101/9 105/7 107/25
121/23 125/13 136/20)
141/11 149/8 173/16
makes [3] 20/6 136/5
142/19
making [12] 7/19
46/6 53/2 60/22 89/11
118/24 119/7 119/9
119/10 142/11 164/25}
173/14
man [3] 86/14 86/15
86/17
manage [1] 2/14
managed [1] 168/22
management [8]
19/12 19/16 19/21
25/22 63/13 63/18
64/9 65/2
managing [1] 136/24
mandate [2] 121/20
126/20
manner [2] 5/4 75/2
manually [1] 108/21
many [9] 88/17
106/11 115/7 116/4
126/11 132/1 139/2
139/2 176/18
March [16] 6/17 6/22
8/22 10/24 12/11
23/17 33/19 33/20
37/6 39/12 40/11
40/17 40/24 174/15
174/18 174/19
mark [32] 22/8 27/19
66/7 66/16 66/22
67/25 68/22 68/23
69/17 70/10 72/7
72/18 72/23 73/13
73/18 75/23 77/10
77/11 78/6 79/15
80/10 80/13 147/4
156/13 156/16 160/8
162/15 163/2 168/16
168/25 172/5 175/11
Mark's [2] 70/14
7115
marketing [1] 165/2
Marnoch [5] 9/22
31/19 132/18 132/21
132/23
marred [2] 86/18
87/117
Martin [8] 90/25 91/1
(62) Leek - Martin
Martin... [6] 156/14
156/16 162/10 163/1
163/1 163/4
massive [1] 122/24
material [18] 1/10
32/25 33/10 62/8
62/10 90/25 91/17
93/19 94/1 95/17
100/5 100/19 104/3
117/6 117/8 123/4
136/18 136/19
materials [2] 165/2
165/2
matter [9] 31/8 50/13
52/4 57/4 75/2 104/7
104/12 137/8 140/8
matters [20] 50/11
50/11 54/18 92/25
93/7 93/8 93/12 93/15
93/18 93/25 93/25
95/5 95/6 95/19 95/22
105/21 124/15 126/7
143/19 160/20
maximum [2] 3/2
33/3
Maxwellisation [1]
148/3
Maxwellisation/Salm
on [1] 148/3
may [47] 1/13 5/4
5/12 5/21 10/11 11/2
12/15 19/8 30/22 52/3
52/16 53/6 57/1 62/3
68/16 81/4 83/6 88/4
93/13 94/22 95/8
107/20 118/6 120/21
125/1 128/1 131/3
135/15 135/25 136/4
141/20 144/8 147/16
148/24 149/1 149/10
149/25 151/23 154/15}
154/17 156/23 163/7
163/7 164/3 172/2
175/7 181/6
maybe [6] 6/2 8/5
53/9 80/8 110/1
115/18
McInnes [6] 18/25
161/16 161/23 162/8
162/21 163/5
me [70] 7/21 13/9
15/21 17/10 18/21
21/16 22/1 25/2 29/15)
29/17 32/4 32/5 36/22
39/12 39/15 41/13
A117 41/25 49/14
50/5 52/22 52/25
53/19 53/20 60/8
65/16 69/17 74/15
74/17 74/18 75/3 75/6
78/6 81/24 83/20
85/14 88/14 88/15
99/18 100/8 102/4
104/14 107/7 114/7
123/19 125/9 125/10
131/6 131/25 138/1
139/7 139/20 144/21
153/2 153/14 164/11
164/12 168/1 169/7
172/21 181/6
mean [64] 4/17 5/15
6/2 10/6 11/21 16/1
16/12 19/8 21/23
35/10 38/11 39/6
48/12 48/23 51/10
53/14 60/24 62/1
73/21 76/11 78/17
99/21 117/7 117/18
118/20 125/7 125/10
125/11 130/25 131/1
131/16 134/1 134/5
134/22 136/14 137/3
139/13 140/10 141/1
141/18 142/3 143/3
143/6 143/17 148/19
156/18 158/1 158/2
158/4 158/6 158/9
162/20 163/5 163/19
172/13 176/16
means [4] 7/25 8/17
54/4 67/1
meant [7] 17/5 25/1
38/3 59/4 59/9 65/15
102/11
mechanism [1]
101/11
media [4] 72/21 77/3
81/5 152/23
Mediation [17] 11/6
11/10 11/12 11/17
29/11 30/2 30/3 34/25
56/25 59/25 62/15
63/16 63/25 65/8
65/14 65/19 65/22
meet [1] 30/13
meeting [48] 6/22
8/20 30/6 31/16 31/21
33/19 35/16 37/7
40/25 43/20 43/23
44/4 46/8 46/14 46/21
46/24 46/25 48/4
49/15 58/10 58/16
58/21 59/8 62/23
62/24 65/10 74/24
75/8 75/21 108/11
110/17 113/13 138/11
147/18 149/9 150/12
150/16 151/6 156/14
161/5 162/1 162/17
163/2 174/17 174/18
174/25 175/24 176/15)
114/11 115/18 121/25)
126/10 129/12 130/10)
149/16 151/15 151/25)
22/25 24/1 26/23 27/8
81/11 82/23 83/9 87/9)
meetings [8] 27/22
39/21 74/19 78/21
105/4 109/17 160/12
174/5
member [6] 18/5
23/2 73/21 104/23
105/11 105/15
members [23] 7/10
8/25 9/17 10/8 10/11
10/13 10/21 12/15
14/1 27/14 28/1 28/2
29/20 37/1 41/18
90/8 92/20 124/22
1314/7
memory [10] 107/17
123/25 133/11 153/3
164/3 164/7 166/7
168/11 174/1 174/8
men [1] 22/5
mentioned [8] 70/25
71/21 107/11 119/5
153/7 161/19 161/22
161/23
mentioning [1] 46/22
merit [3] 11/23 11/24
12/2
merits [1] 30/18
message [28] 55/15
56/13 71/24 76/12
156/6 158/25 159/17
160/12 161/14 161/18}
161/21 162/8 162/17
162/24 164/6 164/7
166/24 168/5 168/15
169/16 169/21 169/23
171/11 171/17 171/21
171/23 176/2 176/12
messaging [1]
153/24
met [4] 31/22 31/23
32/5 51/20
mic [1] 116/20
microphone [1]
88/15
mid [2] 7/11 154/24
mid-2013 [1] 7/11
mid-August [1]
154/24
middle [1] 66/13
might [35] 4/19 6/5
10/13 11/10 11/12
12/2 13/25 14/23 29/5}
35/1 53/23 59/14 62/5
68/21 74/18 80/14
80/16 82/23 93/15
104/6 104/25 105/5
117/9 118/18 139/22
150/17 155/5 155/9
155/10 160/17 165/17
168/11 169/20 176/4
178/18
million [6] 64/9 95/17
99/22 101/6 140/25
44/20 52/2 54/9 84/18
142/19
mind [17] 24/4 33/6
40/8 44/10 44/20
44/20 70/18 76/19
79/22 80/1 83/4 87/4
110/23 140/9 140/13
144/21 157/9
minded [1] 139/10
mindful [2] 101/1
101/3
minds [4] 10/12
10/13 10/15 13/22
mine [3] 176/6 177/7
177/10
Minister [15] 23/12
26/18 29/22 60/18
61/14 62/8 68/10
68/20 68/21 70/19
72/13 72/15 142/4
159/21 167/13
Minister's [2] 26/18
70/22
ministers [3] 21/6
119/16 122/2
Ministers’ [1] 165/3
Ministry [1] 78/24
minute [12] 35/25
103/8 171/14 177/17
minutes [19] 18/14
46/13 46/21 48/13
49/15 87/25 88/7
99/17 115/5 115/7
145/6 145/13 146/14
179/6 179/13
miscarriages [1]
178/20
mislead [1] 124/21
misleading [2] 90/14
165/20
misled [1] 143/12
mismatch [1] 108/18
missed [2] 56/3
109/24
missing [1] 135/16
mistake [1] 181/13
mistakenly [1] 99/13
misunderstood [1]
142/13
mitigate [1] 2/23
Mm [27] 6/18 8/21
15/15 15/20 20/10
22/18 30/24 36/6
37/12 53/13 55/18
57/14 60/2 66/15
74/11 75/18 100/7
101/16 102/12 146/5
153/8 154/3 174/9
175/2 179/25 180/12
181/2
Mm-hm [15] 6/18
36/6 55/18 60/2 66/15
45/2 48/9 48/15 65/16
88/2 88/6 98/2 102/23)
30/6 33/20 35/11 44/2
74/11 75/18 102/12
153/8 154/3 174/9
175/2 179/25 180/12
181/2
modernisation [1]
141/17
modernise [1]
140/19
modernising [1]
119/8
Moloney [2] 168/4
169/20
moment [8] 39/8
45/12 52/1 92/16
146/11 164/13 170/8
170/11
momentous [1]
139/18
Monday [7] 147/5
147/19 150/16 150/24I
154/11 160/4 166/22
money [11] 31/7 35/1
60/21 64/25 111/16
111/19 111/21 111/21
112/5 112/9 142/14
monitor [1] 150/22
monitoring [1] 54/17
month [4] 20/6 33/16
66/16 168/5
months [3] 33/4
98/13 101/12
mooted [1] 167/12
moral [1] 109/7
more [41] 11/1 11/23
19/15 35/2 38/24 40/7I
53/22 54/10 60/21
64/10 66/1 67/6 91/1
95/17 97/7 97/19 98/3
98/4 98/19 98/25 99/3}
99/22 101/5 101/24
106/13 106/15 112/18)
119/20 133/15 133/18}
134/13 138/18 150/3
166/24 167/1 168/20
169/7 173/10 173/22
177125 178/19
morning [29] 1/7 1/8
34/23 45/13 68/2 81/8
82/17 87/21 89/8 94/6
114/3 127/7 128/20
130/20 130/22 133/22)
137/13 150/12 153/1
161/22 161/23 167/22!
167/24 169/21 169/25)
171/11 172/23 174/16)
177/13,
most [9] 15/22 34/10
38/15 74/16 88/18
121/16 133/6 135/18
178/1
motivated [1] 12/23
motivating [1] 13/2
motivation [1]
177/10
(63) Martin... - motivation
mounting [1] 64/15
mouth [1] 125/3
move [14] 2/21 3/23
59/24 90/15 106/19
173/13 173/24
moved [4] 63/18
64/21 116/20 163/10
movements [2]
110/19 111/10
moves [1] 155/18
moving [2] 23/5
63/12
MP [1] 169/8
MPs [5] 30/23 74/19
74/21 74/23 110/6
MR [81] 1/4 1/5 3/8
66/7 67/17 75/25 76/8
76/20 77/17 78/12
80/23 81/20 82/10
83/14 86/12 87/8
87/11 88/4 88/13
99/16 101/14 102/22
104/13 114/3 115/3
115/6 115/13 115/18
122/13 122/17 123/14}
123/23 126/14 127/2
127/7 128/16 128/21
129/7 130/22 135/16
136/4 139/14 139/20
142/9 144/23 145/21
145/24 152/18 152/20
152/21 152/24 153/5
157/22 160/11 161/5
161/21 162/8 162/9
162/13 164/8 164/8
165/7 165/11 166/7
167/21 167/21 168/2
168/4 169/20 174/1
174/10 174/16 174/23}
175/1 175/6 175/20
179/9 183/4 183/5
183/7 183/10
Mr Altman [1] 139/14
Mr Arbuthnot's [4]
128/16 128/21 142/9
175/1
Mr Aujard [2] 123/14
127/2
Mr Beer [19] 1/5 88/4
104/13 114/3 115/6
126/14 127/7 130/22
139/20 145/24 152/20)
152/24 167/21 174/1
174/10 174/16 174/23}
175/6 175/20
Mr Davies [17] 66/7
67/17 75/25 76/8
76/20 77/17 78/12
80/23 81/20 82/10
83/14 86/12 87/8
5/19 15/6 22/21 29/10
115/14 145/21 167/18)
87/11 152/21 164/8
168/2
167/21
Mr Edwards [3]
164/8 165/7 166/7
Mr Enright [1]
145/21
Mr Franklin's [1] 3/8
Mr Gibson [3] 161/21
162/9 162/13
152/18 153/5 157/22
183/7
Mr Ismay's [1] 129/7
Mr Jacobs [3] 99/16
102/22 115/3
169/20
Mr Parsons [1] 136/4
Mr Russell [1] 161/5
Mr X [1] 101/14
Mrs [6] 152/11
167/25 170/2 170/5
172/8 178/12
Mrs Hamilton [5]
152/11 167/25 170/5
172/8 178/12
Mrs van [1] 170/2
Ms [103] 1/7 21/13
21/17 22/5 24/17 28/6
28/15 31/2 35/2 39/8
45/21 66/21 70/23
73/17 74/13 75/5
75/19 76/1 78/15
82/12 87/24 88/16
88/23 99/19 101/14
104/8 110/25 114/22
115/12 115/15 115/16)
115/18 115/22 122/18)
123/24 126/16 130/19)
132/18 135/3 135/6
135/10 136/6 136/17
136/25 137/4 137/4
137/8 145/2 145/4
145/5 145/9 145/16
145/17 147/12 147/24)
148/12 148/25 149/19)
151/20 151/22 152/6
152/7 155/5 155/8
155/10 156/7 156/10
156/11 158/4 158/25
159/10 160/2 162/18
164/13 166/17 167/4
167/7 167/13 167/19
168/4 168/15 169/20
170/3 170/7 170/10
171/6 171/25 172/17
173/9 174/19 176/13
177/9 178/6 179/1
179/4 179/5 179/14
Mr Davies’ [2] 165/11
Mr Henry [11] 115/13
115/18 122/13 122/17)
123/23 135/16 144/23)
Mr McInnes [1] 162/8}
Mr Moloney [2] 168/4I
183/6 183/8 183/9
Ms Band [1] 39/8
Ms Berridge [1]
179/4
Ms Crichton [5]
135/6 135/10 137/8
155/5 155/8
Ms Crichton's [1]
137/4
Ms Leek [6] 145/4
145/5 145/16 151/20
179/19 183/8
Ms Patrick [5] 145/2
145/9 151/22 152/6
183/9
Ms Perkins [31] 1/7
35/2 45/21 87/24
88/16 88/23 99/19
104/8 110/25 114/22
123/24 130/19 135/3
136/6 145/17 152/7
158/4 159/10 160/2
162/18 167/19 172/17
177/9 178/6 179/1
179/5 179/14 181/22
Ms Vennells [43]
21/13 21/17 22/5
24/17 28/6 28/15 31/2
66/21 70/23 73/17
74/13 75/5 75/19 76/1
78/15 82/12 126/16
132/18 136/17 136/25)
137/4 147/12 147/24
148/12 148/25 149/19]
155/10 156/7 164/13
166/17 167/4 167/7
167/13 168/4 168/15
169/20 170/3 170/7
170/10 171/6 171/25
174/19 176/13
Ms Vennells' [5]
156/10 156/11 158/25}
173/9 180/24
Ms Watt [4] 115/12
115/15 115/16 183/6
Ms Y [4] 101/14
much [30] 3/1 9/19
15/21 20/7 24/19 25/3
25/6 38/24 48/12
65/24 74/22 77/2
82/14 88/8 98/15
115/21 120/8 122/10
134/13 135/11 136/9
145/1 152/1 156/1
166/23 168/20 175/19}
175/21 181/25 182/3
multiple [1] 168/12
must [14] 57/9 67/7
82/20 85/24 87/14
90/6 116/17 122/25
124/20 125/20 126/8
137/7 140/15 142/24
179/19 180/24 181/22
115/18 115/22 122/18}
mutualisation [2]
85/17 119/10
mutualised [1]
177/21
my [92] 5/17 17/9
27/25 29/20 36/24
40/7 41/14 44/20
44/20 48/10 49/12
68/23 69/18 71/13
84/17 88/20 88/22
90/8 90/19 91/25 92/1
92/13 92/19 96/24
97/11 97/15 98/13
98/15 102/1 105/8
105/18 107/7 109/9
110/21 112/1 112/12
112/23 112/24 113/13}
116/19 117/16 120/20}
122/11 123/18 123/21
125/17 128/8 128/8
131/6 134/16 135/16
140/13 143/5 144/25
149/23 152/7 152/11
154/15 157/22 160/14}
160/14 161/2 162/20
163/19 164/10 164/24}
167/17 169/17 173/18}
175/22 175/25 176/3
176/11 177/10 178/16}
180/7
myself [9] 13/7 27/7
84/17 91/25 99/2
134/4 138/12 141/12
178/5
mystery [1] 49/14
N
nail [1] 10/9
naive [2] 3/17 3/18
name [10] 21/20
57/24 59/14 70/11
85/14 94/11 104/9
152/7 160/8 170/17
named [1] 43/13
names [1] 19/2
narrower [1] 135/12
narrowing [1] 133/14)
nation's [1] 178/1
natural [2] 9/25
22/20
naturally [2] 52/22
54/10
nature [1] 35/8
near [1] 133/10
nearly [3] 70/2
140/24 142/18
necessarily [3] 74/20
137/11 161/14
necessary [2] 105/16
158/18
21/19 26/2 27/9 27/24
50/6 61/22 66/6 66/24,
76/25 79/7 79/22 80/5)
80/9 80/10 80/11 83/3
NEDs [1] 127/10
need [38] 10/9 12/3
24/9 28/20 28/24 29/6I
30/17 30/23 41/5 42/7
46/2 47/5 82/21 82/23)
88/14 90/18 93/4 93/4I
102/23 123/12 130/15)
132/12 134/15 144/17)
147/22 149/10 154/13}
154/18 155/9 155/10
156/1 156/9 158/10
158/15 160/16 164/2
168/20 174/22
needed [14] 15/24
33/23 35/5 35/19
37/20 38/23 40/6
47/15 48/16 69/2
140/14 140/19 155/12)
160/18
needn't [1] 71/1
needs [6] 8/14 8/17
37/19 75/3 127/16
127/21
negative [3] 154/9
155/4 164/18
negotiate [1] 3/3
negotiations [1]
102/14
neither [1] 87/3
network [10] 21/3
25/17 119/12 119/17
119/20 119/24 121/3
121/19 166/1 177/19
never [15] 13/24
18/18 31/10 61/19
76/23 87/2 106/12
107/23 109/11 109/19}
109/20 109/20 129/9
139/5 141/11
new [13] 2/16 15/6
25/20 40/13 69/1 76/6
78/20 92/3 94/21
119/8 119/23 120/2
150/20
newly [2] 69/10
134/19
news [9] 4/25 5/10
21/16 128/6 128/7
150/19 156/4 177/16
177/16
next [28] 19/19 20/6
22/16 27/12 33/16
67/10 75/22 83/4
94/18 94/19 95/14
108/25 146/18 147/14)
147/15 149/11 149/25)
151/4 157/24 158/1
167/18 167/20 168/1
169/25 170/6 172/23
175/11 175/19
NFSP [2] 115/12
115/23
nice [1] 3/17
Nick [2] 18/11 149/4
(64) mounting - Nick
N
night [1] 171/22
NL [3] 68/6 68/16
70/25
no [98] 8/3 9/12 9/17
18/1 20/18 21/15
21/19 22/6 22/13
27/10 28/12 28/21
29/5 29/23 32/13
33/11 33/15 36/14
37/16 39/6 39/9 41/5
41/15 41/22 46/2 46/4)
46/4 50/1 54/2 60/13
61/5 61/11 61/12
61/18 61/18 62/2
63/22 68/17 72/6
72/14 76/15 76/24
77/6 78/17 79/13
81/16 85/4 86/11
86/12 86/20 87/11
87/12 88/24 90/15
90/23 91/15 98/10
103/11 107/17 108/7
115/4 118/11 121/7
123/12 124/12 132/12)
133/12 133/19 135/3
135/3 135/22 136/2
136/16 137/2 140/10
141/3 142/17 142/17
144/17 147/22 148/6
150/21 151/9 151/17
151/19 156/4 157/15
158/2 158/4 158/9
159/3 159/3 163/18
163/18 166/1 167/18
178/1 179/1
nobody [7] 29/16
78/7 138/13 141/13
141/16 143/12 143/12)
noise [1] 65/20
non [21] 2/2 3/21
5/22 8/8 8/19 9/21
10/4 14/1 14/20 18/22)
26/12 26/16 31/19
47/20 84/18 94/12
105/11 106/7 130/9
137/14 178/17
non-executive [12]
2/2 8/8 10/4 14/1
14/20 18/22 26/16
31/19 84/18 94/12
137/14 178/17
non-executives [3]
3/21 9/21 130/9
non-revelation [1]
5/22
non-traceable [1]
47/20
none [2] 138/16
142/15
nor [1] 87/3
normal [2] 134/23
150/9
normally [1] 16/14
Norman [5] 68/7
68/10 71/3 71/13
71/21
not [239]
note [20] 37/15 55/5
77/21 133/6 135/18
135/20 136/3 136/7
156/2 171/16 173/25
17AIT 174/11 174/24
175/13 175/23 180/14)
180/20 181/6 181/14
noted [2] 32/16 32/20
notes [12] 27/21
149/21 149/23 152/25)
174/3 174/10 175/3
175/4 176/7 176/8
179/23 180/7
nothing [11] 11/16
65/3 67/12 70/13 80/9)
112/2 113/18 121/6
142/23 169/15 170/16)
notice [1] 117/7
notification [1]
132/25
notifying [1] 143/14
notwithstanding [1]
117/19
November [1] 141/1
now [77] 3/6 4/20
6/17 7/8 10/24 14/17
22/16 38/5 49/16 51/2
51/17 53/1 53/20
61/25 77/15 77/22
80/6 84/3 91/3 92/17
96/20 100/8 100/15
102/6 106/4 106/15
106/16 106/16 106/17,
110/5 110/9 110/14
115/20 122/22 123/11
124/6 124/16 126/25
130/4 130/5 131/5
132/13 135/6 138/11
145/2 145/8 148/23
149/14 150/22 151/21
154/21 155/13 155/22)
156/13 158/7 159/23
160/4 162/13 163/10
163/10 164/25 165/5
165/18 166/6 167/6
167/21 167/25 168/3
169/19 170/23 171/4
171/20 171/23 172/15)
172/19 175/19 182/1
nowhere [1] 169/10
nub [4] 114/23
nuclear [5] 80/17
80/19 80/21 163/13
163/16
number [19] 5/14
15/7 18/4 20/14 26/8
47/2 53/8 53/9 53/14
57/8 114/11 117/15
117/21 117/23 124/13}
160/20 161/9 177/14
178/23
number 1 [2] 20/14
53/8
Number 2 [1] 53/9
number 3 [1] 53/14
numbers [3] 3/2
89/24 90/2
nutshell [2] 101/22
101/23
[e)
oath [4] 126/12
objective [13] 24/3
24/8 30/15 37/16
37/20 38/18 38/20
39/9 39/13 51/14
97/19 160/15 169/7
objectives [3] 24/8
54/20 55/10
obligations [2] 7/2
90/19
obtain [1] 34/17
obtained [1] 33/1
obvious [7] 51/18
89/16 89/17 89/20
89/21 89/23 142/17
obviously [15] 5/15
10/15 70/4 80/12
81/24 88/24 122/22
123/7 125/8 133/3
134/12 140/8 140/10
171/4 176/10
occasion [2] 31/24
138/4
occasions [1] 178/23
occupies [1] 80/6
occur [3] 1/14 59/18
143/6
occurred [5] 43/4
53/5 53/6 69/17 70/18
occurring [1] 32/3
October [5] 90/17
124/9 133/18 139/16
140/6
odd [1] 100/16
off [9] 56/3 116/6
137/17 137/22 138/7
161/25 162/4 171/19
180/11
offences [1] 80/25
offensive [2] 126/1
126/2
offer [5] 67/2 71/4
120/18 121/24 122/3
offered [2] 32/17
129/13
offering [1] 66/25
office [168] 3/9 3/10
3/17 3/24 4/4 4/14
4/15 5/6 9/5 11/11
18/4 18/14 18/25 19/2
19/6 19/9 19/13 20/7
20/16 20/19 23/8
23/22 25/15 26/18
27/1 27/14 31/6 32/13,
32/24 33/1 33/3 33/16)
34/22 34/25 36/11
50/10 51/13 62/14
63/12 64/1 64/6 65/8
65/13 67/1 68/10
68/14 68/15 68/20
68/21 69/1 69/4 69/8
69/10 76/1 76/16 77/4
78/1 79/7 79/18 80/19)
80/20 81/15 83/11
83/15 83/22 84/1 84/3,
84/6 84/10 84/16
84/21 85/10 85/13
85/19 85/20 87/8
87/16 92/2 92/3 93/9
93/16 93/20 94/2
94/20 94/24 98/14
100/11 100/20 102/2
102/4 103/1 103/18
108/5 108/12 109/7
109/11 110/3 110/18
111/5 111/9 111/13
111/14 111/17 111/20}
111/22 112/25 113/12}
113/15 113/17 116/1
116/9 116/25 117/2
117/24 118/22 118/25)
119/7 119/19 119/22
120/3 120/12 121/15
121/15 121/19 122/3
122/25 123/6 129/8
129/17 129/18 132/9
134/19 135/1 140/25
141/5 141/7 141/17
142/3 142/14 142/20
142/23 143/14 143/25}
144/3 144/19 151/1
152/9 154/9 155/4
156/25 157/8 157/11
157/19 159/5 163/17
166/3 166/8 169/3
172/11 173/14 173/16}
175/1 176/22 177/2
177/18 177/22 177/25}
178/10
Office's [15] 9/9
29/10 30/1 31/4 31/24,
31/25 63/19 73/19
99/14 101/4 109/24
118/17 120/25 152/22}
165/24
Officer [3] 94/13
132/6 139/1
offices [2] 116/15
116/23
officials [6] 19/4
26/19 26/23 26/23
141/12 144/3
often [6] 32/21
103/11 121/15 122/4
126/10 159/9
Oh [11] 16/15 53/7
56/4 60/8 67/4 71/6
74/8 94/3 172/18
173/1 174/4
okay [45] 1/25 5/11
20/8 23/1 37/7 40/9
42/1 48/15 49/8 54/13
55/23 55/24 56/1
62/21 63/3 66/14
66/19 67/4 67/22 68/6
68/18 68/21 70/15
70/23 71/5 71/8 71/20)
74/8 89/23 108/15
122/15 146/17 151/18)
153/20 154/22 158/12)
159/13 159/15 164/1
167/6 167/18 173/8
176/12 178/8 181/9
old [1] 151/4
Oliver [1] 75/8
on [322]
once [6] 52/14 53/11
54/4 54/4 114/19
134/15
one [73] 2/2 6/5 9/10
18/2 18/24 22/15
22/19 24/7 26/2 26/16}
26/22 26/24 27/24
29/12 49/3 54/25
54/25 56/7 60/19
61/20 61/25 62/3
64/22 65/9 67/11 69/1
70/11 73/5 78/21
87/23 92/15 95/14
98/10 99/17 105/22
106/12 108/18 117/25]
118/1 129/5 130/16
131/19 131/21 139/13)
139/13 140/13 143/5
145/19 149/10 152/22)
152/24 154/6 157/3
159/1 164/2 164/11
165/15 165/17 167/14I
168/6 168/22 170/3
170/8 170/14 171/13
171/22 173/7 174/11
175/19 176/17 176/18}
178/9 179/5
online [1] 120/10
only [26] 31/22 33/6
43/10 52/13 52/14
53/9 53/11 54/3 68/2
73/2 87/20 90/12
101/8 104/3 104/10
112/11 121/13 138/21
151/14 151/15 153/16)
154/21 157/3 158/15
168/10 181/20
open [3] 10/11 114/1
130/2
open/supportive [1]
114/1
opened [1] 6/14
opening [1] 112/20
operate [1] 56/21
(65) night - operate
[e)
operated [1] 42/18
operates [1] 51/1
operating [2] 26/13
70/18
operation [4] 42/23
58/4 65/5 111/13
operational [1] 97/24
operations [1] 97/6
opinion [2] 30/17
42/7
opposed [4] 72/20
73/14 101/14 125/23
opprobrium [1]
178/2
optimal [1] 23/8
option [6] 23/5 63/15
64/4 64/9 64/21 65/8
options [5] 20/21
22/15 63/9 63/11
64/11
or [114] 1/10 1/14 3/7
3/9 3/17 4/3 5/3 5/22
6/4 6/5 11/22 11/25
12/23 13/8 13/8 16/16)
16/18 16/24 17/25
19/6 20/11 21/6 27/15
28/10 31/13 34/18
34/18 35/8 37/19
39/20 39/22 41/24
42/5 42/6 42/18 43/15
46/1 51/19 52/23
61/16 61/20 61/21
70/9 70/10 70/11
70/18 73/11 75/20
75/21 76/19 78/11
78/18 78/21 84/16
85/14 85/25 85/25
86/15 89/17 91/8
94/23 95/9 95/10
95/15 95/17 96/21
98/4 99/17 99/22
99/23 99/23 100/5
100/11 100/24 100/24)
101/12 101/14 102/9
102/23 104/18 104/25}
105/15 107/1 110/8
111/18 113/12 115/1
117/4 117/13 117/16
118/1 123/4 123/5
124/12 125/12 126/15)
126/23 128/10 131/4
133/11 134/24 135/21
136/25 143/12 144/10)
145/24 151/13 159/1
163/22 170/20 176/13
178/13 178/18 181/10}
oral [3] 5/2 15/7
53/11
order [6] 30/16 35/5
42/6 58/8 141/7
170/17
organisation [6] 7/10
67/17 84/12 86/4
97/17 176/17
organisational [1]
6/24
organisations [2]
134/22 144/1
original [3] 14/22
171/11 171/23
other [48] 1/12 2/21
9/21 12/24 14/19 16/8)
19/2 22/3 25/3 25/7
25/9 26/3 26/15 27/1
27/7 27/10 28/1 28/2
29/12 32/22 36/25
40/3 43/13 46/13
64/11 78/22 80/6 82/5)
86/1 94/12 98/11
100/3 101/11 102/17
103/12 106/12 114/11
116/22 121/12 122/23}
126/19 128/1 130/9
145/22 149/10 160/20)
176/20 180/19
others [5] 36/14 46/5
75/17 96/11 177/17
otherwise [6] 61/21
90/3 95/17 100/5
100/19 137/9
ought [5] 12/6 74/25
124/18 125/18 178/18)
our [40] 2/23 3/2 3/4
6/20 7/1 7/2 8/10 36/4
42/3 42/9 42/15 42/20
43/1 54/18 78/21 81/7
81/25 82/3 82/17 83/3
84/18 85/6 88/4 88/6
90/19 98/9 120/16
127/12 133/8 133/11
133/16 133/21 145/10)
149/7 151/3 151/4
151/5 151/21 164/17
165/3
ourselves [3] 15/3
82/2 82/6
out [39] 3/25 6/21
11/15 16/5 34/8 38/9
40/7 42/3 42/8 49/19
52/25 53/17 53/19
54/2 54/18 57/11
58/16 63/16 64/12
69/10 73/9 86/15 90/7
92/17 97/4 108/19
111/10 112/3 117/24
131/25 137/1 138/23
142/19 148/14 148/15)
154/20 165/1 170/17
172/4
outcome [4] 11/3
11/11 13/25 117/10
outlets [1] 121/21
outlined [2] 19/14
22/15
outraged [4] 169/7
173/10 173/23 178/20)
outset [2] 4/22
162/24
outside [5] 33/25
34/19 82/18 122/5
147/10
outstanding [2]
162/5 165/15
over [40] 2/14 2/25
3/12 3/18 4/14 4/19
23/5 31/11 31/11
31/12 31/13 32/11
42/23 42/25 56/19
60/15 60/19 72/2
75/22 77/14 82/16
111/19 114/23 117/11
124/11 132/2 137/14
149/11 159/8 178/23
180/11 181/24
overall [2] 58/9
164/16
overnight [1] 149/10
oversubscribed [1]
140/8
overtake [1] 138/2
overtook [2] 137/25
137/25
overturned [1]
152/10
own [13] 13/3 25/10
80/9 87/5 96/12 98/15)
103/19 111/21 124/20
165/3 177/22 178/3
178/21
owned [2] 87/5 98/21
ownership [1] 56/22
P
PA [1] 160/6
pack [6] 1/24 62/23
174/20 174/23 175/7
176/7
package [1] 160/17
page [67] 6/16 7/17
14/4 15/16 19/11
20/13 22/14 22/23
22/24 23/5 23/6 32/11
33/22 34/16 37/3 37/4
37/8 42/1 42/13 44/10
46/15 46/17 46/18
50/8 54/13 54/15
56/19 60/9 63/8 64/17,
66/12 66/13 67/10
71/9 72/3 74/9 75/4
77/14 77/15 78/4
81/19 94/14 94/19
95/4 107/9 107/10
111/2 123/24 146/9
146/24 153/13 155/19}
159/25 161/20 162/7
168/12 168/13 171/24
174/13 174/23 175/5
175/7 175/7 175/8
5/16 10/8 10/16 19/15
87/5 90/9 96/19 106/6
175/9 179/22 181/1
page 1 [10] 7/17 37/4
71/9 75/4 77/14 78/4
153/13 155/19 159/25]
162/7
page 112 [1] 107/10
page 113 [1] 107/9
page 145 [1] 123/24
page 148 [1] 179/22
page 168 [1] 181/1
page 2 [9] 6/16 33/22
74/9 77/15 81/19
94/14 146/9 146/24
161/20
page 3 [11] 19/11
37/3 37/8 42/1 46/17
54/13 54/15 66/12
95/4 168/13 171/24
page 34 [1] 111/2
page 5 [4] 22/14 50/8
63/8 174/23
page 6 [1] 46/15
page 7 [3] 60/9 175/7)
175/8
page 8 [2] 64/17
175/7
page 9 [1] 175/5
paid [3] 111/16 112/5I
112/9
painted [1] 32/21
Panorama [4] 78/2
79/18 80/19 80/20
paper [17] 8/14 20/21
51/16 55/9 102/8
102/8 110/16 111/4
111/8 127/16 127/21
137/16 137/24 138/14}
138/19 138/21 138/21
papers [5] 14/21
21/15 109/18 174/6
174/20
paragraph [45] 19/19)
24/16 30/10 31/1
32/11 37/9 37/13 42/2
44/11 49/3 52/19 53/3)
53/7 53/24 54/13
54/15 54/24 63/9 64/3,
64/18 70/24 71/19
75/12 81/22 82/11
97/3 104/1 106/20
107/7 110/22 111/1
115/23 119/5 123/11
123/16 123/24 124/2
124/4 124/7 125/1
125/1 147/14 156/11
170/12 181/3
paragraph 180 [1]
24/16
paragraph 2 [1]
54/13
paragraph 2.3 [2]
37/9 124/7
paragraph 225 [1]
106/20
paragraph 298 [5]
123/11 123/16 123/24}
124/2 125/1
paragraph 3.8 [1]
63/9
paragraph 3.9 [1]
64/3
paragraph 36 [1]
119/5
paragraph 360 [1]
181/3
paragraph 4 [2]
30/10 115/23
paragraph 51 [1]
97/3
paragraph 6 [1]
32/11
paragraph 7.3 [1]
64/18
paragraph 79.2.3 [2]
110/22 111/1
paragraph 82 [1]
104/1
paragraphs [2] 54/25]
60/15
parallel [1] 12/19
parcel [1] 120/10
pardon [1] 18/9
Parliament [2]
126/24 142/4
Parliamentary [3]
68/12 82/15 158/16
Parlimentarians [1]
39/21
Parsons [3] 132/8
135/4 136/4
part [26] 1/24 9/23
11/13 13/16 14/1 19/1
31/18 37/10 37/13
46/18 69/4 72/15 80/2)
83/5 95/20 111/5
112/23 118/9 118/14
118/15 119/19 120/24}
127/20 158/3 165/23
170/19
particular [9] 6/13
9/15 19/22 24/23 31/8I
46/17 86/3 101/10
104/9
particularly [7] 69/11
69/19 69/20 75/10
76/9 79/6 140/10
parties [1] 43/13
partner [6] 6/1 35/12
35/17 43/22 46/9
46/24
partnership [1] 120/8I
parts [2] 15/8 51/6
party [5] 26/15 27/17
29/21 31/21 66/10
pass [1] 110/11
passed [3] 33/8
110/11 146/41
passing [2] 25/7
(66) operated - passing
passing... [1] 55/15
passion [2] 169/9
172/8
passive [1] 17/15
past [9] 12/6 19/15
40/1 71/3 72/13 72/14
80/1 125/12 141/19
path [2] 30/16 119/1
Patrick [7] 145/2
145/9 151/22 152/6
152/8 168/17 183/9
Paula [45] 6/19 15/14
18/5 19/22 20/17
20/18 21/5 21/21 23/7
25/19 26/13 30/20
67/9 67/11 67/23 70/9
70/10 73/12 76/20
77/9 85/15 90/17
91/20 96/11 132/20
137/21 145/17 146/10)
146/12 146/20 146/25)
149/20 149/23 153/23
161/2 164/8 166/25
173/1 174/19 179/23
180/2 180/7 180/14
180/20 181/14
Paula's [7] 20/23
23/22 25/22 27/13
27/16 73/21 176/10
pause [3] 23/3
169/19 177/17
payable [2] 32/25
35/1
paying [2] 109/25
110/8
payments [1] 32/19
people [44] 11/9
11/18 13/8 13/23 18/7)
21/14 21/18 22/3
22/12 25/3 25/9 25/22
27/19 34/24 44/19
47/2 47/6 84/2 84/16
89/4 89/12 89/24 90/2
98/11 98/22 109/25
110/6 110/6 110/10
112/5 122/22 128/10
129/16 129/17 131/18}
134/23 138/6 139/9
139/10 148/1 176/20
178/3 178/11 178/21
people's [4] 10/12
10/13 13/22 25/7
per [1] 140/6
perceived [1] 83/12
perceptions [1]
34/24
percolate [2] 139/15
139/19
perfect [3] 72/7
72/12 141/24
perfectly [2] 96/16
156/19
perform [1] 77/4
performance [4]
25/12 27/13 27/16
28/3
performed [2] 52/13
54/16
performing [1] 13/16
perhaps [5] 25/10
82/1 126/23 148/23
179/12
period [16] 2/14 3/13
3/19 10/16 11/5 22/17,
23/20 52/10 61/24
68/15 89/16 90/10
108/25 116/13 118/24)
139/16
PERKINS [33] 1/3
1/7 35/2 45/21 87/24
88/16 88/23 99/19
104/8 110/25 114/22
115/18 115/22 122/18)
123/24 130/19 135/3
136/6 145/17 152/7
158/4 159/10 160/2
162/18 167/19 172/17)
177/9 178/6 179/1
179/5 179/14 181/22
183/3
perpetuated [1]
125/23
person [13] 19/23
20/19 21/23 23/8 28/7
69/8 80/6 80/11 92/2
107/2 109/13 126/13
134/10
personal [17] 6/24
8/12 8/16 10/9 10/21
12/15 23/25 24/3 24/8)
24/13 75/10 86/2
117/16 121/24 127/14)
134/14 171/17
personalities [2]
21/8 25/23
personally [3] 114/14!
114/22 141/20
personnel [1] 27/1
perspective [2] 9/9
47/11
persuade [2] 28/10
47/6
phone [3] 147/17
149/12 162/10
phrase [4] 100/4
100/19 100/21 100/22)
phraseology [2] 35/2
35/23
phrasing [1] 28/23
physically [1] 111/19
pick [3] 54/2 67/11
166/23
picked [2] 154/13
162/3
picking [1] 118/3
picture [7] 32/21
58/15 104/20 118/2
118/2 137/1 154/13
piece [11] 33/24
34/17 35/19 35/21
36/1 47/7 81/23 82/9
114/16 117/8 130/2
pieces [2] 51/16 55/8
pity [1] 171/15
place [9] 9/25 72/8
72/12 87/1 97/22
119/23 140/2 147/4
148/24
plainly [1] 92/18
plan [10] 21/1 21/6
21/7 25/13 25/16
25/20 59/10 87/23
88/1 149/7
plank [2] 120/24
121/11
planned [1] 78/2
plans [2] 82/16
120/19
platform [2] 81/6
120/17
play [2] 3/1 82/5
playing [1] 83/5
please [70] 1/16 1/17
6/16 7/16 18/13 19/11
20/4 20/13 22/14 23/5)
32/11 33/22 37/2 37/3
37/8 41/3 42/1 50/8
55/13 55/14 56/12
56/13 56/17 60/9
62/22 63/8 66/9 66/12
67/7 67/23 68/4 70/23
74/9 74/10 75/4 75/16
80/15 80/22 81/19
82/8 84/23 95/4 95/11
95/12 104/14 113/4
122/18 123/11 123/20
124/7 127/7 132/3
132/13 132/17 132/19}
133/4 135/9 139/24
144/21 145/6 146/15
150/3 153/12 161/12
161/13 161/20 163/10}
170/14 175/12 179/13
plunged [1] 102/13
pm [10] 75/20 88/9
88/11 115/9 115/11
152/3 152/5 156/14
181/14 182/4
point [65] 8/15 21/10
23/16 25/14 27/12
31/10 31/12 36/20
36/21 46/6 48/10
55/19 61/12 65/2
65/21 76/16 80/18
83/1 85/22 89/10
89/11 89/16 89/20
92/24 94/19 95/2
95/14 98/16 99/20
100/17 100/18 101/5
108/1 114/18 123/3
127/17 127/22 129/5
134/4 134/18 141/6
142/1 143/6 144/23
144/24 147/6 148/5
148/13 149/18 150/5
150/6 154/4 161/10
161/25 164/14 164/15)
165/16 167/2 167/10
170/10 173/11 175/24
178/7 179/10 179/12
pointed [1] 168/2
points [9] 14/15
82/18 83/4 85/2 86/4
86/15 100/15 109/24
166/15
poised [2] 122/12
122/14
POL [4] 19/12 162/5
164/19 165/7
POL's [2] 162/1
162/2
POL00021523 [1]
33/20
POL00021524 [1]
46/14
POL00022128 [1]
62/22
POL00027933 [1]
41/6
POL00028069 [2]
41/9 46/16
POL00029587 [2]
149/18 179/14
POL00029733 [1]
55/14
POL00098278 [1]
148/25
POL00098797 [1]
146/8
POL00100335 [1]
30/6
POL00101860 [1]
81/19
POL00106889 [1]
59/25
POL00107317 [1]
37/2
POL00108058 [1]
15/13
POL00138401 [1]
46/2
POL00146243 [1]
132/13
POL00150352 [1]
168/12
POL00295300 [1]
74/9
POL00295386 [1]
66/9
POL00297877 [1]
1/16
POL00317714 [1]
7714
POL00344895 [4]
6/15 14/4 126/25
127/16
POL00372265 [1]
153/12
POL00381706 [1]
132/14
POL00381730 [1]
159/24
POL00381747 [1]
164/4
POL00413669 [1]
174/12
POL00419640 [1]
155/17
policies [2] 6/24 7/2
policy [5] 73/19
114/14 119/19 141/4
141/16
politely [2] 8/8
127/10
political [3] 21/5
61/21 159/18
politically [4] 21/3
158/17 159/5 159/6
poor [1] 169/15
populated [2] 130/7
130/8
populating [1]
102/16
port [1] 10/1
position [37] 7/4 8/7
13/3 14/7 16/4 19/23
20/24 36/24 36/25
43/6 63/16 79/7 80/7
85/3 85/6 92/21 93/23
99/13 101/8 107/4
108/3 112/12 112/14
122/16 127/9 128/9
130/10 134/14 136/2
136/14 136/22 136/23)
160/16 162/25 164/25
165/8 178/16
positions [5] 8/12
8/16 10/9 127/14
129/13
positive [9] 9/9 11/3
11/3 12/12 43/25 44/5)
44/21 117/22 165/1
possession [1]
139/23
possibility [3] 59/14
107/3 178/20
possible [15] 1/15
8/16 10/17 17/11 19/8)
28/19 28/21 28/24
61/5 105/14 109/22
126/21 127/18 127/19}
130/12
possibly [5] 18/24
106/10 165/11 175/23}
178/16
post [185]
post-2012 [1] 123/6
post-Alwen's [1]
(67)
passing... - post-Alwen’s
P
post-Alwen's... [1]
147/18
post-hyphen [1]
127/20
post-Whitsun [1]
149/9
Postal [1] 68/14
posted [1] 157/2
postmaster [1] 116/83
posts [1] 69/1
potential [9] 2/23 8/9
17/25 33/9 69/24
70/15 95/15 95/16
127/11
potentially [3] 79/15
91/6 91/9
power [2] 4/3 4/8
powerful [1] 169/3
PowerPoint [1]
132/16
PR [4] 74/2 74/3 74/4
84/6
practice [4] 6/25
47/15 51/1 103/18
pre [5] 47/24 48/2
52/16 53/8 54/3
pre-2008 [3] 52/16
53/8 54/3
pre-2010 [2] 47/24
48/2
precaution [1] 14/1
precautionary [1]
14/2
precipitous [1] 32/13
preferred [2] 22/5
145/25
premise [1] 127/25
preparation [1]
162/16
prepared [5] 41/3
45/22 98/6 123/13
174/25
preparing [3] 28/15
161/4 174/18
present [9] 2/22
33/21 39/20 44/4 63/4,
104/22 105/4 147/7
147/16
presentation [11]
20/12 21/6 46/10 60/1
60/5 60/8 60/23 72/20
73/2 73/14 73/24
presented [5] 9/9
37/7 42/15 162/25
169/12
presenting [1] 21/12
preserved [1] 124/18
press [1] 90/5
pressure [1] 87/15
Preston [1] 160/5
presumably [6] 2/4
8/15 62/4 79/21 81/5
86/9
presume [3] 155/5
163/1 170/21
presumption [1]
105/7
98/15
previous [5] 21/21
34/16 38/12 79/16
155/25
previously [1] 138/9
primarily [2] 24/25
157/5
principle [2] 121/17
121/23
printing [1] 180/11
prior [2] 116/2
180/20
priority [1] 24/9
102/4 114/17
proactive [5] 96/3
98/19 132/9 135/5
136/20
proactively [1] 71/4
probably [9] 18/19
39/15 60/24 80/13
82/1 102/9 142/8
154/19 171/12
problem [7] 13/5
101/10 109/23 142/2
144/12 167/18 169/13)
problems [10] 9/13
9/17 60/18 61/14
61/17 62/8 117/19
150/23 165/24 166/2
procedural [1]
124/14
Procedure [1] 124/19
proceeding [1] 133/9
proceedings [2] 5/2
88/19
process [17] 9/13
31/18 40/15 43/5
43/11 52/13 69/15
69/16 70/13 71/22
82/4 82/20 119/9
133/13 133/18 143/14)
144/7
process’ [1] 124/13
processed [3] 50/16
52/6 52/11
processes [3] 47/10
48/8 166/4
processing [2] 54/21
55/10
procurement [1]
87/6
produce [1] 47/25
produced [2] 32/14
171/14
product [1] 48/19
products [1] 94/22
profess [1] 128/20
pretty [3] 27/23 82/14
private [4] 90/5 92/25]
professional [1] 8/18
professionalism [1]
72/24
profile [1] 90/25
profit [1] 60/22
profit-making [1]
60/22
profitability [1]
177/21
profitable [2] 119/9
119/25
programme [17]
25/18 64/19 78/2
79/17 80/24 81/6 81/7
81/21 119/13 119/17
119/21 121/4 121/8
167/22 168/1 170/4
173/4
progress [1] 65/23
project [2] 40/23
95/10
prolonged [1] 113/1
proper [9] 30/2 69/15
69/16 71/22 72/16
120/17 129/6 129/20
134/9
properly [16] 12/8
25/17 30/16 32/24
89/3 96/16 103/20
104/11 128/7 154/19
155/11 158/14 162/11
173/21 173/22 176/24
proposal [2] 2/19
48/1
proposed [4] 38/17
74/15 133/8 147/15
proposing [4] 74/19
79/15 133/17 167/16
proposition [2] 29/7
102/6
proprietary [2] 2/21
4/12
prosecuted [3]
111/18 116/10 124/11
prosecuting [1]
122/22
prosecution [6]
10/22 93/19 94/1
95/15 107/2 178/3
prosecutions [18]
5/5 12/7 89/25 99/12
101/15 101/21 102/4
106/22 107/13 109/17
114/13 114/18 114/20
117/24 122/19 125/12
144/14 176/24
prospect [1] 178/10
prospects [1] 143/15
prospectus [23]
140/12 143/1 143/10
143/10 143/11 143/20
143/25 144/7 144/10
144/11 152/17 153/4
154/6 155/2 156/13
157/2 158/13 160/24
161/9 164/9 166/21
167/2 177/1
protect [10] 83/25
84/2 84/12 88/20
88/22 89/1 99/9
109/15 176/16 176/21
protecting [1] 88/23
protection [2] 10/10
118/9
provide [7] 2/15
15/10 21/8 56/21 83/6
83/10 120/17
provided [9] 21/14
21/18 22/12 43/7
43/14 60/14 61/7 85/3)
181/23
provider [1] 2/13
provides [2] 50/14
52/4
public [13] 32/16
59/15 64/7 65/12 70/7,
72/24 73/5 84/13
93/10 93/13 94/21
94/22 178/2
publication [3] 16/7
17/14 57/22
publicity [2] 152/21
167/20
publicly [4] 57/25
64/12 65/21 98/21
publish [2] 59/2
63/15
published [1] 165/23
pull [1] 106/6
pure [1] 64/23
pursued [5] 98/4
99/3 106/14 106/15
117/13
push [2] 7/23 164/21
pushed [2] 15/22
164/19
pushing [4] 113/22
113/22 113/22 128/14}
put [23] 8/7 9/20
10/15 15/3 16/18 53/4
70/5 71/9 74/21 87/19)
90/18 97/11 97/12
118/6 118/8 119/23
120/8 121/25 125/3
125/20 127/9 130/11
150/21
puts [2] 67/5 167/8
putting [7] 25/11
49/12 83/1 90/14
110/23 144/7 147/4
Qu
qualified [1] 70/6
quality [3] 35/8 43/16
65/1
quantity [1] 128/2
quantum [2] 32/19
33/9
Queen's [1] 139/14
queries [1] 75/9
query [1] 71/13
question [42] 2/14
5/7 10/12 10/14 13/8
13/9 13/10 14/5 25/4
28/7 28/8 50/12 50/13}
51/3 61/18 82/2 88/20)
90/7 91/7 93/24 95/21
97/18 99/19 104/8
105/3 106/19 106/21
109/9 109/14 112/3
112/16 112/17 117/7
125/17 125/25 126/17)
126/19 127/25 128/17)
160/14 177/5 178/9
questioned [17] 1/4
27/13 28/2 88/13
103/11 115/16 122/17)
145/16 152/6 179/9
183/4 183/5 183/6
183/7 183/8 183/9
183/10
questioning [3]
87/24 98/4 181/21
questions [37] 7/9
7/20 10/5 10/5 11/2
13/13 19/23 34/20
48/23 50/10 87/20
88/16 96/24 104/6
106/13 109/4 109/5
112/18 115/4 115/22
122/11 126/23 129/1
144/25 145/3 145/4
145/17 151/19 151/22!
151/24 152/8 154/21
157/3 179/2 179/7
179/14 181/20
quickly [4] 64/10
94/4 94/5 123/22
quite [14] 27/10
29/25 32/25 40/9
63/22 81/5 85/5 87/4
93/2 96/20 103/5
110/7 129/20 130/1
quotations [1] 35/11
quoted [1] 169/8
R
Radio [4] 80/24 81/6
81/7 167/23
Radio 4 [4] 80/24
81/6 81/7 167/23
raft [2] 89/25 90/1
raise [9] 18/2 65/4
69/23 75/9 109/20
109/20 113/8 147/9
170/9
raised [12] 10/20
19/24 34/11 38/16
78/21 85/3 89/18
92/25 129/12 140/24
153/5 166/17
ram [1] 138/8
(68) post-Alwen's... - ram
R
rate [2] 13/17 65/23
rated [1] 76/25
rather [19] 5/25 10/5
25/10 29/18 32/8
85/23 100/3 110/2
ratings [1] 131/20
rationale [1] 133/8
re [7] 71/13 90/19
90/20 143/2 149/6
161/25 168/25
re-seen [1] 143/2
reach [2] 26/6 123/2
reached [3] 3/22
122/25 166/19
reaction [1] 163/19
read [32] 3/7 19/5
35/25 41/12 41/24
41/25 44/25 46/7
52/18 52/25 53/19
108/19 109/18 125/1
125/18 126/23 129/4
130/19 131/4 131/7
131/24 158/15 164/12)
164/13 164/14 166/6
168/20 172/4
reading [11] 14/20
15/4 45/3 48/15 48/19
50/24 53/7 53/20
55/21 131/9 136/6
reads [2] 125/9 180/6
ready [3] 7/19 119/10
128/5
real [3] 98/24 118/24
177/20
realise [2] 39/15
40/11
realised [3] 58/19
58/20 120/20
reality [1] 127/2
really [53] 4/22 6/2
6/3 8/8 10/7 14/17
17/16 22/4 29/1 29/6
40/1 44/2 44/3 44/19
44/19 48/14 48/23
53/9 59/22 59/23
67/20 73/20 73/24
76/15 84/25 85/18
97/15 102/7 102/10
102/10 105/12 105/16
118/12 121/7 125/13
127/10 128/15 128/20}
130/12 136/17 137/18)
141/3 142/23 144/24
148/19 151/14 153/6
169/3 172/1 177/5
178/5 178/5 181/17
reason [11] 5/22 6/7
range [1] 126/5
38/17 59/13 60/7 63/2
73/23 75/13 77/7 84/6
129/23 133/16 148/16)
53/23 57/10 71/1 97/3
16/18 36/14 41/22
50/6 79/16 99/11
139/6 139/17 140/23
reasonable [3] 47/6
156/19 157/9
reasonably [1]
125/14
reasoning [1] 134/1
reasons [8] 17/11
64/3 70/22 102/17
139/22
reassurance [1]
76/21
reassure [3] 36/4
75/6 75/24
rebooted [1] 120/16
recall [14] 2/9 31/15
148/10 151/7 151/17
167/3 168/9
receipt [3] 43/20 61/1
93/3
received [12] 43/10
43/17 49/17 99/5 99/6
104/19 110/16 111/4
132/7 148/12 151/10
164/21
receiving [1] 58/11
recent [2] 20/15
134/3
recently [2] 79/2
143/2
recess [1] 149/9
recognise [1] 19/3
recognised [1] 26/4
recollection [4]
28/12 41/16 48/10
163/14
recommendation [1]
95/9
recommendations
[1] 124/14
record [3] 50/19
50/22 165/25
recorded [1] 44/2
recording [1] 103/2
records [3] 4/11
47/21 68/12
red [3] 92/10 131/20
131/22
reduce [1] 64/5
refer [3] 68/16 68/19
123/13
reference [29] 34/2
34/8 34/12 38/9 38/11
41/5 48/7 55/23 68/7
68/8 74/13 74/16
94/10 95/20 95/25
96/4 96/13 99/18
100/13 113/23 123/14)
130/2 132/12 132/16
135/18 136/5 179/22
105/22 105/22 121/14)
31/16 45/2 45/3 81/14)
110/20 119/11 126/16)
181/8 181/10
references [2]
166/20 170/16
referred [5] 34/23
51/8 89/8 136/3
174/14
referring [4] 48/5
80/24 85/22 103/22
refers [3] 85/18
154/8 171/16
reflect [2] 159/14
172/10
reflected [1] 139/20
reflecting [1] 105/8
reflection [4] 12/23
127/2 127/4 127/23
refresh [4] 123/25
153/3 164/3 168/11
refreshed [1] 107/17
refuse [2] 57/21
57/24
refused [3] 25/16
58/3 59/17
refusing [2] 59/19
83/9
refute [1] 169/15
regard [1] 129/19
regarded [1] 87/16
regarding [3] 124/15
143/16 146/1
regardless [1] 89/18
register [1] 151/1
regret [2] 138/11
138/12
regretted [1] 169/21
regular [2] 27/23
160/11
regulated [1] 144/8
rejoined [1] 46/25
relates [1] 43/2
relating [3] 2/7 42/21
125/11
relation [29] 1/12 7/6
11/10 12/6 24/9 27/10
30/25 65/13 71/15
85/16 92/24 96/4
98/17 99/12 99/21
101/15 101/20 108/18
110/19 112/20 113/8
119/16 119/19 124/24
125/12 141/5 141/16
166/2 177/11
relations [5] 32/16
64/8 65/12 68/13
72/24
relationship [14] 3/7
3/8 3/10 3/16 4/3 4/4
4/10 4/15 105/24
106/2 120/7 120/16
163/16 164/20
relationships [2]
23/11 27/4
relatively [4] 13/13
120/15 124/14 133/11
release [2] 22/16
64/9
relevant [12] 1/13
74/20 93/9 101/22
119/22
reliability [10] 37/17
37/21 38/19 38/21
39/2 39/10 39/14
40/19 47/4 51/14
reliable [2] 34/14
36/3
relied [5] 25/3 72/23
73/17 73/23 73/25
rely [3] 4/5 72/18
159/20
remain [1] 21/4
remaining [2] 163/13
165/17
remains [1] 57/5
remember [66] 9/6
9/19 9/21 10/2 10/16
27/9 27/21 36/7 40/2
41/23 41/24 45/4
49/16 51/4 58/13
58/14 59/4 59/5 60/24)
62/16 69/14 69/17
69/22 70/10 74/8
76/14 76/17 81/11
81/12 81/16 81/18
82/8 82/9 83/17 98/6
110/23 112/7 124/23
126/23 128/22 130/24
134/1 140/3 144/20
146/2 146/3 148/20
151/13 151/14 153/1
162/19 163/23 167/23}
168/8 172/3 172/25
173/2 173/3 173/4
173/5 173/5 174/3
174/13 174/15 176/15}
179/14
remembered [2] 32/4
163/25
remind [1] 153/2
reminded [1] 142/11
reminding [1] 79/19
remote [7] 28/18
106/19 106/21 107/3
107/24 108/5 109/22
remotely [1] 126/22
Remove [1] 23/6
removed [3] 143/20
154/14 167/11
rendered [2] 91/6
91/10
renewal [1] 2/21
repeat [2] 13/7 178/6
repeated [1] 109/21
repeating [4] 27/7
99/2 168/21 178/4
repetition [1] 25/14
5/22 15/10 51/23 69/9)
106/25 107/15 119/15)
relying [2] 24/19 25/9]
replacing [1] 18/4
replied [1] 111/14
replies [6] 70/23
82/10 84/23 86/12
162/13 170/8
reply [14] 7/16 8/1
68/4 71/19 72/4 75/5
78/5 147/23 148/5
156/10 156/12 158/3
158/8 163/11
report [54] 6/11 6/14
9/8 11/15 12/12 16/4
17/14 32/15 36/9
37/16 37/18 37/21
38/18 38/20 39/7 39/9
39/13 40/3 40/18
40/22 40/23 41/2 42/3
43/17 43/20 45/3 47/2)
51/6 51/14 54/18
55/20 57/22 58/9
58/23 61/9 61/10
63/15 90/24 107/16
124/9 128/24 129/5
130/19 130/22 131/9
131/18 131/21 136/25)
137/5 137/10 142/6
148/14 165/23 166/1
reported [1] 47/12
reporting [2] 162/21
169/1
reports [4] 32/15
50/18 167/7 167/10
represent [3] 3/2
50/22 113/2
representations [2]
144/1 144/5
representative [3]
3/9 90/22 91/15
representatives [1]
151/23
represented [1]
88/17
representing [2] 11/9}
18/23
represents [1] 179/4
reputable [1] 31/5
reputation [19] 77/1
83/25 84/2 84/12
84/20 93/9 94/20
101/4 116/25 118/9
157/8 157/12 176/2
176/14 176/17 176/21
176/25 177/2 1771/5
reputational [4] 8/11
127/13 157/5 159/1
reputationally [1]
156/24
request [1] 170/3
require [2] 52/11
126/20
required [5] 21/3
40/6 43/4 58/7 119/24
requiring [1] 25/18
resends [1] 56/5
(69) range - resends
R
13/15 23/21 29/20
29/22 45/9 53/4
reserved [2] 95/5
95/6
resiles [1] 132/6
resolved [1] 74/23
resolving [1] 136/17
resource [3] 30/12
60/20 147/5
respect [5] 17/20
17/20 96/15 98/18
134/14
respected [1] 36/17
respond [3] 82/4
84/25 113/4
responded [1] 72/5
responding [1]
155/25
response [7] 34/10
38/15 51/20 113/11
151/3 156/2 173/6
responsibilities [8]
13/16 94/15 94/17
95/1 96/16 96/18
97/25 176/18
responsibility [4]
17718
responsible [4]
43/22 85/12 144/14
178/11
rest [7] 71/1 124/4
148/2 156/9 166/14
169/6 172/24
rested [2] 37/4 61/8
result [3] 7/7 41/4
122/24
resulted [1] 98/22
resume [3] 137/23
151/21 182/2
22/22 23/14
retention [2] 124/15
124/16
Rethink [1] 67/16
retrospect [2] 104/24
130/6
return [1] 115/25
revealed [3] 12/16
12/24 105/5
revelation [1] 5/22
revenue [3] 21/2
120/25 121/7
revert [1] 34/2
review [52] 2/23 11/4
18/14 19/20 19/25
20/15 20/24 22/17
22/22 34/6 38/7 39/1
39/3 39/17 39/24 51/8
51/10 51/16 54/16
55/6 55/8 57/5 57/6
reservations [6]
101/21 109/15 176/16}
retain [4] 22/17 22/19)
57/16 92/3 103/19
113/14 113/21 114/2
114/19 124/9 124/10
124/13 129/2 129/2
129/3 129/6 129/10
129/14 130/11 132/4
132/7 133/10 133/14
134/3 134/5 134/7
167/9 177/13
reviewed [6] 39/22
39/25 42/19 50/20
52/7 114/13
reviewing [1] 103/1
reviews [2] 103/24
134/23
revised [1] 154/11
revisions [2] 21/4
25/18
Richard [4] 18/22
26/11 27/17 29/21
idiculous [1] 70/3
right [71] 2/10 7/14
12/24 12/25 19/22
20/19 20/23 23/24
25/12 28/10 35/24
37/23 45/15 46/20
48/25 49/20 49/22
57/21 60/3 62/4 62/12
62/14 63/22 65/7 65/9)
66/18 66/24 71/10
71/11 72/4 72/5 73/8
74/14 80/9 85/9 88/2
88/6 91/21 91/25
93/22 94/7 96/4 97/13
97/22 98/5 100/14
101/7 101/17 103/25
108/17 115/5 122/15
124/2 126/8 131/3
131/13 134/25 136/13)
138/8 145/6 145/7
150/21 151/25 155/16)
160/6 166/9 170/20
175/11 180/25 181/5
182/1
right-hand [3] 20/23
25/12 37/23
risk [18] 2/22 9/24
20/5 20/11 83/1 103/6
107/19 109/3 123/3
125/5 132/16 132/23
135/5 136/24 143/11
143/11 154/15 157/5
risked [2] 133/13
135/11
risks [10] 64/7 65/12
122/23 154/8 155/1
164/17 164/21 165/6
165/21 166/11
RM [2] 154/5 160/24
RMG [2] 143/20
176/25
road [2] 39/16 166/19
robust [7] 21/8 21/14
135/12 141/25 165/19)
21/18 21/24 22/12
47/11 75/2
rock [5] 98/7 98/10
98/15 118/5 118/8
Rod [4] 56/3 146/21
147/1 148/14
Roger [1] 18/24
role [15] 3/4 22/16
88/21
room [4] 137/16
137/20 137/25 138/5
Roosevelt [1] 87/4
roughly [1] 90/3
round [2] 82/16
149/17
route [4] 59/5 129/23
129/24 130/16
Royal [29] 4/16 5/5
9/2 69/3 69/4 69/6
69/7 100/10 113/12
116/1 120/7 120/12
140/1 140/5 140/12
140/22 141/9 141/18
142/6 142/15 144/2
144/6 144/9 144/13
152/16 153/4 157/12
161/9 163/16
ruined [1] 178/21
rules [2] 82/3 82/6
run [9] 16/6 49/13
60/17 61/13 71/3
72/13 72/14 89/2
134/6
run-up [2] 16/6 49/13
running [2] 82/6
133/14
Russell [4] 27/19
160/8 161/5 163/2
s
safe [2] 7/3 14/6
safety [1] 35/7
said [78] 3/14 4/18
4/19 5/16 8/1 12/4
14/21 22/23 26/11
28/10 28/14 28/17
29/5 30/14 31/1 32/5
35/6 36/9 36/12 39/19
39/21 39/25 45/2
49/10 51/23 53/2 55/2
57/10 57/12 58/13
71/25 90/4 90/18 91/3
91/19 96/24 98/2 98/6
99/3 103/25 104/15
104/21 105/8 108/23
109/23 110/1 110/1
110/10 110/14 110/18}
112/21 113/15 117/14
118/3 118/13 126/3
130/4 132/1 135/13
137/21 138/10 138/16
27/25 66/7 69/10 70/4
70/7 71/24 77/4 77/11
79/7 79/20 87/8 87/13
145/13 145/25 146/3
162/4 162/22 162/23
163/4 172/14 174/2
174/5 178/22 179/5
179/21
Salmon [1] 148/3
Samantha [1] 145/18
same [9] 3/22 12/17
37/2 89/13 90/4
122/15 146/13 176/7
176/8
sanitaire [1] 139/5
sanitised [1] 125/22
satisfy [3] 30/23
34/13 58/8
Saturday [1] 56/16
saw [12] 21/15 41/15
50/5 51/2 79/2 87/8
87/13 99/7 130/22
142/8 144/18 163/22
12/1 14/19 15/17
16/21 17/1 17/16
23/24 25/8 26/3 26/22,
27/17 28/21 28/24
29/3 29/12 31/24 32/4
32/14 37/14 40/17
41/10 43/8 45/16
53/18 58/5 61/4 61/5
64/17 67/7 71/12
78/23 79/3 88/4 89/9
89/23 95/22 96/15
97/4 98/17 100/20
100/21 101/23 104/2
104/5 106/20 106/23
107/4 112/8 112/22
113/5 114/10 115/25
115/25 118/23 119/6
119/15 119/21 122/19}
128/1 131/4 131/14
147/24 148/7 148/8
153/14 156/2 156/25
160/21 161/1 162/14
169/14 180/23
saying [37] 12/22
16/15 17/7 28/12 39/9}
49/21 51/5 53/1 53/10
53/21 66/4 72/12
83/13 107/18 107/18
107/23 107/23 107/25}
108/3 112/1 122/9
124/25 125/2 128/22
142/13 142/17 142/22}
148/20 151/12 155/12)
165/7 166/7 166/10
166/12 167/23 171/25}
172/18
says [28] 2/4 7/17
30/4 36/1 41/18 48/22,
56/12 70/24 75/19
80/15 82/11 94/14
94/15 108/7 146/18
154/5 161/24 162/14
148/14 148/16 148/17)
say [75] 3/12 3/20 9/6
164/9 166/15 166/18
166/23 170/13 170/20)
173/9 175/14 175/15
181/3
scan [1] 22/23
scandal [2] 84/5
118/15
sceptical [4] 4/9 4/9
35/17 47/3
schedule [1] 102/15
scheme [24] 11/6
11/11 11/12 11/18
29/11 30/2 30/3 34/25
56/25 59/25 62/15
63/13 63/16 63/17
63/25 64/7 64/10
64/21 65/9 65/14
65/19 65/22 82/22
82/24
scope [7] 42/8 57/4
107/4 133/14 134/2
135/12 138/3
screen [7] 123/23
146/24 153/17 158/4
163/9 164/11 169/2
scribble [1] 174/6
scribbled [3] 174/11
175/13 175/24
scroll [50] 1/16 6/16
14/4 43/19 44/9 44/25)
48/25 55/14 56/2
56/12 56/19 63/10
66/12 70/23 71/19
77/25 78/4 80/15
82/10 84/23 94/11
94/18 95/4 111/2
124/4 127/7 132/17
132/19 133/4 146/24
147/11 149/13 149/22)
149/22 150/3 156/9
157/21 157/24 162/6
162/13 163/8 165/14
169/23 170/1 170/7
171/10 174/22 174/22)
175/4 175/11
scrolled [2] 146/22
159/25
scrolling [4] 95/11
95/12 163/10 175/9
scrupulous [1] 72/17
sealed [2] 50/19
142/21
search [1] 47/5
second [67] 4/6 6/11
6/14 9/8 11/4 12/12
14/5 16/4 20/13 22/2
30/11 30/14 30/21
32/14 34/11 35/9
35/18 36/8 37/13
38/16 39/17 40/5
44/11 49/5 54/15 55/4
56/19 61/8 63/20 64/2I
65/1 67/2 71/5 71/19
74/13 81/21 82/11
7
'0) reservations - second
Ss
second... [30] 87/21
90/24 93/1 110/18
111/9 111/12 111/20
114/1 114/19 117/18
129/2 129/23 132/4
133/12 134/6 136/25
141/25 142/6 147/7
147/17 148/13 150/6
152/20 155/16 155/16)
158/11 160/20 160/23
165/18 169/13
Secondly [1] 38/6
Secretary [4] 41/8
133/3 141/13 141/23
section [12] 42/12
95/11 95/13 154/8
154/15 155/2 157/25
158/1 164/18 165/6
165/21 166/11
section 5 [1] 95/13
security [2] 47/10
48/8
see [121] 2/18 2/19
6/3 7/25 10/6 14/10
14/22 15/16 16/15
18/15 19/5 22/19
22/22 27/3 30/7 33/21
37/4 48/12 50/12 51/2
51/17 51/17 53/1 56/2
56/4 56/8 67/4 67/25
71/6 77/22 78/4 82/10
87/9 91/8 91/11 92/17
94/3 94/11 98/7 98/14
100/16 103/3 103/20
106/16 112/18 113/9
115/15 115/18 116/19
118/5 122/9 122/16
125/15 127/3 128/3
131/1 131/22 132/15
132/20 134/25 135/14
140/21 141/3 141/21
143/17 145/14 145/22)
146/11 147/15 148/19)
152/11 152/13 153/9
153/22 153/23 154/2
154/6 155/20 157/24
158/2 158/3 158/5
158/16 158/24 160/1
160/1 160/5 160/12
161/14 161/19 161/20)
161/23 162/8 162/12
162/15 162/17 163/9
163/10 164/6 164/7
166/6 166/15 168/15
168/24 169/25 170/6
170/7 170/14 171/10
172/6 175/3 175/4
175/9 175/13 180/1
180/3 180/5 180/14
180/16 180/22 181/12)
seeing [4] 45/2 58/14
130/24 163/24
seek [3] 3/3 36/18
165/18
seeking [3] 17/5
36/22 77/13
seem [3] 10/17 13/18
75/3
seemed [2] 13/13
135/1
seemingly [2] 8/23
21/11
seems [6] 7/13 12/11
148/3 165/5 165/15
166/11
seen [35] 1/20 26/13
32/15 41/16 44/5 50/5)
50/25 51/4 54/9 61/11
61/15 65/22 66/3 86/1
90/23 91/11 105/6
105/15 105/15 131/16)
131/18 131/23 136/21
140/11 142/3 143/2
143/2 151/2 161/14
162/24 164/6 169/11
170/25 172/2 172/4
sees [1] 15/21
Select [5] 28/16
110/16 110/17 111/6
111/8
selected [1] 89/24
selection [3] 31/18
69/16 70/13
self [2] 133/7 135/19
self-explanatory [2]
133/7 135/19
send [2] 149/13
154/20
sending [4] 74/15
159/17 180/10 181/15)
sends [3] 67/24
149/20 179/23
senior [2] 5/17 65/1
sense [12] 26/17
31/4 31/5 31/8 31/10
31/25 44/1 61/19
64/23 66/24 89/12
164/24
sensed [1] 75/7
sensitive [3] 61/23
75/10 134/13
sent [28] 28/16 41/5
46/1 46/1 56/16 75/16
90/17 146/12 146/14
148/25 149/4 153/15
168/5 168/17 169/21
171/22 172/20 172/21
172/22 172/23 180/2
180/3 180/10 180/13
180/20 181/6 181/14
181/16
sentence [8] 27/3
124/24 125/7 125/10
127/20 165/18 165/22)
180/6
separate [4] 19/1
138/14 141/15 142/7
separated [3] 123/6
134/20 144/12
separately [2] 75/14
141/9
separation [4]
100/11 102/14 116/2
144/14
September [13] 3/15
3/19 68/15 108/11
108/14 132/6 132/14
132/18 135/5 155/23
160/4 161/13 164/5
series [5] 12/13
22/14 66/10 146/6
161/15
serious [3] 82/19
112/22 142/2
seriously [1] 113/3
servant [1] 79/6
served [1] 116/16
service [3] 47/16
70/7 79/8
services [7] 2/8
18/12 120/14 120/18
121/11 121/17 121/21
set [7] 24/7 73/18
87/24 117/18 127/6
162/12 177/13
sets [2] 57/11 138/3
setting [8] 6/20 11/17
24/2 43/19 63/16
64/12 129/14 148/14
settlement [1] 95/16
several [3] 47/17
105/22 118/3
Sewell [5] 22/9 46/23
47IT 48/3 56/14
shall [3] 75/22 87/2
167/18
shape [1] 73/18
share [2] 6/4 140/6
shared [3] 5/14 5/20
26/1
shareholder [9]
18/21 18/23 19/13
20/9 20/22 21/12
27/20 101/2 177/20
shares [1] 140/5
she [108] 7/17 15/18
15/24 15/24 17/10
17/10 17/15 17/18
17/24 21/7 21/23
21/23 21/24 22/11
22/20 23/10 23/14
24/14 24/19 25/3 25/7
25/22 27/4 28/15
28/16 28/23 41/18
41/18 56/5 70/24 71/1
71/2 TAIT 73/23 76/2
76/6 76/7 76/8 76/10
79/8 79/20 85/13
85/18 86/8 90/18
126/17 134/4 134/12
134/15 134/17 134/18
135/8 137/5 137/6
137/7 137/9 137/21
138/22 138/25 139/3
146/14 148/14 154/1
155/11 155/13 155/14}
155/15 156/25 157/2
157/7 157/9 159/22
162/1 167/7 167/8
167/8 167/10 167/13
167/14 167/15 167/16}
168/1 168/2 168/5
168/21 169/20 170/10}
170/12 170/20 171/20}
171/22 172/4 172/6
172/8 172/20 172/21
172/22 172/22 172/23}
172/25 173/9 173/9
179/5 179/6 179/21
179/21 181/3 181/7
she'd [1] 169/21
she'll [1] 145/11
she's [7] 78/17 85/22
143/19 153/24 157/3
157/10 171/18
ShEx [9] 19/7 26/5
26/24 27/15 158/20
160/9 164/19 166/17
167/11
ShEx's [1] 166/20
shoes [1] 15/3
shone [1] 21/5
shopping [1] 120/10
short [7] 20/21 45/18
86/19 88/10 115/10
133/14 152/4
shortcoming [1]
86/21
shorter [1] 167/19
shortfalls [3] 32/2
107/5 111/17
shortly [3] 31/16
31/16 149/5
should [63] 3/5 17/18
19/5 28/7 29/2 32/13
32/23 34/12 36/18
37/3 37/25 38/3 44/7
51/22 64/17 64/17
67/2 69/23 71/4 74/19
79/4 80/8 82/2 85/5
89/17 92/3 92/6 92/8
92/11 96/21 96/22
98/3 98/4 99/3 100/24
101/9 101/14 102/7
102/8 102/25 103/6
104/17 105/19 106/15]
110/11 113/14 113/20
114/5 115/1 117/13
133/6 133/7 135/19
136/18 138/13 149/5
158/14 158/21 160/14}
166/4 174/13 178/25
180/23
shouldn't [4] 91/4
98/25 102/25 129/1
show [11] 17/17
32/23 41/7 56/9
108/21 146/6 168/7
168/22 170/14 171/13}
171/22
showed [1] 47/13
showing [2] 46/5
55/20
shown [3] 25/19
132/14 179/15
shows [3] 8/22 45/25
55/25
shredding [3] 124/17
125/11 125/19
side [11] 9/20 12/5
20/23 23/6 25/12
37/23 48/19 74/21
121/6 160/18 175/3
sides [1] 133/19
Sight [46] 4/6 6/11
6/14 9/8 11/4 12/12
16/4 30/12 30/14
30/21 32/14 34/11
35/9 35/18 36/9 38/16
39/17 40/5 61/8 64/2
65/1 67/3 71/5 74/13
90/24 93/1 110/19
111/9 111/12 111/20
114/19 117/18 129/2
129/23 132/4 133/12
134/6 136/25 141/25
142/6 147/7 147/17
148/13 160/23 165/18)
169/14
Sight's [1] 63/20
sign [2] 161/25 169/3
sign-off [1] 161/25
signed [3] 50/7 157/1
162/3
significant [7] 6/1
34/10 38/15 42/20
109/3 139/14 139/17
similarly [1] 36/13
Simon [2] 91/14
114/16
simple [1] 49/25
simply [15] 28/13
36/22 41/23 49/16
69/18 110/10 125/13
151/13 162/19 163/24)
172/3 172/9 173/3
173/13 178/13
since [9] 5/24 7/4
7/10 14/7 75/1 114/10)
131/5 150/20 152/10
sir [37] 1/6 30/4 30/7
30/11 30/14 30/18
31/1 31/12 31/15
32/12 32/20 33/6 33/8
33/14 45/13 87/21
88/8 88/14 89/8 89/18)
92/23 93/3 102/24
115/12 115/17 122/11
(74) second... - sir
Ss
sir... [11] 122/14
123/21 135/22 144/25
145/13 151/19 157/23
173/7 178/9 181/20
182/3
Sir Anthony [13]
30/4 30/7 30/11 31/1
31/12 31/15 32/20
33/6 33/14 89/8 89/18
92/23 93/3
Sir Anthony's [2]
32/12 33/8
sit [1] 96/6
sits [1] 115/18
sitting [3] 96/10
152/11 167/25
situation [7] 8/24
11/14 77/23 84/14
84/19 116/22 137/19
situations [1] 75/11
six [2] 101/12 148/23
sixth [1] 150/5
skill [1] 126/18
skillset [1] 105/15
skim [3] 166/13
175/3 175/4
skimmed [1] 174/23
skip [1] 165/14
skipping [2] 60/15
60/19
Slaughter [1] 144/38
sleight [1] 88/3
slides [1] 20/4
slot [1] 149/12
slow [1] 94/7
slowly [2] 90/12
169/24
small [4] 120/15
124/14 150/25 179/10)
so [181] 2/6 3/12 4/7
4/17 5/20 5/24 6/8
8/14 8/22 11/14 13/1
13/25 14/14 15/21
16/2 16/10 16/10
16/25 17/7 19/5 19/10}
20/3 20/5 20/8 24/6
24/22 26/11 26/20
27/10 32/6 34/20 35/3
35/9 36/9 37/4 37/15
38/11 38/13 39/6 40/4,
41/9 41/13 41/24
43/20 44/2 44/6 44/12
44/23 45/2 46/12
46/20 49/11 50/4
52/23 53/5 54/23
57/12 58/3 58/20 61/1
62/25 63/22 63/23
66/14 68/15 69/6 70/4
70/9 70/15 72/10 73/1
74/22 75/25 76/5 76/7,
76/19 77/8 79/2 79/10)
79/14 80/9 81/20 82/5
82/11 82/20 82/21
83/9 86/6 87/1 87/25
88/4 88/6 88/15 89/6
90/7 90/13 92/9 94/25
95/19 96/3 96/14 98/1
100/10 100/23 101/20)
102/10 103/16 106/24)
107/14 107/18 109/9
110/25 111/17 112/24)
115/15 118/11 120/2
120/5 121/3 121/18
122/3 122/9 123/3
123/19 123/24 124/2
127/16 128/1 128/19
129/11 130/25 131/8
133/6 133/24 135/9
135/23 136/2 136/19
136/24 137/7 139/3
141/19 142/3 142/15
143/11 145/22 146/23)
147/22 148/3 149/9
149/11 149/16 150/5
151/3 151/10 151/16
151/21 151/23 152/2
153/19 154/16 156/6
156/21 158/17 158/19)
158/21 158/23 159/20)
160/16 160/24 165/10)
165/11 166/22 169/14)
171/15 171/24 175/21
180/9 181/13 181/21
182/1
sobering [1] 40/9
software [2] 129/10
166/3
sold [3] 121/4 121/8
121/10
sole [1] 63/19
solely [1] 72/23
solution [1] 109/6
solutions [1] 108/19
some [58] 1/9 9/13
10/12 10/14 13/15
14/16 19/2 19/3 20/4
21/20 21/25 22/25
29/22 30/4 30/19
36/19 37/10 40/6 44/8)
48/16 53/3 53/4 55/1
59/20 62/4 66/11
78/22 79/21 80/25
83/21 85/2 85/2 91/19)
104/19 105/20 106/14)
113/5 113/5 128/1
129/15 129/17 144/5
145/3 147/8 150/7
151/4 151/14 154/1
154/19 155/11 158/19)
162/11 164/17 171/17)
171/18 175/3 175/4
175/24
somebody [16] 13/8
19/9 29/2 40/13 69/7
70/5 76/8 79/5 85/15
85/25 105/11 125/15
somewhere [2] 13/21
154/4 162/22 175/10
176/13
someone [2] 100/25
149/16
something [26] 11/7
29/6 30/19 36/2 52/23
59/9 71/25 91/12 98/1
102/17 112/5 114/3
115/25 119/13 123/7
131/2 131/14 134/24
136/7 141/8 154/20
162/21 163/20 167/12
178/12 180/10
sometime [1] 130/23
sometimes [7] 78/18
138/5 138/7 138/7
138/10 174/6 174/6
somewhat [1] 57/5
16/19
sooner [1] 133/16
sorry [52] 5/8 13/7
14/19 17/23 23/18
27/7 29/12 35/14 37/3
38/24 44/14 44/16
49/23 62/25 65/16
67/11 77/19 91/7 94/4
95/12 95/14 95/21
99/16 107/10 112/22
115/6 115/19 116/18
116/19 116/20 123/19}
125/13 126/2 131/12
135/15 142/12 146/23
148/19 150/6 151/14
153/2 157/22 158/6
160/21 164/10 167/5
172/1 172/18 173/3
176/5 178/4 181/18
sort [7] 22/3 31/17
32/7 54/11 70/16
100/9 155/25
sorted [2] 158/14
159/5
sorts [4] 4/9 29/15
48/11 101/2
sought [2] 35/3 77/12
souls [1] 87/2
sound [3] 12/4 17/1
176/23
sound’ [1] 124/12
sounds [4] 72/1 78/6
156/19 156/19
source [1] 118/16
sources [2] 26/9
26/21
SpAd [2] 68/25 80/5
Sparrow [6] 6/19
34/15 62/25 77/19
81/23 90/19
speak [6] 92/6 92/8
100/11 137/9 156/14
156/21
speaking [10] 71/3
76/3 84/16 145/12
149/20 149/23 180/7
180/14 180/20 181/6
Special [3] 68/24
77/1 77/5
82/18 94/17 96/20
114/25 117/12
28/25 70/25 95/6
150/24
speculating [1]
157/18
speculation [1] 62/5
spend [1] 156/1
spends [1] 86/23
129/25
split [1] 144/20
SPMs [2] 171/1
172/12
spoke [1] 137/4
spoken [2] 27/15
179/4
spokesperson [2]
83/7 83/10
stack [1] 40/1
staff [7] 23/14 79/17
83/25 84/6 87/5
108/12 108/12
stage [9] 28/4 36/8
65/19 128/25 135/7
146/2 154/19 155/11
170/16
stamped [1] 169/2
stand [1] 177/22
standards [1] 42/6
standing [1] 97/19
star [1] 95/7
start [22] 6/16 23/20
30/4 62/22 67/21 82/5)
86/2 115/6 116/6
118/4 118/7 137/15
146/8 153/4 153/12
153/13 155/19 156/2
159/24 168/12 168/13
17718
started [6] 51/24
52/2 91/24 140/7
163/23 174/1
starting [1] 13/14
state [5] 68/13
118/21 134/20 141/23}
142/4
stated [1] 142/9
statement [34] 15/8
18/2 24/12 38/22
41/14 49/13 50/7 85/6)
97/3 97/11 97/13
102/1 104/1 105/8
105/18 106/20 107/8
110/21 110/24 110/25}
4111/1 112/2 112/21
115/24 119/6 119/11
123/12 123/16 123/17,
specific [7] 24/8 58/4
specifically [5] 23/25
spent [3] 60/21 120/7
123/19 142/4 150/14
180/24 181/23
statements [4] 90/22
91/15 165/4 169/2
states [1] 33/2
status [1] 163/16
stay [1] 122/15
staying [1] 147/20
stealing [1] 31/7
steer [1] 44/21
step [1] 159/21
steps [6] 83/4 113/5
114/6 114/12 146/18
147/15
stick [4] 67/14 71/2
71/7 82/3
still [10] 8/23 47/115
55/6 77/22 99/18
133/11 150/10 154/16}
156/22 164/18
stitch [2] 70/16 72/10
stitch-up [2] 70/16
72/10
stone [1] 132/2
stop [8] 114/17
159/10 163/10 170/8
172/17 175/12 177/17
179/11
stopped [1] 91/23
stopping [1] 25/25
Store [3] 50/18 50/21
54/22
storm [1] 141/24
story [7] 11/13 11/16
14/23 14/24 67/13
74/21 165/1
straight [1] 125/20
straightforward [2]
13/13 96/23
strange [1] 13/11
strategic [4] 25/16
97/17 97/18 98/17
strategy [10] 8/10
23/9 25/13 73/19
120/24 127/5 127/12
136/24 160/15 160/19}
Straw's [1] 68/24
streams [4] 119/8
119/24 120/5 121/7
Street [1] 66/23
strength [1] 164/20
stressing [1] 142/5
strive [1] 86/22
strives [2] 57/3 86/19
strong [8] 32/12
47/13 48/7 67/14
69/21 80/20 85/5
86/15
struck [1] 74/17
structure [2] 19/16
103/1
struggle [1] 52/24
struggling [1] 49/18
stumbles [1] 86/15
(72) sir... - stumbles
Ss
stupifying [1] 126/6
style [1] 127/23
styles [1] 21/22
Sub [1] 62/25
Sub-Committee [1]
62/25
subcommittee [4]
subject [7] 9/23 16/2
42/10 57/4 118/13
146/18 160/8
submitted [1] 41/14
subordinates [1]
126/18
subpostmaster [7]
107/2 150/18 150/21
subpostmaster's [2]
43/6 150/13
subpostmasters [45]
11/9 30/3 31/5 47/18
50/15 52/5 56/21
74/20 74/22 80/24
83/23 84/8 84/13
87/18 88/17 88/21
99/8 99/10 108/3
109/16 111/16 112/9
112/21 113/2 116/4
116/15 116/24 120/1
121/5 121/9 142/10
152/9 152/23 168/3
169/17 170/4 170/16
172/9 172/12 173/11
178/19
subpostmasters' [6]
33/4 92/4 98/20
111/21 129/13 166/5
subsequently [1]
3/25
subsidiaries [1]
118/23
subsidy [3] 118/25
141/6 177/23
substance [9] 62/11
71/17 72/19 73/1
73/23 78/9 78/20
84/20 85/23
substantial [1] 33/10
substantially [3] 15/9)
64/5 117/4
substantiated [1]
84/22
substantive [2] 6/21
81/22
substantively [1]
118/12
succeed [2] 88/23
112/24
success [2] 7/24
60/11
stupid [1] 6/2
34/15 62/24 65/7 95/8)
52/8 52/11 53/16 54/6
88/22 89/1 97/1 98/24
successful [1]
141/19
successfully [1]
142/15
succinct [1] 57/3
such [16] 32/14
37/17 43/18 50/21
73/14 82/19 103/1
124/15 134/7 137/17
150/22 164/23
suddenly [2] 89/25
90/13
suffering [3] 84/21
112/25 181/18
sufficient [1] 36/18
suggest [10] 15/7
126/10 127/1 127/19
146/6 177/4
suggested [10] 15/6
20/15 51/21 68/19
70/10 70/10 85/14
suggesting [10] 17/3
80/12 80/13 97/12
125/18 125/19 126/7
139/4 154/12 170/5
suggestion [3] 51/19
72/10 156/20
suggests [1] 166/3
suitability [3] 19/20
20/1 20/17
summaries [2] 14/16
14/17
summarise [1] 24/6
summarised [2] 1/10
104/3
summary [3] 1/14
165/9 166/7
Sumner [4] 78/24
79/5 80/8 80/9
sums [1] 31/7
supper [1] 72/2
supplementary [1]
111/4
supplied [1] 43/16
support [7] 4/6 9/15
42/3 64/24 140/20
142/9 166/4
supported [2] 68/1
103/13
supportive [1] 114/1
suppose [3] 53/4
128/13 180/9
sure [30] 6/1 6/6 6/7
7/19 11/7 24/3 26/18
27/22 28/21 36/25
52/2 58/6 75/7 87/4
103/5 105/23 106/10
106/18 131/17 135/19)
147/8 148/8 148/20
149/8 152/11 158/17
159/20 163/18 165/41
52/8 61/24 64/7 72/21
54/19 68/12 70/2 70/9)
113/13 113/16 113/24)
174/5
surely [6] 74/25 90/5
142/3 142/24 143/9
148/16
surprise [2] 29/15
39/11
surprised [2] 40/20
44/23
surprises [1] 156/4
surprising [3] 29/25
32/6 126/3
surrounding [1] 22/7
Susan [28] 15/9
102/2 104/15 104/21
133/19 133/24 134/4
154/17 155/4 155/6
155/8
suspect [1] 120/21
suspense [8] 110/13
110/20 111/7 111/10
111/13 111/25 112/3
150/22
suspicion [1] 17/24
173/14 173/17
sweat [2] 86/18
87/17
swing [1] 158/17
Swinson [4] 23/11
37/11 142/8 158/22
system [52] 2/21
4/11 9/12 9/18 12/4
34/1 34/5 34/7 34/9
34/21 35/7 36/11
36/21 38/2 38/8 39/5
43/3 43/8 47/4 47/10
47/13 47/21 47/24
48/2 48/9 53/15 54/19
55/9 56/21 57/25 58/4
59/15 60/13 64/14
65/5 65/6 90/1 102/25
103/6 103/6 107/5
107/6 109/5 110/4
126/22 129/10 150/9
150/18 165/25 166/1
169/17 176/23
system's [1] 150/10
system-wide [1] 9/12
systemic [5] 9/12
36/10 60/13 61/6
64/14
T
table [1] 11/10
tack [1] 128/12
tactic [1] 83/10
tainted [1] 5/3
take [32] 1/25 32/13
45/11 65/24 73/2 73/5
15/19 17/4 17/8 17/18
21/20 21/22 26/4 27/8
134/10 136/14 137/16
137/20 137/23 137/24
138/15 138/18 154/13
sustainable [3] 119/7I
73/8 75/13 87/21
91/25 92/22 97/14
98/9 99/11 99/17
107/7 115/5 115/7
121/3 126/25 129/16
129/17 129/18 131/21
151/21 164/2 165/3
171/24 179/6
taken [20] 50/14
69/13 69/15 72/20
89/22 90/16 90/16
98/25 100/9 102/8
114/6 114/12 114/14
114/17 115/1 175/20
takes [1] 164/5
taking [14] 13/12
65/8 73/13 91/23
91/24 101/14 112/3
144/21 173/1 176/8
talk [8] 15/25 86/2
93/7 107/16 112/11
149/17 151/5 161/2
talked [12] 17/10
25/8 84/11 114/24
130/21 134/8 152/20
153/5 167/24 176/19
(77/1 177/18
talking [24] 14/12
15/19 16/2 16/11 17/3}
32/7 103/22 106/7
106/8 120/2 120/3
129/3 130/20 131/2
135/20 148/5 148/18
160/13 160/15 160/19)
161/4 165/22 171/1
171/18
tampering [1] 109/4
task [1] 95/10
taught [1] 126/17
taxpayer [1] 118/23
taxpayers [1] 118/16
teaching [1] 126/16
team [16] 19/2 19/13
19/20 19/21 20/16
21/12 22/3 69/8 73/21
76/16 82/13 83/3
87/16 123/8 164/19
172/11
teams [1] 64/20
technical [5] 43/7
52/19 57/5 150/13
159/1
teed [4] 180/21
Telegraph [1] 68/2
tell [7] 24/12 28/7
29/2 29/4 124/19
176/6 176/11
telling [6] 83/20 96/7
96/11 98/11 103/9
157/4
ten [3] 88/2 88/6
132/12 144/17 146/16}
72/22 73/2 73/3 75/25)
16/10 58/9 64/4 64/13)
145/6
ten-minute [1] 88/6
ten-minute-late [1]
88/2
tension [4] 21/20
21/25 22/3 26/3
tensions [1] 106/2
tenure [3] 92/10
92/13 118/5
term [1] 19/23
terminated [1]
111/19
terminating [1] 32/17
terms [17] 34/2 34/12
62/11 70/6 74/13
74/15 94/10 95/20
95/25 96/4 96/12
99/18 100/12 113/23
130/1 132/15 166/19
terribly [4] 173/3
tested [1] 34/12
testing [3] 42/8 47/14
58/4
tests [2] 34/8 38/9
text [2] 55/1 131/24
texted [1] 71/25
TH [3] 30/11 79/10
79/11
than [36] 2/21 10/5
24/4 25/10 26/3 27/7
32/8 40/3 43/13 43/21
60/7 62/19 63/2 64/10)
65/25 73/24 75/13
76/7 77/7 78/8 85/23
95/17 97/7 99/4 101/5
106/13 110/2 129/24
133/16 134/14 138/19}
148/16 168/20 169/7
173/10 173/23
thank [73] 1/6 2/4 6/9
12/20 15/6 18/2 19/11
23/3 23/4 25/12 28/5
29/10 30/1 33/22
34/17 37/9 40/21
45/12 45/16 45/20
46/14 46/15 46/19
54/14 56/1 56/11
62/14 63/10 64/18
66/5 66/13 67/4 72/1
74/15 79/14 81/20
87/20 88/8 88/16 94/8}
102/21 102/22 102/24)
1415/3 115/4 115/19
115/21 116/21 122/10)
122/12 124/5 136/9
145/1 145/13 145/15
145/22 146/9 146/24
148/22 151/18 151/20)
152/1 155/25 158/24
159/24 177/12 178/8
179/1 179/3 181/17
181/20 181/25 182/3
thanked [1] 47/1
thanks [7] 2/7 68/5
(73) stupid - thanks
T
thanks... [5] 78/6
147/25 148/7 148/16
149/14
that [1170]
that's [62] 2/17 9/24
12/20 16/10 17/15
17/22 20/5 22/6 24/2
24/16 25/11 27/11
29/8 30/11 35/20
38/17 44/1 49/24
51/24 53/8 54/6 56/11
58/24 58/25 63/22
64/2 66/3 66/4 66/16
67/21 73/7 77/12
77/12 88/1 88/2 88/3
89/10 93/24 96/14
97/9 98/1 103/22
107/23 108/3 108/10
112/1 125/13 127/3
136/2 136/8 138/4
142/16 145/7 151/24
160/1 160/5 163/13
166/11 170/21 173/12)
181/3 181/17
theft [1] 31/9
their [47] 5/3 8/12
8/16 10/8 21/22 30/16
30/21 31/6 32/15 35/6
41/4 50/16 52/6 52/9
52/15 53/16 56/22
56/25 57/22 57/24
59/14 74/21 74/24
82/4 82/6 82/16 83/2
87/18 95/1 97/18
98/25 99/8 101/4
108/2 111/18 116/3
116/4 116/9 117/1
117/1 119/19 120/24
127/14 139/19 150/14}
152/10 162/4
theirs [1] 86/10
them [39] 3/1 5/16
6/7 11/2 11/9 14/16
19/2 19/3 21/15 22/1
24/14 26/6 28/9 29/2
30/13 33/25 34/13
36/5 36/18 52/14
54/22 57/11 64/2
67/14 78/19 86/16
88/23 97/21 98/12
103/15 104/9 107/6
134/10 147/2 147/2
147/10 150/16 151/24}
165/12
thematic [3] 32/15
34/10 38/15
themselves [3] 4/1
10/6 87/17
then [103] 8/19 11/16
13/9 15/25 20/23
21/10 22/19 23/5
25/21 27/1 28/9 30/1
32/11 32/24 34/14
37/13 38/14 40/22
41/9 46/13 46/16
49/19 52/1 53/2 53/6
54/13 56/19 57/11
60/15 60/19 65/23
66/6 66/11 67/10
67/15 67/23 68/4 70/3
70/12 70/23 71/9
71/19 72/3 73/8 75/4
75/16 75/23 78/4 78/9)
78/20 79/8 79/12
79/16 84/5 86/12
87/23 88/6 90/21 94/9)
94/18 95/4 95/11
99/25 100/3 102/3
103/19 107/16 108/23)
109/2 112/3 113/20
113/22 115/12 115/18)
118/8 119/12 119/21
120/21 123/21 124/4
128/12 128/21 129/8
129/14 130/8 130/9
132/17 132/19 132/20)
133/4 133/4 139/15
142/24 145/2 147/2
147/11 149/18 151/25)
156/25 165/8 167/19
175/1 181/7
Theodore [1] 87/4
there [167] 1/11 3/7
7/20 9/2 9/6 9/13 9/16)
9/17 10/10 10/12 11/2
11/22 11/22 12/2 12/9)
15/23 16/2 16/11
18/15 18/19 19/8
20/18 21/10 21/19
21/25 23/7 25/6 25/13
25/25 26/3 26/17
26/19 26/22 27/9
29/23 32/22 33/12
34/20 35/10 35/11
36/20 37/15 39/9
41/16 42/24 44/6 45/4
45/8 45/12 47/2 50/1
50/2 50/13 53/3 53/22
54/8 55/1 58/6 59/20
60/13 60/13 61/5 61/6
62/2 62/3 62/4 64/23
65/15 65/19 66/1 69/6
69/8 69/15 74/21
76/14 77/11 78/20
86/20 90/9 90/13
91/23 92/10 92/13
92/23 92/24 93/1 93/2
94/11 96/20 99/20
100/12 101/13 102/8
102/25 102/25 103/6
103/18 104/22 104/24)
105/2 105/22 108/10
108/11 110/5 110/15
113/13 114/6 114/11
115/18 115/25 116/23)
117/12 117/14 117/21
120/5 120/6 120/14
120/19 121/7 121/10
128/3 129/20 131/23
133/9 139/1 139/8
139/21 140/11 141/1
141/2 141/14 141/15
141/18 143/18 144/9
146/4 150/7 150/8
153/22 158/4 160/5
161/20 161/23 162/6
162/8 162/20 163/9
163/11 164/7 165/6
170/8 172/17 173/6
174/20 175/4 175/10
175/13 175/15 175/16}
175/21 176/2 177/17
178/24 181/13
there's [22] 8/19
37/10 37/18 49/3
74/12 75/5 89/25
105/2 107/4 118/11
123/12 131/22 146/9
154/2 155/20 161/21
162/8 163/5 168/15
171/17 175/9 175/14
therefore [14] 16/21
26/12 36/18 42/9 44/9
44/23 45/3 57/7 59/16)
112/25 116/25 119/10
133/17 137/7
these [40] 3/2 7/20
12/22 18/13 21/15
29/15 29/19 29/24
30/6 31/7 33/7 33/20
34/12 35/11 44/25
46/20 48/11 49/9 63/9}
63/10 89/9 93/15
93/18 94/25 95/19
100/12 101/2 104/25
105/4 105/9 105/12
105/21 106/14 112/5
117/9 142/20 148/10
163/22 164/21 167/19]
they [86] 2/24 2/25
3/4 3/5 3/22 4/1 4/18
4/19 5/15 5/16 6/25
14/16 14/17 19/3 26/8
29/17 30/15 30/17
30/19 31/9 32/1 33/23
35/6 35/8 35/9 39/24
42/10 47/6 53/18
57/24 58/3 58/3 58/5
58/25 59/1 59/7 59/19)
59/20 59/21 59/22
59/22 73/15 74/16
74/25 82/3 82/19 83/1
83/7 84/7 86/2 89/14
89/15 89/24 90/1 95/2
95/3 95/20 97/20
98/10 104/19 107/3
108/25 109/1 109/9
110/11 111/17 112/9
116/9 116/17 119/18
168/15 169/15 169/19}
139/10 139/10 139/21
139/22 139/23 140/7
140/7 147/9 150/20
151/22 156/14 156/21
162/3 166/23 169/3
169/14
they're [8] 11/20
12/16 50/10 53/1
87/20 138/6 167/17
181/20
they've [5] 50/25
53/11 54/3 54/4 54/5
thing [14] 10/2 12/24
29/12 53/12 62/12
66/24 72/5 72/16 73/8
103/12 121/13 138/8
146/18 146/22
things [34] 1/12 9/20
40/1 53/5 53/17 54/2
54/5 72/25 96/21
96/22 98/4 99/3
103/14 106/12 106/12)
106/14 112/11 115/1
117/13 117/17 121/12}
126/3 134/7 134/8
134/20 134/24 134/25}
138/7 138/10 141/15
141/21 142/11 142/20}
163/12
think [225]
thinking [14] 35/2
40/3 51/3 53/22 69/22
73/4 81/12 97/22
101/7 119/4 119/20
144/4 157/10 163/20
thinks [1] 71/2
third [9] 21/10 43/13
64/21 70/24 75/12
120/21 159/23 160/21
165/16
this [388]
thorough [1] 37/19
those [41] 12/3 14/21
17/2 23/15 23/24
26/21 27/21 33/25
34/18 40/21 45/25
46/15 53/17 54/2
56/20 70/22 84/9
84/19 86/4 87/2
102/17 113/1 113/2
113/14 121/17 121/20}
121/21 122/11 124/23}
129/22 131/19 139/17,
140/13 141/21 142/11
143/2 144/25 151/8
153/9 162/19 167/16
though [10] 17/1
37/18 38/23 40/9
90/13 130/8 138/22
139/24 163/3 167/15
thought [32] 5/16
11/9 11/11 12/5 13/22)
17/15 35/18 54/8
62/18 67/25 69/21
70/3 72/6 75/3 77/22
79/22 80/12 92/8
97/10 104/15 129/19
138/9 138/13 142/12
142/13 155/10 159/22!
167/8 169/12 173/12
176/20 176/20
thoughtful [1] 139/10
thoughts [2] 74/18
168/25
thread [2] 171/21
172/24
threat [1] 135/16
threaten [2] 106/22
107/12
three [11] 23/15
26/21 54/2 76/19
101/12 120/5 152/14
155/22 165/15 179/6
179/13
through [20] 3/20
61/16 69/5 69/18
78/15 79/22 80/1
80/11 114/2 121/2
130/10 146/16 150/13)
151/5 154/10 161/20
169/23 174/24 175/3
175/5
throughout [3]
116/12 118/17 177/9
throw [1] 127/20
thrown [1] 114/11
thrust [4] 125/17
Thursday [4] 1/1
77124 149/25 171/10
thus [3] 42/4 44/1
56/24
Tim [8] 1/17 1/18 2/2
18/25 161/15 161/22
162/21 163/4
Tim's [1] 161/25
time [89] 3/11 3/19
4/23 7/14 12/17 13/12
13/14 15/4 16/9 18/3
18/19 18/22 22/17
23/12 23/16 24/12
27/18 27/18 29/17
31/23 32/14 34/20
37/2 41/12 43/11
45/10 45/13 49/11
51/3 51/4 51/18 52/15]
58/18 58/19 59/10
62/1 63/11 64/10 65/2
66/2 68/10 69/22 72/2I
74/5 75/21 76/13
78/22 79/23 81/3
85/20 87/10 88/5
89/13 90/4 90/8 91/19}
91/23 92/1 92/19
96/23 97/22 100/9
104/23 106/5 107/1
108/14 108/16 111/15)
117/6 117/23 120/7
120/20 123/21 129/25]
(74) thanks... - time
T
140/3 140/9 140/13
141/16 151/4 153/24
156/1 162/11 163/15
178/12 181/3
timeline [2] 42/23
43/1
81/23 82/9 85/25
118/3 132/1 140/8
timescale [1] 34/3
scales [1] 64/25
timetable [2] 30/13
134/9
timid [1] 87/2
ing [1] 162/16
timings [1] 133/8
today [16] 80/24 81/6
81/7 81/21 91/19
112/8 116/24 144/18
167/24 173/4
today's [1] 147/17
together [5] 49/13
93/2 133/1 144/8
153/19
told [23] 3/16 15/1
20/25 28/15 28/23
28/25 29/17 40/13
58/10 91/13 91/17
91/17 91/18 113/16
114/19 120/23 146/7
150/9 151/8 151/12
155/1 160/11 175/19
tomorrow [3] 75/20
150/12 162/15
tone [2] 154/14
164/18
Tony [1] 79/11
too [17] 3/17 3/18
20/8 24/19 25/3 25/6
70/1 70/2 75/24 80/17,
80/17 97/23 110/1
110/8 115/7 150/25
169/11
took [16] 33/16 62/15
91/3 102/4 113/5
117/21 126/14 127/7
137/15 137/17 140/2
148/24 152/25 174/10}
175/6 176/9
top [14] 8/13 13/18
42/2 44/11 49/5 54/15
67/10 72/3 76/16
127/15 153/22 153/24}
160/5 176/1
topic [8] 15/6 27/23
66/6 153/6 161/10
167/18 167/20 173/24}
topics [3] 152/14
time... [15] 139/25
172/11 172/25 176/14}
times [8] 39/19 39/20
147/21 147/22 151/16)
156/15 163/22 167/22)
160/25 161/9
total [1] 75/7
touch [1] 80/14
96/25
traceable [1] 47/20
track [1] 149/8
trade [1] 140/7
trading [3] 108/25
111/18 150/14
trail [1] 56/24
training [2] 9/15
166/4
transaction [2] 43/5
165/3
transactions [9]
47/19 50/16 52/5 52/9
52/10 52/12 54/21
57/2 165/25
transcript [2] 45/24
179/22
Transformation [8]
21/3 25/18 119/12
119/17 119/20 119/25)
121/4 177/19
transition [1] 2/14
Transitional [1] 2/8
transitioning [1] 2/12
translated [2] 37/24
50/12
transparency [1]
75/7
transparent [1] 75/2
tread [2] 30/16 97/16
Treasury [2] 141/12
142/18
tried [4] 3/1
triumph [1] 86/24
troubling [1] 136/19
true [5] 28/17 29/4
29/6 43/11 138/4
trust [2] 6/6 6/7
trusted [7] 22/8
73/21 76/9 77/2 84/13
84/15 178/1
truth [11] 29/1 47/4
92/16 104/7 104/20
106/17 121/5 125/22
125/24 128/11 128/19)
truthful [1] 126/13
try [9] 15/3 58/20
86/12 113/6 128/23
138/8 145/19 149/12
149/17
trying [25] 5/21 5/24
12/9 13/1 17/16 22/1
25/1 30/15 44/18
69/11 75/1 84/10
84/11 85/7 86/8
103/13 111/5 116/19
120/8 122/1 123/3
130/1 130/13 157/22
158/7
Tuesday [2] 182/2
towards [3] 30/3 53/3)
182/5
turn [13] 15/13 30/1
33/19 40/22 66/6 66/9
74/9 77/14 81/19
89/13 115/24 140/18
171/23
turned [2] 3/25 132/1
turning [3] 90/3
119/7 179/11
TV [1] 169/10
twice [3] 171/22
172/20 172/21
two [25] 12/16 18/7
21/25 36/4 46/12
64/15 65/3 75/22
99/17 102/23 105/2
116/2 117/9 117/11
117/25 118/1 141/14
141/21 145/24 147/20
148/15 159/8 176/19
178/23 181/24
two years [2] 64/15
65/3
U
UK [1] 42/6
UKGI00002057 [1]
161/13
UKGI00042089 [1]
18/13
UKGI00042677 [1]
20/6
ultimate [1] 144/7
Um [1] 24/24
unable [8] 4/1 21/7
21/13 21/17 22/11
23/14 25/23 86/4
unacceptable [1]
2/22
unauthorised [1]
124/17
unchanged [2] 50/19
50/22
unclear [2] 34/21
171/22
uncomfortable [2]
59/17 154/16
unconditionally [1]
140/7
uncovered [1] 65/3
under [17] 7/2 19/12
20/23 20/24 25/12
33/4 33/22 63/15
63/18 84/14 85/4
87/15 88/25 89/2 95/1
114/19 124/18
underlining [1]
175/16
undermined [2] 5/6
90/24
underneath [4] 12/13)
20/13 98/7 118/6
underresourced [1]
85/17
Undersecretary [1]
68/13
understand [32] 4/21
27/11 37/15 44/3
44/19 48/15 51/5
53/20 56/11 83/9
87/12 87/23 99/6
4114/7 111/12 111/24
136/6 136/10 142/1
145/4 145/5 147/2
150/17 181/17
understandable [1]
121/13
understanding [6]
4/2 5/17 21/5 52/20
84/4 84/18
understood [3] 45/8
102/10 105/1
undertake [2] 47/8
92/3
undertaken [9] 16/24
19/25 33/24 34/4
35/18 38/1 38/4 58/3
129/7
unduly [1] 30/22
unequal [2] 4/3 86/7
unexpectedly [2]
16/6 149/14
Unfortunately [1]
123/18
unhelpful [4] 66/3
81/24 163/12 168/23
unlawful [1] 124/17
unless [2] 58/3 74/23
unnecessary [3]
113/17 127/17 127/22
unravelling [1]
117/20
unreasonable [1]
15/5
unsafe [5] 5/3 90/20
91/6 91/10 135/8
unsure [1] 129/8
until [18] 22/20 32/13
32/15 45/16 50/4 69/4,
85/13 87/21 130/22
133/11 133/19 137/12
141/6 160/20 163/13
163/21 182/1 182/5
untrue [2] 125/25
126/12
unusual [1] 104/22
unvarnished [1]
125/24
unwelcome [1] 156/5I
up [99] 6/14 7/25
11/17 15/23 16/6
17/14 29/4 39/18 40/1
44/9 44/9 44/10 49/1
49/13 51/15 56/2 59/4)
60/17 61/13 63/10
66/9 67/11 67/23 68/4
4/23 11/21 12/9 12/19
12/20 12/21 13/1 17/5)
69/3 70/16 70/23
71/19 72/10 75/2
75/16 75/25 80/15
82/10 84/23 87/24
88/7 88/12 90/18
96/21 99/23 109/19
110/2 110/23 112/6
114/4 115/24 117/18
118/3 123/13 127/7
129/14 132/17 132/19)
133/4 139/5 139/7
139/7 139/15 139/19
146/12 146/23 147/11
149/13 149/22 150/3
151/24 154/1 154/13
155/19 156/9 157/1
157/21 162/3 162/6
162/11 162/12 162/13)
162/18 163/8 164/10
166/23 167/3 167/12
169/23 170/2 170/7
171/10 173/1 174/13
174/16 175/4 175/9
175/11 175/14 175/19)
176/15 177/13 180/21
update [14] 25/8
56/16 77/22 77/24
146/19 147/16 147/18)
147/21 148/7 148/17
149/7 151/11 160/23
164/9
updated [1] 2/7
updates [1] 147/25
updating [2] 78/6
164/13
upon [3] 42/25
101/13 139/3
us [40] 1/18 2/16
2/24 3/5 4/19 6/25
8/22 9/8 13/19 13/24
17/21 24/12 26/17
28/15 28/23 36/2 36/4
36/23 43/14 43/16
45/5 59/12 67/5 79/24)
99/14 104/17 104/18
124/19 137/25 138/16
139/24 155/18 164/5
169/14 170/22 171/2
171124 174/13 176/9
181/10
Usage [1] 52/16
use [19] 17/5 37/17
37/21 38/18 38/21
39/2 39/10 43/5 47/24I
51/14 57/24 80/21
84/9 121/20 123/5
124/21 145/25 169/16
181/7
used [10] 43/11
52/14 83/10 124/23
127/4 130/9 165/25
170/11 170/25 171/6
uses [1] 170/10
using [6] 124/24
(75) time... - using
Uo
using... [5] 127/2
130/16 136/14 150/18)
172/25
usual [1] 78/10
Vv
vacancies [2] 19/14
19/17
vaguely [3] 168/8
168/10 168/10
valiantly [1] 86/19
valid [1] 75/9
validated [2] 42/17
43/15
valuable [1] 47/22
value [11] 45/9 58/6
64/25 91/3 91/13
91/24 93/16 94/23
99/22 108/22 117/1
values [2] 70/7
139/11
van [6] 22/8 34/4
38/1 38/4 170/1 170/2
Vanquis [1] 149/4
variety [1] 17/11
various [6] 14/15
18/20 27/18 51/6
100/12 144/1
vehicle [1] 121/16
Vennells [67] 6/19
15/14 18/6 19/22
20/17 21/13 21/17
22/5 24/17 25/19 28/6
28/15 30/20 31/2
66/21 67/23 70/23
73/12 73/17 74/13
75/5 75/19 76/1 76/20
78/15 82/12 90/17
91/21 96/11 98/11
126/16 132/18 132/20}
136/17 136/25 137/4
145/18 146/10 146/13
147/12 147/24 148/12
148/25 149/19 153/23}
155/10 156/7 164/8
164/13 166/17 167/4
167/7 167/13 168/4
168/15 169/20 170/3
170/7 170/10 171/6
171/25 174/19 176/13
180/2 180/14 180/20
181/14
Vennells' [5] 156/10
156/11 158/25 173/9
180/24
ventilated [1] 139/5
verbal [1] 43/9
verge [1] 163/16
verse [1] 162/5
version [1] 125/22
very [111] 4/22 4/22
6/1 9/19 10/16 12/20
13/11 14/24 14/24
14/25 16/5 16/5 17/15
21/22 21/23 21/23
21/24 21/24 29/3 29/8
30/12 31/16 31/21
32/5 32/5 32/9 32/21
36/16 38/21 41/11
44/4 44/21 47/21
61/22 65/24 65/24
65/24 70/4 72/4 73/4
73/22 77/1 77/2 79/2
82/19 84/17 88/3 88/8
88/17 90/10 90/10
92/1 92/1 92/17 92/22
94/5 96/23 100/21
100/22 102/1 102/19
105/24 113/25 114/16)
114/16 115/21 117/22)
118/10 119/2 119/2
120/11 120/11 120/11
120/19 120/23 122/6
122/6 122/10 124/1
125/16 126/2 126/15
136/1 136/9 139/9
139/11 140/15 140/15)
141/19 145/1 152/1
154/9 155/4 159/25
161/17 162/7 166/14
167/22 168/19 169/5
170/12 171/10 171/14)
171/17 172/16 174/41
179/10 181/22 181/23)
181/25 182/3
victims [1] 116/10
victory [1] 87/3
view [40] 3/8 3/10
3/22 4/20 5/15 6/23
11/15 14/18 15/8
21/11 21/17 21/19
22/4 26/6 27/6 30/14
30/17 30/18 31/25
32/7 32/23 33/8 33/13
36/4 58/9 59/6 59/7
64/19 64/24 76/2
83/14 83/18 87/16
97/15 98/9 123/3
134/16 143/6 158/25
171/13
viewable [1] 171/14
viewed [2] 70/16
84/5
viewing [1] 83/22
views [3] 23/15 25/7
47/5
ince [1] 141/23
visibility [5] 50/15
52/4 52/8 56/22 73/16
vision [4] 119/6
127/5 140/16 140/17
voicing [1] 162/2
volition [1] 124/20
vulnerable [1] 10/14
Ww
wait [2] 133/19
155/18
waiting [2] 133/11
153/16
want [56] 1/11 3/4
3/5 29/1 29/2 29/6
41/2 62/20 73/5 73/6
91/1 106/19 123/11
126/14 126/25 127/1
128/7 129/17 129/18
135/9 142/22 145/19
145/19 146/6 152/14
152/21 152/23 153/12
153/25 154/17 155/19]
156/2 156/10 159/12
159/14 159/24 161/18}
161/19 163/12 164/6
165/17 170/6 170/8
170/9 170/9 170/19
173/13 173/16 173/25]
174/10 175/5 175/6
175/13 175/18 178/6
178/9
wanted [21] 3/22
5/19 28/6 28/9 35/6
36/24 44/15 54/23
64/1 70/20 70/21
100/18 113/8 114/8
116/6 127/3 166/8
167/20 172/6 173/20
177/13
wanting [3] 128/18
128/19 173/19
wants [3] 145/4
150/1 154/1
war [1] 118/18
was [604]
wasn't [50] 10/10
10/17 13/5 13/11 14/9
15/4 23/21 26/2 36/25}
37/20 38/18 38/23
41/23 50/4 62/2 62/3
65/11 69/9 83/19
89/16 89/23 90/12
97/13 97/15 98/18
99/7 100/17 108/7
108/8 110/8 110/14
121/2 127/24 130/5
130/6 132/22 134/21
137/12 140/9 143/3
155/13 157/5 159/6
161/10 163/18 172/6
177/19 177/15 177/23
180/13
watch [1] 170/15
watched [1] 1638/6
Watt [4] 115/12
115/15 115/16 183/6
way [55] 3/20 6/5 6/8
10/3 10/14 13/15
17/12 25/1 25/11 36/7
36/13 43/18 47/6 50/9
51/20 59/21 61/20
68/6 70/11 72/5 73/10)
79/25 83/2 85/3 90/14)
96/22 102/14 103/14
104/4 104/10 104/20
105/17 108/9 110/4
114/4 114/7 114/19
115/14 117/3 121/2
121/3 129/21 130/6
130/14 134/6 134/19
135/2 137/18 139/19
141/21 144/4 163/8
170/7 175/5 180/10
ways [1] 113/24
we [458]
we'd [7] 5/25 16/3
72/16 72/17 85/16
130/15 173/20
we'll [8] 11/7 22/19
66/11 75/23 123/22
145/14 151/21 160/12}
we're [22] 6/6 6/7
6/17 10/24 14/12
28/21 35/13 39/7
48/19 49/5 49/15 55/4)
61/25 74/10 77/15
80/7 96/16 115/20
131/1 152/16 155/22
160/4
we've [19] 11/15 46/7I
53/9 54/3 105/6
114/23 131/5 134/8
159/7 160/8 161/21
161/22 166/15 166/19)
172/4 176/25 177/1
177/1 181/10
Wednesday [1] 82/17I
week [5] 70/25 79/3
133/9 149/7 151/4
week's [1] 158/15
weekend [1] 82/14
weekly [3] 78/21 90/5)
93/1
weeks [7] 43/21 44/8
76/19 134/3 148/23
155/22 155/22
weight [1] 64/24
welcome [2] 133/22
151/5
welcomed [1] 46/23
well [70] 5/14 9/5
11/5 13/7 14/11 14/16}
14/24 16/17 17/9 18/7
18/10 24/24 36/16
38/20 50/1 50/2 52/21
58/13 62/10 67/8
67/16 72/14 74/6 74/8
75/1 77/19 83/6 90/15)
91/13 92/22 92/22
93/7 93/24 97/10
97/12 99/7 103/22
104/13 104/14 112/3
118/7 118/20 119/4
119/18 120/18 122/5
123/21 124/25 128/12
129/1 130/20 131/17
133/4 137/11 140/15
140/23 144/19 145/8
145/11 145/14 155/6
159/7 159/22 164/1
167/15 171/4 172/5
173/16 176/10 181/13)
went [8] 24/1 24/4
58/5 109/16 113/14
113/19 129/23 134/20)
were [215]
weren't [12] 14/9
14/17 14/17 58/6
59/22 59/22 66/10
93/2 106/20 159/18
171/9 173/19
what [243]
what's [12] 3/14
11/18 22/23 28/17
38/3 53/16 79/1 97/19)
119/1 136/10 159/14
162/5
whatever [3] 70/13
99/23 130/11
when [60] 3/23 12/13
13/24 17/9 21/15 25/7I
28/15 32/5 33/6 35/25]
40/3 41/15 47/24
49/11 49/12 62/5
66/11 69/4 73/4 77/4
77/12 80/2 91/23 92/2I
95/7 100/9 102/1
102/2 103/14 108/24
112/11 112/13 113/6
113/7 116/13 118/24
120/15 131/18 133/12)
134/24 140/6 141/16
145/9 145/20 149/16
150/1 151/10 151/22
153/3 153/24 154/19
163/23 167/2 167/10
168/4 170/25 172/22
174/2 179/21 182/2
when I [2] 21/15
113/7
where [45] 3/16 4/4
11/14 16/4 26/5 26/22
27/11 32/21 51/12
51/24 51/24 64/21
69/20 84/14 86/15
89/14 94/14 96/20
97/22 98/3 99/3 103/6
107/23 108/10 110/17)
112/10 114/24 114/25)
117/12 117/15 120/22)
123/7 128/4 137/19
150/7 150/19 153/9
155/19 158/2 160/23
161/19 162/1 170/6
175/6 178/24
whereas [1] 136/5
whereby [2] 101/12
103/18
(76) using... - whereby
Ww
whether [36] 1/11
4/18 5/21 6/14 10/13
19/22 22/2 22/4 25/2
31/12 33/5 36/22
41/24 42/18 51/2 55/9)
61/16 67/1 69/23 71/4
72/6 73/10 81/24 87/6
89/18 100/23 101/13
105/3 105/19 123/4
131/4 131/17 136/3
141/18 155/12 170/19}
which [144] 1/9 2/4
3/11 5/4 7/7 7/16 8/11
12/11 13/15 14/11
15/21 15/24 16/2 16/3}
21/1 22/15 22/16 23/2
23/23 24/3 24/21 28/1
28/14 28/17 28/17
31/17 33/2 34/3 36/9
36/23 37/16 38/20
39/3 41/18 42/24 43/2
43/4 43/18 43/22 46/9
46/21 47/19 49/3
49/20 51/9 55/2 55/4
56/21 56/23 57/12
58/21 59/9 62/7 64/22
68/3 69/1 73/17 73/23
75/23 84/6 85/17 86/5)
86/8 87/24 90/23
92/11 93/19 94/1
94/19 94/22 96/16
99/15 99/20 99/22
101/13 102/14 102/18}
104/9 105/9 105/17
105/18 105/21 106/2
107/9 108/25 111/1
111/5 111/6 114/2
114/3 114/13 117/9
117/17 117/17 117/21
118/2 118/10 119/24
120/11 120/14 120/17)
120/19 120/21 120/25)
121/3 122/24 124/9
126/19 127/5 127/13
129/4 129/16 134/6
136/4 136/4 138/14
140/24 141/6 141/8
142/5 142/7 142/9
143/23 144/5 147/8
147/9 147/10 147/23
148/13 149/4 149/10
150/8 151/7 152/17
154/8 155/17 165/25
169/13 170/10 173/20}
174/14 174/19 175/6
179/6
while [6] 65/17 87/1
114/12 118/6 133/10
155/22
whilst [1] 86/9
whip's [1] 142/8
Whitsun [1] 149/9
who [60] 5/1 15/3
18/11 19/9 21/18
27/19 30/7 31/19
40/15 43/22 47/2
47/18 54/9 63/25 68/8)
68/16 69/8 69/17 70/5
78/15 79/5 80/6 85/15)
86/14 86/14 86/17
86/19 86/19 86/19
86/21 86/22 86/23
86/24 86/25 87/2
88/12 88/17 89/4 90/3
92/2 101/9 102/3
105/11 105/11 109/13)
111/16 113/2 118/16
125/8 130/10 134/10
139/9 143/18 152/9
152/11 160/5 169/8
170/4 176/9 179/4
who'd [1] 80/25
whoever [1] 88/7
whole [11] 22/24
45/9 48/16 64/8
113/25 114/6 117/15
123/5 126/4 143/9
171/21
whom [2] 80/25
88/18
whose [6] 21/20
49/15 86/18 157/7
176/4 176/5
why [47] 1/13 6/1 6/3
6/7 9/15 10/7 11/2
14/9 14/9 15/22 15/23
17/11 20/23 28/20
34/17 35/25 36/7 50/6
59/20 59/20 68/20
70/4 76/20 85/20
89/23 99/9 105/22
105/23 109/19 109/19)
109/20 110/10 111/15)
112/8 127/3 132/5
133/24 135/9 139/14
139/17 139/21 139/22)
139/23 140/23 145/12)
148/19 176/20
wide [3] 9/12 122/7
166/2
wider [5] 24/4 48/2
96/15 97/24 165/1
wilfully [2] 170/21
171/1
will [61] 3/3 6/25
33/21 36/2 36/3 36/3
37/18 68/5 72/6 74/21
74/22 74/23 75/20
77/24 82/3 82/17
82/18 83/4 87/24 88/6
88/7 94/7 94/8 98/14
102/22 106/12 115/5
115/6 125/3 125/19
128/3 133/12 146/2
146/10 147/7 147/8
147/9 147/15 147/18
149/11 150/1 150/4
150/24 151/22 151/25)
153/15 154/17 154/18
156/14 158/13 158/16}
158/19 158/19 161/15}
162/4 162/21 164/7
179/6 179/11 182/1
182/2
Williams [1] 56/3
willingness [1] 6/4
win [1] 172/6
wise [1] 59/14
wiser [1] 8/3
wish [3] 34/17 130/7
151/23
wishes [1] 22/20
within [11] 26/24
32/2 42/25 77/1 81/14
84/16 143/24 143/24
144/11 147/24 176/13}
without [12] 7/23
53/15 54/6 78/15
86/20 96/10 109/8
113/9 137/16 137/23
137/24 150/14
WITN00220103 [1]
94/10
WITN00740100 [2]
111/2 123/23
WITNO00740131 [2]
123/15 124/6
WITNO01020100 [1]
180/23
witness [25] 5/3 5/12
15/8 18/2 24/12 90/20}
97/11 97/13 102/1
105/8 105/18 107/7
110/21 111/14 112/1
115/23 119/5 119/11
123/12 123/16 123/17
123/18 135/8 180/24
181/23
woman [1] 125/16
women [1] 22/5
won [1] 121/14
won't [3] 14/16
153/21 164/13
wonder [3] 74/17
123/15 139/13
wondered [2] 69/22
134/3
wool [1] 106/6
word [8] 1/25 17/1
17/6 54/3 54/11 80/21
100/16 131/24
wording [1] 162/4
words [17] 25/9
25/10 58/5 65/17 84/9
101/11 110/2 116/22
122/23 124/23 124/24)
125/3 126/11 126/19
162/20 167/16 167/17
work [49] 4/6 12/5
16/9 21/8 21/13 21/18}
22/12 25/23 33/24
34/3 34/4 34/13 34/18
35/9 35/17 35/19
35/22 36/1 37/25 38/1
38/3 38/4 39/16 40/4
40/7 41/4 42/3 42/20
44/6 45/10 47/8 47/12)
47/15 48/1 48/16
48/20 49/19 52/22
58/7 59/7 59/23 69/18
73/9 85/16 119/21
123/7 130/2 149/7
177/19
worked [6] 50/9
68/23 70/8 76/23
85/10 89/4
working [17] 21/22
23/10 31/21 57/25
59/16 62/18 63/19
63/23 67/17 69/20
79/8 82/14 103/14
133/20 147/1 148/15
166/17
works [3] 34/5 38/2
53/2
world [2] 77/3 179/11
worried [2] 15/22
84/20
worry [4] 49/6 80/17
123/22 153/16
worrying [4] 8/7
25/19 54/7 127/9
worse [2] 8/13
127/15
worst [3] 7/6 86/25
170/18
worth [2] 168/21
171/12
worthy [2] 86/23
87/18
would [231]
wouldn't [21] 5/15
51/18 53/18 55/12
62/10 73/16 80/20
84/9 87/19 97/11
113/19 118/11 137/9
137/23 138/20 142/14}
155/6 155/8 162/23
164/22 174/20
write [2] 58/23
108/22
writes [4] 66/21
165/16 168/21 171/20
writing [3] 160/4
176/10 176/11
written [7] 5/1 25/10
41/14 43/1 49/12 50/6)
173/6
wrong [17] 19/8
28/11 36/20 39/16
71/2 71/7 84/3 97/9
97/10 97/13 103/15
103/16 134/24 135/25]
141/20 170/20 171/15]
wrongdoing [1]
16/16
wrongful [5] 10/22
16/24 87/6 143/16
178/3
wrongfully [1]
178/11
wrote [2] 60/10 83/14I
,
XXX [1] 28/22
Y
yeah [28] 2/6 4/13
7/12 23/4 30/9 38/13
40/20 51/7 51/17
53/25 56/6 63/3 63/14
72/9 72/11 77/16 78/3
95/3 122/16 152/15
153/11 155/24 156/8
165/13 165/14 174/9
179/18 179/20
year [7] 19/15 24/7
24/8 49/13 130/23
131/19 167/9
years [7] 64/15 65/3
112/25 117/25 118/1
124/11 131/2
yellow [1] 158/8
yes [209]
yes-men [1] 22/5
yes-women [1] 22/5
yesterday [29] 1/9
15/7 16/3 36/5 36/13
52/21 84/11 90/16
91/3 98/6 104/13
109/23 110/10 112/21
129/25 132/11 137/12)
137/17 138/10 139/20
145/24 148/2 153/1
163/23 174/2 174/15
174/24 175/6 175/20
yet [5] 19/16 143/13
143/19 147/9 154/12
you [741]
you'd [8] 53/4 58/10
67/25 167/11 167/12
174/6 174/7 175/20
you'll [6] 22/22 94/11
153/1 153/2 155/20
164/12
you're [47] 9/3 12/22
15/19 16/14 16/15
25/2 30/8 33/21 36/21
51/5 53/20 53/20 62/4
63/4 70/15 71/3 72/12I
73/4 73/9 80/23 81/20)
86/7 98/1 103/5 106/7
106/8 120/2 120/3
122/12 124/25 125/2
125/16 130/20 131/8
136/14 138/2 138/5
142/22 145/5 148/6
148/20 157/18 160/4
(77) whether - you're
Y
you're... [4] 160/12
161/19 162/20 162/20)
you've [16] 7/8 11/5
11/6 11/16 24/3 51/8
51/15 110/14 118/3
119/5 125/1 132/1
132/2 140/16 152/17
153/5
Young [3] 39/23
107/21 108/1
your [119] 1/14 1/25
3/14 14/4 15/7 15/8
15/8 18/2 18/3 18/3
18/9 21/17 22/4 24/12)
24/16 28/1 51/8 52/19
55/21 68/24 70/8
73/12 74/15 74/18
75/17 78/5 80/1 81/9
83/4 83/14 86/9 87/16
88/21 89/6 90/7 91/7
91/19 92/7 92/10
94/11 95/21 97/3
97/12 97/24 104/1
106/6 106/20 107/17
108/14 108/16 110/2
112/13 112/13 112/20
113/3 115/23 117/5
117/8 118/4 118/5
118/15 119/5 119/11
123/12 123/16 123/17)
124/19 124/22 125/3
125/4 126/5 127/5
127/5 127/23 127/25
128/14 128/15 128/15}
129/5 131/3 132/6
139/1 139/24 140/9
142/1 142/25 143/7
143/18 147/13 147/23}
149/21 149/23 151/5
151/23 153/3 155/25
156/1 158/7 159/4
160/6 162/16 162/25
163/1 163/14 164/3
164/7 166/7 168/11
171/13 173/22 173/25}
174/7 174/16 175/23
176/1 177/3 178/12
179/24 180/7
yourself [5] 16/18
76/9 91/24 178/6
180/11
Zz
Zebra [1] 40/23
zero [1] 117/25
Zetter [3] 152/25
173/25 174/14
(78) you're... - Zetter