©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 18 July 2024
Thursday, 18 July 2024
(9.45 am)
(Proceedings delayed)
(10.00 am)
MR STEVENS: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can. Thank you very much.
MR STEVENS: We'll be hearing from Mr McFadden this morning.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PATRICK MCFADDEN MP (sworn)
Questioned by MR STEVENS
MR STEVENS: Please could you state your full name?
A. My name is Pat McFadden.
Q. Mr McFadden, thank you first for providing a written
witness statement to the Inquiry and, secondly, thank
you for attending today to give oral evidence. I want
to turn first to the written statement of which you
should have a copy in front of you?
A. Ido.
Q. For the purpose of the record the Unique Reference
Number for the statement is WITN10250100.
Before we go to your signature, could we please have
‘on screen page 6, paragraph 23. If I could ask,
Mr McFadden, that you turn to that page too. In
paragraph 2 you say:
"The arm's length relationship between Government
and Post Office was legislated for in the Postal Affairs
1
Parliamentary privilege.
I want to start with your background, please. You
were elected as the Member of Parliament for
Wolverhampton South East in 2005?
A. That's correct.
Q. Between 5 May 2006 and 28 June 2007, you served as
a Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office?
A. That's right.
Q. Please could you briefly summarise your role as
Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office?
A. The Cabinet Office is a wide-ranging department and its
job description in Government changes as the years go
past. So I find myself back in the Cabinet Office
today, after many years away from it and it's a very
different department today to what it was then.
Back then, I was Parliamentary Under-Secretary I was
sometimes referred to as a junior minister, and the
Department had several special projects, as it were, at
that time. One was working on what we called social
exclusion, which was whether the Government of the day
could have a set of policies geared towards a very small
group of families who were -- often had multiple
problems, involved with lots of different public
agencies and whether there was a more rounded package we
could do, particularly to help the children in those
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
2
o>
pProrop
Act of 2000."
I understand you wish to change that to "Postal
Services Act".
Yes, it should read "Postal Services Act".
Thank you. That can come down from the screen but,
Mr McFadden, if I can ask you to turn to page 26 of your
statement.
Yes.
Do you see your signature?
Ido.
It's dated 20 June 2024?
Correct.
Are the facts stated in that statement true to the best
of your knowledge and belief?
Yes, they are.
Thank you, Mr McFadden. That will stand as your
evidence in the Inquiry. Your witness statement will be
published online shortly. I am going to ask you some
questions about your statement, not about all matters in
it but some of most relevance.
In your statement, I should say, there are parts
where you refer to written answers to questions in
Parliament and discuss the accuracy of those. I am not
going to explore in your evidence any matters about the
accuracy of matters to said to Parliament due to
2
families, but also to increase or decrease, rather, the
calls on various public services to be involved with
them, over the years.
It did other routine business, as it were, Cabinet
committees; it's the Department for the Civil Service;
it's really the engine room of Government that helps to
coordinate the work of other departments.
In that role, did you have any role or responsibility or
involvement with matters relating to Royal Mail or the
Post Office?
Not at the Cabinet Office, no.
You were appointed as the Minister of State in the
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform on 2 July 2007?
Yes.
That's a role you held until the change of government in
2010, albeit the department changed.
Yes, under slightly different names. The Department
changed its name. It got slightly different
responsibilities. The role evolved a bit, particularly
after 2008, when Lord Mandelson was appointed the
Secretary of State, because that gave us the unusual
situation where the Secretary of State for the
Department was not an MP but was a Member of the House
of Lords. So, from that moment on, my role expanded to
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
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
cover more of the different things that the Business
Department was doing.
I'm going to look at those, both the change of
department and your role, in a bit more detail shortly.
Before we go there, at the end of my questions I'll
be asking for your thoughts on current matters. For
that reason, could you please just confirm what your
current role is in Government.
My current role is Minister for the Cabinet Office in
the Cabinet.
Let's look then at the Department. As I said, you were
appointed as a Minister of State in July 2007. The
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform was created a few days before your appointment;
do you remember that?
Yes.
Before that, the Post Office had been the responsibility
within government of the Department of Trade and
Industry?
Yes, I mean, it’s to all intents and purposes the same
Department but with certain added emphasis on some
things. So there was an emphasis on regulatory reform
but, throughout this, I think it's fairly logical to
just regard it as the same department under these
different names.
Innovation and Skills?
Yes.
You were appointed as a Minister of State within that
Department. Again, did the Department's portfolio
change with the name change?
They may have taken on here some additional
responsibilities for skills. This has always been
something that's a little bit unsure in government:
should some things like further and higher education be
the responsibility of a Department for Education or
should they sit more in a Department for Business, and
it has moved around a bit over the years. So what
you're saying here is really an emphasis more on skills,
but I think, in my experience of being in the Department
during these changes of name, perhaps the changes of
name implied more change in substance than is really the
case.
Final question on this: was there any change to either
allocation of civil servants working on Post Office
matters or their line management as a result of the name
change of the Department.
No, no. Not as far as Post Office matters went.
I want to then look at your role as Minister of State,
that's a government position below the Secretary of
State; is that right?
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
>
18 July 2024
Well, that was going to be my question. Are you aware
of the reason for the change of name from DTI to the
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform?
Well, there was an emphasis on regulation. We wanted,
at the time, to -- there was quite a lot of debate about
regulatory burdens on business, could we get, not
necessarily always less regulation but more sensible
regulation; a lot of emphasis on red tape, is there
a way to reduce red tape for business and other
organisations. So the name change was really about
emphasising that in 2007.
Was there a change in the Department's portfolio
overall?
I'm not sure. They may have taken on additional
responsibilities for regulatory reform. Not as far as
postal affairs matters went. That carried on from the
previous DTI to the new Department, or the newly named
Department.
Moving forward in the timeline, I'm just focusing on the
Department at the moment, rather than your role as such.
You say that the Department for Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform was dissolved on 5 June 2009?
Correct.
That was replaced by the Department of Business,
Yes, there are basically three grades of minister:
Parliamentary Under-Secretary is the most junior
minister; Minister of State is the middle ranking, if
you will; and the Secretary of State is the most senior
minister, who's a Cabinet Minister.
So you were sat in that middle rank, as you say?
Yes, correct.
What was your relationship like with the Secretary of
State, in terms of the division of responsibility when
you joined as Minister of State at the start, leaving
the change to Lord Mandelson aside at this point?
Sure, so the first Secretary of State that I worked for
in the Department was John Hutton. The Secretary of
State is responsible overall for everything a department
does. The DTI that then became the Business and
Regulatory Reform Department, it does a whole range of
things. So the Secretary of State would have oversight,
for example, over relations with key industrial sectors
and the automotive sector, the airspace sector, and so
on.
There was a lot of European work in the Department
at that time. We were members of the European Union at
the time and there were what they called, in the EU,
these dossiers which would -- had to have a home
department in the UK system. So I and the Secretary of
8
(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
State spent a fair bit of our time in Brussels or in
Luxembourg negotiating the UK position on these dossiers
around things like Working Time Directive, Agency
Workers Directive, other things that were relevant to
the UK economy.
Really, anything across the business economic
environment, other than Treasury matters and things like
setting the budget, and so on. We didn't have anything
to do with that.
So the Secretary of State, when you're a Minister of
State, is your boss and what will happen is, beneath the
Secretary of State, there will be two or three other
ministers who will have a particular focus on different
aspects of the Department.
During your time as Minister of State, to what extent,
if at all, did you discuss Post Office matters with the
Secretary of State?
Well, in the early part of my tenure as the Minister,
the big Post Office issue, the most dominant Post Office
issue, was around a closure programme called the Network
Change Programme, and it had been decided before
I became a Minister in the Department but it was being
implemented while I was a Minister. So that would have
been the issue that I would have discussed with the
Secretary of State, most of all regarding postal affairs
9
as to whether that post office should or should not be
closed?
They wouldn't, and I do cover this in the written
statement. Where the Department was involved was in
agreeing with the Post Office what the size of the
network should be in the future, and the idea behind the
closure programme was that the network needed to reduce
in size from 14,000 down to about 11,500. So it was
losing somewhere between one in six and one in seven
branches across the country.
That's agreed as a policy, as a strategic objective,
the reason being that the ministers previous to me, and
the Post Office Management themselves, thought the
network had to be smaller to ensure its future financial
viability as a whole but, when it came to selecting
which of the 14,000 branches should close, I played no
part in that. That was decided through this programme
of local area reviews that were carried out by the Post
Office themselves.
That doesn't mean MPs aren't going to raise it in
Parliament because, of course, it affects their local
community but, in terms of the decision making, I didn't
sit with a map saying "We're going to close this branch
and keep that one open". That was all a decision for
the Post Office.
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
18 July 2024
matter. It was very politically contentious. We were
closing 2,500 post offices out of a total network of
roughly 14,000.
It had been agreed with the Post Office but
agreement in principle and in policy is quite different
from implementation in practice. So I certainly
discussed that programme with the Secretary of State in
the first 15 months or so of my tenure as a minister,
and it was that programme which consumed, if you like,
a lot of the political attention and energy of the
Department in regards to postal affairs.
To give you an example, if a post office in
a particular area had been selected for closure, very
often there would be -- there might be a petition
against that; there might be a Parliamentary debate
about the impact of that closure on the local community;
there might be questions about it in Parliament. It was
quite hot, politically, that programme and, in terms of
the postal affairs part of my brief, it was very much
the dominant issue for about the first 15 months or so
that I was there.
In the case you've just mentioned there, of where
an individual post office was raised for closure as part
of the closure programme, to what extent would the
Department become involved with the underlying decision
10
So going back to -- because you said earlier about
questions being raised in Parliament, if it was raised,
would your response be "It's a matter for Post
Office” --
Yes, it would. Certainly in terms of an individual
branch. I did lots of debates on this and the position
would be that the MP might be raising a particular
branch in the area and I would always have to make clear
in the debate, "I play no role in deciding which branch
stays open or which branch stays closed, this is
an operational matter for the Post Office", and there
were some reasons for that, not just the legislative
basis of the Postal Services Act but also the way that
they decided do this closure programme wasn't just to
ask for volunteers.
If I can just stop you there, I'm exploring the decision
‘on operation versus policy?
Okay.
The underlying decision doesn't form part of the terms
of reference, so I'm just going to pause you there and
Move on.
Okay.
The last question on discussions with the Secretary of
State, you mentioned focusing on the closure programme.
To the best of your recollection, did you have
12
(3) Pages 9 - 12
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
a conversation with the Secretary of State at any point
regarding the allegations made by subpostmasters as to
the integrity of the Horizon IT system?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Please --
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Can I just ask you, Mr McFadden, really
out of general interest. I think you said Mr Hutton was
the first Secretary of State that you serve under. Did
Lord Mandelson follow him?
A. Yes, he did.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Was there anyone after Lord Mandelson
while you were Minister of State?
A. No.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So it was just those two?
A. They were the two Secretary of State's over the roughly
three-year period that I was in the Department.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you very much.
Sorry, Mr Stevens.
MR STEVENS: Not at all, sir.
Please could we bring up page 3, paragraph 9 of the
witness statement. You're referring in paragraph 9 to
your appointment as Minister of State and, as you said
in your evidence earlier, Minister of States having
a particular portfolio, which was their area of
emphasis. You say:
13
covered in the title, just because the Department
covered quite a lot of areas, so it's difficult to put
a percentage on it.
I'm going to do this very roughly just to give you
an idea but it won't be exact. I would say, maybe on
Post Office matters in this first 15-month period, maybe
a third to 40 per cent of the time; roughly similar for
employment relations; and maybe the remaining 20 per
cent of the time on other things not covered by that
title.
That changes in the second half of the period when
I'm acting as the lead spokesperson for the Department
across everything in the House of Commons and, probably
in the second half, postal affairs issues are a smaller
part of the overall work. But in the first part of it,
particularly because of that closure programme, it's
a very significant part of what I'm doing.
Q. At the time, looking at the first part, did you feel you
had sufficient time as a minister to deal with all those
areas of your portfolio?
A. I don't think any minister ever feels they have
sufficient time. I think the reality is ministers deal
with a large volume of paperwork, a large volume of
advice. They have a lot of meetings about things,
either internal meetings or external meetings. It
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
18 July 2024
"As Minister, my responsibilities included leading
‘on any legislation connected with employment relations
or postal affairs, meeting with external stakeholders,
and being made ministerial point of contact for the
civil servants covering these areas in the Department."
So in terms of subject areas, we have employment
rights and postal affairs; those were your two areas,
were they?
Yes, that's right.
If we turn to page 4, paragraph 16 of your statement.
You say:
"Issues in the employment relations area of my
portfolio included legislation going through Parliament
to improve employment rights."
In terms of the balance between postal affairs and
employment rights in your portfolio, how much time did
each take up?
That's a good question. They were -- if we were looking
at particularly this first period, I almost see this as
two halves, the first period being dominated by the Post
Office closure programme. That took up a lot of time.
On the employment relations side, also quite a lot
because we did have legislation and we had a lot of
European work concerning that portfolio. There were
other things I would be doing, as well, that aren't
14
always feels quite time pressured but that's what
ministers have to do. That's their job.
The second time period, you have already referred to
when Lord Mandelson became Secretary of State, and you
say in your statement -- and you've said in your
evidence today -- that, because Lord Mandelson was
a peer, he could not appear in the House of Commons?
That's correct.
So you, as Minister of State, had to deal with a wider
range of issues in the House of Commons?
That's correct.
Was it limited to simply having to answer more questions
in the House of Commons when Lord Mandelson took over or
did your decision-making or policy-making role also
expand?
I was involved in a lot more things. On the postal and
Royal Mail side, in this second half of my period in the
Department, the focus was a lot more on Royal Mail.
There was -- we had commissioned the Hooper Review to
look into the future of Royal Mail, which we may come on
to, and that too proved controversial in a different way
from the Post Office closure programme but we were also
entering the period now where the country was being hit
by the great financial crash and there were a lot of
businesses seeking help from the Department.
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
There were big negotiations going on about the
future of the car industry in the UK and the breadth of
what we were dealing and the intensity increased in that
second half of the period in which I was in office,
which I would date from roughly October 2008 until
leaving the Department at the 2010 election.
So it got busier, it got more intense and things got
broader, partly because of the great financial crash,
which closed a lot of industrial problems which came to
the Department's door.
As your portfolio or your area of work got busier, how
did you satisfy yourself that the Post Office was being
effectively managed?
Well, on Post Office matters, things seemed to calm down
towards the end of the closure programme because,
although it had been very difficult to implement that
programme, it had been quite understandably
controversial in the country. We had an Opposition Day
Debate at some point during the closure programme where,
even though the Government of the day had a majority of
60-odd seats, I believe we came within something like
ten votes of losing the vote, and this was in the days
when Opposition Day Debates were taken seriously and the
votes mattered. In recent years, Parliament has taken
a bit of a different view on that.
17
civil servants?
Oh, enormously. The big strategic five-year programme
for the Post Office was really centred on this Network
Change Programme. The idea was to reduce it in size, to
make it more financially viable and, alongside that,
there was this constant discussion of, and search for,
streams of business for the Post Office because life was
changing, we were getting more into the Internet age,
there was, for example -- and I refer to this in my
statement -- a lot of controversy over something called
the Post Office Card Account, which was the mechanism
whereby people would pick up pensions or benefits from
the Post Office.
Now, if we fast forward to today, they're nearly all
paid directly into a bank account; back then, this was
controversial. The Post Office wanted to keep the
business for people to pick up their pension. So we'd
be involved in a question like that but, overall, we
were trying to get the network on an even keel
financially and get it fit for the future and constantly
searching for new streams of business that we could help
the Post Office with.
I want to look at some of the structures in the Civil
Service that were available to you, starting with the
Permanent Secretary in the Department. So the Permanent
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
18 July 2024
I remember for the Secretary of State -- that was
John Hutton who was the Secretary of State at that
time -- and I that was quite a serious moment. This
programme was in real trouble. But, by the time we get
to towards the end of 2008, on the postal side things
seemed to have calmed down because the programme,
however controversial, has now been implemented. The
branches have been closed, the network has been reduced
in size. But things don't stay quiet for long because
we then enter the period where we are proposing
legislation based on the Hooper Review to try to get
a private sector investor into Royal Mail.
‘And, as I said a few moments ago, this is
controversial in a very different way because the idea
of a Labour Government, in particular, trying to invite
a private sector investor, even on a minority stake,
into a big nationalised industry like Royal Mail proved
very controversial, there was a lot of opposition to it
on our own side and, in the end, the legislation didn't
complete its passage through Parliament.
You referred throughout your evidence to some what
I call big ticket items: the Network Closure Programme,
the potential sale of Royal Mail. In terms of
overseeing how the Post Office was running as
an arm’s-length body, to what extent were you reliant on
18
Secretary is the most senior civil servant within
a government department?
That's correct.
They are responsible and accountable for the day-to-day
management of the Department?
They are.
I think, whilst you were Minister of State, the
Permanent Secretaries to the Departments were Sir Brian
Bender and Sir Simon Fraser.
That's right.
To what extent, if at all, were the Permanent
Secretaries involved in discussing matters relating to
the Post Office with you?
Not very much. Barely at all, I would say.
When I say the Permanent Secretary, does that involve
the second Permanent Secretary as well?
Yes, the people -- the officials that I would discuss
Post Office matters with, in my time, were those based
in the Shareholder Executive.
That's where I want to come now, the Shareholder
Executive. The Inquiry has heard evidence from various
Officials from the Shareholder Executive. At the time,
what was your view or understanding of the Shareholder
Executive's role in respect of the Post Office?
Well, they were the people who were, if you like, the
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
>
POPs
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
departmental experts. If I had a meeting with Post
Office Management, which I did from time to time, they
would be the people who would prepare the briefing and
say this is roughly what's going to be discussed, or
what we should expect, or this is what's going on.
Can I just pause there. So they prepared the briefing?
Yes.
Would that come directly to you?
It would go through my private office. To explain,
every minister has a private office of -- it could be
something like five or six civil servants, or
thereabouts, and their job is to process and funnel all
the paperwork coming in to a minister to sort it.
You'll have heard about ministers’ red boxes, and so on.
They would sort the material you would read in your box,
which you get most evenings. So briefings,
correspondence, things like that, would all be funnelled
through the private office.
So for something like a meeting that you're talking
about, a briefing would be written by the Shareholder
Executive. It would go through the private office and
eventually make its way to me.
So I'm going to look at the private office in more
detail shortly but, to the best of your understanding,
someone in the Shareholder Executive writes the
21
job as well.
The career civil servants are, of course, not like
that. They are permanent and their career, their
position, their advancement, all of that, is not
dependent on the individual minister and that's a core
part of how our Civil Service works.
So the briefing comes in from the Shareholder Executive
into the private office, it may or may not have input
from a private secretary?
Yes.
It may or may not have input from a Special Adviser?
Yes.
Are there any other policy officials or civil servants
who may have input into the briefing before it reaches
you as Minister of State?
No, not normally.
l interrupted you because my question before we took all
that on was what your view was at the time of the role
of Shareholder Executive?
Right. So, the Shareholder Executive at the time was
the body that held or, in effect, stewarded Government
shares in a whole range of organisations. Now, from
memory, in my time in the Department, the Shareholder
Executive was looking after things like Channel 4, the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, The Met Office,
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
18 July 2024
briefing, and when you say it goes through the private
office, is that simply a case of -- if it had been
printed off -- receiving it, putting it in the right box
to get it to you or was there someone in the private
office who would analyse, amend or change anything in
the briefing?
They could. They could add additional advice. It's not
simply, you know, taking it with this hand and giving it
to you with the other hand. They might put a cover note
‘on, for example, and say, "This is what this is about",
and give you additional advice. That is what your
private office is there to do.
Who in the private office would do that?
Well, I had a couple of private secretaries in my time
as a minister, Robert Porteous and Kate Hall were the
two main private secretaries I had.
Would Special Advisers ever be involved in that work?
Yes, they might be, Special Advisers are temporary civil
servants who are allowed to operate in a more political
way than the career Civil Service and, unlike the career
Civil Service, they're very attached to a single
minister, so that if you lose your job as a result of
a general election or a reshuffle, where the Prime
Minister no longer requires your services, the Special
Adviser is effectively tied to you and would lose their
22
a whole range of organisations. But one of those was
Royal Mail and Post Office beneath Royal Mail.
So they were the people who were charged with
day-to-day liaison with the company. They were the
people who would -- as I said, if I was having a meeting
with the Royal Mail Chief Executive or the Managing
Director of the Post Office, there would be somebody
from the Shareholder Executive who was there as the
Departmental person for that policy area.
So you mentioned the role in overseeing the business.
What was your view of the Shareholder Executive's role
in terms of policy, Government policy?
I mean, I thought they -- I had no complaints about how
they were doing their job, how they were dealing with
me. I had a good working relationship with them.
I just viewed them as part of the fabric of how we
worked.
Was your relationship -- or working relationship,
I should say, sorry -- with the officials in the
Shareholder Executive different to other policy
officials who were based just within the Department?
The Shareholder Executive was a little bit different in
that it probably had a more business focus because they
were dealing with these organisations that I've
mentioned, that were usually in some ways standalone
24
(6) Pages 21 - 24
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
organisations. And if you compare that to the other
side of my portfolio, the employment relations side, it
would have been more direct there because we had
legislation, for example, to improve employment rights
during the time I was a minister, we changed the way the
minimum wage worked a bit. That was a more traditional
government department policy function: you write a White
Paper, you consult on the White Paper, you then write
a bill, the Minister takes the Bill through all its
governmental -- all its Parliamentary stages and you
have an Act at the end of it.
With the Shareholder Executive, it's a bit different
because they are sort of managing the public shares in
these different organisations that are state-owned but
they're not state run on a day-to-day basis and, in the
case of both Royal Mail and the Post Office, we have the
Postal Services Act, which we referred to at the
beginning of our discussion, and that sets up in
legislation that these organisations are to be run by
their own management. They are state owned but they're
not state run on a day-to-day basis. They're run on
a day-to-day basis by the management appointed to do
that job.
Were you more deferential towards advice given by
Shareholder Executive than you would have been to
25
across the board. So I don't think, for example, I had
a special private secretary just dealing with postal
matters. They dealt with everything which came in.
What was the level of seniority of civil servants who
took on the role of private secretary?
Oh, now, they have these grades and I'm not 100 per cent
sure if this is accurate but, from memory, I think they
were either Grade 7 civil servants or Grade 5, which is
Senior Civil Service but not absolute top level.
As Minister, would you have been aware of the training
they were to receive on how to carry out the role of
Private Secretary?
No, no.
At any point, in respect of Post Office matters, were
you unsatisfied with the Private Secretaries within your
office?
No. I had a good relationship with my private office.
A Minister is very, very reliant on their private office
because they are managing a very busy diary, they're
managing a very busy paper flow. They are the first
people you look to, to say what is this meeting about?
What's the agenda here? They are the people who -- they
are an absolutely indispensable part of how a minister
functions.
25 Q. To what extent did your Private Secretaries have any
27
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
prop
18 July 2024
a civil servant based solely within the Department?
No.
Why not?
Well, I don't know why I would be more deferential.
Well, for the reasons you said about being more business
oriented and involved in day-to-day management of
a company, slightly different from --
No, I don't think I was any more deferential as a result
of that. I'm just sort of pointing out there was a —-
they had a slightly different focus in that unit, if you
like. It later became UK Government Investments,
I think, and changed its name and changed its home. But
in my day in the Department, it was based in the
Department of Business.
I want to look, then, at the private office. You've
covered this already, slightly. There were private
secretaries, obviously, in your office. You've referred
to one who appears in the paper, Robert Porteous. Did
individual private secretaries have, I suppose,
portfolios themselves for the types of issues they would
deal with for you as Minister?
Perhaps in a Secretary of State's office, but in
a Minister of State's office or a Parliamentary
Under-Secretary's office, the private office will be
smaller and they'll have to cover lots more things
26
involvement with policy or decision making?
They didn't, really. They will give you a bit of advice
but they're not really policy advisers, you know. The
policy advice was coming from ShEx, not really the
private office.
Please could we bring up your witness statement,
page 10, paragraph 36. I'm going to go through some of
these paragraphs in your statement. It may be, in the
course of my questions, then, you've covered some of
this, but we well take it stage by stage.
Okay.
You say:
“My common practice at the time I served at the
Department, and which I expect was broadly typical for
ministers generally ..."
When you say you expect that was broadly typical of
ministers generally, where did that expectation come
from?
Just in my experience this is roughly how ministers
work. By that phrase, I mean, I think this was the
Whitehall practice of how Ministers worked. There might
be the odd one, that I don't know about, that has a very
different way of working but I think this is generally
true.
25 Q. That remains true to this day, as in you would expect
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
>
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
that still to be the case?
Well, I've only been back in office for less than two
weeks, so I'm not 100 per cent sure and a lot can change
in 14 years, so I don't quite know yet. But my early
experience of being back in office is still that the
private office is absolutely critical to how you
function as a minister.
So your common practice:
"... was that correspondence and documentation sent
to the Department for my attention would be received by
my private office. My private secretaries would review
the documentation and apply their judgement as to how
that documentation should be directed. The document may
be referred elsewhere; for example, the correspondence
sent in November 2009 to Lord Mandelson's office ..."
I'm going to turn to that but, at this stage, you're
talking about where does it go: does this correspondence
sit with you or does it sit with another member of
Government, basically?
Yes, so if you take correspondence, a minister doesn't
see correspondence when it arrives at the Department.
The first port of call is not to say, "Here are these
letters from whoever it is for your attention". That's
not how it works. What will happen is someone else
could be the private office, could be some other
29
and complexity of the issue, it may be addressed
directly by my private secretaries, referred to
Officials for analysis and advice ..."
Now, pausing there: on Post Office matters, would
that be Shareholder Executive?
Yes.
"... or referred directly to me."
Yeah.
So what type of correspondence would be addressed
directly by your private secretaries?
That would be very rare, it might be something personal,
where they think this is really -- you know, this
doesn't look very departmental. This is somebody who
I think you might know or, you know, it’s not really
a Departmental thing. In anything to do with
Departmental responsibility, there's some process
involving the private office and the relevant officials
and, in the case of, very importantly, of matters
relating to the Post Office, the Post Office itself, to
frame the reply.
And again, this is important, if I may: that with
regard to Post Office matters, particularly because of
the way the Postal Services Act has been constructed,
because of this arms-length relationship where the Post
Office Management is responsible for running the
34
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
18 July 2024
official whose advice is needed, will look at that
correspondence and will make a decision as to what needs
to be done in order to get a response to this from the
Minister, and the only time the Minister gets to see it
is when all of that work has been completed and they
will get the correspondence usually in their red box
with the original letter from the MP, or whoever has
written, underneath it, there might be an advice note,
very often there isn't. But there is a reply that has
been drafted for the Minister's signature attached to
it, and you might have quite a large number of those on
lots of different subjects in your box of a given
evening.
And it's important, this, because you have to be in
a position to trust the work that has been done in
framing that reply. It is not -- I don't want people to
have the impression that, when letters come in to
a Department, the first port of call is the Minister who
is sitting deciding how will this be handled. The
Minister is the end of the chain, not the beginning of
the chain, when the reply will eventually be sent.
You give us a bit more information on the chain, as
you've described. You say, paragraph 37:
"If a document or piece of correspondence was to be
dealt with by my office then, depending on the nature
30
business on a day-to-day level, the Department had no
role in running the business on a day-to-day level. So
if anything came in that was to do with an individual
subpostmaster or something concerning the day-to-day
running of the Post Office, the only way to get the
information was to go to the Post Office.
The Department would have held no information about
individual subpostmasters or anything of that nature and
so whether the reply is coming from the Post Office to
the relevant MP, as some of the ones that we will
discuss did, or whether it's signed by me, the source of
information is almost always going to be the Post Office
itself.
So is it fair to summarise it like this, because we'll
look at the correspondence as we go, but of the letters
you've seen where Horizon issues are raised, your
expectation would be, if a letter like that came in, it
wouldn't be dealt with by a private secretary?
No. Not in any substantive -- well, the Private
Secretary might ask the Shareholder Executive. They
might say, "We've had this letter, can you help us with
the reply?"
The Shareholder Executive may be able to do that,
and may then go to the Post Office, if they didn't have
the information. So the Private Secretary is involved,
32
(8) Pages 29 - 32
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
but they are probably not alone in the process. There's
somebody else, either officials in the Department or the
Post Office, who are helping them frame either a reply
or advice to me.
So the expectation is go to Shareholder Executive if
information is needed, the Shareholder Executive needs
to go to Post Office for information and then it comes
to you with, I think you said, a draft response,
possibly a written advice note, as well?
That's correct or, in the case of some of the
correspondence that we are going to discuss, quite often
a reply directly from the Post Office itself to the
relevant MP because the Department has judged that this
is an operational matter for the Post Office. They've
got the information here, so they should write to the
MP. That happened quite often.
If you had a draft letter without an advice note, it was
just "Here's the letter that's come into the Department,
here's a draft", when you're there going through your
red box, did you know who drafted the letter, where the
input had come from or would you be reliant on what's
recorded on the face of the letter?
You're very reliant on what's recorded on the face of
the letter. You're trusting that the work has been done
to make sure that the information in that letter is
33
Government Department; and then you've got a Minister
sometimes at the end of that chain. And the Minister is
very reliant on those other layers having told the truth
about the information that's put in front of them to
sign in a red box, whenever they're doing the red box.
And the feature of the Horizon correspondence -- and
not just the Horizon correspondence but probably other
things to do with an individual sub post office, say it
was nothing to do with Horizon but some other
contractual issue or dispute, the Department, and me as
the Minister, we've got no independent information about
that, other than in the Post Office and, most of the
time, queries about those kind of things are answered
directly by the Post Office themselves.
That's why you get this pattern: I've asked the
Managing Director of the Post Office to reply directly
to whoever the MP is who's raising it because they've
got the information and they run the business, and that
is set down in legislation, that separation.
So my question was: the reliance you place on the Civil
Service and the process you described, if you weren't to
rely on the civil servants like that, what effect would
that have on the business of Government?
Well, it would be very difficult. How can government
operate, how can ministers operate, if they couldn't
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
18 July 2024
accurate.
I'll ask you this question now because I was going to
come to it later but you've referred a few times to the
importance of trusting what the civil servants say,
et cetera. What position would Government be in if you
didn't have that level of trust in the Civil Service?
Well, I think it's very difficult and, of course, it's
relevant to this issue because at the heart of this
issue is that, in the process that I've been describing
involving a private office, Shareholder Executive, the
Post Office itself, the information turns out to have
been wrong with terrible human consequences for some of
the people who are here and, obviously, what you're
going to try to get to the heart of is how did it go
wrong, who was responsible for that and why was it
allowed to be perpetuated in that way for such a long
period of time?
And in the discussion that we've had for the last
ten minutes or so, what I'm trying to illustrate is
there are different layers involved in this. To put
together a reply to a letter, there will be people, not
just the senior management of the Post Office but layers
down from them, who really have the information; you've
got the Post Office Management themselves; you've then
got of the Shareholder Executive; you've got the
34
trust what they were being told? You could perhaps
envisage a world where everything is not trusted and
pretty soon you can see it's very difficult to operate
government on that basis.
So trust in what you're being told is at the heart
of how this works, how this system works -- how it
should work.
I want to look at the Government's interest in the Post
Office. Can we look at page 25, paragraph 101 of your
statement, please. You're discussing recommendations
and you say:
"The question is how an arm's-length body like [Post
Office Limited] can be held accountable for its actions.
The Government is the 100% shareholder. Ministers do
not run the Post Office but Ministers answer questions
about it in Parliament and are responsible for reporting
to Parliament on matters concerned with the Post
Office."
Where does ultimate accountability for the actions
of an arm's-length body, such as the Post Office, that's
‘owned by the Government, lie?
I have thought about this a lot because of this issue
and this whole question of the arm’s-length relationship
and what happens when that goes wrong and what you can
do about it and, at the end of the statement here, we're
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
dealing with almost thinking about the future: what
could you do to stop something like this happening
again? If it's state owned, ultimately the
accountability will lie with the Government because it's
state owned. But I do want to stress that the
legislation that had been passed in the Postal Services
Act had deliberately created this separation.
If you look at what the Secretary of State who
brought forward the legislation said at the time -- and
this was five or six years before I became the
Minister -- they were very clear that the purpose of the
legislation was, if you like, to get the Minister out of
the hair of running these organisations -- this
organisation on a day-to-day basis. It would have
commercial freedom, it would be able to make its own
decisions, it would have its own management and they
would be charged with the responsible of running the
business.
That was the case for many years. I imagine --
I don't know what current ministers have said to you
about their relationship today but I imagine, even
today, even after this, it is similar today. But when
something is publicly owned, of course, in the end,
people well look to the state, even if the state is
not -- the ministers who speak for the Government are
37
character from Royal Mail.
So, with that, maintaining that social role and
maintaining branches in rural and remote locations, in
terms of delivering that policy objective,
subpostmasters, counter assistants and Post Office
employees played an important role?
Yes, absolutely.
So would you agree that the treatment of those persons,
namely subpostmasters, counter assistants and Post
Office employees, the treatment of them was directly
relevant to a key Government policy objective?
Yes. They played a very important role and that is why,
in this closure programme, there were these access
criteria where -- I haven't got it all in front of me
but it’s all about 90-odd per cent of the population
must live within a certain distance from a post office,
you know, there was particular care taken, if it's --
you know, the post office is the only one in a village
or a town, you don't want to leave a desert where
there's no access to postal services.
There was a thing called outreach services, where
subpostmasters were encouraged to -- if they were in
charge of a post office in one area, they were
encouraged and there was a contract where they would
maybe go to the neighbouring village or town for
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
18 July 2024
not running the business on a day-to-day basis.
I want to explore the operational decisions and the
strategic or policy one sand that separation. You have
already referred to, I think, the example you gave of
the closure programme and I think you made the
distinction of, on the one hand, the Government saying
“Close X number of post offices", and you say that's
a policy or a strategic decision, but the actual getting
the map out, as you say, and pointing to which ones are
closing, that's the operational decision.
That's right. And any dispute around that, for example,
if you're closing post offices, there will be campaigns,
and there were a lot of campaigns, you know, "Save Post
Office X". If Post Office X -- one of the frustrating
things about the programme and the way it worked,
because they had this target of reducing by 2,500, if
Post Office X was saved, they decided to close Post
Office Y. But I played no part in that decision.
Yes, I'm just using that to illustrate the example.
I suppose this comes to -- would you agree that
Government policy was that the Post Office had a social
role maintaining branches nationally, including in
remote and rural locations?
Yes. Yes, I would, and I refer to that in my statement,
and that social role made the Post Office different in
38
an afternoon or a day a week and provide a service in
a church hall or something like that.
So this social element was part of the character --
it is part of the character of the Post Office.
The Government, through Shareholder Executive, had
a role in monitoring the performance of the Post Office
in delivering on those policy objectives?
Yes, they had a role in the five-year plan being
implemented, and that was this £1.7 billion investment
over five years with the reduction in the size of the
network and the kinds of innovations that I've been
talking about.
So would you agree that the manner in which
an arm's-length body like Post Office, the manner in
which it operates, can cause concern for the Government
at a policy level?
Yes, it can. I think that's fair.
Would you accept that the bright line distinction
between operations, on the one hand, and strategy, on
the other, can become quite blurred?
Well, I'm not sure and I can sort of -- I think I can
maybe see where you're sort of driving at with the line
of questioning. So what did the Department see its role
as? As I said, before I got there, there was this
agreement between the Department and the Post Office,
40
(10) Pages 37 - 40
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
A
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and the National Federation of SubPostmasters, who were,
I think, broadly in agreement with this, to reduce the
size of the network. There's a financial sum to help
with that. There was a subsidy level at policy level of
about £150 million a year to directly support that
social element that we are talking about because the
Post Office at this time was not a profit-making
organisation, it was losing money.
But, in fact, I believe, as I was told, if it was
run purely as a commercial organisation, instead of
14,000 branches, there would have been about 4,000 in
the country. So the Government didn't want to see
10,000 post office closures.
Those are the policy levels but when it comes to the
individual contract between a subpostmaster and the Post.
Office, that isn't something the Government would have
got involved in.
When we had witnesses from Shareholder Executive come
and discuss the arm's-length body, they made the point
that the length of the Government's arms can shorten at
some points in comparison to much influence it has over
operational decisions; would you broadly agree with
that?
I've not watched all the previous witnesses. You know,
I do think the Government had a role in making sure that
a
is: as a minister or as the Government, was there
a policy objective in seeing that a company it owned
prosecuted fairly and lawfully?
I don't remember that ever being discussed in that way.
If-- ministers are very reluctant, for understandable
constitutional reasons, to intervene in prosecutions
and, once court judgments are cited, all the ministerial
learning you have is not to interfere with the courts.
This separation of powers is well understood in the
British constitution. If ministers do start questioning
court verdicts, they are very quickly criticised for
intervening or trying to interfere in the court process.
So I think there would have been great reluctance to
consider prosecutions or the outcome as a policy
question.
Imagine we put to one side past prosecutions where they
are past convictions and it's a Government asset that
has a plan to prosecute in future: did the Government
have any policy objective in terms of how its own assets
prosecuted its staff?
I was never involved in a discussion like that about the
basis for which anyone should be prosecuted.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I understand that that might be the case,
Mr McFadden, but I think what Mr Stevens is driving at
is this: the owner of the company might be thought ~
43
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
22
18 July 2024
social element of the Post Office Network was there, and
the way that they implemented that objective was by
subsidising the network to make sure it would be a lot
bigger than would have been the case, if it had just
been run like a bank.
Let me put the question in another way. Do you think it
was a policy objective of the Government to see that
subpostmasters involved in the delivery of, as you say,
this social purpose, was it a policy objective of
Government for subpostmasters and Post Office staff to
be treated fairly by the Post Office?
Well, we wouldn't have been drawn into contractual
disputes between individual subpostmasters and the Post
Office. I think that would have been viewed as
an operational matter for the Post Office and certainly,
in my time as minister, whether it was on the Horizon
disputes or -- sometimes there were other disputes about
what a post office could sell and things like that.
These were dealt with by the Post Office themselves.
What about a company owned by the Government who
prosecuted its employees or agents? Would you say it's
a policy objective of the Government to see that its
asset prosecuted fairly and lawfully?
We took no part in the decision to prosecute.
It's a slightly different question. The question I have
42
let's choose my words as neutrally as possible -- to
have an interest in a very unusual situation. It's not
usual for a company to prosecute either agents or its
employees. That's normally done through the Crown
Prosecution Service.
So I think what Mr Stevens is trying to get to is
whether the owner of such a company, which is engaged in
private prosecutions, feels any responsibility, or
should feel any responsibility, to ensure that the
prosecution is conducted lawfully and in accordance with
proper practice?
Well, I mean, my view of that is that, if Ministers see
reference to prosecutions or convictions in
correspondence, they will assume that the court has
reached its verdict correctly because, as I said to
Mr Stevens a moment ago, Sir Wyn, you know, we are all
told not to intervene or interfere in court judgments.
In my period as a minister, I never remember
a discussion. It may be you, you know, you'd think this
isn't right but I never remember a discussion about the
prosecutions taking place at a Departmental level.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right.
Back to you, Mr Stevens.
MR STEVENS: I might just explore that further, sir.
The Chair asked or referred to imagine a private
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
company and the owner of a private company, if the
private company bought a prosecution, do you think the
‘owner of the company has any interest in how that
prosecution is conducted?
A. The standard of evidence in a private prosecution is
supposed to be -- supposed to be -- the same, and the
standard of proof is supposed the same, as in, if you
like, a prosecution pursued by the CPS. That's my
understanding of it. So I'm not sure if they would.
Q. So when you say the standard, are you saying,
effectively, that it's for the criminal court; I think
that's what you're saying?
A. Yeah, it's for the court to judge and ministers will
always be very reluctant to intervene in decisions about
prosecutions because they'll see that as being a matter
for the judicial system and not a policy matter.
MR STEVENS: Sir, unless you have any questions, I think
that's an appropriate time to take our morning break.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's fine. What time shall we resume?
MR STEVENS: If we could say 11.25 past, I think, sir. That
would be helpful.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's fine.
(11.13 am)
(A short break)
(11.25 am)
45
challenged by technology and people weren't sending
letters, and it was changing its nature. There was
a lot of industrial disputes, and so on, but, even then,
we didn't get involved in the day-to-day running of
Royal Mail.
Q. Let's look at the letters then, please.
A. Okay.
Q._ It's WITN10250102, please. This a letter from Jacqui
Smith MP, who I believe then was Home Secretary; is that
right?
A. She might have been Home Secretary or Chief Whip, I'm
not sure but she might have been.
Q. It's addressed to you, 9 January 2009. It refers to
Mr Julian Wilson, sets out the issues that he was
reporting in respect of discrepancies, and the third
paragraph says:
"He has heard of three other postmasters in exactly
the same position as him within a six-mile radius of
Redditch. He states that there are others that he knows
of in the West Midlands area. I feel that there could
be a system problem here.
"I would be grateful if you could investigate this
issue and provide a response for my constituent on this
issue."
Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about that
47
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
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18 July 2024
MR STEVENS: Sir, can you continue to see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you.
MR STEVENS: = Thank you, I'll continue.
Mr McFadden, I said I was going to turn to the
letters now, there was one more question I was going to
ask and that is, at the time you were Minister, and
we've talked about operational decisions and how that
was to be left to Post Office in your view, if you
wanted to become involved in an operational decision,
for whatever reason, what, if any, power, did you think
you had as a Minister to influence or change such
decisions made by Post Office?
A. I believe at the time I would have considered it
improper to become involved in an operational decision
to that degree, about, say, an individual contract or
Post Office branch, or something like that. We might
have had correspondence about them and, you know, passed
that to a Post Office in the normal way but it was quite
well established, this division between operational and,
if you like, overall strategic policy responsibility.
I don't want to detain you because I know you want
to go into the correspondence but, if I can use the
example of Royal Mail, which was more prominent in the
second half of my tenure, we had a lot of policy
responsibility on Royal Mail because it was being very
46
letter but, given the process that you've described,
a letter comes in and then there's a process, it goes
‘out, I'm going to have on screen as well your response
of 9 February, which is WITN10250103.
Thank you. So we see that's the letter from you,
your signature has been redacted, but it's to Jacqui
Smith. Now, do you have any recollection of what you
thought when you read this letter and the fact that
Jacqui Smith was raising what she said could be a system
problem here?
A. No specific recollection of the letter. When I look at
the letter and the reply, the way I believe this will
have been dealt with is information has been obtained
about it from Post Office Limited. For example, if you
look at the reply from me in the third paragraph, it
says:
“I understand that Glenn Chester of [Post Office
Limited] has written to you regarding the investigations
at the Astwood Bank branch.”
And then goes on, in the fourth paragraph, to say:
“lam informed that Mr Wilson resigned from his
position in September 2008 and was, therefore, not
invited to be interviewed by [Post Office Limited]."
There is no way for me, independently, to know
either of those two things, other than that information
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
coming from Post Office Limited. So I don't know the
full wiring behind the reply but it looks to me, from
this, as though either the private office or the
Shareholder Executive have asked the Post Office what is
happening here and have been given this information,
especially the information in paragraphs 3 and 4, to put
this reply together.
With a letter like this, roughly how much time would you
have spent on it, in reviewing the response?
It's difficult to say. I mean, you'll be dealing ~-
I don't know how many you would be dealing with in
a particular evening, on a range of subjects, but
normally I would read the reply, read the original
letter, sign the reply, and go through them like that.
Let's look at what's said. In the second paragraph, it
says:
“Operational decisions, which include decisions
relating to the running of individual post office
branches are a matter for Post Office Limited."
Why was that relevant when what Ms Smith was raising
was feeling that there could be a system problem here?
That paragraph, and the things said in it, is quite
standard when I look back at this correspondence.
You'll see a paragraph like that quoted quite a lot,
maybe not exactly word for word, but something along
49
content of her email is worrying and I would be very
grateful if you could address the point she is making
and let me know the exact situation regarding this
matter."
If we then turn to the email, please, it's page 3.
So it's an email from Rebecca Thomson, the reporter at
Computer Weekly who subsequently wrote the May 2009
article on the Horizon system. It says there:
“I have spoken to several current and former
subpostmasters, who say that random flaws in the IT are
causing deficits in their weekly accounts, sometimes of
thousands of pounds at a time. Their complaint is that,
instead of listening to their problems and investigating
the software or equipment, the Post Office is making
them pay back this money without any investigation into
what is going wrong. Neither they, nor I, have any way
of proving that it is the IT that is causing the
deficits. Their problem is that the Post Office refuses
even to entertain the possibility that their system
could be going wrong."
Pausing there, do you have a positive recollection
of reading this email?
I don't.
I think you say in your statement it's likely you would
have --
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
18 July 2024
those lines, that these issues around individual
subpostmasters were regarded as, as it says here,
operational decisions and that's why they've gone to the
Post Office to get the information.
If there was an issue in the Horizon system, which we
later found out there was, and the Horizon system is
used to prepare the Post Office's accounts and it's used
to create data to prosecute subpostmasters, in your
view, is a system problem in the system something with
which the Government should have been concerned?
Look, we would certainly, at that stage, have had no way
of knowing about the detailed running of the Horizon
system. What this whole story is, is that over time,
there are more and more cases, and more and more
questions about it. But, certainly, in the early stages
of this, this would have been regarded as a matter for
the Post Office and that's reflected in this reply, and
in the others that we're going to discuss.
Let's go through the timeline, then, slightly. Can we
go to the next letter, please. It's POL00027890.
If we could go to page 2, please. So we see this is
from Brian Binley MP on 24 February 2009 to you. He
says:
"I write to you having received an email, which
I have enclosed [we'll go to it in a moment]. The
50
Yeah, if I'd dealt with this in the way that
correspondence was dealt with, I would have seen the --
at some point in the story, I would have seen the letter
from Brian Binley and the attachment to it, which this
is.
So this opening paragraph is saying a few things, isn't
it: firstly, the subpostmasters referring to flaws in
the IT causing deficits; secondly, that the Post Office
isn't listening to the problems or investigating it;
and, thirdly, that the Post Office refuses to entertain
the possibility that the system could be going wrong?
That's right. That's what she says.
What do you think you would have thought of that when
you read that?
Well, I would have wanted to know what the position was,
and this letter and its attachment end up with -- they
were referred to Alan Cook, who was the Managing
Director of the Post Office at the time. He's asked by
the Department to look into this, to the allegations
made in this letter and email, and to respond directly
to Mr Binley.
Weill come to that shortly. So let's read on. It says:
"The consequences for some of the postmasters have
been extremely serious. Of the group I am in contact
with, two have been forced to file for bankruptcy.
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
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Others have lost their life savings. If postmasters
cannot pay the deficits back because their savings have
been depleted, the Post Office takes it out of their
wages. In desperation, a couple of the postmasters I've
spoken to turned to false accounting. They were not
getting help when they asked for it from the company,
and they did not have the money to pay the deficits
back. So they signed the weekly accounts, affirming the
money was there when it was not. The Post Office has
then prosecuted these people, although no one that
I have heard of has ever been prosecuted for theft."
Of course, we know people were prosecuted for theft.
You say, I think in your statement, that this was
the first time you were aware of the Post Office's
prosecutorial role; is that right?
That's correct.
Do you remember what your thoughts were when you learnt
that?
Well, this -- remember how this works in the process
that I described in the first half of our evidence.
I don't see this when it first comes in. I will only
see this in conjunction with a reply from the Post
Office. So I would have looked at the two of them
together and the thing that strikes me about the reply
from the Post Office to what is said in Rebecca
53
can go down to paragraph 56, please. Just to be clear,
you say:
"Brian Binley's letter would have been shown to me
by the private office with Rebecca Thomson's email
clipped to it. I would have read both the letter and
the email. I do not remember having any oral
discussions with Ms Thomson, Brian Binley, Alan Cook or
other representatives of [the Post Office] of officials
in the Department or ShEx, regarding the issues raised
by Ms Thomson.”
So is your evidence that the reading of it would
have occurred later, after Alan Cook's response?
Yes, they would have showed me this with the reply.
Why was that? Why would that be the way —~
Because that's the -- it's the discussion we had
earlier. When correspondence comes in, certainly my
memory is there isn't a process where people go through
the original correspondence with a Minister before
a reply is put together. The way that the Minister sees
itis, yes, they will see a letter from an MP with, in
this case, an email attached to it. They will see that
when the work has been done to put together a reply to
it, and a response. And, if you look at paragraph 57,
just beneath the one that we are discussing, it says:
"My private office sent Brian Binley MP's ... letter
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
18 July 2024
Thomson's email is how emphatic they were in defending
the robustness of the system.
This was the beginning --
Sorry, let's pause there. Because if we go -- I'm
asking you about your recollection when you read this
letter and what you thought.
Well, I'll have read it together with the reply. That's
the point I'm making.
If we look at page 1, please. We see this was sent to
Alan Cook on 30 April 2009 for his response, as you've
said. At the bottom it says:
“Pat McFadden has asked that you look into this
matter and reply directly to Brian Binley MP."
So you would have read this letter before you had
the response from Alan Cook, would you?
Not necessarily. That is a private office way of
saying, "Can you look into this?" They would use that
terminology without me necessarily having read the
correspondence.
So who made the decision to send this to Alan Cook, as
the Managing Director?
It looks, from here, as though it was the private office
because they thought that was the right way to deal with
it.
Can we bring up, please, your statement, page 14. If we
54
to Alan Cook ... The decision to handle the
correspondence ... would have been a decision taken by
the officials in my private office. The source of the
information in the response would have been [Post Office
Limited], whether or not it came directly from Mr Cook
or [if the reply had been put together in a way that
I am replying directly to him as the Minister].""
If we bring back up POL00027890. We see at the bottom
that the direction is:
"Pat McFadden has asked that you look into this
matter and reply directly to Brian Binley MP."
So is this -- just to be clear, the private office
here directs that Brian Binley MP's letter should be
addressed by Alan Cook directly without your
involvement?
I think that's right, and this form of words is used
quite a lot, including in my constituency office, if
somebody writes in and a reply comes from one of the
case workers, they will often say, "Mr McFadden has
asked me to reply". It doesn't mean on each individual
piece of correspondence that I've read it and asked them
to reply.
That document can come down, thank you.
So why would it come back to you with Alan Cook's
reply?
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
Well, I would see what he'd said. It's important to
know what they're saying and what I was really struck
by, looking at this correspondence, is just how emphatic
the Post Office reply is. It's detailed in this
statement --
We can bring it up for you, if it assists.
They are saying two things which coloured the replies
and I think affected this situation for a long, long
time, in this reply to Mr Binley.
Let's bring it up, it's POL00130687.
This is the letter that you were referring to --
Yes.
-- and I think your evidence earlier was that this
informed decision making, or at least your decision
making, for some time, was it, or I think you said
coloured the decision making for some time?
Yes, and I think for some years after, given how all
this played out. And there's two really important
points in this, which get to the heart of this story in
many ways. One is their -- the Post Office's emphatic
defence of the Horizon IT system. They use phrases like
“we have scrutinised many Horizon transaction records";
they talk about any subpostmaster who is unhappy to
accept the loss has the opportunity to provide evidence;
"we take the concerns of subpostmasters extremely
57
like Mr Binley.
That can come down. Thank you.
Just so we're clear, do you have a positive
recollection of reading this letter and your mindset at
the time?
Look, it's difficult, after these -- so many years, to
remember individual bits of correspondence. My
recollection is that this was around a bit, it was being
raised over this period of time but the Post Office kept
insisting that the system was robust and fit for
purpose. They kept expressing their faith in it and
they're using court judgments as a proof point.
Now, of course, the terrible thing here is that
these court judgments were found to be unsafe and
unsound but I didn't know that at the time and, you
know, it took a long time for those court judgments to
be overturned: many years after they took place, in some
cases.
I'm asking, with the benefit of hindsight here, and
hindsight -- you know, it's not what you had at the time
but, with the benefit of hindsight, reading that letter
now, do you think there's anything more you could have
or should have done to challenge what the Post Office
was saying?
With this particular letter, it was so emphatic, you
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
18 July 2024
seriously"; "no evidence has been found that shows the
Horizon system has caused the errors to occur".
Phrases like that, "No evidence has been found",
were used for a long time in Post Office replies.
The other thing which comes up in this reply is the
reference to court proceedings as a proof point.
Paragraph 62 of my statement --
Well, just for ease, if we turn the page on the actual
letter to that shown, it can be --
Sorry. Mr Cook says:
"In ... the cases referred to ... Post Office
defended the claim vigorously and assistance was
obtained from Fujitsu [...] All of these reports proved
that there was no problem with the Horizon system that
would explain the discrepancies ..."
And he says he is:
"... satisfied there is no evidence to doubt the
integrity of the Horizon system and that it is robust
and fit for purpose."
Now, look, I understand that reading this 14 years
on, after all the miscarriage of justice, is a very
difficult thing for the people who were victims of this
to read. But the reason I point it out here and in the
statement is to illustrate what we were being told by
the Post Office in response to concerns raised by MPs
58
know, I'm not sure but, if you ask me over the whole
story here, of course I wish I had done more to question
these responses. But I believe, if I had -- and I've
thought about this quite a lot -- I believe if I had,
I've have got the same response from the Post Office in
terms of these two points about their faith in the
system - it's robust, there's no evidence it's wrong,
and so on, and the reference to court judgments -- that
they were saying in the letter. And the reason
I believe that is because they were saying these things
for quite a long time after I left office, as well.
Let's move on again in the timeline, please, to
3 November 2009. It's UKGI00011504. This is a letter
from James Arbuthnot, now Lord Arbuthnot, to Lord
Mandelson, to his then Secretary of State, on 3 November
2009, (unclear) evidence that this was passed to you.
Now, is this a case where, again, you would have
received it with a proposed response?
Yes, and this one is more unusual because the response
is signed by me. It's not referred to the Post Office,
to reply directly to Mr Arbuthnot. That might be
because -- well, Mr Arbuthnot, as he then was, Lord
Arbuthnot now, has written to the Secretary of State,
rather than to me, it might be something like that but,
in both this case and the others, even if the reply is
60
(15) Pages 57 - 60
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
signed by me -- and I've signed one to Jacqui Smith as
well -- the information in it is still all coming from
Post Office because the Department has no independent
source of information about matters concerning
individual subpostmasters. The only people who have the
information are the Post Office themselves.
What we see here is that he refers to his constituents.
He says, second paragraph:
"Nonetheless there does appear to be a significant
number of postmasters and postmistresses accused of
fraud who claim that the Horizon system is responsible,
including at least two in my constituency.
"Given the level of impact this has on the personal
lives of these postmasters and postmistresses and their
families, often involving bankruptcy and certainly
significant financial hardship, I should be most
grateful if you would let me have your comments on what
can be done to investigate the matter."
Then, if we could please turn to page 3, which was
an email enclosed, which you see is from David Bristow
to Mr James Arbuthnot, then MP, it refers to his
situation, and says:
"My predicament is very similar to many
postmasters/mistresses around the country. You may be
aware of the similar case of Mrs Hamilton at the South
61
Was that a "yes", sorry?
Yes.
If we look at your response, please, it's UKGI00011506.
The second paragraph is similar to the one you said
before.
Yes.
You mentioned it arose before. It says:
"The issues raised by your constituent are
operational and contractual matters for [Post Office
Limited] and not for Government. I understand from
[Post Office Limited] that errors at the branch have
been fully investigated and there is nothing to indicate
that there are any problems with the Horizon system.
The company's position as regards the integrity of the
Horizon system remains as set out in the reply dated
13 October from Alan Cook, Managing Director, to Brooks
Newmark MP, to which your letter refers."
So, at that point, rejecting any further external
investigation?
Well, this letter would have been treated in the same
way as the others, where it was referred to the Post
Office, who had the information to respond to the
allegations within it and, in every case, they are
insisting, in response to our requests, that the system
is robust, that it's been proven in court and there's no
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
18 July 2024
Warnborough post office."
Now, pausing there, were you aware of Mrs Hamilton's
case at that time?
I wasn't, no.
"This morning your colleague Mr David Jones MP phoned me
about this matter. One of his constituents has been
subjected to the same problem. He intends to request
a public inquiry in the House of Commons, concerning the
Post Office and the Horizon system."
So taking that and Lord Arbuthnot's letter together,
is the request here, effectively, for the Government to
shorten the arms and investigate Post Office itself, or
at least investigate the Horizon system itself?
Yes, he's saying David Jones MP intends to request
an inquiry in the House of Commons.
Yes, sorry. So that's the inquiry in the House of
Commons.
Yes.
If we go to page 1, my apologies, at the bottom:
"... [should be most grateful if you would let me
have your comments on what can be done to investigate
the matter."
In other words, they're requesting that some
external investigation be carried out?
Yes.
62
evidence to suggest there's anything wrong with it.
That's what they say in response to Jacqui Smith, to
Brian Binley and, in effect, to Lord Arbuthnot.
With an increased number of allegations being raised,
more MPs becoming involved and calls for independent
investigation, why did you continue to rely on what the
Post Office was telling you?
I think the emphatic nature of their response and their
faith in the system, their use of court judgments to
back that up. They were a trusted brand in the country
and they were the ones running the system. And over and
‘over again, they said the system is robust, it's fit for
purpose and it's been proven in court, and that's
throughout my time what they said in response to each of
these queries and letters that we' going through.
In paragraph 39 of your statement -- we don't need to
bring it up -- you say that you believe you met senior
management at Royal Mail and Post Office every few
months.
Yes.
You say that you periodically met the Managing Director
of Post Office, Alan Cook?
That's correct.
Did you discuss any of these allegations or Post
Office's response to them at the time?
64
(16) Pages 61 - 64
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
If I did, there'd have to be a record of that in the
Department. I've not seen a record of that but we did
meet from time to time, so I cannot say for certain that
I raised these things with -- it would have been Alan
Cook, probably not Adam Crozier, that would have been
different issues. But, if I did, there should be
a record of that in the Department at the time.
I'll ask one more series of questions on that issue.
Could we please bring up POL00158368, and page 21. If
you could go to the bottom of that page, please. Thank
you.
This is an email from Alan Cook on 15 October 2009,
the Inquiry has seen it before. It's to internal people
within Post Office. No suggestion that you would have
seen this at the time. It says, second paragraph down:
"For some strange reason there is a steadily
building nervousness about the accuracy of the Horizon
system and the press are on it as well now.
"It is the more strange in that the system has been
stable and reliable for many years now and there is
absolutely no logical reason why these fears should now
develop.
"My instincts tell that, in a recession, subbies
with their hand in the till choose to blame the
technology when they are found to be short of cash.”
65
He went on to say that the Government was refusing
to take the responsibilities that go with ownership. Do
you accept or reject that criticism?
Look, I understand why he's angry, given what happened
and, you know, he's right to be, but the legislation of
the Postal Services Act made a clear difference between
operational running and overall ownership. This is
a separation that was legislated for by design. It
wasn't a policy decision of mine or of any other later
Minister. It was legislated for by design and what that
set up was the structure that, when enquiries came in or
queries raised or questions asked from individual MPs
about subpostmasters or the operation of the Horizon
system, that it would be referred to the Post Office for
response, either directly or to get the information for
a Departmental response, because they were the ones who.
had the information.
We didn't have a separate source or a store of
information in the Department about that. My reflection
on this, after all these years, is, clearly, those
responses were wrong. The evidence being used in the
court to prosecute the subpostmasters has turned out to
be wrong and was proven to be wrong in the cases that
‘overturned these judgments many years later.
What I'm not clear of about is at what point in this
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
18 July 2024
Do you have any recollection of Mr Cook expressing
those views to you?
No, I never -- I saw this -- I think it was published by
this Inquiry some weeks ago. I saw it in detail for the
first time on Monday. I think it's shocking and, you
know, revealing about the instincts inside the Post
Office at the time. But I never heard senior Post
Office people say that at the time and, when I looked at
the replies to Brian Binley or to the other MPs, you
know, I've taken at face value their faith in the
robustness of the system. But I think -- perhaps
I shouldn't opine on things I haven't seen or had no
involvement with, but I think it's a revealing email.
That can come down. Thank you.
We've looked already at your response to James
Arbuthnot -- Lord Arbuthnot, sorry. Lord Arbuthnot gave
evidence to this Inquiry on 10 April of this year and,
in respect of that response, he said that he was
frustrated and annoyed and, in setting out his reasons
for being annoyed, he said:
"Because I'd wanted what had seemed to me to be
something that was potentially an injustice to be sorted
out and, since the Government owned the Post Office,
I assumed that the Government would be in a position to
sort it out, but they were saying 'No, not me guv’.
66
story does blind faith from the Post Office in their IT
system turn to something more sinister where people are
just not telling the truth? Now, I don't know at what
point that happens but I'm sure it's something the
Inquiry will want to get to the bottom of.
Do you think, during your time as Minister, the
Government should have done more to satisfy itself that
Post Office was conducting its prosecutions properly and
fairly? I'm not talking about convictions; I'm talking
about prosecutions.
Look, when I look back on this and I, you know, think of
the terrible human consequences for the subpostmasters
who were prosecuted -- even the ones who weren't
prosecuted but lost large sums of money or suffered
damage in other ways -- of course I wish I had asked
more about this. But do believe, given the emphatic
nature of the replies and Post Office's use of court
judgments as a proof point for the robustness of the
system, at this stage in the process, I'm not sure it
would have got any further. I believe they would have
said exactly the same things in person as they were
saying in these letters.
Just in fairness, I'm going to just clarify my question.
I think the answer there really is about the information
you were receiving regarding the Horizon IT system?
68
(17) Pages 65 - 68
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
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A
a
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Yes.
Now, my question is slightly different in that Post
Office were prosecuting people, it was
a government-owned company, and my question is: do you
think the Government should have done more, effectively,
to oversee Post Office prosecutions and see that they
were done fairly and lawfully?
Well, I'm not sure about that because we discussed this
in the session before the break. Ministers are always
very reluctant to interfere in a judicial process.
So -- and that reluctance is there for good reasons.
You know, we are always taught not to do that in the UK
constitutional system. In fact, itis 14 years after
the period we're talking about now where Parliament has
taken the constitutionally -- I don't know if it's
unprecedented because, you know, I can't say that for
sure, but, certainly in my time in politics, the
unprecedented step of legislating to overturn court
judgments.
Now, I support that legislation, I think it was the
right thing to do because of the enormous level of harm
done to the subpostmasters but it's a very unusual thing
to do, as well and it has taken many years after the
period that we're talking about for Parliament to reach
the conclusion that so much of this was tied up in the
69
act as Shadow Chief Executives of them, which begs the
question: well, what do you do when one goes rogue? If
it's not the ministers sitting on the Chief Executive's
shoulder, what is it? And I wonder if it's worth
considering some sort of body that is established to do
precisely this, that can be called in to launch
an inquiry or take action when the level of allegations
reaches such a point that it looks like that is the
right thing to do.
I think this is a live and real policy question
which has been exposed by this scandal, and I'm glad
you're considering it going forward, but I'm not sure if
making Ministers the Shadow Chief Executives is going to
be the practical way to do this.
So you propose there's some form of independent body
that would conduct a --
Well, "propose" is a bit of a -- is maybe a bit -
Sorry.
I've been trying to think about this and I think we're
going to have to have something that can be called upon
to do this kind of thing in the future. The exact
design and job description, that will need work, but,
you know, I have been trying to think: what could you
really do here?
This system of separation, which I appreciate is
ral
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
1
N
23
24
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
18 July 2024
courts that the only course left to it was to legislate
to overturn court judgments, and the ministers
introducing the legislation acknowledged how unusual it
was to do that.
I want to ask you some questions about the model going
forward, I'll be very brief.
The Inquiry is going to hear evidence on things like
corporate governance, Government oversight and whether
it will consider whether any recommendation should be
made for changes. The Inquiry shall hear evidence that
recommends that ministers should have an express power
to involve themselves in decision making of arm's-length
bodies; what would you say to that?
I think it's right that the Inquiry looks at this.
I have thought about that is. I think there's going to
be a temptation on your part, because of what went wrong
here, to have Ministers as sort of Shadow Chief
Executives of these bodies and I think, in the short
term, there will be a cheer for that, because people
will say this arm's-length body, this publicly-owned
company engaged in unsound prosecutions of its own
staff, effectively, it's own contracted staff, and of
course the consequences for them were awful.
But I'm not sure, in practice, given the number of
arm's-length bodies there are, that ministers really can
70
frustrating to many people, was legislated for by
design, and there was no independent source of
information that could have allowed the Department to
start second-guessing on the operation of Horizon. But,
still, injustices took place, so what is it that we need
in the future, and I wonder if some sort of inspectorate
‘or body to be called in is the right way to go. I think
it might be.
Given you said you did not like my use of the word
"propose", I'm not going to ask you further questions on
the details of that but it is something that the Inquiry
will obviously consider going forward.
I think I'd say, Mr Stevens, that
Mr McFadden is floating an idea before me for my
consideration.
MR STEVENS: Yes, sir.
A
That's a very fair way to put it, Sir Wyn, and it is for
the Inquiry to make its recommendations. But I, for
‘one, would be grateful if the Inquiry could consider
that idea floated.
MR STEVENS: = Thank you, Mr McFadden.
Sir, that is all the questions I have. There are
questions from the NFSP, I believe.
Yes, anyone -- Mr Stein?
I'm just getting it a time estimate, sir.
72
(18) Pages 69 - 72
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
Mr Stein has asked for five minutes and the NFSP
have asked for five minutes as well.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, then, I'm very happy for them to
agree the order in which they take advantage of their
five minutes.
Questioned by MR STEIN
MR STEIN: I Sir, the agreed order is that I go first.
Mr McFadden, I represent a large group of
subpostmasters. I want to go back to your statement, if
Ican, please, when you refer to the information that
was given, as you're talking about, to your private
office from the journalist, Ms Thomson.
Yes.
So if we go, please, to paragraphs 52 to 54, I'd be
grateful.
Yes, I've got that here.
If we look at 52 -- if we can get that up on the screen,
I'd be grateful -- we see there what's happening, just
to orient ourselves to the point. Your office is
getting information from a publication called Computer
Weekly. This is being passed on by an MP called
Mr Binley and this is about articles written by
Ms Thomson, and I'll just summarise what is being
written here.
She's talking about the fact that she has spoken to
73
said, "What's going on?", and you get a reply from the
Chief Executive of the Post Office, saying "Well, no
problem here, this is not happening".
How do we in the future, when you're thinking about
changes to the way that these matters should be looked
at, how do we actually get the Government to actually
think about what people are saying, not just
organisations? Because what could have happened here
was that someone could have spoken to the subpostmasters
rather than just going back to the Post Office; why did
nobody do that?
Well, look, for us in taking this allegation at the
time, the right thing to do was to ask the people
running the business -- and we've talked a lot about
this, this morning -- and that structure had been set up
some years before I was the Minister. They were the
people who ran the Horizon system. They were the people
who had the information about it, and when I look at the
correspondence in the round, what I'm really struck by
is how emphatic their defence of the system was and
continued to be for a long time after this exchange of
correspondence.
Not only an emphatic defence, but also the use of
court judgments as a proof point. When you have the use
of court judgments as a proof point, ministers at that
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
18 July 2024
several current and former subpostmasters, talking about
random flaws in the system. She's talking about
deficits in weekly accounts, sometimes to thousands of
pounds at a time, that the Post Office -- this is my
summary -- is making people -- subpostmasters -- pay
back this money without any investigation to what's
going wrong.
Then, as you go through, you're quoting within your
‘own statement the fact that the articles are continuing
and referring to what I would call devastating
consequences that people are turning to false accounting
or being forced to file for bankruptcy.
Now, that's my summary of particular parts of what's
being sent through to Government, okay?
Now, these are unusual allegations, these are
particularly strong allegations, with subpostmasters in
branches being made to pay back or being prosecuted or
to turning to criminal acts. These are wholly unusual,
do you agree?
Itis unusual, yes.
The large number of people that I represent, I suppose,
want to find out then what happened next and, again, in
my summary, what happened next was your office went back
to the Post Office -- who the subpostmasters regarded as.
the abuser of them -- went back to the Post Office and
74
point, as we said -- I said in my exchanges with
Mr Stevens -- ministers at that point will usually
think, "I can't intervene in court judgments", and they
think that for a very good reason.
Well, you've already been asked questions by the Chair
of this Inquiry about that part of it and I will leave
that alone. But my point, and the question I am asking
you, is this: you're saying that the right thing to do
is to ask Mr Cook -- this what your private office
did -- at the Post Office, you're saying that's the
right thing to do. Why isn't the right thing to do to
ask the people that are saying they are being abused by
the Post Office; why miss out on them?
Well, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, as is
seen in evidence given by the then General Secretary to
a Select Committee some years later, he says that, at
the time, he didn't think there was a fundamental
problem with the system either.
So, at the time, the representatives -- or what
I thought was the representative of the
subpostmasters -- they weren't raising it as an issue
either. Now, what I have subsequently discovered, which
I did not realise at the time, was that the relationship
between the National Federation of SubPostmasters and
many individual subpostmasters, I think particularly
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
perhaps those involved in this scandal, was a bad
relationship but that wasn't something that was clear to
me at the time.
So you have both the management of the business and,
in effect, the trade union, saying very similar things.
Mr McFadden, I know you've been a politician for a very
long time. That wasn't my question. My question was,
in relation to this correspondence, the trenchant and
deeply disturbing allegations being made by Computer
Weekly were not investigated by your Department. They
were simply circulated back to Mr Cook. As an example,
if your answer was right, nobody within your Department
said, "Well, let's have a word with the NFSP". What
happened at the time is just to go back to Mr Cook
rather than the people making these awful complaints.
Have you got a better answer than, "Well, I'm not
sure why it didn't happen but we could have, if later
‘on, thought about it, we might have had a natter with
the NFSP", which didn't happen?
I think it was the right thing to do try to get the —
to raise these concerns with the Post Office, who were
running the system.
The fact that the Post Office's assurances proved to
be wrong about the robustness of the system and the fact
that the court judgments that they were using as proof
7
question I wanted to ask you about that was: was this
difference in legal protections between those who were
Post Office employees and the very large number of
self-employed subpostmasters, whose businesses supported
a significant part of the Post Office network, were
those differences between those two ever considered by
you or your office?
No, and I think this is an important aspect of this,
which we haven't discussed before this morning, which
was the nature of the contract here between the
subpostmasters and the Post Office, which meant that the
subpostmasters were considered liable for losses and,
again, I'm not sure how far the Inquiry has looked into
this but I would be interested in knowing about how
flaws in the system were dealt with in the Crown post
offices where there's a more direct employment
relationship.
So I think you've raised an important point and
I think this is about the nature of that contract, part
of this overall story.
Thank you.
You referred just there, in your answer to Mr Stein,
to the evidence of Mr Thomson, the General Secretary of
the NFSP at the time, and the NFSP of today has said how
shocked it was by that. But at paragraph 27 of your
79
ONOaARWN
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18 July 2024
points proved to be unsafe and unsound and were later
overturned, was not known at the time.
MR STEIN: I Sir, I've asked that question, I think, three
times. I'll stop now.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you, Mr Stein.
Is Ms Watt there?
MS WATT: Yes, sir. Thank you.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you.
Questioned by MS WATT
MS WATT: Good afternoon, Mr McFadden. I ask questions on
behalf of the National Federation of SubPostmasters and
I've got couple of questions to ask you about your
evidence this morning.
Looking at the employment relations side of things,
at paragraph 9 of your witness statement -- and you also
talked about this in your evidence -- you say that as
Minister of State at BERR:
"My responsibilities including on any legislation
connected with employment relations or postal affairs."
At paragraph 16 of your statement you say:
"This included legislation going through Parliament
to improve employment rights."
Now, subpostmasters were self-employed and not
employees of the Post Office, so they didn't have the
protections that came with being an employee. So the
78
witness statement, looking at a different organisation,
you say that:
"The CWU was totally opposed to any level of private
investment and ownership of RMG."
I just wanted to ask you a little bit that, how
regularly you in your role met with the CWU to talk
about issues affecting their members?
Quite a lot but not to do with post offices because
their principal interest was Royal Mail and, in the
second half of my tenure at the Department, we'd had the
Hooper report, which had recommended private investment
in Royal Mail. As I said in my earlier evidence, that
was a very controversial thing for a Labour Government
to propose. The Bill to do that -- we had a Bill to do
that, which guaranteed that Royal Mail would remain in
the public sector and that any stake would be a minority
stake. But still, there was huge opposition to that,
not just from the CWU but from a lot of Labour MPs at
the time as well.
And a combination of that opposition and the
inability to find a private-sector investor that the
Government thought would give value for money meant that
the proposal was eventually shelved before the 2010
election.
So is it fair to say that, in your meetings, the CWU
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
didn't raise concerns about Horizon with you?
Yes, I don't remember the CWU raising concerns about
Horizon with me.
Just one final aspect, there's also been quite a lot of
discussion this morning in your evidence about the
arm's-length relationship and the day-to-day operations,
as opposed to strategic, in terms of the Post Office.
Would you accept that the reliance of Government on this
arm's-length relationship and day-to-day operations, and
the Post Office assurances, despite all of that incoming
correspondence from MPs, meant that the Government
ultimately failed to investigate or insist on
an investigation into Horizon issues and the truth of
what the Post Office was saying?
Well, I think the way that this had been set up by the
Postal Services Act meant that the way to raise queries
like this was by asking the Post Office, and what we did
not know at the time was that what the Post Office was
saying about the system was wrong, and the question that
I'm not clear about is to what extent was this blind
faith in the IT from the top of the Post Office or
something more sinister, and at what point in this
story?
I think probably, perhaps, you know, I'm seeing too
benign motives in people. I think perhaps at the start
81
proposal to do something differently? It is quite
difficult to bring all these things entirely in-house,
and have ministers, in effect, run them on a day-to-day
basis. I think that's going to be a tempting conclusion
from this, because of the degree to which things went
wrong and the awful human consequences of it, but, you
know, what would be looking for in a policy way here is
something that would work, rather than something that
might in practice not work, and that's why I'm wondering
if there's some body that can be established that can
inquire into these organisations, rather than the
conclusion to your question being: Ministers should act
as Shadow Chief Executives of all the departmental
bodies within any Department in which they're
a Minister.
MS WATT: Thank you, Mr McFadden.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I Is that it, Mr Stevens?
MR STEVENS: Yes, that's it, sir. We are finished with the
questioning for Mr McFadden.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you very much, Mr McFadden
for producing your written statement and for coming to
the Inquiry to give oral evidence. I am very grateful
to you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
MR STEVENS: Thank you, sir. I understand from Mr Beer that
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
25
to their story it was blind faith in the IT. But
I think at some point in this story, as has been proven
by the subsequent court judgments, we moved from blind
faith to dishonesty, in terms of some of the things that
are being said. I don't know quite when that happens
but, from a Government point of view at the time, we
took what the Post Office said about the robustness of
the system and the court cases as proof points, at face
value.
And, in particular, this point about using the court
cases as proof points is important because the Ministers
are told "Do not interfere when there is a court
judgment, you cannot interfere with judges, a court
judgment is final".
Q. Just finally looking back, you've talked about the
Postal Services Act there, which sets up the Post Office
as this arm's-length body, but you've also mentioned
many more arm's-length bodies. Would you accept that
reliance on that type of relationship, arm's length,
apparently allows Government to absolve itself from
ultimate responsibility when things go wrong, as it did
here?
A. Well, I think it's an important question and it's
a difficult one because, as Mr Stevens asked me at the
end of my evidence to him, you know, what is the
82
the proposal will be to take a ten-minute break now,
until 12.40, and then start Sir Ed Davey's evidence.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. That's fine.
MR STEVENS: Thank you, sir.
(12.30 pm)
(A short break)
(12.44 pm)
MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can. Thank you.
MR BEER: Thank you, sir. May I call Sir Ed Davey.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLESIR EDWARD JONATHAN DAVEY MP (sworn)
Questioned by MR BEER
MR BEER: Sir, thank you very much for coming to give
evidence today. As you know my name, is Jason Beer and
I ask questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Can you give
us your full name, please?
A. My fullname is Edward Jonathan Davey.
Q. You kindly provided us with a witness statement, the URN
for which is WITN10610100. You will have a hard copy in
front of you. There are two corrections, I think, that
you wish to make to it. The first is on page 2, at
paragraph 6, if you can turn that up.
In the second line, does it end with "explain the
way in which I worked as Secretary of State", should
that read "explain the way in which I worked as
84
(21) Pages 81 - 84
18 July 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
2
prop
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Minister"?
Yes.
So cross out the word "Secretary of State", insert word
"Minister".
The second correction, page 14, please, at
paragraph 61. The first sentence reads, "I commissioned
a comprehensive report", and then a reference appears in
parentheses afterwards. Do you wish to delete all of
the text in the parentheses after the word "report"?
Yes, I do.
Because that's not the correct reference. Thank you
very much.
Can you turn, please, to page 62.
Mr Beer, do you mean page 47?
47 of 62, thank you. Is that your signature?
Yes, it is.
Are the contents of the witness statement true to the
best of your knowledge and belief, with those two
corrections brought into account?
Yes, they are.
Thank you very much. You can put that to one side and
the witness statement can come down.
Can I start, please, with your background, and I'm
going to deal with this in summary terms, if I may. Can
you confirm the following: you are presently the Member
85
Is it right that your Secretary of State through that
20-month period when you were Parliamentary
Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, was Sir Vince Cable?
Yes, it is.
There was no change in leadership of the Department, the
BIS Department, in terms of Secretary of State?
No.
Thank you very much.
Can I start the questions of substance, please, with
exploring the Government's arm's-length relationship
with the Post Office?
Yes.
Do you agree that, as the Minister with responsibility
for postal affairs and in the light of its status as
a publicly-owned company, that you, as Minister, were
ultimately accountable for the Post Office?
Yes, I do.
How do you satisfy yourself that the Post Office was
being properly and effectively managed by its management
and its Board during your tenure?
I was primarily reliant on the advice of my officials,
from the Department. They would brief me ahead of
meetings with management from Post Office Limited and,
indeed, Royal Mail Group because, at the time, Royal
87
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
18 July 2024
of Parliament for Kingston and Surbiton and you
previously held that position between May 1997 and March
2015 and then again from June 2017 to date?
Correct.
You're the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and, more
relevantly to the Inquiry, you were the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations,
Consumer and Postal Affairs in the Coalition Government
between the 20 May 2010 and 3 February 2012?
That's correct.
Is it right that that was your first ever ministerial
post?
Yes, it is.
I think it therefore lasted about 20 months, if my maths
is correct. Was that until your promotion to the role
of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?
Yes, that's correct.
Was your predecessor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, PUS, Lord Anthony Young, a Labour Minister?
I believe that to be the case, yes.
Was your successor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Norman Lamb --
Yes.
-- amember of the Lib Dems?
Yes.
86
Mail Group was ultimately in charge of Post Office
Limited. So the main reassurance about what was
happening came from the Department, from the officials,
but I would have meetings with both Royal Mail and Post
Office Limited, and indeed stakeholders, and discuss the
situation in those meetings.
Was there any formal or established method of oversight
in place when you took up the position as Minister?
Was I -- as I understood it, the oversight came from the
Department, talking to Royal Mail Group, talking to Post
Office Limited, with ShEx, who were the Shareholder
Executive, the group within the Department, most of all,
overseeing that. Of course --
Was ShEx then the principal body or organisation or
group of people that, from Government's perspective, was
responsible for oversight of the Post Office?
Yes, I think that's the case. Obviously, my private
office would often relay briefings on behalf of ShEx.
At the time, when I was starting as a Minister, I really
didn't see much difference between officials who weren't
in Shareholder Executive from Shareholder Executive.
I gradually learned there was a bit of a difference,
mainly the people in Shareholder Executive seemed to
have more a commercial background.
Did you receive any handover from your predecessor, Lord
88
(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
Young?
No.
Is that commonplace in changes of Government, not to
receive handovers from your predecessor in office?
I'm afraid I don't really know. This is the only time
it happened to me. I'm not sure if I gave a handover in
2015 when I left office, so I -- and I was not asked to,
so I presume it's not that common. I think ministers
rely on the civil servants to be the continuity part and
to brief and, of course, you're not supposed to see
papers from the previous Government.
You tell us in your witness statement -- let's turn it
up, it will come up on the screen, please, page 22 of
the witness statement, at paragraph 94, which is at the
foot of the page. You say:
"I cannot recall having an initial briefing on Royal
Mail and the Post Office, though I expect I did, during
my first weeks in office. However, I am very confident
that I did not receive any specific briefing on the
Horizon system, nor was it something that it would have
‘occurred to me to ask for specific briefing on. My
concern with [Post Office] was primarily at the level of
strategic policy, which was [the] consequence of the
fact that [Post Office] was an arm's-length body. I did
not expect to be involved with operational matters such
89
me. I was not qualified to, and would not have had time
to, get involved in the day-to-day running of [the Post
Office]."
So looking at all of that evidence together, in
order to fulfil your role as Minister and ensure that
the Government's strategy for Post Office was
implemented, did you not need to have an understanding
of the operational issues that were affecting the Post
Office?
Not in terms of staff, buildings and IT systems, no.
The key issue in our manifesto, and then in the
Coalition Agreement, was to avoid further closures of
post offices and to maintain the network, and our focus
‘on doing that, as I think I describe in my statement,
was both asking Post Office Limited and Royal Mail Group
to come up with a strategy to put to Government so we
could ask Treasury for subsidy for the rest of the
Parliament to implement that commercial strategy. Plus,
we were looking at, at a strategic level, how the Post
Office's role might need to change, given the changes in
the way Government put business through the Post Office,
the declining footfall in post offices and the changing
nature of the high street.
So I came to this position wanting to implement our
policy which was, at a very strategic level, and it
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
18 July 2024
as staff, buildings or IT systems. I was not aware of
the Horizon system in particular, though of course
I would have realised that [Post Office] would have
a computer system used in Post Office branches."
Then, at paragraph 95, you note that you were not
aware that:
"... the Post Office and Royal Mail Group themselves
investigated, prosecuted and obtained convictions
against subpostmasters."
Then, lastly, over the page to page 24, at
paragraph 99, this is something we're going to coming
back to in more detail after lunch but I just want to
read this paragraph for now:
"The draft response [and this is a draft response to
a request for a meeting from Sir Alan Bates] declined
the suggested meeting. The reason given for this
refusal in the letter was that the Horizon system was
an operational matter for [Post Office], which was
an arm's-length body. That accorded with my
understanding of the relationship between the Government
and [Post Office] at the time: it was not my role as
a minister to intervene in [Post Office's] day-to-day
operations. I understood this to be the case for
practical reasons: ministers did not get involved in the
day-to-day running of the business. That made sense to
90
frankly didn't occur to me that I needed to go down into
IT systems.
How did you distinguish between what was an operational
matter, which was for the Post Office, and matters of
strategic policy that were for you?
I guess it was a combination of advice from officials,
which -- they were experienced in this, they had
understood and worked with the Post Office and Royal
Mail Group for -- I presume for some time, and therefore
understood that, that line. But there was also the
common sense line, both as I understood -- understand
now in law and in terms of practical considerations,
a minister who has got huge responsibilities over many
areas, really can't get involved in day-to-day
operational matters, and I felt our focus was on the
strategic level, where Government could make
a difference, both in terms of deciding subsidy levels
and deciding the ultimate strategic role that the Post
Office would play in our society.
What would it take for a matter to reach the level of
"strategic policy"?
Well, if it was going to fundamentally change the nature
of the Post Office and how it supported the public, it
clearly has a very big social purpose in many of our
villages, towns and cities and, having in opposition and
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
as an MP over a number of years, had to fight closures
of post offices in my constituency, as have colleagues,
and having seen how the public value their post offices
and value their subpostmasters, it seemed to me that we
wanted to make sure those closures didn't happen again,
and we were, therefore, focused on the strategy to make
sure that didn't happen again, which as I've referred
to, meant things like subsidy levels, the role of the
Post Office in the future, not day-to-day operations.
Who made it clear to you that it was not for you to
become involved in operational matters?
Well, I guess it was the briefing of officials, and you
will see in a number of letters that have been put to
the Inquiry that that is what I was advised and that is
what I understood. It seemed --
Is that principally from ShEx?
Yes, I suppose so. I mean, whoever wrote the letters,
I assume it's from ShEx, yeah.
Was that made clear to you early in your tenure as
Minister, that you were not to become involved in
operational matters?
Whether it was explicitly in a verbal briefing, I don't
think so, but it was in the paperwork that there was
this difference. Indeed, I think there's a reference to
an Act of Parliament in 2001, which said that ministers
93,
they'd been given.
That's something you suggest in your witness
statement -- no need to turn it up -- at paragraph 26 on
page 7. You say:
"Under the law, Royal Mail Group and Post Office
operated at arm's length to ministers."
Which law was it?
I think, and I'm sorry I'm not -- I don't know the exact
reference -- I think it was the Postal Services Act
2001.
You understood the Postal Services Act 2001 to require
the Government to operate at arm's length to the Post
Office and Royal Mail Group?
Yeah, I think that was a reference that we put in
a number of letters that were drafted for me to sign,
and that was the basis as I understood it.
Did you ever receive a briefing on what the Postal
Services Act in fact said on this issue?
No.
Did you ever look at the Postal Services Act to see what
the legal relationship between Government and Royal Mail
Group and Post Office was?
No, and there was a -- probably a good reason for that,
Mr Beer. We were charged through the Coalition
Agreement -- I was charged, with putting a new Postal
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
18 July 2024
weren't to get involved in day-to-day operations of
either Royal Mail Group or its subsidiaries, Post Office
Limited, and that these were arm's-length bodies not to
be interfered with on a day-to-day basis.
That seemed to make sense to me, in common sense
terms, that we just wouldn't have had the time or the
knowledge to do that. There were so many other things
that we were responsible for and, indeed, within Post
Office, so many other things that we were trying to
achieve at the strategic level.
Did the same division or prohibition apply to
individuals within ShEx, ie they were not to get
involved in the operational matters concerning the Post
Office?
I assume it did. But we didn't have a conversation to
that but I always assume that was the case.
Did the same prohibition, to your understanding, apply
to civil servants outside of ShEx, that they were not to
become involved in the day-to-day operational running of
the Post Office?
Yes, it follows that they did. I mean, given that that
law, I think, was a 2001 Act, it seems to suggest that
Government, be they ministers or officials, were to
leave Post Office Limited and Royal Mail Group to get on
with that day-to-day operational responsibility that
94
Services Act into place, rapidly. The Government
business managers wanted that Bill to be ready for
a second reading in the autumn following the May
election and my task, which took a considerable amount
of my time in those first few weeks and months, was to
prepare the Postal Services Bill, which was going to
fundamentally change the relationship. So all my time
was focused on that, not looking back to an Act of 2001.
You said in your witness statement that you were not
aware that the Post Office or Royal Mail Group
themselves investigated, prosecuted and obtained
convictions against subpostmasters. When did you first
become aware of that operation or conduct by RMG or POL?
I'm trying to think if it was during this Inquiry
procedure. I think it probably was; I certainly didn't
realise it when I was a Minister.
Does it follow that you were unaware of any steps that
Government took to superintend or oversee the conduct of
prosecutions by the Post Office?
I was unaware of those, if there were any at all.
You're aware, I think, that the Attorney General
oversees the conduct and operation of the Crown
Prosecution Service and answers for the Crown
Prosecution Service's performance and conduct in
Parliament?
96
(24) Pages 93 - 96
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
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
A. Yes, lam.
Q. Does it follow that you were unaware at the time, the
duration of your period as minister for 20 months,
whether or not there was any equivalent position
‘occupied by a member of Government in relation to Post
Office's prosecutions and Royal Mail Group's
prosecutions, because you didn't know that they were
being undertaken by those companies?
A. That's the case, yes.
Q. You tell us in your witness statement and you've told us
today that you relied significantly on briefings and the
provision of drafts of letters and of submissions from
civil servants. Were they principally from within the
Shareholder Executive?
A. I think they were, certainly in relation to this issue,
the only submission that I've seen was from Mike
Whitehead from ShEx.
Q. The 5 October one?
A. Yes, but I would have received many, many more
submissions on Royal Mail and Post Office Limited over
my time because there were many, many other issues
‘occurring. And I can't be sure because I haven't gone
back to those papers but they almost certainly came from
ShEx.
Q. To what extent did you monitor ShEx's oversight of the
97
Mail Group and in Post Office Limited. As is clear from
my statement, I would meet, myself, those senior
managers and obviously discuss our strategy with them.
So I relied mostly on ShEx to do that but, as
a minister, I wanted to meet the managers too and put my
questions to them. But, again, for those meetings,
I was heavily reliant on ShEx.
Q. If we turn up page 22 of your witness statement, please,
at paragraph 91. You say:
"It is worth emphasising at the outset that, whilst
now clear that there were disastrous problems with
Horizon -- and with the Post Office's conduct towards
subpostmasters -- which are now rightly the focus of
this public inquiry, that was not at all clear at the
time. I was responsible for a large number of important
issues across a very broad portfolio, and with respect
to all the issues I dealt with in postal affairs, the
Horizon issue was one amongst many -- and indeed, I was
continually advised it was a matter for the Post Office,
because it was a day-to-day operational issue."
Who continually advised you that Horizon integrity
issues were operational matters for the Post Office?
A. Well, that was both in the submission of Mr Whitehead
but in the drafting of the letters in response to
letters from MPs and, indeed, Parliamentary Questions.
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
24
25
18 July 2024
Post Office?
I'm not sure if monitoring -- I mean, we were trying to
implement our policy, that was the main focus, the
strategic changes we were trying to make, and my
interactions with ShEx about that were, again, at that
quite high level. I guess for the Postal Services Bill,
there would have been people outside ShEx within the
Department because there would have been the policy
committee, the Bill committee. Because it was quite
a big piece of legislation which we were putting
together quite rapidly, there would have been a lot of
people working on that.
So it wouldn't have been exclusively ShEx and,
I guess, monitoring of ShEx was through the work we were
doing with them, not from their oversight of Royal Mail
Group or POL.
Does it follow that you would treat ShEx as
a self-sustaining and self-governing body that would be
left to its own devices to monitor and oversee the Post
Office in its capacity as shareholder, and that you
wouldn't yourself exercise any oversight or control of
ShEx itself?
Well, certainly, I relied on the advice and experience
of ShEx officials, who were having a regular dialogue,
it seemed to me, with the senior management in Royal
98
So for example, there were three Parliamentary
Questions, written questions -- there were no oral
questions, there were three Parliamentary Questions or
three MPs who asked Parliamentary Questions, as probably
some of them asked more than one, and the answers to
those questions drafted by officials for me to agree to
was that those issues were matters for the Post Office,
and so we referred, answering those questions, to the
Post Office, with their answers being put in the House
‘of Commons library.
So that was an example of how that happened.
So you've pointed to two things constituting the advice,
namely the drafts of letters that you were supplied with
and the drafts of answers to Parliamentary Questions?
And, indeed, the submission of Mr Whitehead, but this
wasn't -- the Horizon issue wasn't an issue that we
discussed very much but the advice came through in those
matters, yes.
Did you question that advice at all, at the time that
you received it?
No, because it seemed to be reasonable and it was
a reference to an Act of Parliament, and I thought they
were telling me the truth, which, to my knowledge, they
were referring to an Act of Parliament, so I assumed
that was the truth.
100
(25) Pages 97 - 100
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
Are you saying that in the submission, the letters or
the answers to the PQs, they referred to an Act of
Parliament?
In what -- some of the letters, I don't know how many
they did, not in the -- I don't think in the
Parliamentary answers. They may have done. I'll have
to check that, Mr Beer.
We're going to come to in fact there were four PQs, not
three, and we'll come to those after the --
There were three MPs and four PQs?
Yes, exactly. I think Priti Patel asked either two or
three questions?
Yes.
Do you accept that the Post Office's role as an active
private prosecutor should not have been treated as
an operational matter?
If I'd known about it and we'd had a discussion about
it, I'd have been surprised.
Why would you have been surprised that the Post Office
was prosecuting?
It seems like quite an old-fashioned thing. I mean,
certainly now, with the benefit of the knowledge of what
we know, it was wrong and, as I say in my statement, it
seems as though that power should be taken away from
them but, nevertheless, I wasn't aware of it, and it
101
14 years ago --
Yes.
-- and it's quite difficult to do that. I really don't
know, to be honest. It was not put to me and
speculating what I might have done 14 years ago, it's
quite tricky.
Can we look at paragraph 92, please, of this witness
statement. In the third line, you say:
“As I have stated publicly, I believe I was
seriously misled by the Post Office. I do not know if
one or more civil servants misled me during my time as
a minister, or if they were themselves misled by [Post
Office]."
Can you see that?
Yes, I do.
More broadly in your witness statement -- the references
are paragraphs 4, 5, 116, 131, 138 and 153, you refer to
being lied to by the Post Office.
Yes, I now know I was being lied to. I follow this
Inquiry and it's pretty clear what they told my
officials was not true.
You refer in paragraph 138 of your witness statement to
the individuals within Post Office who lied to you as
being "senior executives”. Are you able to help us as.
to the identity of the senior executives who lied to
103
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
18 July 2024
seems odd that they were.
Why would it seem odd that they prosecuted?
Because I think you should have a more thorough process,
where there's a more independent aspect that goes to the
court. That happens in other prosecutions.
Are you referring there to criminal offences that are
alleged being investigated by independent police forces
and then prosecutions, in some circumstances, being
commenced and pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service?
Yes, yes.
So if you had been aware of the conduct of prosecutions
by the Post Office, you would have raised a question as
to why they were doing it and whether it should
continue?
Yeah, I think it's the sort of thing that I would have
questioned. Maybe I would have accepted the answers,
but it came as a surprise to me when I learnt about it
through this Inquiry.
You say you may have accepted the answers, ie that it
was appropriate for the Post Office to continue to
prosecute its subpostmasters. If that had been your
position, would you have said anything about Government
or ministerial oversight of such prosecutions?
Well, I mean you're asking me, Mr Beer, to speculate on
what I might have done if something had been put to me
102
you?
Well, the senior executives I dealt with -- and this is
not the -- directly answering your question, Mr Beer,
but the senior executives I dealt with David Smith and
then Paula Vennells. There may have been one or two
others, they're the names that I recall, and they were
the ones giving the information to my officials, came in
their names, and to me. So they were the people passing
information which was untrue.
To accuse somebody of lying is to accuse them of saying
something that they knew or believed not to be true,
with the intention to deceive; do you agree?
What I'm trying -- I am trying to answer the question
because I cannot know what was in their minds and how
the information came to them but someone, I assume
senior in Post Office Limited, must have known the
truth, must have at some stage understood that, and this
is what I hope the Inquiry will uncover.
It is difficult for me to uncover. I didn't know it
at the time, of course. What emerged from your
questioning and from this Inquiry and the reports of
this Inquiry is that there was knowledge of the Horizon
system having serious flaws in it, within Post Office
Limited, and that was not put forward to ministers,
either myself or others.
104
(26) Pages 101 - 104
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOoOPrP.D
Po
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
It's just the cumulative effect of what you suggest in
the paragraphs that I've listed tends to suggest that
you believe that senior executives lied to you, and
I just wanted to distinguish whether you firstly
understood, in common with me, what an accusation of
lying constitutes, namely accusing a person of saying
something that they believe or knew not to be true with
the intention to deceive and then, secondly, whether you
were in fact alleging that against any particular
executive.
I guess what I feel is that Post Office Limited, as
a body, were misleading ShEx and ministers. Who was
responsible within Post Office Limited is quite
difficult for me to know.
Yes.
One assumes that it was the senior executives because
they had a responsible role and I assume were asking the
questions but I think, ultimately, it's for this
Inquiry, and I hope it -- I wish it well in this task —-
of identifying who was really culpable for misleading
ministers, the courts and, above all, the
subpostmasters.
Thank you. So the allegation of lying applies or is
intended to apply to Post Office as a corporate body,
and you don't distinguish between senior executives and
105
subpostmasters as to the integrity of the Horizon system
before you took office, and nor were you briefed on that
issue upon taking up your ministerial role.
That's correct.
When did you first become aware of complaints made by
subpostmasters about the integrity of the Horizon
system?
I think it must have been through Sir Alan's letters.
As you know, he wrote to me on the day I took office.
20 May 2010?
That's right.
So your very first day in office?
Yeah, and I wrote back to him, following a draft
produced by civil servants, that ~
We're going to come to that, if it helps, in a moment.
I think that must have been it, yeah.
When did you first become aware that a large cohort of
subpostmasters alleged that their convictions were not
safe?
I think that might have been the High Court in 2019.
I mean, obviously, when Sir Alan Bates came to see me
I was aware that he was representing a number of
subpostmasters who felt that they had been wrongly
prosecuted, and that was the case but, in terms of the
large number, the group action, I'm afraid I wasn't
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
those who are not senior executives as the
responsibility for the lie, because you don't personally
know?
A. don't know. My only information comes from the papers
that have been given to me by the Inquiry and the
reports of this Inquiry, but I don't personally know.
MRBEER: Thank you very much.
Sir, it’s just coming up to 1.20 now. Although it's
been a short session, can we break now until 2.10 for
lunch?
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Certainly.
MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir.
(1.18 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(2.10 pm)
MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.
MR BEER: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Sir Ed. We saw before lunch, in
paragraphs 94 and 95 of your witness statement, that you
said that you did not receive any specific briefing on
the Horizon system, nor was it something that it would
have occurred to you to ask for a specific briefing
about and that, as far as you were aware, as you recall,
you were unaware of any complaints made by
106
aware of that until much later.
Q. He said in his correspondence -- we'll look at it in
a moment -- that he was representing 100 or so?
A. Yeah.
Q. Are you distinguishing between the 555 that brought the
group action as being a large number but the 100 not?
A. Yes, and also that my officials, as you see in
Mr Whitehead's note, were disputing whether it was 100,
but I accept it was mainly the point you were making
about the large number, the 550.
Q. You tell us in your witness statement -- no need to turn
it up -- between paragraphs 96 and 119, the
correspondence received from Sir Alan, the draft
responses prepared by Government officials and the
sources of information used upon which to base those
responses, and you tell us in those paragraphs about
a note, a written briefing, that you received on
5 October 2010 from Mike Whitehead, a civil servant in
ShEx, and we will look at that later.
You tell us in paragraph 108 on page 30, which we
should turn up -- page 30, paragraph 108 -- you say:
"This [that's the Mike Whitehead written briefing of
5 October 2010] is the only substantive written briefing
I received on Horizon. It indicated that Horizon had
‘proved robust’, that there were no ‘[systemic]
108
(27) Pages 105 - 108
18 July 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
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
integrity issues’, that the unions had ‘expressed
confidence in Horizon’, that there was training, that
there were proper audit processes and no ‘backdoors’,
there had been regular reviews, there was an appeals
process and legal representation, and no court had ever
found problems with Horizon."
You tell us in 109 that you would have taken from
that that officials were confident in Horizon and that
the Post Office had had it independently assured.
In addition to that single written briefing on
Horizon, would you have also received oral briefings?
Almost certainly, though it's a long time ago.
I suspect I would have had one when I replied to
Sir Alan Bates after the meeting.
How often would you have received oral briefings from
ShEx?
More broadly as opposed to -- well, relatively often
because people like Stephen Lovegrove and others ~
Susannah Storey comes to mind -- would have been
briefing me on the litigation and particularly the
relationship with Royal Mail, more than POL, because the
work we were doing there was substantial. Everything --
we were dealing with the pension deficit of the Royal
Mail and trying to get State Aid clearance for writing
that off.
109
Well, I would assume they would go to Post Office first.
Whether they would add to that, I hadn't really
considered. I sort of assumed they would have
a collective view but I hadn't really considered that
point.
Put another way, would you have thought that they were
just relying on what Post Office had told them, ie they
were a mere conduit of information from Post Office?
I'd have thought they'd have added some value but --
In what way?
Well, because they'd been -- the Civil Service has been
managing that relationship for some time, so they would
have learnt a little more about it. But, to be honest,
Mr Beer, I haven't really thought that through. I just
assumed that what was put in front of me was their best
advice.
Would you expect ShEx and other civil servants to probe
information provided to them by Post Office on
contentious matters, before relaying it to you in
a written briefing?
I expect they would do, yes --
Really what I'm asking, Sir Ed, is you said that you'd
take the document as read as being truthful and accurate
when it gets to you, whether you had ever thought about
what had gone on to create the document that you were
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
>
18 July 2024
So weekly?
Probably not because postal affairs, both for Royal Mail
Group and POL, were only a part of my responsibilities.
I am likely to have had more briefings from them in
2010, I suspect, and in the first half of 2011 than
later on because that was the legislation and early
implementation.
So you're piloting a bill at that time?
Yeah.
When you receive a briefing like the one from Mike
Whitehead of 5 October 2010, would you ask questions
about the sources of information in it or would you take
the document as read and not query the accuracy or the
sources of things said in it?
Normally we'd take it as read unless something jumped,
completely jumped out at you. But I'd had submissions
in all my ministerial posts and very rarely do
I remember questioning them in the way you've described.
So the information presented to you by civil servants,
you take to be reliable and truthful?
Yes.
Would you expect ShEx civil servants and civil servants
outside of ShEx who were briefing you to base their
briefings, and the letters that they drafted for you, on
any evidence independent from Post Office?
110
treating as truthful and accurate?
Yeah, well, my understanding, not just on this issue but
other issues, was that by the time a submission got to
a minister there had been number of checkpoints within
the Department. The nature of what checking they were
doing wasn't visible to me but, whether you're a junior
minister or a Secretary of State, my understanding is
that the Civil Service has processes to make sure what
goes in front of the Minister is the best advice that
they can provide.
So there had been some sort of quality assurance, and
that may have included probing or testing the
information provided in this instance by Post Office?
Well, Mr Beer, I assume that was the case but I didn't
ask about what that process was. One sort of assumed it
because you knew that there was a machinery trying to
serve ministers as well as they could.
Can we turn, then, to your initial refusal to meet
Sir Alan Bates in May 2010. That can come down from the
screen. Thank you.
Can we look, please, at his letter, Sir Alan's
letter, to you of 20 May 2010. UKGI00016119. Thank
you.
If we just look at the top part, please. I take it
the handwriting at the top is not yours?
112
(28) Pages 109 - 112
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
No.
You'll see that it's on Justice for Subpostmasters
Alliance paper, addressed to you directly. It's dated
20 May, which is the very day you took up office, as we
said already; is that right?
Yes.
If we just read it, he says:
"I am writing to you with regard to your position as
Minister for Postal Affairs on behalf of the [JFSA].
"We are an independent group of ex and serving
subpostmasters who suffered at the hands of the Post
Office and their Horizon system ever since it was first
installed. Our website ... outlines how we came about
and our aims, as well as offering sample cases that were
provided by some of the group. Currently the group
number is close to 100, though we continue to be joined
by others who have learned of JFSA and have found that
there is nowhere else to turn to for help.
"In every instance the Post Office acts as judge,
jury and executioner and the individual is deserted by
their reputedly representative organisation, the
National Federation of SubPostmasters. Invariably these
cases all stem from the flaws of the Horizon system the
Post Office introduced and which they refuse to admit
has ever suffered from a single problem.
113
experts to examine the system which is holding back this
major scandal from breaking. But with the growing
numbers in JFSA and the support we are now finding from
the IT community and the media it is just a matter of
time until the real truth about the Post Office and
Horizon is exposed.
"Over the years I have personally submitted written
details of all of this to the Select Committee of the
DTI, and then on two other occasions to that of BERR,
and put simply, the information has either been buried
or disappeared. Others of JFSA have followed the route
of contacting their MPs who would take the matter up
with the Post Office on their behalf. Subsequently they
are stonewalled or ‘handled’ by the Post Office often
with off the shelf answers where they only change the
name and address.
"I am writing to you on behalf of the group, I am
asking for a meeting where we can present our case to
you. Much has appeared in the press over the last few
days that Government is going to change, I only hope
that is true. If it is, the abuse of subpostmasters
that has been going on under the protection of the
previous Government may well come to an end."
Would you agree that, to summarise the letter,
Sir Alan outlines the issue, he signposts you to further
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
oP
oP
prop
18 July 2024
"The evidence is there to be found by anyone in
a position of being able to unlock doors instead of
placing barriers in the way of those pursuing
information. Our organisation has access to a number of
specialists who could provide the questions and analyse
the resulting data if required. Though an independent
external investigation instigated at Ministerial level
would be the most appropriate, and would without any
doubt easily find evidence of the error ridden system.
"lam sure that you appreciate that there is not
a single computer system that does not from time to time
suffer from errors, especially when at the size and
level of complexity of the programs associated with the
Horizon system. The Post Office blindly state that
there are not, nor have there ever been any system
errors, so subsequently anything wrong is entirely the
responsibility of the subpostmaster as that is what they
have agreed to when signing their contract. This is
a contract that was produced in 1994 and does not
address nor identify new technology, but they are still
using it to intimidate and prosecute subpostmasters."
Over the page:
"The weight of evidence we have been collating over
the years continues to grow and gain in standing, it is
only the flat refusal of the Post Office to allow
114
information and asks for a meeting?
That's what the letter says.
He was asking for an opportunity to present his case to
you?
He was indeed.
He just wanted an audience?
Yes.
Would you agree that these are not unreasonable
requests, put politely but with force?
They're not unreasonable.
Can we look at your reply, please. ABAT00000001.
31 May, "Dear Alan Bates", if we just scroll down --
thank you -- we'll see it's signed by you. Underneath
there is your signature:
"Thank you for your letter of 20 May, requesting
a meeting to discuss the Post Office Horizon system.
"Since 2001, when the Royal Mail (which includes
Post Office) was set up as a public limited company with
the Government as its only shareholder, Government has
adopted an arm's-length relationship with the company so.
that it has the commercial freedom to run its business
operations without interference from the shareholder.
"The integrity of the Post Office Horizon system is
an operational and contractual matter for [Post Office]
and not Government, whilst I do appreciate your concerns
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
p>po>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and those of the Alliance members, I do not believe
a meeting would serve any useful purpose.”
Would you agree that this is a rather terse reply,
in particular the line "I do not believe that a meeting
would serve any useful purpose"?
Yes, it is a terse reply. If I may then, Mr Beer, refer
you to my written statement because I can't remember
actually reading his original letter. I remember, as
we'll come to, no doubt, reading his second letter and
taking view that I should meet him but I think, if I had
read that first letter, I would have remembered it
because it was forceful and made a case.
But I'm afraid that is my memory and all I can do is
go from my memory. I have apologised and repeat that
apology for not meeting Mr Bates on the basis of his
first letter.
You tell us in your witness statement that the letter,
the one we're looking at, was drafted by officials for
you; is that right?
Yes.
It was nonetheless approved by you and signed by you?
Yes.
Can you help us: you spent a lot of time in your witness
statement explaining the administration of ministerial
correspondence. If this was one of those occasions
117
and the response -- there may have been but I don't
recall it -- and I think I would have done, given the
nature of what Sir Alan was writing.
So it may be that you didn't even see the letter in; it
may be that the only thing you saw was this letter and
you signed it?
That may have been the case. I'm sorry, I can't be more
definite but we're talking about a long time ago. I had
just started my post and I was signing a huge number of
letters, and I was reliant on the advice of officials.
I just apologise that, if that was not the case and
I had read it and I wrote this as reply, because it is
terse.
If you only had the letter out, ie the thing that we're
looking at at the moment, how could you judge whether it
was an appropriate reply or not?
I was being -- based on the advice of officials.
But it didn't come with any advice. All it came with
was a letter in draft, as we see here, without the
handwriting at the beginning and the end?
Yes, but when you are going through your file of
letters, you assume they'd been written, and I was told
they were written, on the basis of advice from both
policy officials and those responsible for that area of
policy.
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
18 July 2024
where you got the letter in, ie Sir Alan's letter in,
and the draft reply out, ie the document we're looking
at, at the moment, how would you judge whether the right
approach was being taken, if you'd just got those two
bits of paper?
Well, the way it worked is you would have your red box,
which you would look at with all the other different
policy papers, as I explain in my written statement.
You would be dealing with a lot of different issues in
any red box --
Can I just try and cut through things a bit because
we've got your witness statement about -- and
I completely accept the breadth and the volume of work.
I am just asking, if this was one of those occasions
where you got the letter in and the letter out, they're
the only two bits of paper that you've got, how would
you judge whether the letter that you're being asked to
sign is the appropriate one?
If I'd had both letters in my letter file in my red box,
I would have read both of them and I'd have had to make
a judgement when I was signing all the different letters
in that letter file about whether this was
an appropriate response to that letter. What I don't
recall -- and I apologise for this -- is whether or not
in my letter file there were both the original letter
118
In some cases, there's a ministerial sub, isn't there,
ie there's a cover paper, which says, "This is the
issue, this is the recommendation, these are the facts,
these are the options, sometimes, and here is a proposed
draft reply", ie so you're given a briefing and some
context before being asked to sign the letter off?
That's very rare. The vast majority of cases in the
letter file within the red box -- and I say in my
statement on average there'd be 20/25 letters in any one
red box -- the vast majority were, by themselves,
without any submission. A submission would be very
rare.
So you -- the likelihood is, on your evidence, that you
neither received a briefing in order to judge the
accuracy and appropriateness of this reply, nor even the
letter in, to see what you were responding to?
I definitely didn't receive a submission. I'm saying
I may have received the original letter but I really
can't remember it, and I think, if I had, I would have
remembered it.
The second line from the end says, "Whilst I do
appreciate your concerns and those of the Alliance
members", doesn't that indicate, because it is
personalising it, that you are likely to have seen the
letter?
120
(30) Pages 117 - 120
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
p>po>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Well, I do indeed say that in my - in paragraph 97 --
Yes --
-- in my written statement --
-- and I'm asking you now, is that right: it's likely
that you did see the letter in?
It's possible because, what I have been doing in
preparing my statement is trying to think back 14 years,
to a letter that I wrote, amongst many others, at a very
early stage in my ministerial post, and I just genuinely
can't remember. But you're right, that phrase suggests
I might have done and I just can't recall and
I apologise for that.
The very matter that Sir Alan was complaining about was
that the Post Office had, to use his words, acted as
judge, jury and executioner --
Yes, if -- of course --
-- ie that there wasn't any independent oversight of
what was going on?
Indeed, and I -- when I had the submission for the
meeting with Alan Bates later on the year, both original
letter and the second letter were attached to that
submission and I read those in detail before that
meeting.
This letter takes the line that Horizon is
an operational and contractual matter, which is for Post
121
there, is that essentially -- and I'm summarising
greatly here -- that the substance of the matters that
Sir Alan was complaining about was correct?
That clearly turned out to be the case.
Yes, so that's what the hindsight is referring to here?
Yes, the hindsight that we now have because we now know
many, many things that we -- I did not know back then.
Your reflection, with the benefit of hindsight, shows,
would you agree, that there wasn't an inflexible rule,
less still an inflexible rule of law, that prevented you
from beginning involved was there?
No, there wasn't because, as we are no doubt about to
go, when I had the second letter from Mr Bates, I didn't
have any advice on that but I decided I was going to see
him. So I exercised that flexibility then.
More than that, there wasn't an inflexible rule of law
that prevented you, as the Minister, from becoming
involved in operational matters, was there?
That is true, it wasn't completely inflexible, as
clearly was the case because I met Mr -- I asked to see
Sir Alan in July. But the advice I was given was that
it was not a matter for a minister because it was
an operational matter. In asking to see Sir Alan, I was
effectively going over the advice.
Can we look, please, at POL00417098, and look, please,
123
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
18 July 2024
Office and not Government and that follows Post Office
being an arm's-length body, given freedom to run its
commercial operations without interference by
Government?
Yes, and that's -- that follows the logic that I'm
trying to get over, that I was following the advice of
Officials and this was the advice of officials on many
occasions in relation to this matter.
Can we look at your witness statement, please, page 24,
at paragraph 101 and 102 at the foot of the page. You
say:
“On reflection, and with the benefit of hindsight,
I am really sorry that I followed the advice and did not
question it, and I can also see why Sir Alan took
offence at the phrase '! do not believe a meeting would
serve any useful purpose’. It was poorly judged, and
I apologise to Sir Alan for signing it off.
"I should have accepted Sir Alan's request for
a meeting when he first made it. However, I remain
unconvinced that an earlier meeting would have changed
the course of events. I expect that I would have put
the same questions to my officials and [Post Office],
and received the same categorical assurances about the
integrity of Horizon that I did later that year."
Is the hindsight that you're bringing into account
122
at page 9. Can you see here, if we just scroll down,
a letter dated 19 May --
Yes, I can.
-- from Priti Patel, then MP for Witham, to, it seems,
Vince Cable:
"Dear Vincent ..."
Yes.
“I have been contacted by a constituent who runs a local
sub post office who has enquired as to which Minister
will have responsibility for the Post Office.
"They have quite a serious issue with the Horizon
system, which as you are aware is the IT platform which
Post Office has used to conduct their transactions.
Prior to the election the previous Shadow Minister was
willing to arrange a meeting to discuss the issue, and
I wondered whether something could be set up with the
new Minister once they are in situ?"
That's you, essentially?
Yes.
Was this correspondence drawn to your attention? This
is the day before you took up office, the day before
Sir Alan's letter to you?
No, I can't remember that at all being brought to my
attention.
Ought it to have been brought to your attention?
124
(31) Pages 121 - 124
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Probably, yes. I know Priti Patel asked some written
Parliamentary Questions which I answered, as you'll be
aware, but I wasn't aware she was seeking a meeting.
Okay. Thank you. I'm going to look now, before we come
to the meeting of 7 October with Sir Alan, to a series
of letters from MPs, either directly to you or
forwarding correspondence that they'd received from
their constituents describing problems with the Horizon
system, and prosecutions arising from Horizon, and
a number of written Parliamentary Questions.
Can we look at those, I hope, in chronological
order. Can we look at POL00417098, which I think in the
pack we're on at the moment, page 3, please. 7 June
2010 to you -- if we scroll down -- from Keith Simpson
MP, MP for Broadland, enclosing a letter which he's
received from a constituent, Margaret Callow, asking you
to look into the points and report back. If we go over
the page to page 4, please.
Mrs Callow congratulates Mr Simpson on his success
and says that she wrote to him on 3 March:
"... on behalf of my daughter [about] her treatment
along with others at the hands of the Post Office."
She says that it is a problem that will not go away
and they have a copy of a recent letter sent to Alan
Bates by you. That is obviously the letter we just
125
and then you reply.
Is that sometimes how it works? That although the
written PQ was addressed to the Secretary of State, one
of his or her ministers would be given the
responsibility of replying to it?
That's right and the draft Parliamentary Answer, written
Parliamentary Answer would be in another file in the red
box and you would go through them one by way.
Was there just the Parliamentary Answer, the draft
answer in the box, or did that come with the submission?
No submission.
Sorry? No submission?
No submission, no.
Again, how would you judge the accuracy or
appropriateness of the answer, if it came just as
a single sheet of paper?
Well, you were reliant on what your officials were
telling you and one would expect, and certainly it was
my experience, that they would draft a reply that was
factually accurate and reasonable.
You say in your reply:
"Given Post Office's responsibility for negotiating
contractual terms and conditions with subpostmasters,
I have asked David Smith, the Managing Director of Post
Office, to respond directly to my Honourable Friend and
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
prop
18 July 2024
looked at. She says:
"Clearly Mr Davey is neither interested nor helpful.
“Whilst he prefers to distance himself behind such
a reply, I respectfully suggest that all the ministers
in Government are there to represent us and best help
us. Therefore it is to be hoped that matters will be
taken up on our behalf.
"As the Government holds 100% shares in the Post
Office, this means we the public own them so the
validity of Mr Davey's reply is questionable.
Therefore, I would hope you could speak to Mr Davey or
his Department to ask him to look at this issue again."
Ought this letter -- ie the cover letter from Keith
Simpson, if we go back to page 3 -- and its enclosure,
to have been brought to your attention?
Yes, it's a letter to me, from an MP.
Yes, and ought there to be a reply to this?
There should have been.
So that was 7 June. Can we go forwards, please, to
WITN10610110. This a Parliamentary Question of 22 June
2010 from Priti Patel to ask the Secretary of State, so
that's addressed to Mr Cable, what representations he
has received from JFSA in the last 12 months, if he will
meet representatives of the Alliance to discuss Post
Office's Horizon system and if he will make a statement,
126
a copy of his reply will be placed in the libraries of
the House."
Yes.
That seems to be repeated twice for some reason.
So here, the reply suggests that you had -- or
somebody on your behalf -- had asked the Managing
Director of Post Office to respond to the question
raised?
Indeed.
But the question was to ask the Government what
representations it had received from JFSA in the last 12
months?
Indeed. But! was assuming --
Why would Mr Smith know the answer to that more than
Government?
Well, I was assuming that was the way it had been done
on the basis of what advice officials were giving me.
What do you mean you were assuming that was the way it
had been done? What was the "it"?
The response to those types of questions.
The questions asking you what representations the
Secretary of State has received; why does passing that
‘on to Mr Smith help with the answer?
Well, I had assumed that those representations would
always go to the Post Office themselves, and that was
128
(32) Pages 125 - 128
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
the way that it operated because of the arm's-length
relationship.
I see. So that because you assumed that any previous
communications would themselves have been forwarded to
the Post Office, the Post Office was in best place to
answer how many --
Indeed.
-- requests it had received for -- or representations it
had received from the JFSA?
I assume they'd all been passed to the Post Office. At
this stage, trying to understand my job, I was very,
very reliant on the advice I was being given.
Can we turn to POL00417098, and page 17, please.
I think this is a draft reply to a PQ; is that right?
Maybe if we just pan out. Thank you, if you look under
the tramlines it says, "Draft Answer", and then at the
foot of the page, there are some approval boxes; can you
see that?
Yeah, I can.
Is this the kind of thing that would come in the red
box?
Yes.
The thing we saw before was an actual Parliamentary
Question/Answer, this is the stage before that, the
draft; is that right?
129
House."
Your draft answer:
"I have asked David Smith, the [MD] of Post Office,
to respond directly to the Honourable Member and a copy
of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.”
So, again, that's essentially maintaining the
‘operational responsibility point; is that right?
Yes, indeed.
Can we turn on please to WITN10610111, 8 July, from
Priti Patel:
"To ask the Secretary of State for [Business], what
his most recent estimate is of the cost to postmasters
and subpostmasters of errors in the Horizon operating
system; and if he will make a statement."
Your reply:
"I have asked David Smith, [MD] of Post Office, to
respond directly to the Honourable Member and a copy of
his reply will be placed in the House Libraries."
So it's essentially the same answer as the previous
one, maintaining the operational responsibility for
Horizon being a matter for the Post Office line; is that
right?
(The witness nodded)
Can we move forwards to 12 July, please, POL00417098,
page 19, please. A letter to you from Jenny Randerson
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
18 July 2024
To be frank, Mr Beer, I don't know whether they all said
"Draft" before I signed them off, or whether they didn't
say "Draft". I'm not sure if it was quite that
methodical.
Okay it's from Priti Patel again, "Question":
"To ask the Secretary of State ... how many times
Ministers have had discussions with Post Office on the
Horizon system
Answer:
"[Horizon] is an operational responsible of the
company and I have had no such discussions."
That's you answering:
"It is an established convention that the Ministers
of one Administration cannot see the documents of
a previous Administration. I am therefore unable to
provide the information requested."
That's accurate obviously for you, you hadn't had
any meetings at this time?
Yes, that's accurate.
Thank you. Then can we go forwards, please, to page 15.
Third question from Priti Patel, with, again, a draft
answer:
"To ask the Secretary of State [for BIS], if he will
review the effectiveness of the Post Office's Horizon
system; and if he will report his findings to the
130
Assembly Member, 12 July now, under the heading "Post
Office Horizon Accounting Problems". If we scroll down:
“As a former consultant in the postal services
sector, I am sure you are only too well aware of the
accounting problems that have arisen from the Post
Office Horizon computer system which have resulted in
postmasters and mistresses suffering financial losses
and sometimes even incurring criminal prosecutions
because of unexplained discrepancies that have let to
shortfalls.”
She explains in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 a problem with
her constituent, and then if we go down to paragraph 5,
at the foot of the page:
"I am aware that the previous government built up
an extremely poor IT record and that it had already
entered into a contract with [BOI] to enable [Post
Office] to provide a range of financial services ..."
Then over the page please:
am sure you will agree that the apparent
inadequacies of the Horizon computer system, and the
injustices it has caused, need immediate investigation
and resolution and I would welcome your advice as to the
government's intentions in this matter."
Again, ought this to have been passed to you for
a reply or a draft reply provided to you for signature?
132
(33) Pages 129 - 132
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>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Yes.
Can we move on please, POL00417099. A letter to you of
20 July 2010:
"I have been approached by my constituent ...
"I would be grateful if you could look at the
matters raised by my constituent ..."
Then, if we go over the page, please -- I should
have said this is from Alun Michael MP -- this is the
letter from his constituent, saying:
"Lam writing to you with regard to the way I have
been treated by Post Office.
Second paragraph:
"At the end of the day, the root cause behind the
problems I had with Post Office was entirely due to
their fault hidden Horizon system. I am not alone in
suffering from a system which is prone to errors, has
negligible support, is inaccessible to the level
required to manage the business, but it is me that is
held accountable for its failures and losses.
"The Post Office is 100% owned by Government and
regardless of how Government try and sidestep its
responsibilities, it is the Government of today with its
silence, that ultimately approves and sanctions the
atrocity/ies that Post Office has inflicted on
me/subpostmasters. There has to be an independent
133
I can only presume they did.
He, Mr Griffiths, continues:
"We are in theory happy to continue holding this
line -- but if we do so and it turns out that there have
been problems with Horizon, then there will be
significant political heat. Grateful therefore if you
could let me know how confident [the Post Office] is
that there is nothing behind these claims."
Then if we scroll up, the MD's PA, Tracy Abberstein,
replies:
"Mike Granville will liaise with you both to prepare
a brief for Oliver to give the reassurance required!"
This is the kind of thing that went on beneath the
surface and you didn't get to see, I presume?
No, not at all.
Would you agree that this is, looking at it now,
an important exchange?
Yes, it is, and I'm -- we'll no doubt go on to other
important exchanges behind the scenes, which certainly
weren't brought to my attention.
If we just look at the bottom of the page, ShEx is
saying, "We're happy in theory to continue to hold the
line, if it turns out there are problems, then there
will be significant political heat. Grateful to know
how confident [Post Office] is, there is nothing behind
135
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
18 July 2024
investigation into how [Post Office] has abused its
power..."
Then next paragraph, mention of the JFSA, and then
it is signed off. Again, ought this to have been
supplied to you by officials for reply and/or a draft
reply provided to you?
Yes.
Can we move on, please, POL00417098, and this is
an email exchange in which you're not included -- if we
look at the foot of page 1, please -- between Oliver
Griffiths of ShEx and David Smith MD of Post Office,
with Mike Whitehead of ShEx copied in with the subject
of "Justice for [Subpostmasters]":
"Dave [that's Mr Smith]
"As we discussed briefly on Monday ... there has
been recent interest from MPs in purported cases where
the Horizon system has left subpostmasters out of
pocket. We have to date said that this is
an operational matter for POL and resisted calls to
impose a review of Horizon ..."
Just stopping there, do you think that the replies
to all of the letters that I have shown you would have
maintained that line, ie Horizon is an operational
matter for Post Office and a resistance to any call for
a review of Horizon?
134
the claims."
Do you agree this shows there was no requirement in
law for Government to adopt the position it did that
Post Office was an arm's-length body and that all
matters relating to Horizon were operational ones for
the Post Office to answer? That was just the line.
That is what he is saying in that and there is no doubt,
as I showed myself, that ministers could ultimately ask
about these sorts of questions. And I -- when I did ask
to see Mr Bates -- Sir Alan Bates to ask about these
questions, no one said I couldn't.
So it was a matter of choice as to whether and to what
extent Government got involved, rather than the law
prohibiting it, correct?
That is true. In these early days, I was reliant on the
advice and I thought that was the case but, as we'll no
doubt come on to with Mr Bates second letter, Sir Alan
Bates second letter, I decided I would see him, despite
what I'd been told.
Would you agree here, reading this exchange, that what
appears to matter to ShEx, in deciding whether to hold
the Government line, was the Government's confidence in
whether there was anything in the claims or not?
That's how it reads.
Is this the extent of the testing that you would
136
(34) Pages 133 - 136
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
envisage had gone on in testing the accuracy, strength,
truthfulness and reliability of what Post Office was
saying to Government, ie an email exchange between three
people saying, "Tell me how confident Post Office is
that there is nothing behind the claims", and then
an email from a PA back saying, "You'll get a brief"?
Well, I'd have thought that, by the time they gave me
advice they needed to be certain that advice was true,
and one -- no doubt this Inquiry will make a judgment
about whether or not they did enough to find out whether
what they were telling me was true, but it -- ministers
have to rely on being told the truth and, therefore,
people briefing them need to be sure that the Minister
is being given the truth.
Would you expect something more from ShEx, putting it
bluntly, to say, "Please Post Office, who people allege
something is wrong with your system, tell us whether
you're confident that there is something wrong with your
system"?
It certainly looks like there could have been more
probing, yes.
Can we move forwards, please, to POL00294957. We're now
‘on 26 July. There is a letter to you from the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, writing in
his capacity as a constituency MP. He says that his
137
saying that innocent until proven guilty does not come
into it."
Penultimate paragraph on that page:
“At the end of the day the root cause ... was due to
their fault ridden Horizon system. We are not alone
Last paragraph on that page:
"The Post Office is 100% owned by the Government and
regardless of how the Government try and sidestep its
responsibilities, it is the Government of today with its
silence, that ultimately approves and sanctions the
atrocities ..."
You can see some similar language here from
an earlier letter, yes?
Yes, indeed.
Again, should this, should George Osborne's letter have
been provided to you by officials for a reply?
I'm surprised it wasn't. I can't -- in the pack that
Ive been filed, I can't see any reply from me to this.
When you say you're surprised, is that in particular
because of the personality of the author?
Actually not. I think when an MP writes to a minister,
my understanding was that the minister would reply to
the MP. That was the sort of understanding that one
acted on and one thought was the case. So one might not
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
18 July 2024
constituent, Mr Walters:
"... has written to me about errors on the Post
Office computer system which he believes led to the
termination of his contract ... he and others in
a similar position have joined [JFSA].
"I enclose a copy of his letter ..."
If we go over the page, he says that he is writing
to Mr Osborne in relation to the way he has been
treated. Second main paragraph:
"Unfortunately a few months after my contract was
terminated the Post Office closed as part of the
government cutbacks.”
He says it was a set up. Next paragraph:
"Do you not think it strange that not only I but
many other subpostmasters have experienced the same
thing, that nearly 300 subpostmasters have been
suspended for similar offences as we speak. It's all
right expecting the poor subpostmaster to make good any
shortfall but what happens when they are thousands of
pounds under which obviously is a computer error and
cannot be right and yet they are expected to make good
this loss. Those that cannot are treated as criminals
and sentenced as such because the Post Office say they
have taken the money. Although the Post Office cannot
produce such evidence to support these claims. The
138
reply to members of the public and officials might reply
to that, because there's so many letters coming in, but
I had assumed that any letter to me as a minister from
an MP would get a reply from me.
Can we go forwards, please, UKGI00014108. If we see at
the top it's from Valerie Vaz MP, dated 29 July. It's
about her constituent, Jasvinder Kaur. She says in the
second paragraph:
"There have been a number of subpostmasters and
mistresses who appear to have been the subject of
a fraud investigation. There have been some instances
of transactions which appear to be inaccurate causing
suspicion on the subpostmasters and mistresses. This is
the Horizon system which appears to be ridden with
faults. This has a detrimental affect on the
subpostmasters and mistresses who have formed [JFSA].
"I would be grateful if you could let me know if you
are aware of other cases of postmasters and mistresses
who have used the Horizon system who have then been
prosecuted for fraud."
"She [that's Ms Kaur] has asked if it is possible
for an inquiry to be set up to look into the Horizon
system."
Again, this is the kind of correspondence, it being
an MP letter, that should have been passed to you for
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
areply?
Yes.
Thank you. That can come down.
In your witness statement, you tell us that, as
a Minister, when MPs raise matters with you, you quote:
.. inevitably take them more seriously, there was
a small trickle of correspondence and Parliamentary
Questions from MPs on this issue. None of these seemed
to raise any issues that fundamentally questioned the
advice I had received from officials and the Post
Office."
Yes.
Is the "small trickle" the four Parliamentary Questions
and the five letters that I've just shown you?
That's what I'm referring to. Well, no, if I didn't see
those letters, which I assume (unclear), if you look at
the pack that has been provided me from the time I was
a minister, the number of letters that I signed that
came into my file was, I think, smaller than the number
of people who had written in via their MPs.
Can we look at an example of a response to the letters
that you received from MPs. UKGI00013913. This is
later, this is February 2001. If we scroll down, sorry,
2011. You say:
"Thank you for your letter setting out concerns
141
assured by Wipro as being ‘best practice’
"As regards ongoing performance, the ... information
security management systems are accredited to industry
standards ... A transaction log is available for every
branch and full audit logs of all system and user
activity and transactions are securely sealed, backed up
and retained to provide an evidential and investigative
repository.
"The system is based on principles of ‘double entry
bookkeeping’."
If we go over the page, please. I think that's the
end. So you sign or would have signed it off.
You see here, this is still taking, in the first
paragraph, the line that Horizon is an operational
issue, the Government maintains an arm's-length
relationship with the Post Office and it's, therefore,
for the Post Office to answer?
Yes, though I should add that, by this time in February
2011, I had had the meeting with Sir Alan Bates in
October, and I had asked my officials to ask POL a whole
series of extra questions. So, by this time, when I was
writing, while that was still my view, because it was
the law from the 2001 Act, I felt -- certainly the
Officials drafting my letters must have felt -- that
I made those enquiries following the Sir Alan Bates
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
21
22
23
24
25
18 July 2024
raised by constituents about [Horizon].
"The issues raised in your letter are, however,
operational and contractual matters between [Post
Office] and individual subpostmasters and I should make
clear that neither I nor the Department can intervene in
cases which are sub judice or where court action has
been determined.
"Whilst blame has been laid in a number of cases on
the Horizon system for the financial discrepancies and
shortages which have led to subpostmasters having their
contracts terminated and subsequent cost action, [the
Post Office] continues to express full confidence in the
integrity and robustness of the Horizon system.
"The [system] operates in all ... branches and has
done so for over 10 years, processing up to 750
transactions a second at peak times. The system and the
processes around it offer a very high level of security
and resilience and are designed to ensure that, should
part of the system or equipment fail, the integrity of
the accounting records is always maintained. [It's] has
proven to be very robust since its introduction.
"[It] was fully tested at the time of the nationwide
implementation and all new software releases are also
subject to rigorous testing ... For example, testing for
the latest upgrade to the system ... was independently
142
meeting, and so the letters seemed received to be a bit
more detailed by this time.
You mention again the 2001 Act, I think you mean the
Postal Services Act 2000?
Oh, I beg your pardon.
That's all right. You have said a number of times that
it was what the law required. What did you understand
the extent of the prohibition or the limits of the
prohibition on Government becoming involved in the
affairs of the Post Office as imposed by the 2000 Act?
I guess it was more on the day-to-day operation, and
when there were strategic issues, policy issues, then we
ought to get involved and, as we'll no doubt come to,
when I had the second letter from Sir Alan Bates,
although I wasn't advised to meet him, the number of
people who have engaged in that second letter, it did
seem to me that this was becoming more than
an operational matter. There was something that
I needed to find more information about.
Because you see here, this doesn't simply stop at the
first paragraph --
Indeed.
-- saying this is a Post Office matter. It essentially
adopts the Post Office account?
Yes, it does. From my perspective, as a Minister
144
(36) Pages 141 - 144
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
signing that, by this time, I had done -- made my
Officials look further at the issue. But you're right,
we were still referring back to the 2000 Act.
So by this time, E because officials had looked more
deeply into the issues raised, it was permissible and
not contrary to the law to adopt the Post Office's
account in a reply to MPs?
No, I'm not saying that, Mr Beer. I guess I'm saying
that the officials felt able to put more into the reply.
But the -- what they put into the reply was essentially
the Post Office account?
Indeed.
So the prohibition isn't operative at this point, you
don't stop at paragraph 1?
No, they -- officials, given that I had asked them to
look into it, could have been looking into it more.
Can we move back to the meeting with Sir Alan Bates on
7 October 2010, and start with what was the precursor to
it, which was Sir Alan's second letter. That's
UKGI00016099. We should find a letter of 8 July 2010,
so it's in the midst of that slew of correspondence and
PQs that I showed you.
"Dear Mr Davey
"I have to say your response to me dated 31 May 2010
[that’s the one we've looked at] regarding the very
145
actually up to.
"Your civil servants and [Post Office] will not tell
you about [Post Office] staff harassing sick
ex-subpostmasters demanding written promises of money or
they'll send the police round. They won't tell you that
[Post Office] watches post offices heading into trouble,
fails to provide any help, and then waits until the
problem shows a loss of £20,000 [or more] so that the
subpostmaster then falls foul of the Proceeds of Crime
Act. They won't tell you that when someone wants to
sell their post office and has a suitable buyer, [Post
Office] will turn down the applicant to drive that
business into the ground. You won't hear about
subpostmasters endlessly requesting audits of their
offices and having to wait for up to five years for
someone to turn up, in offices turning over £5 million
a year. Neither will they tell you of the cases where
[Post Office] have run an audit, closed a post office
bankrupting the owner who loses his business, house and
family, holds a pending court case over him for 18
months, then drops the charges and walks away. Nor will
they tell you about how they are stopping subpostmasters
selling on the post office side of their business in
order to recover their original investment. They won't
even tell you that the Horizon system is designed to
147
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
18 July 2024
serious issues I had raised was not only disappointing
but I actually found your comments offensive. It seems
that though there are new politicians in post, the
Government has not changed. The letter you sent is
little different to the one I received seven years ago
from the minister responsible for post offices at that
time, and so many more lives have been ruined in the
interim because of that same attitude.
"It's not that you can't get involved or cannot
investigate the matter, after all you do own 100% of the
shares and normally shareholders are concerned about the
morality of the business they own. It is because you
have adopted an arm's-length relationship that you have
allowed a once great institution to be asset stripped by
little more than thugs in suits, and you have enabled
them to carry on with impunity regardless of the human
misery and suffering they inflict.
"You can listen to your civil servants telling you
these issues are really an operational matter for POL to
deal with. You can even listen to [the Post Office]
telling you that Horizon is wonderful, that there has
never ever been a problem, it is inherently robust, and
there is our just a few malcontents trying to cause
trouble. Or you can meet with us and hear the real
truth behind Horizon and what the Post Office is
146
entrap subpostmasters so that they can easily finish up
in prison, just by tying to open the day after a trading
period balance.
"This is just a taste of some of the practices your
company is carrying out in your name, day after day.
They brandish a big legal stick, fail to provide
evidence in court and rely on the clause in the 1994
contract, about a subpostmaster being liable for any
loss from their office however it occurs, yet it is
their shoddy Horizon system that is the root cause of
all this. Post Office themselves lose thousands of
pounds from each of the Crown Offices that they run
using Horizon, though their staff are not treated as
guilty until proven innocent, but a subpostmaster is!
"The whole of this scan is teetering on the edge of
a precipice at this point in time, but it is still not
too late for you to reconsider convening a meeting to
discuss the issues involved, if you are prepared to keep
an open mind."
Can we turn up page 25 of your witness statement at
paragraph 104, please. You say:
"I recall being shown that letter by officials
(probably in my private office) and being asked what
I wanted to do. Realising that Sir Alan was quite cross
with my initial reply, and reflecting on the seriousness
148
(37) Pages 145 - 148
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 the concerns he was raising, I told my officials
I wanted to meet him. I do not what, if any, advice my
Officials gave me at the time, but I did meet Sir Alan
on 7 October. I note that Mike Whitehead's briefing
[of] 5 October 2010 ... stated that officials
recommended offering a meeting ‘for presentational
reasons’. As far as I can remember, that briefing --
long after the meeting had been arranged -- was the
first time that ‘presentational reasons' for the meeting
were mentioned to me. They were certainly not the
reason I decided to meet Sir Alan Bates following his
second letter. As set out above, I told officials
I wanted to meet him because I could see he was cross at
my initial response and wanted to hear his concerns
directly."
So, in summary, you're saying that the meeting was
arranged because you decide that it should be arranged,
you could see from the content of his letter that he was
angered by your reply and you denied that presentational
reasons, as per the briefing of 5 October played a part?
Yes, that is my recollection. I should add, Mr Beer,
that in, I think, one of the bundles that came quite
late to me I noted an email from Mike Whitehead to Post
Office Limited telling them that I had asked to meet
JFSA, where he said that I had done that on the basis of
149
on the JFSA campaign. We then recommended offering
a meeting in response to this 2nd request for
presentational reasons against the background of
potential publicity (Channel 4 News item) playing
heavily on Government Minister ‘refusing to meet victims
of Government owned Post Office Horizon IT system which
has systemic faults resulting in wrongful accusations of
theft/false accounting’.”
Just dealing with that piece of evidence to start
with, in terms of accuracy, it's right that Sir Alan
wrote a second letter on 8 July, isn't it?
That's correct.
It's right that that second letter was more
confrontational than the first?
Very much so.
It's right that it was followed by reports that
Channel 4 was going to run a news item on the JFSA
campaign?
I now understand that to be the case, yes.
But you say it's wrong that the recommendation to you
was that the meeting was to be agreed to for
presentational reasons?
That is wrong. I have this memory of this meeting with
my junior official from my private office and there was
no submission or recommendation for a meeting. It was
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
2
18 July 2024
the second letter of Sir Alan and being told that
Channel 4 news were thinking about some report --
We're going to come to that in a moment.
But the point was -- and he had added I had given no
advice for that meeting.
The reason why I bring that to your attention and
the Inquiry's attention, Sir Wyn, is it sort of confirms
my recollection because I'm having to recollect issues
from 14 years ago. I do remember my official from my
private office coming in to me, talking about this
letter, showing me the letter and me making the decision
there and then that I ought to meet him.
Can we look at the two pieces of evidence in turn, then,
starting with the briefing of 5 October 2010.
UKGI00000062. This is the briefing of 5 October 2010,
two days before the meeting was going to take place.
We're going to come back to the substance of the
briefing after the afternoon break. I just want to look
at one part of it at the moment in relation to this
narrow issue of the reason for agreeing to meet.
Can we look under "Background to the meeting", and
can you see in the third line Mr Whitehead says to you:
"His [that's Alan Bates] second (more
confrontational) letter of 8 July was followed by
reports that Channel 4 were planning to run a news item
150
my decision.
Do you know why Mr Whitehead would say that the
recommendation to you was to agree to a meeting for
presentational reasons, if that was false?
I don't know.
The problem, would you agree, with agreeing to a meeting
for presentational reasons is that it may suggest that
there is, in fact, little or no interest in the subject
matter but, instead, the guiding light is how it all
looks to the outside world?
That's what it would appear but that was certainly not
in my mind and I repeat, from my statement, that this --
the first time I saw this would have been in my red box
of October. I took the decision to meet him in July,
two months into my term of office.
Meeting for presentational reasons would all be a bit
plastic, a bit synthetic, wouldn't it?
Totally --
If
-- and it's worth adding at this point, Mr Beer, one of
the things that was in my mind in accepting and asking
for the meeting, was because there had been
an organisation set up. The Justice for Subpostmasters
Alliance seemed to me that number of people had come
together, and while a Minister could not respond to
152
(38) Pages 149 - 152
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
a court case involving an individual subpostmaster, it
seemed reasonable to meet a group of people who'd come
together and, with his second letter, understanding
a little more, two months into office, who he was and
there'd been these other -- these written questions and,
you know, because it had begun to be an issue coming
across my desk, I felt it was right to meet him.
Q. Was the meeting agreed to because Channel 4 had picked
up on the Parliamentary Questions?
A. No.
Q. Can we look, please, at POL00417097.
This is the email that I think you were referring to
I think a moment ago, Sir Ed. It is dated 28 July 2010,
so remember that Sir Alan's letter was 20 July 2010, his
second, more confrontational letter.
Mike Whitehead of ShEx writes to Sue Huggins and
Mike Granville, who are both at Post Office, and Oliver
Griffiths and Rosemary Buck who are both at ShEx, and
says:
"Further to our discussion on Monday, Ed Davey has
said that the JFSA should be invited to meet him. He
took this view on the basis of the 20 July letter from
JFSA and the briefing on the expected Channel 4 News
item and without further advice from me."
Then there is some other information that's not
153
a number of years campaigning on behalf of
subpostmasters, to have a letter in the way that
Sir Alan Bates wrote it, struck me very strongly, and so
I wanted the meeting.
I have to say, a possible Channel 4 News item was
not something that was particularly troubling to me.
Q. So there are two pieces of evidence, would you agree,
that record that the reasons for meeting Sir Alan
included a reason of how it would look?
A. There are. There's the submission, and I remember being
rather irked by that bit of the submission when I read
it, but we were about to go to the meeting and it was
the substantive points that I focused on, but
Mr Whitehead wasn't at the briefing with my private
office, and he is taking that no doubt from -- report
from the officials who were there.
MR BEER: Thank you, Sir Ed.
Sir, could we take the afternoon break, please,
until 3.40?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Certainly, yes.
MR BEER: Thank you, sir.
(3.25 pm)
(A short break)
(3.40 pm)
MR BEER: Can you still see and hear us, sir?
155
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18 July 2024
relevant to our question.
This is a record, would you agree, which suggests
that you took a view, ie decided, to meet Mr Bates in
part because of a Channel 4 News item that was expected,
doesn't it?
A. Well, it's his reporting of an oral meeting between my
private office and myself. I have no doubt that the
private office mentioned there could be Channel 4 News
item but the letter was the substantive reason because
it was a very strong letter, and I had no -- as three
goes on to say, there was no advice from him, there was
no written submission, and advised me whether or not to
take the meeting; the meeting was decided by me in my
office, having read the 20 July letter.
Q. The email records that you took the view "on the basis
of ... the expected Channel 4 News item". If that's
correct, that would be agreeing to a meeting in part for
a presentational reason, wouldn't it?
A. It would be. What I'm telling you is that I do have
a recollection of this because the second letter was so
strong, because two months into my posting I was
beginning to understand there might be an issue here,
I was beginning to understand that JFSA was
an organisation representing a number of subpostmasters.
and it felt reasonable to meet them. Having spent
154
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.
MR BEER: Sir Ed, can we look at two documents at the same
time, please, on the screen. The first document,
please, POL00088974, and then UKGI00000062.
Thank you. You'll see on the left-hand side is the
briefing that was provided to you for your meeting on
7 October. It's dated 5 October, written by
Mr Whitehead.
Can we turn in that document, please, to page 3. Do
you see under the heading "Integrity of the Horizon
system", at the foot of the page, can you see it starts
with:
"The Horizon system has been in place for over
10 years."
Then, if we go over the page, that paragraph ends in
"the system".
Next paragraph, "The system is currently being
updated to ‘Horizon Online™,
system".
Next paragraph, "The integrity of both Horizon and
Horizon Online is built on tamper proof", ends in
"branch accounts remotely".
Next paragraph, "Critically, Horizon creates
a separate audit file", ends in “at the time concerned".
Scrolling down, "Subpostmasters are trained on the
156
, and ends with "Horizon
(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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
system", ends in "update the accounts".
Next paragraph, "As with any large organisation",
ends in “ensure ongoing accuracy”.
Then a new heading "Action taken", begins with "Post
Office Limited has a regular system", ends with
“undertaken by the NFSP".
Then all of the paragraphs to, in fact, the end of
the document:
"No court has ever ruled that there have been
problems with the Horizon system."
Just going back to the start of that, on page 3
where it begins -- scrolling down, thank you -- when you
read this, or when you would have read this, would you
have expected that some system or process for verifying
the accuracy of what you were being told had been
undertaken.
Yes, I would have assumed I was being told the truth and
that it was, from my officials, the best provide they
could provide with me.
You see the way it's presented to you is as a matter of
fact, that this is the single truth?
Yes.
It doesn't say "Post Office alleged to us the
following"; it doesn't say, "Post Office say to us the
following"; or "We've asked for a briefing from Post
157
Is that what you would have expected to have happen by
your officials when they were briefing you, and not
attributed it to Post Office?
It is not what I expected. When I saw these documents
in the bundle sent to me it became obvious that there
had been that cut and paste, as you say, and it
surprised me.
Why is it surprising that officials would simply swallow
whole what the Post Office were telling them, by cutting
and pasting an account into a Ministerial briefing?
I'd have thought they'd have had a meeting and argued --
not argued but probed a bit because this meeting had
been planned for. I'd asked for it in the July, two
months after coming into office. It didn't happen until
the October, so there was plenty of time for them to
prepare and, given there'd been a number of written
Parliamentary Questions and letters, this was a very
important meeting to me and people knew that and I would
have expected a quality brief.
Can I turn -- we can get rid of the document on the
right-hand side, please -- to the meeting itself and, on
the document on the left-hand side, go back to page 1 --
thank you -- and scroll down. Just stop there.
You'll see that in the attendees are listed Sir Alan
and then two lawyers, one from Shoosmiths and one from
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
18 July 2024
Office and they have provided the following”.
It doesn't say that.
No. So would you read this as this is essentially being
ShEx's own account to you?
Yes.
On the document on the right-hand side can we see a
"Brief to BIS", we know this is from the Post Office, we
know it's dated August 2010. It's a brief to BIS for
your prospective meeting with JFSA.
In that document, can we go, please, to page 2, and
can we see a heading "Integrity of the Horizon system",
and a paragraph that says, "The Horizon system has been
in place for 10 years", yes?
(The witness nodded)
Then, on the left hand page, if we can scroll down, we
can see the next paragraph, "The system is currently
being updated", and on the right-hand side, "The system
is currently being updated”, and then on the left-hand
side "The integrity of both Horizon and Horizon Online",
and on the right-hand side -- and so it goes on.
The entirety of the information in the sections that
I've read you appears to be a cut and paste from the
Post Office briefing: they've right clicked, swiped, cut
and paste, or copied and paste?
(The witness nodded)
158
Coomber Rich called Issy Hogg, a Basingstoke-based firm
of solicitors who have defended number of subpostmasters
who have been prosecuted by Post Office in recent years.
This was a meeting on 7 October and we know that Issy
Hogg was Seema Misra's solicitor and that Seema Misra's
trial started a few days later on 11 October 2010.
We also know, through other evidence, that David
Smith of the Post Office and the Executive Team at the
Post Office, were watching the trial very closely. Was,
to your recollection, Seema Misra's case and her
impending trial discussed at the meeting?
I can't remember but I think in the reply that I gave to
Sir Alan, there was a reference to it. So I think --
You sent that reply?
In the 7 December reply but that may have been because
he wrote two letters subsequent to the meeting and it
may have been in there and, I'm sorry, I don't know but
I can't remember it being raised at the meeting.
We haven't got a note of the meeting, I think you
understand, or haven't been given the note --
No, and I asked the Department for the minutes and all
the submissions from my diary and they weren't able to
give it to me.
And same here.
Would you have followed the lines in your briefing?
160
(40) Pages 157 - 160
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
By and large, yes. The lines were -- the key lines that
I took from them was that, as they say, being listening
mode, and their reason for that was there was
a possibility of a court case and they were -- said it
was prudent to -- as you see in there, prudent to adopt
a sub judice approach in the comments you make. I don't
know how many questions I asked; I certainly was keen to
listen and hear their points of view.
If you look at "Our objectives", at the foot of the
page, you're advised by Mr Whitehead that:
"Tactically we would advise you to seek to establish
at a very early stage whether legal action against Post
Office is imminent/planned. If so, it would be prudent
to adopt a 'sub judice' approach in the comments you
make."
Did you read that as being a device, ie to establish
the concurrency of court action, therefore giving you
an additional reason not to commit to anything?
I'm not sure if a device -- I assumed they were giving
me their best advice and they --
The sentence begins with the word "Tactically".
Well, there may have been wanting to protect me as
a minister, I don't know. But it's difficult, Mr Beer,
because I can't remember exactly all the details of that
meeting. I can remember how I considered Sir Alan. I'm
161
I'm pretty sure I would have followed those lines, yes.
I might well have asked one or two more questions than
they wanted but it was a meeting which Sir Alan had
wanted to put his case.
Under the heading "Issues or elephant traps" in bold,
Mr Whitehead says:
"_. we recommend that you should be primarily in
listening mode on the basis that any statements or
comments made at the meeting may be subsequently quoted
in any legal process involving JFSA or its members."
Did you remain primarily in listening mode?
I would have certainly been in listening mode for most
of the meeting. My normal practice would probably be to
have asked one or two questions for clarification but
I'm afraid I can't remember the details of the meeting.
Did you make any commitments in the meeting?
I can't remember making -- certainly not commitments to
things like a review but I committed to come back to
him, I would imagine, on the substantive points he was
making, and no doubt we'll get on to that.
I certainly --
Did you agree to do or require others to do anything?
Well, after the meeting, I asked my officials to follow
up on all his points. I found Sir Alan a very
reasonable and credible representative. He had a strong
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
18 July 2024
happy to go into details about that but I don't always
follow the advice of my officials, and that's why the
meeting was taking place.
The advice continued that you should:
"Emphasise that the issues raised by the JFSA are
‘operational and contractual matters for [Post Office].
“Make clear that, as the shareholder, Government has
an arm's-length relationship ... and doesn't have any
role in [the company’s] day-to-day operations.
"Establish whether ... legal action [is contemplated
‘or committed to taking place].
“If so, note it will be for the relevant legal
process to decide on the JFSA case and that the issues
are effectively sub judice."
Then, over the page, please:
"Demonstrate that you are prepared to hear JFSA's
side of the story (JFSA claim both [Post Office] and
officials are covering up the problems with Horizon) but
make clear that you are not in a position to offer
substantive comment."
Then:
"Avoid committing to [setting] up
an independent/external review of Horizon.”
Do you think you're likely to have followed those
lines?
162
story and I felt it needed to be looked at again. The
submission that I received -- and we can no doubt go
through other parts of it -- it made a powerful case
because it wasn't just based on what my officials were
telling me about Horizon but it was -- also referred to
the National Federation of SubPostmasters view and the
courts had not found problems with Horizon. And those
were three reinforcing points that he made in that
submission but, because Sir Alan was very articulate and
able champion for his case, I still felt, despite this
submission, that more work needed to be done to reassure
me that what was in the submission was true.
Can we turn, lastly, then, to POL00186759. This is your
letter to Mr Bates of 7 December 2010. I'm going to
skip over the contents of the letters that you refer to
earlier, in the interests of time. You say:
"Following our meeting, the points you raised as
Chairman ... are being followed up on my behalf by
officials as part of our dialogue with the company.
However, as I made clear ... neither I nor the
Department can intervene in cases which are sub judice
or where court action has been determined, as in
Mrs Misra's and Mrs Buffrey's cases."
Given that one of the principal complaints was the
conduct of the Post Office, which had led to court
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
oP
pProrop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
proceedings and convictions, how could officials follow
up matters on your behalf if they could not intervene in
cases where court action had taken place?
Well, the basic understanding that I have of court
practices is that the executive arm of Government, be
they officials or ministers, can't interfere/shouldn't
interfere, and I wouldn't seek to interfere, with the
judicial process.
Was anyone asking you, or your Department, to interfere
with the judicial process, rather than examine the
conduct of prosecutors?
I think they were wanting to -- well, to be fair,
I remember Jonathan Lord, in particular, the Member of
Parliament for Woking, making it clear to me that they
weren't asking me to intervene, and knew that.
I couldn't. But in terms of the prosecution process,
that wasn't, to my understanding of the meeting with
Sir Alan, the core part of his questioning. The core
part of his questioning seemed to be around issues to do
with Horizon.
You say in the third paragraph here that you realise
that:
".., the core of the JFSA's concerns relates to the
Horizon system ... However POL continues to express full
confidence in the integrity and robustness of the
165
end of your witness statement concerning your
reflections, and it begins on page 41.
If we scroll down, you deal with your reflections in
six subheadings. If I could look at those briefly with
you because we've got your statement on the record.
Start at page 42 over the page, please, foot of the
page, "Duty of candour". Do you there argue for the
consideration of the introduction of a duty of candour,
given that this was addressed yesterday in the King's
Speech.
I do and I strongly support --
I'm not going to ask you further questions about it but
you add your heft to that call; is that right?
(The witness nodded)
Can we look at the foot of the --
Sorry, I was told not to nod, so yes.
That's a "Yes", is it?
Yes.
Thank you. Look at the foot of page 43, please. The
second point that you make concerns the oversight of
arm’s-length bodies, and you speak to that issue between
paragraphs 142 and 143. Can you explain what you are
suggesting, please?
Well, clearly, one of the big problems that arises from
this tragedy and this appalling miscarriage of justice,
167
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
18 July 2024
Horizon system and also categorically states that there
is no remote access to the system or to individual
branch terminals which would allow accounting records to
be manipulated in any way."
I think you now know that that itself is a cut and
paste from information provided from Post Office --
Indeed, I do now.
a bit like before? I'm not going to spend time in
showing you the documents because I think you will have
reached that conclusion yourself.
(The witness nodded)
Again, are you disappointed that your civil servants
have simply swallowed what they've been told by Post
Office, by cutting and pasting, in this case, an email
into a draft letter for you?
Particularly at this point because, having asked for the
meeting with Sir Alan, having had the submission that
I did but then saying I still think these points need to
be looked into, I think that was an invitation for them
to look rather harder.
Thank you. At least on this occasion, it says, "The
Post Office continues to express" so it's attributing
that which follows to the Post Office?
Can we turn, lastly, so far as questions from me are
concerned, to your witness statement, please. It's the
166
is how the executive arm, the Government, the
Department, oversees arm's-length bodies. That's come
up in your questions today, Mr Beer.
Now, when we reformed Royal Mail Group and split off
POL, I insisted there should be a ShEx official on the
Board although that wasn't welcome, I'm told, but
I insisted on it and it follows from that, I'm a big
believer in proving corporate governance and greater
transparency. I think the lesson from this appalling
situation is we need possibly to go even further and
Government's should look across the piece to all
arm's-length bodies to check that the governance is
appropriate so the oversight is genuine, real and
thorough.
The third reflection that you make is over the page at
page 44, concerning the relationship, essentially,
between the executive and the judiciary, and if we skip
forward to paragraph 149 on page 45, you posit the
creation of a new process. Can you explain what you
have in mind?
It seems to me that, if there is a real concern about
too many prosecutions going through the court system
that shouldn't be, that there needs to be a process
within Government for officials, for ministers, to raise
questions. There is a real balance, though, and I'm
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
sure Sir Wyn will appreciate this, you don't want to
give ministers a power to abuse the court's
independence. So I don't quite know what that might be
but I'm positing that should be at least looked at. But
I go on to say it would be far preferable if there were
reforms within the legal profession, the judiciary, to
learn the lessons from what happened, rather than
allowing the executive to intrude into the judicial arm.
Q. Thank you. Suggestion number 4 at the foot of the page
is in relation to prosecutorial powers and what you say
there is contained in those two paragraphs, 151 and 152,
and you make the general point that it seems to you that
prosecutions are best left to the CPS, who are
independently investigated?
A. Indeed itis.
Q. Over the page, please, suggestion number 5. The
suggestion, I think, to strengthen the protection
afforded to whistleblowers?
A. Itis, because it seems to me in this case the critical
piece of evidence for the High Court -- and you saw it
in the ITV drama, you saw it -- although I didn't see it
at the time -- in the BBC Panorama in August 2015, the
key thing was the evidence from Richard Roll. And we've
seen in other scandals it's been the whistleblower
that's been fundamental to that, and other countries
169
need to find a way to strengthen them, support them and
rebuild the trust in that institution and it seems to me
mutualisation offers a way forward, I legislated for it,
so I hope that could be taken forward.
MR BEER: Sir Ed, thank you very much. Those are my
questions.
Sir, there are some questions from Core
Participants. Mr Moloney first, I think, up to
15 minutes; Ms Page second, up to ten minutes; Mr Stein
third, up to ten minutes; and then Ms Watt, on behalf of
the NFSP, up to three minutes. So it's about
a 4.35/4.40 finish.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: We'll see, Mr Beer.
MR BEER: Thank you very much.
Mr Moloney first.
Questioned by MR MOLONEY
MR MOLONEY: Sir Ed, I'm over here. Thank you. My name is
Tim Moloney and I represent a large number of
subpostmasters, all of whom were prosecuted to
conviction and all of whom have subsequently had their
convictions quashed.
Sir Ed, you received number of letters from MPs on
behalf of postmaster constituents -- and you're now not
following your own lessons, which is to say yes, rather
than simply nodding. Would you say, yes, rather than
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
prop
18 July 2024
have a much stronger protections for whistleblowers than
we do and, indeed, I mentioned this in the House of
Commons yesterday: we do need a much more robust system
to enable and persuade and encourage and support people
coming forward when they see that lies are being told.
Then lastly, number 6, if we scroll down, please, to
summarise, you say in paragraph 156 that you think that
the idea of mutualisation of the Post Office, which you
describe as radical, might offer a productive way
forwards.
Yes, the Post Office Network is really important for
‘our society, our country and our economy, and
subpostmasters, in my experience, are cornerstones of
our community, and I actually argued at the time -- the
idea came from the National Federation of SubPostmasters
but it reflected parties that my party had put in the
Coalition Agreement, that we should look at mutual
models and so, although it wasn't in any briefing, it
wasn't from officials, I put into the Postal Services
Bill, I think it was clause 7, the enabling power for,
in the future, the Post Office to be mutualised, and
that would mean that subpostmasters were in control and
there would be no such thing as POL.
And, as we look forward, the Post Office is so
important, the subpostmasters and their community, we
170
simply nod?
Yes. Yes, I did receive some letters.
Thank you. You sent number of letters in response?
Yes, I did.
You told the Inquiry that these letters in response were
drafted by officials and you examined them and signed
them, was the usual process?
Yes, that's right. There would be a file of letters in
my red box, between 20 and 25, and I would sign them --
yes, essentially, I would sign them most nights.
Those letters would cover a wide range of subjects, not
simply postmasters?
Oh, a huge number of subjects, as I say in paragraph 14
of my evidence, I was responsible for a range of things
from employment affairs to trade, to competition policy,
consumer affairs and, yes, I had a large variety of
issues and, within Royal Mail and Post Office in the
postal affairs umbrella, there were a number of other
issues raised, not just Horizon.
Of course. Would you always just sign the letters, or
might you sometimes raise matters with officials that
you'd like checked?
Very occasionally I wouldn't sign them. That was very
unusual but, occasionally, I wouldn't sign them.
So far as the letters to MPs about postmasters were
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
concerned, were many of those pro forma?
Broadly speaking, that's true. But they -- there was
always a little bit of difference but they followed the
same lines, the sort of things that Mr Beer has been
talking about.
Precisely, and Mr Beer showed you the letter to Karen
Lumley MP?
Yes.
Might we just look at that again, just very briefly.
That's UKGI00013913. That's a good example, just to see
the format that it takes.
If we could just focus it, thank you, and scroll up,
if we can. So, essentially, thanking you for the
letter, is the first paragraph, and then the issues are
operational and contractual, and the Minister and the
Department cannot intervene in cases which are sub
Jjudice or where court action had been determined,
essentially confirming what you said earlier: that the
Minister could not respond to individual cases of
subpostmasters, individual court cases.
That's true.
Then there's mention there of the blame on Horizon, then
the next paragraph is how widespread Horizon operates.
Next one is the testing of Horizon, and so on.
I think I should say, to be as helpful as possible, that
173
The second is her history of being postmaster at
Worstead, leaving Hertfordshire and becoming
a postmaster, the finding of £18,000 missing from her
office, reduced to £11,000 and she's now facing a trial
at Norwich Crown Court accused of theft and false
accounting. She says, in the next paragraph:
"I have never taken a penny from that post office
but the prosecutors from the Post Office do not believe
me [essentially there saying that there were Post Office
prosecutors there], hence the trial. I was aware some
time ago that the figures were wrong during a weekly
balance -- some £4,000 appeared to be missing. I tried
to find the missing amount without success, and due to
the fact that the [Post Office] helpline were less than
helpful decided to roll over the figures hoping that
an error notice would be issued from Chesterfield and
the matter resolved. This did not happen and for some
reason the figures just seemed to get larger.
"Post Office Counters are adamant that there are no
issues with any part of their IT systems and are
demanding that I pay back the apparent missing money as
well as face a trial."
If we could go over to the next page, which
I believe is blank, and then to that final page, and
this is the fourth paragraph on that page:
175
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
18 July 2024
I think -- and I haven't analysed them in huge detail
because there weren't that many, but there were some
before I met Sir Alan, some just after, and some after
I'd replied to him.
Yes.
And I think you'll see a little bit of difference in the
replies that my officials drafted.
Sure. I don't suppose you recollect sending a letter
concerning a Mrs Allison Henderson to Norman Lamb MP, do
you?
No.
Right. Mrs Henderson sent a letter to Mr Lamb and asked
that it go to the relevant minister and that letter was
then forwarded to Vince Cable initially, but then it
came to you. Can we have look at Mrs Henderson's
letter, which is POL00294731. That's the covering
letter from Norman Lamb who was your successor in fact,
wasn't he?
Yes, he was.
This forwards the letter of Mrs Henderson to Vince
Cable, as we can see there, but it eventually came to
you. If we go to the next page, we see the substance of
Mrs Henderson's letter, and then if we could scroll up,
it's addressed to Mr Lamb, it's November 2010. The
first paragraph is the reason for Mrs Henderson writing.
174
"My office surprisingly escaped the last round of
closures, but now instead of having to pay me
a redundancy sum, my reputation has been wrecked and
I face the prospect of a possible prison sentence, heavy
fine, or some other criminal punishment plus having to
pay of the Post Office a large sum of money. Money that
was never taken from the office, but just seemed to
vanish into cyberspace."
Your reply to that is UKGI00013863. Could we put
that up, please. Might we try also to put up the letter
to Karen Lumley MP next to it, which is UKGI00013913.
Thank you. Now, we can see the similarities between
the letters but there are also some important
differences. We see the first paragraph is thanking as,
before, and the issues raised paragraph, the first four
lines are the same in each letter. But then there's
further detail added in relation to Mrs Henderson's case
that I'll come back to.
We then see at the third paragraph "The Horizon
computerised accounting system operates", and we see
that at the bottom of the page on Mrs Henderson's
letter. If we scroll up on both letters, on the final
paragraph -- yes, thank you -- we see the Horizon system
was tested and we see the Horizon system was tested as.
the first paragraph on the second page of
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Mrs Henderson's letter.
As regards ongoing performance, we see the second
paragraph on both, and then the system is based on the
principles of double entry bookkeeping. So very
similar.
But if we could please just go back to just
Mrs Henderson's letter on the screen now, and to the
second main paragraph on the first page. If we just
focus in on that second main paragraph in
Mrs Henderson's letter, on the right-hand side of the
screen:
"The issues raised in your letter are, however,
operational
That's great, thank you very much:
"The issues raised in your letter are, however,
operational and contractual matters between Post Office
Limited and Mrs Henderson and I should make clear that
neither I nor the Department can intervene in cases
which are sub judice or where court action had been
determined.”
Essentially consistent with your evidence this
afternoon. However, it goes on:
"I understand that Mrs Henderson was charged to
appear at Norwich Crown Court on 15 December 2010.
further understand that she pleaded guilty to false
177
all of the postmasters and mistresses who have been so
badly affected by this miscarriage of justice, and this
clearly would not have helped.
No. I asked you at the start whether, whilst officials
wrote letters for you, would you sometimes raise things
if you thought you might have to be careful about
things, and so on? Did you raise anything in this
instance?
No, I didn't.
Why would such a point-scoring comment be included in
a letter from your Department, essentially saying,
“Look, this woman is complaining about Horizon but when
she went to court she didn't"? Why would
a point-scoring comment of that nature be included in
a letter from your Department?
I don't know.
It might be viewed, mightn't it, as siding with Post
Office?
It can certainly be interpreted that way. Absolutely.
Did you think at the time it was right to send a letter
like that?
I genuinely can't remember. I can't recall signing this
letter and, if it gave offence to Mrs Henderson,
I apologise to her.
Do you know where that information came from about her
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
18 July 2024
accounting (POL having dropped a charge of theft) and
the court imposed a sentence of a Community Penalty
Order with unpaid work of 200 hours and £1,500 costs.
Mrs Henderson also repaid the shortage and,
I understand, at no time during the case were any
problems with POL's Horizon IT system raised by
Mrs Henderson, or separately identified.”
So, in this case, in Mrs Henderson's letter, it does
comment on an individual case. It gives the
circumstances of her pleading guilty and, moreover, goes
‘on to say that she didn't say anything about Horizon; do
you accept that, Sir Ed?
That's what it says in the letter.
Indeed. Would you accept that the comment has the
effect of saying that, well, while Mrs Henderson may be
alluding to the unreliability as the cause of her
problems in the letter to you, Mr Norman Lamb MP, she
didn't do so in the proceedings against her when it
really mattered?
Well, I assume, when my officials drafted that, that was
what they had in their mind, yes.
Yes, and you'd accept, would you, that such a comment
would be likely to undermine the trust that Norman Lamb,
her MP, might have in her sincerity?
Yes, I feel very sorry for Mrs Henderson and, frankly,
178
not saying anything about Horizon?
No.
Well, can we please just look at the judgment of the
Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the case of
Hamilton & Others, which is POLO0113278, and the first
part of this judgment I'd like to look at is
paragraph 116, which is at page 29 of the judgment.
Here we are. Could we scroll up just a bit so we
can see what's beneath that paragraph as well. That
will really help. Thank you. That's perfect.
"The appellant Allison Henderson pleaded guilty to
false accounting and POL offered no evidence on the
charge of theft. Before agreement was reached tot hat
effect, POL's prosecuting lawyer gave instructions to
counsel that a plea to false accounting on the basis
that Horizon was at fault would not be acceptable. In
her case it is conceded that:
"It was improper to make the acceptability of her
basis of plea conditional on her making no issue of
Horizon;
"Since the theft charge that been dropped, [Post
Office] could no longer advance a case that she had
stolen any money, and it should have been open to her to
suggest that there was no actual loss and she had only
covered up a shortfall created by Horizon.”
180
(45) Pages 177 - 180
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
If we could then move forward six pages, please, to
paragraph 156. If we could see the whole of that page,
thank you. That's enough. Here we see more details in
relation to Mrs Henderson's case. There are the
circumstances of her plea, as reflected in your letter.
At 157, we see that, in fact, Mrs Henderson denied
theft, and this is five lines in:
but accepted that she was contractually obliged
to make good any discrepancies and was making efforts to
do so, In an amended, signed defence statement, served
on 16 November 2010, Mrs Henderson said that it was her
belief that any discrepancy:
“was a result of a malfunction of the Horizon
computerised accounting system ... any discrepancy could
have been discovered by the Post Office auditor", and
so on.
If we go further down, please, so that records what
was in her defence statement and gives the lie to what
was said in your letter just from the outset, as it
were, Sir Edward, and we then see, though, in
paragraph 159 that, at the end of September 2010,
Mr Wilson wrote to an investigator, essentially saying
that a plea on the basis of Horizon unreliability would
not be acceptable.
If we go down to the next paragraphs, please, and at
181
It looks that way.
Yes, and, Sir Edward, you signed it without question as
well, didn't you?
Indeed, and I apologise for that. I have to say, when
you are signing letters, you are working on the basis
that people are telling you the truth and that's the
only way that Government can work. It's one of the
reasons why we need a duty of candour. It is shocking
that people have misled ministers, misled
subpostmasters, above all.
I'm sure you can, but can you understand the hurt that
must have caused Mrs Henderson?
Of course I can, and I apologise to her.
Can I ask you this question about the more general
statement you have made: was it appropriate/is it
appropriate for a Department to only go to, for example,
Post Office for information, when it's Post Office that
is being challenged?
I think what comes through what you've just shown me is
that I think if departments are quoting court cases,
they should go back to the court case.
MR MOLONEY: = Thank you, Sir Ed.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Moloney.
Who is next?
Questioned by MS PAGE
183
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
18 July 2024
160, he says it in terms:
"Clearly if there were to be a plea to false
accounting but on the basis that the Horizon system was
at fault then that would not be an acceptable basis of
plea for the prosecution."
Then there is discussion.
It was absolutely plain that Mrs Henderson was
raising Horizon all the way through this case and what
was in your letter was a complete travesty, you can see
now, can't you?
What you've shown me is quite shocking --
Yes.
- and, clearly, I was asked to sign a letter which was
clearly wrong. I didn't know that at the time,
I believed the letter to be true.
Plainly, the only checks that were done were with Post
Office, weren't they?
It looks that way.
Post Office did not tell the officials the truth, did
they; they can't have done, can then?
From what you've shown me they can't have done.
But it looks like officials were more than happy,
without question, to include a completely untruthful
slur on Mrs Henderson in the letter in order to
undermine her position?
182
MS PAGE: It's me sir, thank you.
Mr Davies, on the subject of lies, this lie
originated in what the Inquiry knows as the Ismay
Report. It goes like this:
"The integrity of Horizon is founded on its
tamper-proof logs, its realtime backups and the absence
of ‘backdoors’, so that all data entry or acceptance is
at branch level, and is tagged against the log-on ID of
the user. This means that ownership of the accounting
is truly at branch level.”
Mr Beer has taken you to the way that that lie found
its way into the Whitehead briefing to you, and it was
a copy and paste from a Post Office briefing, which was
a copy and paste from the Ismay Report. The rest of the
Whitehead briefing was really aimed at persuading you to
fob Sir Alan off; do you agree?
I think they wanted me to just listen and not ask
questions, yes.
In effect, the officials closed ranks with the Post
Office against the JFSA, and the subpostmasters, would
you agree with that?
It's really clear that the officials were following the
line from Post Office Limited, that is really clear in
the way you've described the Ismay Report finding its
way into what was sent to me.
184
(46) Pages 181 - 184
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 report was commissioned, the Ismay Report, by David
Smith, who you met with regularly, and Mr Smith was
also, as Mr Beer said, keeping a close eye on the Misra
trial, which started a few days after the meeting that
you had with Sir Alan.
(The witness nodded)
Mr Smith was delighted with his team for securing the
conviction against Mrs Misra. He apparently, or at
least the team apparently, believed that it vindicated
Horizon that Mrs Misra had been convicted; did you ever
raise the JFSA complaints directly with David Smith when
you met him?
This is an interesting point. When I got the letter to
Sir Alan Bates of 7 December, which was essentially my
response to the questions he'd asked at the meeting,
which I'd asked to be followed up and checked, I'm
assuming, because it would have been my normal practice,
that I would have discussed that with either an official
or with a member of Post Office, in this case David
Smith.
I have racked my memory to see whether that was
raised, and I assume I did it, but I cannot remember the
precise meeting or the precise discussion.
How regularly were you meeting with him at that sort of
time, in the latter end of 2010?
185
roundabout way.
If we go, please, to page 7 and if we zoom in at the.
bottom of the letter, we can see how he raises it.
Penultimate paragraph in the final sentences:
"I know that the Horizon system has had a great
amount of problems since its introduction, and the
majority of subpostmasters have blamed it as a defence
in court cases."
Then this:
"I also gather that access to the system is possible
remotely through the Post Office's network."
It seems that that has been picked up by
Mr Whitehead because, if we could then, please, go to
POL00417094, he sends an email to Post Office following
up on that. If we look at the bottom of page 1 going
into page 2, there's the email where he picks up on it.
Thank you. It's 26 November, and he says:
"Mike
"Thanks.
"Re the Lord/Misra case, can we quote POL as
categorically stating that there is no remote access to
the system or to individual branch Horizon terminals
which would allow accounting records to be manipulated
as JFSA claims?"
So it's very specifically about the Misra case; do
187
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
18 July 2024
A. I genuinely don't remember, I don't think it was that
week. Most of my meetings at the time at postal affairs
were to do with the Bill and the Royal Mail Group, but
I remember meeting him on one or two occasions. He was
not a frequency attendee.
Q. Can!--sorry.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I don't want either Sir Ed or you to be
on a false premise here. My recollection is that
Mr Smith's tenure as Managing Director ended in 2010 but
I stand to be corrected.
MS PAGE: You're quite right, sir.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I wouldn't want Sir Edward to think there
were many, many months when he was in post, that is all.
MS PAGE: No, you're absolutely right, sir. He was only
there for a short time during the period but, obviously,
covering this period of autumn 2010.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly, yes.
MS PAGE: CanI then just turn to the letter that you wrote
to Jonathan Lord and the background to that, Jonathan
Lord being Ms Misra's MP. Mr Lord wrote to you about
the Misra case and, if I can bring that back up, please,
it's POL00004279. I haven't been able to find a very
good copy of this letter but one of the points that is
raised within it is remote access, albeit in a slightly
186
you see that?
A. Ido.
Q. Your reply to Mr Lord dealt with remote access in a very
similar way to the letter that was written to Sir Alan,
touching on the same subject which has just been shown
to you by Mr Beer. Both of those letters were based on
the wording from the POL briefing that you received. So
to save time, I'll simply give the reference for the
letter to Mr Lord. It's SMISO000268, at page 3 and at
least the passage on remote access has that same
categorical refusal to accept it:
"POL also categorically states that there is no
remote access to the system or to individual branch
terminals, which would allow accounting records to be
manipulated in any way.”
So that same wording is used as in the letter to
Sir Alan?
Now, that letter will have been received by Mr Misra
when Mrs Misra was in jail, because it was forwarded on
from Mr Lord and you can imagine how that would have
broken his heart.
A. It must have been dreadful for him.
Q. An interesting point is, on the same day as the Post
Office briefing was sent, which that letter was based
on, so this is 2 December 2010, there seems to have been
188
(47) Pages 185 - 188
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
A
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
another communication going on about these cases and, if
I can bring the reference up, it's POL00295322. This
seems to indicate that Mr Whitehead was asking further
questions from Post Office and it says this:
"Mike,
"Further to your query.”
So this is from Post Office to Mike Whitehead, so
evidently Mr Whitehead has raised a query -- confused,
of course, by the fact they are both called Mike -- but
evidently this is referring to Mr Whitehead raising
a query:
"Further to your query.
"The position is that [Post Office] acts as
a private prosecutor in relation to the specific
criminal case -- adhering to the Code for Crown
Prosecutors and all statutory or other rules in relation
to prosecuting offenders. It should be noted that
legislation gives the Director of Public Prosecutions
the right to take over and close down a case if they
regard that as appropriate.
“I hope that this assists."
If you look a little further down, you can see that
this is on an email chain related to "SAVE MY WIFE",
that's because that was the way Mr Misra had headed up
various emails that were then being sent around.
189
not put more forcefully and we didn't get the answers.
I had assumed that I was being told the truth.
Did you ever hear about the Misra case in any way other
than the letters that we've seen -- obviously not
recently, I'm talking about back in the day?
Back then?
Mm.
I can't remember beyond the letters. I'm sorry, I can't
be precise about what I knew about an individual case.
Do you remember hearing at all about Mrs Misra being
sent to prison when pregnant?
I genuinely don't, I'm sorry.
MS PAGE: Thank you. Those are my questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms Page.
Questioned by MR STEIN
MR STEIN: My name is Sam Stein. I'm going to ask you some
questions. I don't think I'll be that long.
Can we go to document RLIT0000251 and page 67 of
that document. If we can centre on 5(b), if we go
further down -- so page 67 of the document on
Relativity, please, internal pagination would be
page 287. Thank you.
Now, to explain, Sir Edward, this is a part of the
Infected Blood Inquiry report. The report itself was
delivered on 20 May this year. You'll see there at 5(b)
191
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
prpo>r
18 July 2024
So, clearly, it seems that, whilst seeking some
information about the Misra case, there was also
a question raised about whether or not these were
private prosecutions; do you think you asked that
question?
No.
Where do you think that might have come from?
I don't know, presumably within ShEx.
It's a telling question, isn't it, given that most
people at this time -- most of the evidence we've had is
that people outside of Post Office, and sometimes even
people inside Post Office -- it may surprise you to hear
that even Ms Vennells claims that she didn't know that
Post Office was forming private prosecutions at this
time, and yet clearly somebody has asked the question
and been given the answer. Why do you think that didn't
filter out?
I don't know. I find quite a lot of things I've been
reading both shocking and surprising.
The key thing is that people were being sent to prison
by a state-owned entity and that should have demanded
real scrutiny, shouldn't it?
It should, indeed.
It just doesn't seem to have happened, does it?
Well, I am disappointed that the questions I asked were
190
the part that I'm going to quote, starting with the
heading for that paragraph, "Ending a defensive culture
in the Civil Service and government".
Now, this is before the King's Speech, which you
replied to yesterday, and it's the report in relation to
infected blood, whereby Government lines were kept for
many, many years, undisturbed by investigation. Okay?
So 5(b) says this:
“If, on review, the Government considers that it is
sufficient to rely on the current non-statutory duties
in the Civil Service Code, it should nonetheless
introduce a statutory duty of accountability on senior
civil servants for the candour and completeness of
advice given to Permanent Secretaries and Ministers, and
the candour and completeness of their response to
concerns raised by members of the public and staff."
Yesterday in the Commons you explained that, on
behalf of the Liberal Democrats, you welcome the
promised Hillsborough Law, with its statutory Duty of
Candour on public officials. But you go on to say this:
"But we urge the Government to go further in this
area."
For the moment, then, let's just pull two pieces
together. You can see that, from the Infected Blood
Inquiry Report, that the reference to the Duty of
192
(48) Pages 189 - 192
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
candour is not only in relation to candour itself,
ie tell the truth, which might be thought as a basic
minimum, but also for completeness of advice.
I've got a feeling you're going to agree with my
next question.
From the evidence and the questions that you've been
asked today, you can see that there is a need for
completeness of advice to include making sure that
advice is right, not that you are being told what people
believe is the truth because another entity tells it so.
In other words, there's got to be something that
actually looks into this; do you agree?
I do agree. Strongly.
Now, how to do that is not easy. Government needs to be
able to sort out that the difference between someone
that refers to the passing UFO -- forgive me, any extra
terrestrials watching -- but it might be a different
question to looking into the issues that relate to
an organisation which is prosecuting its own people, and
there there needs to be some type of body that is
capable of carrying out investigation.
That would have to be backed up with some power, in
other words, some powers to conduct an investigation and
for other people to answer those questions. Do you
again agree?
193
scandals and we restore the public trust in the system.
The system has clearly failed on a most shocking way and
has to be reformed, root and branch.
That must be done in timely fashion.
Peter Holmes was a branch manager, Jesmond branch of
the Post Office. He was convicted in 2010, not long
before you took up your post. He had been a police
officer in Jesmond. His area was his beat. He had had
a hotel there. His great love in life was, with his
family, taking drives out to the country. He was
a modest man, who wanted to work to support his family
and provide a service in the area, and hence he was
a branch manager at a post office.
I mention timeliness of investigation: he died in
2015; his name was cleared in 2021. Do you see what
I mean?
I absolutely do. I mean --
Not only must there be an investigation, consideration
of these matters that are serious, but it must be done
so that where there is wrong, that wrong is identified.
Absolutely.
I mean, I hope you don't mind, Sir Wyn: I have three
constituents I'm representing now whose lives have been
very severely affected by this scandal. I'm obviously
not going to name names but, listening to their stories,
195
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
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18 July 2024
A. Yes, although I'm -- for clarification, can you say
a little bit more about what you're proposing?
Q. Well, Government is going to have to consider a way of
not only looking into things but also getting answers.
A. (The witness nodded)
Q. That may need a power of compulsion that the courts
have, in order to call for evidence and documents,
perhaps instruct experts. So do you understand that,
from all of the evidence that you've given today, the
sorts of questions that you've been asked, you need to
go further than just making sure that officials are
telling what they think is the truth; you need to look
into it?
A. I agree with that.
Q. And to look into it, you're going to have to have some
power to get some answers.
A. Yes. I mean in the way, for example, a select committee
has powers to call evidence and force people and call
for papers, and to cross-check between what witnesses
are saying. On a matter that's as serious as this, when
people are being prosecuted, losing their livelihoods,
their homes and being so appallingly affected, there
absolutely has to be those powers and that ability.
I mean, if I was in Government looking at this,
I would want to make sure we'd learn from these various
194
like the one you've just spoken about, like so many,
justice demands that we change the systems to make sure
this can't happen again.
Q. Agreed.
Sir Edward, you're not in Government. You are now
the leader of the third largest party in Government.
You have increased weight and increased influence in
Government. Will you use that weight in influencing
Government to try and push through, so that there is
something done in this area, a duty of candour plus, in
other words take it that step further?
A. Yes, I hope when Sir Wyn finalises his report, alongside
the Hillsborough recommendations, the Contaminated Blood
Scandal recommendations and others, the Government
implements those recommendations and, if it does, it
will have the full support, indeed we will champion
them. And I mentioned earlier another reform that we
are championing, namely an office for the whistleblower
because I do think that's another important element of
reforms. There are many we need to make. We can't just
rest at legislating for duty of candour, important
though that is.
Q. Yesterday you mentioned the question of whistleblowers
and stronger protections. What we have seen here within
the Post Office Inquiry is that, for many, many years,
196
(49) Pages 193 - 196
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
subpostmasters were not brought within whistleblower
protection by the Post Office.
A. (The witness nodded)
Q. Now, we think that that is because that they were agents
of the Post Office and didn't have employee status
within the legislation. There are many people that work
as agents, there are many people that work as
consultants that are not protected by the whistleblower
legislation. That is another area that I believe, you
may well agree, needs concern, needs attention and needs
change: do you agree?
A. Yes, lagree.
MR STEIN: Thank you, Sir Edward.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: The last series of questions, I believe.
Questioned by MS WATT
MS WATT: Thank you, sir.
Sir Ed, I ask questions on behalf of the NFSP.
I think, obviously, you mention the NFSP in your
statement and the former General Secretary, George
Thomson, and the Inquiry has heard what he had to say
about his position on Horizon.
I want to ask you, though, about some of the other
representative bodies or unions that you met with to
find out what you gleaned about Horizon there. At
paragraph 28 of your statement you say you met with the
197
Q. It didn't occur to you to ask, given that these people
working in Crown post offices were actually Post Office
employees and, effectively, civil servants?
A. Well, all I'd been told -- and it's there in the Mike
Whitehead submission -- that the Crown Post Office
weren't reporting any problems with the system.
MS WATT: Thank you, those are my questions.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms Watt.
Is that it, Mr Beer?
MR BEER: Sir, it is.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Sir Ed, for making
a full witness statement and for answering a great many
questions, both before lunch and after lunch today.
I'm very grateful to you for so doing.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: We'll resume again at 9.45 with
Ms Swinson; is that correct?
MRBEER: That's right, sir. Thank you very much.
(4.49 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 9.45 am the following day)
199
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
18 July 2024
CWU 12 times and the NFSP nine times in your two-year
tenure. The Inquiry heard evidence in June from the
CWU's Tony Kearns that, during the relevant period of
Horizon, there were approximately 9,000 employees in
Crown post offices using the Horizon system, and those
employees would likely -- perhaps not all -- but likely
have been CWU members.
It is accepted there were prosecutions and
dismissals arising from Horizon data of Crown Office
employees, and that there was an increase in
prosecutions for them, albeit not at the level of the
subpostmasters.
So what I wanted to ask you was: when the CWU came
to meetings with you, did they raise anything about
Horizon in those meetings?
I can't remember them doing that at all.
Do you remember if you ever asked them about Horizon?
No. The only thing I can remember, and it was
an informal meeting with George Thomson from the NFSP,
amongst many other issues because we were dealing with
the Bill and Network Transformation, and so on, I did
ask him about Horizon, although my brief had already
told me that they didn't agree with the JFSA, but
I wanted to hear it directly from him. So I asked him.
But I -- it didn’t come up at any CWU meeting.
198
INDEX
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PATRICK...
MCFADDEN MP (sworn)
Questioned by MR STEVENS ..
Questioned by MR STEIN ..... 73
Questioned by MS WATT .. 78
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR EDWARD ...... 84
JONATHAN DAVEY MP (sworn)
Questioned by MR BEER .. 84
Questioned by MR MOLONEY ... 171
Questioned by MS PAGE . 183
Questioned by MR STEIN .. 191
Questioned by MS WATT .. 197
200
(50) Pages 197 - 200
MR BEER: [15] 84/8
84/10 84/13 106/7
106/12 106/16 106/18
155/17 155/21 155/25I
156/2 171/5 171/14
199/10 199/18
MR MOLONEY: [2]
17147 183/22
MR STEIN: [4] 73/7
78/3 191/16 197/13
MR STEVENS: [14]
1/5 1/7 1/10 13/19
44/24 45/17 45/20
46/1 46/3 72/16 72/21
83/18 83/25 84/4
MS PAGE: [5] 184/1
186/11 186/15 186/19}
191/13
MS WATT: [5] 78/7
78/10 83/16 197/16
199/7
SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
[32] 1/6 13/6 13/11
13/14 13/17 43/23
44/22 45/19 45/22
46/2 72/13 73/3 78/5
78/8 83/17 83/20 84/3
84/9 106/11 106/17
155/20 156/1 171/13
183/23 186/7 186/13
186/18 191/14 197/14]
199/8 199/11 199/16
THE WITNESS: [3]
83/24 186/12 199/15
‘backdoors’ [2] 109/3)
184/7
"best [1] 143/1
‘double [1] 143/9
"expressed [1] 109/1
"for [1] 149/6
‘handled’ [1] 115/14
"Horizon [1] 156/18
"W[A] 122/15
‘Ido [1] 122/15
‘No [1] 66/25
‘presentational [1]
149/9
"proved [1] 108/25
‘refusing [1] 151/5
"sub [1] 161/14
"was [1] 181/13
1
4,500 [4] 178/3
1.18 [1] 106/13
1.20 [1] 106/8
1.7 billion [1] 40/9
10 [1] 28/7
10 April [1] 66/17
10 years [3] 142/15
156/14 158/13
10,000 [1] 41/13
10.00 [4] 1/4
100 [11] 27/6 29/3
36/14 108/3 108/6
108/8 113/16 126/8
133/20 139/8 146/10
101 [2] 36/9 122/10
102 [1] 122/10
104 [1] 148/21
108 [2] 108/20
108/21
109 [1] 109/7
11 October [1] 160/6
11,000 [4] 175/4
11,500 [1] 11/8
11.13 [1] 45/23
11.25 [2] 45/20 45/25
416 [2] 103/17 180/7
119 [1] 108/12
412 [3] 128/11 132/1
198/1
12 July [1] 131/24
12 months [1]
126/23
12.30 [1] 84/5
12.40 [4] 84/2
12.44 [1] 84/7
13 October [1] 63/16
134 [1] 103/17
138 [2] 103/17
103/22
14 [6] 29/4 54/25
58/20 69/13 85/5
172/13
14 years [4] 103/1
103/5 121/7 150/9
14,000 [4] 10/3 11/8
11/16 41/11
142 [1] 167/22
143 [1] 167/22
149 [1] 168/18
15 [3] 10/8 10/20
130/20
15 December [1]
177124
15 minutes [1] 171/9
15 October [1] 65/12
15-month [1] 15/6
150 million [1] 41/5
151 [1] 169/14
152 [1] 169/11
153 [1] 103/17
156 [2] 170/7 181/2
157 [1] 181/6
159 [1] 181/21
16 [2] 14/10 78/20
16 November [1]
181/11
160 [1] 182/41
47 [1] 129/13
18 [1] 147/20
18 July 2024 [4] 1/4
18,000 [1] 175/3
19 [1] 131/25
19 May [1] 124/2
1994 [2] 114/19
148/7
1997 [1] 86/2
2
2 December [1]
188/25
2 July [1] 4/14
2,500 [2] 10/2 38/16
2.10 [2] 106/9 106/15
20 [4] 15/8 86/14
97/3 172/9
20 July [4] 133/3
153/14 153/22 154/14
20 June [1] 2/11
20 May [6] 86/9
107/10 112/22 113/4
116/15 191/25
20,000 [1] 147/8
20-month [1] 87/2
20/25 [1] 120/9
200 hours [1] 178/3
2000 [4] 2/1 144/4
144/10 145/3
2001 [9] 93/25 94/22
95/10 95/11 96/8
116/17 141/23 143/23
144/3
2005 [1] 3/4
2006 [1] 3/6
2007 [4] 3/6 4/14
5/12 6/12
2008 [4] 4/21 17/5
18/5 48/22
2009 [9] 6/23 29/15
47/13 50/22 51/7
54/10 60/13 60/16
65/12
2010 [34] 4/17 17/6
80/23 86/9 107/10
108/18 108/23 110/5
110/11 112/19 112/22
125/14 126/21 133/3
145/18 145/20 145/24
149/5 150/14 150/15
153/13 153/14 158/8
160/6 164/14 174/24
177/24 181/11 181/21
185/25 186/9 186/17
188/25 195/6
2011 [3] 110/5
141/24 143/19
2012 [1] 86/9
2015 [4] 86/3 89/7
169/22 195/15
2017 [1] 86/3
2019 [1] 107/20
2021 [1] 195/15
2024 [2] 1/1 2/11
21 [1] 65/9
22 [2] 89/13 99/8
22 June [1] 126/20
23 [1] 1/21
24 [2] 90/10 122/9
24 February [1]
50/22
25 [4] 36/9 120/9
148/20 172/9
26 [2] 2/6 95/3
26 July [1] 137/23
26 November [1]
187/17
27 [A] 79/25
28 [4] 197/25
28 July [1] 153/13
28 June [1] 3/6
287 [1] 191/22
29 [4] 180/7
29 July [1] 140/6
2nd [1] 151/2
3 February [1] 86/9
3 March [1] 125/20
3 November [2]
60/13 60/15
3.25 [1] 155/22
3.40 [2] 155/19
155/24
30 [2] 108/20 108/21
30 April [1] 54/10
300 [1] 138/16
34 May [2] 116/12
145/24
36 [4] 28/7
37 [1] 30/23
39 [1] 64/16
4
4,000 [2] 41/11
175/12
4.40 [1] 171/12
4.49 [1] 199/19
40 [1] 15/7
41 [1] 167/2
42 [1] 167/6
43 [1] 167/19
44 [1] 168/16
45 [1] 168/18
47 [2] 85/14 85/15
5
5 June [1] 6/23
5 May [1] 3/6
5 million [1] 147/16
5 October [8] 108/18
108/23 110/11 149/5
149/20 150/14 150/15}
156/7
52 [2] 73/14 73/17
54 [1] 73/14
550 [1] 108/10
555 [1] 108/5
56 [1] 55/1
57 [4] 55/23
60-odd [1] 17/21
61 [1] 85/6
62 [3] 58/7 85/13
85/15
67 [2] 191/18 191/20
7
7 December [3]
160/15 164/14 185/14)
7 June [2] 125/13
126/19
7 October [4] 125/5
145/18 149/4 156/7
750 [1] 142/15
8
8 July [4] 131/9
145/20 150/24 151/11
9
9 February [1] 48/4
9 January [1] 47/13
9,000 [1] 198/4
9.45 [3] 1/2 199/16
199/20
90-odd [1] 39/15
91 [1] 99/9
92 [1] 103/7
94 [2] 89/14 106/20
95 [2] 90/5 106/20
96 [4] 108/12
97 [4] 1214/4
99 [1] 90/11
A
ABAT00000001 [1]
116/11
Abberstein [1] 135/9
ability [1] 194/23
able [9] 32/23 37/15
103/24 114/2 145/9
160/22 164/10 186/23)
193/15
about [166] 2/19 2/19
2/24 6/6 6/11 10/16
10/17 10/20 11/8 12/1
15/24 17/1 21/14
21/20 22/10 24/13
26/5 27/21 28/22
29/17 32/7 35/4 35/11
35/13 36/16 36/22
36/25 37/1 37/21
38/15 39/15 40/12
41/5 41/6 41/11 42/17
42/20 43/21 44/20
45/14 46/7 46/15
46/17 47/25 48/14
50/12 50/15 53/24
54/5 57/23 60/4 60/6
61/4 62/6 65/17 66/6
67/13 67/19 67/25
68/9 68/10 68/16
(61) MR BEER: - about
A
about... [104] 68/24
69/8 69/14 69/24 70/5
70/15 71/19 73/11
73/22 73/25 74/1 74/2
75/4 75/7 75/14 75/18
76/6 77/18 77/24
78/12 78/16 79/1
79/14 79/19 80/7 81/1
81/2 81/5 81/19 81/20
82/7 82/10 82/15
86/14 88/2 98/5
101/17 101/17 102/17}
102/22 106/24 107/6
108/10 108/16 110/12
111/13 111/24 112/15
113/13 115/5 118/12
118/22 119/8 121/13
122/23 123/3 123/12
125/21 136/9 136/10
137/10 138/2 140/7
142/1 144/19 146/11
147/3 147/13 147/22
148/8 150/2 150/10
155/12 162/1 164/5
167/12 168/21 171/11
172/25 173/5 178/11
179/6 179/12 179/25
180/1 183/14 186/21
187/25 189/1 190/2
190/3 191/3 191/5
191/9 191/9 191/10
194/2 196/1 197/21
197/22 197/24 198/14
198/17 198/22
above [3] 105/21
149/12 183/10
absence [1] 184/6
absolute [1] 27/9
absolutely [10] 27/23)
29/6 39/7 65/21
179/19 182/7 186/15
194/23 195/17 195/21
absolve [1] 82/20
abuse [2] 115/21
169/2
abused [2] 76/12
134/1
abuser [1] 74/25
accept [12] 40/18
57/24 67/3 81/8 82/18
101/14 108/9 118/13
178/12 178/14 178/22)
188/11
acceptability [1]
180/18
acceptable [3]
180/16 181/24 182/4
acceptance [1] 184/7I
accepted [5] 102/16
102/19 122/18 181/8
198/8
accepting [1] 152/21
access [10] 39/13
39/20 114/4 166/2
186/25 187/10 187/21
188/3 188/10 188/13
accordance [1]
44/10
accorded [1] 90/19
account [9] 19/11
19/15 85/19 122/25
144/24 145/7 145/11
158/4 159/10
accountability [3]
36/19 37/4 192/12
accountable [4] 20/4
36/13 87/17 133/19
accounting [16] 53/5
74/11 132/2 132/5
142/20 166/3 175/6
176/20 178/1 180/12
180/15 181/14 182/3
184/9 187/23 188/14
accounting’ [1]
151/8
accounts [6] 50/7
51/11 53/8 74/3
156/22 157/1
accredited [1] 143/3
accuracy [10] 2/23
2/25 65/17 110/13
120/15 127/14 137/1
151/10 157/3 157/15
accurate [7] 27/7
34/1 111/23 112/1
127/20 130/17 130/19)
accusation [1] 105/5
accusations [1]
151/7
accuse [2] 104/10
104/10
accused [2] 61/10
175/5
accusing [1] 105/6
achieve [1] 94/10
acknowledged [1]
70/3
across [7] 9/6 11/10
15/13 27/1 99/16
153/7 168/11
act [30] 2/1 2/3 2/4
12/13 25/11 25/17
31/23 37/7 67/6 71/1
81/16 82/16 83/12
93/25 94/22 95/9
95/11 95/18 95/20
96/1 96/8 100/22
100/24 101/2 143/23
144/3 144/4 144/10
145/3 147/10
acted [2] 121/14
139/25
acting [1] 15/12
action [13] 71/7
107/25 108/6 142/6
142/11 157/4 161/12
161/17 162/10 164/22)
165/3 173/17 177/19
actions [2] 36/13
36/19
active [1] 101/14
activity [1] 143/6
acts [3] 74/18 113/19
189/13
actual [4] 38/8 58/8
129/23 180/24
actually [9] 75/6 75/6
117/8 139/22 146/2
147/1 170/14 193/12
199/2
Adam [1] 65/5
adamant [1] 175/19
add [5] 22/7 111/2
143/18 149/21 167/13
added [4] 5/21 111/9
150/4 176/17
adding [1] 152/20
addition [1] 109/10
additional [5] 6/15
7/6 22/7 22/11 161/18
address [3] 51/2
114/20 115/16
addressed [9] 31/1
31/9 47/13 56/14
113/3 126/22 127/3
167/9 174/24
adhering [1] 189/15
adjourned [1] 199/20
Adjournment [1]
106/14
administration [3]
117/24 130/14 130/15}
admit [1] 113/24
adopt [4] 136/3 145/6I
161/5 161/14
adopted [2] 116/20
146/13
adopts [1] 144/24
advance [1] 180/22
advancement [1]
23/4
advantage [1] 73/4
advice [48] 15/24
22/7 22/11 25/24 28/2
28/4 30/1 30/8 31/3
33/4 33/9 33/17 87/22
92/6 98/23 100/12
100/17 100/19 111/16
112/9 119/10 119/17
119/18 119/23 122/6
122/7 122/13 123/14
123/21 123/24 128/17!
129/12 132/22 136/16}
137/8 137/8 141/10
149/2 150/5 153/24
154/11 161/20 162/2
162/4 192/14 193/3
193/8 193/9
advise [1] 161/11
advised [6] 93/14
99/19 99/21 144/15
154/12 161/10
Adviser [2] 22/25
23/11
advisers [3] 22/17
22/18 28/3
affairs [20] 1/25 6/17
9/25 10/11 10/19 14/3}
14/7 14/15 15/14
78/19 86/8 87/15
99/17 110/2 113/9
144/10 172/15 172/16}
172/18 186/2
affect [1] 140/15
affected [4] 57/8
179/2 194/22 195/24
affecting [2] 80/7
91/8
affects [1] 11/21
affirming [1] 53/8
afforded [1] 169/18
afraid [4] 89/5 107/25)
117/13 163/15
after [31] 3/14 4/21
13/11 23/24 37/22
55/12 57/17 58/21
59/6 59/17 60/11
67/20 69/13 69/23
75/21 85/9 90/12
101/9 109/14 138/10
146/10 148/2 148/5
149/8 150/18 159/14
163/23 174/3 174/3
185/4 199/13
afternoon [8] 40/1
78/10 84/8 106/16
106/19 150/18 155/18
177/22
afterwards [1] 85/8
again [29] 7/4 31/21
37/3 60/12 60/17
64/12 74/22 79/13
86/3 93/5 93/7 98/5
99/6 126/12 127/14
130/5 130/21 131/6
132/24 134/4 139/16
140/24 144/3 164/1
166/12 173/9 193/25
196/3 199/16
against [10] 10/15
90/9 96/12 105/9
151/3 161/12 178/18
184/8 184/20 185/8
age [1] 19/8
agencies [1] 3/24
Agency [1] 9/3
agenda [1] 27/22
agents [4] 42/21 44/3
197/4 197/7
ago [11] 18/13 44/16
66/4 103/1 103/5
109/12 119/8 146/5
150/9 153/13 175/11
agree [33] 38/20 39/8
40/13 41/22 73/4
74/19 87/14 100/6
104/12 115/24 116/8
117/3 123/9 132/19
135/16 136/2 136/20
152/3 152/6 154/2
155/7 163/22 184/16
184/21 193/4 193/12
193/13 193/25 194/14I
197/10 197/11 197/12)
198/23
agreed [7] 10/4 11/11
73/7 114/18 151/21
153/8 196/4
agreeing [4] 11/5
150/20 152/6 154/17
agreement [7] 10/5
40/25 41/2 91/12
95/25 170/17 180/13
ahead [1] 87/23
Aid [1] 109/24
aimed [1] 184/15
aims [1] 113/14
airspace [1] 8/19
Alan [58] 52/17 54/10)
54/15 54/20 55/7
55/12 56/1 56/14
56/24 63/16 64/22
65/4 65/12 90/15
107/21 108/13 109/14)
112/19 115/25 116/12!
119/3 121/13 121/20
122/14 122/17 123/3
123/21 123/23 125/5
125/24 136/10 136/17
143/19 143/25 144/14)
145/17 148/24 149/3
149/11 150/1 150/23
151/10 155/3 155/8
159/24 160/13 161/25)
163/3 163/24 164/9
165/18 166/17 174/3
184/16 185/5 185/14
188/4 188/17
Alan's [7] 107/8
112/21 118/1 122/18
124/22 145/19 153/14)
albeit [3] 4/17 186/25
198/11
all [83] 2/19 5/20
9/16 9/25 11/24 13/19I
15/19 19/14 20/11
20/14 21/12 21/17
23/4 23/17 25/9 25/10)
30/5 39/14 39/15
41/24 43/7 44/16
44/22 57/17 58/13
58/21 61/2 67/20
72/22 81/10 83/2
83/13 84/3 85/8 88/12
91/4 96/7 96/20 99/14I
99/17 100/19 105/21
110/17 113/23 115/8
117/13 118/7 118/21
(62) about... - all
A
124/23 126/4 129/10
130/1 134/22 135/15
136/4 138/17 142/14
142/23 143/5 144/6
146/10 148/11 152/9
152/16 157/7 160/21
161/24 163/24 168/11
171/19 171/20 179/1
182/8 183/10 184/7
194/9 198/6 198/16
199/4
allegation [2] 75/12
105/23
allegations [9] 13/2
52/19 63/23 64/4
64/24 71/7 74/15
74/16 77/9
allege [1] 137/16
alleged [3] 102/7
107/18 157/23
alleging [1] 105/9
Alliance [5] 113/3
117/1 120/22 126/24
152/24
Allison [2] 174/9
180/11
allocation [1] 7/19
allow [4] 114/25
166/3 187/23 188/14
allowed [4] 22/19
34/16 72/3 146/14
allowing [1] 169/8
allows [1] 82/20
alluding [1] 178/16
almost [5] 14/19
32/12 37/1 97/23
109/12
alone [4] 33/1 76/7
133/15 139/5
along [2] 49/25
125/22
alongside [2] 19/5
196/12
already [8] 16/3
26/16 38/4 66/15 76/5
113/5 132/15 198/22
also [26] 4/1 12/13
14/22 16/14 16/22
75/23 78/15 81/4
82/17 92/10 108/7
109/11 122/14 142/23)
160/7 164/5 166/1
176/10 176/13 178/4
185/3 187/10 188/12
190/2 193/3 194/4
although [11] 17/16
53/10 106/8 127/2
138/24 144/15 168/6
169/21 170/18 194/1
198/22
all... [35] 119/18
186/14 189/16 191/10)
Alun [1] 133/8
always [14] 6/8 7/7
12/8 16/1 32/12 45/14
69/9 69/12 94/16
128/25 142/20 162/1
172/20 173/3
am [29] 1/2 1/4 2/18
2/23 45/23 45/25
48/21 52/24 56/7 76/7
83/22 89/18 97/1
104/13 110/4 113/8
114/10 115/17 115/17)
118/14 122/13 130/15)
132/4 132/14 132/19
133/10 133/15 190/25)
199/20
amend [1] 22/5
amended [1] 181/10
amongst [3] 99/18
121/8 198/20
amount [3] 96/4
175/13 187/6
analyse [2] 22/5
114/5,
analysed [1] 174/1
analysis [1] 31/3
angered [1] 149/19
angry [1] 67/4
annoyed [2] 66/19
66/20
another [9] 29/18
42/6 111/6 127/7
189/1 193/10 196/17
196/19 197/9
answer [25] 16/12
36/15 68/24 77/12
77/16 79/22 104/13
1271/6 127/7 127/9
127/10 127/15 128/14}
128/23 129/6 129/16
129/24 130/9 130/22
131/2 131/19 136/6
143/17 190/16 193/24}
answered [2] 35/13
125/2
answering [4] 100/8
104/3 130/12 199/12
answers [13] 2/22
96/23 100/5 100/9
100/14 101/2 101/6
102/16 102/19 115/15)
191/1 194/4 194/16
Anthony [1] 86/19
any [85] 2/24 4/8
7/18 13/1 14/2 15/21
23/13 26/8 27/14
27/25 32/19 38/11
43/19 44/8 44/9 45/3
45/17 46/10 48/7
51/15 51/16 55/6
57/23 63/13 63/18
64/24 66/1 67/9 68/20
70/9 74/6 78/18 80/3
80/16 83/14 88/7
88/25 89/19 96/17
96/20 97/4 98/21
105/9 106/21 106/25
110/25 114/8 114/15
117/2 117/5 118/10
119/18 120/9 120/11
121/17 122/16 123/14
129/3 130/18 134/24
138/18 139/19 140/3
141/9 147/7 148/8
149/2 157/2 162/8
163/8 163/10 163/16
166/4 170/18 175/20
178/5 180/23 181/9
181/12 181/14 188/15}
191/3 193/16 198/25
199/6
anyone [5] 13/11
43/22 72/24 114/1
165/9
anything [17] 9/6 9/8
22/5 31/15 32/3 32/8
59/22 64/1 102/22
114/16 136/23 161/18}
163/22 178/11 179/7
180/1 198/14
apologies [1] 62/19
apologise [7] 118/24
119/11 121/12 122/17
179/24 183/4 183/13
apologised [1]
117/14
apology [1] 117/15
appalling [2] 167/25
168/9
appallingly [1]
194/22
apparent [2] 132/19
175/21
apparently [3] 82/20
185/8 185/9
Appeal [1] 180/4
appeals [1] 109/4
appear [6] 16/7 61/9
140/10 140/12 152/11
177/24
appeared [2] 115/19
175/12
appears [5] 26/18
85/7 136/21 140/14
158/22
appellant [1] 180/11
applicant [1] 147/12
applies [1] 105/23
apply [4] 29/12 94/11
94/17 105/24
appointed [5] 4/12
4/21 5/12 7/3 25/22
appointment [2] 5/14
13/22
appreciate [5] 71/25
114/10 116/25 120/22
169/1
approach [3] 118/4
161/6 161/14
approached [1]
133/4
appropriate [10]
45/18 102/20 114/8
118/18 118/23 119/16)
168/13 183/15 183/16}
189/20
appropriate/is [1]
183/15
appropriateness [2]
120/15 127/15
approval [1] 129/17
approved [1] 117/21
approves [2] 133/23
139/11
approximately [1]
198/4
April [2] 54/10 66/17
Arbuthnot [10] 60/14
60/14 60/21 60/22
60/23 61/21 64/3
66/16 66/16 66/16
Arbuthnot's [1]
62/10
are [168] 2/13 2/15
2/21 6/1 8/1 15/14
18/10 20/4 20/6 22/18}
22/19 23/2 23/3 23/13)
25/13 25/14 25/19
25/20 27/19 27/20
27/22 27/23 29/22
32/16 33/1 33/3 33/11
34/13 34/20 35/13
36/16 37/25 38/9 41/6
41/14 43/5 43/7 43/11
43/17 44/16 45/10
47/19 49/19 50/14
51/10 55/24 57/7 61/6
63/8 63/13 63/23
65/18 65/25 68/2 69/9
69/12 70/25 72/22
74/9 74/11 74/15
74/15 74/18 75/7
76/12 76/12 82/5
82/12 83/18 84/20
85/17 85/20 85/25
99/13 101/1 102/6
102/6 103/17 103/24
106/1 108/5 113/10
114/15 114/20 115/3
115/14 116/8 119/21
120/3 120/4 120/24
123/12 124/12 124/17I
126/5 129/17 132/4
135/3 135/23 138/19
138/21 138/22 139/5
140/18 142/2 142/6
142/18 142/23 143/3
143/6 146/3 146/11
146/19 147/22 148/13}
148/18 153/17 153/18}
155/7 155/10 156/25
159/24 162/5 162/14
162/16 162/18 162/19}
164/18 164/21 166/12)
166/24 167/22 169/13)
169/13 170/5 170/13
1471/5 17117 173/14
173/16 175/19 175/19)
175/20 176/13 176/16)
177/12 177/15 177/19}
180/8 181/4 183/5
183/5 183/6 183/20
189/9 191/13 193/9
194/11 194/20 194/21
195/19 196/5 196/18
196/20 197/6 197/7
197/8 199/7
area [15] 10/13 11/18
12/8 13/24 14/12
17/11 24/9 39/23
47/20 119/24 192/22
195/8 195/12 196/10
197/9
areas [6] 14/5 14/6
14/7 15/2 15/20 92/14)
aren't [2] 11/20 14/25
argue [1] 167/7
argued [3] 159/11
159/12 170/14
arisen [1] 132/5
arises [1] 167/24
arising [2] 125/9
198/9
arm [3] 165/5 168/1
169/8
arm's [31] 1/24 18/25
36/12 36/20 36/23
40/14 41/19 70/12
70/20 70/25 81/6 81/9
82/17 82/18 82/19
87/11 89/24 90/19
94/3 95/6 95/12
116/20 122/2 129/1
136/4 143/15 146/13
162/8 167/21 168/2
168/12
arm's-length [18]
36/23 41/19 70/12
70/20 70/25 81/6 81/9I
82/17 82/18 87/11
94/3 116/20 122/2
129/1 136/4 167/21
168/2 168/12
arms [3] 31/24 41/20
62/12
arms-length [1]
31/24
arose [1] 63/7
around [10] 7/12 9/3
9/20 38/11 50/1 59/8
61/24 142/17 165/19
189/25
arrange [1] 124/15
arranged [3] 149/8
149/17 149/17
arrives [1] 29/21
(53) al... - arrives
article [1] 51/8
articles [2] 73/22
74/9
articulate [1] 164/9
as [277]
aside [1] 8/11
ask [45] 1/21 2/6
2/18 12/15 13/6 32/20
34/2 46/6 47/25 60/1
65/8 70/5 72/10 75/13
76/9 76/12 78/10
78/12 79/1 80/5 84/15)
89/21 91/17 106/23
110/11 112/15 126/12)
126/21 128/10 130/6
130/23 131/11 136/8
136/9 136/10 143/20
167/12 183/14 184/17
191/16 197/17 197/22)
198/13 198/22 199/1
asked [53] 35/15
44/25 49/4 52/18 53/6)
54/12 56/10 56/20
56/21 67/12 68/15
73/1 73/2 76/5 78/3
82/24 89/7 100/4
100/5 101/11 118/17
120/6 123/20 125/1
127/24 128/6 131/3
131/16 140/21 143/20)
145/15 148/23 149/24)
157/25 159/13 160/21
161/7 163/2 163/14
163/23 166/16 174/12)
179/4 182/13 185/15
185/16 190/4 190/15
190/25 193/7 194/10
198/17 198/24
asking [20] 5/6 54/5
59/19 76/7 81/17
91/15 102/24 105/17
111/22 115/18 116/3
118/14 121/4 123/23
125/16 128/21 152/21
165/9 165/15 189/3
asks [1] 116/1
aspect [3] 79/8 81/4
102/4
aspects [1] 9/14
Assembly [1] 132/1
asset [3] 42/23 43/17
146/14
assets [1] 43/19
assistance [1] 58/12
assistants [2] 39/5
39/9
assists [2] 57/6
189/21
associated [1]
114/13
assume [13] 44/14
93/18 94/15 94/16
104/15 105/17 111/41
112/14 119/22 129/10)
141/16 178/20 185/22)
assumed [11] 66/24
100/24 111/3 111/15
112/15 128/24 129/3
140/3 157/17 161/19
191/2
assumes [1] 105/16
assuming [4] 128/13
128/16 128/18 185/17)
assurance [1] 112/11
assurances [3] 77/23}
81/10 122/23
assured [2] 109/9
143/1
Astwood [1] 48/19
at [292]
atrocities [1] 139/12
atrocity [1] 133/24
atrocity/ies [1]
133/24
attached [4] 22/21
30/10 55/21 121/21
attachment [2] 52/4
52/16
attendee [1] 186/5
attendees [1] 159/24
attending [1] 1/14
attention [11] 10/10
29/10 29/23 124/20
124/24 124/25 126/15)
135/20 150/6 150/7
197/10
attitude [1] 146/8
Attorney [1] 96/21
attributed [1] 159/3
attributing [1] 166/22
audience [1] 116/6
audit [4] 109/3 143/5
147/18 156/24
auditor’ [1] 181/15
audits [1] 147/14
August [2] 158/8
169/22
August 2010 [1]
158/8
author [1] 139/21
Authority [1] 23/25
automotive [1] 8/19
autumn [2] 96/3
186/17
available [2] 19/24
143/4
average [1] 120/9
avoid [2] 91/12
162/22
aware [24] 6/1 27/10
53/14 61/25 62/2 90/1
90/6 96/10 96/13
96/21 101/25 102/11
106/24 107/5 107/17
107/22 108/1 124/12
125/3 125/3 132/4
132/14 140/18 175/10
away [4] 3/14 101/24
125/23 147/21
awful [3] 70/23 77/15
83/6
back [47] 3/13 3/16
12/1 19/15 29/2 29/5
44/23 49/23 51/15
53/2 53/8 56/8 56/24
64/10 68/11 73/9 74/6
TANT 74/23 74/25
75/10 77/11 77/14
82/15 90/12 96/8
97/23 107/13 115/1
121/7 123/7 125/17
126/14 137/6 145/3
145/17 150/17 157/11
159/22 163/18 175/21
176/18 177/6 183/21
186/22 191/5 191/6
backed [2] 143/6
193/22
background [6] 3/2
85/23 88/24 150/21
151/3 186/20
backups [1] 184/6
bad [1] 77/1
badly [1] 179/2
balance [4] 14/15
148/3 168/25 175/12
bank [3] 19/15 42/5
48/19
bankruptcy [3] 52/25
61/15 74/12
bankrupting [1]
147/19
Barely [1] 20/14
barriers [1] 114/3
base [2] 108/15
110/23
based [12] 18/11
20/18 24/21 26/1
26/13 119/17 143/9
160/1 164/4 177/3
188/6 188/24
basic [2] 165/4 193/2
basically [2] 8/1
29/19
Basingstoke [1]
160/1
basis [24] 12/13
25/15 25/21 25/22
36/4 37/14 38/1 43/22
83/4 94/4 95/16
117/15 119/23 128/17]
149/25 153/22 154/15}
163/8 180/15 180/19
181/23 182/3 182/4
183/5
Bates [23] 90/15
107/21 109/14 112/19}
116/12 117/15 121/20
123/13 125/25 136/10
136/10 136/17 136/18}
143/19 143/25 144/14}
145/17 149/11 150/23}
154/3 155/3 164/14
185/14
BBC [1] 169/22
be [252]
beat [1] 195/8
became [6] 8/15 9/22
16/4 26/11 37/10
159/5
because [122] 4/22
11/21 12/1 14/23 15/1
15/16 16/6 17/8 17/15)
18/6 18/9 18/14 19/7
23/17 24/23 25/3
25/13 27/19 30/14
31/22 31/24 32/14
33/13 34/2 34/8 35/17
36/22 37/4 38/16 41/6
44/15 45/15 46/21
46/25 53/2 54/4 54/23)
55/15 60/10 60/19
60/22 61/3 66/21
67/16 69/8 69/16
69/21 70/16 70/19
75/8 80/8 82/11 82/24I
83/5 85/11 87/25 97/7,
97/21 97/22 98/8 98/9
99/20 100/21 102/3
104/14 105/16 106/2
109/18 109/21 110/2
110/6 111/11 112/16
4117/7 117/12 118/11
119/12 120/23 121/6
123/6 123/12 123/20
123/22 129/1 129/3
132/9 138/23 139/21
140/2 143/22 144/20
145/4 146/8 146/12
149/13 149/17 150/8
152/22 153/6 153/8
154/4 154/9 154/20
154/21 159/12 160/15)
161/24 164/4 164/9
166/9 166/16 167/5
169/19 174/2 185/17
187/13 188/19 189/24,
193/10 196/19 197/4
198/20
become [10] 10/25
40/20 46/9 46/14
93/11 93/20 94/19
96/13 107/5 107/17
becoming [5] 64/5
123/17 144/9 144/17
175/2
been [176] 5/17 7/7
9/21 9/24 10/4 10/13
17/16 17/17 18/7 18/8}
18/8 22/2 25/3 25/25
27/10 29/2 30/5 30/10
30/15 31/23 33/24
34/9 34/12 37/6 40/11
41/11 42/4 42/5 42/12
42/14 43/13 47/11
47/12 48/6 48/13
48/13 49/5 50/10
50/16 52/24 52/25
53/3 53/11 55/3 55/22I
56/2 56/4 56/6 58/1
58/3 62/6 63/12 63/20)
63/25 64/13 65/4 65/5I
65/19 71/11 71/19
71/23 75/15 76/5 77/6I
81/4 81/15 82/2 93/13}
95/1 98/7 98/8 98/11
98/13 101/15 101/18
101/19 102/11 102/21
102/25 104/5 106/5
106/9 107/8 107/16
107/20 107/23 109/4
109/19 111/11 111/11
112/4 112/11 114/15
114/23 115/10 115/22)
119/1 119/7 119/22
121/6 124/8 124/25
126/15 126/18 128/16)
128/19 129/4 129/10
132/24 133/4 133/11
134/4 134/16 135/5
136/19 137/20 138/8
138/16 139/17 139/19)
140/9 140/10 140/11
140/19 140/25 141/17)
142/7 142/8 145/16
146/7 146/22 149/8
152/13 152/22 153/5
156/13 157/9 157/15
158/12 159/6 159/13
159/16 160/3 160/15
160/17 160/20 161/22)
163/12 164/22 166/13)
169/24 169/25 173/4
173/17 176/3 177/19
179/1 180/21 180/23
181/15 185/10 185/17)
186/23 187/12 188/5
188/18 188/22 188/25)
190/16 190/18 193/6
194/10 195/7 195/23
198/7 199/4
Beer [25] 83/25
84/12 84/14 85/14
95/24 101/7 102/24
104/3 111/14 112/14
117/6 130/1 145/8
149/21 152/20 161/23)
168/3 171/13 173/4
173/6 184/11 185/3
188/6 199/9 200/14
before [38] 1/20 5/5
5/14 5/17 9/21 23/14
23/17 37/10 40/24
54/14 55/18 63/5 63/7I
65/13 69/9 72/14
75/16 79/9 80/23
(64) article - before
B
107/2 111/19 120/6
125/4 129/23 129/24
130/2 150/16 166/8
174/3 176/15 180/13
192/4 195/7 199/13
beg [1] 144/5
beginning [7] 25/18
30/20 54/3 119/20
begins [4] 157/4
157/12 161/21 167/2
begs [1] 71/1
begun [1] 153/6
behalf [16] 78/11
84/15 88/18 113/9
115/13 115/17 125/21
126/7 128/6 155/1
164/18 165/2 171/10
behind [9] 11/6 49/2
126/3 133/13 135/8
135/19 135/25 137/5
146/25
being [81] 7/14 9/22
36/1 36/5 40/8 43/4
45/15 46/25 58/24
59/8 64/4 66/20 67/21
73/21 73/23 74/12
74/14 74/17 74/17
83/12 87/20 97/8
100/9 102/7 102/8
103/18 103/19 103/24
108/6 111/23 114/2
118/4 118/17 119/17
120/6 122/2 124/23
129/12 131/21 137/12)
137/14 140/24 143/1
148/8 148/22 148/23
150/1 155/10 156/17
157/15 157/17 158/3
158/17 158/18 160/18)
161/2 161/16 164/18
170/5 175/1 183/18
186/21 189/25 190/20}
191/2 191/10 193/9
194/21 194/22
belief [3] 2/14 85/18
181/12
believe [25] 13/4
17/21 41/9 46/13 47/9
48/12 60/3 60/4 60/10
64/17 68/16 68/20
72/23 86/20 103/9
105/3 105/7 117/1
117/4 122/15 175/8
175/24 193/10 197/9
197/14
before... [19] 106/19
121/22 124/21 124/21
123/11 154/22 154/23)
171/23 192/18 197/17)
11/12 12/2 14/4 14/20)
16/23 17/12 26/5 29/5)
76/12 77/9 78/25 82/5
believed [3] 104/11
182/15 185/9
believer [1] 168/8
believes [1] 138/3
below [1] 7/24
Bender [1] 20/9
55/24 135/13 180/9
benefit [5] 59/19
59/21 101/22 122/12
123/8
benefits [1] 19/12
benign [1] 81/25
BERR [2] 78/17
115/9
best [11] 2/13 12/25
21/24 85/18 111/15
112/9 126/5 129/5
better [1] 77/16
between [34] 1/24
3/6 11/9 14/15 40/19
40/25 41/15 42/13
79/6 79/10 86/2 86/9
88/20 90/20 92/3
95/21 105/25 108/5
108/12 134/10 137/3
142/3 154/6 167/21
168/17 172/9 176/12
beyond [1] 191/8
big [10] 9/19 17/1
18/17 18/22 19/2
92/24 98/10 148/6
167/24 168/7
bigger [1] 42/4
bill [12] 25/9 25/9
80/14 80/14 96/2 96/6)
98/6 98/9 110/8
170/20 186/3 198/21
billion [1] 40/9
Binley [13] 50/22
52/4 52/21 54/13 55/7
55/25 56/11 56/13
57/9 59/1 64/3 66/9
73/22
Binley's [1] 55/3
BIS [4] 87/7 130/23
158/7 158/8
bit [27] 4/20 5/4 7/8
7/12 9/1 17/25 24/22
25/6 25/12 28/2 30/22
59/8 71/17 71/17 80/5)
88/22 118/11 144/1
152/16 152/17 155/11
159/12 166/8 173/3
174/6 180/8 194/2
bits [3] 59/7 118/5
118/16
blame [3] 65/24
142/8 173/22
blamed [1] 187/7
blank [4] 175/24
beneath [5] 9/11 24/2
157/18 161/20 169/13)
46/19 67/6 76/24 79/2
177/16 193/15 194/19)
blind [4] 68/1 81/20
82/1 82/3
blindly [1] 114/14
blood [4] 191/24
192/6 192/24 196/13
bluntly [1] 137/16
blurred [1] 40/20
board [3] 27/1 87/21
168/6
bodies [10] 70/13
70/18 70/25 82/18
83/14 94/3 167/21
168/2 168/12 197/23
body [21] 18/25
23/21 36/12 36/20
40/14 41/19 70/20
83/10 88/14 89/24
90/19 98/18 105/12
105/24 122/2 136/4
193/20
BOI [1] 132/16
bold [1] 163/5
bookkeeping [1]
177/4
bookkeeping’ [1]
143/10
boss [1] 9/11
both [28] 5/3 25/16
55/5 60/25 77/4 88/4
91/15 92/11 92/17
99/23 110/2 118/19
118/20 118/25 119/23
162/17 176/22 177/3
188/6 189/9 190/19
199/13
bottom [9] 54/11
56/8 62/19 65/10 68/5)
135/21 176/21 187/3
187/15
bought [1] 45/2
box [17] 21/15 22/3
30/6 30/12 33/20 35/5
35/5 118/6 118/10
118/19 120/8 120/10
127/8 127/10 129/21
152/13 172/9
boxes [2] 21/14
129/17
branch [19] 11/23
12/6 12/8 12/9 12/10
46/16 48/19 63/11
143/5 156/22 166/3
184/8 184/10 187/22
188/13 195/3 195/5
195/5 195/13
branches [10] 11/10
11/16 18/8 38/22 39/3}
41/11 49/19 74/17
90/4 142/14
brand [1] 64/10
brandish [1] 148/6
71/5 71/15 72/7 82/17,
121/20 135/11 153/17]
153/18 156/20 158/19}
breadth [2] 17/2
118/13
69/9 84/1 84/6 106/9
breaking [1] 115/2
Brian [11] 20/8 50/22
52/4 54/13 55/3 55/7
55/25 56/11 56/13
64/3 66/9
brief [10] 10/19 70/6
87/23 89/10 135/12
137/6 158/7 158/8
159/19 198/22
briefed [1] 107/2
briefing [46] 21/3
21/6 21/20 22/1 22/6
23/7 23/14 89/16
89/19 89/21 93/12
93/22 95/17 106/21
120/5 120/14 137/13
149/4 149/7 149/20
153/23 155/14 156/6
157/25 158/23 159/2
184/12 184/13 184/15)
188/7 188/24
briefings [7] 21/16
88/18 97/11 109/11
109/15 110/4 110/24
briefly [4] 3/9 134/15
167/4 173/9
bright [1] 40/18
bring [12] 13/20 28/6
54/25 56/8 57/6 57/10)
64/17 65/9 83/2 150/6)
186/22 189/2
bringing [1] 122/25
Bristow [1] 61/20
British [1] 43/10
broad [1] 99/16
broader [1] 17/8
Broadland [1] 125/15]
broadly [7] 28/14
28/16 41/2 41/22
103/16 109/17 173/2
broken [1] 188/21
Brooks [1] 63/16
brought [8] 37/9
85/19 108/5 124/23
124/25 126/15 135/20}
197/1
Brussels [1] 9/1
Buck [1] 153/18
budget [1] 9/8
Buffrey's [1] 164/23
building [4] 65/17
buildings [2] 90/1
91/10
built [2] 132/14
break [9] 45/18 45/24,
150/18 155/18 155/23)
106/23 108/17 108/22)
108/23 109/10 109/20}
110/10 110/23 111/20}
150/14 150/15 150/18)
159/10 160/25 170/18}
156/21
bundle [1] 159/5
bundles [1] 149/22
burdens [1] 6/7
buried [1] 115/10
busier [2] 17/7 17/11
business [38] 4/4
4/13 5/1 5/13 6/3 6/7
6/10 6/22 6/25 7/11
8/15 9/6 19/7 19/17
19/21 24/10 24/23
26/5 26/14 32/1 32/2
35/18 35/23 37/18
38/1 75/14 77/4 87/3
90/25 91/21 96/2
116/21 131/11 133/18}
146/12 147/13 147/19)
147/23
businesses [2] 16/25)
79/4
busy [2] 27/19 27/20
but [216]
buyer [1] 147/11
c
Cabinet [9] 3/7 3/10
3/11 3/13 4/4 4/11 5/9I
5/10 8/5
Cable [5] 87/4 124/5
126/22 174/14 174/21
call [10] 18/22 29/22
30/18 74/10 84/10
134/24 167/13 194/7
194/18 194/18
called [12] 3/19 8/23
9/20 19/10 39/21 71/6I
71/20 72/7 73/20
73/21 160/1 189/9
Callow [2] 125/16
125/19
calls [3] 4/2 64/5
134/19
calm [1] 17/14
calmed [1] 18/6
came [28] 11/15 17/9
17/21 27/3 32/3 32/17
56/5 67/11 78/25 88/3
88/9 91/24 97/23
100/17 102/17 104/7
104/15 107/21 113/13)
119/18 127/15 141/19)
149/22 170/15 174/15}
174/21 179/25 198/13}
campaign [2] 151/1
151/18
campaigning [1]
155/1
campaigns [2] 38/12
38/13
can [147] 1/5 1/6 2/5
2/6 12/16 13/6 21/6
29/3 32/21 35/24
35/25 36/3 36/9 36/13
36/24 40/15 40/17
(55) before... - can
Cc
can... [130] 40/20
40/21 40/21 41/20
46/1 46/2 46/22 50/19
54/17 54/25 55/1
56/23 57/6 58/9 59/2
61/18 62/21 66/14
70/25 71/6 71/20
73/10 73/17 83/10
83/10 84/8 84/9 84/15)
84/22 85/13 85/21
85/22 85/23 85/24
87/10 103/7 103/14
106/9 106/16 112/10
112/18 112/19 112/21
115/18 116/11 117/13
117/23 118/11 122/9
122/14 123/25 124/1
124/3 125/11 125/12
126/19 129/13 129/17)
129/19 130/20 131/9
131/24 133/2 134/8
135/1 137/22 139/13
140/5 141/3 141/21
142/5 145/17 146/18
146/20 146/24 148/1
148/20 149/7 150/13
150/21 150/22 153/11
155/25 156/2 156/9
156/11 158/6 158/10
158/11 158/15 158/16)
159/20 159/20 161/25)
164/2 164/13 164/21
166/24 167/15 167/22
168/19 173/13 174/15}
174/21 176/12 177/18)
179/19 180/3 180/9
182/9 182/20 183/7
183/11 183/11 183/13}
183/14 186/6 186/19
186/22 187/3 187/20
188/20 189/2 189/22
191/18 191/19 192/24}
193/7 194/1 198/18
can't [29] 69/16 76/3
92/14 97/22 117/7
119/7 120/19 121/10
121/11 124/23 139/18}
139/19 146/9 160/12
160/18 161/24 163/15}
163/17 165/6 179/22
179/22 182/10 182/20)
182/21 191/8 191/8
196/3 196/20 198/16
candour [10] 167/7
167/8 183/8 192/13
192/15 192/20 193/1
193/1 196/10 196/21
cannot [12] 53/2 65/3)
82/13 89/16 104/14
130/14 138/21 138/22)
138/24 146/9 173/16
185/22
capable [1] 193/21
capacity [2] 98/20
137/25
car [1] 17/2
Card [1] 19/11
care [1] 39/17
career [4] 22/20
22/20 23/2 23/3
careful [1] 179/6
carried [3] 6/17
11/18 62/24
carry [2] 27/11
146/16
carrying [2] 148/5
193/21
case [63] 7/17 10/22
22/2 25/16 29/1 31/18
33/10 37/19 42/4
43/23 55/21 56/19
60/17 60/25 61/25
62/3 63/23 86/20
88/17 90/23 94/16
97/9 107/24 112/14
115/18 116/3 117/12
119/7 119/11 123/4
123/20 136/16 139/25
147/20 151/19 153/1
160/10 161/4 162/13
163/4 164/3 164/10
166/14 169/19 176/17)
178/5 178/8 178/9
180/4 180/17 180/22
181/4 182/8 183/21
185/19 186/22 187/20}
187/25 189/15 189/19)
190/2 191/3 191/9
cases [25] 50/14
58/11 59/18 67/23
82/8 82/11 113/14
113/23 120/1 120/7
134/16 140/18 142/6
142/8 147/17 164/21
164/23 165/3 173/16
173/19 173/20 177/18)
183/20 187/8 189/1
cash [1] 65/25
categorical [2]
122/23 188/11
categorically [3]
166/1 187/21 188/12
cause [6] 40/15
133/13 139/4 146/23
148/10 178/16
caused [3] 58/2
132/21 183/12
causing [4] 51/11
51/17 52/8 140/12
cent [5] 15/7 15/9
27/6 29/3 39/15
centre [1] 191/19
centred [1] 19/3
certain [4] 5/21 39/16
65/3 137/8
certainly [28] 10/6
12/5 42/15 50/11
50/15 55/16 61/15
69/17 96/15 97/15
97/23 98/23 101/22
106/11 109/12 127/18}
135/19 137/20 143/23
149/10 152/11 155/20
161/7 163/12 163/17
163/21 179/19 186/18}
cetera [1] 34/5
chain [5] 30/20 30/21
30/22 35/2 189/23
Chair [2] 44/25 76/5
Chairman [1] 164/18
challenge [1] 59/23
challenged [2] 47/1
183/18
champion [2] 164/10
196/16
championing [1]
196/18
Chancellor [1]
137/24
change [26] 2/2 4/16
5/3 6/2 6/11 6/13 7/5
7/5 7/16 7/18 7/21
8/11 9/21 19/4 22/5
29/3 46/11 86/16 87/6
91/20 92/22 96/7
115/15 115/20 196/2
197/11
changed [7] 4/17
4/19 25/5 26/12 26/12,
122/20 146/4
changes [9] 3/12
7/15 7/15 15/11 70/10)
75/5 89/3 91/20 98/4
changing [3] 19/8
47/2 91/22
Channel [11] 23/24
150/2 150/25 151/4
151/17 153/8 153/23
154/4 154/8 154/16
155/5
Channel 4 [9] 23/24
150/2 150/25 151/4
151/17 153/8 153/23
154/8 154/16
character [3] 39/1
40/3 40/4
charge [5] 39/23 88/1
178/1 180/13 180/21
charged [5] 24/3
37/17 95/24 95/25
177/23
charges [1] 147/21
check [3] 101/7
168/12 194/19
checked [2] 172/22
185/16
checking [1] 112/5
checkpoints [1]
112/4
checks [1] 182/16
cheer [1] 70/19
Chester [1] 48/17
Chesterfield [1]
175/16
Chief [8] 24/6 47/11
70/17 71/1 71/3 71/13)
75/2 83/13
children [1] 3/25
choice [1] 136/12
choose [2] 44/1
65/24
chronological [1]
125/11
church [1] 40/2
circulated [1] 77/11
circumstances [3]
102/8 178/10 181/5
cited [1] 43/7
cities [1] 92/25
civil [40] 4/5 7/19
14/5 19/1 19/23 20/1
21/11 22/18 22/20
22/21 23/2 23/6 23/13)
26/1 27/4 27/8 27/9
34/4 34/6 35/20 35/22,
89/9 94/18 97/13
103/11 107/14 108/18
110/19 110/22 110/22}
111/11 111/17 112/8
146/18 147/2 166/12
192/3 192/11 192/13
199/3
claim [3] 58/12 61/11
162/17
claims [7] 135/8
136/1 136/23 137/5
138/25 187/24 190/13
clarification [2]
163/14 194/1
clarify [1] 68/23
clause [2] 148/7
170/20
clause 7 [1] 170/20
clear [23] 12/8 37/11
55/1 56/12 59/3 67/6
67/25 77/2 81/20
93/10 93/19 99/1
99/11 99/14 103/20
142/5 162/7 162/19
164/20 165/14 177/17
184/22 184/23
clearance [1] 109/24
cleared [1] 195/15
clearly [13] 67/20
92/24 123/4 123/20
126/2 167/24 179/3
182/2 182/13 182/14
190/1 190/15 195/2
clicked [1] 158/23
Climate [1] 86/16
clipped [1] 55/5
close [7] 11/16 11/23
38/7 38/17 113/16
185/3 189/19
closed [7] 11/2 12/10
17/9 18/8 138/11
147/18 184/19
closely [1] 160/9
closing [3] 10/2
38/10 38/12
closure [16] 9/20
10/13 10/16 10/23
10/24 11/7 12/14
12/24 14/21 15/16
16/22 17/15 17/19
18/22 38/5 39/13
closures [5] 41/13
91/12 93/1 93/5 176/2I
Coalition [4] 86/8
91/12 95/24 170/17
Code [2] 189/15
192/11
cohort [1] 107/17
collating [1] 114/23
colleague [1] 62/5
colleagues [1] 93/2
collective [1] 111/4
coloured [2] 57/7
57/16
combination [2]
80/20 92/6
come [41] 2/5 16/20
20/20 21/8 28/17
30/17 33/18 33/21
34/3 41/18 52/22
56/23 56/24 59/2
66/14 85/22 89/13
91/16 101/8 101/9
107/15 112/19 115/23}
117/9 119/18 125/4
127/10 129/20 136/17)
139/1 141/3 144/13
150/3 150/17 152/24
153/2 163/18 168/2
176/18 190/7 198/25
comes [12] 23/7 33/7
38/20 41/14 48/2
53/21 55/16 56/18
58/5 106/4 109/19
183/19
coming [14] 21/13
28/4 32/9 49/1 61/2
83/21 84/13 90/11
106/8 140/2 150/10
153/6 159/14 170/5
commenced [1]
102/9
comment [6] 162/20
178/9 178/14 178/22
179/10 179/14
comments [6] 61/17
62/21 146/2 161/6
161/14 163/9
commercial [6]
37/15 41/10 88/24
91/18 116/21 122/3
commissioned [3]
16/19 85/6 185/1
(56) can... - commissioned
Cc
commit [1] 161/18
commitments [2]
163/16 163/17
committed [2]
162/11 163/18
committee [5] 76/16
98/9 98/9 115/8
194/17
committees [1] 4/5
committing [1]
162/22
common [6] 28/13
29/8 89/8 92/11 94/5
105/5
commonplace [1]
89/3
Commons [10] 15/13)
16/7 16/10 16/13 62/8
62/15 62/17 100/10
170/3 192/17
communication [1]
189/1
communications [1]
129/4
community [6] 10/16
11/22 115/4 170/14
170/25 178/2
companies [1] 97/8
company [20] 24/4
26/7 42/20 43/2 43/25
44/3 44/7 45/1 45/1
45/2 45/3 53/6 69/4
70/21 87/16 116/18
116/20 130/11 148/5
164/19
company's [2] 63/14
162/9
compare [1] 25/1
comparison [1]
41/21
competition [1]
172/15
complaining [3]
121/13 123/3 179/12
complaint [1] 51/12
complaints [6] 24/13
77/15 106/25 107/5
164/24 185/11
complete [2] 18/20
182/9
completed [1] 30/5
completely [4]
110/16 118/13 123/19)
182/23
completeness [4]
192/13 192/15 193/3
193/8
complexity [2] 31/1
114/13
comprehensive [1]
85/7
compulsion [1]
194/6
computer [9] 51/7
73/20 77/9 90/4
114/11 132/6 132/20
138/3 138/20
computerised [2]
176/20 181/14
conceded [1] 180/17
concern [4] 40/15
89/22 168/21 197/10
concerned [6] 36/17
50/10 146/11 156/24
166/25 173/1
concerning [8] 14/24
32/4 61/4 62/8 94/13
167/1 168/16 174/9
concerns [13] 57/25
58/25 77/21 81/1 81/2
116/25 120/22 141/25)
149/1 149/14 165/23
167/20 192/16
conclusion [4] 69/25
83/4 83/12 166/10
concurrency [1]
161/17
conditional [1]
180/19
conditions [1]
127/23
conduct [11] 71/16
96/13 96/18 96/22
96/24 99/12 102/11
124/13 164/25 165/11
193/23
conducted [2] 44/10
45/4
conducting [1] 68/8
conduit [1] 111/8
confidence [4] 109/2
136/22 142/12 165/25)
confident [6] 89/18
109/8 135/7 135/25
137/4 137/18
confirm [2] 5/7 85/25
confirming [1]
173/18
confirms [1] 150/7
confrontational [3]
150/24 151/14 153/15)
confused [1] 189/8
congratulates [1]
125/19
conjunction [1]
53/22
connected [2] 14/2
78/19
consequence [1]
89/23
consequences [6]
34/12 52/23 68/12
70/23 74/11 83/6
consider [5] 43/14
70/9 72/12 72/19
194/3
considerable [1]
96/4
consideration [3]
72/15 167/8 195/18
considerations [1]
92/12
considered [6] 46/13
79/6 79/12 111/3
111/4 161/25
considering [2] 71/5
71/12
considers [1] 192/9
consistent [1]
177/21
constant [1] 19/6
constantly [1] 19/20
constituency [4]
56/17 61/12 93/2
137/25
constituent [10]
47/23 63/8 124/8
125/16 132/12 133/4
133/6 133/9 138/1
140/7
constituents [6] 61/7
62/6 125/8 142/1
171/23 195/23
constitutes [1] 105/6
constituting [1]
100/12
constitution [1]
43/10
constitutional [2]
43/6 69/13
constitutionally [1]
69/15
constructed [1]
31/23
consult [1] 25/8
consultant [1] 132/3
consultants [1]
197/8
consumed [1] 10/9
consumer [2] 86/8
172/16
contact [2] 14/4
52/24
contacted [1] 124/8
contacting [1]
115/12
contained [1] 169/11
Contaminated [1]
196/13
contemplated [1]
162/10
content [2] 51/1
149/18
contentious [2] 10/1
111/19
contents [2] 85/17
164/15
context [1] 120/6
continually [2] 99/19
99/21
continue [8] 46/1
46/3 64/6 102/14
102/20 113/16 135/3
135/22
continued [2] 75/21
162/4
continues [5] 114/24
135/2 142/12 165/24
166/22
continuing [1] 74/9
continuity [1] 89/9
contract [11] 39/24
41/15 46/15 79/10
79/19 114/18 114/19
132/16 138/4 138/10
148/8
contracted [1] 70/22
contracts [1] 142/11
contractual [10]
35/10 42/12 63/9
116/24 121/25 127/23}
142/3 162/6 173/15
177/16
contractually [1]
181/8
contrary [1] 145/6
control [2] 98/21
170/22
controversial [7]
16/21 17/18 18/7
18/14 18/18 19/16
80/13
controversy [1]
19/10
convening [1] 148/17I
convention [1]
130/13
conversation [2]
13/1 94/15
convicted [2] 185/10
195/6
conviction [2] 171/20)
185/8
convictions [8] 43/17I
44/13 68/9 90/8 96/12)
107/18 165/1 171/21
Cook [17] 52/17
54/10 54/15 54/20
55/7 56/1 56/5 56/14
58/10 63/16 64/22
65/5 65/12 66/1 76/9
T7IN1 7/14
Cook's [2] 55/12
56/24
Coomber [1] 160/1
coordinate [1] 4/7
copied [2] 134/12
158/24
copy [10] 1/16 84/19
125/24 128/1 131/4
131/17 138/6 184/13
184/14 186/24
core [5] 23/5 165/18
165/18 165/23 171/7
cornerstones [1]
170/13
corporate [3] 70/8
105/24 168/8
correct [22] 2/12 3/5
6/24 8/7 16/8 16/11
20/3 33/10 53/16
64/23 85/11 86/4
86/10 86/15 86/17
107/4 123/3 136/14
151/12 154/17 186/12)
199/17
corrected [1] 186/10
correction [1] 85/5
corrections [2] 84/20
85/19
correctly [1] 44/15
correspondence [38]
21/17 29/9 29/14
29/17 29/20 29/21
30/2 30/6 30/24 31/9
32/15 33/11 35/6 35/7I
44/14 46/17 46/22
49/23 52/2 54/19
55/16 55/18 56/2
56/21 57/3 59/7 75/19
75/22 77/8 81/11
108/2 108/13 117/25
124/20 125/7 140/24
141/7 145/21
cost [2] 131/12
142/11
costs [1] 178/3
could [74] 1/10 1/20
1/21 3/9 3/21 3/25 5/7I
6/7 13/20 16/7 19/21
21/10 22/7 22/7 28/6
29/25 29/25 36/1 37/2
42/18 45/20 47/20
47/22 48/9 49/21
50/21 51/2 51/20
52/11 59/22 61/19
65/9 65/10 71/23 72/3I
72/19 75/8 75/9 77/17)
91/17 92/16 112/17
114/5 119/15 124/16
126/11 133/5 135/7
136/8 137/20 140/17
145/16 149/13 149/18)
152/25 154/8 155/18
157/19 165/1 165/2
167/4 171/4 173/12
173/19 174/23 175/23}
176/9 177/6 180/8
180/22 181/1 181/2
181/14 187/13
couldn't [3] 35/25
136/11 165/16
counsel [1] 180/15
counter [2] 39/5 39/9
Counters [1] 175/19
countries [1] 169/25
country [8] 11/10
16/23 17/18 41/12
(57) commit - country
Cc
country... [4] 61/24
64/10 170/12 195/10
couple [3] 22/14 53/4
78/12
course [20] 11/21
23/2 28/9 34/7 37/23
53/12 59/13 60/2
68/15 70/1 70/23
88/13 89/10 90/2
104/20 121/16 122/21
172/20 183/13 189/9
court [55] 43/7 43/11
43/12 44/14 44/17
45/11 45/13 58/6
59/12 59/14 59/16
60/8 63/25 64/9 64/13,
67/22 68/17 69/18
70/2 75/24 75/25 76/3
77/25 82/3 82/8 82/10
82/12 82/13 102/5
107/20 109/5 142/6
147/20 148/7 153/1
157/9 161/4 161/17
164/22 164/25 165/3
165/4 168/22 169/20
173/17 173/20 175/5
177/19 177/24 178/2
179/13 180/4 183/20
183/21 187/8
court's [1] 169/2
courts [5] 43/8 70/1
105/21 164/7 194/6
cover [7] 5/1 11/3
22/9 26/25 120/2
126/13 172/11
covered [6] 15/1 15/2)
15/9 26/16 28/9
180/25
covering [4] 14/5
162/18 174/16 186/17
CPS [2] 45/8 169/13
crash [2] 16/24 17/8
create [2] 50/8
111/25
created [3] 5/14 37/7
180/25
creates [1] 156/23
creation [1] 168/19
credible [1] 163/25
Crime [1] 147/9
criminal [7] 45/11
74/18 102/6 132/8
176/5 180/4 189/15
criminals [1] 138/22
criteria [1] 39/14
critical [2] 29/6
169/19
Critically [1] 156/23
criticised [1] 43/11
criticism [1] 67/3
cross [4] 85/3 148/24
149/13 194/19
cross-check [1]
194/19
Crown [13] 44/4
79/15 96/22 96/23
102/9 148/12 175/5
177/24 189/15 198/5
198/9 199/2 199/5
Crozier [1] 65/5
culpable [1] 105/20
culture [1] 192/2
cumulative [1] 105/1
current [7] 5/6 5/8
5/9 37/20 51/9 74/1
192/10
currently [4] 113/15
156/17 158/16 158/18)
cut [5] 118/11 158/22
158/23 159/6 166/5
cutbacks [1] 138/12
cutting [2] 159/9
166/14
CWU [9] 80/3 80/6
80/18 80/25 81/2
198/1 198/7 198/13
198/25
CWu's [1] 198/3
cyberspace [1] 176/8
D
damage [1] 68/15
data [4] 50/8 114/6
184/7 198/9
date [3] 17/5 86/3
134/18
dated [9] 2/11 63/15
113/3 124/2 140/6
145/24 153/13 156/7
158/8
daughter [1] 125/21
Dave [1] 134/14
Davey [8] 84/10
84/11 84/17 126/2
126/11 145/23 153/20)
200/12
Davey's [2] 84/2
126/10
David [12] 61/20 62/5}
62/14 104/4 127/24
131/3 131/16 134/11
160/7 185/1 185/11
185/19
Davies [1] 184/2
day [74] 3/20 17/18
17/20 17/23 20/4 20/4
24/4 24/4 25/15 25/15
25/21 25/21 25/22
25/22 26/6 26/6 26/13
28/25 32/1 32/1 32/2
32/2 32/4 32/4 37/14
37/14 38/1 38/1 40/1
47/4 47/4 81/6 81/6
81/9 81/9 83/3 83/3
90/22 90/22 90/25
90/25 91/2 91/2 92/14)
92/14 93/9 93/9 94/1
94/1 94/4 94/4 94/19
94/19 94/25 94/25
99/20 99/20 107/9
107/12 113/4 124/21
124/21 133/13 139/4
144/11 144/11 148/2
148/5 148/5 162/9
162/9 188/23 191/5
199/20
days [7] 5/14 17/22
115/20 136/15 150/16}
160/6 185/4
deal [8] 15/19 15/22
16/9 26/21 54/23
85/24 146/20 167/3
dealing [11] 17/3
24/14 24/24 27/2 37/1
49/10 49/11 109/23
118/9 151/9 198/20
dealt [12] 27/3 30/25
32/18 42/19 48/13
52/1 52/2 79/15 99/17
104/2 104/4 188/3
Dear [3] 116/12
124/6 145/23
debate [4] 6/6 10/15
12/9 17/19
debates [2] 12/6
17/23
deceive [2] 104/12
105/8
December [5] 160/15
164/14 177/24 185/14
188/25
decide [2] 149/17
162/13
decided [10] 9/21
11/17 12/14 38/17
123/14 136/18 149/11
154/3 154/13 175/15
deciding [5] 12/9
30/19 92/17 92/18
136/21
decision [25] 10/25
11/22 11/24 12/16
12/19 16/14 28/1 30/2
38/8 38/10 38/18
42/24 46/9 46/14
54/20 56/1 56/2 57/14
57/14 57/16 67/9
70/12 150/11 152/1
152/14
decision-making [1]
16/14
decisions [9] 37/16
38/2 41/22 45/14 46/7
46/12 49/17 49/17
50/3
declined [1] 90/15
declining [1] 91/22
Decommissioning [1]}
23/25
decrease [1] 4/1
deeply [2] 77/9 145/5
defence [6] 57/21
75/20 75/23 181/10
181/18 187/7
defended [2] 58/12
160/2
defending [1] 54/1
defensive [1] 192/2
deferential [3] 25/24
26/4 26/8
deficit [1] 109/23
deficits [6] 51/11
51/18 52/8 53/2 53/7
TAIZ
definite [1] 119/8
definitely [1] 120/17
degree [2] 46/15 83/5)
delayed [1] 1/3
delete [1] 85/8
deliberately [1] 37/7
delighted [1] 185/7
delivered [1] 191/25
delivering [2] 39/4
40/7
delivery [1] 42/8
demanded [1]
190/21
demanding [2] 147/4
175/21
demands [1] 196/2
Democrats [2] 86/5
192/18
Demonstrate [1]
162/16
Dems [1] 86/24
denied [2] 149/19
181/6
department [95] 3/11
3/15 3/18 4/5 4/13
4/17 4/18 4/24 5/2 5/4)
5/11 5/13 5/18 5/21
5/24 6/3 6/18 6/19
6/21 6/22 6/25 7/4
7/10 7/11 7/14 7/21
8/13 8/14 8/16 8/21
8/25 9/14 9/22 10/11
10/25 11/4 13/16 14/5}
15/1 15/12 16/18
16/25 17/6 19/25 20/2
20/5 23/23 24/21 25/7,
26/1 26/13 26/14
28/14 29/10 29/21
30/18 32/1 32/7 33/2
33/13 33/18 35/1
35/10 40/23 40/25
52/19 55/9 61/3 65/2
65/7 67/19 72/3 77/10
77/12 80/10 83/14
87/6 87/7 87/23 88/3
88/10 88/12 98/8
112/5 126/12 142/5
160/21 164/21 165/9
168/2 173/16 177/18
179/11 179/15 183/16
Department's [3]
6/13 7/4 17/10
departmental [8]
21/1 24/9 31/13 31/15}
31/16 44/21 67/16
83/13
departments [3] 4/7
20/8 183/20
dependent [1] 23/5
depending [1] 30/25
depleted [1] 53/3
describe [2] 91/14
170/9
described [6] 30/23
35/21 48/1 53/20
110/18 184/24
describing [2] 34/9
125/8
description [2] 3/12
71122
desert [1] 39/19
deserted [1] 113/20
design [4] 67/8 67/10
71/22 72/2
designed [2] 142/18
147/25
desk [1] 153/7
desperation [1] 53/4
despite [3] 81/10
136/18 164/10
detail [7] 5/4 21/24
66/4 90/12 121/22
174/1 176/17
detailed [3] 50/12
57/4 144/2
details [6] 72/11
115/8 161/24 162/1
163/15 181/3
detain [1] 46/21
determined [4] 142/7
164/22 173/17 177/20)
detrimental [1]
140/15
devastating [1] 74/10)
develop [1] 65/22
device [2] 161/16
161/19
devices [1] 98/19
dialogue [2] 98/24
164/19
diary [2] 27/19
160/22
did [84] 4/4 4/8 7/4
9/16 12/6 12/25 13/8
13/10 14/16 14/23
15/18 16/14 17/12
21/2 26/18 27/25
28/17 32/11 33/20
34/14 40/23 43/18
46/10 53/7 64/6 64/24
65/1 65/2 65/6 72/9
75/10 76/10 76/23
81/17 82/21 88/25
89/17 89/19 89/24
(68) country... - did
D
did... [45] 90/24 91/7
92/3 94/11 94/15
94/17 94/21 95/17
95/20 96/12 97/25
100/19 101/5 106/21
107/5 107/17 121/5
122/13 122/24 123/7
127/10 135/1 136/3
136/9 137/10 144/7
144/16 149/3 161/16
163/11 163/16 163/22
166/18 172/2 172/4
175/17 179/7 179/20
182/19 182/19 185/10
185/22 191/3 198/14
198/21
didn't [46] 9/8 11/22
18/19 28/2 32/24 34/6
41/12 47/4 59/15
67/18 76/17 77/17
77/19 78/24 81/1
88/20 92/1 93/5 93/7
94/15 96/15 97/7
104/19 112/14 119/4
119/18 120/17 123/13}
130/2 135/14 141/15
159/14 169/21 178/11
178/18 179/9 179/13
182/14 183/3 190/13
190/16 191/1 197/5
198/23 198/25 199/1
died [1] 195/14
difference [9] 67/6
79/2 88/20 88/22
92/17 93/24 173/3
174/6 193/15
differences [2] 79/6
176/14
different [30] 3/15
3/23 4/18 4/19 5/1
5/25 9/13 10/5 16/21
17/25 18/14 24/20
24/22 25/12 25/14
26/7 26/10 28/23
30/12 34/20 38/25
42/25 65/6 69/2 80/1
118/7 118/9 118/21
146/5 193/17
differently [1] 83/1
difficult [14] 15/2
17/16 34/7 35/24 36/3
49/10 58/22 59/6
82/24 83/2 103/3
104/19 105/14 161/23
direct [2] 25/3 79/16
directed [1] 29/13
direction [1] 56/9
Directive [2] 9/3 9/4
directly [27] 19/15
21/8 31/2 31/7 31/10
33/12 35/14 35/16
39/10 41/5 52/20
54/13 56/5 56/7 56/11
56/14 60/21 67/15
104/3 113/3 125/6
127/25 131/4 131/17
149/15 185/11 198/24)
Director [10] 24/7
35/16 52/18 54/21
63/16 64/21 127/24
128/7 186/9 189/18
directs [1] 56/13
disappeared [1]
115/11
disappointed [2]
166/12 190/25
disappointing [1]
146/1
disastrous [1] 99/11
discovered [2] 76/22
181/15
discrepancies [5]
47/15 58/15 132/9
142/9 181/9
discrepancy [2]
181/12 181/14
discuss [14] 2/23
9/16 20/17 32/11
33/11 41/19 50/18
64/24 88/5 99/3
116/16 124/15 126/24)
148/18
discussed [10] 9/24
10/7 21/4 43/4 69/8
79/9 100/17 134/15
160/11 185/18
discussing [3] 20/12
36/10 55/24
discussion [12] 19/6
25/18 34/18 43/21
44/19 44/20 55/15
81/5 101/17 153/20
182/6 185/23
discussions [4]
12/23 55/7 130/7
130/11
dishonesty [1] 82/4
dismissals [1] 198/9
dispute [2] 35/10
38/11
disputes [4] 42/13
42/17 42/17 47/3
disputing [1] 108/8
dissolved [1] 6/23
distance [2] 39/16
126/3
distinction [2] 38/6
40/18
distinguish [3] 92/3
105/4 105/25
distinguishing [1]
108/5
disturbing [1] 77/9
division [4] 8/9 46/19
94/11 180/4
do [130] 1/17 2/9
2/10 3/25 5/15 9/9
11/3 12/14 15/4 16/2
22/12 22/13 25/22
31/15 32/3 32/23 35/8
35/9 36/14 36/25 37/2
37/5 41/25 42/6 43/10
45/2 48/7 51/21 52/13)
53/17 55/6 59/3 59/22}
66/1 67/2 68/6 68/16
69/4 69/12 69/21
69/23 70/4 71/2 71/2
71/5 71/9 71/14 71/21
71/24 74/19 75/4 75/6
75/11 75/13 76/8
76/11 76/11 77/20
80/8 80/14 80/14
82/12 83/1 85/8 85/10
85/14 87/14 87/18
87/19 94/7 99/4
101/14 103/3 103/10
103/15 104/12 110/17]
111/21 116/25 117/1
117/4 117/13 120/21
121/1 122/15 128/18
134/21 135/4 136/2
138/14 146/10 148/24
149/2 150/9 152/2
154/19 156/9 162/24
163/22 163/22 165/19!
166/7 167/7 167/11
170/2 170/3 174/9
175/8 178/11 178/18
179/25 181/10 184/16
186/3 187/25 188/2
190/4 190/7 190/16
191/10 193/12 193/13
193/14 193/24 194/8
195/15 195/17 196/19}
197/11 198/17
document [17] 29/13
30/24 56/23 110/13
111/23 111/25 118/2
156/3 156/9 157/8
158/6 158/10 159/20
159/22 191/18 191/19}
191/20
documentation [3]
29/9 29/12 29/13
documents [5]
130/14 156/2 159/4
166/9 194/7
does [21] 8/15 8/16
20/15 29/17 29/17
29/18 36/19 61/9 68/1
84/23 96/17 97/2
98/17 114/11 114/19
128/22 139/1 144/25
178/8 190/24 196/15
doesn't [13] 11/20
12/19 29/20 31/13
56/20 120/23 144/20
154/5 157/23 157/24
158/2 162/8 190/24
doing [13] 5/2 14/25
15/17 24/14 35/5
91/14 98/15 102/13
109/22 112/6 121/6
198/16 199/14
dominant [2] 9/19
10/20
dominated [1] 14/20
don't [53] 13/4 15/21
18/9 26/4 26/8 27/1
28/22 29/4 30/16
37/20 39/19 43/4
46/21 49/1 49/11
51/23 53/21 64/16
68/3 69/15 81/2 82/5
89/5 93/22 95/8 101/4
101/5 103/3 105/25
106/2 106/4 106/6
118/23 119/1 130/1
145/14 152/5 160/17
161/6 161/23 162/1
169/1 169/3 174/8
179/16 186/1 186/1
186/7 190/8 190/18
191/12 191/17 195/22}
done [30] 30/3 30/15
33/24 44/4 55/22
59/23 60/2 61/18
62/21 68/7 69/5 69/7
69/22 101/6 102/25
103/5 119/2 121/11
128/16 128/19 142/15
145/1 149/25 164/11
182/16 182/20 182/21
195/4 195/19 196/10
door [1] 17/10
doors [1] 114/2
dossiers [2] 8/24 9/2
double [1] 177/4
doubt [13] 58/17
114/9 117/9 123/12
135/18 136/7 136/17
137/9 144/13 154/7
155/15 163/20 164/2
down [33] 2/5 11/8
17/14 18/6 34/23
35/19 55/1 56/23 59/2
65/15 66/14 85/22
92/1 112/19 116/12
124/1 125/14 132/2
132/12 141/3 141/23
147/12 156/25 157/12)
158/15 159/23 167/3
170/6 181/17 181/25
189/19 189/22 191/20}
draft [23] 33/8 33/17
33/19 90/14 90/14
107/13 108/13 118/2
119/19 120/5 127/6
127/9 127/19 129/14
129/16 129/25 130/2
130/3 130/21 131/2
132/25 134/5 166/15
drafted [9] 30/10
33/20 95/15 100/6
110/24 117/18 172/6
174/7 178/20
drafting [2] 99/24
143/24
drafts [3] 97/12
100/13 100/14
drama [1] 169/21
drawn [2] 42/12
124/20
dreadful [1] 188/22
drive [1] 147/12
drives [1] 195/10
driving [2] 40/22
43/24
dropped [2] 178/1
180/21
drops [1] 147/21
DTI [4] 6/2 6/18 8/15
115/9
due [4] 2/25 133/14
139/4 175/13
duration [1] 97/3
during [13] 7/15 9/15
17/19 25/5 68/6 87/21
89/17 96/14 103/11
175/11 178/5 186/16
198/3
duties [1] 192/10
duty [8] 167/7 167/8
183/8 192/12 192/19
192/25 196/10 196/21
E
each [5] 14/17 56/20
64/14 148/12 176/16
earlier [10] 12/1
13/23 55/16 57/13
80/12 122/20 139/14
164/16 173/18 196/17)
early [8] 9/18 29/4
50/15 93/19 110/6
121/9 136/15 161/12
ease [1] 58/8
easily [2] 114/9 148/1
East [1] 3/4
easy [1] 193/14
economic [1] 9/6
economy [2] 9/5
170/12
Ed [16] 84/2 84/10
106/19 111/22 153/13)
153/20 155/17 156/2
171/5 171/17 171/22
178/12 183/22 186/7
197/17 199/11
edge [1] 148/15
education [2] 7/9
7/0
EDWARD [9] 84/11
84/17 181/20 183/2
186/13 191/23 196/5
197/13 200/11
effect [9] 23/21 35/22
64/3 77/5 83/3 105/1
(69) did... - effect
E
effect... [3] 178/15
180/14 184/19
effectively [10] 17/13
22/25 45/11 62/11
69/5 70/22 87/20
123/24 162/14 199/3
effectiveness [1]
130/24
efforts [1] 181/9
either [18] 7/18 15/25]
27/18 33/2 33/3 44/3
48/25 49/3 67/15
76/18 76/22 94/2
101/11 104/25 115/10)
125/6 185/18 186/7
elected [1] 3/3
election [5] 17/6
22/23 80/24 96/4
124/14
element [4] 40/3 41/6
42/1 196/19
elephant [1] 163/5
else [3] 29/24 33/2
113/18
elsewhere [1] 29/14
email [23] 50/24 51/1
51/5 51/6 51/22 52/20
54/1 55/4 55/6 55/21
61/20 65/12 66/13
134/9 137/3 137/6
149/23 153/12 154/15)
166/14 187/14 187/16)
189/23
emails [1] 189/25
emerged [1] 104/20
emphasis [6] 5/21
5/22 6/5 6/9 7/13
13/25
Emphasise [1] 162/5
emphasising [2] 6/12
99/10
emphatic [8] 54/1
57/3 57/20 59/25 64/8
68/16 75/20 75/23
employed [2] 78/23
79/4
employee [2] 78/25
197/5
employees [10] 39/6
39/10 42/21 44/4
78/24 79/3 198/4
198/6 198/10 199/3
employment [15]
14/2 14/6 14/12 14/14)
14/16 14/22 15/8 25/2
25/4 78/14 78/19
78/22 79/16 86/7
172/15
enable [2] 132/16
170/4
enabled [1] 146/15
enabling [1] 170/20
enclose [1] 138/6
enclosed [2] 50/25
61/20
enclosing [1] 125/15
enclosure [1] 126/14
encourage [1] 170/4
encouraged [2]
39/22 39/24
end [22] 5/5 17/15
18/5 18/19 25/11
30/20 35/2 36/25
37/23 52/16 82/25
84/23 115/23 119/20
120/21 133/13 139/4
143/12 157/7 167/1
181/21 185/25
ended [1] 186/9
Ending [1] 192/2
endlessly [1] 147/14
ends [7] 156/15
156/18 156/21 156/24)
157/1 157/3 157/5
energy [2] 10/10
86/16
engaged [3] 44/7
70/21 144/16
engine [1] 4/6
enormous [1] 69/21
enormously [1] 19/2
enough [2] 137/10
1814/3
enquired [1] 124/9
enquiries [2] 67/11
143/25
ensure [5] 11/14 44/9)
91/5 142/18 157/3
enter [1] 18/10
entered [1] 132/16
entering [1] 16/23
Enterprise [4] 4/13
5/13 6/3 6/22
entertain [2] 51/19
52/10
entirely [3] 83/2
114/16 133/14
entirety [1] 158/21
entity [2] 190/21
193/10
entrap [1] 148/1
entry [3] 143/9 17/4
184/7
environment [1] 9/7
envisage [2] 36/2
137/1
equipment [2] 51/14
142/19
equivalent [1] 97/4
error [3] 114/9
138/20 175/16
errors [7] 58/2 63/11
114/12 114/16 131/13)
133/16 138/2
escaped [1] 176/1
especially [2] 49/6
114/12
essentially [16]
123/1 124/18 131/6
131/19 144/23 145/10
158/3 168/16 172/10
173/13 173/18 175/9
177/21 179/11 181/22
185/14
establish [3] 161/11
161/16 162/10
established [5] 46/19}
71/5 83/10 88/7
130/13
estimate [2] 72/25
131/12
et [1] 34/5
et cetera [1] 34/5
EU [1] 8/23
European [3] 8/21
8/22 14/24
even [18] 17/20
18/16 19/19 37/21
37/22 37/24 47/3
51/19 60/25 68/13
119/4 120/15 132/8
146/20 147/25 168/10
190/11 190/13
evening [2] 30/13
49/12
evenings [1] 21/16
events [1] 122/21
eventually [4] 21/22
30/21 80/23 174/21
ever [18] 15/21 22/17
43/4 53/11 79/6 86/11
95/17 95/20 109/5
111/24 113/12 113/25
114/15 146/22 157/9
185/10 191/3 198/17
every [5] 21/10 63/23
64/18 113/19 143/4
everything [5] 8/14
15/13 27/3 36/2
109/22
evidence [55] 1/14
2/17 2/24 13/23 16/6
18/21 20/21 45/5
53/20 55/11 57/13
57/24 58/1 58/3 58/17
60/7 60/16 64/1 66/17
67/21 70/7 70/10
76/15 78/13 78/16
79/23 80/12 81/5
82/25 83/22 84/2
84/14 91/4 110/25
114/1 114/9 114/23
120/13 138/25 148/7
150/13 151/9 155/7
160/7 169/20 169/23
172/14 177/21 180/12)
190/10 193/6 194/7
194/9 194/18 198/2
evidential [1] 143/7
evidently [2] 189/8
189/10
evolved [1] 4/20
ex [2] 113/10 147/4
ex-subpostmasters
[1] 147/4
exact [4] 15/5 51/3
71/21 95/8
exactly [5] 47/17
49/25 68/21 101/11
161/24
examine [2] 115/1
165/10
examined [1] 172/6
example [20] 8/18
10/12 19/9 22/10 25/4}
27/1 29/14 38/4 38/11
38/19 46/23 48/14
77/11 100/1 100/11
141/21 142/24 173/10}
183/16 194/17
exchange [5] 75/21
134/9 135/17 136/20
137/3
exchanges [2] 76/1
135/19
Exchequer [1]
137/24
exclusion [1] 3/20
exclusively [1] 98/13
executioner [2]
113/20 121/15
executive [37] 20/19
20/21 20/22 21/21
21/25 23/7 23/19
23/20 23/24 24/6 24/8
24/20 24/22 25/12
25/25 31/5 32/20
32/23 33/5 33/6 34/10
34/25 40/5 41/18 49/4,
75/2 88/12 88/21
88/21 88/23 97/14
105/10 160/8 165/5
168/1 168/17 169/8
Executive's [3] 20/24
24/11 71/3
executives [12]
70/18 71/1 71/13
83/13 103/24 103/25
104/2 104/4 105/3
105/16 105/25 106/1
exercise [1] 98/21
exercised [1] 123/15
expand [1] 16/15
expanded [1] 4/25
expect [12] 21/5
28/14 28/16 28/25
89/17 89/25 110/22
111/17 111/21 122/21
127/18 137/15
expectation [3]
28/17 32/17 33/5
expected [8] 138/21
153/23 154/4 154/16
157/14 159/1 159/4
159/19
expecting [1] 138/18
experience [6] 7/14
28/19 29/5 98/23
127/19 170/13
experienced [2] 92/7
138/15
experts [3] 21/1
115/1 194/8
explain [8] 21/9
58/15 84/23 84/25
118/8 167/22 168/19
191/23
explained [1] 192/17
explaining [1] 117/24)
explains [1] 132/11
explicitly [1] 93/22
explore [3] 2/24 38/2
44/24
exploring [2] 12/16
87/11
exposed [2] 71/11
115/6
express [4] 70/11
142/12 165/24 166/22)
expressing [2] 59/11
66/1
extent [10] 9/15
10/24 18/25 20/11
27/25 81/20 97/25
136/13 136/25 144/8
external [6] 14/3
15/25 62/24 63/18
114/7 162/23
extra [2] 143/21
193/16
extremely [3] 52/24
57/25 132/15
eye [1] 185/3
F
fabric [1] 24/16
face [6] 33/22 33/23
66/10 82/8 175/22
176/4
facing [1] 175/4
fact [18] 41/9 48/8
69/13 73/25 74/9
77123 77124 89/24
95/18 101/8 105/9
152/8 157/7 157/21
174/17 175/14 181/6
189/9
facts [2] 2/13 120/3
factually [1] 127/20
fail [2] 142/19 148/6
failed [2] 81/12 195/2
fails [1] 147/7
failures [1] 133/19
fair [6] 9/1 32/14
40/17 72/17 80/25
165/12
fairly [6] 5/23 42/11
42/23 43/3 68/9 69/7
(60) effect... - fairly
F
fairness [1] 68/23
faith [8] 59/11 60/6
64/9 66/10 68/1 81/21
82/1 82/4
falls [1] 147/9
false [10] 53/5 74/11
151/8 152/4 175/5
177/25 180/12 180/15}
182/2 186/8
families [3] 3/22 4/1
61/15
family [3] 147/20
195/10 195/11
far [8] 6/16 7/22
79/13 106/24 149/7
166/24 169/5 172/25
fashion [1] 195/4
fashioned [1] 101/21
fast [1] 19/14
fault [4] 133/15 139/5
180/16 182/4
faults [2] 140/15
151/7
fears [1] 65/21
feature [1] 35/6
February [5] 48/4
50/22 86/9 141/23
143/18
February 2001 [1]
141/23
Federation [7] 41/1
76/14 76/24 78/11
113/22 164/6 170/15
feel [5] 15/18 44/9
47/20 105/11 178/25
feeling [2] 49/21
193/4
feels [3] 15/21 16/1
44/8
felt [9] 92/15 107/23
143/23 143/24 145/9
153/7 154/25 164/1
164/10
few [11] 5/14 18/13
34/3 52/6 64/18 96/5
115/19 138/10 146/23)
160/6 185/4
fight [4] 93/1
figures [3] 175/11
175/15 175/18
file [11] 52/25 74/12
118/19 118/22 118/25}
119/21 120/8 127/7
141/19 156/24 172/8
filed [1] 139/19
er [1] 190/17
final [6] 7/18 81/4
82/14 175/24 176/22
187/4
finalises [1] 196/12
finally [4] 82/15
financial [8] 11/14
16/24 17/8 41/3 61/16
132/7 132/17 142/9
financially [2] 19/5
19/20
find [12] 3/13 74/22
80/21 114/9 137/10
144/19 145/20 171/1
175/13 186/23 190/18)
197/24
finding [3] 115/3
175/3 184/24
findings [1] 130/25
fine [4] 45/19 45/22
84/3 176/5
finish [2] 148/41
171/12
finished [1] 83/18
firm [1] 160/1
first [49] 1/12 1/15
8/12 10/8 10/20 13/8
14/19 14/20 15/6
15/15 15/18 27/20
29/22 30/18 53/14
53/20 53/21 66/5 73/7,
84/21 85/6 86/11
89/18 96/5 96/12
107/5 107/12 107/17
110/5 111/1 113/12
117/11 117/16 122/19)
143/13 144/21 149/9
151/14 152/13 156/3
171/8 171/15 173/14
174/25 176/14 176/15)
176/25 177/8 180/5
firstly [2] 52/7 105/4
fit [4] 19/20 58/19
59/10 64/12
five [11] 19/2 21/11
37/10 40/8 40/10 73/1
73/2 73/5 141/14
147/15 181/7
five-year [2] 19/2
40/8
flat [1] 114/25
flaws [6] 51/10 52/7
74/2 79/15 104/23
113/23
flexibility [1] 123/15
floated [1] 72/20
floating [1] 72/14
flow [1] 27/20
fob [1] 184/16
focus [10] 9/13 16/18
24/23 26/10 91/13
92/15 98/3 99/13
173/12 177/9
focused [3] 93/6 96/8
155/13
focusing [2] 6/20
12/24
follow [8] 13/9 96/17
97/2 98/17 103/19
162/2 163/23 165/1
followed [10] 115/11
122/13 150/24 151/16}
160/25 162/24 163/1
164/18 173/3 185/16
following [14] 85/25
96/3 107/13 122/6
143/25 149/11 157/24
157/25 158/1 164/17
171/24 184/22 187/14
199/20
follows [5] 94/21
122/1 122/5 166/23
168/7
foot [11] 89/15
122/10 129/17 132/13
134/10 156/11 161/9
167/6 167/15 167/19
169/9
footfall [1] 91/22
force [2] 116/9
194/18
forced [2] 52/25
74/12
forceful [1] 117/12
forcefully [1] 191/1
forces [1] 102/7
forgive [1] 193/16
form [3] 12/19 56/16
71/15
forma [1] 173/1
formal [1] 88/7
format [1] 173/11
formed [1] 140/16
former [4] 51/9 74/1
132/3 197/19
forming [1] 190/14
forward [13] 6/20
19/14 37/9 70/6 71/12
72/12 104/24 168/18
170/5 170/24 171/3
171/4 181/1
forwarded [3] 129/4
174/14 188/19
forwarding [1] 125/7
forwards [7] 126/19
130/20 131/24 137/22
140/5 170/10 174/20
foul [1] 147/9
found [12] 50/6 58/1
58/3 59/14 65/25
109/6 113/17 114/1
146/2 163/24 164/7
184/11
founded [1] 184/5
four [4] 101/8 101/10
141/13 176/15
fourth [2] 48/20
175/25
frame [2] 31/20 33/3
framing [1] 30/16
frank [1] 130/1
frankly [2] 92/1
178/25
Fraser [1] 20/9
fraud [3] 61/11
140/11 140/20
freedom [3] 37/15
116/21 122/2
frequency [1] 186/5
Friend [4] 127/25
front [6] 1/16 35/4
39/14 84/20 111/15
112/9
frustrated [1] 66/19
frustrating [2] 38/14
72/1
Fujitsu [1] 58/13
fulfil [1] 91/5
full [9] 1/10 49/2
84/16 84/17 142/12
143/5 165/24 196/16
199/12
fully [2] 63/12 142/22
function [2] 25/7
29/7
functions [1] 27/24
fundamental [2]
76/17 169/25
fundamentally [3]
92/22 96/7 141/9
funnel [1] 21/12
funnelled [1] 21/17
further [23] 7/9 44/24
63/18 68/20 72/10
91/12 115/25 145/2
153/20 153/24 167/12
168/10 176/17 177/25}
181/17 189/3 189/6
189/12 189/22 191/20)
192/21 194/11 196/11
future [12] 11/6
11/14 16/20 17/2
19/20 37/1 43/18
71/21 72/6 75/4 93/9
170/21
Go
gain [4] 114/24
gather [1] 187/10
gave [9] 4/22 38/4
66/16 89/6 137/7
149/3 160/12 179/23
180/14
geared [1] 3/21
general [8] 13/7
22/23 76/15 79/23
96/21 169/12 183/14
197/19
generally [3] 28/15
28/17 28/23
genuine [1] 168/13
genuinely [4] 121/9
179/22 186/1 191/12
George [4] 137/24
139/16 197/19 198/19}
get [41] 6/7 18/4
18/11 19/19 19/20
21/16 22/4 30/3 30/6
32/5 34/14 35/15
37/12 44/6 47/4 50/4
57/19 67/15 68/5
73/17 75/1 75/6 77/20)
90/24 91/2 92/14 94/1
94/12 94/24 109/24
122/6 135/14 137/6
140/4 144/13 146/9
159/20 163/20 175/18}
191/1 194/16
gets [2] 30/4 111/24
getting [6] 19/8 38/8
53/6 72/25 73/20
194/4
give [14] 1/14 10/12
15/4 22/11 28/2 30/22)
80/22 83/22 84/13
84/15 135/12 160/23
169/2 188/8
given [36] 25/24
30/12 48/1 49/5 57/17
61/13 67/4 68/16
70/24 72/9 73/11
76/15 90/16 91/20
94/21 95/1 106/5
119/2 120/5 122/2
123/21 127/4 127/22
129/12 137/14 145/15]
150/4 159/16 160/20
164/24 167/9 190/9
190/16 192/14 194/9
199/1
gives [3] 178/9
181/18 189/18
giving [5] 22/8 104/7
128/17 161/17 161/19}
glad [1] 71/14
gleaned [1] 197/24
Glenn [1] 48/17
go [73] 1/20 3/12 5/5
21/9 21/21 28/7 29/17
32/6 32/15 32/24 33/5
33/7 34/14 39/25
46/22 49/14 50/19
50/20 50/21 50/25
54/4 55/1 55/17 62/19
65/10 67/2 72/7 73/7
73/9 73/14 74/8 77/14I
82/21 92/1 111/1
117/14 123/13 125/17
125/23 126/14 126/19)
127/8 128/25 130/20
132/12 133/7 135/18
138/7 140/5 143/11
155/12 156/15 158/10)
159/22 162/1 164/2
168/10 169/5 174/13
174/22 175/23 177/6
181/17 181/25 183/16)
183/21 187/2 187/13
191/18 191/19 192/20)
192/21 194/11
goes [12] 22/1 36/24
48/2 48/20 71/2 102/4
112/9 154/11 158/20
(61) fairness - goes
G
goes... [3] 177/22
178/10 184/4
going [74] 2/18 2/24
5/3 6/1 11/20 11/23
12/1 12/20 14/13 15/4)
17/1 21/4 21/5 21/23
28/7 29/16 32/12
33/11 33/19 34/2
34/14 46/4 46/5 47/25)
48/3 50/18 51/16
51/20 52/11 64/15
68/23 70/5 70/7 70/15)
71/12 71/13 71/20
72/10 72/12 74/7 75/1
75/10 78/21 83/4
85/24 90/11 92/22
96/6 101/8 107/15
115/20 115/22 119/21
121/18 123/14 123/24}
125/4 150/3 150/16
150/17 151/17 157/11
164/14 166/8 167/12
168/22 187/15 189/1
191/16 192/1 193/4
194/3 194/15 195/25
gone [4] 50/3 97/22
111/25 137/1
good [16] 1/5 14/18
24/15 27/17 69/11
76/4 78/10 84/8 95/23,
106/16 106/19 138/18)
138/21 173/10 181/9
186/24
got [33] 4/19 17/7
17/7 17/7 17/11 33/15)
34/24 34/25 34/25
35/1 35/11 35/18
39/14 40/24 41/17
60/5 68/20 73/16
77/16 78/12 92/13
112/3 118/1 118/4
118/12 118/15 118/16)
136/13 160/19 167/5
185/13 193/4 193/11
governance [3] 70/8
168/8 168/12
governing [1] 98/18
government [119]
1/24 3/12 3/20 4/6
4/16 5/8 5/18 7/8 7/24)
17/20 18/15 20/2
23/21 24/12 25/7
26/11 29/19 34/5 35/1
35/23 35/24 36/4
36/14 36/21 37/4
37/25 38/6 38/21
39/11 40/5 40/15
41/12 41/16 41/25
42/7 42/10 42/20
42/22 43/1 43/17
43/18 50/10 62/11
63/10 66/23 66/24
67/1 68/7 69/4 69/5
70/8 74/14 75/6 80/13)
80/22 81/8 81/11 82/6
82/20 86/8 89/3 89/11
90/20 91/16 91/21
92/16 94/23 95/12
95/21 96/1 96/18 97/5)
102/22 108/14 115/20)
115/23 116/19 116/19)
116/25 122/1 122/4
126/5 126/8 128/10
128/15 132/14 133/20)
133/21 133/22 136/3
136/13 136/22 137/3
138/12 139/8 139/9
139/10 143/15 144/9
146/4 151/5 151/6
162/7 165/5 168/1
168/24 183/7 192/3
192/6 192/9 192/21
193/14 194/3 194/24
196/5 196/6 196/8
196/9 196/14
government's [8]
36/8 41/20 87/11
88/15 91/6 132/23
136/22 168/11
governmental [1]
25/10
Grade [2] 27/8 27/8
grades [2] 8/1 27/6
gradually [1] 88/22
Granville [2] 135/11
153/17
grateful [13] 47/22
51/2 61/17 62/20
72/19 73/15 73/18
83/22 133/5 135/6
135/24 140/17 199/14)
great [8] 16/24 17/8
43/13 146/14 177/14
187/5 195/9 199/12
greater [1] 168/8
greatly [1] 123/2
Griffiths [3] 134/11
135/2 153/18
ground [1] 147/13
group [29] 3/22
52/24 73/8 87/25 88/1
88/10 88/12 88/15
90/7 91/15 92/9 94/2
94/24 95/5 95/13
95/22 96/10 98/16
99/1 107/25 108/6
110/3 113/10 113/15
113/15 115/17 153/2
168/4 186/3
Group's [1] 97/6
grow [1] 114/24
growing [1] 115/2
guaranteed [1] 80/15
guess [7] 92/6 93/12
98/6 98/14 105/11
144/11 145/8
guessing [1] 72/4
guiding [1] 152/9
guilty [5] 139/1
148/14 177/25 178/10
180/11
guv' [1] 66/25
H
had [162] 3/18 3/22
5/17 8/24 9/21 10/4
10/13 11/14 14/23
15/19 16/9 16/19
17/16 17/17 17/18
17/20 21/1 22/2 22/14
22/16 24/13 24/15
24/23 25/3 26/10 27/1
27/17 32/1 32/21
33/17 33/21 34/18
37/6 37/7 38/16 38/21
40/5 40/8 41/18 41/25
42/4 46/11 46/17
46/24 50/11 54/14
55/15 56/6 59/20 60/2
60/3 60/4 63/22 66/12
66/21 67/17 68/15
75/15 75/18 77/18
80/10 80/11 80/14
81/15 91/1 92/7 93/1
94/6 101/17 102/11
102/21 102/25 105/17I
107/23 108/24 109/1
109/4 109/5 109/9
109/9 109/13 110/4
110/16 1144/7 111/24
111/25 112/4 112/11
117/10 118/19 118/20
119/8 119/12 119/14
120/19 121/14 121/19]
123/13 128/5 128/6
128/11 128/16 128/19I
128/24 129/8 129/9
130/7 130/11 130/17
132/15 133/14 137/1
140/3 141/10 141/20
143/19 143/19 143/20
144/14 145/1 145/4
145/15 146/1 149/8
149/24 149/25 150/4
150/4 152/22 152/24
153/6 153/8 154/10
157/15 159/6 159/11
159/12 163/3 163/25
164/7 164/25 165/3
166/17 170/16 171/20
172/16 173/17 177/19I
178/21 180/22 180/24
185/5 185/10 187/5
189/24 190/10 191/2
195/7 195/8 195/8
197/20 198/22
hadn't [3] 111/2
4111/4 130/17
hair [1] 37/13
half [8] 15/11 15/14
16/17 17/4 46/24
53/20 80/10 110/5
hall [2] 22/15 40/2
halves [1] 14/20
Hamilton [2] 61/25
180/5
Hamilton's [1] 62/2
hand [14] 22/8 22/9
38/6 40/19 65/24
156/5 158/6 158/15
158/17 158/18 158/20}
159/21 159/22 177/10}
handle [1] 56/1
handled [1] 30/19
handover [2] 88/25
89/6
handovers [1] 89/4
hands [2] 113/11
125/22
handwriting [2]
112/25 119/20
happen [10] 9/11
29/24 77/17 77/19
93/5 93/7 159/1
159/14 175/17 196/3
happened [10] 33/16
67/4 74/22 74/23 75/8
77/14 89/6 100/11
169/7 190/24
happening [5] 37/2
49/5 73/18 75/3 88/3
happens [5] 36/24
68/4 82/5 102/5
138/19
happy [5] 73/3 135/3
135/22 162/1 182/22
harassing [1] 147/3
hard [1] 84/19
harder [1] 166/20
hardship [1] 61/16
harm [1] 69/21
has [105] 7/7 7/12
17/24 18/7 18/8 20/21
21/10 28/22 30/5 30/7,
30/9 30/15 31/23
33/13 33/24 41/21
43/18 44/14 45/3
A7INT 48/6 48/13
48/18 53/9 53/11
54/12 55/22 56/10
56/19 57/24 58/1 58/2,
58/3 60/23 61/3 61/13
62/6 65/13 65/19
67/22 69/14 69/23
71/11 73/1 73/25
79/13 79/24 82/2
92/13 92/24 111/11
112/8 113/25 114/4
115/10 115/19 115/22)
116/19 116/21 124/9
124/13 126/23 128/22}
132/21 133/16 133/24}
133/25 134/1 134/15
134/17 138/2 138/8
140/15 140/21 141/17
142/6 142/8 142/14
142/20 146/4 146/21
147/11 151/7 153/20
156/13 157/5 157/9
158/12 162/7 164/22
173/4 176/3 178/14
184/11 187/5 187/12
188/5 188/10 189/8
190/15 194/18 194/23)
195/2 195/3 197/20
hat [1] 180/13
have [337]
haven't [9] 39/14
66/12 79/9 97/22
111/14 160/19 160/20)
174/1 186/23
having [22] 13/23
16/12 24/5 35/3 50/24)
54/18 55/6 89/16
92/25 93/3 98/24
104/23 142/10 147/15)
150/8 154/14 154/25
166/16 166/17 176/2
176/5 178/1
he [75] 13/10 16/7
47/14 47/17 47/19
47/19 50/22 58/16
58/16 60/22 61/7 61/8)
62/7 66/18 66/18
66/20 67/1 76/16
76/17 107/9 107/22
108/2 108/3 113/7
115/25 116/3 116/5
116/6 122/19 126/3
126/22 126/23 126/25)
130/23 130/25 131/14)
135/2 136/7 137/25
138/3 138/4 138/7
138/7 138/8 138/13
149/1 149/13 149/18
149/25 150/4 153/4
153/21 155/15 160/16)
163/19 163/25 164/8
174/18 174/19 182/1
185/8 186/4 186/14
186/15 187/3 187/14
187/16 187/17 195/6
195/7 195/8 195/10
195/12 195/14 197/20)
he'd [2] 57/1 185/15
he's [5] 52/18 62/14
67/4 67/5 125/15
headed [1] 189/24
heading [7] 132/1
147/6 156/10 157/4
158/11 163/5 192/2
hear [15] 1/5 46/1
70/7 70/10 84/8
106/16 146/24 147/13}
149/14 155/25 161/8
162/16 190/12 191/3
198/24
heard [7] 20/21 21/14)
(62) goes... - heard
H
heard... [5] 47/17
53/11 66/7 197/20
198/2
hearing [3] 1/7
191/10 199/20
heart [5] 34/8 34/14
36/5 57/19 188/21
heat [2] 135/6 135/24
heavily [2] 99/7
151/5
heavy [1] 176/4
heft [1] 167/13
held [6] 4/16 23/21
32/7 36/13 86/2
133/19
help [13] 3/25 16/25
19/21 32/21 41/3 53/6
103/24 113/18 117/23
126/5 128/23 147/7
180/10
helped [1] 179/3
helpful [4] 45/21
126/2 173/25 175/15
helping [1] 33/3
helpline [1] 175/14
helps [2] 4/6 107/15
hence [2] 175/10
195/12
Henderson [17]
174/9 174/12 174/20
174/25 177/17 177/23)
178/4 178/7 178/15
178/25 179/23 180/11
181/6 181/11 182/7
182/24 183/12
Henderson's [9]
174/15 174/23 176/17
176/21 177/1 177/7
177/10 178/8 181/4
her [24] 51/1 125/21
127/4 132/12 140/7
160/10 175/1 175/3
178/10 178/16 178/18
178/24 178/24 179/24
179/25 180/17 180/18}
180/19 180/23 181/5
181/11 181/18 182/25}
183/13
here [47] 7/6 7/13
27/22 29/22 33/15
34/13 36/25 47/21
48/10 49/5 49/21 50/2
54/22 56/13 58/23
59/13 59/19 60/2 61/7
62/11 70/17 71/24
73/16 73/24 75/3 75/8
79/10 82/22 83/7
119/19 120/4 123/2
123/5 124/1 128/5
136/20 139/13 143/13}
144/20 154/22 160/24}
165/21 171/17 180/8
1814/3 186/8 196/24
here's [2] 33/18
33/19
Hertfordshire [1]
175/2
hidden [1] 133/15
high [5] 91/23 98/6
107/20 142/17 169/20)
higher [1] 7/9
Hillsborough [2]
192/19 196/13
him [28] 13/9 47/18
56/7 82/25 107/13
117/10 123/15 125/20)
126/12 136/18 144/15)
147/20 149/2 149/13
150/12 152/14 153/7
153/21 154/11 163/19)
174/4 185/12 185/24
186/4 188/22 198/22
198/24 198/24
himself [1] 126/3
hindsight [8] 59/19
59/20 59/21 122/12
122/25 123/5 123/6
123/8
his [50] 48/21 54/10
60/15 61/7 61/21 62/6
66/19 108/2 112/21
116/3 117/8 117/9
117/15 121/14 125/19)
126/12 127/4 128/1
130/25 131/5 131/12
131/18 133/9 137/25
137/25 138/4 138/6
147/19 149/11 149/14)
149/18 150/23 153/3
153/14 154/6 163/4
163/24 164/10 165/18)
165/19 185/7 188/21
195/8 195/8 195/9
195/9 195/11 195/15
196/12 197/21
history [4] 175/1
hit [1] 16/23
Hogg [2] 160/1 160/5
hold [2] 135/22
136/21
holding [2] 115/1
135/3
holds [2] 126/8
147/20
Holmes [1] 195/5
home [4] 8/24 26/12
47/9 47/11
homes [1] 194/22
honest [2] 103/4
111/13
HONOURABLE [7]
1/8 84/11 127/25
131/4 131/17 200/2
200/11
Hooper [3] 16/19
18/11 80/11
hope [9] 104/18
105/19 115/20 125/11
126/11 171/4 189/21
195/22 196/12
hoped [1] 126/6
hoping [1] 175/15
Horizon [133] 13/3
32/16 35/6 35/7 35/9
42/16 50/5 50/6 50/12
51/8 57/21 57/22 58/2
58/14 58/18 61/11
62/9 62/13 63/13
63/15 65/17 67/13
68/25 72/4 75/17 81/1
81/3 81/13 89/20 90/2
90/17 99/12 99/18
99/21 100/16 104/22
106/22 107/1 107/6
108/24 108/24 109/6
109/8 109/11 113/12
113/23 114/14 115/6
116/16 116/23 121/24
122/24 124/11 125/8
125/9 126/25 130/8
130/10 130/24 131/13
131/21 132/2 132/6
132/20 133/15 134/17I
134/20 134/23 134/25
135/5 136/5 139/5
140/14 140/19 140/22
142/1 142/9 142/13
143/14 146/21 146/25)
147/25 148/10 148/13
151/6 156/10 156/13
156/18 156/20 156/21
156/23 157/10 158/11
158/12 158/19 158/19}
162/18 162/23 164/5
164/7 165/20 165/24
166/1 172/19 173/22
173/23 173/24 176/19}
176/23 176/24 178/6
178/11 179/12 180/1
180/16 180/20 180/25}
181/13 181/23 182/3
182/8 184/5 185/10
187/5 187/22 197/21
197/24 198/4 198/5
198/9 198/15 198/17
198/22
Horizon’ [1] 109/2
hot [1] 10/18
hotel [1] 195/9
hours [1] 178/3
house [16] 4/24
15/13 16/7 16/10
16/13 62/8 62/15
62/16 83/2 100/9
128/2 131/1 131/5
131/18 147/19 170/2
how [75] 14/16 17/11
18/24 23/6 24/13
24/14 24/16 27/11
27/23 28/19 28/21
29/6 29/12 29/24
30/19 34/14 35/24
35/25 36/6 36/6 36/6
36/12 43/19 45/3 46/7)
49/8 49/11 53/19 54/1
57/3 57/17 70/3 75/4
75/6 75/20 79/13
79/14 79/24 80/5
87/19 91/19 92/3
92/23 93/3 100/11
101/4 104/14 109/15
113/13 118/3 118/16
119/15 127/2 127/14
129/6 130/6 133/21
134/1 135/7 135/25
136/24 137/4 139/9
147/22 152/9 155/9
161/7 161/25 165/1
168/1 173/23 185/24
187/3 188/20 193/14
however [10] 18/7
89/18 122/19 142/2
148/9 164/20 165/24
177/12 177/15 177/22}
huge [5] 80/17 92/13
119/9 172/13 174/1
Huggins [1] 153/16
human [4] 34/12
68/12 83/6 146/16
hurt [1] 183/44
Hutton [3] 8/13 13/7
18/2
I absolutely [1]
195/17
laccept [1] 108/9
l actually [2] 146/2
170/14
lagree [2] 194/14
197/12
lalmost [1] 14/19
lalso [1] 187/10
l always [1] 94/16
lam [24] 2/18 2/23
48/21 52/24 56/7 76/7
83/22 89/18 97/1
104/13 110/4 113/8
114/10 115/17 115/17}
118/14 122/13 130/15)
132/4 132/14 132/19
133/10 133/15 190/25]
land [1] 8/25
lanswered [1] 125/2
I apologise [6]
118/24 121/12 122/17
179/24 183/4 183/13
I appreciate [1]
71/25
lask [4] 78/10 84/15
183/14 197/17
l asked [7] 123/20
160/21 161/7 163/23
179/4 190/25 198/24
lassume [9] 93/18
94/15 104/15 105/17
112/14 129/10 141/16)
178/20 185/22
l assumed [3] 66/24
100/24 161/19
I became [2] 9/22
37/10
I beg [1] 144/5
I believe [15] 17/21
41/9 46/13 47/9 48/12)
60/3 60/4 60/10 68/20
72/23 86/20 103/9
175/24 197/9 197/14
I believed [1] 182/15
I bring [1] 150/6
I but [1] 138/14
I call [2] 18/22 84/10
I came [1] 91/24
I can [20] 1/6 2/6
12/16 40/21 40/21
46/2 46/22 73/10 84/9)
117/13 122/14 124/3
129/19 135/1 149/7
161/25 183/13 186/22)
189/2 198/18
I can't [16] 69/16
76/3 97/22 117/7
119/7 124/23 139/18
139/19 160/12 160/18)
161/24 163/15 163/17
179/22 191/8 198/16
I cannot [4] 65/3
89/16 104/14 185/22
I certainly [4] 10/6
96/15 161/7 163/21
I commissioned [1]
85/6
I committed [1]
163/18
I completely [1]
118/13
I considered [1]
161/25
I could [2] 1/21 167/4I
I couldn't [2] 136/11
165/16
I dealt [3] 99/17
104/2 104/4
I decided [3] 123/14
136/18 149/11
I definitely [1] 120/17I
I describe [1] 91/14
I described [1] 53/20
I did [17] 12/6 21/2
65/1 65/6 76/23 89/17
89/19 89/24 122/24
123/7 136/9 149/3
166/18 172/2 172/4
185/22 198/21
I didn't [9] 11/22
59/15 104/19 112/14
123/13 141/15 169/21
179/9 182/14
(63) heard... - I didn't
Ido [22] 1/17 2/10
11/3 37/5 41/25 55/6
85/10 87/18 103/10
103/15 116/25 117/1
117/4 120/21 121/1
150/9 154/19 166/7
167/11 188/2 193/13
196/19
I don't [41] 13/4
15/21 26/4 26/8 27/1
28/22 29/4 30/16
37/20 43/4 46/21 49/1
49/11 51/23 53/21
68/3 69/15 81/2 82/5
89/5 93/22 95/8 101/4
106/4 106/6 118/23
119/1 130/1 152/5
160/17 161/6 161/23
162/1 169/3 174/8
179/16 186/1 186/7
190/8 190/18 191/17
lenclose [1] 138/6
l exercised [1]
123/15
lexpect [4] 28/14
89/17 111/21 122/21
l expected [1] 159/4
lexplain [1] 118/8
I face [1] 176/4
I feel [3] 47/20
105/11 178/25
I felt [4] 92/15 143/23
153/7 164/1
I find [2] 3/13 190/18
I focused [1] 155/13
I follow [4] 103/19
I followed [1] 122/13
I found [1] 163/24
I further [1] 177/25
I gave [2] 89/6
160/12
I genuinely [3]
179/22 186/1 191/12
I go [2] 73/7 169/5
I got [2] 40/24 185/13
I gradually [1] 88/22
I guess [7] 92/6
93/12 98/6 98/14
105/11 144/11 145/8
I had [32] 21/1 22/14
22/16 24/13 24/15
27/1 27/17 60/2 60/3
60/4 68/15 117/10
119/8 119/12 120/19
121/19 123/13 128/24
133/14 140/3 141/10
143/19 143/20 144/14)
145/1 146/1 149/24
149/25 150/4 154/10
172/16 191/2
I hadn't [2] 111/2
111/4
Ihave [29] 36/22
42/25 50/25 51/9
53/11 70/15 71/23
72/22 76/22 103/9
1415/7 117/14 121/6
124/8 127/24 130/11
131/3 131/16 133/4
134/22 145/24 151/23)
154/7 155/5 165/4
175/7 183/4 185/21
195/22
I haven't [6] 39/14
66/12 97/22 111/14
174/1 186/23
I hope [7] 104/18
105/19 125/11 171/4
189/21 195/22 196/12)
limagine [2] 37/19
37/21
linsisted [2] 168/5
168/7
l interrupted [1]
23/17
Ijust [12] 13/6 21/6
24/16 80/5 90/12
105/4 111/14 118/11
119/11 121/9 121/11
150/18
I knew [1] 191/9
I know [4] 46/21 77/6
125/1 187/5
learnt [1] 102/17
I left [2] 60/11 89/7
I legislated [1] 171/3
I look [4] 48/11 49/23
68/11 75/18
I looked [1] 66/8
I made [2] 143/25
164/20
I may [4] 31/21 85/24
117/6 120/18
I mean [16] 5/20
24/13 28/20 44/12
49/10 93/17 94/21
98/2 101/21 102/24
107/21 194/17 194/24)
195/16 195/17 195/22)
I mention [1] 195/14
I mentioned [2]
170/2 196/17
I met [2] 123/20
174/3
I might [5] 44/24
102/25 103/5 121/11
163/2
I needed [2] 92/1
144/19
I never [4] 44/18
44/20 66/3 66/7
Inor [3] 142/5 164/20
177/18
Inote [1] 149/4
I noted [1] 149/23
I now [2] 103/19
151/19
lonly [1] 115/20
lought [4] 150/12
I pay [4] 175/21
I play [1] 12/9
I played [2] 11/16
38/18
I point [1] 58/23
I presume [3] 89/8
92/9 135/14
I put [4] 170/19
I raised [1] 65/4
lread [2] 121/22
155/11
I really [3] 88/19
103/3 120/18
I recall [1] 148/22
I received [3] 108/24
146/5 164/2
I refer [2] 19/9 38/24
I relied [2] 98/23 99/4
Iremain [1] 122/19
I remember [6] 18/1
110/18 117/8 155/10
165/13 186/4
I repeat [1] 152/12
I replied [1] 109/13
l represent [3] 73/8
74/21 171/18
Il respectfully [1]
126/4
I said [8] 5/11 18/13
24/5 40/24 44/15 46/4
76/1 80/12
I saw [4] 66/3 66/4
152/13 159/4
I say [4] 20/15 101/23}
120/8 172/13
I see [1] 129/3
I served [1] 28/13
I should [12] 2/21
24/19 61/16 62/20
117/10 122/18 133/7
142/4 143/18 149/21
173/25 177/17
I shouldn't [1] 66/12
I showed [2] 136/8
145/22
I signed [2] 130/2
141/18
I sort [1] 111/3
I stand [1] 186/10
I start [4] 87/10
I still [2] 164/10
166/18
I strongly [1] 167/11
I support [1] 69/20
I suppose [3] 26/19
38/20 93/17
I suspect [2] 109/13
110/5
Itake [1] 112/24
I that [1] 18/3
I then [1] 186/19
I think [104] 5/23
7/14 13/7 15/22 20/7
26/12 27/7 28/20
28/23 31/14 33/8 34/7,
38/4 38/5 40/17 40/21
41/2 42/14 43/13
43/24 44/6 45/11
45/17 45/20 51/24
53/13 56/16 57/8
57/13 57/15 57/17
64/8 66/3 66/5 66/11
66/13 68/24 69/20
70/14 70/15 70/18
71/10 71/19 72/7
76/25 77/20 78/3 79/8)
79/18 79/19 81/15
81/24 81/25 82/2
82/23 83/4 84/20
86/14 88/17 89/8
91/14 93/24 94/22
95/8 95/9 95/14 96/15)
96/21 97/15 101/11
102/3 102/15 105/18
107/8 107/16 107/20
117/10 119/2 120/19
125/12 129/14 139/22)
141/19 143/11 149/22}
153/12 153/13 160/12}
160/13 160/19 165/12)
166/5 166/9 166/19
168/9 170/20 171/8
173/25 174/1 174/6
183/19 183/20 184/17}
197/18
I thought [4] 24/13
76/20 100/22 136/16
I told [2] 149/1
149/12
I took [3] 107/9
152/14 161/2
I tried [1] 175/12
Iturn [1] 159/20
l understand [9] 2/2
43/23 48/17 58/20
63/10 67/4 83/25
177/23 178/5
l understood [5] 88/9)
90/23 92/11 93/15
95/16
I want [11] 1/14 3/2
7/23 19/23 20/20
26/15 36/8 38/2 70/5
73/9 197/22
I wanted [8] 79/1
99/5 148/24 149/2
149/13 155/4 198/13
198/24
Iwas [56] 3/16 3/16
9/23 10/21 13/16
16/16 17/4 24/5 25/5
26/8 34/2 41/9 43/21
46/4 46/5 57/2 75/16
87/22 88/19 89/7 90/1
91/1 93/14 95/25
96/16 96/20 99/7
99/15 99/18 103/9
103/19 107/22 118/21
119/9 119/10 119/17
119/22 122/6 123/14
123/21 123/23 128/13}
128/16 129/11 129/12)
136/15 141/17 143/21
154/21 154/23 157/17
167/16 172/14 182/13)
191/2 194/24
I wasn't [5] 62/4
101/25 107/25 125/3
144/15
I will [2] 53/21 76/6
I wish [3] 60/2 68/15
105/19
I wonder [2] 71/4
72/6
I wondered [1]
124/16
I worked [3] 8/12
84/24 84/25
I would [48] 9/24
12/8 14/25 15/5 17/5
20/14 20/17 26/4
38/24 46/13 47/22
49/13 51/1 52/2 52/3
52/15 53/23 55/5 57/1
74/10 79/14 88/4 90/3
97/19 99/2 102/15
102/16 109/13 111/1
117/11 118/20 119/2
120/19 122/21 126/11
132/22 133/5 136/18
140/17 157/17 159/18)
163/1 163/12 163/19
172/9 172/10 185/18
194/25
I wouldn't [4] 165/7
172/23 172/24 186/13)
I write [1] 50/24
I wrote [3] 107/13
119/12 121/8
I'd [19] 52/4 66/21
72/13 73/14 73/18
101/17 101/18 110/16)
111/9 118/19 118/20
136/19 137/7 159/11
159/13 174/4 180/6
185/16 199/4
lll [12] 5/5 34/2 46/3
54/7 65/8 70/6 73/23
78/4 101/6 176/18
188/8 191/17
I'm [93] 5/3 6/15 6/20
12/16 12/20 15/4
15/12 15/17 21/23
26/9 27/6 28/7 29/3
29/16 34/19 38/19
40/21 45/9 47/11
47/25 48/3 54/4 54/8
59/19 60/1 67/25 68/4
68/9 68/9 68/19 68/23
(64) Ido - I'm
71/11 71/12 72/10
72/25 73/3 75/19
77/16 79/13 81/20
89/6 95/8 95/8 96/14
98/2 104/13 107/25
111/22 117/13 119/7
120/17 121/4 122/5
123/1 125/4 130/3
145/8 145/8 150/8
161/25 163/1 163/15
164/14 166/8 167/12
168/6 168/7 168/25
169/4 171/17 183/11
185/16 191/5 191/8
191/12 191/16 192/1
194/1 195/23 195/24
199/14
I've [25] 24/24 29/2
34/9 35/15 40/11
60/5 61/1 65/2 66/10
71/19 73/16 78/3
78/12 93/7 97/16
105/2 139/19 141/14
158/22 190/18 193/4
ID [1] 184/8
idea [8] 11/6 15/5
18/14 19/4 72/14
72/20 170/8 170/15
identified [2] 178/7
195/20
identify [1] 114/20
identifying [1]
105/20
identity [1] 103/25
ie [15] 94/12 102/19
111/7 118/1 118/2
119/14 120/2 120/5
121/17 126/13 134/23}
137/3 154/3 161/16
193/2
ie decided [1] 154/3
ie Sir Alan's [1]
118/41
ie so [1] 120/5
ie tell [1] 193/2
ie that [2] 102/19
121/17
ie the [3] 118/2
119/14 126/13
ie there's [1] 120/2
ie they [2] 94/12
111/7
ie to [1] 161/16
ies [1] 133/24
if [206]
illustrate [3] 34/19
38/19 58/24
I'm... [62] 69/8 70/24
81/24 83/9 85/23 89/5
135/18 139/18 141/15)
154/19 160/17 161/19}
41/24 53/4 56/21 60/3
imagine [6] 37/19
37/21 43/16 44/25
163/19 188/20
immediate [1] 132/21
imminent [1] 161/13
161/13
impact [2] 10/16
61/13
impending [1]
160/11
implement [4] 17/16
91/18 91/24 98/3
implementation [3]
10/6 110/7 142/23
implemented [5]
9/23 18/7 40/9 42/2
91/7
implements [1]
196/15
implied [1] 7/16
importance [1] 34/4
important [19] 30/14
31/21 39/6 39/12 57/1
57/18 79/8 79/18
82/11 82/23 99/15
135/17 135/19 159/18)
170/11 170/25 176/13)
196/19 196/21
importantly [1] 31/18
impose [1] 134/20
imposed [2] 144/10
178/2
impression [1] 30/17
improper [2] 46/14
180/18
improve [3] 14/14
25/4 78/22
impunity [1] 146/16
inability [1] 80/21
inaccessible [1]
133/17
inaccurate [1]
140/12
inadequacies [1]
132/20
include [3] 49/17
182/23 193/8
included [8] 14/1
14/13 78/21 112/12
134/9 155/9 179/10
179/14
includes [1] 116/17
including [4] 38/22
56/17 61/12 78/18
incoming [1] 81/10
increase [2] 4/1
198/10
increased [4] 17/3
64/4 196/7 196/7
incurring [1] 132/8
indeed [24] 87/25
88/5 93/24 94/8 99/18
99/25 100/15 116/5
imminent/planned [1]
121/1 121/19 128/9
128/13 129/7 131/8
166/7 169/15 170/2
178/14 183/4 190/23
196/16
independence [1]
169/3
independent [13]
72/2 102/4 102/7
110/25 113/10 114/6
independently [4]
48/24 109/9 142/25
169/14
indicate [3] 63/12
120/23 189/3
indicated [1] 108/24
indispensable [1]
27/23
individual [27] 10/23
12/5 23/5 26/19 32/3
46/15 49/18 50/1
76/25 113/20 142/4
153/1 166/2 173/19
173/20 178/9 187/22
188/13 191/9
individuals [2] 94/12
103/23
industrial [3] 8/18
17/9 47/3
industry [4] 5/19
17/2 18/17 143/3
inevitably [1] 141/6
infected [3] 191/24
192/6 192/24
inflexible [4] 123/9
inflict [1] 146/17
inflicted [1] 133/24
influence [3] 41/21
46/11 196/7
influencing [1] 196/8
informal [1] 198/19
information [54]
30/22 32/6 32/7 32/12
32/25 33/6 33/7 33/15)
33/25 34/11 34/23
35/4 35/11 35/18
48/13 48/25 49/5 49/6
50/4 56/4 61/2 61/4
61/6 63/22 67/15
67/17 67/19 68/24
72/3 73/10 73/20
75/18 104/7 104/9
104/15 106/4 108/15
110/12 110/19 111/8
111/18 112/13 114/4
115/10 116/1 130/16
143/2 144/19 153/25
158/21 166/6 179/25
139/15 144/22 145/12
35/11 61/3 64/5 71/15
121/17 133/25 162/23
32/8 35/8 41/15 42/13
56/20 59/7 61/5 67/12)
123/10 123/16 123/19}
183/17 190/2
informed [2] 48/21
57/14
initial [4] 89/16
initially [1] 174/14
injustice [1] 66/22
injustices [2] 72/5
132/21
innocent [2] 139/1
148/14
Innovation [2] 7/1
87/4
innovations [1]
40/11
input [4] 23/8 23/11
23/14 33/21
inquire [1] 83/11
20/21 62/8 62/15
62/16 65/13 66/4
70/14 71/7 72/11
72/18 72/19 76/6
79/13 83/22 84/15
86/6 93/14 96/14
99/14 102/18 103/20
105/19 106/5 106/6
137/9 140/22 172/5
184/3 191/24 192/25
196/25 197/20 198/2
Inquiry's [1] 150/7
insert [1] 85/3
inside [2] 66/6
190/12
insist [1] 81/12
insisted [2] 168/5
168/7
insisting [2] 59/10
63/24
inspectorate [1] 72/6
installed [1] 113/13
instance [3] 112/13
113/19 179/8
instances [1] 140/11
instead [5] 41/10
51/13 114/2 152/9
176/2
instigated [1] 114/7
instincts [2] 65/23
66/6
institution [2] 146/14
171/2
instruct [1] 194/8
instructions [1]
180/14
integrity [17] 13/3
58/18 63/14 99/21
107/1 107/6 109/1
116/23 122/24 142/13}
142/19 156/10 156/20)
158/11 158/19 165/25)
inherently [1] 146/22
112/18 148/25 149/14)
inquiry [42] 1/13 2/17,
66/17 68/5 70/7 70/10)
104/18 104/21 104/22)
184/5
intended [1] 105/24
intends [2] 62/7
62/14
intense [1] 17/7
intensity [1] 17/3
intention [2] 104/12
105/8
intentions [1] 132/23
intents [1] 5/20
interactions [1] 98/5
interest [7] 13/7 36/8
44/2 45/3 80/9 134/16
152/8
interested [2] 79/14
126/2
interesting [2]
185/13 188/23
interests [1] 164/16
interfere [10] 43/8
43/12 44/17 69/10
82/12 82/13 165/6
165/7 165/7 165/9
interfere/shouldn't
[1] 165/6
interfered [1] 94/4
interference [2]
116/22 122/3
interim [1] 146/8
internal [3] 15/25
65/13 191/21
Internet [1] 19/8
interpreted [1]
179/19
interrupted [1] 23/17
intervene [11] 43/6
44/17 45/14 76/3
90/22 142/5 164/21
165/2 165/15 173/16
177/18
intervening [1] 43/12
interviewed [1] 48/23}
intimidate [1] 114/21
into [54] 16/20 18/12
18/17 19/8 19/15 23/8}
23/14 33/18 42/12
46/22 51/15 52/19
54/12 54/17 56/10
79/13 81/13 83/11
85/19 92/1 96/1
122/25 125/17 132/16)
134/1 139/2 140/22
141/19 145/5 145/9
145/10 145/16 145/16)
147/6 147/13 152/15
153/4 154/21 159/10
159/14 162/1 166/15
166/19 169/8 170/19
176/8 184/12 184/25
187/16 193/12 193/18}
194/4 194/13 194/15
introduce [1] 192/12
introduced [1]
113/24
(65) I'm... - introduced
introducing [1] 70/3
introduction [3]
142/21 167/8 187/6
intrude [1] 169/8
Invariably [1] 113/22
investigate [7] 47/22
61/18 62/12 62/13
62/21 81/12 146/10
investigated [6]
63/12 77/10 90/8
96/11 102/7 169/14
investigating [2]
51/13 52/9
investigation [15]
51/15 62/24 63/19
64/6 74/6 81/13 114/7
132/21 134/1 140/11
192/7 193/21 193/23
195/14 195/18
investigations [1]
48/18
investigative [1]
143/7
investigator [1]
181/22
investment [4] 40/9
80/4 80/11 147/24
Investments [1]
26/11
investor [3] 18/12
18/16 80/21
invitation [1] 166/19
invite [1] 18/15
invited [2] 48/23
153/21
involve [2] 20/15
70/12
involved [35] 3/23
4/2 10/25 11/4 16/16
19/18 20/12 22/17
26/6 32/25 34/20
41/17 42/8 43/21 46/9)
46/14 47/4 64/5 77/1
89/25 90/24 91/2
92/14 93/11 93/20
94/1 94/13 94/19
123/11 123/18 136/13
144/9 144/13 146/9
148/18
involvement [4] 4/9
28/1 56/15 66/13
involving [5] 31/17
34/10 61/15 153/1
163/10
irked [1] 155/11
is [479]
Ismay [4] 184/3
184/14 184/24 185/1
isn't [11] 30/9 41/16
44/20 52/6 52/9 55/17
76/11 120/1 145/13
151/11 190/9
issue [36] 9/19 9/20
9/24 10/20 31/1 34/8
34/9 35/10 36/22
47/23 47/24 50/5 65/8
76/21 91/11 95/18
97/15 99/18 99/20
100/16 100/16 107/3
112/2 115/25 120/3
124/11 124/15 126/12,
141/8 143/15 145/2
150/20 153/6 154/22
167/21 180/19
issued [1] 175/16
issues [42] 14/12
15/14 16/10 26/20
32/16 47/14 50/1 55/9)
63/8 65/6 80/7 81/13
91/8 97/21 99/16
99/17 99/22 100/7
112/3 118/9 141/9
142/2 144/12 144/12
145/5 146/1 146/19
148/18 150/8 162/5
162/13 163/5 165/19
172/17 172/19 173/14)
175/20 176/15 177/12)
177/15 193/18 198/20)
issues' [1] 109/1
Issy [2] 160/1 160/4
it [551]
it's [117] 2/11 3/14
4/5 4/6 5/20 5/23 12/3
15/2 15/16 22/7 25/12
30/14 31/14 32/11
34/7 34/7 36/3 37/3
37/4 39/15 39/17
42/21 42/25 43/17
44/2 45/11 45/13 47/8
47/13 48/6 49/10 50/7
50/20 51/5 51/6 51/24)
55/15 57/1 57/4 57/10)
59/6 59/20 60/7 60/7
60/13 60/20 63/3
63/25 64/12 64/13
65/13 66/5 66/13 68/4
69/15 69/22 70/14
70/22 71/3 71/4 82/23)
82/23 89/8 93/18
102/15 103/3 103/5
103/20 105/1 105/18
106/8 106/8 109/12
113/2 113/3 116/13
121/4 121/6 126/16
130/5 131/19 138/17
140/6 140/6 142/20
143/16 145/21 146/9
151/10 151/13 151/16)
151/20 152/20 154/6
156/7 157/20 158/8
158/8 161/23 166/22
166/25 169/24 171/11
174/24 174/24 183/7
183/17 184/1 184/22
186/23 187/17 187/25)
188/9 189/2 190/9
192/5 199/4
151/17 153/24 154/4
154/9 154/16 155/5
items [1] 18/22
its [50] 3/11 4/19
11/14 18/20 21/22
25/9 25/10 26/12
68/8 70/21 72/18
87/15 87/20 87/21
94/2 98/19 98/20
102/21 116/19 116/21
122/2 126/14 133/19
133/21 133/22 134/41
139/9 139/10 142/21
163/10 184/5 184/6
184/12 184/24 187/6
192/19 193/19
itself [13] 31/19
32/13 33/12 34/11
62/12 62/13 68/7
82/20 98/22 159/21
166/5 191/24 193/1
ITV [4] 169/21
J
Jacqui [5] 47/8 48/6
48/9 61/1 64/2
jail [1] 188/19
James [3] 60/14
61/21 66/15
January [1] 47/13
Jason [1] 84/14
Jasvinder [1] 140/7
Jenny [1] 131/25
Jesmond [2] 195/5
195/8
JFSA [25] 113/9
113/17 115/3 115/11
126/23 128/11 129/9
134/3 138/5 140/16
149/25 151/1 151/17
153/21 153/23 154/23}
158/9 162/5 162/13
162/17 163/10 184/20
185/11 187/24 198/23
JFSA's [2] 162/16
165/23
job [9] 3/12 16/2
21/12 22/22 23/1
24/14 25/23 71/22
129/11
John [2] 8/13 18/2
joined [3] 8/10
113/16 138/5
JONATHAN [6] 84/11
84/17 165/13 186/20
186/20 200/12
Jones [2] 62/5 62/14
item [8] 150/25 151/4
26/12 36/13 37/15 _—_Ijudges [1] 82/13
37/16 40/23 42/21 Ijudgment [6] 82/13
42/22 43/19 43/20 I 82/14 137/9 180/3
44/3 44/15 47/2 52/16I 180/6 180/7
journalist [1] 73/12
judge [8] 45/13
113/19 118/3 118/17
119/15 120/14 121/15}
127/14
judged [2] 33/13
122/16
judgement [2] 29/12
118/21
judgments [16] 43/7
44/17 59/12 59/14
59/16 60/8 64/9 67/24
68/18 69/19 70/2
75/24 75/25 76/3
77/25 82/3
judice [6] 142/6
161/6 162/14 164/21
173/17 177/19
judice’ [1] 161/14
judicial [5] 45/16
69/10 165/8 165/10
169/8
judiciary [2] 168/17
169/6
Julian [4] 47/14
July [19] 1/1 4/14
5/12 123/21 131/9
131/24 132/1 133/3
137/23 140/6 145/20
150/24 151/11 152/14}
153/13 153/14 153/22,
154/14 159/13
July 2007 [1] 5/12
jumped [2] 110/15
110/16
June [8] 2/11 3/6
6/23 86/3 125/13
126/19 126/20 198/2
junior [4] 3/17 8/2
112/6 151/24
jury [2] 113/20
121/15
just [105] 5/7 5/24
6/20 10/22 12/12
12/14 12/16 12/20
13/6 13/14 15/1 15/4
21/6 24/16 24/21 26/9)
27/2 28/19 33/18
34/22 35/7 38/19 42/4
44/24 55/1 55/24
56/12 57/3 58/8 59/3
68/3 68/23 68/23
72/25 73/18 73/23
75/7 75/10 77/14
79/22 80/5 80/18 81/4,
82/15 90/12 94/6
105/1 105/4 106/8
4111/7 111/14 112/2
112/24 113/7 115/4
116/6 116/12 118/4
118/11 118/14 119/9
119/11 121/9 121/11
124/1 125/25 127/9
127/15 129/15 134/21
135/21 136/6 141/14
146/23 148/2 148/4
150/18 151/9 157/11
159/23 164/4 172/19
172/20 173/9 173/9
173/10 173/12 174/3
175/18 176/7 177/6
177/6 177/8 180/3
180/8 181/19 183/19
184/17 186/19 188/5
190/24 192/23 194/11
196/1 196/20
justice [7] 58/21
113/2 134/13 152/23
167/25 179/2 196/2
KO
Karen [2] 173/6
176/11
Kate [1] 22/15
Kaur [2] 140/7
140/21
Kearns [1] 198/3
keel [1] 19/19
keen [1] 161/7
keep [3] 11/24 19/16
148/18
keeping [1] 185/3
Keith [2] 125/14
126/13
kept [3] 59/9 59/11
192/6
key [6] 8/18 39/11
91/11 161/1 169/23
190/20
kind [5] 35/13 71/21
129/20 135/13 140/24I
kindly [1] 84/18
kinds [1] 40/11
King's [2] 167/9
192/4
Kingston [1] 86/1
knew [6] 104/11
105/7 112/16 159/18
165/15 191/9
know [87] 22/8 26/4
28/3 28/22 29/4 31/12I
31/14 31/14 33/20
37/20 38/13 39/17
39/18 41/24 44/16
44/19 46/17 46/21
48/24 49/1 49/11 51/3)
52/15 53/12 57/2
59/15 59/16 59/20
60/1 66/6 66/10 67/5
68/3 68/11 69/12
69/15 69/16 71/23
77/6 81/18 81/24 82/5I
82/25 83/7 84/14 89/5
95/8 97/7 101/4
(66) introducing - know
K
103/4 103/10 103/19
106/3 106/4 106/6
107/9 123/6 123/7
125/1 128/14 130/1
135/7 135/24 140/17
152/2 152/5 153/6
158/7 158/8 160/4
160/7 160/17 161/7
161/23 166/5 169/3
187/5 190/8 190/13
190/18
knowing [2] 50/12
79/14
knowledge [6] 2/14
85/18 94/7 100/23
101/22 104/22
known [3] 78/2
101/17 104/16
knows [2] 47/19
184/3
L
Labour [4] 18/15
80/13 80/18 86/19
laid [4] 142/8
178/17 178/23
language [1] 139/13
large [17] 15/23
15/23 30/11 68/14
107/17 107/25 108/6
108/10 157/2 161/1
171/18 172/16 176/6
larger [1] 175/18
largest [1] 196/6
last [8] 12/23 34/18
115/19 126/23 128/11
139/7 176/1 197/14
lasted [1] 86/14
lastly [4] 90/10
164/13 166/24 170/6
late [2] 148/17
149/23
later [16] 26/11 34/3
50/6 55/12 67/9 67/24
76/16 77/17 78/1
108/1 108/19 110/6
121/20 122/24 141/23}
160/6
latest [1] 142/25
latter [1] 185/25
launch [1] 71/6
law [12] 92/12 94/22
95/5 95/7 123/10
123/16 136/3 136/13
143/23 144/7 145/6
192/19
know... [38] 101/23
104/14 104/19 105/14}
179/16 179/25 182/14)
Lamb [7] 86/22 174/9I
174/12 174/17 174/24]
73/8 74/21 79/3 99/15
lawfully [4] 42/23
43/3 44/10 69/7
lawyer [1] 180/14
lawyers [1] 159/25
layers [3] 34/20
34/22 35/3
lead [1] 15/12
leader [2] 86/5 196/6
leadership [1] 87/6
leading [1] 14/1
learn [2] 169/7
194/25
learned [2] 88/22
113/17
learning [1] 43/8
learnt [3] 53/17
102/17 111/13
least [7] 57/14 61/12
62/13 166/21 169/4
185/9 188/10
leave [3] 39/19 76/6
94/24
leaving [3] 8/10 17/6
175/2
led [3] 138/3 142/10
164/25
left [11] 46/8 60/11
70/1 89/7 98/19
134/17 156/5 158/15
left-hand [3] 156/5
158/18 159/22
legal [9] 79/2 95/21
109/5 148/6 161/12
169/6
legislate [1] 70/1
legislated [5] 1/25
67/8 67/10 72/1 171/3
legislating [2] 69/18
196/21
legislation [21] 14/2
14/13 14/23 18/11
18/19 25/4 25/19
35/19 37/6 37/9 37/12
67/5 69/20 70/3 78/18)
78/21 98/10 110/6
189/18 197/6 197/9
legislative [1] 12/12
length [33] 1/24
18/25 31/24 36/12
36/20 36/23 40/14
41/19 41/20 70/12
70/20 70/25 81/6 81/9)
82/17 82/18 82/19
87/11 89/24 90/19
94/3 95/6 95/12
116/20 122/2 129/1
136/4 143/15 146/13
162/8 167/21 168/2
168/12
less [4] 6/8 29/2
123/10 175/14
lesson [1] 168/9
158/18 159/22 169/13)
162/10 162/12 163/10)
lessons [2] 169/7
171/24
let [7] 42/6 51/3
61/17 62/20 132/9
135/7 140/17
let's [12] 5/11 44/1
47/6 49/15 50/19
52/22 54/4 57/10
60/12 77/13 89/12
192/23
letter [161] 30/7
32/17 32/21 33/17
33/18 33/20 33/22
33/24 33/25 34/21
47/8 48/1 48/2 48/5
48/8 48/11 48/12 49/8
49/14 50/20 52/3
52/16 52/20 54/6
54/14 55/3 55/5 55/20}
55/25 56/13 57/11
58/9 59/4 59/21 59/25
60/9 60/13 62/10
63/17 63/20 90/17
112/21 112/22 115/24
116/2 116/15 117/8
117/9 117/11 117/16
117/17 118/1 118/1
118/15 118/15 118/17]
118/19 118/22 118/23
118/25 118/25 119/4
119/5 119/14 119/19
120/6 120/8 120/16
120/18 120/25 121/5
121/8 121/21 121/21
121/24 123/13 124/2
124/22 125/15 125/24
125/25 126/13 126/13
126/16 131/25 133/2
133/9 136/17 136/18
137/23 138/6 139/14
139/16 140/3 140/25
141/25 142/2 144/14
144/16 145/19 145/20
146/4 148/22 149/12
149/18 150/1 150/11
150/11 150/24 151/11
151/13 153/3 153/14
153/15 153/22 154/9
154/10 154/14 154/20
155/2 164/14 166/15
173/6 173/14 174/8
174/12 174/13 174/16
174/17 174/20 174/23
176/10 176/16 176/22
177/1 177/7 177/10
177/12 177/15 178/8
178/13 178/17 179/11
179/15 179/20 179/23
181/5 181/19 182/9
182/13 182/15 182/24
185/13 186/19 186/24
187/3 188/4 188/9
188/16 188/18 188/24
letters [51] 29/23
30/17 32/15 46/5 47/2
47/6 64/15 68/22
93/13 93/17 95/15
97/12 99/24 99/25
100/13 101/1 101/4
107/8 110/24 118/19
118/21 119/10 119/22)
120/9 125/6 134/22
140/2 141/14 141/16
141/18 141/21 143/24)
144/1 159/17 160/16
164/15 171/22 172/2
172/3 172/5 172/8
172/11 172/20 172/25}
176/13 176/22 179/5
183/5 188/6 191/4
191/8
level [27] 27/4 27/9
32/1 32/2 34/6 40/16
41/4 41/4 44/21 61/13)
69/21 71/7 80/3 89/22,
91/19 91/25 92/16
92/20 94/10 98/6
114/7 114/13 133/17
142/17 184/8 184/10
198/11
levels [3] 41/14
92/17 93/8
liable [2] 79/12 148/8
liaise [1] 135/11
liaison [1] 24/4
Lib [1] 86/24
Liberal [2] 86/5
192/18
libraries [3] 128/1
131/5 131/18
library [1] 100/10
lie [6] 36/21 37/4
106/2 181/18 184/2
184/11
lied [5] 103/18
103/19 103/23 103/25
105/3
lies [2] 170/5 184/2
life [3] 19/7 53/1
195/9
light [2] 87/15 152/9
like [54] 7/9 8/8 9/3
9/7 10/9 17/21 18/17
19/18 20/25 21/11
21/17 21/19 23/2
23/24 26/11 32/14
32/17 35/22 36/12
37/2 37/12 40/2 40/14,
42/5 42/18 43/21 45/8)
46/16 46/20 49/8
49/14 49/24 57/21
58/3 59/1 60/24 70/7
71/8 72/9 81/17 93/8
101/21 109/18 110/10
137/20 163/18 166/8
172/22 179/21 180/6
182/22 184/4 196/1
196/1
likelihood [1] 120/13
likely [8] 51/24 110/4
120/24 121/4 162/24
178/23 198/6 198/6
limited [28] 16/12
36/13 48/14 48/18
48/23 49/1 49/19 56/5)
63/10 63/11 87/24
88/2 88/5 88/11 91/15
94/3 94/24 97/20 99/1
104/16 104/24 105/11
105/13 116/18 149/24)
157/5 177/17 184/23
limits [1] 144/8
line [19] 7/20 40/18
40/22 84/23 92/10
92/11 103/8 117/4
120/21 121/24 131/21
134/23 135/4 135/23
136/6 136/22 143/14
150/22 184/23
lines [10] 50/1
160/25 161/1 161/1
162/25 163/1 173/4
176/16 181/7 192/6
listed [2] 105/2
159/24
listen [4] 146/18
146/20 161/8 184/17
listening [7] 51/13
52/9 161/2 163/8
163/11 163/12 195/25)
litigation [1] 109/20
little [12] 7/8 24/22
80/5 111/13 146/5
146/15 152/8 153/4
173/3 174/6 189/22
194/2
live [2] 39/16 71/10
livelihoods [1]
194/21
lives [3] 61/14 146/7
195/23
local [4] 10/16 11/18
11/21 124/8
locations [2] 38/23
39/3
log [2] 143/4 184/8
log-on [1] 184/8
logic [1] 122/5
logical [2] 5/23 65/21
logs [2] 143/5 184/6
long [14] 18/9 34/16
57/8 57/8 58/4 59/16
60/11 75/21 77/7
109/12 119/8 149/8
191/17 195/6
longer [2] 22/24
180/22
look [84] 5/3 5/11
7/23 16/20 19/23
21/23 26/15 27/21
30/1 31/13 32/15 36/8
36/9 37/8 37/24 47/6
(67) know... - look
L
look... [68] 48/11
48/15 49/15 49/23
50/11 52/19 54/9
54/12 54/17 55/23
67/4 68/11 68/11
73/17 75/12 75/18
95/20 103/7 108/2
116/11 118/7 122/9
123/25 123/25 125/4
125/11 125/12 125/17)
126/12 129/15 133/5
134/10 135/21 140/22)
141/16 141/21 145/2
145/16 150/13 150/18}
150/21 153/11 155/9
156/2 161/9 166/20
167/4 167/15 167/19
168/11 170/17 170/24}
173/9 174/15 179/12
180/3 180/6 187/15
189/22 194/12 194/15}
looked [11] 53/23
66/8 66/15 75/5 79/13
126/1 145/4 145/25
164/1 166/19 169/4
looking [19] 14/18
15/18 23/24 57/3
78/14 80/1 82/15 83/7
91/4 91/19 96/8
117/18 118/2 119/15
135/16 145/16 193/18
194/4 194/24
looks [10] 49/2 54/22
70/14 71/8 137/20
152/10 182/18 182/22
183/1 193/12
Lord [25] 4/21 8/11
13/9 13/11 16/4 16/6
16/13 29/15 60/14
60/14 60/22 62/10
64/3 66/16 66/16
86/19 88/25 165/13
186/20 186/21 186/21
187/20 188/3 188/9
188/20
Lord Arbuthnot [4]
60/14 64/3 66/16
66/16
Lord Arbuthnot's [1]
62/10
Lord Mandelson [2]
4/21 13/9
Lord Mandelson's [1]
29/15
Lord/Misra [1]
187/20
Lords [1] 4/25
lose [3] 22/22 22/25
148/11
loses [1] 147/19
56/10 58/20 59/6 63/3,
108/19 112/21 112/24}
losing [4] 11/9 17/22
41/8 194/21
loss [5] 57/24 138/22
147/8 148/9 180/24
losses [3] 79/12
132/7 133/19
lost [2] 53/1 68/14
lot [32] 6/6 6/9 8/21
10/10 14/21 14/22
14/23 15/2 15/24
16/16 16/18 16/24
17/9 18/18 19/10 29/3
36/22 38/13 42/3
46/24 47/3 49/24
56/17 60/4 75/14 80/8
80/18 81/4 98/11
117/23 118/9 190/18
lots [4] 3/23 12/6
26/25 30/12
love [1] 195/9
Lovegrove [1]
109/18
Lumley [2] 173/7
176/11
lunch [5] 90/12
106/10 106/19 199/13
199/13
Luxembourg [1] 9/2
lying [3] 104/10
105/6 105/23
machinery [1] 112/16
made [26] 13/2 14/4
38/5 38/25 41/19
46/12 52/20 54/20
67/6 70/10 74/17 77/9)
90/25 93/10 93/19
106/25 107/5 117/12
122/19 143/25 145/1
163/9 164/3 164/8
164/20 183/15
Mail [44] 4/9 16/17
16/18 16/20 18/12
18/17 18/23 24/2 24/2
24/6 25/16 39/1 46/23
46/25 47/5 64/18 80/9)
80/12 80/15 87/25
88/1 88/4 88/10 89/17,
90/7 91/15 92/9 94/2
94/24 95/5 95/13
95/21 96/10 97/6
97/20 98/15 99/1
109/21 109/24 110/2
116/17 168/4 172/17
186/3
main [6] 22/16 88/2
98/3 138/9 177/8
17719
mainly [2] 88/23
108/9
maintain [1] 91/13
maintained [2]
134/23 142/20
maintaining [5]
38/22 39/2 39/3 131/6
131/20
maintains [1] 143/15
major [1] 115/2
majority [4] 17/20
120/7 120/10 187/7
make [36] 12/8 19/5
21/22 30/2 33/25
37/15 42/3 72/18
84/21 92/16 93/5 93/6
94/5 98/4 112/8
118/20 126/25 131/14
137/9 138/18 138/21
142/4 161/6 161/15
162/7 162/19 163/16
167/20 168/15 169/12
177/17 180/18 181/9
194/25 196/2 196/20
making [26] 11/22
16/14 16/14 28/1 41/7
41/25 51/2 51/14 54/8
57/14 57/15 57/16
70/12 71/13 74/5
77/15 108/9 150/11
163/17 163/20 165/14]
180/19 181/9 193/8
194/11 199/11
malcontents [1]
146/23
malfunction [1]
181/13
man [1] 195/11
manage [1] 133/18
managed [2] 17/13
87/20
management [17]
7/20 11/13 20/5 21/2
25/20 25/22 26/6
31/25 34/22 34/24
37/16 64/18 77/4
87/20 87/24 98/25
143/3
manager [2] 195/5
195/13
managers [3] 96/2
99/3 99/5
managing [13] 24/6
25/13 27/19 27/20
35/16 52/17 54/21
63/16 64/21 111/12
127/24 128/6 186/9
Mandelson [8] 4/21
8/11 13/9 13/11 16/4
16/6 16/13 60/15
Mandelson's [1]
29/15
manifesto [1] 91/11
manipulated [3]
166/4 187/23 188/15
manner [2] 40/13
40/14
many [49] 3/14 37/19
49/11 57/20 57/22
59/6 59/17 61/23
65/20 67/24 69/23
72/1 76/25 82/18
92/13 92/24 94/7 94/9
97/19 97/19 97/21
97/21 99/18 101/4
121/8 122/7 123/7
123/7 129/6 130/6
138/15 140/2 146/7
161/7 168/22 173/1
174/2 186/14 186/14
192/7 192/7 196/1
196/20 196/25 196/25}
197/6 197/7 198/20
199/12
map [2] 11/23 38/9
March [2] 86/2
125/20
Margaret [1] 125/16
material [1] 21/15
maths [1] 86/14
matter [42] 10/1 12/3
12/11 33/14 42/15
45/15 45/16 49/19
50/16 51/4 54/13
56/11 61/18 62/6
62/22 90/18 92/4
92/20 99/19 101/16
115/4 115/12 116/24
121/13 121/25 122/8
123/22 123/23 131/21
132/23 134/19 134/24}
136/12 136/21 144/18}
144/23 146/10 146/19}
152/9 157/20 175/17
194/20
mattered [2] 17/24
178/19
matters [45] 2/19
2/24 2/25 4/9 5/6 6/17)
7/20 7/22 9/7 9/16
15/6 17/14 20/12
20/18 27/3 27/14 31/4
31/18 31/22 36/17
61/4 63/9 75/5 89/25
92/4 92/15 93/11
93/21 94/13 99/22
100/7 100/18 111/19
123/2 123/18 126/6
133/6 136/5 141/5
142/3 162/6 165/2
172/21 177/16 195/19}
may [52] 3/6 6/15 7/6
16/20 23/8 23/8 23/11
23/11 23/14 28/8
29/13 31/1 31/21
32/23 32/24 44/19
51/7 61/24 84/10
85/24 86/2 86/9 96/3
101/6 102/19 104/5
107/10 112/12 112/19}
112/22 113/4 115/23
116/12 116/15 117/6
119/1 119/4 119/5
1419/7 120/18 124/2
145/24 152/7 160/15
160/17 161/22 163/9
178/15 190/12 191/25)
194/6 197/10
maybe [9] 15/5 15/6
15/8 39/25 40/22
49/25 71/17 102/16
129/15
McFadden [22] 1/7
1/8 1/11 1/12 1/22 2/6
2/16 13/6 43/24 46/4
54/12 56/10 56/19
72/14 72/21 73/8 77/6I
78/10 83/16 83/19
83/20 200/3
MD [3] 131/3 131/16
134/11
MD's [1] 135/9
me [110] 11/12 21/22
24/15 31/7 32/11 33/4I
35/10 39/14 42/6
48/15 48/24 49/2 51/3)
53/24 54/18 55/3
55/13 56/20 60/1
60/20 60/24 61/1
61/17 62/5 62/20
66/21 66/25 72/14
77/3 81/3 82/24 87/23}
89/6 89/21 91/1 92/1
93/4 94/5 95/15 98/25
100/6 100/23 102/17
102/24 102/25 103/4
103/11 104/8 104/19
105/5 105/14 106/5
107/9 107/21 109/20
111/15 112/6 126/16
128/17 133/18 133/25]
135/7 137/4 137/7
137/11 138/2 139/19
140/3 140/4 140/17
141/17 144/17 145/24I
149/3 149/10 149/23
150/10 150/11 150/11
152/24 153/24 154/12)
154/13 155/3 155/6
157/19 159/5 159/7
159/18 160/23 161/20)
161/22 164/5 164/12
165/14 165/15 166/24}
168/21 169/19 171/2
175/9 176/2 182/11
182/21 183/19 184/1
184/17 184/25 193/16)
198/23
me/subpostmasters
[1] 133/25
mean [22] 5/20 11/20
24/13 28/20 44/12
49/10 56/20 85/14
93/17 94/21 98/2
101/21 102/24 107/21
128/18 144/3 170/22
194/17 194/24 195/16
(68) look... - mean
195/22
means [2] 126/9
184/9
meant [5] 79/11
80/22 81/11 81/16
93/8
mechanism [1] 19/1
media [1] 115/4
meet [22] 65/3 99/2
99/5 112/18 117/10
149/2 149/3 149/11
150/20 151/5 152/14
153/2 153/7 153/21
154/3 154/25
meeting [78] 14/3
90/15 90/16 109/14
115/18 116/1 116/16
117/2 117/4 117/15
125/3 125/5 143/19
144/1 145/17 148/17
149/6 149/8 149/9
149/16 150/5 150/16
150/21 151/2 151/21
151/23 151/25 152/3
152/6 152/16 152/22
153/8 154/6 154/13
154/13 154/17 155/4
155/8 155/12 156/6
158/9 159/11 159/12
159/18 159/21 160/4
160/19 161/25 162/3
163/3 163/9 163/13
185/4 185/15 185/23
185/24 186/4 198/19
198/25
meetings [12] 15/24
15/25 15/25 80/25
87/24 88/4 88/6 99/6
130/18 186/2 198/14
198/15
member [11] 3/3
4/24 29/18 85/25
86/24 97/5 131/4
131/17 132/1 165/13
185/19
members [8] 8/22
80/7 117/1 120/23
140/1 163/10 192/16
198/7
memory [7] 23/23
27/7 55/17 117/13
117/14 151/23 185/21
mention [5] 134/3
mean... [2] 195/17
126/24 144/15 146/24)
149/13 149/24 150/12)
21/1 21/19 24/5 27/21
121/20 121/23 122/15)
122/19 122/20 124/15)
160/11 160/16 160/18)
163/15 163/16 163/23)
164/17 165/17 166/17)
144/3 173/22 195/14
197/18
mentioned [11]
10/22 12/24 24/10
24/25 63/7 82/17
149/10 154/8 170/2
196/17 196/23
mere [1] 111/8
I 64/21 80/6 123/20
174/3 185/2 185/12
197/23 197/25
method [1] 88/7
Michael [1] 133/8
middle [2] 8/3 8/6
Midlands [1] 47/20
midst [1] 145/21
might [44] 10/14
22/18 28/21 30/8
30/11 31/11 31/14
32/20 32/21 43/23
43/25 44/24 46/16
47/11 47/12 60/21
91/20 102/25 103/5
140/14 154/22 163/2
169/3 170/9 172/21
173/9 176/10 178/24
179/6 179/17 190/7
193/2 193/17
mightn't [1] 179/17
Mike [15] 97/16
134/12 135/11 149/4
187/18 189/5 189/7
189/9 199/4
mile [1] 47/18
million [2] 41/5
147/16
mind [7] 109/19
148/19 152/12 152/21
minds [1] 104/14
mindset [1] 59/4
mine [1] 67/9
minimum [2] 25/6
193/3
minister [102] 3/17
4/12 5/9 5/12 7/3 7/23
8/1 8/3 8/3 8/5 8/5
8/10 9/10 9/15 9/18
9/22 9/23 10/8 13/12
13/22 13/23 14/1
15/19 15/21 16/9 20/7)
21/10 21/13 22/15
22/22 22/24 23/5
23/15 25/5 25/9 26/21
26/23 27/10 27/18
27/23 29/7 29/20 30/4
30/4 30/18 30/20 35/1
met [10] 23/25 64/17
methodical [1] 130/4
10/15 10/17 12/7 22/9,
60/24 72/8 77/18 83/9
107/20 121/11 139/25)
108/18 108/22 110/10)
149/23 153/16 153/17)
168/20 178/21 195/22
35/2 35/11 37/11
37/12 42/16 43/1
44/18 46/6 46/11
55/18 55/19 56/7
67/10 68/6 75/16
86/19 87/14 87/16
92/13 93/20 96/16
97/3 99/5 103/12
112/4 112/7 112/9
113/9 123/17 123/22
124/9 124/14 124/17
140/3 141/5 141/18
144/25 146/6 151/5
173/19 174/13
Minister's [1] 30/10
ministerial [11] 14/4
43/7 86/11 102/23
107/3 110/17 114/7
117/24 120/1 121/9
159/10
ministers [49] 9/13
11/12 15/22 16/2
28/15 28/17 28/19
28/21 35/25 36/14
36/15 37/20 37/25
43/5 43/10 44/12
45/13 69/9 70/2 70/11
70/17 70/25 71/3
71/13 75/25 76/2
82/11 83/3 83/12 89/8
90/24 93/25 94/23
95/6 104/24 105/12
105/21 112/17 126/4
127/4 130/7 130/13
136/8 137/11 165/6
168/24 169/2 183/9
192/14
ministers’ [1] 21/14
minority [2] 18/16
80/16
minute [1] 84/1
minutes [9] 34/19
73/1 73/2 73/5 160/21
171/9 171/9 171/10
171/11
miscarriage [3]
58/21 167/25 179/2
misery [1] 146/17
misleading [2]
105/12 105/20
misled [5] 103/10
103/11 103/12 183/9
183/9
Misra [12] 185/3
185/8 185/10 186/22
187/20 187/25 188/18}
188/19 189/24 190/2
191/3 191/10
Misra's [5] 160/5
160/5 160/10 164/23
78/17 83/15 85/1 85/4
88/8 88/19 90/22 91/5
137/13 139/22 139/23
152/25 161/23 173/15}
186/21
miss [1] 76/13
missing [4] 175/3
175/12 175/13 175/21
mistresses [7] 61/24
132/7 140/10 140/13
140/16 140/18 179/1
Mm [1] 191/7
163/11 163/12
model [1] 70/5
models [1] 170/18
modest [1] 195/11
Moloney [6] 171/8
183/23 200/16
moment [14] 4/25
6/21 18/3 44/16 50/25)
107/15 108/3 118/3
119/15 125/13 150/3
150/19 153/13 192/23}
moments [1] 18/13
Monday [3] 66/5
134/15 153/20
money [13] 41/8
51/15 53/7 53/9 68/14
74/6 80/22 138/24
147/4 175/21 176/6
176/6 180/23
monitor [2] 97/25
98/19
monitoring [3] 40/6
98/2 98/14
month [2] 15/6 87/2
months [15] 10/8
10/20 64/19 86/14
96/5 97/3 126/23
128/12 138/10 147/21
152/15 153/4 154/21
159/14 186/14
morality [1] 146/12
more [84] 3/24 5/1
5/4 6/8 7/11 7/13 7/16)
16/12 16/16 16/18
17/7 19/5 19/8 21/23
22/19 24/23 25/3 25/6
25/24 26/4 26/5 26/8
26/25 30/22 46/5
46/23 50/14 50/14
50/14 50/14 59/22
60/2 60/19 64/5 65/8
65/19 68/2 68/7 68/16
69/5 79/16 81/22
82/18 86/5 88/24
90/12 97/19 100/5
102/3 102/4 103/11
103/16 109/17 109/21
110/4 111/13 119/7
123/16 128/14 137/15)
137/20 141/6 144/2
144/11 144/17 144/19}
145/4 145/9 145/16
146/7 146/15 147/8
150/23 151/13 153/4
mode [4] 161/3 163/8
171/15 171/16 171/18}
153/15 163/2 164/11
170/3 181/3 182/22
183/14 191/1 194/2
moreover [1] 178/10
morning [8] 1/5 1/7
45/18 62/5 75/15
78/13 79/9 81/5
most [19] 2/20 8/2
8/4 9/19 9/25 20/1
21/16 35/12 61/16
62/20 88/12 114/8
131/12 163/12 172/10)
186/2 190/9 190/10
195/2
mostly [1] 99/4
motives [1] 81/25
move [8] 12/21 60/12
131/24 133/2 134/8
137/22 145/17 181/1
moved [2] 7/12 82/3
Moving [1] 6/20
MP [39] 1/8 4/24 12/7
30/7 32/10 33/13
33/16 35/17 47/9
50/22 54/13 55/20
56/11 61/21 62/5
62/14 63/17 73/21
84/11 93/1 124/4
125/15 125/15 126/16)
133/8 137/25 139/22
139/24 140/4 140/6
140/25 173/7 174/9
176/11 178/17 178/24)
186/21 200/3 200/12
MP's [2] 55/25 56/13
MPs [20] 11/20 58/25)
64/5 66/9 67/12 80/18
81/11 99/25 100/4
101/10 115/12 125/6
134/16 141/5 141/8
141/20 141/22 145/7
171/22 172/25
Mr [130] 1/7 1/9 1/12
1/22 2/6 2/16 13/6
13/7 13/18 43/24
43/24 44/6 44/16
44/23 46/4 47/14
48/21 52/21 56/5
56/19 57/9 58/10 59/1
60/21 60/22 61/21
62/5 66/1 72/13 72/14I
72/21 72/24 73/1 73/6I
73/8 73/22 76/2 76/9
77/6 77/11 77/14 78/5I
78/10 79/22 79/23
82/24 83/16 83/17
83/19 83/20 83/25
84/12 85/14 95/24
99/23 100/15 101/7
102/24 104/3 108/8
111/14 112/14 117/6
117/15 123/13 123/20)
125/19 126/2 126/10
126/11 126/22 128/14I
(69) mean... - Mr
Mr... [58] 128/23
130/1 134/14 135/2
136/10 136/17 138/1
138/8 145/8 145/23
149/21 150/22 152/2
152/20 154/3 155/14
156/8 161/10 161/23
163/6 164/14 168/3
171/8 171/9 171/13
171/15 171/16 173/4
173/6 174/12 174/24
178/17 181/22 183/23}
184/2 184/11 185/2
185/3 185/7 186/9
186/21 187/13 188/3
188/6 188/9 188/18
188/20 189/3 189/8
189/10 189/24 191/15
199/9 200/5 200/7
200/14 200/16 200/20
Mr Arbuthnot [2]
60/21 60/22
Mr Bates [6] 117/15
123/13 136/10 136/17)
154/3 164/14
Mr Beer [24] 83/25
84/12 85/14 95/24
101/7 102/24 104/3
111/14 112/14 117/6
130/1 145/8 149/21
152/20 161/23 168/3
171/13 173/4 173/6
184/11 185/3 188/6
199/9 200/14
Mr Binley [4] 52/21
57/9 59/1 73/22
Mr Cable [1] 126/22
Mr Cook [6] 56/5
58/10 66/1 76/9 77/11
77/14
Mr Davey [3] 126/2
126/11 145/23
Mr Davey's [1]
126/10
Mr David [1] 62/5
Mr Davies [1] 184/2
Mr Griffiths [1] 135/2
Mr Hutton [1] 13/7
Mr James [1] 61/21
Mr Julian [1] 47/14
Mr Lamb [2] 174/12
174/24
Mr Lord [4] 186/21
188/3 188/9 188/20
Mr McFadden [16]
1/7 1/12 1/22 2/6 2/16}
43/24 46/4 56/19
72/14 72/21 73/8 77/6
78/10 83/16 83/19
83/20
Mr Misra [2] 188/18
189/24
Mr Moloney [3] 171/8)
171/15 183/23
Mr Norman [1]
178/17
Mr Osborne [1]
138/8
Mr Simpson [1]
125/19
Mr Smith [5] 128/14
128/23 134/14 185/2
185/7
Mr Smith's [1] 186/9
Mr Stein [7] 72/24
73/1 78/5 79/22 171/9)
191/15 200/20
MR STEVENS [11]
1/9 13/18 43/24 44/6
44/16 44/23 72/13
76/2 82/24 83/17
200/5
Mr Thomson [1]
79/23
Mr Walters [1] 138/1
Mr Whitehead [12]
99/23 100/15 150/22
152/2 155/14 156/8
161/10 163/6 187/13
189/3 189/8 189/10
Mr Whitehead's [1]
108/8
Mr Wilson [2] 48/21
181/22
Mrs [34] 61/25 62/2
125/19 164/23 164/23)
174/9 174/12 174/15
174/20 174/23 174/25)
176/17 176/21 177/1
1477/7 177/10 177/17
177/23 178/4 178/7
178/8 178/15 178/25
179/23 181/4 181/6
181/11 182/7 182/24
183/12 185/8 185/10
188/19 191/10
Mrs Buffrey's [1]
164/23
Mrs Callow [1]
125/19
Mrs Hamilton [1]
61/25
Mrs Hamilton's [1]
62/2
Mrs Henderson [15]
174/12 174/20 174/25)
177/17 177/23 178/4
178/7 178/15 178/25
179/23 181/6 181/11
182/7 182/24 183/12
Mrs Henderson's [9]
174/15 174/23 176/17,
176/21 177/1 177/7
177/10 178/8 181/4
Mrs Misra [4] 185/8
185/10 188/19 191/10)
Mrs Misra's [1]
164/23
Ms [20] 49/20 55/7
55/10 73/12 73/23
78/6 78/9 140/21
171/9 171/10 183/25
186/21 190/13 191/14
197/15 199/8 199/17
200/9 200/18 200/22
Ms Kaur [1] 140/21
Ms Misra's [1]
186/21
Ms Page [2] 171/9
191/14
Ms Smith [1] 49/20
Ms Swinson [1]
199/17
Ms Thomson [3]
55/10 73/12 73/23
Ms Vennells [1]
190/13
Ms Watt [5] 78/6 78/9
171/10 199/8 200/9
much [27] 1/6 10/19
13/17 14/16 20/14
41/21 49/8 69/25
83/20 83/24 84/13
85/12 85/21 87/9
88/20 100/17 106/7
106/12 108/1 115/19
151/15 170/1 170/3
171/5 171/14 177/14
199/18
multiple [1] 3/22
must [11] 39/16
104/16 104/17 107/8
107/16 143/24 183/12
188/22 195/4 195/18
195/19
mutual [1] 170/17
mutualisation [2]
170/8 171/3
mutualised [1]
170/21
my [178] 1/11 4/25
5/5 5/9 6/1 7/14 9/18
10/8 10/19 14/1 14/12
16/17 19/9 20/18 21/9}
22/14 23/17 23/23
25/2 26/13 27/17 28/9
28/13 28/19 29/4
29/10 29/11 29/11
30/25 31/2 35/20
38/24 42/16 44/1
44/12 44/18 45/8
46/24 47/23 55/16
55/25 56/3 56/17 58/7
59/7 61/12 61/23
62/19 64/14 65/23
67/19 68/23 69/2 69/4
69/17 72/9 72/14 74/4
74/13 74/23 76/1 76/7
77/7 77/7 78/18 80/10
80/12 82/25 84/14
84/17 86/14 87/22
88/17 89/18 89/21
90/19 90/21 91/14
93/2 96/4 96/5 96/7
97/21 98/4 99/2 99/5
100/23 101/23 103/11
103/20 104/7 106/4
108/7 110/3 110/17
112/2 112/7 117/7
117/13 117/14 118/8
118/19 118/19 118/25)
119/9 120/8 121/1
121/3 121/7 121/9
122/22 124/23 125/21
127/19 127/25 129/11
133/4 133/6 135/20
138/10 139/23 141/19}
143/20 143/22 143/24}
144/25 145/1 148/23
148/25 149/1 149/2
149/14 149/21 150/8
150/9 150/9 151/24
151/24 152/1 152/12
152/12 152/13 152/15}
152/21 153/7 154/6
154/13 154/21 155/14}
157/18 160/22 162/2
163/13 163/23 164/4
164/18 165/17 170/13}
170/16 171/5 171/17
172/9 172/14 174/7
176/1 176/3 178/20
185/14 185/17 185/21
186/2 186/8 189/23
191/13 191/16 193/4
198/22 199/7
myself [5] 3/13 99/2
104/25 136/8 154/7
N
name [19] 1/10 1/11
4/19 6/2 6/11 7/5 7/15
7/16 7/20 26/12 84/14,
84/16 84/17 115/16
148/5 171/17 191/16
195/15 195/25
named [1] 6/18
namely [4] 39/9
100/13 105/6 196/18
names [5] 4/18 5/25
104/6 104/8 195/25
narrow [1] 150/20
National [7] 41/1
76/14 76/24 78/11
113/22 164/6 170/15
nationalised [1]
18/17
nationally [1] 38/22
nationwide [1]
142/22
natter [1] 77/18
nature [12] 30/25
32/8 47/2 64/8 68/17
79/10 79/19 91/23
92/22 112/5 119/3
179/14
nearly [2] 19/14
138/16
necessarily [3] 6/8
54/16 54/18
need [19] 64/16
71/22 72/5 91/7 91/20}
95/3 108/11 132/21
137/13 166/18 168/10)
170/3 171/1 183/8
193/7 194/6 194/10
194/12 196/20
needed [8] 11/7 30/1
33/6 92/1 137/8
144/19 164/1 164/11
needs [8] 30/2 33/6
168/23 193/14 193/20)
197/10 197/10 197/10)
negligible [1] 133/17
negotiating [2] 9/2
127/22
negotiations [1] 17/1
neighbouring [1]
39/25
neither [7] 51/16
120/14 126/2 142/5
147/17 164/20 177/18)
nervousness [1]
65/17
network [18] 9/20
10/2 11/6 11/7 11/14
18/8 18/22 19/3 19/19)
40/11 41/3 42/1 42/3
79/5 91/13 170/11
187/11 198/21
neutrally [1] 44/1
never [8] 43/21 44/18I
44/20 66/3 66/7
146/22 175/7 176/7
nevertheless [1]
101/25
new [9] 6/18 19/21
95/25 114/20 124/17
142/23 146/3 157/4
168/19
newly [1] 6/18
Newmark [1] 63/17
news [9] 150/2
150/25 151/4 151/17
153/23 154/4 154/8
154/16 155/5
next [19] 50/20 74/22
74/123 134/3 138/13
156/17 156/20 156/23)
157/2 158/16 173/23
173/24 174/22 175/6
175/23 176/11 181/25)
183/24 193/5
NFSP [12] 72/23 73/1
77/13 77/19 79/24
79/24 157/6 171/11
197/17 197/18 198/1
198/19
(70) Mr... - NFSP
N
nine [1] 198/1
no [105] 4/11 7/22
22/24 23/16 24/13
35/11 38/18 39/20
42/24 48/11 48/24
62/4 63/25 65/14
75/2 79/8 87/6 87/8
95/23 100/2 100/21
108/11 108/25 109/3
109/5 113/1 117/9
135/18 136/2 136/7
136/11 136/16 137/9
141/15 144/13 145/8
145/15 150/4 151/25
152/8 153/10 154/7
154/10 154/11 154/12)
155/15 157/9 158/3
160/21 163/20 164/2
166/2 170/23 174/11
175/19 178/5 179/4
179/9 180/2 180/12
180/19 180/22 180/24
186/15 187/21 188/12)
190/6 198/18
nobody [2] 75/11
77/12
nod [2] 167/16 172/1
nodded [8] 131/23
158/14 158/25 166/11
167/14 185/6 194/5
197/3
nodding [1] 171/25
non [1] 192/10
non-statutory [1]
192/10
None [1] 141/8
nonetheless [3] 61/9
117/21 192/11
nor [12] 51/16 89/20
106/22 107/2 114/15
114/20 120/15 126/2
142/5 147/21 164/20
177/18
normal [3] 46/18
163/13 185/17
normally [5] 23/16
44/4 49/13 110/15
146/11
Norman [5] 86/22
174/9 174/17 178/17
178/23
nights [1] 172/10
7/22 11/16 12/9 13/13
26/2 26/8 27/13 27/13
27/17 32/1 32/7 32/19
50/11 53/10 58/1 58/3
58/14 58/17 60/7 61/3
65/21 66/3 66/12 72/2
89/2 91/10 95/3 95/19
123/12 123/12 124/23)
127/11 127/12 127/13}
127/13 130/11 135/15}
Norwich [2] 175/5
177/24
not [225]
note [11] 22/9 30/8
108/17 149/4 160/19
160/20 162/12
noted [2] 149/23
189/17
nothing [5] 35/9
63/12 135/8 135/25
137/5
notice [1] 175/16
November [6] 29/15
60/13 60/15 174/24
181/11 187/17
now [64] 16/23 18/7
19/14 20/20 23/22
27/6 31/4 34/2 46/5
47/25 48/7 58/20
59/13 59/22 60/14
60/17 60/23 62/2
65/18 65/20 65/21
68/3 69/2 69/14 69/20
74/13 74/15 76/22
78/4 78/23 84/1 90/13
92/12 99/11 99/13
101/22 103/19 106/8
106/9 115/3 121/4
123/6 123/6 125/4
132/1 135/16 137/22
151/19 166/5 166/7
168/4 171/23 175/4
176/2 176/12 177/7
182/10 188/18 191/23}
192/4 193/14 195/23
196/5 197/4
nowhere [1] 113/18
Nuclear [1] 23/25
number [40] 1/19
30/11 38/7 61/10 64/4
70/24 74/21 79/3 93/1
93/13 95/15 99/15
107/22 107/25 108/6
108/10 112/4 113/16
114/4 119/9 125/10
140/9 141/18 141/19
142/8 144/6 144/15
152/24 154/24 155/41
159/16 160/2 169/9
169/16 170/6 171/18
171/22 172/3 172/13
172/18
number 4 [1] 169/9
number 5 [1] 169/16
number 6 [1] 170/6
numbers [1] 115/3
[e)
objective [9] 11/11
39/4 39/11 42/2 42/7
42/9 42/22 43/2 43/19)
objectives [2] 40/7
161/9
33/9 33/17 90/5 108/8)
obliged [1] 181/8
obtained [4] 48/13
58/13 90/8 96/11
obvious [1] 159/5
obviously [13] 26/17
34/13 72/12 88/17
99/3 107/21 125/25
191/4 195/24 197/18
occasion [1] 166/21
occasionally [2]
172/23 172/24
occasions [5] 115/9
117/25 118/14 122/8
186/4
occupied [1] 97/5
occur [3] 58/2 92/1
199/1
occurred [3] 55/12
89/21 106/23
occurring [1] 97/22
occurs [1] 148/9
October [21] 17/5
63/16 65/12 97/18
108/18 108/23 110/11
125/5 143/20 145/18
149/4 149/5 149/20
150/14 150/15 152/14
156/7 156/7 159/15
160/4 160/6
odd [5] 17/21 28/22
39/15 102/1 102/2
off [10] 22/3 109/25
115/15 120/6 122/17
130/2 134/4 143/12
168/4 184/16
offence [2] 122/15
179/23
offences [2] 102/6
138/17
offenders [1] 189/17
offensive [1] 146/2
offer [3] 142/17
162/19 170/9
offered [1] 180/12
offering [3] 113/14
149/6 151/1
offers [1] 171/3
office [433]
Office's [16] 50/7
53/14 57/20 64/25
68/17 77/23 90/22
91/20 97/6 99/12
101/14 126/25 127/22
130/24 145/6 187/11
officer [1] 195/8
offices [16] 10/2 38/7
38/12 79/16 80/8
91/13 91/22 93/2 93/3
146/6 147/6 147/15
147/16 148/12 198/5
199/2
official [5] 30/1 150/9
151/24 168/5 185/18
130/17 138/20 186/16
Officials [71] 20/17
20/22 23/13 24/19
55/8 56/3 87/22 88/3
88/20 92/6 93/12
94/23 98/24 100/6
103/21 104/7 108/7
108/14 109/8 117/18
122I/7 122/7 122/22
127/17 128/17 134/5
139/17 140/1 141/10
143/20 143/24 145/2
145/4 145/9 145/15
148/22 149/1 149/3
149/5 149/12 155/16
157/18 159/2 159/8
162/2 162/18 163/23
164/4 164/19 165/1
165/6 168/24 170/19
172/6 172/21 174/7
178/20 179/4 182/19
182/22 184/19 184/22)
192/20 194/11
often [11] 3/22 10/14
30/9 33/11 33/16
56/19 61/15 88/18
109/15 109/17 115/14}
Oh [4] 19/2 27/6
144/5 172/13
okay [8] 12/18 12/22
28/11 47/7 74/14
125/4 130/5 192/7
old [1] 101/21
old-fashioned [1]
101/21
Oliver [3] 134/10
135/12 153/17
on [330]
once [3] 43/7 124/17
146/14
one [69] 3/19 11/9
11/9 11/24 24/1 26/18}
28/22 38/3 38/6 38/14,
39/18 39/23 40/19
43/16 46/5 53/10
55/24 56/18 57/20
60/19 61/1 62/6 63/4
65/8 71/2 72/19 81/4
82/24 85/21 97/18
99/18 100/5 103/11
104/5 105/16 109/13
110/10 112/15 117/18}
117/25 118/14 118/18}
120/9 127/3 127/8
127/18 130/14 131/20}
136/11 137/9 139/24
139/25 139/25 145/25}
146/5 149/22 150/19
152/20 159/25 159/25}
163/2 163/14 164/24
167/24 173/24 183/7
186/4 186/24 196/1
ones [7] 32/10 38/9
24/21 31/3 31/17 33/2
119/10 119/17 119/24)
64/11 67/16 68/13
104/7 136/5
ongoing [3] 143/2
157/3 177/2
online [3] 2/18
156/21 158/19
Online’ [1] 156/18
only [33] 29/2 30/4
32/5 39/18 53/21 61/5
70/1 75/23 89/5 97/16I
106/4 108/23 110/3
114/25 115/15 115/20)
116/19 118/16 119/5
119/14 132/4 135/1
138/14 146/1 180/24
182/16 183/7 183/16
186/15 193/1 194/4
195/18 198/18
open [5] 11/24 12/10
148/2 148/19 180/23
opening [1] 52/6
operate [5] 22/19
35/25 35/25 36/3
95/12
operated [2] 95/6
129/1
operates [4] 40/15
142/14 173/23 176/20)
operating [1] 131/13
operation [6] 12/17
67/13 72/4 96/13
96/22 144/11
operational [45]
12/11 33/14 38/2
38/10 41/22 42/15
46/7 46/9 46/14 46/19)
49/17 50/3 63/9 67/7
89/25 90/18 91/8 92/3
92/15 93/11 93/21
94/13 94/19 94/25
99/20 99/22 101/16
116/24 121/25 123/18}
123/23 130/10 131/7
131/20 134/19 134/23)
136/5 142/3 143/14
144/18 146/19 162/6
173/15 177/13 177/16)
operations [9] 40/19
81/6 81/9 90/23 93/9
94/1 116/22 122/3
162/9
operative [1] 145/13
opine [1] 66/12
opportunity [2] 57/24I
116/3
opposed [3] 80/3
81/7 109/17
opposition [6] 17/18
17/23 18/18 80/17
80/20 92/25
options [1] 120/4
or [193] 4/1 4/8 4/8
4/9 6/18 7/10 7/20 9/1
9/12 10/8 10/20 11/1
(71) nights - or
[e)
or... [181] 12/10 14/3
15/25 16/13 16/14
17/11 19/12 20/23
21/4 21/5 21/11 21/11
22/4 22/5 22/23 23/8
23/11 23/13 23/21
24/6 24/18 26/23 27/8
28/1 29/18 30/7 30/24
31/7 31/14 32/4 32/8
32/11 33/2 33/4 33/10)
33/21 34/19 35/10
37/10 38/3 38/8 39/19)
39/25 40/1 40/2 42/17
42/21 43/1 43/12
43/14 44/3 44/8 44/13
44/17 44/25 46/11
46/15 46/16 47/11
49/3 51/14 52/9 55/7
55/9 56/5 56/6 57/14
57/15 59/23 62/12
64/24 66/9 66/12 67/3
67/9 67/11 67/12
67/13 67/15 67/18
68/14 71/7 72/7 74/12
7417 74/17 76/19
78/19 79/7 81/12
81/21 88/7 88/14
88/14 90/1 94/2 94/6
94/11 94/23 96/10
96/13 96/13 96/18
97/4 98/16 98/21
100/3 101/1 101/11
102/23 103/11 103/12)
104/5 104/11 104/25
105/7 105/23 108/3
110/12 110/13 112/7
112/12 115/11 115/14}
118/24 119/16 125/6
126/11 127/4 127/10
127/14 128/5 129/8
130/2 132/25 134/5
136/23 137/10 142/6
142/19 143/12 144/8
146/9 146/24 147/4
147/8 151/25 152/8
154/12 157/13 157/14}
157/25 158/24 160/20)
162/11 163/2 163/5
163/8 163/10 163/14
163/22 164/22 165/6
165/9 166/2 172/20
173/17 176/5 177/19
178/7 184/7 185/8
185/19 185/23 186/4
186/7 187/22 188/13
189/16 190/3 197/23
oral [7] 1/14 55/6
83/22 100/2 109/11
109/15 154/6
order [10] 30/3 73/4
73/7 91/5 120/14
125/12 147/24 178/3
182/24 194/7
organisation [11]
37/14 41/8 41/10 80/1
88/14 113/21 114/4
152/23 154/24 157/2
193/19
organisations [10]
6/11 23/22 24/1 24/24
25/1 25/14 25/19
37/13 75/8 83/11
orient [1] 73/19
oriented [1] 26/6
original [8] 30/7
49/13 55/18 117/8
118/25 120/18 121/20)
147/24
originated [1] 184/3
Osborne [2] 137/24
138/8
Osborne's [1] 139/16
other [54] 4/4 4/7
6/10 9/4 9/7 9/12
14/25 15/9 22/9 23/13
24/20 25/1 29/25 35/3
35/7 35/9 35/12 40/20
42117 47/17 48/25
55/8 58/5 62/23 66/9
67/9 68/15 94/7 94/9
97/21 102/5 111/17
112/3 115/9 118/7
135/18 138/15 140/18)
153/5 153/25 160/7
164/3 169/24 169/25
172/18 176/5 189/16
191/3 193/11 193/23
193/24 196/11 197/22)
198/20
others [16] 47/19
50/18 53/1 60/25
63/21 104/6 104/25
109/18 113/17 115/11
121/8 125/22 138/4
163/22 180/5 196/14
ought [7] 124/25
126/13 126/17 132/24)
134/4 144/13 150/12
our [30] 9/1 18/19
23/6 25/18 45/18
53/20 63/24 91/11
91/13 91/24 92/15
92/19 92/24 98/3 99/3
113/13 113/14 114/4
115/18 126/7 146/23
153/20 154/1 161/9
164/17 164/19 170/12)
170/12 170/12 170/14)
ourselves [1] 73/19
out [41] 10/2 11/18
13/7 26/9 27/11 34/11
37/12 38/9 47/14 48/3
50/6 53/3 57/18 58/23)
62/24 63/15 66/19
66/23 66/25 67/22
74/22 76/13 85/3
110/16 118/2 118/15
119/14 123/4 129/15
134/17 135/4 135/23
137/10 141/25 148/5
149/12 190/17 193/15}
193/21 195/10 197/24
outcome [1] 43/14
outlines [2] 113/13
115/25
outreach [1] 39/21
outset [2] 99/10
181/19
outside [5] 94/18
98/7 110/23 152/10
190/11
over [42] 4/3 7/12
8/18 13/15 16/13
19/10 40/10 41/21
50/13 59/9 60/1 64/11
64/12 90/10 92/13
93/1 97/20 114/22
114/23 115/7 115/19
122/6 123/24 125/17
132/18 133/7 138/7
142/15 143/11 147/16
147/20 156/13 156/15}
162/15 164/15 167/6
168/15 169/16 171/17]
175/15 175/23 189/19!
overall [7] 6/14 8/14
15/15 19/18 46/20
67/7 79/20
oversee [3] 69/6
96/18 98/19
overseeing [3] 18/24
24/10 88/13
oversees [2] 96/22
168/2
oversight [12] 8/17
70/8 88/7 88/9 88/16
97/25 98/15 98/21
102/23 121/17 167/20}
168/13
overturn [2] 69/18
70/2
overturned [3] 59/17
67/24 78/2
own [15] 18/19 25/20
37/15 37/16 43/19
70/21 70/22 74/9
98/19 126/9 146/10
146/12 158/4 171/24
193/19
owned [16] 25/14
25/20 36/21 37/3 37/5
37/23 42/20 43/2
66/23 69/4 70/20
87/16 133/20 139/8
151/6 190/21
owner [5] 43/25 44/7
45/1 45/3 147/19
ownership [4] 67/2
67/7 80/4 184/9
Pp
PA [2] 135/9 137/6
pack [3] 125/13
139/18 141/17
package [1] 3/24
page [89] 1/21 1/22
2/6 13/20 14/10 28/7
36/9 50/21 51/5 54/9
54/25 58/8 61/19
62/19 65/9 65/10
84/21 85/5 85/13
85/14 89/13 89/15
90/10 90/10 95/4 99/8)
108/20 108/21 114/22)
122/9 122/10 124/1
125/13 125/18 125/18
126/14 129/13 129/17I
130/20 131/25 132/13
132/18 133/7 134/10
135/21 138/7 139/3
139/7 143/11 148/20
156/9 156/11 156/15
157/11 158/10 158/15)
159/22 161/10 162/15}
167/2 167/6 167/6
167/7 167/19 168/15
168/16 168/18 169/9
169/16 171/9 174/22
175/23 175/24 175/25}
176/21 176/25 177/8
180/7 181/2 183/25
187/2 187/15 187/16
188/9 191/14 191/18
191/20 191/22 200/18
page 1 [5] 54/9 62/19
134/10 159/22 187/15)
page 10 [1] 28/7
page 14 [2] 54/25
85/5
page 15 [1] 130/20
page 17 [1] 129/13
page 2 [4] 50/21
84/21 158/10 187/16
page 21 [1] 65/9
page 22 [2] 89/13
99/8
page 24 [2] 90/10
122/9
page 25 [2] 36/9
148/20
page 26 [1] 2/6
page 287 [1] 191/22
page 29 [1] 180/7
page 3 [8] 13/20 51/5
61/19 125/13 126/14
156/9 157/11 188/9
page 30 [2] 108/20
108/21
page 4 [2] 14/10
125/18
page 41 [1] 167/2
page 42 [1] 167/6
page 43 [1] 167/19
page 44 [1] 168/16
page 45 [1] 168/18
page 47 [1] 85/14
page 6 [1] 1/21
page 62 [1] 85/13
page 67 [2] 191/18
191/20
page 7 [2] 95/4 187/2
page 9 [1] 124/1
pages [1] 181/1
pagination [1]
191/21
paid [1] 19/15
pan [1] 129/15
Panorama [1] 169/22
paper [9] 25/8 25/8
26/18 27/20 113/3
118/5 118/16 120/2
127/16
papers [5] 89/11
97/23 106/4 118/8
194/19
paperwork [3] 15/23
21/13 93/23
paragraph [82] 1/21
1/23 13/20 13/21
14/10 28/7 30/23 36/9}
47/16 48/15 48/20
49/15 49/22 49/24
52/6 55/1 55/23 58/7
61/8 63/4 64/16 65/15
78/15 78/20 79/25
84/22 85/6 89/14 90/5I
90/11 90/13 95/3 99/9
103/7 103/22 108/20
108/21 121/1 122/10
132/12 133/12 134/3
138/9 138/13 139/3
139/7 140/8 143/14
144/21 145/14 148/21
156/15 156/17 156/20}
156/23 157/2 158/12
158/16 165/21 168/18)
170/7 172/13 173/14
173/23 174/25 175/6
175/25 176/14 176/15}
176/19 176/23 176/25)
177/13 177/8 177/9
180/7 180/9 181/2
181/21 187/4 192/2
197/25
paragraph 1 [1]
145/14
paragraph 101 [2]
36/9 122/10
paragraph 108 [2]
108/20 108/21
paragraph 116 [1]
180/7
paragraph 138 [1]
103/22
paragraph 14 [1]
172/13
paragraph 149 [1]
(72) or... - paragraph 149
Pp
paragraph 149... [1]
168/18
paragraph 156 [2]
170/7 181/2
paragraph 159 [1]
181/21
paragraph 16 [2]
14/10 78/20
paragraph 2 [1] 1/23
paragraph 23 [1]
1/21
paragraph 26 [1]
95/3
paragraph 27 [1]
79/25
paragraph 28 [1]
197/25
paragraph 36 [1]
28/7
paragraph 37 [1]
30/23
paragraph 39 [1]
64/16
paragraph 5 [1]
132/12
paragraph 56 [1]
55/1
paragraph 57 [1]
55/23
paragraph 6 [1]
84/22
paragraph 61 [1]
85/6
Paragraph 62 [1]
58/7
paragraph 9 [3]
13/20 13/21 78/15
paragraph 91 [1]
99/9
paragraph 92 [1]
103/7
paragraph 94 [1]
89/14
paragraph 95 [1]
90/5
paragraph 97 [1]
121/1
paragraph 99 [1]
90/11
paragraphs [13] 28/8
49/6 73/14 103/17
105/2 106/20 108/12
108/16 132/11 157/7
167/22 169/11 181/25)
paragraphs 142 [1]
167/22
paragraphs 3 [1]
49/6
paragraphs 4 [1]
103/17
paragraphs 52 [1]
73/14
paragraphs 94 [1]
106/20
paragraphs 96 [1]
108/12
pardon [1] 144/5
parentheses [2] 85/8
85/9
Parliament [22] 2/23
2/25 3/3 10/17 11/21
12/2 14/13 17/24
18/20 36/16 36/17
69/14 69/24 78/21
86/1 91/18 93/25
96/25 100/22 100/24
101/3 165/14
Parliamentary [29]
3/1 3/7 3/10 3/16 8/2
10/15 25/10 26/23
86/6 86/18 86/21 87/2
99/25 100/1 100/3
100/4 100/14 101/6
125/2 125/10 126/20
127/6 127/7 127/9
129/23 141/7 141/13
153/9 159/17
part [36] 9/18 10/19
10/23 11/17 12/19
15/15 15/15 15/17
15/18 23/6 24/16
27/23 38/18 40/3 40/4
42/24 70/16 76/6 79/5)
79/19 89/9 110/3
112/24 138/11 142/19)
149/20 150/19 154/4
154/17 164/19 165/18)
165/19 175/20 180/6
191/23 192/1
Participants [1]
171/18
particular [15] 9/13
10/13 12/7 13/24
18/15 39/17 49/12
59/25 74/13 82/10
90/2 105/9 117/4
139/20 165/13
particularly [10] 3/25
4/20 14/19 15/16
31/22 74/16 76/25
109/20 155/6 166/16
parties [1] 170/16
partly [1] 17/8
parts [3] 2/21 74/13
164/3
party [2] 170/16
196/6
passage [2] 18/20
188/10
passed [7] 37/6
46/17 60/16 73/21
129/10 132/24 140/25)
passing [3] 104/8
128/22 193/16
past [4] 3/13 43/16
43/17 45/20
paste [7] 158/22
158/24 158/24 159/6
166/6 184/13 184/14
pasting [2] 159/10
166/14
Pat [3] 1/11 54/12
56/10
Patel [7] 101/11
124/4 125/1 126/21
130/5 130/21 131/10
PATRICK [2] 1/8
200/2
pattern [1] 35/15
Paula [1] 104/5
pause [3] 12/20 21/6
54/4
pausing [3] 31/4
51/21 62/2
pay [8] 51/15 53/2
53/7 74/5 74/17
175/21 176/2 176/6
peak [1] 142/16
peer [1] 16/7
Penalty [1] 178/2
pending [1] 147/20
penny [1] 175/7
pension [2] 19/17
109/23
pensions [1] 19/12
Penultimate [2]
139/3 187/4
people [64] 19/12
19/17 20/17 20/25
21/3 24/3 24/5 27/21
27/22 30/16 34/13
34/21 37/24 47/1
53/10 53/12 55/17
58/22 61/5 65/13 66/8
68/2 69/3 70/19 72/1
74/5 74/11 74/21 75/7
75/13 75/17 75/17
76/12 77/15 81/25
88/15 88/23 98/7
98/12 104/8 109/18
137/4 137/13 137/16
141/20 144/16 152/24)
153/2 159/18 170/4
183/6 183/9 190/10
190/11 190/12 190/20}
193/9 193/19 193/24
194/18 194/21 197/6
197/7 199/1
per [6] 15/7 15/8 27/6
29/3 39/15 149/20
per cent [1] 39/15
percentage [1] 15/3
perfect [1] 180/10
performance [4] 40/6
96/24 143/2 177/2
perhaps [9] 7/15
26/22 36/1 66/11 77/1
81/24 81/25 194/8
198/6
period [21] 13/16
14/19 14/20 15/6
15/11 16/3 16/17
16/23 17/4 18/10
34/17 44/18 59/9
69/14 69/24 87/2 97/3
148/3 186/16 186/17
198/3
periodically [1] 64/21
permanent [8] 19/25
19/25 20/8 20/11
20/15 20/16 23/3
192/14
permissible [1]
145/5
perpetuated [1]
34/16
person [3] 24/9
68/21 105/6
personal [2] 31/11
61/13
personalising [1]
120/24
personality [1]
139/21
personally [3] 106/2
106/6 115/7
persons [1] 39/8
perspective [2]
88/15 144/25
persuade [1] 170/4
persuading [1]
184/15
Peter [4] 195/5
petition [1] 10/14
phoned [1] 62/5
phrase [3] 28/20
121/10 122/15
phrases [2] 57/21
58/3
pick [2] 19/12 19/17
picked [2] 153/8
187/12
picks [1] 187/16
piece [6] 30/24 56/21
98/10 151/9 168/11
169/20
pieces [3] 150/13
155/7 192/23
piloting [1] 110/8
place [13] 35/20
44/21 59/17 72/5 88/8)
96/1 129/5 150/16
156/13 158/13 162/3
162/11 165/3
placed [3] 128/1
131/5 131/18
placing [1] 114/3
plain [1] 182/7
Plainly [4] 182/16
plan [2] 40/8 43/18
planned [2] 159/13
161/13
planning [1] 150/25
plastic [1] 152/17
platform [1] 124/12
play [2] 12/9 92/19
played [6] 11/16
38/18 39/6 39/12
57/18 149/20
playing [1] 151/4
plea [6] 180/15
180/19 181/5 181/23
182/2 182/5
pleaded [2] 177/25
180/11
pleading [1] 178/10
please [80] 1/10 1/20
3/2 3/9 5/7 13/5 13/20)
28/6 36/10 47/6 47/8
50/20 50/21 51/5 54/9
54/25 55/1 60/12
61/19 63/3 65/9 65/10)
73/10 73/14 84/16
85/5 85/13 85/23
87/10 89/13 99/8
103/7 112/21 112/24
116/11 122/9 123/25
123/25 125/13 125/18)
126/19 129/13 130/20)
131/9 131/24 131/25
132/18 133/2 133/7
134/8 134/10 137/16
137/22 140/5 143/11
148/21 153/11 155/18)
156/3 156/4 156/9
158/10 159/21 162/15)
166/25 167/6 167/19
167/23 169/16 170/6
176/10 177/6 180/3
181/1 181/17 181/25
186/22 187/2 187/13
191/21
plenty [1] 159/15
plus [3] 91/18 176/5
196/10
pm [7] 84/5 84/7
106/13 106/15 155/22)
155/24 199/19
pocket [1] 134/18
point [42] 8/11 13/1
14/4 17/19 27/14
41/19 51/2 52/3 54/8
58/6 58/23 59/12
63/18 67/25 68/4
68/18 71/8 73/19
75/24 75/25 76/1 76/2I
76/7 79/18 81/22 82/2
82/6 82/10 108/9
111/5 131/7 145/13
148/16 150/4 152/20
166/16 167/20 169/12!
179/10 179/14 185/13}
188/23
pointed [1] 100/12
pointing [2] 26/9
38/9
points [15] 41/21
57/19 60/6 78/1 82/8
(73) paragraph 149... - points
P
points... [10] 82/11
125/17 155/13 161/8
163/19 163/24 164/8
164/17 166/18 186/24
POL [15] 96/13 98/16
109/21 110/3 134/19
143/20 146/19 165/24
168/5 170/23 178/1
180/12 187/20 188/7
188/12
POL's [2] 178/6
180/14
POL00004279 [1]
186/23
POL00027890 [2]
50/20 56/8
POL00088974 [1]
156/4
POL00113278 [1]
180/5
POL00130687 [1]
57/10
POL00158368 [1]
65/9
POL00186759 [1]
164/13
POL00294731 [1]
174/16
POL00294957 [1]
137/22
POL00295322 [1]
189/2
POL00417094 [1]
187/14
POL00417097 [1]
153/11
POL00417098 [5]
123/25 125/12 129/13}
131/24 134/38
POL00417099 [1]
133/2
police [3] 102/7
147/5 195/7
policies [1] 3/21
policy [45] 10/5
11/11 12/17 16/14
23/13 24/9 24/12
24/12 24/20 25/7 28/1
28/3 28/4 38/3 38/8
38/21 39/4 39/11 40/7
40/16 41/4 41/14 42/7
42/9 42/22 43/2 43/14
43/19 45/16 46/20
46/24 67/9 71/10 83/7
89/23 91/25 92/5
92/21 98/3 98/8 118/8
119/24 119/25 144/12)
172/15
policy-making [1]
16/14
politely [4] 116/9
political [4] 10/10
22/19 135/6 135/24
politically [2] 10/1
10/18
politician [1] 77/6
politicians [1] 146/3
politics [1] 69/17
poor [2] 132/15
138/18
poorly [1] 122/16
population [1] 39/15
port [2] 29/22 30/18
Porteous [2] 22/15
26/18
portfolio [10] 6/13
7/4 13/24 14/13 14/16)
14/24 15/20 17/11
25/2 99/16
portfolios [1] 26/20
posit [1] 168/18
positing [1] 169/4
position [24] 7/24 9/2!
12/6 23/4 30/15 34/5
47/18 48/22 52/15
63/14 66/24 86/2 88/8
91/24 97/4 102/22
113/8 114/2 136/3
138/5 162/19 182/25
189/13 197/21
positive [2] 51/21
59/3
possibility [3] 51/19
52/11 161/4
possible [7] 44/1
121/6 140/21 155/5
173/25 176/4 187/10
possibly [2] 33/9
168/10
post [392]
postal [40] 1/25 2/2
2/4 6/17 9/25 10/11
10/19 12/13 14/3 14/7)
14/15 15/14 16/16
18/5 25/17 27/2 31/23
37/6 39/20 67/6 78/19)
81/16 82/16 86/8
87/15 95/9 95/11
95/17 95/20 95/25
96/6 98/6 99/17 110/2
113/9 132/3 144/4
170/19 172/18 186/2
posting [1] 154/21
postmaster [3]
171/23 175/1 175/3
postmasters [13]
47/17 52/23 53/1 53/4
61/10 61/14 61/24
131/12 132/7 140/18
172/12 172/25 179/1
postmasters/mistres
ses [1] 61/24
postmistresses [2]
61/10 61/14
posts [1] 110/17
potential [2] 18/23
151/4
potentially [1] 66/22
pounds [4] 51/12
74/4 138/20 148/12
power [9] 46/10
70/11 101/24 134/2
169/2 170/20 193/22
194/6 194/16
powerful [1] 164/3
powers [5] 43/9
169/10 193/23 194/18
194/23
PQ [2] 127/3 129/14
PQs [4] 101/2 101/8
101/10 145/22
practical [3] 71/14
90/24 92/12
practice [9] 10/6
28/13 28/21 29/8
44/11 70/24 83/9
163/13 185/17
practice’ [1] 143/1
practices [2] 148/4
165/5
precipice [1] 148/16
precise [3] 185/23
185/23 191/9
precisely [2] 71/6
173/6
precursor [1] 145/18
predecessor [3]
86/18 88/25 89/4
predicament [1]
61/23
preferable [1] 169/5
prefers [1] 126/3
pregnant [1] 191/11
premise [1] 186/8
prepare [5] 21/3 50/7
96/6 135/11 159/16
prepared [4] 21/6
108/14 148/18 162/16}
preparing [1] 121/7
present [2] 115/18
116/3
presentational [8]
149/6 149/19 151/3
151/22 152/4 152/7
152/16 154/18
presented [2] 110/19
157/20
presently [1] 85/25
press [2] 65/18
115/19
pressured [1] 16/1
presumably [1]
190/8
presume [4] 89/8
92/9 135/1 135/14
pretty [3] 36/3 103/20}
163/1
prevented [2] 123/10
123/17
previous [10] 6/18
11/12 41/24 89/11
115/23 124/14 129/3
130/15 131/19 132/14}
previously [1] 86/2
primarily [4] 87/22
89/22 163/7 163/11
Prime [1] 22/23
principal [3] 80/9
88/14 164/24
principally [2] 93/16
97/13
principle [1] 10/5
principles [2] 143/9
177/4
printed [1] 22/3
Prior [1] 124/14
prison [4] 148/2
176/4 190/20 191/11
Priti [7] 101/11 124/4
125/1 126/21 130/5
130/21 131/10
private [66] 18/12
18/16 21/9 21/10
21/18 21/21 21/23
22/1 22/4 22/12 22/13)
22/14 22/16 23/8 23/9)
26/15 26/16 26/19
26/24 27/2 27/5 27/12,
27/15 27/17 27/18
27/25 28/5 29/6 29/11
29/11 29/25 31/2
31/10 31/17 32/18
32/19 32/25 34/10
44/8 44/25 45/1 45/2
45/5 49/3 54/16 54/22)
55/4 55/25 56/3 56/12,
73/11 76/9 80/3 80/11
80/21 88/17 101/15
148/23 150/10 151/24}
154/7 154/8 155/14
189/14 190/4 190/14
privilege [1] 3/1
pro [1] 173/1
probably [13] 15/13
24/23 33/1 35/7 65/5
81/24 95/23 96/15
100/4 110/2 125/1
148/23 163/13
probe [1] 111/17
probed [1] 159/12
probing [2] 112/12
137/21
problem [15] 47/21
48/10 49/21 50/9
51/18 58/14 62/7 75/3)
76/18 113/25 125/23
132/11 146/22 147/8
152/6
problems [21] 3/23
17/9 51/13 52/9 63/13}
99/11 109/6 125/8
132/2 132/5 133/14
135/5 135/23 157/10
162/18 164/7 167/24
178/6 178/17 187/6
199/6
procedure [1] 96/15
proceedings [4] 1/3
58/6 165/1 178/18
Proceeds [1] 147/9
process [24] 21/12
31/16 33/1 34/9 35/21
43/12 48/1 48/2 53/19)
55/17 68/19 69/10
102/3 109/5 112/15
157/14 162/13 163/10)
165/8 165/10 165/16
168/19 168/23 172/7
processes [3] 109/3
112/8 142/17
processing [1]
142/15
produce [1] 138/25
produced [2] 107/14
114/19
producing [1] 83/21
productive [1] 170/9
profession [1] 169/6
profit [1] 41/7
programme [24] 9/20I
9/21 10/7 10/9 10/18
10/24 11/7 11/17
12/14 12/24 14/21
15/16 16/22 17/15
17/17 17/19 18/4 18/6}
18/22 19/2 19/4 38/5
38/15 39/13
programs [1] 114/13
prohibiting [1]
136/1
prohibition [5] 94/11
94/17 144/8 144/9
145/13
projects [1] 3/18
prominent [1] 46/23
promised [1] 192/19
promises [1] 147/4
promotion [1] 86/15
prone [1] 133/16
proof [11] 45/7 58/6
59/12 68/18 75/24
75/25 77/25 82/8
82/11 156/21 184/6
proper [2] 44/11
109/3
properly [2] 68/8
87/20
proposal [3] 80/23
83/1 84/1
propose [4] 71/15
71/17 72/10 80/14
proposed [2] 60/18
120/4
proposing [2] 18/10
194/2
prosecute [7] 42/24
43/18 44/3 50/8 67/22
102/21 114/21
(74) points... - prosecute
Pp
42/21 42/23 43/3
43/20 43/22 53/10
53/11 53/12 68/13
68/14 74/17 90/8
96/11 102/2 107/24
140/20 160/3 171/19
194/21
prosecuting [5] 69/3
193/19
prosecution [11]
44/5 44/10 45/2 45/4
102/9 165/16 182/5
prosecutions [27]
44/13 44/21 45/15
68/8 68/10 69/6 70/21
102/8 102/11 102/23
125/9 132/8 168/22
169/13 189/18 190/4
190/14 198/8 198/11
prosecutor [2]
101/15 189/14
prosecutorial [2]
53/15 169/10
prosecutors [4]
165/11 175/8 175/10
189/16
prospect [1] 176/4
prospective [1]
158/9
protect [1] 161/22
protected [1] 197/8
protection [3] 115/22
169/17 197/2
protections [4] 78/25
79/2 170/1 196/24
proved [5] 16/21
18/17 58/13 77/23
78/1
proven [7] 63/25
64/13 67/23 82/2
139/1 142/21 148/14
provide [13] 40/1
47/23 57/24 112/10
114/5 130/16 132/17
143/7 147/7 148/6
157/18 157/19 195/12
provided [11] 84/18
111/18 112/13 113/15)
132/25 134/6 139/17
141/17 156/6 158/1
166/6
providing [1] 1/12
proving [2] 51/17
168/8
provision [1] 97/12
prudent [3] 161/5
161/5 161/13
prosecuted [19]
101/20 180/14 189/17)
45/5 45/8 96/23 96/24
43/6 43/14 43/16 44/8
96/19 97/6 97/7 102/5I
public [15] 3/23 4/2
25/13 62/8 80/16
92/23 93/3 99/14
116/18 126/9 140/1
195/1
publicity [1] 151/4
publicly [4] 37/23
70/20 87/16 103/9
publicly-owned [1]
70/20
published [2] 2/18
66/3
pull [1] 192/23
punishment [1]
176/5
purely [1] 41/10
purported [1] 134/16
purpose [9] 1/18
37/11 42/9 58/19
59/11 64/13 92/24
117/2 117/5
purpose’ [1] 122/16
purposes [1] 5/20
pursued [2] 45/8
102/9
pursuing [1] 114/3
PUS [1] 86/19
push [1] 196/9
put [34] 15/2 22/9
72/17 85/21 91/16
91/21 93/13 95/14
99/5 100/9 102/25
103/4 104/24 111/6
111/15 115/10 116/9
122/21 145/9 145/10
163/4 170/16 170/19
176/9 176/10 191/1
putting [4] 22/3
95/25 98/10 137/15
qualified [1] 91/1
quality [2] 112/11
159/19
quashed [1] 171/21
queries [4] 35/13
64/15 67/12 81/16
query [5] 110/13
189/6 189/8 189/11
189/12
question [51] 6/1
7/18 12/23 14/18
19/18 23/17 34/2
35/20 36/12 36/23
42/6 42/25 42/25
43/15 46/5 60/2 68/23
69/2 69/4 71/2 71/10
76/7 77/7 77/7 78/3
79/1 81/19 82/23
83/12 100/19 102/12
189/18 192/16 192/20,
publication [1] 73/20
34/20 35/4 42/6 43/16
49/6 55/19 55/22 56/6
104/3 104/13 122/14
126/20 128/7 128/10
129/24 130/5 130/21
154/1 182/23 183/2
183/14 190/3 190/5
190/9 190/15 193/5
193/18 196/23
Question/Answer [1]
129/24
questionable [1]
126/10
questioned [18] 1/9
73/6 78/9 84/12
102/16 141/9 171/16
200/5 200/7 200/9
200/20 200/22
questioning [7]
40/23 43/10 83/19
165/19
questions [71] 2/19
2/22 5/5 10/17 12/2
16/12 28/9 36/15
45/17 47/25 50/15
72/22 72/23 76/5
78/10 78/12 84/15
87/10 99/6 99/25
100/2 100/2 100/3
100/3 100/4 100/6
100/8 100/14 101/12
105/18 110/11 114/5
122/22 125/2 125/10
128/20 128/21 136/9
136/11 141/8 141/13
143/21 153/5 153/9
159/17 161/7 163/2
163/14 166/24 167/12
168/3 168/25 171/6
1714/7 184/18 185/15
189/4 190/25 191/13
191/17 193/6 193/24
194/10 197/14 197/17]
199/7 199/13
quickly [1] 43/11
quiet [1] 18/9
quite [38] 6/6 10/5
10/18 14/22 15/2 16/1
17/17 18/3 29/4 30/11
33/11 33/16 40/20
46/18 49/22 49/24
56/17 60/4 60/11 80/8
81/4 82/5 83/1 98/6
98/9 98/11 101/21
103/3 103/6 105/13
124/11 130/3 148/24
149/22 169/3 182/11
186/11 190/18
quote [3] 141/5
187/20 192/1
quoted [2] 49/24
163/9
183/25 191/15 197/15}
200/14 200/16 200/18
104/21 110/18 165/18}
65/8 67/12 70/5 72/10
quoting [2] 74/8
183/20
R
radical [1] 170/9
radius [1] 47/18
raise [12] 11/20
77/21 81/1 81/16
141/5 141/9 168/24
172/21 179/5 179/7
185/11 198/14
raised [32] 10/23
12/2 12/2 32/16 55/9
58/25 59/9 63/8 64/4
65/4 67/12 79/18
102/12 128/8 133/6
142/1 142/2 145/5
146/1 160/18 162/5
177/12 177/15 178/6
185/22 186/25 189/8
190/3 192/16
raises [1] 187/3
149/1 182/8 189/10
ran [4] 75/17
Randerson [1]
131/25
random [2] 51/10
742
range [8] 8/16 16/10
23/22 24/1 49/12
ranging [1] 3/11
rank [1] 8/6
ranking [1] 8/3
ranks [1] 184/19
rapidly [2] 96/1 98/11
rare [3] 31/11 120/7
120/12
rarely [1] 110/17
rather [15] 4/1 6/21
60/24 75/10 77/15
83/8 83/11 117/3
136/13 155/11 165/10
166/20 169/7 171/24
171/25
Re [1] 187/20
reach [2] 69/24 92/20
reached [3] 44/15
166/10 180/13
reaches [2] 23/14
71/8
read [31] 2/4 21/15
48/8 49/13 49/13
52/14 52/22 54/5 54/7,
54/14 54/18 55/5
56/21 58/23 84/25
90/13 110/13 110/15
111/23 113/7 117/11
118/20 119/12 121/22
154/14 155/11 157/13}
racked [1] 185/21
164/17 172/19 176/15)
raising [9] 12/7 35/17I
48/9 49/20 76/21 81/2)
132/17 172/11 172/14}
157/13 158/3 158/22
161/16
reading [10] 51/22
55/11 58/20 59/4
59/21 96/3 117/8
117/9 136/20 190/19
reads [2] 85/6 136/24I
ready [1] 96/2
real [8] 18/4 71/10
115/5 146/24 168/13
168/21 168/25 190/22)
realise [3] 76/23
96/16 165/21
realised [1] 90/3
Realising [1] 148/24
reality [1] 15/22
really [37] 4/6 6/11
7/13 7/16 9/6 13/6
19/3 28/2 28/3 28/4
31/12 31/14 34/23
57/2 57/18 68/24
70/25 71/24 75/19
88/19 89/5 92/14
103/3 105/20 111/2
111/4 111/14 111/22
120/18 122/13 146/19)
170/11 178/19 180/10}
184/15 184/22 184/23)
realtime [1] 184/6
reason [22] 5/7 6/2
11/12 46/10 58/23
60/9 65/16 65/21 76/4I
90/16 95/23 128/4
149/11 150/6 150/20
154/9 154/18 155/9
161/3 161/18 174/25
175/18
reasonable [5]
100/21 127/20 153/2
154/25 163/25
reasons [14] 12/12
26/5 43/6 66/19 69/11
90/24 149/20 151/3
151/22 152/4 152/7
152/16 155/8 183/8
reasons' [2] 149/7
149/9
reassurance [2] 88/2
135/12
reassure [1] 164/11
Rebecca [3] 51/6
53/25 55/4
rebuild [1] 171/2
recall [8] 89/16 104/6
106/24 118/24 119/2
121/11 148/22 179/22)
receive [9] 27/11
88/25 89/4 89/19
95/17 106/21 110/10
120/17 172/2
received [28] 29/10
50/24 60/18 97/19
100/20 108/13 108/17I
108/24 109/11 109/15}
(
(75) prosecuted - received
R
received... [18]
120/14 120/18 122/23)
125/7 125/16 126/23
128/11 128/22 129/8
129/9 141/10 141/22
144/1 146/5 164/2
171/22 188/7 188/18
receiving [2] 22/3
68/25
recent [5] 17/24
125/24 131/12 134/16
160/3
recently [1] 191/5
recession [1] 65/23
recollect [2] 150/8
174/18
recollection [13]
12/25 48/7 48/11
51/21 54/5 59/4 59/8
66/1 149/21 150/8
154/20 160/10 186/8
recommend [1]
163/7
recommendation [5]
70/9 120/3 151/20
151/25 152/3
recommendations
[5] 36/10 72/18
196/13 196/14 196/15
recommended [3]
80/11 149/6 151/1
recommends [1]
70/11
reconsider [1]
148/17
record [8] 1/18 65/1
65/2 65/7 132/15
154/2 155/8 167/5
recorded [2] 33/22
33/23
records [7] 57/22
142/20 154/15 166/3
181/17 187/23 188/14}
recover [1] 147/24
red [16] 6/9 6/10
21/14 30/6 33/20 35/5)
35/5 118/6 118/10
118/19 120/8 120/10
127/7 129/20 152/13
172/9
redacted [1] 48/6
Redditch [1] 47/19
reduce [4] 6/10 11/7
19/4 41/2
reduced [2] 18/8
175/4
reducing [1] 38/16
reduction [1] 40/10
redundancy [1]
176/3
refer [8] 2/22 19/9
38/24 73/10 103/17
103/22 117/6 164/15
reference [15] 1/18
12/20 44/13 58/6 60/8)
85/7 85/11 93/24 95/9
95/14 100/22 160/13
188/8 189/2 192/25
references [1]
103/16
referred [21] 3/17
16/3 18/21 25/17
26/17 29/14 31/2 31/7
34/3 38/4 44/25 52/17)
58/11 60/20 63/21
67/14 79/22 93/7
100/8 101/2 164/5
referring [11] 13/21
52/7 57/11 74/10
100/24 102/6 123/5
141/15 145/3 153/12
189/10
refers [5] 47/13 61/7
61/21 63/17 193/16
reflected [3] 50/17
170/16 181/5
reflecting [1] 148/25
reflection [4] 67/19
122/12 123/8 168/15
reflections [2] 167/2
167/3
reform [8] 4/14 5/14
5/22 6/4 6/16 6/23
8/16 196/17
reformed [2] 168/4
195/3
reforms [2] 169/6
196/20
refusal [4] 90/17
112/18 114/25 188/11
refuse [1] 113/24
refuses [2] 51/18
52/10
refusing [1] 67/1
regard [5] 5/24 31/22
113/8 133/10 189/20
regarded [3] 50/2
50/16 74/24
regarding [7] 9/25
13/2 48/18 51/3 55/9
68/25 145/25
regardless [3]
133/21 139/9 146/16
regards [4] 10/11
63/14 143/2 177/2
regular [3] 98/24
109/4 157/5
regularly [3] 80/6
185/2 185/24
regulation [3] 6/5 6/8
6/9
regulatory [8] 4/13
5/13 5/22 6/3 6/7 6/16)
6/23 8/16
reinforcing [1] 164/8
reject [1] 67/3
rejecting [1] 63/18
relate [1] 193/18
related [1] 189/23
relates [1] 165/23
relating [5] 4/9 20/12
31/19 49/18 136/5
relation [13] 77/8
97/5 97/15 122/8
138/8 150/19 169/10
176/17 181/4 189/14
189/16 192/5 193/1
relations [9] 8/18
14/2 14/12 14/22 15/8
25/2 78/14 78/19 86/7
relationship [27]
1/24 8/8 24/15 24/18
24/18 27/17 31/24
36/23 37/21 76/23
77/2 79/17 81/6 81/9
82/19 87/11 90/20
95/21 96/7 109/21
111/12 116/20 129/2
143/16 146/13 162/8
168/16
relatively [1] 109/17
Relativity [1] 191/21
relay [1] 88/18
relaying [1] 111/19
releases [1] 142/23
relevance [1] 2/20
relevant [11] 9/4
31/17 32/10 33/13
34/8 39/11 49/20
154/1 162/12 174/13
198/3
relevantly [1] 86/6
reliability [1] 137/2
reliable [2] 65/20
110/20
reliance [3] 35/20
81/8 82/19
reliant [11] 18/25
27/18 33/21 33/23
35/3 87/22 99/7
119/10 127/17 129/12
136/15
relied [3] 97/11 98/23
99/4
reluctance [2] 43/13
69/11
reluctant [3] 43/5
45/14 69/10
rely [6] 35/22 64/6
89/9 137/12 148/7
192/10
relying [1] 111/7
remain [3] 80/15
122/19 163/11
remaining [1] 15/8
remains [2] 28/25
63/15
remember [36] 5/15
18/1 43/4 44/18 44/20
53/17 53/19 55/6 59/7
81/2 110/18 117/7
117/8 120/19 121/10
124/23 149/7 150/9
153/14 155/10 160/12
160/18 161/24 161/25
163/15 163/17 165/13}
179/22 185/22 186/1
186/4 191/8 191/10
198/16 198/17 198/18
remembered [2]
117/11 120/20
remote [8] 38/23
39/3 166/2 186/25
187/21 188/3 188/10
188/13
remotely [2] 156/22
187/11
repaid [1] 178/4
repeat [2] 117/14
152/12
repeated [1] 128/4
replaced [1] 6/25
replied [3] 109/13
174/4 192/5
replies [7] 57/7 58/4
66/9 68/17 134/21
135/10 174/7
reply [78] 30/9 30/16
30/21 31/20 32/9
32/22 33/3 33/12
34/21 35/16 48/12
48/15 49/2 49/7 49/13
49/14 50/17 53/22
53/24 54/7 54/13
55/13 55/19 55/22
56/6 56/11 56/18
56/20 56/22 56/25
57/4 57/9 58/5 60/21
60/25 63/15 75/1
116/11 117/3 117/6
118/2 119/12 119/16
120/5 120/15 126/4
126/10 126/17 127/1
127/19 127/21 128/1
128/5 129/14 131/5
131/15 131/18 132/25]
132/25 134/5 134/6
139/17 139/19 139/23
140/1 140/1 140/4
141/1 145/7 145/9
145/10 148/25 149/19)
160/12 160/14 160/15]
176/9 188/3
replying [2] 56/7
127/5
report [17] 80/11
85/7 85/9 125/17
130/25 150/2 155/15
184/4 184/14 184/24
185/1 185/1 191/24
191/24 192/5 192/25
196/12
reporter [1] 51/6
reporting [4] 36/16
47/15 154/6 199/6
reports [5] 58/13
104/21 106/6 150/25
151/16
repository [1] 143/8
represent [4] 73/8
74/21 126/5 171/18
representation [1]
109/5
representations [5]
126/22 128/11 128/21
128/24 129/8
representative [4]
76/20 113/21 163/25
197/23
representatives [3]
55/8 76/19 126/24
representing [4]
107/22 108/3 154/24
195/23
reputation [1] 176/3
reputedly [1] 113/21
request [6] 62/7
62/11 62/14 90/15
122/18 151/2
requested [1] 130/16
requesting [3] 62/23
116/15 147/14
requests [3] 63/24
116/9 129/8
require [2] 95/11
163/22
required [4] 114/6
133/18 135/12 144/7
requirement [1]
136/2
requires [1] 22/24
reshuffle [1] 22/23
resigned [1] 48/21
resilience [1] 142/18
resistance [1] 134/24)
resisted [1] 134/19
resolution [1] 132/22
resolved [1] 175/17
respect [5] 20/24
27/14 47/15 66/18
99/16
respectfully [1]
126/4
respond [8] 52/20
63/22 127/25 128/7
131/4 131/17 152/25
173/19
responding [1]
120/16
response [39] 12/3
30/3 33/8 47/23 48/3
49/9 54/10 54/15
55/12 55/23 56/4
58/25 60/5 60/18
60/19 63/3 63/24 64/2I
64/8 64/14 64/25
66/15 66/18 67/15
67/16 90/14 90/14
(76) received... - response
R
response... [12]
99/24 118/23 119/1
128/20 141/21 145/24}
149/14 151/2 172/3
172/5 185/15 192/15
responses [4] 60/3
67/21 108/14 108/16
responsibilities [10]
4/20 6/16 7/7 14/1
67/2 78/18 92/13
110/3 133/22 139/10
responsibility [19]
4/8 5/17 7/10 8/9
31/16 44/8 44/9 46/20
46/25 82/21 87/14
94/25 106/2 114/17
124/10 127/5 127/22
131/7 131/20
responsible [16]
8/14 20/4 31/25 34/15)
36/16 37/17 61/11
88/16 94/8 99/15
105/13 105/17 119/24}
130/10 146/6 172/14
rest [3] 91/17 184/14
196/21
restore [1] 195/1
result [4] 7/20 22/22
26/8 181/13
resulted [1] 132/6
resulting [2] 114/6
151/7
resume [2] 45/19
199/16
retained [1] 143/7
revealing [2] 66/6
66/13
review [9] 16/19
18/11 29/11 130/24
134/20 134/25 162/23
163/18 192/9
reviewing [1] 49/9
reviews [2] 11/18
109/4
Rich [1] 160/1
Richard [1] 169/23
rid [1] 159/20
ridden [3] 114/9
139/5 140/14
right [66] 1/8 3/8 7/25)
14/9 20/10 22/3 23/20
38/11 44/20 44/22
47/10 52/12 53/15
54/23 56/16 67/5
69/21 70/14 71/9 72/7
75/13 76/8 76/11
76/11 77/12 77/20
84/3 84/11 86/11 87/1
107/11 113/5 117/19
118/3 121/4 121/10
127/6 129/14 129/25
131/7 131/22 138/18
138/21 144/6 145/2
153/7 158/6 158/17
158/20 158/23 159/21
167/13 172/8 174/12
177/10 179/20 186/11
186/15 189/19 193/9
199/18 200/2 200/11
right-hand [5] 158/6
158/17 158/20 159/21
177/10
rightly [1] 99/13
rights [5] 14/7 14/14
14/16 25/4 78/22
rigorous [1] 142/24
RLIT0000251 [1]
191/18
RMG [2] 80/4 96/13
Robert [2] 22/15
26/18
robust [8] 58/18
59/10 60/7 63/25
64/12 142/21 146/22
170/3
robust' [1] 108/25
robustness [7] 54/2
66/11 68/18 77/24
82/7 142/13 165/25
rogue [1] 71/2
role [41] 3/9 4/8 4/8
4/16 4/20 4/25 5/4 5/8
5/9 6/21 7/23 12/9
16/14 20/24 23/18
24/10 24/11 27/5
27/11 32/2 38/22
38/25 39/2 39/6 39/12
40/6 40/8 40/23 41/25)
53/15 80/6 86/15
90/21 91/5 91/20
92/18 93/8 101/14
105/17 107/3 162/9
roll [2] 169/23 175/15
room [1] 4/6
root [4] 133/13 139/4
148/10 195/3
Rosemary [1] 153/18
roughly [8] 10/3
13/15 15/4 15/7 17/5
21/4 28/19 49/8
round [3] 75/19
147/5 176/1
roundabout [1] 187/1
rounded [1] 3/24
route [1] 115/11
routine [1] 4/4
Royal [44] 4/9 16/17
16/18 16/20 18/12
18/17 18/23 24/2 24/2
24/6 25/16 39/1 46/23
46/25 47/5 64/18 80/9)
80/12 80/15 87/25
87/25 88/4 88/10
89/16 90/7 91/15 92/8
94/2 94/24 95/5 95/13
151/10 151/13 151/16)
95/21 96/10 97/6
97/20 98/15 98/25
109/21 109/23 110/2
116/17 168/4 172/17
186/3
ruined [1] 146/7
rule [3] 123/9 123/10
123/16
ruled [1] 157/9
rules [1] 189/16
run [15] 25/15 25/19
25/21 25/21 35/18
36/15 41/10 42/5 83/3
116/21 122/2 147/18
148/12 150/25 151/17]
running [17] 18/24
31/25 32/2 32/5 37/13)
37/17 38/1 47/4 49/18
50/12 64/11 67/7
75/14 77/22 90/25
91/2 94/19
runs [1] 124/8
rural [2] 38/23 39/3
s
safe [1] 107/19
said [58] 2/25 5/11
12/1 13/7 13/22 16/5
18/13 24/5 26/5 33/8
37/9 37/20 40/24
44/15 46/4 48/9 49/15)
49/22 53/25 54/11
57/1 57/15 63/4 64/12
64/14 66/18 66/20
68/21 72/9 75/1 76/1
76/1 77/13 79/24
80/12 82/5 82/7 93/25
95/18 96/9 102/22
106/21 108/2 110/14
111/22 113/5 130/1
133/8 134/18 136/11
144/6 149/25 153/21
161/4 173/18 181/11
181/19 185/3
sale [1] 18/23
Sam [1] 191/16
same [24] 5/20 5/24
45/6 45/7 47/18 60/5
62/7 63/20 68/21
94/11 94/17 122/22
122/23 131/19 138/15}
146/8 156/2 160/24
173/4 176/16 188/5
188/10 188/16 188/23
sample [1] 113/14
sanctions [2] 133/23
139/11
sand [1] 38/3
sat [1] 8/6
satisfied [1] 58/17
satisfy [3] 17/12 68/7
87/19
save [3] 38/13 188/8
189/23
saved [1] 38/17
savings [2] 53/1 53/2
saw [9] 66/3 66/4
106/19 119/5 129/23
152/13 159/4 169/20
169/21
say [95] 1/23 2/21
6/22 8/6 13/25 14/11
15/5 16/5 20/14 20/15)
21/4 22/1 22/10 24/19)
27/21 28/12 28/16
29/22 30/23 32/21
34/4 35/8 36/11 38/7
38/9 42/8 42/21 45/10)
45/20 46/15 48/20
49/10 51/10 51/24
53/13 55/2 56/19 64/2,
64/17 64/21 65/3 66/8)
67/1 69/16 70/13
70/20 72/13 78/16
78/20 80/2 80/25
89/15 95/4 99/9
101/23 102/19 103/8
108/21 120/8 121/1
122/11 127/21 130/3
137/16 138/23 139/20
141/24 145/24 148/21
151/20 152/2 154/11
155/5 157/23 157/24
157/24 158/2 159/6
161/2 164/16 165/21
169/5 169/10 170/7
171/24 171/25 172/13}
173/25 178/11 178/11
183/4 192/20 194/1
197/20 197/25
saying [45] 7/13
11/23 38/6 45/10
45/12 52/6 54/17 57/2
57/7 59/24 60/9 60/10)
62/14 66/25 68/22
75/2 75/7 76/8 76/10
76/12 77/5 81/14
81/19 101/1 104/10
105/6 120/17 133/9
135/22 136/7 137/3
137/4 137/6 139/1
144/23 145/8 145/8
149/16 166/18 175/9
178/15 179/11 180/1
181/22 194/20
says [40] 47/16
48/16 49/16 50/2
50/23 51/8 52/12
52/22 54/11 55/24
58/10 58/16 61/8
61/22 63/7 65/15
76/16 113/7 116/2
120/2 120/21 125/20
125/23 126/1 129/16
137/25 138/7 138/13
140/7 150/22 153/19
158/12 163/6 166/21
175/6 178/13 182/1
187/17 189/4 192/8
scan [1] 148/15
scandal [5] 71/11
77M 115/2 195/24
196/14
scandals [2] 169/24
195/1
scenes [1] 135/19
scoring [2] 179/10
179/14
screen [9] 1/21 2/5
48/3 73/17 89/13
112/20 156/3 177/7
177/11
scroll [14] 116/12
124/1 125/14 132/2
135/9 141/23 158/15
159/23 167/3 170/6
173/12 174/23 176/22)
180/8
scrolling [2] 156/25
157/12
scrutinised [1] 57/22
scrutiny [1] 190/22
sealed [1] 143/6
search [1] 19/6
searching [1] 19/21
seats [1] 17/21
second [44] 15/11
15/14 16/3 16/17 17/4)
20/16 46/24 49/15
61/8 63/4 65/15 72/4
80/10 84/23 85/5 96/3I
117/9 120/21 121/21
123/13 133/12 136/17
136/18 138/9 140/8
142/16 144/14 144/16)
145/19 149/12 150/1
150/23 151/11 151/13)
153/3 153/15 154/20
167/20 171/9 175/1
176/25 177/2 177/8
17719
second-guessing [1]
72/4
secondly [3] 1/13
52/8 105/8
secretaries [12] 20/8
20/12 22/14 22/16
26/17 26/19 27/15
27/25 29/11 31/2
31/10 192/14
secretary [62] 3/7
3/10 3/16 4/22 4/23
7/24 8/2 8/4 8/8 8/12
8/13 8/17 8/25 9/10
9/12 9/17 9/25 10/7
12/23 13/1 13/8 13/15)
16/4 18/1 18/2 19/25
20/1 20/15 20/16 23/9
26/22 27/2 27/5 27/12I
32/18 32/20 32/25
37/8 47/9 47/11 60/15
60/23 76/15 79/23
(77) response... - secretary
Ss
secretary... [18]
84/24 85/3 86/7 86/16
86/18 86/21 87/1 87/3
87/3 87/7 112/7
126/21 127/3 128/22
130/6 130/23 131/11
197/19
Secretary's [1] 26/24
sections [1] 158/21
sector [7] 8/19 8/19
18/12 18/16 80/16
80/21 132/4
sectors [1] 8/18
securely [1] 143/6
securing [1] 185/7
security [2] 142/17
143/3
see [101] 1/5 2/9
14/19 29/21 30/4 36/3)
40/22 40/23 41/12
42/7 42/22 44/12
45/15 46/1 48/5 49/24)
50/21 53/21 53/22
54/9 55/20 55/21 56/8)
57/1 61/7 61/20 69/6
73/18 84/8 88/20
89/10 93/13 95/20
103/14 106/16 107/21
108/7 113/2 116/13
119/4 119/19 120/16
121/5 122/14 123/14
123/20 123/23 124/1
129/3 129/18 130/14
135/14 136/10 136/18}
139/13 139/19 140/5
141/15 143/13 144/20)
149/13 149/18 150/22
155/25 156/5 156/10
156/11 157/20 158/6
158/11 158/16 159/24
161/5 169/21 170/5
171/13 173/10 174/6
174/21 174/22 176/12)
176/14 176/19 176/20
176/23 176/24 177/2
180/9 181/2 181/3
181/6 181/20 182/9
185/21 187/3 188/1
189/22 191/25 192/24}
193/7 195/15
seeing [2] 43/2 81/24
seek [2] 161/11
165/7
seeking [3] 16/25
125/3 190/1
seem [3] 102/2
144/17 190/24
Seema [3] 160/5
160/5 160/10
seemed [16] 17/14
18/6 66/21 88/23 93/4)
93/15 94/5 98/25
100/21 141/8 144/1
152/24 153/2 165/19
175/18 176/7
seems [15] 94/22
101/21 101/24 102/41
124/4 128/4 146/2
171/2 187/12 188/25
189/3 190/1
seen [14] 32/16 52/2
66/12 76/15 93/3
97/16 120/24 169/24
191/4 196/24
sees [1] 55/19
select [3] 76/16
115/8 194/17
selected [1] 10/13
selecting [1] 11/15
self [4] 78/23 79/4
98/18 98/18
self-employed [2]
78/23 79/4
self-governing [1]
98/18
sell [2] 42/18 147/11
selling [1] 147/23
send [3] 54/20 147/5
179/20
sending [2] 47/1
174/8
sends [1] 187/14
senior [18] 8/4 20/1
27/9 34/22 64/17 66/7
98/25 99/2 103/24
103/25 104/2 104/4
104/16 105/3 105/16
105/25 106/1 192/12
seniority [1] 27/4
sense [4] 90/25
92/11 94/5 94/5
sensible [1] 6/8
sent [17] 29/9 29/15
30/21 54/9 55/25
74/14 125/24 146/4
159/5 160/14 172/3
174/12 184/25 188/24}
189/25 190/20 191/11
sentence [4] 85/6
161/21 176/4 178/2
sentenced [1] 138/23
sentences [1] 187/4
separate [2] 67/18
156/24
separately [1] 178/7
separation [6] 35/19
37/7 38/3 43/9 67/8
71/25
September [2] 48/22
181/21
September 2008 [1]
48/22
series [4] 65/8 125/5
143/21 197/14
168/21 169/12 169/19)
52/3 65/2 65/13 65/15)
serious [7] 18/3
52/24 104/23 124/11
146/1 194/20 195/19
seriously [4] 17/23
58/1 103/10 141/6
seriousness [1]
148/25
servant [3] 20/1 26/1
108/18
servants [25] 7/19
14/5 19/1 21/11 22/19
23/2 23/13 27/4 27/8
34/4 35/22 89/9 94/18
97/13 103/11 107/14
110/19 110/22 110/22
111/17 146/18 147/2
166/12 192/13 199/3
serve [5] 13/8 112/17
117/2 117/5 122/16
served [3] 3/6 28/13
181/10
service [17] 4/5
19/24 22/20 22/21
23/6 27/9 34/6 35/21
40/1 44/5 96/23 102/9
111/11 112/8 192/3
192/11 195/12
Service's [1] 96/24
services [24] 2/3 2/4
4/2 12/13 22/24 25/17
31/23 37/6 39/20
39/21 67/6 81/16
82/16 95/9 95/11
95/18 95/20 96/1 96/6
98/6 132/3 132/17
144/4 170/19
serving [1] 113/10
session [2] 69/9
106/9
set [12] 3/21 35/19
63/15 67/11 75/15
81/15 116/18 124/16
138/13 140/22 149/12
152/23
sets [3] 25/18 47/14
82/16
setting [4] 9/8 66/19
141/25 162/22
seven [2] 11/9 146/5
several [3] 3/18 51/9
74/1
severely [1] 195/24
Shadow [5] 70/17
71/1 71/13 83/13
124/14
shall [2] 45/19 70/10
shareholder [36]
20/19 20/20 20/22
20/23 21/20 21/25
23/7 23/19 23/20
23/23 24/8 24/11
24/20 24/22 25/12
25/25 31/5 32/20
32/23 33/5 33/6 34/10
34/25 36/14 40/5
41/18 49/4 88/11
88/21 88/21 88/23
97/14 98/20 116/19
116/22 162/7
shareholders [1]
146/11
shares [4] 23/22
25/13 126/8 146/11
she [23] 47/11 47/12
48/9 51/2 52/12 73/25)
125/3 125/20 125/23
126/1 132/11 140/7
140/21 175/6 177/25
178/11 178/17 179/13}
179/13 180/22 180/24)
181/8 190/13
she's [3] 73/25 74/2
175/4
sheet [1] 127/16
shelf [1] 115/15
shelved [1] 80/23
ShEx [35] 28/4 55/9
88/11 88/14 88/18
93/16 93/18 94/12
94/18 97/17 97/24
98/5 98/7 98/13 98/14
98/17 98/22 98/24
99/4 99/7 105/12
108/19 109/16 110/22
110/23 111/17 134/11
134/12 135/21 136/21
137/15 153/16 153/18}
168/5 190/8
ShEx's [2] 97/25
158/4
shocked [1] 79/25
shocking [5] 66/5
182/11 183/8 190/19
195/2
shoddy [1] 148/10
Shoosmiths [1]
159/25
short [8] 45/24 65/25
70/18 84/6 106/9
106/14 155/23 186/16
shortage [1] 178/4
shortages [1] 142/10
shorten [2] 41/20
62/12
shortfall [2] 138/19
180/25
shortfalls [1] 132/10
shortly [4] 2/18 5/4
21/24 52/22
should [63] 1/16 2/4
2/21 7/9 7/11 11/1
11/1 11/6 11/16 21/5
24/19 29/13 33/15
36/7 43/22 44/9 50/10
56/13 59/23 61/16
62/20 65/6 65/21 68/7,
69/5 70/9 70/11 75/5
83/12 84/24 101/15
101/24 102/3 102/13
108/21 117/10 122/18)
126/18 133/7 139/16
139/16 140/25 142/4
142/18 143/18 145/20)
149/17 149/21 153/21
162/4 163/7 168/5
168/11 169/4 170/17
173/25 177/17 180/23}
183/21 189/17 190/21
190/23 192/11
shoulder [1] 71/4
shouldn't [4] 66/12
165/6 168/23 190/22
showed [4] 55/13
136/8 145/22 173/6
showing [2] 150/11
166/9
shown [9] 55/3 58/9
134/22 141/14 148/22!
182/11 182/21 183/19)
188/5
shows [4] 58/1 123/8
136/2 147/8
sick [4] 147/3
side [19] 14/22 16/17
18/5 18/19 25/2 25/2
43/16 78/14 85/21
147/23 156/5 158/6
158/17 158/19 158/20)
159/21 159/22 162/17
177/10
sidestep [2] 133/21
139/9
siding [1] 179/17
sign [12] 35/5 49/14
95/15 118/18 120/6
143/12 172/9 172/10
172/20 172/23 172/24I
182/13
signature [7] 1/20
2/9 30/10 48/6 85/15
116/14 132/25
signed [15] 32/11
53/8 60/20 61/1 61/1
116/13 117/21 119/6
130/2 134/4 141/18
143/12 172/6 181/10
183/2
significant [6] 15/17
61/9 61/16 79/5 135/6I
135/24
significantly [1]
97/11
signing [7] 114/18
118/21 119/9 122/17
145/1 179/22 183/5
signposts [1] 115/25
silence [2] 133/23
139/11
similar [11] 15/7
37/22 61/23 61/25
63/4 77/5 138/5
138/17 139/13 177/5
(78) secretary... - similar
Ss
similar... [1] 188/4
similarities [1]
176/12
Simon [1] 20/9
simply [12] 16/12
22/2 22/8 77/11
115/10 144/20 159/8
166/13 171/25 172/1
172/12 188/8
Simpson [3] 125/14
125/19 126/14
since [6] 66/23
113/12 116/17 142/21
180/21 187/6
sincerity [1] 178/24
single [6] 22/21
109/10 113/25 114/11
127/16 157/21
sinister [2] 68/2
81/22
sir [112] 1/5 13/19
20/8 20/9 44/16 44/24
45/17 45/20 46/1
72/16 72/17 72/22
72/25 73/7 78/3 78/7
83/18 83/25 84/2 84/4
84/8 84/10 84/10
84/11 84/13 87/4
90/15 106/8 106/12
106/16 106/19 107/8
107/21 108/13 109/14}
111/22 112/19 112/21
115/25 118/1 119/3
121/13 122/14 122/17)
122/18 123/3 123/21
123/23 124/22 125/5
136/10 136/17 143/19
143/25 144/14 145/17)
145/19 148/24 149/3
149/11 150/1 150/7
151/10 153/13 153/14}
155/3 155/8 155/17
155/18 155/21 155/25
156/2 159/24 160/13
161/25 163/3 163/24
164/9 165/18 166/17
169/1 171/5 171/7
A7AIM7 171/22 174/3
178/12 181/20 183/2
183/22 184/1 184/16
185/5 185/14 186/7
186/11 186/13 186/15}
188/4 188/17 191/23
195/22 196/5 196/12
197/13 197/16 197/17
199/10 199/11 199/15}
199/18 200/11
Sir Alan [41] 90/15
107/21 108/13 109/14
112/19 115/25 119/3
121/13 122/14 122/17)
123/3 123/21 123/23
125/5 136/10 136/17
145/17 148/24 149/3
149/11 150/1 151/10
155/3 155/8 159/24
160/13 161/25 163/3
163/24 164/9 165/18
166/17 174/3 184/16
185/5 185/14 188/4
188/17
Sir Alan's [6] 107/8
145/19 153/14
Sir Brian [1] 20/8
Sir Ed [15] 84/2
84/10 106/19 111/22
153/13 155/17 156/2
171/5 171/17 171/22
178/12 183/22 186/7
197/17 199/11
Sir Edward [6]
181/20 183/2 186/13
191/23 196/5 197/13
Sir Simon [1] 20/9
Sir Vince [1] 87/4
Sir Wyn [6] 44/16
72/17 150/7 169/1
195/22 196/12
sit [4] 7/11 11/23
29/18 29/18
sitting [2] 30/19 71/3
situ [1] 124/17
situation [7] 4/23
44/2 51/3 57/8 61/22
88/6 168/10
six [6] 11/9 21/11
37/10 47/18 167/4
1841/1
six pages [1] 181/1
size [7] 11/5 11/8
18/9 19/4 40/10 41/3
114/12
skills [4] 7/1 7/7 7/13
87/4
skip [2] 164/15
168/17
slew [1] 145/21
slightly [9] 4/18 4/19
26/7 26/10 26/16
42/25 50/19 69/2
186/25
slur [1] 182/24
small [3] 3/21 141/7
141/13
smaller [4] 11/14
15/14 26/25 141/19
SMIS0000268 [1]
188/9
Smith [20] 47/9 48/7
48/9 49/20 61/1 64/2
104/4 127/24 128/14
128/23 131/3 131/16
134/11 134/14 160/8
185/2 185/2 185/7
143/19 143/25 144/14,
112/21 122/18 124/22)
185/11 185/20
Smith's [1] 186/9
so [205]
social [9] 3/19 38/21
38/25 39/2 40/3 41/6
42/1 42/9 92/24
society [2] 92/19
170/12
software [2] 51/14
142/23
solely [1] 26/1
solicitor [1] 160/5
solicitors [1] 160/2
some [76] 2/18 2/20
5/21 7/6 7/9 12/12
17/19 18/21 19/23
24/25 28/7 28/9 29/25)
31/16 32/10 33/10
34/12 35/9 41/21
47/25 52/3 52/23
57/15 57/16 57/17
59/17 62/23 65/16
66/4 70/5 71/5 71/15
72/6 75/16 76/16 82/2
82/4 83/10 92/9 100/5I
101/4 102/8 104/17
111/9 111/12 112/11
113/15 120/1 120/5
125/1 128/4 129/17
139/13 140/11 148/4
150/2 153/25 157/14
1714/7 172/2 174/2
174/3 174/3 175/10
175/12 175/17 176/5
176/13 190/1 191/16
193/20 193/22 193/23
194/15 194/16 197/22
somebody [7] 24/7
31/13 33/2 56/18
104/10 128/6 190/15
someone [8] 21/25
22/4 29/24 75/9
104/15 147/10 147/16
193/15
something [41] 7/8
17/21 19/10 21/11
21/19 31/11 32/4 37/2
37/23 40/2 41/16
46/16 49/25 50/9
60/24 66/22 68/2 68/4
71/20 72/11 77/2
81/22 83/1 83/8 83/8
89/20 90/11 95/2
102/25 104/11 105/7
106/22 110/15 124/16
137/15 137/17 137/18
144/18 155/6 193/11
196/10
sometimes [11] 3/17
35/2 42/17 51/11 74/3
120/4 127/2 132/8
172/21 179/5 190/11
somewhere [1] 11/9
soon [1] 36/3
sorry [19] 13/18
24/19 54/4 58/10
62/16 63/1 66/16
71/18 95/8 119/7
122/13 127/12 141/23
160/17 167/16 178/25}
186/6 191/8 191/12
sort [19] 21/13 21/15
25/13 26/9 40/21
40/22 66/25 70/17
71/5 72/6 102/15
111/3 112/11 112/15
139/24 150/7 173/4
185/24 193/15
sorted [1] 66/22
sorts [2] 136/9
194/10
source [5] 32/11 56/3}
61/4 67/18 72/2
sources [3] 108/15
110/12 110/14
South [2] 3/4 61/25
speak [4] 37/25
126/11 138/17 167/21
speaking [1] 173/2
special [6] 3/18
22/17 22/18 22/24
23/11 27/2
specialists [1] 114/5
specific [6] 48/11
89/19 89/21 106/21
106/23 189/14
specifically [1]
187/25
speculate [1] 102/24
speculating [1] 103/5)
Speech [2] 167/10
192/4
spend [1] 166/8
spent [4] 9/1 49/9
117/23 154/25
split [1] 168/4
spoken [5] 51/9 53/5
73/25 75/9 196/1
spokesperson [1]
15/12
stable [1] 65/20
staff [9] 42/10 43/20
70/22 70/22 90/1
91/10 147/3 148/13
192/16
stage [10] 28/10
28/10 29/16 50/11
68/19 104/17 121/9
129/11 129/24 161/12)
stages [2] 25/10
50/15
stake [3] 18/16 80/16
80/17
stakeholders [2]
14/3 88/5
stand [2] 2/16 186/10
standalone [1] 24/25
standard [4] 45/5
45/7 45/10 49/23
standards [1] 143/4
standing [1] 114/24
start [13] 3/2 8/10
43/10 72/4 81/25 84/2)
85/23 87/10 145/18
151/9 157/11 167/6
179/4
started [3] 119/9
160/6 185/4
starting [4] 19/24
88/19 150/14 192/1
starts [1] 156/11
state [65] 1/10 4/12
4/22 4/23 5/12 7/3
7/23 7/25 8/3 8/4 8/9
8/10 8/12 8/14 8/17
9/1 9/10 9/11 9/12
9/15 9/17 9/25 10/7
12/24 13/1 13/8 13/12)
13/22 16/4 16/9 18/1
18/2 20/7 23/15 25/14)
25/15 25/20 25/21
37/3 37/5 37/8 37/24
37/24 60/15 60/23
78/17 84/24 85/3 86/7
86/16 86/19 86/22
87/1 87/3 87/7 109/24)
112/7 114/14 126/21
127/3 128/22 130/6
130/23 131/11 190/21
State's [3] 13/15
26/22 26/23
state-owned [1]
25/14
stated [3] 2/13 103/9
149/5
statement [71] 1/13
1/15 1/19 2/7 2/13
2/17 2/19 2/21 11/4
13/21 14/10 16/5
19/10 28/6 28/8 36/10)
36/25 38/24 51/24
53/13 54/25 57/5 58/7I
58/24 64/16 73/9 74/9
78/15 78/20 80/1
83/21 84/18 85/17
85/22 89/12 89/14
91/14 95/3 96/9 97/10
99/2 99/8 101/23
103/8 103/16 103/22
106/20 108/11 117/7
417/17 117/24 118/8
118/12 120/9 121/3
121/7 122/9 126/25
131/14 141/4 148/20
152/12 166/25 167/1
167/5 181/10 181/18
183/15 197/19 197/25)
199/12
statements [1] 163/8
states [4] 13/23
47/19 166/1 188/12
stating [1] 187/21
(79) similar... - stating
Ss
status [2] 87/15
197/5
statutory [4] 189/16
192/10 192/12 192/19
stay [1] 18/9
stays [2] 12/10 12/10
steadily [1] 65/16
Stein [10] 72/24 73/1
73/6 78/5 79/22 171/9
191/15 191/16 200/7
200/20
stem [1] 113/23
step [2] 69/18 196/11
Stephen [1] 109/18
steps [1] 96/17
STEVENS [11] 1/9
13/18 43/24 44/6
44/16 44/23 72/13
76/2 82/24 83/17
200/5
stewarded [1] 23/21
stick [1] 148/6
still [14] 29/1 29/5
61/2 72/5 80/17
114/20 123/10 143/13}
143/22 145/3 148/16
155/25 164/10 166/18}
stolen [1] 180/23
stonewalled [1]
115/14
stop [6] 12/16 37/2
78/4 144/20 145/14
159/23
stopping [2] 134/21
147/22
store [1] 67/18
Storey [1] 109/19
stories [1] 195/25
story [11] 50/13 52/3
57/19 60/2 68/1 79/20
81/23 82/1 82/2
162/17 164/1
strange [3] 65/16
65/19 138/14
strategic [16] 11/11
19/2 38/3 38/8 46/20
81/7 89/23 91/19
91/25 92/5 92/16
92/18 92/21 94/10
98/4 144/12
strategy [6] 40/19
91/6 91/16 91/18 93/6
99/3
streams [2] 19/7
19/21
street [1] 91/23
strength [1] 137/1
strengthen [2]
169/17 171/1
stress [1] 37/5
strikes [1] 53/24
stripped [1] 146/14
strong [4] 74/16
154/10 154/21 163/25)
stronger [2] 170/1
196/24
strongly [3] 155/3
167/11 193/13
struck [3] 57/2 75/19
155/3
structure [2] 67/11
75/15
structures [1] 19/23
sub [9] 35/8 120/1
124/9 142/6 161/6
162/14 164/21 173/16)
177/19
subbies [1] 65/23
subheadings [1]
167/4
subject [7] 14/6
134/12 140/10 142/24)
152/8 184/2 188/5
subjected [1] 62/7
subjects [4] 30/12
49/12 172/11 172/13
submission [24]
97/16 99/23 100/15
101/14 112/3 120/11
120/11 120/17 121/19)
121/22 127/10 127/11
127/12 127/13 151/25)
154/12 155/10 155/11
164/2 164/9 164/11
164/12 166/17 199/5
submissions [4]
97/12 97/20 110/16
160/22
submitted [1] 115/7
subpostmaster [9]
32/4 41/15 57/23
114/17 138/18 147/9
148/8 148/14 153/1
subpostmasters [82]
13/2 32/8 39/5 39/9
39/22 41/1 42/8 42/10
42/13 50/2 50/8 51/10
52/7 57/25 61/5 67/13
67/22 68/12 69/22
73/9 74/1 74/5 74/16
74/24 75/9 76/14
76/21 76/24 76/25
78/11 78/23 79/4
79/11 79/12 90/9 93/4
96/12 99/13 102/21
105/22 107/1 107/6
107/18 107/23 113/2
113/11 113/22 114/21
115/21 127/23 131/13}
133/25 134/13 134/17)
138/15 138/16 140/9
140/13 140/16 142/4
142/10 147/4 147/14
147/22 148/1 152/23
154/24 155/2 156/25
160/2 164/6 170/13
170/15 170/22 170/25}
171/19 173/20 183/10
184/20 187/7 197/1
198/12
subsequent [3] 82/3
142/11 160/16
subsequently [6]
51/7 76/22 114/16
115/13 163/9 171/20
subsidiaries [1] 94/2
subsidising [1] 42/3
subsidy [4] 41/4
91/17 92/17 93/8
substance [5] 7/16
87/10 123/2 150/17
174/22
substantial [1]
109/22
substantive [6] 32/19}
108/23 154/9 155/13
162/20 163/19
success [2] 125/19
175/13
successor [2] 86/21
174/17
such [15] 6/21 34/16
36/20 44/7 46/11 71/8
89/25 102/23 126/3
130/11 138/23 138/25}
170/23 178/22 179/10
Sue [1] 153/16
suffer [1] 114/12
suffered [3] 68/14
113/11 113/25
suffering [3] 132/7
133/16 146/17
sufficient [3] 15/19
15/22 192/10
suggest [8] 64/1
94/22 95/2 105/1
105/2 126/4 152/7
180/24
suggested [1] 90/16
suggesting [1]
167/23
suggestion [4] 65/14
169/9 169/16 169/17
suggests [3] 121/10
128/5 154/2
suitable [1] 147/11
suits [1] 146/15
sum [3] 41/3 176/3
176/6
summarise [5] 3/9
32/14 73/23 115/24
170/7
summarising [1]
123/1
summary [5] 74/5
74/13 74/23 85/24
149/16
sums [1] 68/14
superintend [1]
96/18
supplied [2] 100/13
134/5
support [10] 41/5
69/20 115/3 133/17
138/25 167/11 170/4
171/1 195/11 196/16
supported [2] 79/4
92/23
suppose [5] 26/19
38/20 74/21 93/17
174/8
supposed [4] 45/6
45/6 45/7 89/10
Surbiton [1] 86/1
sure [39] 6/15 8/12
27/7 29/3 33/25 40/21
41/25 42/3 45/9 47/12
60/1 68/4 68/19 69/8
69/17 70/24 71/12
T7I17 79/13 89/6 93/5
93/7 97/22 98/2 112/8I
114/10 130/3 132/4
132/19 137/13 161/19}
163/1 169/1 174/8
183/11 193/8 194/11
194/25 196/2
surface [1] 135/14
surprise [2] 102/17
190/12
surprised [5] 101/18
101/19 139/18 139/20
159/7
surprising [2] 159/8
190/19
surprisingly [1]
176/1
Susannah [1] 109/19
suspect [2] 109/13
110/5
suspended [1]
138/17
suspicion [1] 140/13
sustaining [1] 98/18
swallow [1] 159/8
swallowed [1]
166/13
Swinson [1] 199/17
swiped [1] 158/23
sworn [4] 1/8 84/11
200/3 200/12
synthetic [1] 152/17
system [128] 8/25
13/3 36/6 45/16 47/21
48/9 49/21 50/5 50/6
50/9 50/9 50/13 51/8
51/19 52/11 54/2
57/21 58/2 58/14
58/18 59/10 60/7
61/11 62/9 62/13
63/13 63/15 63/24
64/9 64/11 64/12
65/18 65/19 66/11
67/14 68/2 68/19
68/25 69/13 71/25
74/2 75/17 75/20
76/18 77/22 77/24
79/15 81/19 82/8
89/20 90/2 90/4 90/17
104/23 106/22 107/1
107/7 113/12 113/23
114/9 114/11 114/14
114/15 115/1 116/16
116/23 124/12 125/9
126/25 130/8 130/25
131/14 132/6 132/20
133/15 133/16 134/17)
137/17 137/19 138/3
139/5 140/14 140/19
140/23 142/9 142/13
142/14 142/16 142/19}
142/25 143/5 143/9
147/25 148/10 151/6
156/11 156/13 156/16
156/17 156/19 157/1
157/5 157/10 157/14
158/11 158/12 158/16)
158/17 165/24 166/1
166/2 168/22 170/3
176/20 176/23 176/24I
177/3 178/6 181/14
182/3 187/5 187/10
187/22 188/13 195/1
195/2 198/5 199/6
systemic [2] 108/25
151/7
systems [6] 90/1
91/10 92/2 143/3
175/20 196/2
T
Tactically [2] 161/11
161/21
tagged [1] 184/8
take [22] 14/17 28/10
29/20 45/18 57/25
67/2 71/7 73/4 84/1
92/20 110/12 110/15
110/20 111/23 112/24}
115/12 141/6 150/16
154/13 155/18 189/19)
196/11
taken [20] 6/15 7/6
17/23 17/24 39/17
56/2 66/10 69/15
69/23 101/24 109/7
118/4 126/7 138/24
157/4 165/3 171/4
175/7 176/7 184/11
takes [4] 25/9 53/3
121/24 173/11
taking [11] 22/8
44/21 62/10 75/12
107/3 117/10 143/13
155/15 162/3 162/11
195/10
talk [2] 57/23 80/6
talked [4] 46/7 75/14
78/16 82/15
(80) status - talked
T
talking [18] 21/19
29/17 40/12 41/6 68/9
68/9 69/14 69/24
73/11 73/25 74/1 74/2
88/10 88/10 119/8
150/10 173/5 191/5
tamper [2] 156/21
184/6
tamper-proof [1]
184/6
tape [2] 6/9 6/10
target [1] 38/16
task [2] 96/4 105/19
taste [1] 148/4
taught [1] 69/12
team [3] 160/8 185/7
185/9
technology [3] 47/1
65/25 114/20
teetering [1] 148/15
tell [19] 65/23 89/12
97/10 108/11 108/16
108/20 109/7 117/17
137/4 137/17 141/4
147/2 147/5 147/10
AATINT 147/22 147/25
182/19 193/2
telling [14] 64/7 68/3
100/23 127/18 137/11
146/18 146/21 149/24}
154/19 159/9 164/5
183/6 190/9 194/12
tells [1] 193/10
temporary [1] 22/18
temptation [1] 70/16
tempting [1] 83/4
ten [5] 17/22 34/19
84/1 171/9 171/10
tends [1] 105/2
tenure [8] 9/18 10/8
46/24 80/10 87/21
93/19 186/9 198/2
term [2] 70/19 152/15}
terminals [3] 166/3
187/22 188/14
terminated [2]
138/11 142/11
termination [1] 138/4
terminology [1]
54/18
terms [25] 8/9 10/18
11/22 12/5 12/19 14/6}
14/15 18/23 24/12
39/4 43/19 60/6 81/7
82/4 85/24 87/7 91/10
92/12 92/17 94/6
107/24 127/23 151/10)
165/16 182/1
terrestrials [1]
193/17
terrible [3] 34/12
59/13 68/12
terse [3] 117/3 117/6
119/13
tested [3] 142/22
176/24 176/24
testing [6] 112/12
136/25 137/1 142/24
142/24 173/24
text [1] 85/9
than [35] 6/21 7/16
9/7 22/20 25/25 29/2
35/12 42/4 48/25
60/24 75/10 77/15
77/16 83/8 83/11
100/5 109/21 110/5
123/16 128/14 136/13)
141/19 144/17 146/15)
151/14 163/2 165/10
169/7 170/1 171/25
171/25 175/14 182/22)
191/4 194/11
thank [77] 1/6 1/12
1/13 2/5 2/16 13/17
46/2 46/3 48/5 56/23
59/2 65/10 66/14
72/21 78/5 78/7 78/8
79/21 83/16 83/20
83/24 83/25 84/4 84/9
84/10 84/13 85/11
85/15 85/21 87/9
105/23 106/7 106/12
106/17 106/18 112/20)
112/22 116/13 116/15)
125/4 129/15 130/20
141/3 141/25 155/17
155/21 156/1 156/5
157/12 159/23 166/21
167/19 169/9 171/5
171/14 171/17 172/3
173/12 176/12 176/23)
177/14 180/10 181/3
183/22 183/23 184/1
187/17 191/13 191/14)
191/22 197/13 197/16)
199/7 199/8 199/11
199/15 199/18
thanking [2] 173/13
176/14
Thanks [1] 187/19
that [1118]
that 1 [1] 104/6
that's [104] 3/5 3/8
4/16 7/8 7/24 11/11
14/9 14/18 16/1 16/2
16/8 16/11 20/3 20/10
20/20 23/5 29/23
33/10 33/18 35/4
35/15 36/20 38/7
38/10 38/11 40/17
44/4 45/8 45/12 45/18)
45/19 45/22 48/5 50/3
50/17 52/12 52/12
53/16 54/7 55/15
56/16 62/16 64/2
64/13 64/23 72/17
74/13 76/10 83/4 83/9
83/18 84/3 85/11
86/10 86/17 88/17
95/2 97/9 107/4
107/11 108/22 116/2
120/7 122/5 123/5
124/18 126/22 127/6
130/12 130/17 130/19]
131/6 134/14 136/24
140/21 141/15 143/11
144/6 145/19 145/25
150/23 151/12 152/11
153/25 154/16 162/2
167/17 168/2 169/25
172/8 173/2 173/10
173/10 173/21 174/16}
177/14 178/13 180/10
181/3 183/6 189/24
194/20 196/19 199/18}
theft [8] 53/11 53/12
151/8 175/5 178/1
180/13 180/21 181/7
theft/false [1] 151/8
their [77] 7/20 11/21
13/24 16/2 19/17
21/12 22/25 23/3 23/3
23/4 24/14 25/20
27/18 29/12 30/6
37/21 51/11 51/12
51/13 51/18 51/19
53/1 53/2 53/3 57/20
59/11 60/6 61/14 64/8
64/8 64/9 65/24 66/10)
68/1 73/4 75/20 80/7
80/9 82/1 93/3 93/4
98/15 100/9 104/8
104/14 107/18 110/23
111/15 113/12 113/21
114/18 115/12 115/13
124/13 125/8 133/15
139/5 141/20 142/10
147/11 147/14 147/23}
147/24 148/9 148/10
148/13 161/3 161/8
161/20 170/25 171/20
175/20 178/21 192/15}
194/21 194/22 195/25)
them [57] 4/3 24/15
24/16 33/3 34/23 35/4
39/10 46/17 49/14
51/15 53/23 56/21
64/25 70/23 71/1 73/3
74/25 76/13 83/3
98/15 99/3 99/6 100/5I
101/25 104/10 104/15}
110/4 110/18 111/7
111/18 118/20 126/9
127/8 130/2 137/13
141/6 145/15 146/16
149/24 154/25 159/9
159/15 161/2 166/19
171/1 171/1 172/6
172/7 172/9 172/10
172/23 172/24 174/1
196/17 198/11 198/16
198/17
themselves [15]
11/13 11/19 26/20
34/24 35/14 42/19
61/6 70/12 90/7 96/11
103/12 120/10 128/25)
129/4 148/11
then [103] 3/15 3/16
5/11 7/23 8/15 18/10
19/15 25/8 26/15 28/9}
30/25 32/24 33/7
34/24 35/1 47/3 47/6
47/9 48/2 48/20 50/19
51/5 53/10 60/15
60/22 61/19 61/21
73/3 74/8 74/22 76/15)
84/2 85/7 86/3 88/14
90/5 90/10 91/11
102/8 104/5 105/8
112/18 115/9 117/6
123/7 123/15 124/4
127/1 129/16 130/20
132/12 132/18 133/7
134/3 134/3 135/5
135/9 135/23 137/5
137/23 140/19 144/12
147/7 147/9 147/21
150/12 150/13 151/1
153/25 156/4 156/15
157/4 157/7 158/15
158/18 159/25 162/15}
162/21 164/13 166/18)
170/6 171/10 173/14
173/22 173/22 174/14
174/14 174/23 175/24}
176/16 176/19 177/3
181/1 181/20 182/4
182/6 182/20 186/19
187/9 187/13 189/25
191/6 192/23
theory [2] 135/3
135/22
there [244]
there'd [4] 65/1 120/9}
153/5 159/16
there's [25] 31/16
33/1 39/20 41/3 48/2
57/18 59/22 60/7
63/25 64/1 70/15
71/15 79/16 81/4
83/10 93/24 102/4
120/1 120/2 140/2
155/10 173/22 176/16}
187/16 193/11
thereabouts [1]
21/12
therefore [11] 48/22
86/14 92/9 93/6 126/6)
126/11 130/15 135/6
137/12 143/16 161/17I
these [61] 5/24 7/15
8/24 9/2 14/5 24/24
25/14 25/19 27/6 28/8
29/22 37/13 39/13
42/19 50/1 53/10
58/13 59/6 59/14 60/3I
60/6 60/10 61/14
64/15 64/24 65/4
65/21 67/20 67/24
68/22 70/18 74/15
74/15 74/18 75/5
77/15 77/21 83/2
83/11 94/3 113/22
116/8 120/3 120/4
135/8 136/9 136/10
136/15 138/25 141/8
146/19 153/5 153/5
159/4 166/18 172/5
189/1 190/3 194/25
195/19 199/1
they [210]
they'd [7] 95/1 111/9
111/11 119/22 125/7
129/10 159/11
they'll [3] 26/25
45/15 147/5
they're [15] 19/14
22/21 25/15 25/20
25/21 27/19 28/3 35/5
57/2 59/12 62/23
83/14 104/6 116/10
118/15
they've [5] 33/14
35/17 50/3 158/23
166/13
thing [28] 31/15
39/21 53/24 58/5
58/22 59/13 69/21
69/22 71/9 71/21
75/13 76/8 76/11
76/11 77/20 80/13
101/21 102/15 119/5
119/14 129/20 129/23)
135/13 138/16 169/23}
170/23 190/20 198/18}
things [52] 5/1 5/22
7/9 8/17 9/3 9/4 9/7
14/25 15/9 15/24
16/16 17/7 17/14 18/5}
18/9 21/17 23/24
26/25 35/8 35/13
38/15 42/18 48/25
49/22 52/6 57/7 60/10
65/4 66/12 68/21 70/7
77/5 78/14 82/4 82/21
83/2 83/5 93/8 94/7
94/9 100/12 110/14
118/11 123/7 152/21
163/18 172/14 173/4
179/5 179/7 190/18
194/4
think [146] 5/23 7/14
13/7 15/21 15/22 20/7I
26/8 26/12 27/1 27/7
28/20 28/23 31/12
31/14 33/8 34/7 38/4
38/5 40/17 40/21 41/2
(81) talking - think
T 67/20 77/1 7912 7916
think. [125] 41/25 I Gers 96120 9718 97/23
4216 42/14 43/13
99/2 99/6 100/6 100/7
43/24 44/6 44/19 45/2
45/11 45/17 45/20
46/10 51/24 52/13
53/13 56/16 57/8
57/13 57/15 57/17
59/22 64/8 66/3 66/5
66/11 66/13 68/6
68/11 68/24 69/5
69/20 70/14 70/15
70/18 71/10 71/19
71/19 71/23 72/7
72/13 75/7 76/3 76/4
76/17 76/25 77/20
78/3 79/8 79/18 79/19
81/15 81/24 81/25
82/2 82/23 83/4 84/20
86/14 88/17 89/8
91/14 93/23 93/24
94/22 95/8 95/9 95/14
96/14 96/15 96/21
97/15 101/5 101/11
102/3 102/15 105/18
107/8 107/16 107/20
117/10 119/2 120/19
121/7 125/12 129/14
134/21 138/14 139/22)
141/19 143/11 144/3
149/22 153/12 153/13}
160/12 160/13 160/19)
162/24 165/12 166/5
166/9 166/18 166/19
168/9 169/17 170/7
170/20 171/8 173/25
174/1 174/6 179/20
183/19 183/20 184/17
186/1 186/13 190/4
190/7 190/16 191/17
194/12 196/19 197/4
197/18
thinking [3] 37/1 75/4)
150/2
third [11] 15/7 47/15
48/15 103/8 130/21
150/22 165/21 168/15)
171/10 176/19 196/6
thirdly [1] 52/10
this [372]
Thomson [8] 51/6
55/7 55/10 73/12
73/23 79/23 197/20
198/19
Thomson's [2] 54/1
55/4
thorough [2] 102/3
168/14
those [70] 2/23 3/25
5/3 13/14 14/7 15/19
20/18 24/1 30/11 35/3,
35/13 39/8 40/7 41/14,
48/25 50/1 59/16 66/2)
100/8 100/17 101/9
106/1 108/15 108/16
114/3 117/1 117/25
118/4 118/14 119/24
120/22 121/22 125/11
128/20 128/24 138/22)
141/16 143/25 162/24)
163/1 164/7 167/4
169/11 171/5 172/11
173/1 188/6 191/13
193/24 194/23 196/15)
198/5 198/15 199/7
though [16] 17/20
49/3 54/22 89/17 90/2
101/24 109/12 113/16)
114/6 143/18 146/3
148/13 168/25 181/20)
196/22 197/22
thought [24] 11/13
24/13 36/22 43/25
48/8 52/13 54/6 54/23
60/4 70/15 76/20
77/18 80/22 100/22
111/6 1114/9 111/14
111/24 136/16 137/7
139/25 159/11 179/6
193/2
thoughts [2] 5/6
53/17
thousands [4] 51/12
74/3 138/19 148/11
three [16] 8/1 9/12
13/16 47/17 78/3
100/1 100/3 100/4
101/9 101/10 101/12
137/3 154/10 164/8
171/11 195/22
three-year [1] 13/16
through [37] 11/17
14/13 18/20 21/9
21/18 21/21 22/1 25/9
28/7 33/19 40/5 44/4
49/14 50/19 55/17
64/15 74/8 74/14
78/21 87/1 91/21
95/24 98/14 100/17
102/18 107/8 111/14
118/11 119/21 127/8
160/7 164/3 168/22
182/8 183/19 187/11
196/9
throughout [3] 5/23
18/21 64/14
thugs [4] 146/15
Thursday [1] 1/1
ticket [1] 18/22
tied [2] 22/25 69/25
till [1] 65/24
Tim [1] 171/18
time [135] 3/19 6/6
8/22 8/23 9/1 9/3 9/15
14/16 14/21 15/7 15/9
15/18 15/19 15/22
16/1 16/3 18/3 18/4
20/18 20/22 21/2 21/2
22/14 23/18 23/20
23/23 25/5 28/13 30/4
34/17 35/13 37/9 41/7
42/16 45/18 45/19
46/6 46/13 49/8 50/13
51/12 52/18 53/14
57/9 57/15 57/16 58/4
59/5 59/9 59/15 59/16
59/20 60/11 62/3
64/14 64/25 65/3 65/3
65/7 65/15 66/5 66/7
66/8 68/6 69/17 72/25
74/4 75/13 75/21
76/17 76/19 76/23
7713 7717 77/14 78/2
79/24 80/19 81/18
82/6 87/25 88/19 89/5)
90/21 91/1 92/9 94/6
96/5 96/7 97/2 97/21
99/15 100/19 103/11
104/20 109/12 110/8
111/12 112/3 114/11
114/11 115/5 117/23
119/8 130/18 137/7
141/17 142/22 143/18
143/21 144/2 145/1
145/4 146/7 148/16
149/3 149/9 152/13
156/3 156/24 159/15
164/16 166/8 169/22
170/14 175/11 178/5
179/20 182/14 185/25)
186/2 186/16 188/8
190/10 190/15
timeline [3] 6/20
50/19 60/12
timeliness [1] 195/14
timely [4] 195/4
times [7] 34/3 78/4
130/6 142/16 144/6
198/1 198/1
title [2] 15/1 15/10
today [17] 1/14 3/14
3/15 16/6 19/14 37/21
37/22 37/22 79/24
84/14 97/11 133/22
139/10 168/3 193/7
194/9 199/13
together [13] 34/21
49/7 53/24 54/7 55/19)
55/22 56/6 62/10 91/4
98/11 152/25 153/3
192/24
told [27] 35/3 36/1
36/5 41/9 44/17 58/24
82/12 97/10 103/20
111/7 119/22 136/19
137/12 149/1 149/12
150/1 157/15 157/17
166/13 167/16 168/6
170/5 172/5 191/2
193/9 198/23 199/4
Tony [1] 198/3
too [7] 1/22 16/21
81/24 99/5 132/4
148/17 168/22
took [23] 14/21 16/13
23/17 27/5 42/24
59/16 59/17 72/5 82/7,
88/8 96/4 96/18 107/2
107/9 113/4 122/14
124/21 152/14 153/22}
154/3 154/15 161/2
195/7
top [5] 27/9 81/21
112/24 112/25 140/6
tot [1] 180/13
total [1] 10/2
totally [2] 80/3
152/18
touching [1] 1838/5
towards [5] 3/21
17/15 18/5 25/24
99/12
town [2] 39/19 39/25
towns [1] 92/25
Tracy [1] 135/9
trade [3] 5/18 77/5
172/15
trading [1] 148/2
traditional [1] 25/6
tragedy [1] 167/25
trained [1] 156/25
training [2] 27/10
109/2
tramlines [1] 129/16
transaction [2] 57/22
143/4
transactions [4]
124/13 140/12 142/16}
143/6
Transformation [1]
198/21
transparency [1]
168/9
traps [1] 163/5
travesty [1] 182/9
Treasury [2] 9/7
91/17
treat [1] 98/17
treated [7] 42/11
63/20 101/15 133/11
138/9 138/22 148/13
treating [1] 112/1
treatment [3] 39/8
39/10 125/21
trenchant [1] 77/8
trial [7] 160/6 160/9
160/11 175/4 175/10
175/22 185/4
trickle [2] 141/7
141/13
tricky [1] 103/6
tried [1] 175/12
trouble [3] 18/4
146/24 147/6
troubling [1] 155/6
true [16] 2/13 28/24
28/25 85/17 103/21
104/11 105/7 115/21
123/19 136/15 137/8
137/11 164/12 173/2
173/21 182/15
truly [1] 184/10
trust [7] 30/15 34/6
36/1 36/5 171/2
178/23 195/1
trusted [2] 36/2
64/10
trusting [2] 33/24
34/4
truth [18] 35/3 68/3
81/13 100/23 100/25
104/17 115/5 137/12
137/14 146/25 157/17)
157/21 182/19 183/6
191/2 193/2 193/10
194/12
truthful [3] 110/20
111/23 112/41
truthfulness [1]
137/2
try [8] 18/11 34/14
77/20 118/11 133/21
139/9 176/10 196/9
trying [19] 18/15
19/19 34/19 43/12
44/6 71/19 71/23 94/9)
96/14 98/2 98/4
104/13 104/13 109/24)
112/16 121/7 122/6
129/11 146/23
turn [30] 1/15 1/22
2/6 14/10 29/16 46/4
51/5 58/8 61/19 68/2
84/22 85/13 89/12
95/3 99/8 108/11
108/21 112/18 113/18)
129/13 131/9 147/12
147/16 148/20 150/13)
156/9 159/20 164/13
166/24 186/19
turned [3] 53/5 67/22
123/4
turning [3] 74/11
74/18 147/16
turns [3] 34/11 135/4
135/23
twice [1] 128/4
two [39] 9/12 13/14
13/15 14/7 14/20
22/16 29/2 48/25
52/25 53/23 57/7
57/18 60/6 61/12 79/6I
84/20 85/18 100/12
101/11 104/5 115/9
118/4 118/16 150/13
(82) think... - two
T
two... [15] 150/16
152/15 153/4 154/21
155/7 156/2 159/13
159/25 160/16 163/2
163/14 169/11 186/4
192/23 198/1
two paragraphs [1]
169/11
two-year [1] 198/1
tying [1] 148/2
type [3] 31/9 82/19
193/20
types [2] 26/20
128/20
typical [2] 28/14
28/16
U
UFO [1] 193/16
UK [6] 8/25 9/2 9/5
17/2 26/11 69/12
UKGI00000062 [2]
150/15 156/4
UKGI00011504 [1]
60/13
UKGI00011506 [1]
63/3
UKGI00013863 [1]
176/9
UKGI00013913 [3]
141/22 173/10 176/11
UKGI00014108 [1]
140/5
UKGI00016099 [1]
145/20
UKGI00016119 [1]
112/22
ultimate [3] 36/19
82/21 92/18
ultimately [8] 37/3
81/12 87/17 88/1
105/18 133/23 136/8
139/11
umbrella [1] 172/18
unable [1] 130/15
unaware [4] 96/17
96/20 97/2 106/25
unclear [2] 60/16
141/16
unconvinced [1]
122/20
uncover [2] 104/18
104/19
under [18] 3/16 4/18
5/24 8/2 13/8 26/24
86/7 86/18 86/21 87/3
95/5 115/22 129/15
132/1 138/20 150/21
156/10 163/5
Under-Secretary [6]
3/16 8/2 86/7 86/18
86/21 87/3
26/24
underlying [2] 10/25
12/19
undermine [2]
178/23 182/25
underneath [2] 30/8
116/13
understand [19] 2/2
43/23 48/17 58/20
63/10 67/4 83/25
92/11 129/11 144/7
151/19 154/22 154/23)
160/20 177/23 177/25)
178/5 183/11 194/8
understandable [1]
43/5
understandably [1]
17N7
understanding [13]
20/23 21/24 45/9
90/20 91/7 94/17
112/2 112/7 139/23
139/24 153/3 165/4
165/17
understood [11] 43/9)
88/9 90/23 92/8 92/10
92/11 93/15 95/11
95/16 104/17 105/5
undertaken [3] 97/8
157/6 157/16
undisturbed [1]
192/7
unexplained [1]
132/9
Unfortunately [1]
138/10
unhappy [1] 57/23
union [2] 8/22 77/5
unions [2] 109/1
197/23
Unique [1] 1/18
unit [4] 26/10
unless [2] 45/17
110/15
unlike [1] 22/20
unlock [1] 114/2
unpaid [1] 178/3
unprecedented [2]
69/16 69/18
unreasonable [2]
116/8 116/10
unreliability [2]
178/16 181/23
unsafe [2] 59/14 78/1
unsatisfied [1] 27/15
unsound [3] 59/15
70/21 78/1
unsure [1] 7/8
until [13] 4/16 17/5
84/2 86/15 106/9
108/1 115/5 139/1
147/7 148/14 155/19
159/14 199/20
Under-Secretary's [1]
untrue [1] 104/9
untruthful [1] 182/23
60/19 69/22 70/3
74/15 74/18 74/20
172/24
up [79] 13/20 14/17
14/21 19/12 19/17
25/18 28/6 52/16
54/25 56/8 57/6 57/10
58/5 64/10 64/17 65/9
67/11 69/25 73/17
75/15 81/15 82/16
84/22 88/8 89/13
89/13 91/16 95/3 99/8
106/8 107/3 108/12
108/21 113/4 115/12
116/18 124/16 124/21
126/7 132/14 135/9
138/13 140/22 142/15}
143/6 147/1 147/15
147/16 148/1 148/20
152/23 153/9 162/18
162/22 163/24 164/18}
165/2 168/3 171/8
171/9 171/10 171/11
173/12 174/23 176/10}
176/10 176/22 180/8
180/25 185/16 186/22
187/12 187/15 187/16
189/2 189/24 193/22
195/7 198/25
update [1] 157/1
updated [3] 156/18
158/17 158/18
upgrade [1] 142/25
upon [3] 71/20 107/3
108/15
urge [1] 192/21
URN [1] 84/18
us [28] 1/5 4/22
30/22 32/21 46/1
75/12 84/8 84/16
84/18 89/12 97/10
97/10 103/24 106/16
108/11 108/16 108/20}
109/7 117/17 117/23
126/5 126/6 137/17
141/4 146/24 155/25
157/23 157/24
use [10] 46/22 54/17
57/21 64/9 68/17 72/9}
75/23 75/24 121/14
196/8
used [10] 50/7 50/7
56/16 58/4 67/21 90/4
108/15 124/13 140/19)
188/16
useful [3] 117/2
117/5 122/16
user [2] 143/5 184/9
using [7] 38/19 59/12
77/25 82/10 114/21
148/13 198/5
unusual [9] 4/22 44/2
usual [2] 44/3 172/7
usually [3] 24/25
30/6 76/2
Vv
Valerie [1] 140/6
validity [1] 126/10
value [6] 66/10 80/22
82/9 93/3 93/4 111/9
vanish [1] 176/8
variety [1] 172/16
various [4] 4/2 20/21
189/25 194/25
vast [2] 120/7 120/10
Vaz [1] 140/6
Vennells [2] 104/5
190/13
verbal [1] 93/22
verdict [1] 44/15
verdicts [1] 43/11
verifying [1] 157/14
versus [1] 12/17
very [96] 1/6 3/14
3/21 10/1 10/13 10/19)
13/17 15/4 15/17
17/16 18/14 18/18
20/14 22/21 27/18
27/18 27/19 27/20
28/22 30/9 31/11
31/13 31/18 33/23
34/7 35/3 35/24 36/3
37/11 39/12 43/5
43/11 44/2 45/14
46/25 51/1 58/21
61/23 69/10 69/22
70/6 72/17 73/3 76/4
77/5 77/6 79/3 80/13
83/20 83/22 83/24
84/13 85/12 85/21
87/9 89/18 91/25
92/24 99/16 100/17
106/7 106/12 107/12
110/17 113/4 120/7
120/11 121/8 121/13
129/11 129/12 142/17
142/21 145/25 151/15)
154/10 155/3 159/17
160/9 161/12 163/24
164/9 171/5 171/14
172/23 172/23 173/9
177/4 177/14 178/25
186/23 187/25 188/3
195/24 199/14 199/18}
via [1] 141/20
viability [4] 11/15
viable [1] 19/5
victims [2] 58/22
151/5
view [16] 17/25 20/23}
23/18 24/11 44/12
46/8 50/9 82/6 111/4
117/10 143/22 153/22}
154/3 154/15 161/8
164/6
viewed [3] 24/16
42/14 179/17
views [1] 66/2
vigorously [1] 58/12
village [2] 39/18
39/25
villages [1] 92/25
Vince [4] 87/4 124/5
174/14 174/20
Vincent [1] 124/6
vindicated [1] 185/9
visible [1] 112/6
volume [3] 15/23
15/23 118/13
volunteers [1] 12/15
vote [1] 17/22
votes [2] 17/22 17/24
WwW
wage [1] 25/6
wages [1] 53/4
wait [1] 147/15
waits [1] 147/7
walks [1] 147/21
Walters [1] 138/1
want [25] 1/14 3/2
7/23 19/23 20/20
26/15 30/16 36/8 37/5I
38/2 39/19 41/12
46/21 46/21 68/5 70/5)
73/9 74/22 90/12
150/18 169/1 186/7
186/13 194/25 197/22)
wanted [23] 6/5
19/16 46/9 52/15
66/21 79/1 80/5 93/5
96/2 99/5 105/4 116/6
148/24 149/2 149/13
149/14 155/4 163/3
163/4 184/17 195/11
198/13 198/24
wanting [3] 91/24
161/22 165/12
wants [1] 147/10
Warnborough [1]
62/1
was [549]
wasn't [25] 12/14
62/4 67/9 77/2 77/7
100/16 100/16 101/25)
107/25 112/6 121/17
123/9 123/12 123/16
123/19 125/3 139/18
144/15 155/14 164/4
165/17 168/6 170/18
170/19 174/18
watched [1] 41/24
watches [1] 147/6
watching [2] 160/9
193/17
Watt [7] 78/6 78/9
171/10 197/15 199/8
200/9 200/22
way [71] 6/10 12/13
(83) two... - way
Ww
way... [69] 16/21
18/14 21/22 22/20
25/5 28/23 31/23 32/5
34/16 38/15 42/2 42/6
43/4 46/18 48/12
48/24 50/11 51/16
52/1 54/16 54/23
55/14 55/19 56/6
63/21 71/14 72/7
72/17 75/5 81/15
81/16 83/7 84/24
84/25 91/21 110/18
111/6 111/10 114/3
118/6 127/8 128/16
128/18 129/1 133/10
138/8 155/2 157/20
166/4 170/9 171/1
171/3 179/19 182/8
182/18 183/1 183/7
184/11 184/12 184/24)
184/25 187/1 188/4
188/15 189/24 191/3
194/3 194/17 195/2
ways [3] 24/25 57/20
68/15
we [277]
we' [1] 64/15
we'd [5] 19/17 80/10
101/17 110/15 194/25
we'll [14] 1/7 32/14
50/25 52/22 101/9
108/2 116/13 117/9
135/18 136/16 144/13
163/20 171/13 199/16}
we're [19] 11/23
36/25 50/18 59/3
69/14 69/24 71/19
90/11 101/8 107/15
117/18 118/2 119/8
119/14 125/13 135/22
137/22 150/3 150/17
we've [13] 32/21
34/18 35/11 46/7
66/15 75/14 118/12
145/25 157/25 167/5
169/23 190/10 191/4
website [1] 113/13
week [2] 40/1 186/2
weekly [8] 51/7 51/11
53/8 73/21 74/3 77/10
110/1 175/11
weeks [4] 29/3 66/4
89/18 96/5
weight [3] 114/23
196/7 196/8
welcome [3] 132/22
168/6 192/18
well [91] 6/1 6/5 9/18
14/25 17/14 20/16
20/25 22/14 23/1 26/4
26/5 28/10 29/2 32/19
33/9 34/7 35/24 37/24
40/21 42/12 43/9
44/12 46/19 48/3
52/15 53/19 54/7 57/1
58/8 60/11 60/22 61/2
63/20 65/18 69/8
69/23 71/2 71/17 73/2
73/3 75/2 75/12 76/5
76/14 77/13 77/16
80/19 81/15 82/23
83/20 92/22 93/12
98/23 99/23 102/24
104/2 105/19 109/17
111/41 111/11 112/2
112/14 112/17 113/14)
115/23 118/6 121/1
127/17 128/16 128/24)
132/4 137/7 141/15
154/6 161/22 163/2
163/23 165/4 165/12
167/24 175/22 178/15)
178/20 180/3 180/9
183/3 190/25 194/3
197/10 199/4 199/11
went [9] 6/17 7/22
67/1 70/16 74/23
74/25 83/5 135/13
179/13
were [233]
weren't [12] 35/21
47/1 68/13 76/21
88/20 94/1 135/20
160/22 165/15 174/2
182/17 199/6
West [1] 47/20
what [198] 3/15 3/19
5/7 7/12 8/8 8/23 9/11
9/15 10/24 11/5 15/17)
16/1 17/3 18/21 18/25)
20/11 20/23 21/5
22/10 22/11 23/18
24/11 27/4 27/21
27/25 29/24 30/2 31/9)
34/4 34/5 34/13 34/19)
35/22 36/1 36/5 36/24)
36/24 37/1 37/8 37/20
40/23 42/18 42/20
43/24 44/6 45/12
45/19 46/10 48/7 48/9
49/4 49/20 50/13
51/16 52/12 52/13
52/15 53/17 53/25
54/6 57/1 57/2 57/2
58/24 59/20 59/23
61/7 61/17 62/21 64/2
64/6 64/14 66/21 67/4
67/10 67/25 67/25
68/3 70/13 70/16 71/2
71/4 71/23 72/5 73/23)
74/10 74/22 74/23
75/7 75/8 75/19 76/9
76/19 76/22 77/13
81/14 81/17 81/18
81/20 81/22 82/7
82/25 83/7 88/2 92/3
92/20 93/14 93/15
95/17 95/20 97/25
101/4 101/22 102/25
103/5 103/20 104/13
104/14 104/18 104/20}
105/1 105/5 105/11
1141/7 111/10 111/15
111/22 111/25 112/5
112/8 112/15 114/17
116/2 118/23 119/3
120/16 121/6 121/18
123/5 126/22 127/17
128/10 128/17 128/18}
128/19 128/21 131/11
136/7 136/12 136/19
136/20 137/2 137/11
138/19 141/15 144/7
144/7 145/10 145/18
146/25 148/23 149/2
152/11 154/19 157/15}
159/1 159/4 159/9
164/4 164/12 166/13
167/22 168/19 169/3
169/7 169/10 173/18
178/13 178/21 181/17
181/18 182/8 182/11
182/21 183/19 183/19}
184/3 184/25 191/9
193/9 194/2 194/12
194/19 195/15 196/24]
197/20 197/24 198/13}
what's [44] 21/4 21/5
27/22 33/21 33/23
49/15 73/18 74/6
74/13 75/1 180/9
whatever [1] 46/10
when [96] 4/21 8/9
9/10 11/15 15/11 16/4
16/13 17/23 20/15
22/1 28/16 29/21 30/5)
30/17 30/21 33/19
36/24 37/22 41/14
41/18 45/10 48/8
48/11 49/20 49/23
52/13 53/6 53/9 53/17
53/21 54/5 55/16
55/22 65/25 66/8
67/11 68/11 71/2 71/7
73/10 75/4 75/18
75/24 82/5 82/12
82/21 87/2 88/8 88/19)
89/7 96/12 96/16
102/17 107/5 107/17
107/21 109/13 110/10
111/24 114/12 114/18I
116/17 118/21 119/21
121/19 122/19 123/13}
136/9 138/19 139/20
139/22 141/5 143/21
144/12 144/14 147/10}
155/11 157/12 157/13
159/2 159/4 168/4
170/5 178/18 178/20
179/12 183/4 183/17
185/11 185/13 186/14)
188/19 191/11 194/20}
196/12 198/13
whenever [1] 35/5
where [48] 2/22 4/23
10/22 11/4 16/23
17/19 18/10 20/20
22/23 28/17 29/17
31/12 31/24 32/16
33/20 36/2 36/19
39/14 39/19 39/21
39/24 40/22 43/16
55/17 60/17 63/21
68/2 69/14 79/16
92/16 102/4 115/15
115/18 118/1 118/15
134/16 142/6 147/17
149/25 157/12 164/22)
165/3 173/17 177/19
179/25 187/16 190/7
195/20
whereby [2] 19/12
192/6
whether [39] 3/20
3/24 11/1 32/9 32/11
42/16 44/7 56/5 70/8
70/9 93/22 97/4
102/13 105/4 105/8
108/8 111/2 111/24
112/6 118/3 118/17
118/22 118/24 119/15
124/16 130/1 130/2
136/12 136/21 136/23}
137/10 137/10 137/17}
154/12 161/12 162/10
179/4 185/21 190/3
which [125] 1/15
3/20 8/24 10/9 11/16
12/9 12/10 13/24
16/20 17/4 17/5 17/9
17/9 19/11 21/2 21/16}
25/17 27/3 27/8 28/14
38/9 40/13 40/15
43/22 44/7 46/23 48/4)
49/17 50/5 50/10
50/24 52/4 57/7 57/19
58/5 61/19 61/20
63/17 71/1 71/11
71/25 73/4 76/22
77/19 79/9 79/9 79/11
80/11 80/15 82/16
83/5 83/14 84/19
84/24 84/25 89/14
89/23 90/18 91/25
92/4 92/7 93/7 93/25
95/7 96/4 96/6 98/10
99/13 100/23 104/9
108/15 108/20 113/4
113/24 115/1 116/17
118/7 120/2 121/25
124/9 124/12 124/12
125/2 125/12 125/15
132/6 133/16 134/9
135/19 138/3 138/20
140/12 140/14 141/16
142/6 142/10 145/19
151/6 154/2 163/3
164/21 164/25 166/3
166/23 170/8 171/24
173/16 174/16 175/23)
176/11 177/19 180/5
180/7 182/13 184/13
185/4 185/14 185/16
187/23 188/5 188/14
188/24 192/4 193/2
193/19
while [5] 9/23 13/12
143/22 152/25 178/15)
whilst [8] 20/7 99/10
116/25 120/21 126/3
142/8 179/4 190/1
Whip [4] 47/11
whistleblower [4]
169/24 196/18 197/1
197/18
whistleblowers [3]
169/18 170/1 196/23
White [2] 25/7 25/8
Whitehall [1] 28/21
Whitehead [23]
97/17 99/23 100/15
108/18 108/22 110/11
134/12 149/23 150/22)
152/2 153/16 155/14
156/8 161/10 163/6
184/12 184/15 187/13)
189/3 189/7 189/8
189/10 199/5
Whitehead's [2]
108/8 149/4
who [85] 3/22 9/13
18/2 20/25 21/3 22/5
22/13 22/19 23/14
24/3 24/5 24/8 24/21
26/18 27/4 27/22
30/18 31/13 33/3
33/20 34/13 34/15
34/23 37/8 37/25 41/1
42/20 47/9 51/7 51/10
52/17 54/20 57/23
58/22 61/5 61/11
63/22 67/16 68/13
68/13 74/24 75/17
75/18 77/21 79/2
88/11 88/20 92/13
93/10 98/24 99/21
100/4 103/23 103/25
105/12 105/20 106/1
107/23 110/23 113/11
113/17 114/5 115/12
124/8 124/9 137/16
140/10 140/16 140/19)
140/19 141/20 144/16)
147/19 153/4 153/17
153/18 155/16 160/2
160/3 169/13 174/17
179/1 183/24 185/2
195/11
(84) way... - who
WwW
who'd [1] 153/2
who's [2] 8/5 35/17
whoever [4] 29/23
30/7 35/17 93/17
whole [11] 8/16
11/15 23/22 24/1
36/23 50/13 60/1
143/20 148/15 159/9
181/2
wholly [1] 74/18
whom [2] 171/19
171/20
whose [3] 30/1 79/4
195/23
why [32] 26/3 26/4
34/15 35/15 39/12
49/20 50/3 55/14
55/14 56/24 64/6
65/21 67/4 75/10
76/11 76/13 77/17
83/9 101/19 102/2
102/13 122/14 128/14
128/22 150/6 152/2
159/8 162/2 179/10
179/13 183/8 190/16
wide [2] 3/11 172/11
wider [1] 16/9
widespread [1]
173/23
WIFE [1] 189/23
will [67] 2/16 2/17 8/4I
9/11 9/12 9/13 26/24
28/2 29/24 30/1 30/2
30/6 30/19 30/21
32/10 34/21 37/4
38/12 44/14 45/13
48/12 53/21 55/20
55/21 56/19 68/5 70/9
70/19 70/20 71/22
72/12 76/2 76/6 84/1
84/19 89/13 93/13
104/18 108/19 124/10)
125/23 126/6 126/23
126/25 128/1 130/23
130/25 131/5 131/14
131/18 132/19 135/5
135/11 135/24 137/9
147/2 147/12 147/17
147/21 162/12 166/9
169/1 180/10 188/18
196/8 196/16 196/16
willing [4] 124/15
Wilson [3] 47/14
48/21 181/22
Wipro [1] 143/1
wiring [1] 49/2
wish [6] 2/2 60/2
68/15 84/21 85/8
105/19
Witham [1] 124/4
within [32] 5/18 7/3
17/21 20/1 24/21 26/1
27/15 39/16 47/18
63/23 65/14 74/8
77/12 83/14 88/12
94/8 94/12 97/13 98/7
103/23 104/23 105/13}
112/4 120/8 168/24
169/6 172/17 186/25
190/8 196/24 197/1
197/16
without [14] 33/17
51/15 54/18 56/14
74/6 114/8 116/22
119/19 120/11 122/3
153/24 175/13 182/23)
183/2
WITN10250100 [1]
19
WITN10250102 [1]
47/18
WITN10250103 [1]
48/4
WITN10610100 [1]
84/19
WITN10610110 [1]
126/20
WITN10610111 [1]
131/9
witness [37] 1/13
2/17 13/21 28/6 78/15)
80/1 84/18 85/17
85/22 89/12 89/14
95/2 96/9 97/10 99/8
103/7 103/16 103/22
106/20 108/11 117/17)
117/23 118/12 122/9
131/23 141/4 148/20
158/14 158/25 166/11
166/25 167/1 167/14
185/6 194/5 197/3
199/12
witnesses [3] 41/18
41/24 194/19
Woking [1] 165/14
Wolverhampton [1]
3/4
woman [1] 179/12
won't [5] 15/5 147/5
147/10 147/13 147/24)
wonder [2] 71/4 72/6
wondered [1] 124/16
wonderful [1] 146/21
wondering [1] 83/9
word [8] 49/25 49/25
72/9 77/13 85/3 85/3
85/9 161/21
wording [2] 188/7
188/16
words [7] 44/1 56/16
62/23 121/14 193/11
193/23 196/11
work [24] 4/7 8/21
14/24 15/15 17/11
22/17 28/20 30/5
30/15 33/24 36/7
55/22 71/22 83/8 83/9
98/14 109/22 118/13
164/11 178/3 183/7
195/11 197/6 197/7
worked [9] 8/12
24/17 25/6 28/21
38/15 84/24 84/25
92/8 118/6
workers [2] 9/4 56/19)
working [9] 3/19 7/19}
9/3 24/15 24/18 28/23
98/12 183/5 199/2
works [6] 23/6 29/24
36/6 36/6 53/19 127/2
world [2] 36/2 152/10
worrying [1] 51/1
Worstead [1] 175/2
worth [3] 71/4 99/10
152/20
would [257]
wouldn't [12] 11/3
32/18 42/12 94/6
98/13 98/21 152/17
154/18 165/7 172/23
172/24 186/13
wrecked [1] 176/3
write [4] 25/7 25/8
33/15 50/24
writes [4] 21/25
56/18 139/22 153/16
writing [9] 109/24
113/8 115/17 119/3
133/10 137/24 138/7
143/22 174/25
written [36] 1/12 1/15]
2/22 11/3 21/20 30/8
33/9 48/18 60/23
73/22 73/24 83/21
100/2 108/17 108/22
108/23 109/10 111/20
115/7 117/7 118/8
119/22 119/23 121/3
125/1 125/10 127/3
127/6 138/2 141/20
147/4 153/5 154/12
156/7 159/16 188/4
wrong [27] 34/12
34/15 36/24 51/16
51/20 52/11 60/7 64/1
67/21 67/23 67/23
70/16 74/7 77/24
81/19 82/21 83/6
101/23 114/16 137/17I
137/18 151/20 151/23
175/11 182/14 195/20
195/20
wrongful [1] 151/7
wrongly [1] 107/23
wrote [14] 51/7 93/17
107/9 107/13 119/12
121/8 125/20 151/11
155/3 160/16 179/5
181/22 186/19 186/21
Wyn [6] 44/16 72/17
150/7 169/1 195/22
196/12
Y
yeah [12] 31/8 45/13
52/1 93/18 95/14
102/15 107/13 107/16
108/4 110/9 112/2
129/19
year [10] 13/16 19/2
40/8 41/5 66/17
121/20 122/24 147/17I
191/25 198/1
years [36] 3/12 3/14
4/3 7/12 17/24 29/4
37/10 37/19 40/10
57/17 58/20 59/6
59/17 65/20 67/20
67/24 69/13 69/23
75/16 76/16 93/1
103/1 103/5 114/24
115/7 121/7 142/15
146/5 147/15 150/9
155/1 156/14 158/13
160/3 192/7 196/25
yes [152] 1/6 2/4 2/8
2/15 4/15 4/18 5/16
5/20 7/2 8/1 8/7 12/5
13/10 14/9 20/17 21/7]
22/18 23/10 23/12
29/20 31/6 38/19
38/24 38/24 39/7
39/12 40/8 40/17 46/2
55/13 55/20 57/12
57/17 60/19 62/14
62/16 62/18 62/25
63/1 63/2 63/6 64/20
69/1 72/16 72/24
73/13 73/16 74/20
78/7 81/2 83/18 84/9
85/2 85/10 85/16
85/20 86/13 86/17
86/20 86/23 86/25
87/5 87/13 87/18
88/17 93/17 94/21
97/1 97/9 97/19
100/18 101/11 101/13)
102/10 102/10 103/2
103/15 103/19 105/15}
106/17 108/7 110/21
111/21 113/6 116/7
117/6 117/20 117/22
119/21 121/2 121/16
122/5 123/5 123/6
124/3 124/7 124/19
125/1 126/16 126/17
128/3 129/22 130/19
131/8 133/1 134/7
135/18 137/21 139/14
139/15 141/2 141/12
143/18 144/25 149/21
151/19 155/20 156/1
157/17 157/22 158/5
158/13 161/1 163/1
167/16 167/17 167/18}
170/11 171/24 171/25)
172/2 172/2 172/4
172/8 172/10 172/16
173/8 174/5 174/19
176/23 178/21 178/22)
178/25 182/12 183/2
184/18 186/18 186/18)
194/1 194/17 196/12
197/12
yesterday [5] 167/9
170/3 192/5 192/17
196/23
yet [4] 29/4 138/21
148/9 190/15
you [782]
you'd [5] 44/19
111/22 118/4 172/22
178/22
you'll [10] 21/14
49/10 49/24 113/2
125/2 137/6 156/5
159/24 174/6 191/25
you're [44] 7/13 9/10
13/21 21/19 29/16
33/19 33/23 33/24
34/13 36/5 36/10
38/12 40/22 45/12
71/12 73/11 74/8 75/4I
76/8 76/10 86/5 89/10
96/21 102/24 110/8
112/6 118/17 120/5
121/10 122/25 134/9
137/18 139/20 145/2
149/16 161/10 162/24I
171/23 186/11 186/15)
193/4 194/2 194/15
196/5
you've [31] 10/22
16/5 26/15 26/17 28/9)
30/23 32/16 34/3
34/23 34/24 34/25
35/1 48/1 54/10 76/5
77/6 79/18 82/15
82/17 97/10 100/12
110/18 118/16 182/11
182/21 183/19 184/24)
193/6 194/9 194/10
196/1
Young [2] 86/19 89/1
your [204]
yours [1] 112/25
yourself [4] 17/12
87/19 98/21 166/10
20
zoom [1] 187/2
(85) who'd - zoom