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
Wednesday, 24 July 2024
(10.05 am)
MS PRICE: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.
MS PRICE: Can we now call Margot James, who, as you now
know, is now attending remotely this morning?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS PRICE: Can you see the witness, sir?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I can indeed.
Can you see me, Ms James?
THE WITNESS: Yes, good morning. I can see you, Sir Wyn.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you. Over to you, Ms Price.
MARGOT CATHLEEN JAMES (affirmed)
Questioned by MS PRICE
MS PRICE: Can you confirm your full name, please, Ms James?
A. Yes. Itis Margot Cathleen James.
Q. As you know, my name is Emma Price and I ask questions
‘on behalf of the Inquiry. Thank you for attending to
assist the Inquiry in its work and for providing the
witness statement which you have ahead of today. Do you
have a hard copy of that witness statement with you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Itis dated 26 June 2024. If you could turn to page 28
of the statement, please.
A. Yes, I have 28.
I am perfectly physically able to do so. Thank you.
Q. I'd like to start, please, with an overview of your
professional background and career in Government. You
explain in your statement that in 1985 you co-founded
and were Chief Executive Officer of a company providing
public relations and medical education services to
pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: is
that right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
2
In 1999, that company was sold and you managed the
change to it becoming a subsidiary of a large
multinational?
Yes, that's right.
You acted as chair of that subsidiary until 2002?
Yes.
Then you joined an advertising agency in 2003 as Vice
President, Europe, with responsibility for the
integration and growth of its healthcare assets?
Yes, that's correct.
Q. You were first elected as a Member of Parliament in
2010 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and you served until 2019 when you stood down at the
general election?
A. Yes, that's right.
prop
>
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
24 July 2024
Do you have a copy of the statement with a visible
signature with you?
The hard copy doesn't have the original signature but
I did have emailed my hard copy with the signature, and
I have looked at it this morning and I can attest to the
fact that it is my signature.
Thank you. Are the contents of your statement true to
the best of your knowledge and belief?
Yes, they are.
For the purposes of the transcript, the reference for
Ms James' statement is WITN10910100. Ms James, your
witness statement is now in evidence and will be
published on the Inquiry's website in due course. As
such, I will not be asking you about every aspect of
your statement this morning, just specific issues which
are addressed in it. Okay?
Yes, thank you.
I understand that there's something you wanted to say at
the outset of your evidence?
Well, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity,
Ms Price, to apologise to Sir Wyn and to everybody
present that I am not in the room. Unfortunately, I got
Covid at the end of last week, and I respect the fact
that the rules that the Inquiry are following preclude
me from being able to give evidence in person, although
2
Whilst a Member of Parliament, you served as
an Assistant Whip from 13 May 2015 to 17 July 2016?
Yes, I did.
Then from 17 July 2016 to the 9 January 2018 you served
as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small
Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility with
the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy; is that right?
Yes, that's right.
It was in this role that you became involved in some of
the matters relevant to the work of this Inquiry?
Yes, correct.
After you left the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, you held a further ministerial post
for as Minister of State for Digital and the Creative
Industries with the Department for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport, from 9 January 2018 to 18 July 2019?
Yes, that's right.
Since leaving Parliament, you have held number of roles,
including being the Executive Chair of the Warwick
Manufacturing Group at the University of Warwick, and
two non-executive board roles in the financial services
and technology sector?
That's correct.
You now do independent consultancy and pro bono work in
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
the areas of decarbonisation and climate change?
Yes, that's right.
You are also an Emeritus Governor of the London School
of Economics and Political Science?
Yes, I am.
Turning then to an overview of the portfolio you had as
Parliamentary Under-Secretary at BEIS, and the Post
Office brief in particular, you describe your portfolio
in this role as broad in your statement and you have set
out the areas for which you were responsible at
paragraphs 11 to 14. You describe postal affairs and
the Post Office as one of eight policy areas and
statutory bodies for which you had responsibility, all
of which were responsibilities held in addition to the
three main areas of responsibility: small businesses,
consumers and corporate responsibility; is that right?
Yes, that's right.
Did the breadth of the portfolio impact upon your
ability to provide effective oversight of the Post
Office?
I think that it would not have -- the answer, I think,
to the question, is no, in normal times. But I think
that if one were to be -- it made it very difficult --
the breadth of the portfolio made it very difficult to
drill down into any areas within the overall brief that
5
“Apart from this there was significant focus within
the postal affairs brief on planning and securing [Post
Office] funding. The Government provides funding to
[Post Office Limited] in the form of a subsidy (which
recognises the wider social purpose of the network that
goes beyond that which would be commercially viable)."
Picking up on the reference to the wider social
role, would you agree that the maintenance of the Post
Office's social role was a Government policy objective?
Yes, most definitely.
Put simply, was it the case that, even if it did not
make financial sense to keep Post Office branches open
in rural and low income urban areas, the social value of
doing so justified it?
Yes, that was a very clear manifesto commitment in 2015,
that we'd protect the network and, by saying that,
I mean particularly those services in rural areas and
poorer urban areas, which would otherwise not be
commercially viable. So the subsidy was in respect of
the need for Post Office to deliver a service,
significant parts of which would not be commercially
viable if operated purely in the free market.
Would it be fair to say that subpostmasters running
branches in rural areas and low income urban areas, as
well as their staff and Post Office employees employed
7
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24 July 2024
weren't already pre-identified as being needing of
a significant amount of attention, over and above what
you might distribute if you were distributing your time
evenly across everything in your portfolio.
You deal with the postal affairs brief at paragraph 15
of your statement. Could we have that on screen,
please, it's page 15.
Here you describe the postal affairs
responsibilities as themselves quite broad, and you say
this:
"The core of the brief was to ensure that BEIS held
the [Post Office Limited] Board to account for meeting
financial and non-financial targets and delivery of work
that was agreed to be central to the Government's
manifesto commitments. This included securing the
future of 3,000 rural branches ... and branches in lower
income urban neighbours, modernising the network,
meeting access criteria, and expanding services (in
particular a digital verification and identification
system, banking services and services to SMEs). Some of
the central work to that brief was to ensure all routine
small businesses and consumer banking services were
available throughout post office branches, and in
particular in rural areas and lower income urban areas."
Then at 16, you say this:
6
in such branches, played an integral part in the
delivery of the Post Office's social role?
An absolutely crucial part. It certainly couldn't have
been delivered without them.
You deal with the distinction between operational or
contractual matters on the one hand and policy or
strategy matters on the other, at paragraphs 20 to 23 of
your statement. Could we go to paragraph 20, please,
it's page 6. By way of background, you say this:
“It was the intention of successive governments
that, although publicly owned, the Post Office should
have commercial freedom to raise funds, invest in new
technology, diversify its offering, and operate as
a retail company in a competitive market. It was
thought that these commercial freedoms were crucial to
the sustainability of the Post Office. The legislation
underpinning [Post Office Limited] (the Postal Services
Act 2000 and the Postal Services Act 2011) therefore
separated the functions of ownership and management.
The executives of [Post Office Limited] owed their
duties to the company, and were accountable to the [Post
Office Limited] Board, not directly to the Government of
the day."
You go on in paragraph 21 over the page to say:
"The Government's role is as sole shareholder. It
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
is responsible for setting the overall strategy, policy
or objectives for the Post Office, as well as ensuring
that [Post Office Limited] works to deliver on those
objectives, but not to have any involvement in the
day-to-day running of the operations of the business.
It was accepted that [Post Office Limited] would operate
at arm's length from Government, that such freedom was
crucial to its ability to grow and over time reduce its
dependence on the public finances. As shareholder the
Government would only get more involved (through UKGI,
who undertook the shareholder function on behalf of
Government...) if the strategic aims or objectives
looked as if they might not be met, such as if a key
milestone had not been achieved."
Would you agree that there may be times when the way
in which an arm's-length body conducts itself at
an operational or contractual level can cause concern
for ministers at a policy or strategy level?
Yes, I can think of instances where that would be the
case. I've set out my answers, I hope with some
clarity, but there is a slightly theoretical nature to
those answers, I think. It is not always that -- the
line between strategy and execution and policy, it's
a grey area, and the lines sometimes can get rather
blurred. But, ideally, I think that the way that we've
9
Yes, I think that the information about operational
matters should be at quite a high level. I don't think
it does the distinction between ownership and management
any favours if shareholders are getting a massive volume
of information about operational matters. That's not
appropriate but I think certainly the -- there's got to
be high-quality information at a high level about both
operational and strategic issues that are affecting the
company at any one time.
Ministers need to be adequately briefed?
Yes, they do. They certainly do.
And ministers must provide effective challenge to the
arm's-length body's approach to key --
Yes.
-- operational and contractual matters which have the
potential to impact upon policy and strategy?
Yes. I think that there's a role for both ministers
and, in a government-owned entity, the shareholder
representative function, which, when I was a minister,
was undertaken by UKGI. It's most important that they
are in a position to challenge on a day-to-day basis but
that doesn't remove the responsibility of ministers to
challenge maybe less frequently. But, you know, when --
‘on the appropriate occasions when ministers meet
directors of the company for updates and things like
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
24 July 2024
set it out -- I've set it out -- probably works best, as
long as you have a board of directors that are acting in
good faith and owners that know enough about the
business to be able to make -- exercise their judgement
as to when they need to perhaps blur those lines
a little bit and get involved in something that might be
normally classified as operational, and when they can
draw back and act in the normal way that owners of
companies are supposed to act.
Particularly where, as a matter of policy, there is
a social role performed by a government-owned asset,
would you agree that it is vital that there is effective
oversight of key operational and contractual matters
which might have a policy or strategy impact?
Yes, I think the social purpose heightens the need for
both the Board and the shareholders to ensure that the
highest standards of corporate governance and corporate
responsibility pertain, but I think, actually, those
standards should be respected, whether or not the
company has a specific social purpose, essentially
within its constitution.
Would you agree that, in order for there to be such
effective oversight, the Government must have access to
adequate information about key operational and
contractual matters?
10
that, then ministers should also be challenging the
board. But on the day to day, that would be delegated
to UKGI in this instance.
At paragraph 23 of your statement, further down the
page, please, you give your view on which side of the
albeit blurry line between contractual and operation and
policy and strategy Horizon IT issues fell. Starting
three lines down at paragraph 23 you say:
"The legislation assigned the management functions,
including the operations of the company, to [Post Office
Limited]. This meant that issues concerning [Post
Office Limited's] IT systems, aside from the issue of
further investment in it and budgeting for that
investment, were questions of day-to-day operation of
the company. Issues surrounding whether Horizon was
functioning as it should were matters for [Post Office
Limited] to resolve as part of its operations.”
The complaints about the Horizon IT system, about
which you were briefed when you took up the role, were
that the way the system was functioning had led to
people who had run and staffed Post Office branches
being wrongfully prosecuted and/or their contracts being
wrongfully terminated. Were allegations like this not
relevant to the wider policy and strategy goals for the
Post Office?
12
(3) Pages 9 - 12
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Yes, I think that allegations like that were relevant to
the strategic -- the delivery of the strategic goals of
the Post Office. I don't feel, when I started in the
role, that that was the way in which I was briefed on
the Horizon issue. But, yes, in answer to your
question, had I been briefed in that way, yes. The
answer is yes, it should have been.
Well, looking at it in a number of ways, first
considering the social role which the Government wished
to maintain as a matter of policy, which relied on the
people who had run and staffed Post Office branches,
there was a potential impact on that directly, wasn't
there?
Yes. Yes, there was. Based on what I now know,
certainly.
Weill come on to that first briefing but, just taken at
the high level, whether the allegations were right or
wrong, the nature of those allegations were, on their
face, weren't they, relevant in that wider sense?
I think, when we come on to discuss the nature and scale
of the allegations which were briefed to me in the
early -- in my early days as minister with
responsibility, did not strike me immediately as
requiring in-depth oversight from myself as a minister
at that point in time.
13
you as Parliamentary Under-Secretary?
No, not at the time. No. If you're -- yes, certainly
not in the first sort of half of my time as minister.
Could we have on screen please paragraph 29 of Ms James’
statement, page 10.
You discuss here a potential distinction between the
role and responsibility of the Department and you as
responsible Minister when acting as a shareholder and
when acting as a Government Department. Can I ask, why
do you draw a distinction between the Government as
shareholder and the Government as a Department?
The shareholder role obviously is the ownership role,
and that is where I think we delegated the
responsibility for acting as an agent, if you like, on
behalf of the Department to UKGI and UKGI was there to
perform the normal responsibilities associated with the
shareholders. I did wonder -- when I wrote this, I did
consider that the Government Department, particularly as
it had, even in my own portfolio, you know,
responsibility for corporate responsibility and
corporate governance and the labour markets, that there
was a wider remit that my Department had, given its
responsibility for those areas of business policy that
were affecting all businesses, particularly publicly
quoted companies but also large private companies and,
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
24 July 2024
Looking at it in another way, wouldn't IT failings
resulting in wrongful prosecutions and terminations of
contract have been inconsistent with any valid policy or
strategy applying to the Post Office?
Yes, I believe so. I believe so. I wasn't aware --
I don't think I was aware that there were wrongful
convictions. It may have been that I misunderstood my
early briefings but, in my early briefings, I was
advised that a number of people had gone to prison, but
that was as a result of being convicted of a criminal
offence in the courts.
At this stage, I'm just talking about the allegations,
rather than whether those allegations were right or not,
and we'll come on to those prosecutions. But just in
terms of those allegations, you'd agree, wouldn't you,
that were those allegations correct, that would of
course be inconsistent?
Yes, it would.
This is not to mention the impact on the future of the
Post Office of potentially expensive and reputationally
damaging litigation arising out of the allegations being
lost or the litigation being lost; would you agree that
that was a wider impact that needed to be considered?
Most definitely.
Were those wider impact points considered at the time by
14
by inference, large public bodies -- publicly-owned
bodies like the Post Office.
So I felt that my department and myself as
a minister should be more focused on those aspects than
perhaps the shareholder function, which was acting
purely as an agent of the owner.
That statement can come down now. Thank you.
I'd like to come, please, to the officials who
assisted you in the part of your role which related to
the Post Office and how, in general terms, they provided
information and advice. If I have understood your
written evidence correctly, there were, broadly
speaking, two pools of officials who provided you with
assistance on Post Office matters: first private
secretaries from the Department's private office, who
assisted in preparing paperwork for your ministerial box
and managed your diary; and second, officials who were
subject matter experts in particular policy areas who,
for the Post Office part of your role, worked for UKGI;
is that right?
Yes. That's right.
Of these two groups, you say it was UKGI who prepared
advice to you on the Post Office?
Yes, they did.
You describe UKGI officials as conduits of information
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
between the Post Office and BEIS and that, if you needed
a briefing on Post Office issues or wanted to raise
questions of the Post Office, this would be through UKGI
in the first instance?
Yes, that's right.
You say at paragraph 25 of your statement that they also
look the lead in challenging the Post Office Executives,
and accounting for Post Office activities to BEIS. How
did you understand those officials to challenge the Post
Office Executives?
I saw most of the challenge during the time where we
were discussing budgetary matters, remuneration issues,
the level of subsidy and investment were two distinct
things that Government were providing. It was
a particularly busy time on that issue, because we were
approaching the negotiations around the next three years
of Government investment and subsidy. So I saw most of
the challenge in those terms because the early budgets
that we received from the Post Office Board were quite
considerably higher, or needing of more resource, than
once UKGI had finished its various levels of challenge.
So I took it to mean that UKGI had a representative
‘on the Board of POL and, in addition to that, a lot of
work goes on behind the scenes within UKGI to provide
good analysis, financial support, et cetera, and that
17
recipient of the advice. So I think that's what
I regard as important when it came to impartiality:
I required that the person providing the advice did not
have his or her own agenda that would potentially impact
the nature of that advice given.
And, throughout my ministerial career, I would say
that most of the advice, the vast majority of my advice,
met those criteria. On more than one occasion, though,
it didn't.
The part in brackets, are you saying here that you would
follow advice given by officials in the absence of good
reason to challenge it?
Yes. I -- normally the advice -- if it's advising you
to take some action, the advice is usually provided in
a way that provides you with some options and very
cogent explanation of the implications of each option
and I would normally, especially when I was new in
post -- I think you have to have a very good reason to
challenge advice when you're learning your brief.
I mean, there are some exceptions to that but, in
general, I would follow the advice given, you know,
early on in any job I had in Government and,
occasionally, you do have good reason to challenge that
advice, yes. Generally not in the early days, I don't
think.
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
2
24 July 2024
was the nature of challenge that was going on that
didn't need my day-to-day involvement.
I dare say, by the way, that challenge was going on
in other areas as well. I just answered the question by
means of an illustration of an area where I was
particularly aware.
You deal with the standards you expected from your
officials at paragraph 26 of your statement. Could we
have that on screen, please. It's page 8. You see:
"As with the advice I received on all areas of my
policy portfolio, I relied on officials for objective
and honest advice. They were bound by the Civil Service
Code and so I expected the advice given to be of this
character. Given the breadth of all ministerial
portfolios, it is necessary that Ministers make
decisions on the basis of the advice given (except in
those cases where I had good reason to challenge that
advice) and we are reliant on its impartiality and
accuracy."
Why was impartiality in particular so important?
Well, I mean, the Civil Service Code requires advice to
be impartial and objective, and it's very important, the
impartiality aspect of it, for the advice to be given in
good faith, without whoever is giving it having
an agenda which may or may not be known to the intended
18
What would constitute good reason to challenge advice?
When you feel that the -- when you feel there's some
partiality, for a start. If you don't trust the advice,
that is a very good reason to challenge it. And when
you think that it's contrary to the public interest is
usually the other reason. There can sometimes be -- you
have to have an eye on the Government and the impact
you're having on other Departments, Number 10, all these
other stakeholders within Government. That might be
a reason to challenge advice. You might feel that the
advice is all well and fine but you know that a key
player, whether that's the Chancellor or the Prime
Minister or your own Secretary of State, is going to
have an issue with it, then that might be a reason to
challenge it, against the public interest or you feel
that there's some partiality involved and you doubt its
integrity. Those are the reasons, really, that I would
have challenged advice.
At the time did you ever feel there was partiality in
the advice being provided to you and the briefings being
provided to you about the Post Office?
No, I didn't. I didn't.
You go on at paragraph 26 to say this:
"I would, for example, rely on the officials to
review and analyse the information provided to them and
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
provide me with sensible steers on action and draft
responses to correspondence or Parliamentary Questions
which advanced the Government's manifesto commitments
and policy more broadly.”
You go on to deal with the process for dealing with
correspondence at paragraph 27, and you explain this:
"Correspondence would be received by my private
office and directed to me in a bundle a few times
a week. It would initially be triaged by my private
secretaries and I trusted them to deal with
correspondence on my behalf. Documents which they
referred to officials for analysis or advice would be
returned to me with a submission or note of advice and
often with a draft response for my consideration.
I would read the correspondence and documents returned
to me, but I relied on officials to direct me to the
paperwork that required my close attention."
How did you ensure that your private secretaries
knew how to respond to correspondence appropriately on
your behalf?
There would be a sort of Government position -- the
Department position, the policy position, would be
cleared and subject to review whenever circumstances
changed, so that the correspondence would be -- would
come in and people not in my private office would draft
2
and some of it that would fall into that category would
not reach me. It would be replied to by a private
sector on behalf of the Minister -- sorry, a private
secretary on behalf of the Minister. But I think, for
the -- I think I'm understanding your questioning right:
you're talking about correspondence that did come
through me personally.
I am talking about correspondence of substance, if I can
put it that way.
Yes. Correspondence of substance, it would be prepared
in the way I outlined and it would then reach me in
a big folder with the draft response for me to just
sign.
Which officials did you rely upon to direct you to the
paperwork which required your close attention: was that
your private secretaries or the UKGI officials?
It might be both. It might be either or both, really.
It was exceptional. Normally it was just letters, they
spoke for themselves, they didn't need any particular
briefing but, occasionally, there might be a briefing or
an explanatory note and that would be provided to me
either by my private secretary with responsibility for
Postal Services or by an official from UKGI, depending
‘on the nature of it.
You go on:
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
24 July 2024
responses using current Government approved lines in
‘order to respond to the key points raised by the letter
writer.
And they would then come into my private office,
they would be checked over by the private secretary in
my private office responsible for correspondence, and
then she would arrange the correspondence with the MP's
letter, and then the response, and then the
constituent's letter, if indeed there had been
a constituent's letter attached. Not all MPs sent them:
some did, some didn't. Occasionally you would get
letters from the public directly to the Department, to
the Minister for whatever you were, and that would be
dealt with in the same way, except there wouldn't be
an MP between you and the letter writer.
So when you say you trusted your private secretaries to
deal with correspondence on your behalf, you're not
saying that they were replying on your behalf, you were
saying they were dealing with the correspondence before
it came to you?
Yes. I mean, I think that the private office would
reply to some forms of correspondence without checking
with the Minister. Usually things like meeting
requests, diary requests, lobbying campaigns, that sort
of thing. There was a vast volume of correspondence,
22
"There would be standard responses, based on agreed
policy lines, to a large proportion of correspondence on
any brief. Officials worked hard to draft those
responses in line with government policy and they were
updated over time and as circumstances changed."
Was it UKGI officials who provided the substance of
draft replies to correspondence in Post Office matters?
Yes, I'm pretty sure it would have been. I can't think
that -- they acted sort of in lieu of a normal BEIS team
of officials on the Post Office brief so, yes, it would
have been them.
In relation to the standard responses based on agreed
policy lines, who proposed policy lines to take to you?
The policy lines were approved, I would imagine in the
early days, by the previous ministerial team and,
periodically, if they had to change, they would require
my approval. So you inherit, if you like, you
inherit -- because a minister comes in and it's very
automatic: the work continues and it's -- the identity
of the Minister is completely irrelevant for some of the
time, particularly in the early days, and the work just
churns through and, instead of your predecessor signing
it all, you're signing it all.
So you don't start afresh, looking at policies from
the moment you sit down in your new ministerial seat.
24
(6) Pages 21 - 24
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Not at all. You just carry on what's gone before. And
then, when circumstances change, of course, there may
well be a change and that would then be yours to
approve.
In the absence of a change in circumstances, would you
routinely sit down and approve or consider whether you
wanted to approve standard lines on agreed policy lines
when you took up a role?
Not as a rule, no. The way I tended to work would be
to, if there was something I didn't like about a line or
the tone, sometimes -- regrettably not always --
sometimes I made time to amend them myself and this
would either be, as I say a little bit later in the
evidence, I think, by adding a PS or by rewriting it and
sending it back, and, if I felt the change should be
made in perpetuity, I would ask officials to make sure
that the people responsible for the draft know that
there's a change here, and that they should make it --
all future correspondence on that point. That's how
I tended to amend it.
Looking a little further up the page, please, at
paragraph 26. Starting four lines from the top. You
say this:
"After I had been in office for six to nine months
it became clear to me that advice given by officials was
25
case?
That perhaps answers the question. In relation to the
postal affairs brief, did you ever challenge that or --
forgive me, let me ask a different question: did you
ever observe that in your postal affairs brief?
Right. I understand your question. If I could just
give myself a minute to think.
So a perception that officials were being constrained by
the expectations of what might and might not be
agreeable to Number 10 and the Treasury or another
department?
I think I -- I don't think so, no. I don't think there
is an example of the advice I received from the Post
Office team that was contingent on what might be
agreeable to another department, HMT or Number 10, no.
No.
In the specific context of replies to subpostmasters in
correspondence, in the last two sentences of
paragraph 27, a little further down the page again,
please, you say this:
"I sometimes edited these responses myself [and
these are the draft responses to correspondence] or
added a postscript, when I had time and when the
response drafted for me struck, in my view, the wrong
tone. This began to happen with my replies to
27
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24 July 2024
often constrained by expectations on the part of
officials of what might and might not be agreeable to
Number 10, Treasury, or to another department which
might be taking the lead on a particular issue.
Officials would require challenge from the Minister in
these circumstances if decisions were to be taken in
what the Minister determined to be the public interest."
Was this specific to the Post Office brief or the
entire portfolio while you were at BEIS?
It's actually not particular to the Post Office, it's
what I learnt interesting my time as a minister in both
departments. The only thing that jars with me there
really is the last sentence "officials would require
challenge", I mean "might require challenge". I think
that was a bit of an overstatement in those
circumstances. Yes, I did become aware of the great
frustration, actually, of advice being limited by what
the officials thought the Treasury would wear. It was
mostly the Treasury.
What did you do to challenge this when you became aware
of it?
Well, I don't think it's -- I'm very happy to answer
that question. I don't think I can give you an example
from my postal affairs brief. Do you still want me to
give you an answer to -- an example of what could be the
26
[subpostmasters] as I became increasingly uncomfortable
with the line we were taking."
When did you start becoming increasingly
uncomfortable with the line which was being taken?
I think, after approximately six months in the role.
I couldn't give you a precise date. I can't -- it
wasn't sort of contingent on a particular event. It was
the letters I just occasionally received from
subpostmasters, who -- the ones who tended to write to
me directly as Minister for Postal Services at BEIS and,
after I had received a few of those letters, I started
to think that the advice I was getting did not reflect
what seemed to be happening to the people who were
writing to me.
What aspect of the standard response or agreed policy
line were you increasingly uncomfortable with?
I was -- well, I was certainly uncomfortable with the
tone, and -- yes, it started out as I was uncomfortable
with the tone of the response that I was being asked to
send the letter writer, by way of a reply and it
gradually grew into a concern that the line that I was
being given on Horizon was -- I started to doubt it.
I mean, there's quite a bit in the line that I was being
given whenever I -- whenever the subject of Horizon came
up for discussion in meetings. The thing that I started
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
to doubt was the fact that all of the complainants were
guilty of some sort of incompetence or theft or false
accounting, or the things that I'd been told were
causing the criticism of the Post Office and its
computer system.
Starting with the discomfort you felt about the line
that was being taken in response to subpostmasters, did
you raise that discomfort with anyone?
Initially, I rewrote -- to deal with the tonal aspect,
I did what I said I did up there: I either edited it or
added a PS. When I started to be concerned that there
were innocent people being caught up in something that
was presented to me at the time as being a blanket
problem with the complainant and not with the computer
system, I started to raise Horizon more actively in my
meetings with both UKGI and the Post Office, when I met
the Post Office Board representatives, which happened
sort of - I think I say there quarterly: three or four
times a year, I suppose.
What was the response when you raised things more
actively?
The response was essentially a repeat in a different way
of the lines that they always relied on and they --
I mean, they conceded that there would be cases where
something might be wrong that was nothing to do with
29
a new copy of correspondence with my changes
incorporated, and I would sign it and it would go, or,
if I felt the person had waited for long enough for
a response or I wanted to put it in my own words there
and then and get the thing off, I might literally write
in my own writing "PS" under my signature, and I might
write three lines, I might write sometimes seven or
eight lines, clarifying whatever was above and making
the point that I wanted to make to the recipient.
Could we have on screen, please, UKGI00016320. This
appears to be a draft letter, given the "Dear xxx" to
the constituent of a fellow Member of Parliament. It is
dated 12 October 2016 and we can see that it's drafted
in your name, by the top right-hand corner and the
bottom of the second page. If we can just go to that
quickly, please. Going back to the first page, the
penultimate paragraph here says:
"[The individual] mentions the Post Office's IT
system. This system has over 50,000 users successfully
undertaking transactions every day and there is no
reason to consider that it is not fit for purpose. Your
constituent refers to current legal proceedings which
have been issued against the Post Office on the matter
of the Horizon IT system; this is a legal matter and
Iam unable to comment further."
31
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24 July 2024
dishonesty but, in general, they stuck to their line,
which was that, you know -- well, I don't know whether
you're coming on to talk about that. I can go through
it now if you wish me to.
We will be coming on to that. Just sticking for the
moment with the question of draft replies to
subpostmasters, the Inquiry has not seen any draft
replies which show edits, as such, on them. What would
your process have been if you wanted to make those
changes? You've described a postscript, would that be
on a document?
It would be on the letter itself. I haven't seen any
either. It's frustrating that so few letters have been
retained. It's a curious situation because you would
think that the Department either retained all
correspondence or no correspondence but they seemed to
retain a few bits of correspondence. Who knows why.
But anyway, I don't know how many letters I sent out on
postal matters but certainly more than the three, four
or five that were included in the pack of information
that we received from the Department, for the purposes
of the Inquiry and I agree: none of them contain any
edits at all.
What I would do is I would either alter the copy and
then it would go back and be returned, you know, as
30
Then the last paragraph:
"Whilst the Post Office is publicly owned, it is
a commercial business operating in competitive markets,
and the Government allows it the freedom to operate
commercially on a day-to-day basis. Post Office places
great importance on the relationship it has with
postmasters, and I would encourage [the postmaster] to
discuss any concerns he has with his contacts at the
Post Office. [He] can also make use of the National
Federation of SubPostmasters, who remain the
representative body working for postmasters.”
Does anything in those two paragraphs contain
anything which made you uncomfortable at the time?
I don't remember that particular letter and I think the
date was October 2016, so I don't think I would have
been uncomfortable about that response at that time.
But it would depend slightly on the nature of the letter
that the MP had received. Sometimes, MPs didn't attach
the letter that you were actually answering, which was
annoying but -- so I would caveat my response by saying,
if the letter had been a handwritten letter all about
the Horizon system and the problems the individual was
suffering, I think I would have found the tone of that
response a bit impersonal and abrupt. But if, however,
the letter had been of a more general nature as some
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
letters were, criticising, you know, some of the other
aspects of Post Office policy and throwing in the
dispute over Horizon as an additional item, ie not from
somebody who was actually personally affected by it,
then I would have found that line acceptable.
I hope that was a clear answer? As I gave it,
I started to feel it sounded a little bit convoluted.
No, that's clear. In terms of the timings of this,
you've picked up already on the October 2016 date, so
you don't think you were editing draft replies by this
point in a substantial way?
No, not in a substantial way wouldn't have been, no.
I'd like to come, please, to what you were told about
complaints and legal action relating to the Horizon IT
system, when you first took up the role of Parliamentary
Under-Secretary. You explain at paragraph 30 of your
statement that, upon your appointment to the role, you
were given a Day One briefing pack relating to the Post
Office. Could we have that on screen, please. It's
UKGI00020328. This has the date July 2016, so when you
took up the role. It is described as an overview and is
it right that you consider that this was the first time
that you became aware of the litigation?
Yes.
Going over the first page, please, the first slide is
33
and Legal Action", and this was the information which
was provided to you:
"Following complaints from a small number of (mostly
former) subpostmasters about the Horizon IT system, in
2012 [Post Office Limited] commissioned an independent
firm, Second Sight, to examine the system for systemic
flaws that could cause accounting discrepancies.
"Second Sight's Interim Report, published in July
2013, and Final Report, published in April 2015, both
make clear that there is no evidence of system-wide
problems with Horizon."
That's underlined:
"The Interim Report raised some questions about the
training and support offered to some subpostmasters, and
[Post Office Limited] implemented a series of measures
to improve its processes. It also created a mediation
to consider individual subpostmasters' cases."
The next paragraph addresses that Mediation Scheme
and it says:
"While some cases were resolved through mediation,
a number were not - in particular, cases where
individuals had received criminal convictions (eg theft
or false accounting), since mediation cannot overturn
a court judgment.
“Earlier this year, group civil litigation on behalf
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
24 July 2024
entitled “Summary and Key Issues", and this was
a document, wasn't it, that related to the whole Post
Office brief not specifically to Horizon issues or the
litigation?
Yes, that's correct.
The third paragraph on the slide says this:
"This pack gives a high-level overview of how [Post
Office Limited] is set up, the areas in which it
‘operates, and its long-term strategy. There are also
some short-term matters (below) which you need to
understand and may require prompt action. We recommend
you receive more detailed advice on each."
Then the last paragraph is headed "Horizon" and
refers you to a later slide for more information but the
summary here says:
"A small number of mostly former subpostmasters have
raised concerns about [Post Office Limited's] Horizon IT
system, which they claim has caused their businesses
losses. Over two years' worth of independent
investigation has founding no systemic faults in
Horizon, but campaigning and media interest persists.
As well litigation has been commenced against [Post
Office Limited]."
Then going to page 14 of this document, which is
slide 13, the heading is "Horizon IT System: Complaints
34
of 91 claimants was commenced at the High Court. This
is at an early stage and precise details of the claim
are unclear. As there are legal proceedings underway,
our advice is that this should remain independent of
Government. It is a matter of law.
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission is understood
to be considering [circa] 20 cases raised on this
subject. This review has been underway since early
2015; we have no indication of when the CCRC may reach
conclusions on any of the cases. [Post Office Limited]
are engaging fully with the CCRC's work."
Then in bold at the bottom:
"We recommend you receive further briefing on this
subject, and [Post Office Limited] would be happy to
meet with you and provide any further briefing or
information."
The second paragraph here flagged up that there were
two reports from an independent firm which had been
produced. Did you ask to see those reports when you
read this slide?
I doubt very much that I would have done that. I can
pretty much say no, I wouldn't have done.
Why would you not have done?
Because I was being briefed at that point across many,
many different policy areas and I was just wanting to
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
23
24
25
A
a
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
take in sort of top-line advice and move on, absorb as
much as I could, and get to grips with my role. So
I wouldn't have requested any additional information,
I was going to say at this stage, and that's how it
should have been and I should definitely have asked for
it at a later date, and I don't think I did. And
I very, very much regret not asking for it.
Did you understand from the information here that there
were people challenging the safety of their convictions
on the basis of discrepancies they said had been caused
by the computer system?
I thought that the 20 cases being reviewed by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission must have been a group
of people in that category, yes.
Did you ask for any further information about how these
individuals had come to be prosecuted at this time?
I'm afraid I didn't. I think I thought that -- I would
have thought that the CCRC would investigate and justice
would be delivered via that route. I didn't see it as
a minister's role to get involved in that.
In relation to the advice that this should remain
independent of Government, on 29 July 2016, Laura
Thompson from UKGI sent an email to your private office
about the litigation. Could we have that on screen,
please, the reference is UKGI00006961.
37
"We will provide full briefing on this issue to
ministers -- this is flagged in the Day One briefing
pack, and we have also included in our briefing to
Margot James.”
Picking up in the middle paragraph here
specifically, were you told at the time that your
private office had been asked if they considered you
would disagree with the proposed approach that this was
a legal matter and the operational responsibility of the
Post Office?
I wouldn't have disagreed with that, so whether I was
told or whether I wasn't, because I can see that is
an email that I wouldn't have seen, I would have been
content with the advice. But I wouldn't have seen that
but I think it would have come to me in a different
form, potentially you have it in another form shortly,
but it would have come to me. But I didn't see that
particular email.
But in any event, your response would have been that you
were content with that device, would it?
Yes. It would have been.
Could we have --
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: At that point in time, did you have
a Special Adviser who had any ~ well, did you have
a Special Adviser, first of all?
39
ONOaARWN
24 July 2024
We can see here the email was copied to Richard
Callard and Gareth Evans, that was Richard Callard who
went on to give you a verbal briefing on 4 August; is
that right?
Yes.
Ms Thompson says this:
"There is currently civil litigation underway in the
High Court against the Post Office by a group of [circa]
200 individuals, mostly former postmasters (postmasters
are essentially ‘franchisees’ ...). The claims relate
to the Post Office's 'Horizon’ IT system, and
accusations that Post Office has treated its agents
unfairly. There is a chance that there could be some
media interest in this issue over the weekend, because
Post Office have today sent a letter to the claimants’
solicitor, which will be shared with the claimants and
could therefore be made public.
"This is a legal matter and the operational
responsibility of Post Office Limited, the company which
manages the Post Office Network. As such our advice
would be not to comment, and for Press Office to pass
any media enquiries to Post Office directly. This is
the approach we have taken previously on this issue --
please let me know if you think SpAds or ministers would
disagree.
38
No, I didn't but I did have access to Special Advisers
to the Department who advised the Secretary of State and
there were three of them and, with the benefit of
hindsight, actually, I think one was a lawyer and
I could have -- I should have asked him. But we didn't
have Special Advisers at my level in the ministerial
sort of hierarchy.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = That's fine. Thank you.
Yes, Ms Price?
MS PRICE: Thank you, sir.
Could we have on screen please paragraph 35 of
Ms James’ statement. It's page 11. Starting four lines
down, you note the advice provided by UKGI that the
proceedings "should remain independent of Government: it
is a matter of law’, and you're referring here, aren't
you, to the Day One briefing that we've just looked at?
Yes.
You provide this comment:
"I took this to mean, as I would do in any
litigation relating to the Government, that BEIS should
not look to interfere with it or comment on the process
until it was concluded.”
What do you mean here by "interfere"?
That's a poor choice of word because it's obvious that
Government shouldn't be interfering in legal process.
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
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
I think I took it to mean that we have to be careful, as
ministers, not to say anything that might prejudice
legal outcomes of cases that are live within our court
system, and that's a general principle that most
Parliamentarians are aware of, whether you're a minister
‘or not. Of course, it doesn't preclude you from taking
a view but you have to be alive to the consequences,
which can interfere with the outcome of the trial.
I think also, an appreciation that once matters have
reached the courts, the courts are in the best position
to -- well, it's their job to adjudicate the outcome,
and they get to see all the evidence and all the
witnesses and, as a minister, you don't, so it's unwise
to opine, I think, on cases that are going through the
courts. As a general principle.
By “comment”, do you mean internal comment or public
comment?
Public comment. And, of course, that doesn't -- I might
go on to say this -- sorry, I'm not good at reading
while I'm talking but, yes, it's that constraint, if you
like does not preclude you, of course, from discussing
litigation in private, particularly with one of the
parties.
Exploring a little what you say here, because you make
wider reference to "any litigation relating to the
a
defendant is a government-owned asset but would you
agree that the fact that an issue is the subject of
litigation against a government-owned asset should not
prevent a minister holding the brief for that asset from
being fully briefed on the underlying issues in the
claim?
Yeah, you're right. I mean, it shouldn't just preclude,
it should happen as a matter of course, really.
So that that minister can fully understand the case --
Yes.
-- or, whether or not comes to it, the proposed defence
and the proposed litigation strategy?
Yes. You are right. And we didn't, in this case.
Looking again at paragraph 35 of your statement, six
lines up from the bottom, you say:
"Perhaps due to this position being taken [and that
is the position that it was a matter for the courts,
a matter of law] not many details were provided [and
this is in the Day One briefing pack]. Whilst the Day
One briefing pack did mention the litigation, it did
not, for example, contain any details about there being
concerns around remote access to Horizon or the deletion
and replacement of files. Whilst it referred to the
Second Sight Interim Report and Final Report, it did not
refer to any of the subsequent reports, reviews or
43
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24 July 2024
Government", where a Government department is the
defendant in civil litigation, it's right, isn't it,
that instructions need to be provided by the Department
to lawyers acting for the Government, both as to the
substance of the claim and litigation strategy?
In general, yes, that's true but I don't think that
happened in this case.
We'll come on to why this case might be different but
I'd just like to ask you some general questions about
that because it seems to influence your approach in this
particular instance.
So if litigation against Government is high-profile
enough, it's right, isn't it, that both the substance of
the defence and the litigation strategy may need to be
signed off by senior civil servants and potentially
ministers, would you agree?
Yes, I would agree.
So, as a matter of principle, whilst a Government
Department which is a party to litigation may choose not
to comment publicly on the litigation, as you've just
referred to, it's not right to say that the relevant
Department will not be involved in the legal process
until it's concluded, is it?
No, I agree with what you've said, yes.
Of course the position is one step removed where the
42
actions taken by [Post Office Limited]. It did not
contain any information on the Simon Clarke Advice, any
of the Deloitte reports or the Swift Review. With the
benefit of hindsight this briefing, even making
allowance for the fact it was a high-level summary, was
very selective and omitted several important
developments.”
So to your mind, even taking the approach that this
was an operational matter for the Post Office and with
the courts, is it your view that this briefing did not
provide you with adequate information about the issues
underlying the litigation?
100 per cent. I mean it certainly -- I think they
included reference to the Second Sight Reports, because
the Second Sight Reports, I presume, had been in the
public domain for so long that they had to include them.
But there'd been other reports -- and you just
summarised by name which reports are relevant -- that
were not mentioned at all, ever.
We saw, on the "Summary and Key Issues" slide of the Day
One briefing on page 2, that there was a recommendation
that you receive more detailed advice on Horizon. There
was then a recommendation in bold, at the bottom of the
"Horizon IT System Complaints and Legal Actions” slide,
which recommended you receive further briefing on the
44
(11) Pages 41 - 44
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
subject, noting that the Post Office was happy to meet
with you to provide any further information or briefing.
You deal with this at paragraph 38 of your
statement. Could we go to that, please. It is page 12,
please, towards the bottom of the page on page 12.
You refer to a promise that UKGI would provide
a full briefing on the issue to ministers. Is that the
promise in the email we looked at dated 29 July from
Laura Thompson?
Yes, I think so.
Then you say this:
“It is correct that the Horizon IT system issues
were flagged in the Day One briefing pack as explained
above. But to the best of my recollection I never did
receive what might be termed a ‘full briefing’.
I regret not asking for one and that my private office
did not follow up on this promise.”
Well, that's true, I do very much regret not asking for
‘one. I had a briefing when I met with the Board, when
I asked questions, but it didn’t build very much on what
I'd already been told, if at all.
Well, we'll come on to what came next but, just for now,
thinking about those recommendations, which had been
made twice in the briefing pack, once in bold --
Yes, I know.
45
MS PRICE: Thank you, sir.
>
prop,
Ms James, you received a verbal briefing from UKGI
‘on 4 August 2016 -- is that right --
Yes.
-- from Mr Callard and Ms Thompson from UKGI?
Yes.
This was another briefing spanning the whole of the Post
Office brief, rather than being specific to the
litigation and the issues underlying it; is that right?
Yes, that's right.
Could we have on screen, please, UKGI00000015. This is
the note which you say in your statement you were
provided with ahead of this meeting. It is a three-page
document and Horizon IT issues are addressed on the
second page. Could we go to that second page, please,
and it is listed first under "Things you need to know".
The notes say this:
“Project Sparrow
"Alleged problems with IT system seeing postmasters
suffer losses and in some cases imprisonment.
"No evidence of bugs in the system despite three
years of investigation.
"High Court proceedings have begun.
"Suggest we give you a fuller briefing on this as it
regularly flares up."
47
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24 July 2024
-- why didn't you ask for the briefing when you read
those recommendations?
I might have said, “Well, we must get that", but I might
not have specifically asked for it. I think I'm saying
that because I don't recall ever getting one and
I think, to be fair to UKGI, that they would have given
me one, had I pressed for it, but whether -- how full it
would have been, no one would know, but fuller than
perhaps had been included to date.
MS PRICE: Sir, I wonder if that might be a convenient
moment for the first morning break.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS PRICE: I think itis 11.25 now, so if we were to come
back at 11.35, please.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: IAll right.
MS PRICE: Thank you, sir.
(11.24 am)
(A short break)
(11.36 am)
MS PRICE: Hello, sir. Can you still see and hear us
clearly?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can.
MS PRICE: Is the link still working to the witness as well,
sir?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: As far as I'm concerned, it is.
2
46
Can you recall now what you were told about Project
Sparrow at the meeting?
I can't recall what I was told at the meeting -- at that
particular meeting, no. I would think that I was not
told very much. It was, as you say, an introductory
meeting for the whole of the Postal Services brief,
probably excluding the Royal -- oh, actually, Royal Mail
is down there. So I doubt I was told much more than
what appears there.
There is here a further suggestion that you have
a fuller briefing. On this occasion, did you ask for
a fuller briefing specific to the Horizon IT issues?
Not on that occasion, no.
Can you recall why not?
Because I was content with the briefings I was getting
on the issues which were, I suppose I thought at the
time, were the highest priority issues for the
responsibility I had for the Post Office and I wouldn't
have pursued a fuller briefing on something that fell
into the category of things I need to know. I would
hope for a fuller briefing on something I needed to know
when it became more of a priority matter for my
consideration, if you follow the distinction.
Yes, could we have on screen, please, paragraph 40 of
Ms James' statement. It's page 13. Here you say this:
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
"I do not remember the detail of that verbal
briefing on 4 August. I believe it covered the topics
outlined in the July2016 Day One briefing pack. My
understanding was that there may be occasional faults in
the IT system, but nothing that was a structural flaw
across the system."
Did you understand at the time the occasional faults
in the system to be capable of causing accounting
discrepancies?
No, I wouldn't have understood that at the time. No.
Did you ask for any further information about what those
occasional faults were?
Not at the introductory meetings, no. I asked for more
information about what the occasional faults might be
later on in my time as Minister but I wouldn't have done
during the meetings that you're talking about, the
introductory meetings.
When later on in the time you held the role did you ask
about the nature of the faults?
I would have asked after a few months, after six months
or so, once I started getting concerned that there was
more to the Horizon issue than I had been briefed about.
Who did you ask?
I asked at one of my meetings with Board
representatives. That would probably have been the CEO
49
occasional faults, as with any computer system and
nothing capable of causing the amount of harm alleged.
So I wasn't wholly satisfied with this but that was
the sort of tenor of the conversation I got when
I probed more. And I said before, I should have asked
for the Second Sight documents and that was possibly my
biggest mistake, especially the second one, if I'd ever
been able to get the second one out of them.
Could we go, please, to paragraph 49 of Ms James’
statement, that's page 15. Here you deal with a meeting
you had with Paula Vennells on 1 September 2016, and you
say this:
“I was briefed in advance of that meeting by Michael
Dollin of UKGI ... This was a routine introductory
meeting to help me understand the current issues facing
[Post Office Limited]. I do not recall the Horizon IT
system issues, the SPM complaints or the Group
Litigation being discussed in that matter. I was
certainly not briefed specifically on those issues and
matters relating to Horizon were not included in the
meeting agenda.”
There is a document which may assist on why Horizon
issues were not addressed at that meeting. Could we
have on screen, please, POL00244227. This is an email
from Tom Wechsler to Paula Vennells, copied to others.
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
24 July 2024
and the CFO and, although I referred to meeting the Post
Office Board three or four times a year, I don't think
I ever met the whole Board, that wouldn't have been
a good use of their time. What I meant was I would meet
the key people from the Board: the CFO, the CEO,
possibly they might have with them the Government
Affairs Director.
When you asked for more information about these
occasional faults, what were you told?
I was told that this had been the longstanding problem,
that there'd been independent investigations into
Horizon over two, if not three, years, that some faults
might be found but nothing systemic, nothing
system-wide, capable of causing a significant problem
for a large number of postmasters. I was told that
a number of postmasters had been convicted and there
were very few of them affected. Given the fact that
65,000 people used the Horizon system, the numbers
involved were very small indeed.
And I would say that the demeanour of the Post
Office was they were very good at presenting themselves
as the victim in all this. They came across as
beleaguered; what more could they have done; they'd set
up this Mediation Scheme; they'd improved their training
processes; they did acknowledge that there were
50
Itis dated 30 August 2016. It appears to be Paula
Vennells' briefing, or referring to her briefing, ahead
of the meeting with you on 1 September. Underneath
points 1 to 4, there is this:
"Since the base material was pulled together we have
had some additional feedback from UKGI, including this
evening.
"Their advice was ..."
Then at the fourth bullet point:
"The Minister has been briefed on Sparrow but is
content that this is best left to the Courts -- no need
to cover the issue in the meeting."
Had you agreed by this point that this was a matter
best left to the courts which should be dealt with
independently of Government; that was the advice we saw
in the Day One briefing?
I don't think that would be an unfair summary of --
a view I might have expressed at a meeting if, given the
advice that, "Now the litigation is underway, it would
be best to wait for the outcome of that litigation
before taking any further steps with relation to the
Horizon issue". I don't think that would be
an unfair -- I don't recall actually saying that,
proactively, at that time. I might have agreed the
advice. It's a moot point.
52
(13) Pages 49 - 52
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Why do you say it's a moot point?
Because I think, at best, it's an overstatement of
a view that I had. I might have agreed advice, yes, it
is indeed best left to the courts, but that does not
need -- that does not mean, ergo, that the issue
shouldn't be covered.
Of course, if I can just stop you there, my question at
the moment is limited to whether, regardless of the
consequences, you had agreed at that point that it was
a matter best left to the courts, independent of the
Government, which was the advice set out in the Day One
briefing pack?
All I can say was that I didn't disagree with it.
I wouldn't have disagreed with it. I doubt my agreement
was sought. Introductory meetings are not places --
they're not times where ministers give guidance and
advice. They are -- the Minister is in reactive mode,
it's he or she is absorbing information. If something
strikes you, I think, as extraordinary or something you
wouldn't agree with, you would say that, but you
wouldn't be actively giving a view on an area of policy
in an introductory meeting.
Were you aware at the time that this was the reason that
the issue was not covered in the meeting with Paula
Vennells?
53
about the litigation but, just looking at this document
alone, do you think that your early agreement, or at
least lack of objection, to the approach that this was
an operational matter for Post Office best resolved by
the courts may have led to you receiving less
information from UKGI and the Post Office about
complaints and legal action relating to the Horizon
system?
Well, I think that -- yes, I think there is a partial
explanation for -- it gives -- I think it possibly gives
them an excuse to feel, "Well, she's happy for this to
be decided by the courts, so we're not going to provide
any further information". I think it gives them cover
for that, unfortunately. So ...
Would you agree, though, that this should not have been
the case because a decision not to comment publicly on
an ongoing legal case should not prevent effective
oversight by the Government of such important matters,
which were the subject of those legal proceedings?
Yeah, I agree strongly with that. I agree strongly with
that and, indeed, had the initial briefing pack, which
you had on the screen an hour or so ago, had that
contained a comprehensive -- brief but comprehensive
briefing on the Horizon issue, then I would definitely
have expected to have covered it in my first meeting
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
o>
24 July 2024
No.
What would your reaction have been, at the time, if you
had learned that you agreeing this was a matter best
resolved by the courts meant you were not going to be
given any information on the issues underlying the
litigation by the CEO of the Post Office?
I think that would have been wrong. I think it would
have been wrong for them to assume that, because
I seemed content with that advice, that that meant that
no further information was required. I mean, it should
really have been covered in the meeting. But it also
should have -- I should have been given a proper
briefing. If I can remind you of our discussion earlier
about the Civil Service Code and the importance of
impartial and objective advice, to have information
as -- well, as the Post Office did, well beyond the
Second Sight Reports that they disclosed they had, and
not provide ministers with the same level, if you like,
of information at the very least as they were providing
about Second Sight, was very wrong.
So I wouldn't think that bullet 4 is a free pass for
the Post Office never to mention Horizon or anything
about it to that minister ever again, no, definitely
not.
We will come on to the press lines which were agreed
54
with the CEO.
It was a selective briefing, as I think I have
already communicated and, therefore, the slant was --
lulled me into a false state of security, I think, on
the issue.
That document can come down now. Thank you.
You were given some information on Horizon IT issues
ahead of Parliamentary debates on the future of the Post
Office in November 2016 and March 2017; is that right?
These are covered in your paragraphs in your statement.
Yes.
The information that you were provided with was part of
a wider briefing pack covering a range of issues; is
that right?
Huge range of issues, yes.
You deal with this at paragraphs 51, 52 and 61 of your
statement, if you need to refer to them.
Thank you.
You say that the briefing pack repeated the information
and advice you had previously received; is that right?
Yes.
You describe at paragraph 22 of your statement
Parliamentary debates being of particular value to you
in keeping yourself informed independently.
(The witness nodded)
56
(14) Pages 53 - 56
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Whilst neither of these debates focused specifically on
Horizon issues, would it have been helpful for you to
have had more fulsome information about Horizon issues
for those debates?
Well, no. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have helped me
because Horizon didn't come up in either of the debates.
If it had done, if one of the MPs who was very
knowledgeable about the matter had decided to attend the
debate and hold forth, then a briefing would have been
useful. But, in the absence of such a member, it
wouldn't have been useful because no one raised it.
You were provided, ahead of such Parliamentary debates,
with these written briefings. Did they themselves not
serve a purpose in terms of you becoming more
independently informed, or more informed, about the --
Um - sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted you.
I apologise, what was your last sentence?
My question is whether, regardless of what questions you
were asked in the debate, the briefings themselves
served a purpose for making sure you were informed in
relation to briefs you held?
Yes. Well, they did, although that wasn't the prime
purpose. One would hope that the Minister was informed
enough, certainly by the time of these debates, but you
still need a comprehensive briefing, you know, to remind
57
Office. I would not suggest we comment on legal
action -- but welcome thoughts from Press Office.”
You then say at paragraph 57 that you decided to
accept this advice, the advice about media lines; is
that what you're referring to?
Yes, I think that's the only thing they're asking my
agreement to.
Yes, after consultation with the BEIS Press Office.
Then you deal at paragraph 58 with an email dated
31 January 2017, in which Laura Thompson confirmed
UKGI's advice that:
"_.. ‘we're content with the suggested lines -- pass
to Post Office in the first instance, ‘operational
matter/legal proceedings’, if needed ..."
Was this the established line by this point: that
this matter was an operational matter for Post Office
and being resolved in court?
Yes, that was the position, and I noticed the email came
from Claire French. I think she was the lead person
from the Press Office of what was BEIS at the time, and
that was the established position, yes.
At the time, were you satisfied with that line?
Yes, I would have been, I would have been satisfied with
that line. I didn't suspect the Post Office of acting
in bad faith and they were best equipped to comment on
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
24 July 2024
you so that you can refer to stuff during the debate.
If the debate had been about the Horizon issue or the
Mediation Scheme, about something relevant to the
Horizon issue, then I think that would have put UKGI
a real bothersome position because they would have had
to have briefed me more. I couldn't have gone into the
a Parliamentary debate with the usual ten lines or five
lines -- ten, if you were lucky.
They'd have had to have briefed a whole briefing
pack on the matter. But, alas, while I was Minister,
the only issue that really generated noise in Parliament
was potential Post Office closures. That was the thing
that was alive in Parliament during my 18 months in the
role.
Turning, then, to the press lines which were agreed
about litigation, could we have on screen, please,
page 18 of Ms James’ statement. At paragraph 56, you
deal with an update on the litigation, which you
received on 20 January 2017. This discussed an upcoming
hearing at the High Court on 26 January 2017.
Towards the end of the paragraph that you quote here
from that document, is a section on media interest. It
says this:
"If there is any media interest, I would suggest our
usual approach of referring any enquiries to Post
58
issues pertaining to their own operations. Far better
that they comment than the Government comments on
something which, yes, we did regard at the time as
an operational matter for the Post Office.
Was this also the line which was being given to
subpostmasters in correspondence at this stage, so early
2017?
Yes, it would have been. It would have been.
Did you think that that was a satisfactory response to
be given to subpostmasters in correspondence at that
time?
Early in January, yes, I probably would have done.
I would say that my feelings altered during Quarter 1 of
2017, I think.
Do you accept now that the litigation and the underlying
Horizon allegations were not simply operational matters
for the Post Office?
Ido. I do accept that, yes. They should have been.
If they'd been handled appropriately, they should have
been an operational matter for the Post Office but,
because of the way the Post Office was behaving, they
most certainly should have been a matter for the
Government, for the owner.
Would you agree that the effect of this line, passed to
Post Office in the first instance, was to defer to the
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
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Post Office on issues concerning the integrity of
Horizon?
Yes. I think that's a fair assessment.
Is it right that the Post Office's interests were not
one and the same as the Government's?
That's quite a broad question.
In the specific context of these issues?
Yes, I see. Well, given the regrettable lack of
suspicion on the part of myself -- I can only speak for
myself -- at the time, there was nothing wrong in my
view with that position. But anybody -- anybody who
knew what was going on at that point within the Post
Office on this issue, to anyone who was in possession of
that knowledge, it would not have been an appropriate or
adequate response because what was going on was
potentially so damaging, obviously, to the victims of
the behaviour but also to the Post Office itself, and to
its owner, that you wouldn't allow -- you wouldn't
delegate everything about the matter to the organisation
that was behaving in all the wrong ways in its
management of the matter.
Had you seen the reports which you say you should have
been provided with -- and we went to that list earlier,
including the Deloitte reports, the Swift Report and the
Clarke Advice -- would you have agreed to defer to the
61
briefings. My question is: looking at this line which
continues to be used throughout 2017, I'm asking whether
you think that continued potentially to have the effect
that less information was coming to you than should have
done?
Well, I mean, possibly they would use that as an excuse
to not provide the information but, of course, as we
just discussed and I think you just mentioned briefly
then, it all goes back to the partial briefing that was
included in my Day One pack and the first meeting I had
with UKGI.
Does this serve to underline the fact that the
distinction between operational and contractual matters
and policy and strategy matters is necessarily blurred
and should have been blurred, and there is a danger in
putting things in a sealed box marked "Operational,
contractual, legal"?
Yes, I think so. I think you have to accept that you
use your best endeavours as a shareholder to hold the
Executive to account and, in general, that means leaving
the Executive with responsibility for execution and
‘operations because, obviously, if you interfere too
much, then the Executive can rightly challenge you back
when objectives aren't met. And too much blurring
compromises accountability. But having said that, there
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
24 July 2024
Post Office in this way?
No. No, definitely not. I think that we would have
had -- we wouldn't be at this position at that point in
time, had we had all that information that you've just
mentioned by virtue of those reports. I suspect the
Government's -- the BEIS Legal Department, myself, as
Minister, and the Secretary of State, would have been
all over it, demanding change -- I mean -- well, I mean
you can start by demanding the implementation of
Jonathan Swift's recommendations. That would have been
a good place to have started.
Do you think that this line, “operational matter, legal
proceedings”, may have had the continued effect of you
being provided with limited information about the
allegations which underpinned the litigation?
Sorry, I don't quite -- I don't really --
Well, going back to the discussion we had earlier about
the early lack of disagreement to this being
an operational matter and a matter for the courts, and
what the consequences of that might be, and we looked in
particular at the email to Paula Vennells, which appears
to have led to that issue not being discussed at that
meeting —
Yeah, I see what you mean.
-- we talked at that stage in the context of your early
62
is a blurred line between strategy and execution and
operations, and to deny any overlap can have the reverse
effect, whereby shareholders are completely blindsided,
on the basis that "This is an operational matter,
therefore you don't need to know anything about it
whatsoever".
I should add, though, that when you're in
Government -- and indeed in the private sector, it's no
different, really -- you do expect the people you're
dealing with to be complying with the law at the very
least and certainly to be acting in good faith and, of
course, that was not the case.
The standard line to this effect was provided in further
briefings for you for an MP drop-in session, and you
deal with that at paragraph 65; a cribsheet on the Post
Office, which you deal with at paragraph 66; and a Hot
Topics pack, which you deal with at paragraph 67; all of
those being in 2017; is that right?
Yes, I think so.
Did that standard line continue to be used in
correspondence to subpostmasters throughout 2017, as far
as you can recall?
A. As far as I can recall, it would have done, yes.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Can I just ask you, I'm not sure -- and
this is my ignorance, all right -- if Ms Price is going
64
(16) Pages 61 - 64
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
to show you particular letters from subpostmasters
during this period but I'm slightly querying the extent
to which you would have received letters from
subpostmasters when there is active litigation ongoing,
all right? On the one hand, you've got the Group
Litigation -- I think it was made Group Litigation in
March 2017. So there's a legal process going on and, on
the face of it, I'm a little surprised if individual
postmasters were writing either to you or to ShEx or
whoever -- UKGI, I'm sorry -- while that litigation is
going on.
I mean, what is your memory of actual letters either
from subpostmasters or MPs on their behalf?
A. Don't recall receiving a letter from a subpostmaster who
was among the Group Litigation Order, one of the
complainants in that case. I don't recall anybody
writing to me who was themselves going through that
litigation.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
A. I do recall postmasters writing to me about the Horizon
issue in more detail and describing the experiences that
they were having with Horizon.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right.
A. And that -- that would have been, I think, whilst this
litigation was going on but coincident to it.
65
MS PRICE: I will be very nearly finished by lunchtime. But
I think I will still have a little to go after lunch,
probably no more than 15 minutes or so after lunch, plus
Core Participant questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, I was going to ask you to check
about whether we actually need to have a full lunch
break, especially given that Ms James is recovering from
Covid. If it's the case that we could complete the
evidence by, say, 1.30 to 2.00, with just further short
beaks, that may be a preferable way of dealing with
things, so have a chat to Core Participants and see what
they say. All right?
MS PRICE: Yes, sir. I will do. Thank you.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you very much. So what time shall
we resume?
MS PRICE: 12.25, sir, please?
‘SIR WYN WILLIAM! Fine.
(12.14 pm)
(A short break)
(12.25 pm)
MS PRICE: Hello, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Hello.
MS PRICE: I've discussed with Core Participants the likely
time estimate for questions, and there should be a total
of around 15 minutes, made up of five minutes from
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24 July 2024
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. Well, if there are particular
letters that Ms Price wishes to refer to, no doubt she
will. But can you just give me an approximation of
a number of such letters you received, say in the last
12 months that you were relevant minister?
A. I would probably have received maybe ten-ish, I would
say.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, thank you.
A. Almost one a month. But not quite.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Thank you.
Sorry, Ms Price.
MS PRICE: Not at all, sir. If it assists, the letters that
I have for the purposes of this witness, the latest one
is in October 2016, so it was very much a question
without the documents providing a clear answer.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Without wishing to have a chat to you,
Ms Price, I rather suspected that, if there were
specific letters, you would have put them by now. Hence
my questions to try to clear my mind.
MS PRICE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Sir, would that be a convenient moment for our
second morning break, please?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. Just so that I can manage what goes
‘on, what are you anticipating in terms of the further
time necessary to examine Ms James?
66
Mr Stein and ten minutes from Mr Henry. So it should be
possible to conclude, I would hope, if we go through
now, by about 1.15.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's perfect, Ms Price. You carry on
then, please.
MS PRICE: Thank you, sir.
I'd like to come, please, Ms James, to your
impression about the Post Office Board and the Chief
Executive Officer's willingness to discuss Horizon
issues. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 49
of Ms James' statement. That's page 15.
Towards the bottom of the page, starting three lines
up, you say:
"Later in my time as Minister (it is hard to
remember exactly when) I formed an impression that
Horizon was the last thing that the [Post Office
Limited] Board or CEO ever wanted to discuss, that they
would never bring it up proactively and, if I asked
questions about it, they were reluctant to speak about
it in detail. To begin with, I simply put this down to
it a difficult issue which was subject to ongoing
litigation, but as time went on and as I started to get
number of letters from MPs raising complaints from
[subpostmasters] in their constituencies, and some
letters from [subpostmasters] themselves which contained
68
(17) Pages 65 - 68
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
accounts of their personal experience of Horizon which
was at odds with the minimal details disclosed to me by
the CEO of [Post Office Limited]. I started to feel
that there might be more to the Horizon issues than
I was being told."
Starting, please, with the way you had contact with
the Post Office Board and the CEO, in your statement at
paragraph 22, you say that you would challenge the Post
Office Board where appropriate by questioning them at
quarterly meetings. Who attended those quarterly
meetings? You referred earlier to the CEO and the CFO;
did anyone else ever attend?
Yes. Others did attend but I'm afraid I can't remember
which individuals from the Board attended with the CEO
and CFO. I would imagine it would have been the
Government Affairs Director but I can't say for sure.
Occasionally, I would meet the CEO just on her own, and
I think there were occasions where it would just be the
CEO and CFO, and then there were occasions where they
might be accompanied by another Board Director.
I think the first time I met representatives of the
Board there were probably about four of them I met on
the first instance, but it was a reduced number after
that initial meeting.
Those quarterly meetings, how long did they last?
69
manage all the diary requirements for such a wide and
varied brief, really.
If you didn't ask for Horizon issues to be on the agenda
for your quarterly meetings, do you think you did, in
fact, raise Horizon issues at those meetings or not?
I did, certainly at one of them, probably two of them,
I would say. Yes.
Can you recall when you raised those Horizon issues?
It would have been, I think, probably after the funding
issues were resolved. So that would have been in the
second half of 2017.
Did you say it was on one or two occasions at which you
raised Horizon issues at those meetings?
I can only really be sure of saying at least one,
probably two occasions because, inexplicably, although,
as you've seen, because you have the documentation in
front of you and you put some of it on the screen,
I have been given, you know, copies of meeting briefs,
agendas, even, but not one meeting minute. So there was
no readout or report, or whatever you want to call it,
from any of the meetings through the whole time I was at
the Department, which is strange. Not for now, but it
is of interest what is retained and what isn't. It
seems very random.
If you think that you raised Horizon issues only once,
ral
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
24 July 2024
They probably lasted 45 minutes.
That was to cover all Post Office issues during that
time, was it?
Yes.
Were Horizon issues ever on the agenda for those
meetings?
I think I can safely say no.
Did you ever ask for Horizon issues to be put on
an agenda for those meetings?
Not to my knowledge.
Did you ever attend a Post Office Board meeting?
I don't think I did, actually. I'm quite surprised but,
I mean, I should have done. But then, diary management
was extremely, extremely difficult and I think there
would have been an intention to have attended a Post
Office Board meeting but I don't recall ever attending
one and I suspect that it was a matter of diary
management, I think. I mean, certainly it was in the
case of other institutions for which I was responsible
for, for example, I wanted to attend a meeting of the
Board of the British Business Bank, and I failed to do
that. They were in Sheffield, which didn't help, in
terms of the lengthy travel time involved but, even so,
I would go up north quite regularly with my portfolio.
It's just - it was a very, very difficult thing to
70
possibly twice, at your meetings with the CEO and the
CFO, what was it that led you to form the view that the
CFO and the Post Office Board were reluctant to discuss
issues to do with Horizon in detail?
Because occasionally I would meet with the CEO one to
‘one, in addition to the Board members which we're now
discussing, and I raised it with her as well, separately
from the Board meeting, and on all occasions, there was
a change in demeanour, a wish to shut the conversation
down as soon as could be done politely, and a general
reluctance to discuss further. And that would be the
same, whether it was one to one or as part of the update
I had with the Board.
When, roughly, speaking to, in your time in the role,
did you first ask directly about Horizon issues to the
CEO?
I would say earlier than I would have raised it at the
Board. So probably either towards the end of 2016 or
early in 2017.
On how many occasions in total do you think you asked
directly about Horizon issues?
I would say probably four, I would say we'd be safe to
say. Yeah, a good four times.
The Inquiry has been unable to find any documentary
evidence that your concerns about this reluctance to
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
discuss Horizon issues were raised at the time you were
Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Did you raise those
concerns with anyone?
Do you mean with the people we've just been discussing,
the Post Office Board --
Either directly with Paula Vennells, or with anyone else
from the Board, or more widely?
Certainly. I'm sorry if I wasn't -- if I wasn't clear
when you asked me how many times I had raised the
Horizon --
Forgive me, I think we may be talking at cross purposes.
I wondered, sorry.
My question was: if you were concerned that there was
a reluctance to talk about Horizon issues on the part of
the Post Office Board and the CEO, whether you raised
the fact that you were concerned, either directly with
the CEO, or anyone from the Board, or more widely?
I -- I don't recall ever alleging to the Board that
I felt they were trying to close down the discussion,
no. I persevered in the discussion against this kind of
pushback, when it came to discussion with the Board or
representatives of the Board of Post Office. So, on the
question of -- so I didn't raise directly with them that
I was concerned that they didn't want to seem to raise
this issue, I would just persevere with them. But
73
incompetence, because I have explained that I had
received letters which I felt were very bona fide from
people who didn't appear to be in either camp but
nevertheless were experiencing problems with the system.
And those were the sort of questions I was asking,
and I didn't get good answers to my questions. I got
really a reiteration of how, you know, two or three
years of independent scrutiny had not actually come up
with anything system wide. They did give way that
sometimes there were occasional faults and they conceded
that that might cause some of the problems that the
campaigning group of postmasters were complaining about.
One of your reflections on matters is that you wish you
had challenged the Post Office Board more vigorously
than you did, and you say that at paragraph 37 of your
statement. Looking back, what did you challenge the
Post Office Board on; the "more vigorously than [you]
did" suggests there was some challenge, what was that?
I think the challenge was that I wanted more information
about the system of Horizon and what it was capable of
doing in relation to subpostmasters who were not in the
camp of even being taken to court. I wanted more
information about that, the system. That was my main
challenge. I didn't challenge on the litigation
strategy and, I must say, I had no idea at the time of
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
24 July 2024
\ did
with the Secretary of State, probably the Permanent
Secretary, and probably with UKGI, as well, but I can't
be sure about them because I can't remember. But I do
remember discussing it with the Secretary of State,
probably fairly later on. I wouldn't have raised
a misgiving or -- I wouldn't have raised that kind of
feeling with the Secretary of State, unless it grew in
substance.
So I would -- I suspect I didn't raise it with him,
probably until the second half -- certainly well into
2017.
Was there any particular question that you asked the
Post Office Limited Board or the CEO that you didn't get
an answer to?
it did form some of the discussion that I had
I can't really remember. I -- whether -- I felt I was
fobbed off because, in general, they would find
different things of saying the same thing in response to
my questions, and the best question I could have asked
them was "I want a copy of the Second Sight Report, both
of them, please", and that's -- and I didn't ask that
question, unfortunately. But I did ask other questions
about the computer system, why it was that the
assumption was that all of the subpostmasters in making
those complaints were guilty of misconduct or
74
the way that the Post Office were behaving when it came
to matters of disclosure and the quality of evidence
that they were allowing to be brought, and the matters
raised in the Cartwright King and Swift papers.
I wasn't aware of all of that so I didn't challenge them
about that.
I think the most effective challenge I made was to
their wish to cap the amount of compensation that they
were prepared to put into the Mediation Scheme, or any
of its successors, in terms of the compensation that
might be offered to subpostmasters because I was aware,
of course, of the -- of the Criminal Case Review
Compensation team, who were looking at -- I think it was.
about 20 cases when I first came into my position.
So I was aware that compensation might be required
for alll sorts of things and I wasn't sympathetic to the
Post Office Board's recommendation that they cap the
overall amount at what I suspected was a level below
what might transpire to be required.
You wrote a letter to Tim Parker, the then Chair of Post
Office, on 20 December 2017, and you address this at
paragraph 68 of your statement. You describe it as
a standard letter drafted by UKGI, which reminded him of
the Government's strategic priorities for the Post
Office and confirmed the level of subsidy and investment
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
rPOoOP.O
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
for the forthcoming year.
You note in your statement that there was no mention
of Horizon issues. You had been in the role for
18 months by this point, was this not an opportunity to
explain to the Chair the importance of ministers being
fully aware of developments in the litigation,
particularly if you had concerns that the Board was
reluctant to discuss Horizon?
Yes, it would have been a good opportunity, now you
point it out. Would you -- could you remind me of the
date of that letter?
20 December 2017.
Yes, it would have --
We can go to that if you'd like to.
No, I had forgotten the date and where it fitted into
the whole scheme of things. But, yes, you are right:
I should have brought his attention to my concerns
actually earlier than that. He was the Chairman and
I should have possibly sought a meeting one to one with
him to discuss the matter. I think that would have been
a -- and then possibly included a follow-up in the
letter to which you refer. I should have done that,
I didn't do that. But I -- with the benefit of
hindsight, I should have done that.
Did you ever raise with Tim Parker a concern that the
77
UKGI?
I can't remember doing that, no.
Could we have on screen, please, the Day One briefing
for the Post Office, UKGI00020328. That's page 13 of
that document, thank you. This is a slide about key
stakeholders, and covered here was the National
Federation of SubPostmasters. There is an explanation
here that:
"[Post Office Limited] has recently started funding
the NFSP directly, to enable it to transform into
a trade association working in partnership with [Post
Office Limited] and not a union-like organisation often
in conflict with it. Although this has been widely
welcomed there has been tensions in the group's
relationship with [Post Office Limited] (eg the NFSP
negotiates with [Post Office Limited] on subpostmaster
remuneration).
“In addition some subpostmasters ... believe the
NFSP is now compromised as it received funding direct
from [Post Office Limited]."
Did you consider, at the time you met with the NFSP,
whether its stance might have been influenced by the
fact it was being directly funded by the Post Office,
especially considering the information contained in this
briefing that some subpostmasters considered the NFSP_
79
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24 July 2024
Board was reluctant to discuss Horizon issues?
No, I didn't, which I certainly should have done.
Could we have paragraph 70 of Ms James' statement on
screen, please. That's page 23. You deal here with
what you did after you became concerned that there may
be more to Horizon than had been communicated to you,
and you say that you decided to meet the outgoing leader
of the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Nine
lines down you say this:
"I decided to meet the outgoing leader of the
National Federation of SubPostmasters and took the
opportunity of questioning him about the alleged impact
of Horizon on some [subpostmasters]. Somewhat to my
surprise I was reassured by the representative of the
NFSP, who concurred with the line taken by the [Post
Office Limited] in response to my questions. This had
the effect of allaying my concerns which had been
growing prior to the meeting. This state of reassurance
was reinforced by Horizon never coming up during my
meetings with the leadership of the CWU."
You found reassurance in the stance taken by the
NFSP; is that right?
Yes, I did.
You say you found that surprising at the time. Did you
discuss your surprise about this with anyone at BEIS or
78
had been compromised?
It's a very good question that you ask and I don't think
I did consider that. It didn't strike me as
an explanation for the content of the meeting I had with
the outgoing Chair or Chief Exec of the NFSP, and
I think it was also sort of amplified by the fact that
I'd had several meetings with the leadership of the CWU,
and they had not raised Horizon at all with me. And
I asked them about it and they were not concerned,
I would say, would be the general tenor of what I got
back.
So a good reading of that briefing paper prior to
my -- I must have had a briefing on NFSP before I met
them because that was the standard process, if you were
going in for a meeting, you had a briefing first, and
that would have contained some background information on
the NFSP. Whether it would have been identical by then
to the two paragraphs you have up on the screen is.
another matter. Quite possibly not.
I'd like to turn, please, to your impression that
certain things were deliberately withheld from you. Can
we have on screen, please, paragraph 42 of Ms James’
statement, that's page 13. It's just the last sentence
here, with reference to the Simon Clarke Advice, the
Deloitte reports or the Swift Review, you say:
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
"Having now read these reports I have concluded that
they were withheld from me deliberately.”
Who do you think was withholding the reports
deliberately?
Well, it depends on the report. Any of the -- any of
those reports I mention that were -- that had been
disclosed to UKGI, I would say they withheld it from me.
But I gathered, from watching a previous evidence
session, approximately a week or ten days ago, to my
absolute astonishment, it came out at that previous
evidence session that the Chairman of Post Office didn't
even share the Swift Report within his own Board, so
obviously I wasn't going to get a copy.
And if the Board weren't seeing it, then I presume
UKGI didn't see it either. So I'm not quite sure who,
in answer to your question, was withholding the
information from me. Either the Post Office were
withholding it from UKGI and, therefore, it didn't reach
me, or UKGI were aware of it, and excluded it from the
original briefing which, as I mentioned, did give me
a couple of lines on the Second Sight Report.
So my point would be that the Simon Clarke Advice,
Deloitte, you know, Bramble, et cetera, and the Swift
Review, any of those that UKGI knew about should have
been bullet pointed with the reference to Second Sight.
81
made aware of highlights, I guess, from it.
Under item 6, which is line 40, Project Sparrow is
addressed. The risks associated with the litigation are
addressed in columns D and E. Then in column K, there
is this -- and to read the full text you need to cast
your eyes up to the long bar at the top because of the
nature of the boxes:
“Responsibility rests with [Post Office Limited] to
manage both the Mediation Scheme and stakeholders
generally. [Post Office Limited] Chair undertaking
review with independent QC. We are managing Ministers’
involvement, with the intention of keeping the issue
independent of Government."
Then in column P, which is further mitigating
actions, there is this:
“Ensure [Post Office Limited] are proactively
managing interest and noise, and are aware of Ministers’
expectations. Manage interest and wobbles from
Ministers or the centre, including prepared fallback
options if current arm's-length position becomes
untenable."
What is your view of this express management of
Ministers by officials?
Alarmed. I find that very alarming. First of all,
would you mind reminding me of the date of this
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
po
24 July 2024
Why do you conclude that it was deliberate?
Because there's no logic to advising a minister about
the presence of one report when there are other reports
which develop the thinking of the report mentioned
further, add to the volume of knowledge on the same
matter. It doesn't -- it's partial, in my view, to give
the Minister reference to one report and then remain
completely silent on the presence of further work to
of -- in the same vein which adds to the body of
knowledge.
Could we have on screen, please, UKGI00016898. This is
a UKGI risk register dated 31 July 2016, so around the
time you took up the role, and going, please, to the -
I think we already have it open -- the risk register
tab, which related to the Post Office. First of all,
have you ever seen a risk register like this from UKGI
before?
No, no. You sent me a copy of it as an additional
document approximately ten days ago, and I am
99 per cent sure that it was the first time I had seen
a copy of these risk registers, which doesn't
necessarily surprise me. I mean, it's -- they were
produced, I gathered from the reports that you sent me,
‘on a monthly basis from UKGI and I would expect them to
be internal management documents and ministers to be
82
particular risk register?
31 July 2016.
Right. Well, I was very surprised to read, on your
previous slide -- when you put up the full copy in
column -- I think it was column D, where it said that
the Chair is --
I think the column I showed you first was K.
Right. I mean, I'm very surprised, because I couldn't
see on my -- I did see this and I read it, but couldn't
see beneath, you know, what you're showing me above.
I could only see the first three lines; I was very
surprised to see, "POL Chair undertaking a review with
independent QC", which indicates to me that UKGI must
have known about that, because they are the ones
maintaining this risk register. So must -- they must
have known bit.
That doesn't mean to say they had a copy of it
because, of course, my understanding of the previous
evidence session was that the Chair didn't share it with
the Board and that would presumably include the UKGI
representative on the Board. But there it is.
Anyway, back to your the question about managing,
you know, to make sure there's no ministerial wobble,
and things like that, and maintain the arm's-length
position here, sort of -- it's not -- what is written
84
(21) Pages 81 - 84
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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 -- and your previous statement about ministerial
wobbles and preserving the arms-length position -- that
is not really consistent with the Civil Service values
of integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity, in
my opinion.
I think it is an example of a team of people who
should be following those principles but who have gone
rogue and abandoned those principles.
Q. Do you agree that preparing fallback options, in case
the arms-length position becomes untenable, casts some
doubt on whether there was ever a justified basis for
saying that this was a reason for Ministers not to
become more involved?
A. Probably. As I might have mentioned right at the
beginning of our exchanges this morning, if the Post
Office had been managing this issue in an appropriate
manner, within the law and in good faith, it should
indeed have been the case that it was an operational
matter for the Post Office. But the fact that they
weren't meant that it should definitely have been on the
Government's radar.
MS PRICE: Sir, just at this juncture, I need to confess
that my time estimate was ambitious and I'm going to
need a little more time than I had budgeted for. Given
that that is the case, and with an eye to the
85
party to either the Letter of Claim from the claimants
or [Post Office Limited's] response -- [Post Office
Limited's] response in particular is subject to legal
privilege. I recommend we maintain that distance,
certainly at this stage in the proceedings. Happy to
chat through of course."
Were you aware at the time that this request had
been made on your behalf and refused, in effect?
A. I don't think I was, no.
2
Would it have concerned you, had you been aware?
A. Not at that stage, it wouldn't have done. I think later
‘on, with my growing knowledge of the situation it would
have done. I think it was a good call on the part of my
private secretary. I think he did it on his own account
and, unfortunately, he left during my time in the job,
so I lost his continuity, unfortunately, because he
might have brought it back up again later, as my
interest in Horizon grew. But, at the time, I'm afraid
I probably would have been accepting of that.
Q. We looked at one of the UKGI risk registers. If we
could please have on screen the one from January 2017.
That's UKGI00042795, and this the risk register for Post
Office specifically. Item 21 deals with Project
Sparrow. The risks are addressed in columns D and E.
If we can start with D, please. The risk identified
87
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
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
24 July 2024
transcriber, I wonder whether we want to take another
short break and then complete all of the questioning
after that, or whether you'd like me to continue to the
end of my questions and then do that.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, we started at 12.25, did we not?
MS PRICE: Yes, sir.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Just ask if I can ask the transcriber
through you, whether, if we continue until about 1.30,
as opposed to 1.15, which I assume would be enough
time --
MS PRICE: Yes, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I -- is that okay with her.
MS PRICE: Yes, I'm seeing nods.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Well, then, let's do that.
MS PRICE: Thank you, sir.
2
Could we have on screen, please, UKGI00006991.
Starting on page 2, please, this is an email from your
private office to Laura Thompson from UKGI, it's dated
23 August 2016. The last paragraph of this says:
"I also wondered if you could send me a copy of the
group civil litigation letter (and our response) on
Horizon? Just for further background for me."
The response from Ms Thompson is on page 1 and, in
her penultimate paragraph, she says:
“On the Horizon issue, we (Government) have not been
86
here is:
"Civil litigation and/or Court of Appeal processes
judge that [Post Office Limited] has acted
inappropriately, or illegally. Even absent such
a finding, ongoing risk that they continue to be
perceived to have acted in that way."
Then the next box:
“Potential for significant compensation claims, if
civil or criminal courts rule against [Post Office
Limited]. More likely however, and certainly in the
short-term, is that this continues to be a significant
distraction (and cost) to the business as they defend
their actions."
Were the risks of the litigation ever expressed to
you in those terms?
No.
That can come down now. Thank you.
Certainly not the first one. I think it was evident to
everybody that it could become a costly distraction, but
certainly not that the Post Office, you know, might have
acted illegally.
You explain in your statement that you were not aware,
when you were Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that the
Post Office had brought private prosecutions against
subpostmasters and others, and you deal with this at
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
paragraph 44, and if I can summarise, you say, in
effect, you would have exerted greater challenge had you
been aware that prosecutions had been brought privately.
Why is that?
I was really shocked when I did discover, very
belatedly, that these had been private prosecutions
because I had assumed -- which is a very bad thing to
do, in the role I had, but I had assumed that the
prosecutions had gone through the normal process of
being cleared by the CPS and mounted in the normal way,
and that was why I allowed myself to be persuaded of
an important part of the Post Office's line to me, which
was, you know, and where people have been charged, they
have been found guilty, which was an important part of
the line that I was given by the Post Office.
But what I've since discovered, obviously the whole
issue of disclosure and the quality of evidence being
brought was thrown into doubt, as far as back as,
I think, 2013.
Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 74 of
Ms James' statement. That's page 25. Towards the
bottom of that paragraph, you acknowledge here that you
should have asked for a copy of the Second Sight
Reports, but you say:
"These were held very close by [Post Office Limited]
89
slowly. Basically the first -- the Interim Report was
‘one thing but the -- I think Second Sight were dismissed
at or around the time they reported the second time, and
I think they had many complaints, which was certainly
not shared with me at the time, about the Post Office
withholding information, and obstructing their inquiries
when it came to their follow-up work, having produced
their Interim Report. And I think that I was imagining
that, given those conditions, I think it likely that the
Post Office would have been reluctant to reveal or
disclose the second or final report.
That can come down now, thank you. One of the things
that you say would have been a red flag to you -- and to
give context, you say at paragraph 71 of your statement
that you had a generally favourable impression of the
Post Office around the time your concerns about Horizon
issues were increasing, so it would have taken a red
flag for you to become more proactive in relation to the
issues -- but one of the things you say would have been
a red flag was exposure to now Lord Arbuthnot's
campaign.
When you took up the role, did you ask which
Parliamentarians had an interest in the issue of Horizon
challenges?
No, I didn't.
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
24 July 2024
but I could probably have had access to them and
I should have read them rather than taken as read the
only message [Post Office Limited] wanted the reports to
convey."
You were, in your first briefing, told about the
Second Sight Reports and you obviously regret not having
asked for them. It's right that you didn't ever ask for
copies of those reports, is it?
I'm pretty sure I didn't. I think I would have got
them, if I had have asked for them, and I think if I'd
asked for them and they hadn't been forthcoming, I would
have, you know, asked for them again.
Why is it, therefore, that you say these were held very
close by Post Office Limited?
Oh, I think I meant the second Second Sight -- sorry,
it's a bit confusing, isn't it? The Second Sight Report
number Two, or final, or whatever it was. There's a bit
of a -- I think I should have said the final report
was -- I had the impression was held very close.
How did you gain that impression, if you never asked for
it?
Yes. Um... I think that might have been with the
benefit of hindsight. I think I might have read
somewhere in the evidence that I've been given to
prepare for this Inquiry -- it's coming back to me
90
Did you request a briefing on any recent Parliamentary
debates which concerned the Post Office?
No.
Did you ask your private office staff to provide you
with previous ministerial responses to Parliament on key
Post Office issues?
No. All of these would have been good things to ask for
but I'm afraid I didn't ask for any of them.
At the time, was there any mechanism for incoming
ministers to be briefed on past relevant Parliamentary
debates?
No, I don't think there would have been no, no.
Did that change at any point when you were in
a ministerial role, having gone on to be Minister of
State in a different department?
No, I don't think it did, actually. I gave my
predecessor -- sorry, my successor at BEIS a briefing on
all the kind of top line issues within my brief about
two weeks after he had assumed what were my
responsibilities. But I did that informally, without
any officials present. So, that's not really what
you're talking about, I don't think. There's no formal
handover process which enables the new Minister to
capture the top line, be it Parliamentary or any other
aspect of the brief, what had gone before. Which is
92
(23) Pages 89 - 92
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
curious, I suppose, really, but it is -- that's my
experience.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I understand that might be the case as
between the respective ministers. Does not the Civil
Service provide a kind of handover in the sense of
highlighting important points which were being dealt
with by the previous minister and which now catch your
attention? I take it you're going to say "Well, that
was the initial briefing"?
A. Yes, I was going to say, Sir Wyn, that does happen, and
that is your introductory pack and all the introductory
meetings. I think one unfortunate aspect of when
I assumed this role was that it did coincide with a new
Government and an entirely new ministerial team and
private office team. I don't think my private office
had experience of handling any aspects of my brief left
over from my predecessor, unfortunately. That wouldn't
always be the case but when it's a new government,
I think itis the case.
MS PRICE: Turning finally to your reflections on the
governance structure in relation to the Post Office,
could we have on screen, please, paragraph 79 of
Ms James’ statement. That's page 26. It's towards the
bottom of page 26. You say:
"The structural problems of the current system of
93
look at those?
Yes, I have.
Q. Without displaying them, for the purposes of time, would
>
you agree that the Memorandum of Understanding which was
in place at the time, and the Memorandum of
Understanding in place now, states that UKGI formally
acts as an agent of the Department -- that is what was
at the time BEIS -- as opposed to the Treasury?
A. Well, it did act as an agent of the Department, I would
agree with that. But it doesn't change the position
that it is wholly owned by HMT. So whilst it might act
as an agent of the Department, it is accountable really
to the people who own it, and that's HMT.
Q. There is a section in the Memorandum of Understanding
relating to the accountability to Parliament for the
activities of UKGI, and the levels are BEIS ministers,
the Principal Accounting Officer level, BEIS Permanent
Secretary, and the senior official level, UKGI and BEIS.
Would you agree from that there is a degree of
accountability between UKGI and the Department already
in existence that was there at the time?
A. Yes. Yes, I would agree with that. Yes, whenever
I gave evidence or attended a debate in Parliament, led
a debate, answered a debate, I was always -- UKGI
support was always available to me, and it wasn't a BEIS
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
24 July 2024
oversight are first that there are too many players
involved", and you list UKGI, HMT and DBT:
"This gives rise to communication challenges ..."
You go off to list other issues there.
Is the essence of the problem that you're getting at
here that nobody grips the problem, because there are so
many players involved?
There's the potential for that. I don't think it
automatically follows but I think that the potential for
that is heightened by the number of players involved.
And the agenda -- I think this whole -- the point about
stakeholders developing their own agendas is heightened
by the more there are in the mix.
Going over the page, please, you say:
"The other problem with the status quo is that UKGI
as the representative of Government on the Board of
[Post Office Limited] reports directly to HMT."
You talk about:
"[The] power wielded by HMT across Government, which
can be absolute and heightens the risk that UKGI focuses
purely on the achievement of financial objectives with
the sole goal of reducing public subsidy.”
I think you've seen in the documents provided to you
more recently two Memorandums of Understanding about the
role of UKGI officials. Have you had an opportunity to
94
official, it was an official of the UKGI who would
support me in those matters. Yes.
I mean, they were interchangeable in most senses
with Department officials for that particular brief. It
is just that, although they are supposed to comply with
the Civil Service Code, they are not civil servants and
I can imagine it might be quite difficult to act, you
know, in -- as a civil servant, if you haven't had the
training to be one.
Looking, then, to paragraph 81, a little further down
this page, there are two options, which you moot in your
statement, that might improve matters, and one is that
the Post Office should be taken essentially under DBT,
and the other is that the role of Ofcom should be
extended to give regulatory oversight, independent
regulatory oversight. Which of those two options, with
the benefit of having considered this matter with the
benefit of hindsight, do you consider to be the better?
Well, I don't think either option will resolve the
cultural crisis within the Post Office. In order to
resolve that, I think the machinery of Government is
probably adequate without a change. But long term --
long term, I think I would favour the latter. If the
Post Office can be brought into an acceptable state,
which is a very big if, then I would favour the
96
(24) Pages 93 - 96
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
regulated route rather than the DBT owned route.
I mean, we did, as I know you are aware, have
a long-term consideration that it might be mutualised as
a service, and that's another option. I didn't mention
that there, but that is another option, although it does
have to be, I think, to qualify for mutual status it
would have to be not in receipt of public subsidy,
I think. So that's an issue. The subsidy issue is
a bit of a -- that kind of leads more to the DBT-owned
model. But, I mean, none of this will solve the
cultural crisis in the Post Office, I suspect. That has
to be subject to radical surgery, I would imagine.
MS PRICE: Sir, those are all the questions I have for
Ms James.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you, yes.
MS PRICE: Shall I hand over to Mr Henry first.
Questioned by MR HENRY
MR HENRY: Ms James, thank you so much.
I don't want to go back to the document but it's
UKGI00016898 and it's column D of the risk register of
31 July 2016, allocated to risk number 6, which was
entitled "Project Sparrow". Therein, one reads:
"... increasingly orchestrated campaign against the
[Post Office Limited] on alleged faults with the Horizon
system, including attempts to derail the Mediation
97
Q. Now, again --
To be -- so was she, of course, when she came in.
>
Q. Yes, of course. Now, I don't need to go to paragraph 56
of your statement but that is that on 20 January 2017,
Laura Thompson of UKGI provided your private office
with an update on the Group Litigation, and you remember
the passage that you were taken to by Ms Price. And
then, in the following paragraph, paragraph 57, you
said:
"I would have taken this email as an update only,
and not a request for action or decision of any sort.
I decided to accept this advice [in other words the
advice not to get involved] after consultation with the
BEIS Press Office.”
Why the Press Office, Ms James? Is this concern, as
it were, about optics as opposed to substance; why the
Press Office, as opposed to a more considered briefing
on strategy?
A. That's a very fair question. I think -- I didn't often
seek advice from the Press Office. But I think, correct
me if I'm wrong because I don't have the document
absolutely to hand, but I think that that was advice in
relation to media handling.
Q. Quite right, it does say:
"If there is any media interest, I would suggest our
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
24 July 2024
Scheme set up to address individual cases."
The author of that being Mr Callard.
Was that clearly communicated to you when you
assumed ministerial responsibility that month?
Not in those words, no. Not in those words. In fact,
I don't ever recall being told that there were attempts
to -- being made to derail the Mediation Scheme.
I wasn't informed of that. I was informed that there
was -- I think that term was almost used in an ongoing
to campaign against Horizon, in spite of the fact that
two or three years of independent scrutiny had found
there to be no systemic problems. That was
communicated, yes.
That was communicated to you.
When you succeeded Baroness Neville-Rolfe, did she
brief you informally, as you did your successor?
No, I don't think she did. No.
So, consequently, it seems, that the suspicions that she
harboured about the Post Office's reliability or
veracity over Horizon got lost on the handover to you
and you were starting from scratch?
I'm afraid so. I'm afraid so.
You were, of course, depend upon your officials and
dependent upon ShEx?
Yes, I was.
98
usual approach of referring any enquiries to Post
Office. I would not suggest we comment on legal action,
but welcome thoughts from Press Office."
I think that's probably why on that occasion I was
seeking guidance from the BEIS Press Office because I --
you're quite right, I wouldn't normally, on matters of
substance, seek guidance from the Press office.
I now want to move on to what you might have done
differently had you been properly apprised in a timely
fashion about material issues. No need to get it up on
screen, but your paragraph 74 begins:
"I should have been briefed on the scope and purpose
of Tim Parker's review and especially the conclusions as
set out in the report of 8 February 2016 by Jonathan
Swift, [Queen's Counsel].”
I then omit words, and you refer to Project Zebra of
June 2014, that you should have been told about, and
further work by Deloitte, Project Bramble, again, you
should have been told about. Then you say this:
"If I had known about these reports, we might have
been able to put pressure on POL to implement the
recommendations of the Swift Report, rather than just
commission yet more reports that served to delay the day
of reckoning for the [Post Office Limited]."
Had you been properly briefed in a timely fashion
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
and seen the writing on the wall, might you have gone
further at that stage than simply requiring the Post
Office to implement the Swift recommendations?
That's a very, very good question, and I am not sure
what -- well, I was going to say I'm not quite sure what
more I could have done at that point but, if I'd been
armed with all the knowledge that is contained within
the reports that you mentioned just now, then I suppose
what I should have done would be to go to my Secretary
of State, first of all, and the Permanent Secretary, and
say that we've got a massive problem here with the
leadership of the Post Office, and corners within the
Post Office who are behaving possibly illegally,
certainly unethically, in a substantial way.
I suppose I should have done that, had I had all
that information, as well as -- I think the
recommendations of the Swift Report were very sound and
that should have been done, but you are right in,
I think, what's behind your question: would that have
been enough based on what I would have then known?
Probably not.
But, basically, Government could have been made aware
that the Post Office was staring disaster in the face,
and that the litigation was going to be a ruinous,
degrading failure?
101
what I meant was that the Post Office, rather than
continuing to commission yet more reports, should
actually face up to what's in front of them and deal
with it yesterday.
Thank you. My final issue is a document that has been
provided by Ms Vennells, and it's PVEN00000503. This is
an exchange of messages from 2017, when you raise the
case of a subpostmaster directly with Paula Vennells,
and you were later told by Ms Vennells that she had been
the postmaster audited, which led to a loss being
identified of £130,000, and Ms Vennells told you that
the subpostmaster was vociferous and has been sharing
various and varying accounts of what has happened.
We can pick it up there where you contact her over
the weekend, because you're concerned about the Post
Office and the postmaster, and then can we go to the
next page, please, and you're on the matter, you agree
to speak, and then you give the details of the Post
Office, it's Moresby, in Cumbria.
Then can we go down to:
"Hi Margot.
"We briefed Trudy Harrison in June as to exactly
what was happening [I omit words].
"However, the postmaster was suspended in May as
an audit showed she was missing over £130,000. That
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
o>
24 July 2024
Yes, I think you put that very well.
Could I just pick up one sentence in that paragraph,
paragraph 74, where you say:
"If I had known about these reports, we might have
been able to put pressure [et cetera, et cetera] rather
than just commission, [that is the Post Office] yet more
reports that served to delay the day of reckoning for
the Post Office.”
You see it might be said by some Board members that
they were being open and commissioning reports to get at
the truth but from your assay of the issue, having
looked at it now and being fully briefed on the matter,
it looked like they were commissioning reports in
accordance with a policy of obfuscation and delay,
putting off the evil day, covering the reports in
privilege and failing to detect or disclose the red
flags within them. Is that what you mean when you say,
"Rather than just commission yet more reports that
served to delay the day of reckoning"?
Yes, I think you put that extremely well. Yes, exactly
what I think, yes. Because I was anxious, when you
first read that quote out, that it looked as if I was
saying that we should be -- the Government should be
commissioning more reports or not just commissioning
more, because we hadn't commissioned any reports. But
102
possibly explains why she was putting in her own money.
She has since lodged a request to join the ... Group
Litigation -- not unusual in this kind of situation.
“I don't want to put more details into a text but
I am happy to explain.
"The location has been supported by a temporary post
Office ...
"The postmaster is vociferous and has been sharing
various and varying accounts of what has happened.”
Then referring to Trudy, who I think is the local MP
because it concerns her constituent.
From the papers that the Inquiry has seen, the Post
Office in general used dismissive language like this to
denigrate and discredit subpostmasters who suffered
losses. Did you experience this in any other settings
when you were liaising with the Post Office, that there
was a generally dismissive and highly robust approach
taken to subpostmasters who were complaining about
Horizon?
I would say that there was definitely an assumption on
the part of the Board members of the Post Office that
the postmasters were in the wrong. But there was --
I mean, there was nothing wrong with Horizon. We've
covered all of that. But you asked about the sort of
demeanour and attitude towards the Post Office -- the
104
(26) Pages 101 - 104
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
postmasters. I think that they sadly -- tragically, the
Post Office Board did regard them as criminal at best,
incompetent at worst, yes, and that was the assumption.
And, as I mentioned earlier, they were extraordinarily
good at seeing themselves as the victim.
You know, this campaign and -- it's not just
a campaign, it was an “orchestrated campaign", as if to
say there was absolutely legitimacy to this campaign
whatsoever. That sort of thing. The language would be
based on an assumption that postmasters were in general
guilty of something. It might be fraud, it might be
theft, it might be joining an illegitimate campaign to
undermine something that the Post Office was doing, like
putting the Mediation Scheme in place.
Yes, the postmasters were always in the wrong in any
conversation you had with representatives of the Post
Office.
MRHENRY: Well, those are my questions for you, Ms James.
Thank you so much.
THE WITNESS: = Thank you very much.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Stein?
Questioned by MR STEIN
MR STEIN: Sir, I do have questions that are less than five
minutes but I note the time is 1.35.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Then I will give you to 1.40 since you
105
families who have been subject to such a terribly
miscarriage of justice. Later on in your evidence, you
spoke about the Post Office victims -- you said that at
just gone 12.00 today -- the victims of the Post Office.
Now, at the Inquiry today, there is Terry and Cindy
Seeney. Terry was the subpostmaster at the Bere Regis
branch of the Post Office in the Dorset. He held that
post from February 2002 to July 2006. Now, that's well
before your time in your dealings with the Post Office.
What happened in his Post Office branch, though, is
perhaps important on this question of the victims and
who have been affected. He had the usual litany of
shortfalls that he had to account for, and he had to pay
on a regular basis out of their own funds. He employed
his wife within the branch. What happened was that,
when trying to reconcile the amounts on any given week,
he would spend evenings and into the late night in the
post office branches. They find it funny now, they
certainly didn't find it at the time: Cindy actually
thought he was having an affair because he was spending
so much time working at the Post Office branch.
At the end of days, it got to the point whereby he,
Terry Seeney was searching the bags of the people he
employed within the branch. So I go back to your
evidence where you speak about the Post Office victims,
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
24 July 2024
will be less than five minutes. Off you go.
MR STEIN: Thank you, sir.
Ms James, you once heard questions very early on
from Ms Price in relation to when you first came in to
deal with matters concerning the Post Office, and you
were referring to the May 2015 manifesto pledge which
was to retain the Post Office for all of its purposes,
including the social purposes that it serves; do you
recall giving that evidence?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You, like all of us, no doubt understand that the people
that operated these branches, the Post Office branches,
also felt that what they were doing was operating the
branch for purposes of supporting their own families,
but also an important place within the local community;
do you agree with that?
A. agree strongly with that.
Q. Because the post of a subpostmaster or a subpostmistress
is a prestigious one in the local community. It has
meaning socially; do you accept that?
A. I totally endorse that.
Q. You've discussed in your statement, paragraph 2 --
I don't need to take you to it because I can simply
refer to it -- you wish to express your deepest sympathy
for all subpostmasters and subpostmistresses and their
106
and in the excellent questions you have been asked by
Ms Price, and also the great questions being asked by my
learned friend Mr Henry, you have also considered the
question of the failures in governance by Government.
Do you agree the victims of both the Post Office,
Fujitsu and Government failures, those victims include
not just the subpostmasters, subpostmistresses but the
partners, the children, the wider family effects?
Could you say yes or no to that, so we have a record
here?
A. I most certainly agree with you and I would add --
I don't know whether you include the staff in branches,
as well as family members. Yes, and a whole network,
I would imagine, of family, friends. Your statement did
touch on some of the consequences that are not
automatically visible to people from this tragedy. When
you mention the length of time Mr Seeney was spending in
the Post Office let his wife to doubt him, it can
have -- and I'm sure has had -- so many effects on
people's friendship groups and, you know, their esteem
within the community. You didn't mention that, that's
people's personal reputations.
All of this has obviously been widely commented on
and I know, and I hope, it's well understood but I agree
with what is behind your question.
108
(27) Pages 105 - 108
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
MR STEIN: Thank you, Ms James. One last point before
I finish just about within the time limit set by the
Chair.
Those individuals, the partners, the family members,
do you agree they are no less deserving of recompense
and redress and compensation?
A. I do agree that they are deserving. Of course, yes,
1 do. Most certainly. I mean, that obviously --
MR STEIN: Thank you.
A. -- is not for me to judge but that is my opinion, yes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. Thank you very much.
Is that it, Ms Price?
MS PRICE: Yes, sir. It is.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Ms James, for giving
evidence today in circumstances where you are recovering
from an illness. You've been extremely helpful to the
Inquiry in facilitating our work, both in providing your
evidence and in doing so in a manner which you would
have preferred not to do. So thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: = Thank you very much.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: We'll resume again at 9.45 tomorrow.
MS PRICE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
(1.42 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 9.45 am the following day)
109
INDEX
MARGOT CATHLEEN JAMES (affirmed) .....
Questioned by MS PRICE .....
Questioned by MR HENRY ...
Questioned by MR STEIN ..
110
24 July 2024
97
105
(28) Pages 109 - 110
MR HENRY: [2]
97/18 105/18
MR STEIN: [4]
105/23 106/2 109/1
109/9
MS PRICE: [29] 1/3
1/5 1/8 1/15 40/10
46/10 46/13 46/16
46/20 46/23 47/1
66/12 66/20 67/1
67/13 67/16 67/21
67/23 68/6 85/22 86/6
86/11 86/13 86/15
93/20 97/13 97/16
109/13 109/22
SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
[34] 1/4 1/7 1/9 112
39/23 40/8 46/12
46/15 46/22 46/25
64/24 65/19 65/23
66/1 66/8 66/10 66/16
66/23 67/5 67/14
67/17 67/22 68/4 86/5
86/7 86/12 86/14 93/3
97/15 105/21 105/25
109/11 109/14 109/21
THE WITNESS: [3]
1/11 105/20 109/20
‘franchisees’ [1]
38/10
“full [1] 45/15
‘Horizon’ [1] 38/11
‘operational [1]
59/13
"Project [1] 47/18
"we're [1] 59/12
1
1 September [2]
51/11 52/3
1.15 [2] 68/3 86/9
1.30 [2] 67/9 86/8
4.35 [4] 105/24
1.40 [1] 105/25
1.42 [1] 109/23
10 [5] 15/5 20/8 26/3
27/10 27/15
10.05 [1] 1/2
100 [1] 44/13
44 [2] 5/11 40/12
11.24 [4] 46/17
11.25 [1] 46/13
11.35 [4] 46/14
11.36 [4] 46/19
12 [3] 45/4 45/5 66/5
12 October [1] 31/13
12.00 [4] 107/4
12.14 [4] 67/18
12.25 [3] 67/16 67/20
86/5
13 [4] 34/25 48/25
79/4 80/23
13 May [4] 4/2
130,000 [2] 103/11
103/25
14 [2] 5/11 34/24
15 [5] 6/5 6/7 51/10
67/25 68/11
15 minutes [1] 67/3
16 [1] 6/25
17 July [2] 4/2 4/4
18 [2] 4/17 58/17
18 months [2] 58/13
77/4
1985 [1] 3/4
1999 [1] 3/10
27 [2] 21/6 27/19
28 [2] 1/23 1/25
29 [4] 15/4
29 July [2] 37/22
45/8
3
3,000 [1] 6/16
30 [1] 33/16
30 August [1] 52/1
34 January [1] 59/10
31 July [3] 82/12
84/2 97/21
35 [2] 40/11 43/14
37 [1] 75/15
38 [1] 45/3
2
4
2.00 [1] 67/9
20 [5] 8/7 8/8 36/7
37/12 76/14
20 December [2]
76/21 77/12
20 January [2] 58/19
99/4
200 [1] 38/9
2000 [1] 8/18
2002 [2] 3/14 107/8
2003 [1] 3/16
2006 [1] 107/8
2010 [1] 3/21
2011 [1] 8/18
2012 [4] 35/5
2013 [2] 35/9 89/19
2014 [1] 100/17
2015 [5] 4/2 7/15
35/9 36/9 106/6
2016 [18] 4/2 4/4
31/13 32/15 33/9
33/20 37/22 47/3
51/11 52/1 56/9 66/14
72/18 82/12 84/2
86/19 97/21 100/14
2017 [18] 56/9 58/19
58/20 59/10 60/7
60/14 63/2 64/18
64/21 65/7 71/11
72/19 74/12 76/21
77/12 87/21 99/4
103/7
2018 [2] 4/4 4/17
2019 [2] 3/23 4/17
2024 [2] 1/1 1/23
21 [2] 8/24 87/23
22 [2] 56/22 69/8
23 [4] 8/7 12/4 12/8
78/4
23 August [1] 86/19
24 July 2024 [1] 1/1
25 [2] 17/6 89/21
26 [5] 18/8 20/23
25/22 93/23 93/24
26 January [1] 58/20
26 June [1] 1/23
4 August [3] 38/3
47/3 49/2
40 [2] 48/24 83/2
42 [1] 80/22
44 [1] 89/1
45 [1] 70/1
49 [2] 51/9 68/10
5
50,000 [4] 31/19
51 [1] 56/16
52 [1] 56/16
56 [2] 58/17 99/3
57 [2] 59/3 99/8
58 [1] 59/9
6
61 [1] 56/16
65 [1] 64/15
65,000 [1] 50/18
66 [1] 64/16
67 [1] 64/17
68 [1] 76/22
70 [1] 78/3
71 [1] 91/14
74 [3] 89/20 100/11
102/3
79 [4] 93/22
8
8 February [1]
100/14
81 [1] 96/10
9
9 January [2] 4/4
417
9.45 [4] 109/21
9.45 am [1] 109/24
91 [1] 36/1
99 per cent [1] 82/20
A
abandoned [1] 85/8
ability [2] 5/19 9/8
able [6] 2/25 3/1 10/4
51/8 100/21 102/5
about [99] 2/14 10/3
10/24 11/1 11/5 11/7
12/18 12/18 14/12
20/21 23/6 23/8 25/10)
29/6 30/3 32/16 32/21
33/13 34/17 35/4
35/13 37/15 37/24
42/9 43/21 44/11
45/23 48/1 49/11
49/14 49/16 49/19
49/22 50/8 54/14
54/20 54/23 55/1 55/6
57/3 57/8 57/15 58/2
58/3 58/16 59/4 61/19)
62/14 62/17 64/5
65/20 67/6 68/3 68/8
68/19 68/19 69/22
72/15 72/21 72/25
73/14 74/4 74/23
75/12 75/20 75/23
76/6 76/14 78/12
78/25 79/5 80/9 81/24,
82/2 84/14 84/22 85/1
86/8 90/5 91/5 91/16
92/18 92/22 94/11
94/18 94/24 98/19
99/16 100/10 100/17
100/19 100/20 102/4
103/15 104/18 104/24}
107/3 107/25 109/2
above [4] 6/2 31/8
45/14 84/10
abrupt [1] 32/24
absence [3] 19/11
25/5 57/10
absent [1] 88/4
absolute [2] 81/10
94/20
absolutely [3] 8/3
99/22 105/8
absorb [1] 37/1
absorbing [1] 53/18
accept [6] 59/4 60/15
60/18 63/18 99/12
106/20
acceptable [2] 33/5
96/24
accepted [1] 9/6
accepting [1] 87/19
access [5] 6/18
10/23 40/1 43/22 90/1
accompanied [1]
69/20
accordance [1]
102/14
account [4] 6/12
63/20 87/14 107/13
accountability [3]
63/25 95/15 95/20
accountable [2] 8/21
95/12
accounting [6] 17/8
29/3 35/7 35/23 49/8
95/17
accounts [3] 69/1
103/13 104/9
accuracy [1] 18/19
accusations [1]
38/12
achieved [1] 9/14
achievement [1]
94/21
acknowledge [2]
50/25 89/22
across [5] 6/4 36/24
49/6 50/22 94/19
act [7] 8/18 8/18 10/8
10/9 95/9 95/11 96/7
acted [5] 3/14 24/9
88/3 88/6 88/21
acting [8] 10/2 15/8
15/9 15/14 16/5 42/4
59/24 64/11
action [9] 19/14 21/4
33/14 34/11 35/1 55/7I
59/2 99/11 100/2
actions [4] 44/1
44/24 83/15 88/13
active [1] 65/4
actively [3] 29/15
29/21 53/21
activities [2] 17/8
95/16
acts [1] 95/7
actual [1] 65/12
actually [15] 10/18
26/10 26/17 32/19
33/4 40/4 48/7 52/23
67/6 70/12 75/8 77/18
92/16 103/3 107/19
add [3] 64/7 82/5
108/11
added [2] 27/23
29/11
adding [1] 25/14
addition [4] 5/14
17/23 72/6 79/18
additional [4] 33/3
37/3 52/6 82/18
address [2] 76/21
98/1
addressed [6] 2/16
47/14 51/23 83/3 83/4)
87/24
addresses [1] 35/18
adds [1] 82/9
adequate [4] 10/24
44/11 61/15 96/22
adequately [1] 11/10
adjourned [1] 109/24
adjudicate [1] 41/11
advance [1] 51/13
advanced [1] 21/3
advertising [1] 3/16
advice [61] 16/11
(29) MR HENRY: - advice
A
advice... [60] 16/23
18/10 18/12 18/13
18/16 18/18 18/21
18/23 19/1 19/3 19/5
19/7 19/7 19/11 19/13)
19/14 19/19 19/21
19/24 20/1 20/3 20/10)
20/11 20/18 20/20
21/12 21/13 25/25
26/17 27/13 28/12
34/12 36/4 37/1 37/21
38/20 39/14 40/13
44/2 44/22 52/8 52/15)
52/19 52/25 53/3
53/11 53/17 54/9
54/15 56/20 59/4 59/4
59/11 61/25 80/24
81/22 99/12 99/13
99/20 99/22
advised [2] 14/9 40/2
Adviser [2] 39/24
39/25
Advisers [2] 40/1
40/6
advising [2] 19/13
82/2
affair [1] 107/20
affairs [9] 5/11 6/5
6/8 7/2 26/24 27/3
27/5 50/7 69/16
affected [3] 33/4
50/17 107/12
affecting [2] 11/8
15/24
affirmed [2] 1/13
110/2
afraid [6] 37/17 69/13)
87/18 92/8 98/22
98/22
afresh [1] 24/24
after [15] 4/13 25/24
28/5 28/11 49/20
49/20 59/8 67/2 67/3
69/23 71/9 78/5 86/3
92/19 99/13
again [8] 27/19 43/14
54/23 87/17 90/12
99/1 100/18 109/21
against [11] 20/15
31/23 34/22 38/8
42/12 43/3 73/20 88/9)
88/24 97/23 98/10
agency [1] 3/16
agenda [7] 18/25
19/4 51/21 70/5 70/9
71/3 94/11
agendas [2] 71/19
94/12
agent [5] 15/14 16/6
95/7 95/9 95/12
agents [1] 38/12
ago [3] 55/22 81/9
82/19
agree [29] 7/8 9/15
10/12 10/22 14/15
14/22 30/22 42/16
42/17 42/24 43/2
53/20 55/15 55/20
55/20 60/24 85/9 95/4
95/10 95/19 95/22
103/17 106/16 106/17,
108/5 108/11 108/24
109/5 109/7
agreeable [3] 26/2
27/10 27/15
agreed [12] 6/14 24/1
24/12 25/7 28/15
52/13 52/24 53/3 53/9
54/25 58/15 61/25
agreeing [1] 54/3
agreement [3] 53/14
55/2 59/7
ahead [5] 1/20 47/13
52/2 56/8 57/12
aims [1] 9/12
Alarmed [1] 83/24
alarming [1] 83/24
alas [1] 58/10
albeit [1] 12/6
alive [2] 41/7 58/13
all [59] 5/13 6/21
15/24 18/10 18/14
20/8 20/11 22/10
24/23 24/23 25/1
25/19 29/1 30/15
30/23 32/21 39/25
41/12 41/12 44/19
45/21 46/15 50/22
53/13 61/20 62/4 62/8
63/9 64/17 64/25 65/5)
65/23 66/1 66/8 66/12
67/12 70/2 71/1 72/8
74/24 76/5 76/16 80/8
82/15 83/24 86/2 92/7
92/18 93/11 97/13
101/7 101/10 101/15
104/24 106/7 106/11
106/25 108/23 109/11
allaying [1] 78/17
allegations [12]
12/23 13/1 13/17
13/18 13/21 14/12
14/13 14/15 14/16
14/21 60/16 62/15
alleged [4] 47/19
51/2 78/12 97/24
alleging [1] 73/18
allocated [1] 97/21
allow [1] 61/18
allowance [1] 44/5
allowed [1] 89/11
allowing [1] 76/3
allows [1] 32/4
almost [2] 66/9 98/9
alone [1] 55/2
already [6] 6/1 33/9
45/21 56/3 82/14
95/20
also [18] 5/3 12/1
15/25 17/6 32/9 34/9
35/16 39/3 41/9 54/11
60/5 61/17 80/6 86/20
106/13 106/15 108/2
108/3
alter [1] 30/24
altered [1] 60/13
although [8] 2/25
8/11 50/1 57/22 71/15
79/13 96/5 97/5
always [7] 9/22 25/11
29/23 93/18 95/24
95/25 105/15
am [12] 1/2 2/22 3/1
5/5 23/8 31/25 46/17
46/19 82/19 101/4
104/5 109/24
ambitious [1] 85/23
amend [2] 25/12
25/20
among [1] 65/15
amount [4] 6/2 51/2
76/8 76/18
amounts [1] 107/16
amplified [1] 80/6
analyse [1] 20/25
analysis [2] 17/25
21/12
annoying [1] 32/20
another [11] 14/1
26/3 27/10 27/15
39/16 47/7 69/20
80/19 86/1 97/4 97/5
answer [9] 5/21 13/5
13/7 26/22 26/25 33/6}
66/15 74/15 81/16
answered [2] 18/4
95/24
answering [1] 32/19
answers [4] 9/20
9/22 27/2 75/6
anticipating [1]
66/24
anxious [1] 102/21
any [55] 5/25 9/4
11/4 11/9 14/3 19/22
23/19 24/3 30/7 30/12
30/22 32/8 36/10
36/15 37/3 37/15
38/22 39/19 39/24
40/19 41/25 43/21
43/25 44/2 44/2 45/2
49/11 51/1 52/21 54/5
55/13 58/24 58/25
64/2 71/21 72/24
74/13 76/9 81/5 81/5
81/24 92/1 92/8 92/9
92/13 92/21 92/24
93/16 99/11 99/25
100/1 102/25 104/15
105/15 107/16
anybody [3] 61/11
61/11 65/16
anyone [7] 29/8
61/13 69/12 73/3 73/6
73/17 78/25
anything [6] 32/12
32/13 41/2 54/22 64/5)
75/9
anyway [2] 30/18
84/22
Apart [4] 7/4
apologise [2] 2/21
57/17
Appeal [1] 88/2
appear [1] 75/3
appears [4] 31/11
48/9 52/1 62/21
applying [1] 14/4
appointment [1]
33/17
appreciation [1] 41/9
apprised [1] 100/9
approach [9] 11/13
38/23 39/8 42/10 44/8)
55/3 58/25 100/1
104/17
approaching [1]
17/16
appropriate [5] 11/6
11/24 61/14 69/9
85/16
appropriately [2]
21/19 60/19
approval [1] 24/17
approve [3] 25/4 25/6
25/7
approved [2] 22/1
24/14
approximately [3]
28/5 81/9 82/19
approximation [1]
66/3
April [1] 35/9
Arbuthnot's [1]
91/20
are [59] 2/7 2/9 2/16
2/24 5/3 10/2 10/9
11/4 11/8 11/21 18/18}
19/10 19/20 20/17
27/22 34/9 36/3 36/3
36/11 38/10 41/3 41/5)
41/10 41/14 43/13
44/18 47/14 53/15
53/17 56/10 64/3 66/1
66/24 77/16 82/3 83/3)
83/11 83/16 83/17
84/14 87/24 94/1 94/1
94/6 94/13 95/16 96/5)
96/6 96/11 97/2 97/13)
101/13 101/18 105/18
105/23 108/15 109/5
109/7 109/15
area [3] 9/24 18/5
53/21
areas [18] 5/1 5/10
5/12 5/15 5/25 6/24
6/24 7/13 7/17 7/18
7/24 7/24 15/23 16/18}
18/4 18/10 34/8 36/25}
aren't [2] 40/15 63/24
arising [1] 14/21
arm's [5] 9/7 9/16
11/13 83/20 84/24
arm's-length [3]
11/13 83/20 84/24
armed [1] 101/7
arms [2] 85/2 85/10
arms-length [2] 85/2
85/10
around [6] 17/16
43/22 67/25 82/12
91/3 91/16
arrange [1] 22/7
as [151]
aside [1] 12/12
ask [27] 1/17 15/9
25/16 27/4 36/19
37/15 42/9 46/1 48/11
49/11 49/18 49/23
64/24 67/5 70/8 71/3
72/15 74/21 74/22
80/2 86/7 86/7 90/7
91/22 92/4 92/7 92/8
asked [27] 28/19
37/5 39/7 40/5 45/20
46/4 49/13 49/20
49/24 50/8 51/5 57/19)
68/18 72/20 73/9
74/13 74/19 80/9
89/23 90/7 90/10
90/11 90/12 90/20
104/24 108/1 108/2
asking [7] 2/14 37/7
45/16 45/18 59/6 63/2)
75/5
aspect [6] 2/14 18/23
28/15 29/9 92/25
93/12
aspects [3] 16/4 33/2
93/16
assay [1] 102/11
assessment [1] 61/3
asset [4] 10/11 43/1
43/3 43/4
assets [1] 3/18
assigned [1] 12/9
[2] 1/19 51/22
ance [1] 16/14
Assistant [1] 4/2
assisted [2] 16/9
16/16
assists [1] 66/12
associated [2] 15/16
83/3
association [1] 79/11
assume [2] 54/8 86/9
assumed [5] 89/7
89/8 92/19 93/13 98/4
(30) advice... - assumed
A
assumption [4]
74/24 104/20 105/3
105/10
astonishment [1]
81/10
at [163]
attach [1] 32/18
attached [1] 22/10
attempts [2] 97/25
98/6
attend [5] 57/8 69/12
69/13 70/11 70/20
attended [4] 69/10
69/14 70/15 95/23
attending [3] 1/6
1/18 70/16
attention [5] 6/2
21/17 23/15 77/17
93/8
attest [1] 2/5
attitude [1] 104/25
audit [1] 103/25
audited [1] 103/10
August [5] 38/3 47/3
49/2 52/1 86/19
author [1] 98/2
automatic [1] 24/19
automatically [2]
94/9 108/16
available [2] 6/23
95/25
aware [21] 14/5 14/6
18/6 26/16 26/20
33/23 41/5 53/23 76/5)
76/11 76/15 77/6
81/19 83/1 83/17 87/7
87/10 88/22 89/3 97/2
101/22
B
back [16] 10/8 25/15
30/25 31/16 46/14
62/17 63/9 63/23
75/16 80/11 84/22
87/17 89/18 90/25
97/19 107/24
background [4] 3/3
8/9 80/16 86/22
bad [2] 59/25 89/7
bags [1] 107/23
Bank [1] 70/21
banking [2] 6/20 6/22
bar [1] 83/6
Baroness [1] 98/15
base [1] 52/5
based [5] 13/14 24/1
24/12 101/20 105/10
basically [2] 91/1
101/22
basis [8] 11/21 18/16
32/5 37/10 64/4 82/24
85/11 107/14
be [165]
beaks [1] 67/10
became [7] 4/10
25/25 26/20 28/1
33/23 48/22 78/5
because [47] 17/15
17/18 24/18 30/14
36/24 38/14 39/12
40/24 41/24 42/10
44/14 46/5 48/15 53/2
54/8 55/16 57/6 57/11
58/5 60/21 61/15
63/22 71/15 71/16
72/5 74/4 74/17 75/1
76/11 80/14 82/2 83/6
84/8 84/14 84/18
87/16 89/7 94/6 99/21
100/5 102/21 102/25
103/15 104/11 106/18)
106/23 107/20
become [4] 26/16
85/13 88/19 91/18
becomes [2] 83/20
85/10
becoming [3] 3/11
28/3 57/14
been [126]
before [9] 22/19 25/1
51/5 52/21 80/13
82/17 92/25 107/9
109/1
began [1] 27/25
begin [1] 68/20
beginning [1] 85/15
begins [1] 100/11
begun [1] 47/23
behalf [12] 1/18 9/11
15/15 21/11 21/20
22/17 22/18 23/3 23/4
35/25 65/13 87/8
behaving [4] 60/21
61/20 76/1 101/13
behaviour [1] 61/17
behind [3] 17/24
101/19 108/25
being [47] 2/25 4/20
6/1 12/22 12/22 14/10
14/21 14/22 20/20
20/20 26/17 27/8 28/4
28/19 28/22 28/23
29/7 29/12 29/13
36/24 37/12 43/5
43/16 43/21 47/8
51/18 56/23 59/17
60/5 62/14 62/18
62/22 64/18 69/5
75/22 77/5 79/23
89/10 89/17 93/6 98/2
98/6 98/7 102/10
102/12 103/10 108/2
BEIS [20] 5/7 6/11
17/1 17/8 24/9 26/9
28/10 40/20 59/8
59/20 62/6 78/25
92/17 95/8 95/16
95/17 95/18 95/25
99/14 100/5
belatedly [1] 89/6
beleaguered [1]
50/23
belief [1] 2/8
believe [4] 14/5 14/5
49/2 79/18
below [2] 34/10
76/18
beneath [1] 84/10
benefit [6] 40/3 44/4
77/23 90/23 96/17
96/18
Bere [1] 107/6
best [16] 2/8 10/1
41/10 45/14 52/11
52/14 52/20 53/2 53/4
53/10 54/3 55/4 59/25
63/19 74/19 105/2
better [2] 60/1 96/18
between [12] 8/5
9/23 11/3 12/6 15/6
15/10 17/1 22/15
63/13 64/1 93/4 95/20
beyond [2] 7/6 54/16
big [2] 23/12 96/25
biggest [1] 51/7
bit [10] 10/6 25/13
26/15 28/23 32/24
33/7 84/16 90/16
90/17 97/9
bits [1] 30/17
blanket [1] 29/13
blindsided [1] 64/3
blur [1] 10/5
blurred [4] 9/25
63/14 63/15 64/1
blurring [1] 63/24
blurry [1] 12/6
board [49] 4/22 6/12
8/22 10/2 10/16 12/2
17/19 17/23 29/17
45/19 49/24 50/2 50/3
50/5 68/8 68/17 69/7
69/9 69/14 69/20
69/22 70/11 70/16
70/21 72/3 72/6 72/8
72/13 72/18 73/5 73/7,
73/15 73/17 73/18
73/21 73/22 74/14
75/14 75/17 77/7 78/1
81/12 81/14 84/20
84/21 94/16 102/9
104/21 105/2
Board's [1] 76/17
bodies [3] 5/13 16/1
16/2
body [3] 9/16 32/11
82/9
body's [1] 11/13
bold [3] 36/12 44/23
45/24
bona [1] 75/2
bono [1] 4/25
both [14] 10/16 11/7
11/17 23/17 23/17
26/11 29/16 35/9 42/4
42/13 74/20 83/9
108/5 109/17
bothersome [1] 58/5
bottom [8] 31/15
36/12 43/15 44/23
45/5 68/12 89/22
93/24
bound [1] 18/12
box [3] 16/16 63/16
88/7
boxes [1] 83/7
brackets [1] 19/10
Bramble [2] 81/23
100/18
branch [6] 106/14
107/7 107/10 107/15
107/21 107/24
branches [12] 6/16
6/16 6/23 7/12 7/24
8/1 12/21 13/11
106/12 106/12 107/18
108/12
breadth [3] 5/18 5/24
18/14
break [6] 46/11 46/18
66/22 67/7 67/19 86/2
brief [24] 5/8 5/25 6/5)
6/11 6/21 7/2 19/19
24/3 24/10 26/8 26/24
27/3 27/5 34/3 43/4
47/8 48/6 55/23 71/2
92/18 92/25 93/16
96/4 98/16
briefed [18] 11/10
12/19 13/4 13/6 13/21
36/24 43/5 49/22
51/13 51/19 52/10
58/6 58/9 92/10
100/12 100/25 102/12)
103/22
briefing [58] 13/16
17/2 23/20 23/20
33/18 36/13 36/15
38/3 39/1 39/2 39/3
40/16 43/19 43/20
44/4 44/10 44/21
44/25 45/2 45/7 45/13
45/19 45/24 46/1 47/2
AT7IT 47124 48/11
48/12 48/19 48/21
49/2 49/3 52/2 52/2
52/16 53/12 54/13
55/21 55/24 56/2
56/13 56/19 57/9
57/25 58/9 63/9 79/3
79/25 80/12 80/13
80/15 81/20 90/5 92/1
92/17 93/9 99/17
briefing’ [1] 45/15
briefings [8] 14/8
14/8 20/20 48/15
57/13 57/19 63/1
64/14
briefly [1] 63/8
briefs [2] 57/21 71/18
bring [1] 68/18
British [1] 70/21
broad [3] 5/9 6/9 61/6
broadly [2] 16/12
21/4
brought [7] 76/3
TTIN7 87/17 88/24
89/3 89/18 96/24
budgetary [1] 17/12
budgeted [1] 85/24
budgeting [1] 12/13
budgets [1] 17/18
bugs [1] 47/21
build [1] 45/20
bullet [3] 52/9 54/21
81/25
bullet 4 [1] 54/21
bundle [1] 21/8
business [9] 4/6 4/7
4/13 9/5 10/4 15/23
32/3 70/21 88/12
businesses [4] 5/15
6/22 15/24 34/18
busy [1] 17/15
but [131]
c
call [3] 1/5 71/20
87/13
Callard [4] 38/2 38/2
47/5 98/2
came [13] 19/2 22/20
28/24 45/22 50/22
59/18 73/21 76/1
76/14 81/10 91/7 99/2
106/4
camp [2] 75/3 75/22
campaign [8] 91/21
97/23 98/10 105/6
105/7 105/7 105/8
105/12
campaigning [2]
34/21 75/12
campaigns [1] 22/24
can [62] 1/3 1/5 1/8
4/9 1/10 1/11 1/15 2/5}
9/17 9/19 9/24 10/7
15/9 16/7 20/6 23/8
26/23 30/3 31/13
31/15 32/9 36/21 38/1
39/12 41/8 43/9 46/20}
46/22 48/1 48/14 53/7
53/13 54/13 56/6 58/1
61/9 62/9 63/23 64/2
64/22 64/23 64/24
66/3 66/23 70/7 71/8
71/14 77/14 80/21
86/7 87/25 88/17 89/1
(31) assumption - can
Cc
can... [9] 91/12 94/20
96/7 96/24 103/14
103/16 103/20 106/23
108/18
can't [9] 24/8 28/6
48/3 69/13 69/16 74/3)
74/4 74/16 79/2
cannot [1] 35/23
cap [2] 76/8 76/17
capable [4] 49/8
50/14 51/2 75/20
capture [1] 92/24
career [2] 3/3 19/6
careful [1] 41/1
carry [2] 25/1 68/4
Cartwright [1] 76/4
case [21] 7/11 9/20
27/1 42/7 42/8 43/9
43/13 55/16 55/17
64/12 65/16 67/8
70/19 76/12 85/9
85/18 85/25 93/3
93/18 93/19 103/8
cases [15] 18/17
29/24 35/17 35/20
35/21 36/6 36/7 36/10
37/12 37/13 41/3
41/14 47/20 76/14
98/1
cast [1] 83/5
casts [1] 85/10
catch [1] 93/7
category [3] 23/1
37/14 48/20
CATHLEEN [3] 1/13
1/16 110/2
caught [1] 29/12
cause [3] 9/17 35/7
75/11
caused [2] 34/18
37/10
causing [4] 29/4 49/8
50/14 51/2
caveat [1] 32/20
CCRC [2] 36/9 37/18
CCRC's [1] 36/11
cent [2] 44/13 82/20
central [2] 6/14 6/21
centre [1] 83/19
CEO [17] 49/25 50/5
54/6 56/1 68/17 69/3
69/7 69/11 69/14
69/17 69/19 72/1 72/5
72/16 73/15 73/17
74/14
certain [1] 80/21
certainly [26] 8/3
11/6 11/11 13/15 15/2)
28/17 30/19 44/13
51/19 57/24 60/22
64/11 70/18 71/6 73/8
74/11 78/2 87/5 88/10
88/18 88/20 91/4
101/14 107/19 108/11
109/8
cetera [4] 17/25
81/23 102/5 102/5
CFO [7] 50/1 50/5
69/11 69/15 69/19
72/2 72/3
chair [10] 3/14 4/20
76/20 77/5 80/5 83/10)
84/6 84/12 84/19
109/3
Chairman [2] 77/18
81/11
challenge [32] 11/12
11/21 11/23 17/9
17/11 17/18 17/21
18/1 18/3 18/17 19/12
19/19 19/23 20/1 20/4
20/10 20/15 26/5
26/14 26/14 26/20
27/3 63/23 69/8 75/16
75/18 75/19 75/24
75/24 76/5 76/7 89/2
challenged [2] 20/18
75/14
challenges [2] 91/24
94/3
challenging [3] 12/1
17/7 37/19
chance [1] 38/13
Chancellor [1] 20/12
change [13] 3/11 5/1
24/16 25/2 25/3 25/5
25/15 25/18 62/8 72/9
92/13 95/10 96/22
changed [2] 21/24
24/5
changes [2] 30/10
31/1
character [1] 18/14
charged [1] 89/13
chat [3] 66/16 67/11
87/6
check [1] 67/5
checked [1] 22/5
checking [1] 22/22
Chief [3] 3/5 68/8
80/5
children [1] 108/8
choice [1] 40/24
choose [1] 42/19
churns [1] 24/22
Cindy [2] 107/5
107/19
circa [2] 36/7 38/8
circumstances [7]
21/23 24/5 25/2 25/5
26/6 26/16 109/15
civil [15] 18/12 18/21
35/25 38/7 42/2 42/15)
54/14 85/3 86/21 88/2
88/9 93/4 96/6 96/6
96/8
claim [5] 34/18 36/2
42/5 43/6 87/1
claimants [3] 36/1
38/16 87/1
claimants' [1] 38/15
claims [2] 38/10 88/8
Claire [1] 59/19
clarifying [1] 31/8
clarity [1] 9/21
Clarke [4] 44/2 61/25
80/24 81/22
classified [1] 10/7
clear [8] 7/15 25/25
33/6 33/8 35/10 66/15)
66/19 73/8
cleared [2] 21/23
89/10
clearly [2] 46/21 98/3
climate [1] 5/1
close [6] 21/17 23/15
73/19 89/25 90/14
90/19
closures [1] 58/12
co [1] 3/4
co-founded [1] 3/4
Code [4] 18/13 18/21
54/14 96/6
cogent [1] 19/16
coincide [1] 93/13
coincident [1] 65/25
column [6] 83/4
83/14 84/5 84/5 84/7
97/20
columns [2] 83/4
87/24
come [22] 13/16
13/20 14/14 16/7 16/8}
21/25 22/4 23/6 33/13
37/16 39/15 39/17
42/8 45/22 46/13
54/25 56/6 57/6 68/7
75/8 88/17 91/12
comes [2] 24/18
43/11
coming [5] 30/3 30/5
63/4 78/19 90/25
commenced [2]
34/22 36/1
comment [14] 31/25
38/21 40/18 40/21
41/16 41/16 41/17
41/18 42/20 55/16
59/1 59/25 60/2 100/2
commented [1]
108/23
comments [1] 60/2
commercial [3] 8/12
8/15 32/3
commercially [4] 7/6
7/19 7/21 32/5
commission [6] 36/6
37/13 100/23 102/6
102/18 103/2
commissioned [2]
35/5 102/25
commissioning [4]
102/10 102/13 102/24}
102/24
commitment [1] 7/15
commitments [2]
6/15 21/3
communicated [5]
56/3 78/6 98/3 98/13
98/14
communication [1]
94/3
community [3]
106/15 106/19 108/21
companies [4] 3/7
10/9 15/25 15/25
company [10] 3/5
3/10 8/14 8/21 10/20
11/9 11/25 12/10
12/15 38/19
compensation [6]
76/8 76/10 76/13
76/15 88/8 109/6
competitive [2] 8/14
32/3
complainant [1]
29/14
complainants [2]
29/1 65/16
complaining [2]
75/12 104/18
complaints [10]
12/18 33/14 34/25
35/3 44/24 51/17 55/7
68/23 74/25 91/4
complete [2] 67/8
86/2
completely [3] 24/20
64/3 82/8
comply [1] 96/5
complying [1] 64/10
comprehensive [3]
55/23 55/23 57/25
compromised [2]
79/19 80/1
compromises [1]
63/25
computer [5] 29/5
29/14 37/11 51/1
74/23
conceded [2] 29/24
75/10
concern [4] 9/17
28/21 77/25 99/15
concerned [11]
29/11 46/25 49/21
73/13 73/16 73/24
78/5 80/9 87/10 92/2
103/15
concerning [3] 12/11
61/1 106/5
concerns [10] 32/8
34/17 43/22 72/25
73/3 77/7 77/17 78/17
91/16 104/11
conclude [2] 68/2
82/1
concluded [3] 40/22
42/23 81/1
conclusions [2]
36/10 100/13
concurred [1] 78/15
conditions [1] 91/9
conducts [1] 9/16
conduits [1] 16/25
confess [1] 85/22
confirm [1] 1/15
confirmed [2] 59/10
76/25
conflict [1] 79/13
confusing [1] 90/16
consequences [4]
41/7 53/9 62/20
108/15
consequently [1]
98/18
consider [8] 15/18
25/6 31/21 33/22
35/17 79/21 80/3
96/18
considerably [1]
17/20
consideration [3]
21/14 48/23 97/3
considered [7] 14/23
14/25 39/7 79/25
96/17 99/17 108/3
considering [3] 13/9
36/7 79/24
consistent [1] 85/3
constituencies [1]
68/24
constituent [3] 31/12
31/22 104/11
constituent's [2]
22/9 22/10
constitute [1] 20/1
constitution [1]
10/21
constrained [2] 26/1
27/18
constraint [1] 41/20
consultancy [1] 4/25
consultation [2] 59/8
99/13
consumer [1] 6/22
consumers [2] 4/6
5/16
contact [2] 69/6
103/14
contacts [1] 32/8
contain [4] 30/22
32/12 43/21 44/2
contained [5] 55/23
68/25 79/24 80/16
101/7
content [7] 39/14
39/20 48/15 52/11
(32) can... - content
Cc
content... [3] 54/9
59/12 80/4
contents [1] 2/7
context [4] 27/17
61/7 62/25 91/14
contingent [2] 27/14
28/7
continue [4] 64/20
86/3 86/8 88/5
continued [2] 62/13
63/3
continues [3] 24/19
63/2 88/11
continuing [1] 103/2
continuity [1] 87/16
contract [1] 14/3
contracts [1] 12/22
contractual [8] 8/6
9/17 10/13 10/25
11/15 12/6 63/13
63/17
contrary [1] 20/5
convenient [2] 46/10
66/21
conversation [3]
51/4 72/9 105/16
convey [1] 90/4
convicted [2] 14/10
50/16
convictions [3] 14/7
35/22 37/9
convoluted [1] 33/7
copied [2] 38/1 51/25
copies [2] 71/18 90/8
copy [14] 1/21 2/1
2/3 2/4 30/24 31/1
74/20 81/13 82/18
82/21 84/4 84/17
86/20 89/23
core [4] 6/11 67/4
67/11 67/23
corner [1] 31/14
corners [1] 101/12
corporate [6] 4/6
5/16 10/17 10/17
15/20 15/21
correct [8] 3/9 3/19
4/12 4/24 14/16 34/5
45/12 99/20
correctly [1] 16/12
correspondence [28]
21/2 21/6 21/7 21/11
21/15 21/19 21/24
22/6 22/7 22/17 22/19
22/22 22/25 23/6 23/8
23/10 24/2 24/7 25/19)
27/18 27/22 30/16
30/16 30/17 31/1 60/6
60/10 64/21
cost [1] 88/12
costly [1] 88/19
could [45] 1/23 6/6
8/8 15/4 18/8 26/25
27/6 31/10 33/19 35/7
37/2 37/24 38/13
38/17 39/22 40/5
40/11 45/4 47/11
47/15 48/24 50/23
51/9 51/23 58/16 67/8)
68/10 72/10 74/19
77/10 78/3 79/3 82/11
84/11 86/16 86/20
87/21 88/19 89/20
90/1 93/22 101/6
101/22 102/2 108/9
couldn't [5] 8/3 28/6
58/6 84/8 84/9
Counsel [1] 100/15
couple [1] 81/21
course [18] 2/13
14/17 25/2 41/6 41/18
41/21 42/25 43/8 53/7)
63/7 64/12 76/12
84/18 87/6 98/23 99/2
99/3 109/7
court [9] 35/24 36/1
38/8 41/3 47/23 58/20
59/17 75/22 88/2
courts [15] 14/11
41/10 41/10 41/15
43/17 44/10 52/11
52/14 53/4 53/10 54/4
55/5 55/12 62/19 88/9
cover [3] 52/12 55/13
70/2
covered [8] 49/2 53/6)
53/24 54/11 55/25
56/10 79/6 104/24
covering [2] 56/13
102/15
Covid [2] 2/23 67/8
CPS [1] 89/10
created [1] 35/16
Creative [1] 4/15
cribsheet [1] 64/15
criminal [7] 14/10
35/22 36/6 37/13
76/12 88/9 105/2
crisis [2] 96/20 97/11
criteria [2] 6/18 19/8
ising [1] 33/1
criticism [1] 29/4
cross [1] 73/11
crucial [3] 8/3 8/15
9/8
cultural [2] 96/20
97/11
Culture [1] 4/16
Cumbria [1] 103/19
curious [2] 30/14
93/1
current [5] 22/1
31/22 51/15 83/20
93/25
currently [1] 38/7
CWU [2] 78/20 80/7
D
damaging [2] 14/21
61/16
danger [1] 63/15
dare [1] 18/3
date [9] 28/6 32/15
33/9 33/20 37/6 46/9
77/11 77/15 83/25
dated [7] 1/23 31/13
45/8 52/1 59/9 82/12
86/18
day [31] 8/23 9/5 9/5
11/21 11/21 12/2 12/2
12/14 12/14 18/2 18/2
31/20 32/5 32/5 33/18
39/2 40/16 43/19
43/19 44/20 45/13
49/3 52/16 53/11
63/10 79/3 100/23
102/7 102/15 102/19
109/24
days [7] 13/22 19/24
24/15 24/21 81/9
82/19 107/22
DBT [4] 94/2 96/13
97/1 97/9
DBT-owned [1] 97/9
deal [19] 6/5 8/5 18/7
21/5 21/10 22/17 29/9
45/3 51/10 56/16
58/18 59/9 64/15
64/16 64/17 78/4
88/25 103/3 106/5
dealing [4] 21/5
22/19 64/10 67/10
dealings [1] 107/9
deals [1] 87/23
dealt [3] 22/14 52/14
93/6
Dear [1] 31/11
debate [8] 57/9 57/19
58/1 58/2 58/7 95/23
95/24 95/24
debates [9] 56/8
56/23 57/1 57/4 57/6
57/12 57/24 92/2
92/11
decarbonisation [1]
5/1
December [2] 76/21
77/12
decided [6] 55/12
57/8 59/3 78/7 78/10
99/12
decision [2] 55/16
99/11
decisions [2] 18/16
26/6
deepest [1] 106/24
defence [2] 42/14
43/11
defend [1] 88/12
defendant [2] 42/2
43/1
defer [2] 60/25 61/25
definitely [8] 7/10
14/24 37/5 54/23
55/24 62/2 85/20
104/20
degrading [1] 101/25
degree [1] 95/19
delay [4] 100/23
102/7 102/14 102/19
delegate [1] 61/19
delegated [2] 12/2
15/13
deletion [1] 43/22
deliberate [1] 82/1
deliberately [3] 80/21
81/2 81/4
deliver [2] 7/20 9/3
delivered [2] 8/4
37/19
delivery [3] 6/13 8/2
13/2
Deloitte [5] 44/3
61/24 80/25 81/23
100/18
demanding [2] 62/8
62/9
demeanour [3] 50/20
72/9 104/25
denigrate [1] 104/14
deny [1] 64/2
department [30] 4/7
4/13 4/16 15/7 15/9
15/11 15/15 15/18
15/22 16/3 21/22
22/12 26/3 27/11
27/15 30/15 30/21
40/2 42/1 42/3 42/19
42/22 62/6 71/22
92/15 95/7 95/9 95/12,
95/20 96/4
Department's [1]
16/15
departments [2] 20/8
26/12
depend [2] 32/17
98/23
dependence [1] 9/9
dependent [1] 98/24
depending [1] 23/23
depends [1] 81/5
depth [1] 13/24
derail [2] 97/25 98/7
describe [6] 5/8 5/11
6/8 16/25 56/22 76/22,
described [2] 30/10
33/21
describing [1] 65/21
deserving [2] 109/5
109/7
despite [1] 47/21
detail [4] 49/1 65/21
68/20 72/4
detailed [2] 34/12
44/22
details [6] 36/2 43/18
43/21 69/2 103/18
104/4
detect [1] 102/16
determined [1] 26/7
develop [1] 82/4
developing [1] 94/12
developments [2]
44/7 77/16
device [1] 39/20
diary [5] 16/17 22/24
70/13 70/17 71/1
did [95] 2/4 4/3 5/18
7/11 13/23 15/17
15/17 16/24 17/9 19/3}
20/19 21/18 22/11
23/6 23/14 26/16
26/20 27/3 27/4 28/3
28/12 29/7 29/10
29/10 36/19 37/6 37/8I
37/15 39/23 39/24
40/1 43/20 43/20
43/24 44/1 44/10
45/14 45/17 48/11
49/7 49/11 49/18
49/23 50/25 54/16
57/13 57/22 60/3 60/9I
64/20 69/12 69/13
69/25 70/8 70/11
70/12 71/4 71/6 71/12
72/15 73/2 74/1 74/1
74/22 75/9 75/15
75/16 75/18 77/25
78/5 78/23 78/24
79/21 80/3 81/20 84/9I
86/5 87/14 89/5 90/20
91/22 92/1 92/4 92/13
92/16 92/20 93/13
95/9 97/2 98/15 98/16
98/17 104/15 105/2
108/14
didn't [45] 18/2 19/9
20/22 20/22 22/11
23/19 25/10 32/18
37/17 37/19 39/17
40/1 40/5 43/13 45/20
46/1 53/13 57/6 59/24)
70/22 71/3 73/23
73/24 74/10 74/14
74/21 75/3 75/6 75/24)
76/5 77/23 78/2 80/3
81/11 81/15 81/18
84/19 90/7 90/9 91/25
92/8 97/4 99/19
107/19 108/21
different [8] 27/4
29/22 36/25 39/15
42/8 64/9 74/18 92/15)
differently [1] 100/9
difficult [6] 5/23 5/24
68/21 70/14 70/25
96/7
digital [3] 4/15 4/16
(33) content... - digital
D
digital... [1] 6/19
direct [3] 21/16 23/14
79/19
directed [1] 21/8
directly [14] 8/22
13/12 22/12 28/10
38/22 72/15 72/21
73/6 73/16 73/23
79/10 79/23 94/17
103/8
Director [3] 50/7
69/16 69/20
directors [2] 10/2
11/25
disagree [3] 38/25
39/8 53/13
disagreed [2] 39/11
53/14
disagreement [1]
62/18
disaster [1] 101/23
disclose [2] 91/11
102/16
disclosed [3] 54/17
69/2 81/7
disclosure [2] 76/2
89/17
discomfort [2] 29/6
29/8
discover [1] 89/5
discovered [1] 89/16
discredit [1] 104/14
discrepancies [3]
35/7 37/10 49/9
discuss [12] 13/20
15/6 32/8 68/9 68/17
72/3 72/11 73/1 77/8
77/20 78/1 78/25
discussed [6] 51/18
58/19 62/22 63/8
67/23 106/22
discussing [5] 17/12
41/21 72/7 73/4 74/5
discussion [7] 28/25
54/13 62/17 73/19
73/20 73/21 74/1
dishonesty [1] 30/1
dismissed [1] 91/2
dismissive [2]
104/13 104/17
displaying [1] 95/3
dispute [1] 33/3
distance [1] 87/4
distinct [1] 17/13
distinction [6] 8/5
11/3 15/6 15/10 48/23}
63/13
distraction [2] 88/12
88/19
distribute [1] 6/3
distributing [1] 6/3
diversify [1] 8/13
do [52] 1/20 1/22 2/1
3/1 4/25 11/11 11/11
15/10 19/23 26/20
26/24 29/25 30/24
40/19 40/23 41/16
45/18 49/1 51/16 53/1
55/2 60/15 60/18
60/18 62/12 64/9
65/20 67/13 70/21
71/4 72/4 72/20 73/4
74/4 77/23 81/3 82/1
85/9 86/4 86/14 89/8
96/18 105/23 106/8
106/10 106/16 106/20;
108/5 109/5 109/7
109/8 109/19
document [13] 30/11
34/2 34/24 47/14
51/22 55/1 56/6 58/22
79/5 82/19 97/19
99/21 103/5
documentary [1]
72/24
documentation [1]
71/16
documents [6] 21/11
21/15 51/6 66/15
82/25 94/23
does [10] 11/3 32/12
41/21 53/4 53/5 63/12
93/4 93/10 97/5 99/24
doesn't [8] 2/3 11/22
41/6 41/18 82/6 82/21
84/17 95/10
doing [6] 7/14 75/21
79/2 105/13 106/13
109/18
Dollin [1] 51/14
domain [1] 44/16
don't [47] 11/2 13/3
14/6 19/24 20/3 24/24
26/22 26/23 27/12
27/12 30/2 30/18
32/14 32/15 33/10
37/6 41/13 42/6 46/5
50/2 52/17 52/22
52/23 62/16 62/16
64/5 65/14 65/16
70/12 70/16 73/18
80/2 87/9 92/12 92/16)
92/22 93/15 94/8
96/19 97/19 98/6
98/17 99/3 99/21
104/4 106/23 108/12
done [21] 36/21
36/22 36/23 49/15
50/23 57/7 60/12 63/5
64/23 70/13 72/10
77/22 77/24 78/2
87/11 87/13 100/8
101/6 101/9 101/15
101/18
Dorset [1] 107/7
doubt [11] 20/16
28/22 29/1 36/21 48/8
53/14 66/2 85/11
89/18 106/11 108/18
down [19] 3/23 5/25
12/4 12/8 16/7 24/25
25/6 27/19 40/13 48/8
56/6 68/20 72/10
73/19 78/9 88/17
91/12 96/10 103/20
draft [12] 21/1 21/14
21/25 23/12 24/3 24/7
25/17 27/22 30/6 30/7
31/11 33/10
drafted [3] 27/24
31/13 76/23
draw [2] 10/8 15/10
drill [4] 5/25
drop [1] 64/14
drop-in [1] 64/14
due [2] 2/13 43/16
during [9] 17/11
49/16 58/1 58/13
60/13 65/2 70/2 78/19
87/15
duties [1] 8/21
E
each [2] 19/16 34/12
earlier [8] 35/25
54/13 61/23 62/17
69/11 72/17 77/18
105/4
early [18] 13/22
13/22 14/8 14/8 17/18
19/22 19/24 24/15
24/21 36/2 36/8 55/2
60/6 60/12 62/18
62/25 72/19 106/3
Economics [1] 5/4
edited [2] 27/21
29/10
editing [1] 33/10
edits [2] 30/8 30/23
education [1] 3/6
effect [8] 60/24 62/13
63/3 64/3 64/13 78/17
87/8 89/2
effective [6] 5/19
10/12 10/23 11/12
55/17 76/7
effects [2] 108/8
108/19
eg [2] 35/22 79/15
eg the [1] 79/15
eg theft [1] 35/22
eight [2] 5/12 31/8
either [18] 23/17
23/22 25/13 29/10
30/13 30/15 30/24
57/6 65/9 65/12 72/18
73/6 73/16 75/3 81/15)
81/17 87/1 96/19
elected [1] 3/20
election [1] 3/24
else [2] 69/12 73/6
email [11] 37/23 38/1
39/13 39/18 45/8
51/24 59/9 59/18
62/21 86/17 99/10
emailed [1] 2/4
Emeritus [1] 5/3
Emma [1] 1/17
employed [3] 7/25
107/14 107/24
employees [1] 7/25
enable [1] 79/10
enables [1] 92/23
encourage [1] 32/7
end [5] 2/23 58/21
72/18 86/4 107/22
endeavours [1]
63/19
endorse [1] 106/21
Energy [2] 4/7 4/13
engaging [1] 36/11
enough [6] 10/3 31/3
42/13 57/24 86/9
101/20
enquiries [3] 38/22
58/25 100/1
ensure [5] 6/11 6/21
10/16 21/18 83/16
ensuring [1] 9/2
entire [1] 26/9
entirely [1] 93/14
entitled [2] 34/1
97/22
entity [1] 11/18
equipped [1] 59/25
ergo [1] 53/5
especially [5] 19/17
51/7 67/7 79/24
100/13
essence [1] 94/5
essentially [4] 10/20
29/22 38/10 96/13
established [2] 59/15]
59/21
esteem [1] 108/20
estimate [2] 67/24
85/23
et [4] 17/25 81/23
102/5 102/5
et cetera [4] 17/25
81/23 102/5 102/5
Europe [1] 3/17
Evans [1] 38/2
even [9] 7/11 15/19
44/4 44/8 70/23 71/19)
75/22 81/12 88/4
evening [1] 52/7
evenings [1] 107/17
evenly [1] 6/4
event [2] 28/7 39/19
ever [21] 20/19 27/3
27/5 44/19 46/5 50/3
51/7 54/23 68/17
69/12 70/5 70/8 70/11
70/16 73/18 77/25
82/16 85/11 88/14
90/7 98/6
every [2] 2/14 31/20
everybody [2] 2/21
88/19
everything [2] 6/4
61/19
evidence [22] 2/12
2/19 2/25 16/12 25/14I
35/10 41/12 47/21
67/9 72/25 76/2 81/8
81/11 84/19 89/17
90/24 95/23 106/9
107/2 107/25 109/15
109/18
evident [1] 88/18
evil [1] 102/15
exactly [3] 68/15
102/20 103/22
examine [2] 35/6
66/25
example [7] 20/24
26/23 26/25 27/13
43/21 70/20 85/6
excellent [1] 108/1
except [2] 18/16
22/14
exceptional [1] 23/18
exceptions [1] 19/20
exchange [1] 103/7
exchanges [1] 85/15
excluded [1] 81/19
excluding [1] 48/7
excuse [2] 55/11
63/6
Exec [1] 80/5
execution [3] 9/23
63/21 64/1
executive [7] 3/5
4/20 4/22 63/20 63/21
63/23 68/9
executives [3] 8/20
17/7 17/10
exercise [1] 10/4
exerted [1] 89/2
existence [1] 95/21
expanding [1] 6/18
expect [2] 64/9 82/24
expectations [3]
26/1 27/9 83/18
expected [3] 18/7
18/13 55/25
expensive [1] 14/20
experience [4] 69/1
93/2 93/16 104/15
experiences [1]
65/21
experiencing [1]
75/4
experts [1] 16/18
explain [6] 3/4 21/6
33/16 77/5 88/22
104/5
(34) digital... - explain
E
explained [2] 45/13
75/1
explains [1] 104/1
explanation [4] 19/16
55/10 79/7 80/4
explanatory [1]
23/21
Exploring [1] 41/24
exposure [1] 91/20
express [2] 83/22
106/24
expressed [2] 52/18
88/14
extended [1] 96/15
extent [1] 65/2
extraordinarily [1]
105/4
extraordinary [1]
53/19
extremely [4] 70/14
70/14 102/20 109/16
eye [2] 20/7 85/25
eyes [1] 83/6
F
face [4] 13/19 65/8
101/23 103/3
facilitating [1] 109/17
facing [1] 51/15
fact [14] 2/6 2/23
29/1 43/2 44/5 50/17
63/12 71/5 73/16
79/23 80/6 85/19 98/5)
98/10
failed [4] 70/21
failing [1] 102/16
failings [1] 14/1
failure [1] 101/25
failures [2] 108/4
108/6
fair [4] 7/23 46/6 61/3
99/19
fairly [1] 74/6
faith [5] 10/3 18/24
59/25 64/11 85/17
fall [1] 23/1
fallback [2] 83/19
85/9
false [3] 29/2 35/23
56/4
families [2] 106/14
107/1
family [4] 108/8
108/13 108/14 109/4
far [5] 46/25 60/1
64/21 64/23 89/18
fashion [2] 100/10
100/25
faults [11] 34/20 49/4
49/7 49/12 49/14
49/19 50/9 50/12 51/1
75/10 97/24
favour [2] 96/23
96/25
favourable [1] 91/15
favours [1] 11/4
February [2] 100/14
107/8
Federation [4] 32/10
78/8 78/11 79/7
feedback [1] 52/6
feel [9] 13/3 20/2
20/2 20/10 20/15
20/19 33/7 55/11 69/3
feeling [1] 74/8
feelings [1] 60/13
fell [2] 12/7 48/19
fellow [1] 31/12
felt [8] 16/3 25/15
29/6 31/3 73/19 74/16
75/2 106/13
few [6] 21/8 28/11
30/13 30/17 49/20
50/17
fide [1] 75/2
files [1] 43/23
final [6] 35/9 43/24
90/17 90/18 91/11
103/5
finally [1] 93/20
finances [1] 9/9
financial [6] 4/22
6/13 6/13 7/12 17/25
94/21
find [5] 72/24 74/17
83/24 107/18 107/19
finding [1] 88/5
fine [5] 20/11 40/8
66/10 67/17 86/14
finish [4] 109/2
finished [2] 17/21
67/1
firm [2] 35/6 36/18
first [36] 3/20 13/8
13/16 15/3 16/14 17/4
31/16 33/15 33/22
33/25 33/25 39/25
46/11 47/16 55/25
59/13 60/25 63/10
69/21 69/23 72/15
76/14 80/15 82/15
82/20 83/24 84/7
84/11 88/18 90/5 91/1
94/1 97/16 101/10
102/22 106/4
fit [1] 31/21
fitted [1] 77/15
five [5] 30/20 58/7
67/25 105/23 106/1
flag [3] 91/13 91/18
91/20
flagged [3] 36/17
39/2 45/13
flags [1] 102/17
flares [1] 47/25
flaw [1] 49/5
flaws [1] 35/7
fobbed [1] 74/17
focus [1] 7/1
focused [2] 16/4 57/1
focuses [1] 94/20
folder [1] 23/12
follow [6] 19/11
19/21 45/17 48/23
77/21 91/7
follow-up [1] 91/7
following [5] 2/24
35/3 85/7 99/8 109/24
follows [1] 94/9
forgive [2] 27/4 73/11
forgotten [1] 77/15
form [5] 7/4 39/16
39/16 72/2 74/1
formal [1] 92/22
formally [1] 95/6
formed [1] 68/15
former [3] 34/16 35/4
38/9
forms [1] 22/22
forth [1] 57/9
forthcoming [2] 77/1
90/11
found [7] 32/23 33/5
50/13 78/21 78/24
89/14 98/11
founded [1] 3/4
founding [1] 34/20
four [8] 25/22 29/18
30/19 40/12 50/2
69/22 72/22 72/23
fourth [1] 52/9
fraud [1] 105/11
free [2] 7/22 54/21
freedom [3] 8/12 9/7
32/4
freedoms [1] 8/15
French [1] 59/19
frequently [1] 11/23
friend [1] 108/3
friends [1] 108/14
friendship [1] 108/20
front [2] 71/17 103/3
frustrating [1] 30/13
frustration [1] 26/17
Fujitsu [1] 108/6
full [7] 1/15 39/1 45/7
46/7 67/6 83/5 84/4
fuller [6] 46/8 47/24
48/11 48/12 48/19
48/21
fully [5] 36/11 43/5
43/9 77/6 102/12
fulsome [1] 57/3
function [3] 9/11
11/19 16/5
functioning [2] 12/16
12/20
functions [2] 8/19
12/9
funded [1] 79/23
funding [5] 7/3 7/3
71/9 79/9 79/19
funds [2] 8/12 107/14
funny [1] 107/18
further [27] 4/14 12/4
12/13 25/21 27/19
31/25 36/13 36/15
37/15 44/25 45/2
48/10 49/11 52/21
54/10 55/13 64/13
66/24 67/9 72/11 82/5)
82/8 83/14 86/22
96/10 100/18 101/2
future [4] 6/16 14/19
25/19 56/8
Go
gain [1] 90/20
Gareth [1] 38/2
gathered [2] 81/8
82/23
gave [3] 33/6 92/16
95/23
general [15] 3/24
16/10 19/21 30/1
32/25 41/4 41/15 42/6
42/9 63/20 72/10
74/17 80/10 104/13
105/10
generally [4] 19/24
83/10 91/15 104/17
generated [1] 58/11
get [17] 9/10 9/24
10/6 22/11 31/5 37/2
37/20 41/12 46/3 51/8)
68/22 74/14 75/6
81/13 99/13 100/10
102/10
getting [6] 11/4 28/12]
46/5 48/15 49/21 94/5)
give [17] 2/25 12/5
26/23 26/25 27/7 28/6
38/3 47/24 53/16 66/3)
75/9 81/20 82/6 91/14
96/15 103/18 105/25
given [29] 15/22
18/13 18/14 18/16
18/23 19/5 19/11
19/21 25/25 28/22
28/24 31/11 33/18
46/6 50/17 52/18 54/5)
54/12 56/7 60/5 60/10
61/8 67/7 71/18 85/24,
89/15 90/24 91/9
107/16
gives [5] 34/7 55/10
55/10 55/13 94/3
giving [5] 2/20 18/24
53/21 106/9 109/14
go [25] 8/8 8/24
20/23 21/5 23/25 30/3)
30/25 31/2 31/15
41/19 45/4 47/15 51/9)
67/2 68/2 70/24 77/14,
94/4 97/19 99/3 101/9
103/16 103/20 106/1
107/24
goal [1] 94/22
goals [2] 12/24 13/2
goes [4] 7/6 17/24
63/9 66/23
going [28] 18/1 18/3
20/13 31/16 33/25
34/24 37/4 41/14 54/4I
55/12 61/12 61/15
62/17 64/25 65/7
65/11 65/17 65/25
67/5 80/15 81/13
82/13 85/23 93/8
93/10 94/14 101/5
101/24
gone [9] 14/9 25/1
58/6 85/7 89/9 92/14
92/25 101/1 107/4
good [26] 1/3 1/11
10/3 17/25 18/17
18/24 19/11 19/18
19/23 20/1 20/4 41/19)
50/4 50/21 62/11
64/11 72/23 75/6 77/9I
80/2 80/12 85/17
87/13 92/7 101/4
105/5
got [10] 2/22 11/6
51/4 65/5 75/6 80/10
90/9 98/20 101/11
107/22
governance [4]
10/17 15/21 93/21
108/4
government [55] 3/3
7/3 7/9 8/22 9/7 9/10
9/12 10/11 10/23
11/18 13/9 15/9 15/10
15/11 15/18 17/14
17/17 19/22 20/7 20/9}
21/21 22/1 24/4 32/4
36/5 37/22 40/14
40/20 40/25 42/1 42/1
42/4 42/12 42/18 43/1
43/3 50/6 52/15 53/11
55/18 60/2 60/23 64/8
69/16 83/13 86/25
93/14 93/18 94/16
94/19 96/21 101/22
102/23 108/4 108/6
Government's [7]
6/14 8/25 21/3 61/5
62/6 76/24 85/21
governments [1]
8/10
Governor [1] 5/3
gradually [1] 28/21
great [3] 26/16 32/6
108/2
greater [1] 89/2
grew [3] 28/21 74/8
87/18
(85) explained - grew
G
grey [1] 9/24
grips [2] 37/2 94/6
group [12] 4/21
35/25 37/13 38/8
51/17 65/5 65/6 65/15)
75/12 86/21 99/6
104/2
group's [1] 79/14
groups [2] 16/22
108/20
grow [1] 9/8
growing [2] 78/18
87/12
growth [1] 3/18
guess [1] 83/1
guidance [3] 53/16
100/5 100/7
guilty [4] 29/2 74/25
89/14 105/11
H
had [122]
hadn't [2] 90/11
102/25
half [3] 15/3 71/11
74/11
hand [5] 8/6 31/14
65/5 97/16 99/22
handled [1] 60/19
handling [2] 93/16
99/23
handover [3] 92/23
93/5 98/20
handwritten [1]
32/21
happen [3] 27/25
43/8 93/10
happened [6] 29/17
42/7 103/13 104/9
107/10 107/15
happening [2] 28/13
103/23
happy [6] 26/22
36/14 45/1 55/11 87/5)
104/5
harboured [1] 98/19
hard [5] 1/21 2/3 2/4
24/3 68/14
harm [1] 51/2
Harrison [1] 103/22
has [29] 10/20 30/7
31/19 32/6 32/8 33/20
34/18 34/20 34/22
36/8 38/12 52/10
72/24 79/9 79/13
79/14 88/3 97/11
103/5 103/12 103/13
104/2 104/6 104/8
104/9 104/12 106/19
108/19 108/23
have [258]
haven't [2] 30/12
96/8
having [11] 18/24
20/8 63/25 65/22 81/1
90/6 91/7 92/14 96/17
102/11 107/20
he [18] 32/8 32/9
53/18 77/18 87/14
87/15 87/16 92/19
107/7 107/12 107/13
107/13 107/14 107/17)
107/20 107/20 107/22)
107/23
headed [1] 34/13
heading [1] 34/25
healthcare [2] 3/7
3/18
hear [2] 1/3 46/20
heard [1] 106/3
hearing [2] 58/20
109/24
heightened [2] 94/10
94/12
heightens [2] 10/15
94/20
held [10] 4/14 4/19
5/14 6/11 49/18 57/21
89/25 90/13 90/19
107/7
Hello [3] 46/20 67/21
67/22
help [2] 51/15 70/22
helped [1] 57/5
helpful [2] 57/2
109/16
Hence [1] 66/18
Henry [5] 68/1 97/16
97/17 108/3 110/6
her [9] 19/4 52/2
69/17 72/7 86/12
86/24 103/14 104/1
104/11
here [27] 6/8 15/6
19/10 25/18 31/17
34/15 36/17 37/8 38/1
39/5 40/15 40/23
41/24 48/10 48/25
51/10 58/21 78/4 79/6)
79/8 80/24 84/25 88/1
89/22 94/6 101/11
108/10
Hi [4] 103/21
hierarchy [1] 40/7
high [11] 14/2 11/7
11/7 13/17 34/7 36/1
38/8 42/12 44/5 47/23
58/20
high-profile [1] 42/12
high-quality [1] 11/7
higher [1] 17/20
highest [2] 10/17
48/17
ighlighting [1] 93/6
ighlights [1] 83/1
highly [1] 104/17
him [6] 40/5 74/10
76/23 77/20 78/12
108/18
hindsight [5] 40/4
44/4 77/24 90/23
96/18
his [9] 19/4 32/8
T7I17 81/12 87/14
87/16 107/10 107/15
108/18
HMT [6] 27/15 94/2
94/17 94/19 95/11
95/13
hold [2] 57/9 63/19
holding [1] 43/4
honest [1] 18/12
honesty [1] 85/4
hope [6] 9/20 33/6
48/21 57/23 68/2
108/24
Horizon [79] 12/7
12/15 12/18 13/5
28/22 28/24 29/15
31/24 32/22 33/3
33/14 34/3 34/13
34/17 34/21 34/25
35/4 35/11 43/22
44/22 44/24 45/12
47/14 48/12 49/22
50/12 50/18 51/16
51/20 51/22 52/22
54/22 55/7 55/24 56/7
57/2 57/3 57/6 58/2
58/4 60/16 61/2 65/20
65/22 68/9 68/16 69/1
69/4 70/5 70/8 71/3
71/5 71/8 71/13 71/25
72/4 72/15 72/21 73/1
73/10 73/14 75/20
77/3 77/8 78/1 78/6
78/13 78/19 80/8
86/22 86/25 87/18
91/16 91/23 97/24
98/10 98/20 104/19
104/23
Hot [1] 64/16
hour [1] 55/22
how [15] 16/10 17/8
21/18 21/19 25/19
30/18 34/7 37/4 37/15)
46/7 69/25 72/20 73/9
75/7 90/20
however [3] 32/24
88/10 103/24
Huge [1] 56/15
l agree [6] 30/22
42/24 55/20 55/20
106/17 108/24
I allowed [1] 89/11
also [1] 86/20
lam [8] 2/22 3/1 5/5
23/8 31/25 82/19
101/4 104/5
l apologise [1] 57/17
lask [2] 1/17 15/9
lasked [5] 45/20
49/13 49/24 68/18
80/9
lassume [1] 86/9
l assumed [1] 93/13
I became [1] 28/1
I been [1] 13/6
I believe [3] 14/5
14/5 49/2
lean [22] 1/9 1/11
2/5 9/19 23/8 26/23
30/3 36/21 39/12
46/22 53/7 53/13
54/13 61/9 64/23
66/23 70/7 71/14 86/7,
89/1 96/7 106/23
I can't [9] 24/8 28/6
48/3 69/13 69/16 74/3
74/4 74/16 79/2
I certainly [1] 78/2
I could [7] 27/6 37/2
40/5 74/19 84/11 90/1
101/6
I couldn't [3] 28/6
58/6 84/8
I dare [1] 18/3
I decided [2] 78/10
99/12
I did [18] 2/4 4/3
15/17 15/17 26/16
29/10 29/10 37/6 40/1
70/12 71/6 74/1 74/22
78/23 80/3 84/9 89/5
92/20
I didn't [22] 20/22
20/22 25/10 37/17
37/19 39/17 40/1
53/13 59/24 73/23
74/10 74/21 75/6
75/24 76/5 77/23 78/2
90/9 91/25 92/8 97/4
99/19
Ido [11] 1/22 45/18
49/1 51/16 60/18
60/18 65/20 74/4
105/23 109/7 109/8
I don't [41] 11/2 13/3
14/6 19/24 26/22
26/23 27/12 27/12
30/2 30/18 32/14
32/15 37/6 42/6 46/5
50/2 52/17 52/22
52/23 62/16 62/16
65/16 70/12 70/16
73/18 80/2 87/9 92/12,
92/16 92/22 93/15
94/8 96/19 97/19 98/6
98/17 99/3 99/21
104/4 106/23 108/12
I doubt [3] 36/21 48/8}
53/14
leither [1] 29/10
lever [1] 50/3
l expected [1] 18/13
I failed [1] 70/21
I felt [5] 25/15 31/3
73/19 74/16 75/2
I find [1] 83/24
I finish [1] 109/2
I first [1] 76/14
I formed [1] 68/15
I gathered [2] 81/8
82/23
I gave [3] 33/6 92/16
95/23
Igo [1] 107/24
I got [4] 2/22 51/4
75/6 80/10
I guess [1] 83/1
I had [27] 18/17
19/22 25/24 27/23
28/11 45/19 48/18
49/22 53/3 63/10
72/13 73/9 74/1 75/1
75/25 77/15 80/4
82/20 85/24 89/7 89/8I
89/8 90/10 90/19
100/20 101/15 102/4
hand [1] 97/16
Ihave [10] 1/25 2/5
16/11 56/2 66/13
71/18 75/1 81/1 95/2
97/13
I haven't [1] 30/12
I hope [3] 9/20 33/6
108/24
Ijust [4] 18/4 28/8
64/24 102/2
I know [3] 45/25 97/2
108/24
learnt [1] 26/11
lost [1] 87/16
I made [2] 25/12 76/7
I mean [23] 7/17
18/21 19/20 22/21
26/14 28/23 29/24
43/7 44/13 54/10 62/8)
62/8 63/6 65/12 70/13}
70/18 82/22 84/8 96/3
97/2 97/10 104/23
109/8
I meant [3] 50/4
90/15 103/1
I mention [1] 81/6
I mentioned [2]
81/20 105/4
I met [5] 29/16 45/19
69/21 69/22 80/13
I might [11] 31/5 31/6
31/7 41/18 46/3 46/3
52/18 52/24 53/3
85/14 90/23
I misunderstood [1]
14/7
I most [1] 108/11
(36) grey - I most
I must [2] 75/25
80/13
I need [2] 48/20
85/22
I needed [1] 48/21
I never [1] 45/14
I note [1] 105/24
I noticed [1] 59/18
I now [2] 13/14 100/8
lomit [1] 103/23
I outlined [4] 23/11
I persevered [1]
73/20
I pressed [1] 46/7
I presume [2] 44/15
81/14
I probably [2] 60/12
87/19
I probed [1] 51/5
lraised [1] 72/7
lrather [1] 66/17
read [1] 84/9
l received [2] 18/10
27/13
I recommend [1]
87/4
l referred [1] 50/1
lregard [1] 19/2
I regret [1] 45/16
I relied [2] 18/11
21/16
I required [1] 19/3
I respect [1] 2/23
I rewrote [1] 29/9
I said [2] 29/10 51/5
I saw [2] 17/11 17/17
I say [2] 25/13 29/18
I see [2] 61/8 62/24
I seemed [1] 54/9
I sent [1] 30/18
I should [15] 37/5
40/5 51/5 54/12 64/7
70/13 77/17 77/19
77/22 77/24 90/2
90/18 100/12 101/9
101/15
I shouldn't [1] 57/16
I showed [1] 84/7
I simply [1] 68/20
I sometimes [1]
27/21
I started [10] 13/3
28/11 28/22 28/25
29/11 29/15 33/7
49/21 68/22 69/3
I suppose [4] 29/19
93/1 101/8 101/15
I suspect [4] 62/5
70/17 74/10 97/11
I suspected [1] 76/18]
I take [1] 93/8
I tended [2] 25/9
25/20
I then [1] 100/16
I think [110] 5/21
5/21 5/22 9/22 9/25
10/15 10/18 11/1 11/6
11/17 13/1 13/20
15/13 19/1 19/18
22/21 23/4 23/5 25/14
26/14 28/5 29/18
32/14 32/23 37/17
39/15 40/4 41/1 41/9
41/14 44/13 45/10
46/4 46/6 46/13 53/2
53/19 54/7 54/7 55/9
55/9 55/10 55/13 56/2
56/4 58/4 59/6 59/19
60/14 61/3 62/2 63/8
63/18 63/18 64/19
65/6 65/24 67/2 69/18
69/21 70/7 70/14
70/18 71/9 73/11
75/19 76/7 76/13
77/20 80/6 82/14 84/5
84/7 85/6 87/11 87/13)
87/14 88/18 89/19
90/9 90/10 90/15
90/18 90/22 90/23
91/2 91/4 91/8 91/9
93/12 93/19 94/9
94/11 94/23 96/21
96/23 97/6 97/8 98/9
99/19 99/20 99/22
100/4 101/16 101/19
102/1 102/20 102/21
104/10 105/1
I thought [3] 37/12
37/17 48/16
I took [3] 17/22 40/19
41/1
I totally [1] 106/21
I trusted [1] 21/10
l understand [3] 2/18
27/6 93/3
I very [1] 37/7
I want [1] 74/20
I wanted [5] 31/4
31/9 70/20 75/19
75/22
Iwas [51] 11/19 13/4
14/6 14/8 18/5 19/17
28/12 28/17 28/17
28/18 28/19 28/21
28/23 36/24 36/25
37/4 39/11 48/3 48/4
48/8 48/15 48/15
50/10 50/15 51/13
51/18 58/10 67/5 69/5
70/19 71/21 73/24
74/16 75/5 76/11
76/15 78/14 84/3
84/11 87/9 89/5 89/15)
91/8 93/10 95/24 98/8)
98/25 100/4 101/5
102/21 102/22
I wasn't [9] 14/5
39/12 51/3 73/8 73/8
76/5 76/16 81/13 98/8
I will [5] 2/14 67/1
67/2 67/13 105/25
I wonder [1] 86/1
I wondered [1] 73/12
I would [62] 19/6
19/17 19/21 20/17
20/24 21/15 24/14
25/16 30/24 30/24
31/2 32/7 32/15 32/20
32/23 33/5 36/21
37/17 39/13 40/19
42/17 48/4 48/20
49/20 50/4 50/20
55/24 58/24 59/1
59/23 59/23 60/13
66/6 66/6 68/2 69/15
69/17 70/24 71/7 72/5
72/17 72/17 72/22
72/22 74/10 80/10
81/7 82/24 90/9 90/11
95/9 95/22 96/23
96/25 97/12 99/10
99/25 100/2 101/20
104/20 108/11 108/14]
I wouldn't [13] 36/22
37/3 39/11 39/13
39/14 48/18 49/10
49/15 53/14 54/21
74/6 74/7 100/6
I wrote [1] 15/17
I'd [12] 3/2 16/8 29/3
33/13 42/9 45/21 51/7
68/7 80/7 80/20 90/10)
101/6
I'm [29] 14/12 23/5
24/8 26/22 37/17
41/19 41/20 46/4
46/25 63/2 64/24 65/2
65/8 65/10 69/13
70/12 73/8 81/15 84/8
85/23 86/13 87/18
90/9 92/8 98/22 98/22
99/21 101/5 108/19
I've [5] 9/20 10/1
67/23 89/16 90/24
idea [1] 75/25
ideally [1] 9/25
identical [1] 80/17
identification [1]
6/19
identified [3] 6/1
87/25 103/11
identity [1] 24/19
ie [1] 33/3
ie not [1] 33/3
if [93] 1/23 5/23 6/3
7/11 7/22 9/12 9/13
9/13 11/4 15/2 15/14
16/11 17/1 19/13 20/3
22/9 23/8 24/16 24/17
25/10 25/15 26/6 27/6
30/4 30/9 31/3 31/15
32/21 32/24 38/24
39/7 41/20 42/12
45/21 46/10 46/13
48/23 50/12 51/7
52/18 53/7 53/18 54/2,
54/13 54/18 56/17
57/7 57/7 58/2 58/8
58/24 59/14 60/19
63/22 64/25 65/8 66/1
66/12 66/17 67/8 68/2,
68/18 71/3 71/25 73/8
73/8 73/13 77/7 77/14,
80/14 81/14 83/20
85/15 86/7 86/8 86/20
87/20 87/25 88/8 89/1
90/10 90/10 90/20
96/8 96/23 96/25
99/21 99/25 100/20
101/6 102/4 102/22
105/7
ignorance [1] 64/25
illegally [3] 88/4
88/21 101/13
illegitimate [1]
105/12
illness [1] 109/16
illustration [1] 18/5
imagine [5] 24/14
69/15 96/7 97/12
108/14
imagining [1] 91/8
immediately [1]
13/23
impact [10] 5/18
10/14 11/16 13/12
14/19 14/23 14/25
19/4 20/7 78/12
impartial [2] 18/22
54/15
impartiality [5] 18/18
18/20 18/23 19/2 85/4
impersonal [1] 32/24
implement [2]
100/21 101/3
implementation [1]
62/9
implemented [1]
35/15
implications [1]
19/16
importance [3] 32/6
54/14 77/5
important [11] 11/20
18/20 18/22 19/2 44/6}
55/18 89/12 89/14
93/6 106/15 107/11
impression [6] 68/8
68/15 80/20 90/19
90/20 91/15
imprisonment [1]
47/20
improve [2] 35/16
96/12
improved [1] 50/24
inappropriately [1]
88/4
include [4] 44/16
84/20 108/6 108/12
included [8] 6/15
30/20 39/3 44/14 46/9I
51/20 63/10 77/21
including [7] 4/20
12/10 52/6 61/24
83/19 97/25 106/8
income [4] 6/17 6/24
7/13 7124
incoming [1] 92/9
incompetence [2]
29/2 75/1
incompetent [1]
105/3
inconsistent [2] 14/3
14117
incorporated [1] 31/2
increasing [1] 91/17
increasingly [4] 28/1
28/3 28/16 97/23
indeed [7] 1/9 22/9
50/19 53/4 55/21 64/8
85/18
independent [15]
4/25 34/19 35/5 36/4
36/18 37/22 40/14
50/11 53/10 75/8
83/11 83/13 84/13
96/15 98/11
independently [3]
52/15 56/24 57/15
indicates [1] 84/13
indication [1] 36/9
individual [5] 31/18
32/22 35/17 65/8 98/1
individuals [5] 35/22
37/16 38/9 69/14
109/4
Industrial [2] 4/7
4/14
Industries [1] 4/16
inexplicably [1]
7115
inference [1] 16/1
influence [1] 42/10
influenced [1] 79/22
informally [2] 92/20
98/16
information [42]
10/24 11/1 11/5 11/7
16/11 16/25 20/25
30/20 34/14 35/1
36/16 37/3 37/8 37/15
44/2 44/11 45/2 49/11
49/14 50/8 53/18 54/5)
54/10 54/15 54/19
55/6 55/13 56/7 56/12I
56/19 57/3 62/4 62/14)
63/4 63/7 75/19 75/23
79/24 80/16 81/17
(37) I must - information
information... [2]
91/6 101/16
informed [7] 56/24
57/15 57/15 57/20
57/23 98/8 98/8
inherit [2] 24/17
24/18
initial [3] 55/21 69/24
93/9
initially [2] 21/9 29/9
innocent [1] 29/12
inquiries [1] 91/6
Inquiry [14] 1/18 1/19
2/24 4/11 30/7 30/22
72/24 90/25 104/12
107/5 109/17
Inquiry's [1] 2/13
instance [6] 12/3
17/4 42/11 59/13
60/25 69/23
instances [1] 9/19
instead [1] 24/22
institutions [1] 70/19
instructions [1] 42/3
integral [1] 8/1
integration [1] 3/18
integrity [3] 20/17
61/1 85/4
intended [1] 18/25
intention [3] 8/10
70/15 83/12
interchangeable [1]
96/3
interest [13] 20/5
20/15 26/7 34/21
38/14 58/22 58/24
71/23 83/17 83/18
87/18 91/23 99/25
interesting [1] 26/11
interests [1] 61/4
interfere [4] 40/21
40/23 41/8 63/22
interfering [1] 40/25
Interim [5] 35/8
35/13 43/24 91/1 91/8
internal [2] 41/16
82/25
interrupted [1] 57/16
into [17] 5/25 22/4
23/1 28/21 48/20
50/11 56/4 58/6 74/11
76/9 76/14 77/15
79/10 89/18 96/24
104/4 107/17
introductory [8] 48/5
49/13 49/17 51/14
53/15 53/22 93/11
93/11
invest [1] 8/12
investigate [1] 37/18
investigation [2]
34/20 47/22
investigations [1]
50/11
investment [5] 12/13
12/14 17/13 17/17
76/25
involved [13] 4/10
9/10 10/6 20/16 37/20
42/22 50/19 70/23
85/13 94/2 94/7 94/10
99/13
involvement [3] 9/4
18/2 83/12
irrelevant [1] 24/20
is [190]
ish [1] 66/6
isn't [4] 42/2 42/13
71/23 90/16
issue [34] 12/12 13/5
17/15 20/14 26/4
38/14 38/23 39/1 43/2
45/7 49/22 52/12
52/22 53/5 53/24
55/24 56/5 58/2 58/4
58/11 61/13 62/22
65/21 68/21 73/25
83/12 85/16 86/25
89/17 91/23 97/8 97/8
102/11 103/5
issued [1] 31/23
issues [55] 2/15 11/8
12/7 12/11 12/15 17/2
17/12 34/1 34/3 43/5
44/11 44/20 45/12
47/9 47/14 48/12
48/16 48/17 51/15
51/17 51/19 51/23
54/5 56/7 56/13 56/15
57/2 57/3 60/1 61/1
61/7 68/10 69/4 70/2
70/5 70/8 71/3 71/5
71/8 71/10 71/13
71/25 72/4 72/15
72/21 73/1 73/14 77/3)
78/1 91/17 91/19 92/6
92/18 94/4 100/10
it [326]
it's [51] 6/7 8/9 9/23
11/20 18/9 18/22
19/13 20/5 24/18
24/19 26/10 26/10
26/22 30/13 30/14
31/13 33/19 40/12
40/24 41/11 41/13
41/20 42/2 42/13
42/21 42/23 48/25
52/25 53/1 53/2 53/18
64/8 67/8 70/25 80/2
80/23 82/6 82/22
84/25 86/18 90/7
90/16 90/25 93/18
93/23 97/19 97/20
103/6 103/19 105/6
108/24
item [3] 33/3 83/2
87/23
Item 21 [4] 87/23
item 6 [1] 83/2
its [20] 1/19 3/18
8/13 9/8 9/8 10/21
12/17 15/22 17/21
18/18 20/16 29/4 34/9}
35/16 38/12 61/18
61/20 76/10 79/22
106/7
itself [3] 9/16 30/12
61/17
J
James [19] 1/5 1/10
1/13 1/15 1/16 2/11
39/4 47/2 66/25 67/7
68/7 97/14 97/18
99/15 105/18 106/3
109/1 109/14 110/2
James' [11] 2/11
15/4 40/12 48/25 51/9
58/17 68/11 78/3
80/22 89/21 93/23
January [8] 4/4 4/17
58/19 58/20 59/10
60/12 87/21 99/4
jars [1] 26/12
job [3] 19/22 41/11
87/15
join [1] 104/2
joined [1] 3/16
joining [1] 105/12
Jonathan [2] 62/10
100/14
judge [2] 88/3 109/10
judgement [1] 10/4
judgment [1] 35/24
July [12] 1/1 4/2 4/4
4/17 33/20 35/8 37/22
45/8 82/12 84/2 97/21
107/8
July2016 [1] 49/3
juncture [1] 85/22
June [3] 1/23 100/17
103/22
just [49] 2/15 13/16
14/12 14/14 18/4
23/12 23/18 24/21
25/1 27/6 28/8 30/5
31/15 36/25 40/16
42/9 42/20 43/7 44/17
45/22 53/7 55/1 62/4
63/8 63/8 64/24 66/3
66/23 67/9 69/17
69/18 70/25 73/4
73/25 80/23 85/22
86/7 86/22 96/5
100/22 101/8 102/2
102/6 102/18 102/24
105/6 107/4 108/7
109/2
justice [2] 37/18
107/2
justified [2] 7/14
85/11
K
keep [1] 7/12
keeping [2] 56/24
83/12
key [11] 9/13 10/13
10/24 11/13 20/11
22/2 34/1 44/20 50/5
79/5 92/5
kind [6] 73/20 74/7
92/18 93/5 97/9 104/3)
King [1] 76/4
knew [3] 21/19 61/12
81/24
know [36] 1/6 1/17
10/3 11/23 13/14
15/19 19/21 20/11
25/17 30/2 30/2 30/18
30/25 33/1 38/24
45/25 46/8 47/16
48/20 48/21 57/25
64/5 71/18 75/7 81/23)
84/10 84/23 88/20
89/13 90/12 96/8 97/2
105/6 108/12 108/20
108/24
knowledge [7] 2/8
61/14 70/10 82/5
82/10 87/12 101/7
knowledgeable [1]
57/8
known [6] 18/25
84/14 84/16 100/20
101/20 102/4
knows [1] 30/17
L
labour [1] 15/21
lack [3] 55/3 61/8
62/18
language [2] 104/13
105/9
large [5] 3/11 15/25
16/1 24/2 50/15
last [12] 2/23 26/13
27/18 32/1 34/13
57/17 66/4 68/16
69/25 80/23 86/19
109/1
lasted [1] 70/1
late [1] 107/17
later [11] 25/13 34/14
37/6 49/15 49/18
68/14 74/6 87/11
87/17 103/9 107/2
latest [1] 66/13
latter [1] 96/23
Laura [5] 37/22 45/9
59/10 86/18 99/5
law [5] 36/5 40/15
43/18 64/10 85/17
lawyer [1] 40/4
lawyers [1] 42/4
lead [3] 17/7 26/4
59/19
leader [2] 78/7 78/10
leadership [3] 78/20
80/7 101/12
leads [1] 97/9
learned [2] 54/3
108/3
learning [1] 19/19
learnt [1] 26/11
least [4] 54/19 55/3
64/11 71/14
leaving [2] 4/19
63/20
led [6] 12/20 55/5
62/22 72/2 95/23
103/10
left [7] 4/13 52/11
52/14 53/4 53/10
87/15 93/16
legal [22] 31/22
31/24 33/14 35/1 36/3
38/18 39/9 40/25 41/3}
42/22 44/24 55/7
55/17 55/19 59/1
59/14 62/6 62/12
63/17 65/7 87/3 100/2I
legislation [2] 8/16
12/9
legitimacy [1] 105/8
length [8] 9/7 9/16
11/13 83/20 84/24
85/2 85/10 108/17
lengthy [1] 70/23
less [6] 11/23 55/5
63/4 105/23 106/1
109/5
let [3] 27/4 38/24
108/18
let's [1] 86/14
letter [22] 22/2 22/8
22/9 22/10 22/15
28/20 30/12 31/11
32/14 32/17 32/19
32/21 32/21 32/25
38/15 65/14 76/20
76/23 77/11 77/22
86/21 87/1
letters [17] 22/12
23/18 28/8 28/11
30/13 30/18 33/1 65/1
65/3 65/12 66/2 66/4
66/12 66/18 68/23
68/25 75/2
level [14] 9/17 9/18
11/2 11/7 13/17 17/13}
34/7 40/6 44/5 54/18
76/18 76/25 95/17
95/18
levels [2] 17/21
95/16
liaising [1] 104/16
lieu [1] 24/9
(38) information... - lieu
L
like [25] 3/2 11/25
12/23 13/1 15/14 16/2)
16/8 22/23 24/17
25/10 33/13 41/21
42/9 54/18 68/7 77/14)
79/12 80/20 82/16
84/24 86/3 102/13
104/13 105/13 106/11
likely [3] 67/23 88/10
91/9
limit [1] 109/2
limited [41] 6/12 7/4
8/17 8/20 8/22 9/3 9/6
12/11 12/17 26/17
34/8 34/23 35/5 35/15
36/10 36/14 38/19
44/1 51/16 53/8 62/14)
68/17 69/3 74/14
78/16 79/9 79/12
79/15 79/16 79/20
83/8 83/10 83/16 88/3
88/10 89/25 90/3
90/14 94/17 97/24
100/24
Limited's [4] 12/12
34/17 87/2 87/3
line [29] 9/23 12/6
24/4 25/10 28/2 28/4
28/16 28/21 28/23
29/6 30/1 33/5 37/1
59/15 59/22 59/24
60/5 60/24 62/12 63/1
64/1 64/13 64/20
78/15 83/2 89/12
89/15 92/18 92/24
line 40 [1] 83/2
lines [26] 9/24 10/5
12/8 22/1 24/2 24/13
24/13 24/14 25/7 25/7
25/22 29/23 31/7 31/8
40/12 43/15 54/25
58/7 58/8 58/15 59/4
59/12 68/12 78/9
81/21 84/11
link [1] 46/23
list [3] 61/23 94/2
94/4
listed [1] 47/16
litany [1] 107/12
rally [1] 31/5
litigation [48] 14/21
14/22 33/23 34/4
34/22 35/25 37/24
38/7 40/20 41/22
41/25 42/2 42/5 42/12)
42/14 42/19 42/20
43/3 43/12 43/20
44/12 47/9 51/18
52/19 52/20 54/6 55/1
58/16 58/18 60/15
62/15 65/4 65/6 65/6
65/10 65/15 65/18
65/25 68/22 75/24
77/6 83/3 86/21 88/2
88/14 99/6 101/24
104/3
little [10] 10/6 25/13
25/21 27/19 33/7
41/24 65/8 67/2 85/24
96/10
live [1] 41/3
lobbying [1] 22/24
local [3] 104/10
106/15 106/19
location [1] 104/6
lodged [1] 104/2
logic [1] 82/2
London [1] 5/3
long [9] 10/2 31/3
34/9 44/16 69/25 83/6
96/22 96/23 97/3
long-term [1] 34/9
longstanding [1]
50/10
look [3] 17/7 40/21
95/1
looked [9] 2/5 9/13
40/16 45/8 62/20
87/20 102/12 102/13
102/22
looking [10] 13/8
14/1 24/24 25/21
43/14 55/1 63/1 75/16
76/13 96/10
Lord [1] 91/20
Lord Arbuthnot's [1]
91/20
loss [1] 103/10
losses [3] 34/19
47/20 104/15
lost [4] 14/22 14/22
87/16 98/20
lot [1] 17/23
low [2] 7/13 7/24
lower [2] 6/16 6/24
lucky [1] 58/8
lulled [4] 56/4
lunch [3] 67/2 67/3
67/6
lunchtime [1] 67/1
machinery [1] 96/21
made [14] 5/23 5/24
25/12 25/16 32/13
38/17 45/24 65/6
67/25 76/7 83/1 87/8
98/7 101/22
Mail [1] 48/7
main [2] 5/15 75/23
maintain [3] 13/10
84/24 87/4
maintaining [1]
84/15
maintenance [1] 7/8
majority [1] 19/7
make [11] 7/12 10/4
18/15 25/16 25/18
30/9 31/9 32/9 35/10
41/24 84/23
making [4] 31/8 44/4
57/20 74/24
manage [4] 66/23
71/1 83/9 83/18
managed [2] 3/10
16/17
management [8]
8/19 11/3 12/9 61/21
70/13 70/18 82/25
83/22
manages [1] 38/20
managing [4] 83/11
83/17 84/22 85/16
manifesto [4] 6/15
7/15 21/3 106/6
manner [2] 85/17
109/18
Manufacturing [1]
4/21
many [10] 30/18
36/24 36/25 43/18
72/20 73/9 91/4 94/1
94/7 108/19
March [2] 56/9 65/7
March 2017 [1] 65/7
Margot [6] 1/5 1/13
1/16 39/4 103/21
110/2
marked [1] 63/16
market [2] 7/22 8/14
markets [2] 15/21
32/3
massive [2] 11/4
101/11
material [2] 52/5
100/10
matter [42] 10/10
13/10 16/18 31/23
31/24 36/5 38/18 39/9
40/15 42/18 43/8
43/17 43/18 44/9
48/22 51/18 52/13
53/10 54/3 55/4 57/8
58/10 59/14 59/16
59/16 60/4 60/20
60/22 61/19 61/21
62/12 62/19 62/19
64/4 70/17 77/20
80/19 82/6 85/19
96/17 102/12 103/17
matter/legal [1]
59/14
matters [27] 4/11 8/6
8/7 10/13 10/25 11/2
11/5 11/15 12/16
16/14 17/12 24/7
30/19 34/10 41/9
51/20 55/18 60/16
63/13 63/14 75/13
76/2 76/3 96/2 96/12
100/6 106/5
may [19] 4/2 9/15
14/7 18/25 18/25 25/2}
34/11 36/9 42/14
42/19 49/4 51/22 55/5)
62/13 67/10 73/11
78/5 103/24 106/6
maybe [2] 11/23 66/6
me [63] 1/10 2/20
2/25 13/21 13/23 21/1
21/8 21/13 21/16
21/16 23/2 23/7 23/11
23/12 23/21 25/25
26/12 26/24 27/4 27/4,
27/24 28/10 28/14
29/13 30/4 38/24
39/15 39/17 46/7
51/15 56/4 57/5 58/6
65/17 65/20 66/3 69/2
73/9 73/11 77/10 80/3
80/8 81/2 81/7 81/17
81/19 81/20 82/18
82/22 82/23 83/25
84/10 84/13 86/3
86/20 86/22 89/12
90/25 91/5 95/25 96/2
99/21 109/10
mean [33] 7/17 17/22
18/21 19/20 22/21
26/14 28/23 29/24
40/19 40/23 41/1
41/16 43/7 44/13 53/5
54/10 62/8 62/8 62/24,
63/6 65/12 70/13
70/18 73/4 82/22 84/8
84/17 96/3 97/2 97/10)
102/17 104/23 109/8
meaning [1] 106/20
means [2] 18/5 63/20)
meant [7] 12/11 50/4
54/4 54/9 85/20 90/15
103/1
measures [1] 35/15
mechanism [1] 92/9
media [9] 4/17 34/21
38/14 38/22 58/22
58/24 59/4 99/23
99/25
mediation [11] 35/16
35/18 35/20 35/23
50/24 58/3 76/9 83/9
97/25 98/7 105/14
medical [1] 3/6
meet [8] 11/24 36/15
45/1 50/4 69/17 72/5
78/7 78/10
meeting [34] 6/12
6/18 22/23 47/13 48/2
48/3 48/4 48/6 50/1
51/10 51/13 51/15
51/21 51/23 52/3
52/12 52/18 53/22
53/24 54/11 55/25
62/23 63/10 69/24
70/11 70/16 70/20
71/18 71/19 72/8
77/19 78/18 80/4
80/15
meetings [20] 28/25
29/16 49/13 49/16
49/17 49/24 53/15
69/10 69/11 69/25
70/6 70/9 71/4 71/5
71/13 71/21 72/1
78/20 80/7 93/12
member [4] 3/20 4/1
31/12 57/10
members [5] 72/6
102/9 104/21 108/13
109/4
Memorandum [3]
95/4 95/5 95/14
Memorandums [1]
94/24
memory [1] 65/12
mention [8] 14/19
43/20 54/22 77/2 81/6
97/4 108/17 108/21
mentioned [8] 44/19
62/5 63/8 81/20 82/4
85/14 101/8 105/4
mentions [1] 31/18
message [1] 90/3
messages [1] 103/7
met [10] 9/13 19/8
29/16 45/19 50/3
63/24 69/21 69/22
79/21 80/13
Michael [1] 51/13
middle [1] 39/5
might [60] 6/3 9/13
10/6 10/14 20/9 20/10}
20/14 23/17 23/17
23/20 26/2 26/2 26/4
26/14 27/9 27/9 27/14)
29/25 31/5 31/6 31/7
41/2 41/18 42/8 45/15
46/3 46/3 46/10 49/14)
50/6 50/13 52/18
52/24 53/3 62/20 69/4
69/20 75/11 76/11
76/15 76/19 79/22
85/14 87/17 88/20
90/22 90/23 93/3
95/11 96/7 96/12 97/3}
100/8 100/20 101/1
102/4 102/9 105/11
105/11 105/12
milestone [1] 9/14
mind [3] 44/8 66/19
83/25
minimal [1] 69/2
minister [36] 4/15
11/19 13/22 13/24
15/3 15/8 16/4 20/13
22/13 22/23 23/3 23/4I
24/18 24/20 26/5 26/7I
26/11 28/10 41/5
(39) like - minister
minister... [17] 41/13
43/4 43/9 49/15 52/10)
53/17 54/23 57/23
58/10 62/7 66/5 68/14
82/2 82/7 92/14 92/23
93/7
minister's [1] 37/20
ministerial [13] 4/14
16/16 18/14 19/6
24/15 24/25 40/6
84/23 85/1 92/5 92/14
93/14 98/4
ministers [23] 9/18
11/10 11/12 11/17
11/22 11/24 12/1
18/15 38/24 39/2 41/2)
42/16 45/7 53/16
54/18 77/5 82/25
83/19 83/23 85/12
92/10 93/4 95/16
Ministers’ [2] 83/11
83/17
minute [2] 27/7 71/19
minutes [7] 67/3
67/25 67/25 68/1 70/1
105/24 106/1
miscarriage [1]
107/2
misconduct [1]
74/25
missing [1] 103/25
mistake [1] 51/7
misunderstood [1]
14/7
mitigating [1] 83/14
mix [1] 94/13
mode [1] 53/17
model [1] 97/10
modernising [1] 6/17
moment [5] 24/25
30/6 46/11 53/8 66/21
money [1] 104/1
month [2] 66/9 98/4
monthly [1] 82/24
months [7] 25/24
28/5 49/20 49/20
58/13 66/5 77/4
moot [3] 52/25 53/1
96/11
more [49] 9/10 16/4
17/20 19/8 21/4 29/15)
29/20 30/19 32/25
34/12 34/14 44/22
48/8 48/22 49/13
49/22 50/8 50/23 51/5
57/3 57/14 57/15 58/6
65/21 67/3 69/4 73/7
73/17 75/14 75/17
75/19 75/22 78/6
85/13 85/24 88/10
91/18 94/13 94/24
97/9 99/17 100/23
101/6 102/6 102/18
102/24 102/25 103/2
104/4
Moresby [1] 103/19
morning [8] 1/3 1/6
1/11 2/5 2/15 46/11
66/22 85/15
most [12] 7/10 11/20
14/24 17/11 17/17
19/7 41/4 60/22 76/7
96/3 108/11 109/8
mostly [4] 26/19
34/16 35/3 38/9
mounted [1] 89/10
move [2] 37/1 100/8
MP [4] 22/15 32/18
64/14 104/10
MP's [1] 22/7
MPs [5] 22/10 32/18
57/7 65/13 68/23
Mr [12] 47/5 68/1
68/1 97/16 97/17 98/2
105/21 105/22 108/3
108/17 110/6 110/8
Mr Callard [2] 47/5
98/2
Mr Henry [5] 68/1
97/16 97/17 108/3
110/6
Mr Seeney [1]
108/17
Mr Stein [4] 68/1
105/21 105/22 110/8
Ms [45] 1/10 1/12
1/14 1/15 2/11 2/11
2/21 15/4 38/6 40/9
40/12 47/2 47/5 48/25
51/9 58/17 64/25 66/2
66/11 66/17 66/25
67/7 68/4 68/7 68/11
78/3 80/22 86/23
89/21 93/23 97/14
97/18 99/7 99/15
103/6 103/9 103/11
105/18 106/3 106/4
108/2 109/1 109/12
109/14 110/4
Ms James [14] 1/10
1/15 2/11 47/2 66/25
67/7 68/7 97/14 97/18)
99/15 105/18 106/3
109/1 109/14
Ms James' [11] 2/11
15/4 40/12 48/25 51/9)
58/17 68/11 78/3
80/22 89/21 93/23
Ms Price [13] 1/12
1/14 2/21 40/9 64/25
66/2 66/11 66/17 68/4
99/7 108/2 109/12
110/4
Ms Thompson [3]
38/6 47/5 86/23
Ms Vennells [3]
103/6 103/9 103/11
much [20] 2/20 36/21
36/22 37/2 37/7 45/18}
45/20 48/5 48/8 63/23
63/24 66/14 67/14
97/18 105/19 105/20
107/21 109/11 109/19}
109/20
multinational [1]
3/12
must [9] 10/23 11/12
37/13 46/3 75/25
80/13 84/13 84/15
84/15
mutual [1] 97/6
mutualised [1] 97/3
my [96] 1/17 2/4 2/6
9/20 13/22 14/7 14/8
15/3 15/19 15/22 16/3
18/2 18/10 19/6 19/7
21/7 21/9 21/11 21/14
21/17 21/25 22/4 22/6
23/22 24/17 26/11
26/24 27/24 27/25
29/15 31/1 31/4 31/6
31/6 32/20 37/2 40/6
45/14 45/16 48/22
49/3 49/15 49/24 51/6
53/7 53/14 55/25
57/18 58/13 59/6
60/13 61/10 63/1
63/10 64/25 66/19
66/19 68/14 70/10
70/24 73/13 74/19
75/6 75/23 76/14
77/17 78/13 78/16
78/17 78/19 80/13
81/9 81/22 82/6 84/9
84/18 85/5 85/23 86/4
87/12 87/13 87/15
87/17 92/16 92/17
92/18 92/19 93/1
93/15 93/16 93/17
101/9 103/5 105/18
108/2 109/10
myself [9] 13/24 16/3
25/12 27/7 27/21 61/9)
61/10 62/6 89/11
N
name [4] 1/15 1/17
31/14 44/18
National [4] 32/9
78/8 78/11 79/6
nature [10] 9/21
13/18 13/20 18/1 19/5
23/24 32/17 32/25
49/19 83/7
nearly [1] 67/1
necessarily [2] 63/14
82/22
necessary [2] 18/15
66/25
need [23] 7/20 10/5
10/15 11/10 18/2
23/19 34/10 42/3
42/14 47/16 48/20
52/11 53/5 56/17
57/25 64/5 67/6 83/5
85/22 85/24 99/3
100/10 106/23
needed [4] 14/23
17/1 48/21 59/14
needing [2] 6/1 17/20
negotiates [1] 79/16
negotiations [1]
17/16
neighbours [1] 6/17
neither [1] 57/1
network [5] 6/17 7/5
7/16 38/20 108/13
never [5] 45/14 54/22
68/18 78/19 90/20
nevertheless [1]
75/4
Neville [1] 98/15
Neville-Rolfe [1]
98/15
new [8] 8/12 19/17
24/25 31/1 92/23
93/13 93/14 93/18
next [5] 17/16 35/18
45/22 88/7 103/17
NFSP [10] 78/15
78/22 79/10 79/15
79/19 79/21 79/25
80/5 80/13 80/17
night [1] 107/17
nine [2] 25/24 78/8
no [67] 5/22 15/2
15/2 20/22 25/9 27/12,
27/15 27/16 30/16
31/20 33/8 33/12
33/12 34/20 35/10
36/9 36/22 40/1 42/24
46/8 47/21 48/4 48/13
49/10 49/10 49/13
52/11 54/1 54/10
54/23 57/5 57/11 62/2
62/2 64/8 66/2 67/3
70/7 71/20 73/20
75/25 77/2 77/15 78/2
79/2 82/2 82/18 82/18
84/23 87/9 88/16
91/25 92/3 92/7 92/12
92/12 92/12 92/16
92/22 98/5 98/12
98/17 98/17 100/10
106/11 108/9 109/5
nobody [1] 94/6
nodded [1] 56/25
nods [1] 86/13
noise [2] 58/11 83/17
non [2] 4/22 6/13
non-executive [1]
4/22
non-financial [1]
6/13
none [2] 30/22 97/10
normal [6] 5/22 10/8
15/16 24/9 89/9 89/10)
normally [5] 10/7
19/13 19/17 23/18
100/6
north [1] 70/24
not [139]
note [6] 21/13 23/21
40/13 47/12 77/2
105/24
notes [1] 47/17
nothing [7] 29/25
49/5 50/13 50/13 51/2)
61/10 104/23
noticed [1] 59/18
noting [1] 45/1
November [1] 56/9
now [34] 1/5 1/5 1/6
2/12 4/25 13/14 16/7
30/4 45/22 46/13 48/1
52/19 56/6 60/15
66/18 68/3 71/22 72/6I
77/9 79/19 81/1 88/17
91/12 91/20 93/7 95/6
99/1 99/3 100/8 101/8
102/12 107/5 107/8
107/18
number [18] 4/19
13/8 14/9 20/8 26/3
27/10 27/15 34/16
35/3 35/21 50/15
50/16 66/4 68/23
69/23 90/17 94/10
97/21
Number 10 [4] 20/8
26/3 27/10 27/15
number 6 [1] 97/21
number Two [1]
90/17
numbers [1] 50/18
[e)
obfuscation [1]
102/14
objection [1] 55/3
objective [4] 7/9
18/11 18/22 54/15
objectives [5] 9/2 9/4
9/12 63/24 94/21
objectivity [1] 85/4
observe [1] 27/5
obstructing [1] 91/6
obvious [1] 40/24
obviously [8] 15/12
61/16 63/22 81/13
89/16 90/6 108/23
109/8
occasion [4] 19/8
48/11 48/13 100/4
occasional [7] 49/4
49/7 49/12 49/14 50/9)
51/1 75/10
(40) minister... - occasional
[e)
occasionally [6]
19/23 22/11 23/20
28/8 69/17 72/5
occasions [7] 11/24
69/18 69/19 71/12
71/15 72/8 72/20
October [4] 31/13
32/15 33/9 66/14
October 2016 [1]
33/9
odds [1] 69/2
Ofcom [1] 96/14
off [6] 31/5 42/15
74/17 94/4 102/15
106/1
offence [1] 14/11
offered [2] 35/14
76/11
offering [1] 8/13
office [214]
Office's [7] 7/9 8/2
31/18 38/11 61/4
89/12 98/19
Officer [2] 3/5 95/17
Officer's [1] 68/9
official [4] 23/23
95/18 96/1 96/1
officials [28] 16/8
16/13 16/17 16/25
17/9 18/8 18/11 19/11
20/24 21/12 21/16
23/14 23/16 24/3 24/6
24/10 25/16 25/25
26/2 26/5 26/13 26/18
27/8 83/23 92/21
94/25 96/4 98/23
often [4] 21/14 26/1
79/12 99/19
oh [2] 48/7 90/15
okay [2] 2/16 86/12
omit [2] 100/16
103/23
omitted [1] 44/6
on [250]
once [6] 17/21 41/9
45/24 49/21 71/25
106/3
one [63] 5/12 5/23
8/6 11/9 19/8 33/18
39/2 40/4 40/16 41/22
42/25 43/19 43/20
44/21 45/13 45/16
45/19 46/5 46/7 46/8
49/3 49/24 51/7 51/8
52/16 53/11 57/7
57/11 57/23 61/5
63/10 65/5 65/15 66/9)
66/13 70/17 71/6
71/12 71/14 71/19
72/5 72/6 72/12 72/12
75/13 77/19 77/19
79/3 82/3 82/7 87/20
87/21 88/18 91/2
91/12 91/19 93/12
96/9 96/12 97/22
102/2 106/19 109/1
ones [2] 28/9 84/14
ongoing [5] 55/17
65/4 68/21 88/5 98/9
only [10] 9/10 26/12
58/11 59/6 61/9 71/14
71/25 84/11 90/3
99/10
open [3] 7/12 82/14
102/10
operate [3] 8/13 9/6
32/4
operated [2] 7/22
106/12
operates [1] 34/9
operating [2] 32/3
106/13
operation [2] 12/6
12/14
operational [23] 8/5
9/17 10/7 10/13 10/24)
11/1 11/5 11/8 11/15
38/18 39/9 44/9 55/4
59/16 60/4 60/16
60/20 62/12 62/19
63/13 63/16 64/4
85/18
operations [6] 9/5
12/10 12/17 60/1
63/22 64/2
opine [1] 41/14
opinion [2] 85/5
109/10
opportunity [5] 2/20
77/4 T7I9 78/12 94/25
opposed [4] 86/9
95/8 99/16 99/17
optics [1] 99/16
option [4] 19/16
96/19 97/4 97/5
options [5] 19/15
83/20 85/9 96/11
96/16
or [120]
orchestrated [2]
97/23 105/7
order [4] 10/22 22/2
65/15 96/20
organisation [2]
61/19 79/12
original [2] 2/3 81/20
other [16] 8/7 18/4
20/6 20/8 20/9 33/1
44/17 70/19 74/22
82/3 92/24 94/4 94/15)
96/14 99/12 104/15
others [3] 51/25
69/13 88/25
otherwise [1] 7/18
our [11] 36/4 38/20
39/3 41/3 54/13 58/24
66/21 85/15 86/21
99/25 109/17
out [14] 5/10 9/20
10/1 10/1 14/21 28/18
30/18 51/8 53/11
77/10 81/10 100/14
102/22 107/14
outcome [3] 41/8
41/11 52/20
outcomes [1] 41/3
outgoing [3] 78/7
78/10 80/5
outlined [2] 23/11
49/3
outset [1] 2/19
over [19] 1/12 6/2
8/24 9/8 22/5 24/5
31/19 33/3 33/25
34/19 38/14 50/12
62/8 93/17 94/14
97/16 98/20 103/14
103/25
overall [3] 5/25 9/1
76/18
overlap [1] 64/2
oversight [8] 5/19
10/13 10/23 13/24
55/18 94/1 96/15
96/16
overstatement [2]
26/15 53/2
overturn [1] 35/23
overview [4] 3/2 5/6
33/21 34/7
owed [1] 8/20
own [14] 15/19 19/4
20/13 31/4 31/6 60/1
69/17 81/12 87/14
94/12 95/13 104/1
106/14 107/14
owned [10] 8/11
10/11 11/18 16/1 32/2I
43/1 43/3 95/11 97/1
97/9
owner [3] 16/6 60/23
61/18
owners [2] 10/3 10/8
ownership [3] 8/19
11/3 15/12
Po
pack [17] 30/20
33/18 34/7 39/3 43/19)
43/20 45/13 45/24
49/3 53/12 55/21
56/13 56/19 58/10
63/10 64/17 93/11
page [37] 1/23 6/7
8/9 8/24 12/5 15/5
18/9 25/21 27/19
31/15 31/16 33/25
34/24 40/12 44/21
45/4 45/5 45/5 47/13
47/15 47/15 48/25
51/10 58/17 68/11
68/12 78/4 79/4 80/23)
86/17 86/23 89/21
93/23 93/24 94/14
96/11 103/17
page 1 [1] 86/23
page 10 [1] 15/5
page 11 [1] 40/12
page 12 [2] 45/4 45/5
page 13 [3] 48/25
79/4 80/23
page 14 [1] 34/24
page 15 [3] 6/7 51/10
68/11
page 18 [1] 58/17
page 2 [2] 44/21
86/17
page 23 [1] 78/4
page 25 [1] 89/21
page 26 [2] 93/23
93/24
page 28 [1] 1/23
page 6 [1] 8/9
page 8 [1] 18/9
paper [1] 80/12
papers [2] 76/4
104/12
paperwork [3] 16/16
21/17 23/15
paragraph [54] 6/5
8/8 8/24 12/4 12/8
15/4 17/6 18/8 20/23
21/6 25/22 27/19
31/17 32/1 33/16 34/6
34/13 35/18 36/17
39/5 40/11 43/14 45/3)
48/24 51/9 56/22
58/17 58/21 59/3 59/9
64/15 64/16 64/17
68/10 69/8 75/15
76/22 78/3 80/22
86/19 86/24 89/1
89/20 89/22 91/14
93/22 96/10 99/3 99/8)
99/8 100/11 102/2
102/3 106/22
paragraph 15 [1] 6/5
paragraph 2 [1]
106/22
paragraph 20 [1] 8/8
paragraph 21 [1]
8/24
paragraph 22 [2]
56/22 69/8
paragraph 23 [2]
12/4 12/8
paragraph 25 [1]
17/6
paragraph 26 [3]
18/8 20/23 25/22
paragraph 27 [2]
21/6 27/19
paragraph 29 [1]
15/4
paragraph 30 [1]
33/16
paragraph 35 [2]
40/11 43/14
paragraph 37 [1]
75/15
paragraph 38 [1]
45/3
paragraph 40 [1]
48/24
paragraph 42 [1]
80/22
paragraph 44 [1]
89/1
paragraph 49 [2]
51/9 68/10
paragraph 56 [1]
58/17
paragraph 57 [2]
59/3 99/8
paragraph 58 [1]
59/9
paragraph 65 [1]
64/15
paragraph 66 [1]
64/16
paragraph 67 [1]
64/17
paragraph 68 [1]
76/22
paragraph 70 [1]
78/3
paragraph 71 [1]
91/14
paragraph 74 [3]
89/20 100/11 102/3
paragraph 79 [1]
93/22
paragraph 81 [1]
96/10
paragraphs [6] 5/11
8/7 32/12 56/10 56/16
80/18
paragraphs 11 [1]
5/11
paragraphs 20 [1]
8/7
paragraphs 51 [1]
56/16
Parker [2] 76/20
77/25
Parker's [1] 100/13
Parliament [9] 3/20
4/1 4/19 31/12 58/11
58/13 92/5 95/15
95/23
Parliamentarians [2]
41/5 91/23
Parliamentary [14]
4/5 5/7 15/1 21/2
33/15 56/8 56/23
57/12 58/7 73/2 88/23)
92/1 92/10 92/24
part [15] 8/1 8/3
(41) occasionally - part
Pp
part... [13] 12/17 16/9
16/19 19/10 26/1
56/12 61/9 72/12
73/14 87/13 89/12
89/14 104/21
partial [3] 55/9 63/9
82/6
partiality [3] 20/3
20/16 20/19
Participant [1] 67/4
Participants [2]
67/11 67/23
particular [22] 5/8
6/19 6/24 16/18 18/20
23/19 26/4 26/10 28/7
32/14 35/21 39/18
42/11 48/4 56/23
62/21 65/1 66/1 74/13
84/1 87/3 96/4
particularly [9] 7/17
10/10 15/18 15/24
17/15 18/6 24/21
41/22 77/7
parties [1] 41/23
partners [2] 108/8
109/4
partnership [1] 79/11
parts [1] 7/21
party [2] 42/19 87/1
pass [3] 38/21 54/21
59/12
passage [1] 99/7
passed [1] 60/24
past [1] 92/10
Paula [7] 51/11 51/25)
52/1 53/24 62/21 73/6
103/8
pay [1] 107/13
penultimate [2]
31/17 86/24
people [20] 12/21
13/11 14/9 21/25
25/17 28/13 29/12
37/9 37/14 50/5 50/18
64/9 73/4 75/3 85/6
89/13 95/13 106/11
107/23 108/16
people's [2] 108/20
108/22
per [2] 44/13 82/20
perceived [1] 88/6
perception [1] 27/8
perfect [1] 68/4
perfectly [1] 3/1
perform [1] 15/16
performed [1] 10/11
perhaps [6] 10/5
16/5 27/2 43/16 46/9
107/11
period [1] 65/2
periodically [1] 24/16
Permanent [3] 74/2
95/17 101/10
perpetuity [1] 25/16
persevere [1] 73/25
persevered [1] 73/20
persists [1] 34/21
person [4] 2/25 19/3
31/3 59/19
personal [2] 69/1
108/22
personally [2] 23/7
33/4
persuaded [1] 89/11
pertain [1] 10/18
pertaining [1] 60/1
pharmaceutical [1]
3/7
physically [1] 3/1
pick [2] 102/2 103/14
picked [1] 33/9
Picking [2] 7/7 39/5
place [5] 62/11 95/5
95/6 105/14 106/15
places [2] 32/5 53/15
planning [1] 7/2
played [1] 8/1
player [1] 20/12
players [3] 94/1 94/7
94/10
please [49] 1/15 1/24
3/2 6/7 8/8 12/5 15/4
16/8 18/9 25/21 27/20
31/10 31/16 33/13
33/19 33/25 37/25
38/24 40/11 45/4 45/5)
46/14 47/11 47/15
48/24 51/9 51/24
58/16 66/22 67/16
68/5 68/7 68/10 69/6
74/21 78/4 79/3 80/20)
80/22 82/11 82/13
86/16 86/17 87/21
87/25 89/20 93/22
94/14 103/17
pledge [1] 106/6
plus [1] 67/3
pm [3] 67/18 67/20
109/23
point [22] 13/25
25/19 31/9 33/11
36/24 39/23 52/9
52/13 52/25 53/1 53/9)
59/15 61/12 62/3 77/4
77/10 81/22 92/13
94/11 101/6 107/22
109/1
pointed [1] 81/25
points [4] 14/25 22/2
52/4 93/6
POL [3] 17/23 84/12
100/21
POL00244227 [1]
51/24
policies [1] 24/24
policy [30] 5/12 7/9
8/6 9/1 9/18 9/23
10/10 10/14 11/16
12/7 12/24 13/10 14/3
15/23 16/18 18/11
21/4 21/22 24/2 24/4
24/13 24/13 24/14
25/7 28/15 33/2 36/25)
53/21 63/14 102/14
politely [1] 72/10
Political [1] 5/4
pools [1] 16/13
poor [1] 40/24
poorer [1] 7/18
portfolio [9] 5/6 5/8
5/18 5/24 6/4 15/19
18/11 26/9 70/24
portfolios [1] 18/15
position [19] 11/21
21/21 21/22 21/22
41/10 42/25 43/16
43/17 58/5 59/18
59/21 61/11 62/3
76/14 83/20 84/25
85/2 85/10 95/10
possession [1] 61/13}
possible [1] 68/2
possibly [10] 50/6
51/6 55/10 63/6 72/1
77/19 77/21 80/19
101/13 104/1
post [199]
postal [13] 5/11 6/5
6/8 7/2 8/17 8/18
23/23 26/24 27/3 27/5
28/10 30/19 48/6
postmaster [5] 32/7
103/10 103/16 103/24]
104/8
postmasters [14]
32/7 32/11 38/9 38/9
47/19 50/15 50/16
65/9 65/20 75/12
104/22 105/1 105/10
105/15
postscript [2] 27/23
30/10
potential [7] 11/16
13/12 15/6 58/12 88/8}
94/8 94/9
potentially [6] 14/20
19/4 39/16 42/15
61/16 63/3
power [1] 94/19
pre [1] 6/1
pre-identified [1] 6/1
precise [2] 28/6 36/2
preclude [4] 2/24
41/6 41/21 43/7
predecessor [3]
24/22 92/17 93/17
preferable [1] 67/10
preferred [1] 109/19
prejudice [1] 41/2
prepare [1] 90/25
prepared [4] 16/22
23/10 76/9 83/19
preparing [2] 16/16
85/9
presence [2] 82/3
82/8
present [2] 2/22
92/21
presented [1] 29/13
presenting [1] 50/21
preserving [1] 85/2
President [1] 3/17
press [13] 38/21
54/25 58/15 59/2 59/8)
59/20 99/14 99/15
99/17 99/20 100/3
100/5 100/7
pressed [1] 46/7
pressure [2] 100/21
102/5
prestigious [1]
106/19
presumably [1]
84/20
presume [2] 44/15
81/14
pretty [3] 24/8 36/22
90/9
prevent [2] 43/4
55/17
previous [8] 24/15
81/8 81/10 84/4 84/18
85/1 92/5 93/7
previously [2] 38/23
56/20
Price [15] 1/12 1/14
1/17 2/21 40/9 64/25
66/2 66/11 66/17 68/4
99/7 106/4 108/2
109/12 110/4
prime [2] 20/12 57/22
Principal [1] 95/17
principle [3] 41/4
41/15 42/18
principles [2] 85/7
85/8
prior [2] 78/18 80/12
priorities [1] 76/24
priority [2] 48/17
48/22
prison [1] 14/9
private [29] 15/25
16/14 16/15 21/7 21/9)
21/18 21/25 22/4 22/5)
22/6 22/16 22/21 23/2
23/3 23/16 23/22
37/23 39/7 41/22
45/16 64/8 86/18
87/14 88/24 89/6 92/4,
93/15 93/15 99/5
privately [1] 89/3
privilege [2] 87/4
102/16
pro [1] 4/25
pro bono [1] 4/25
proactive [1] 91/18
proactively [3] 52/24
68/18 83/16
probably [23] 10/1
48/7 49/25 60/12 66/6
67/3 69/22 70/1 71/6
71/9 71/15 72/18
72/22 74/2 74/3 74/6
74/11 85/14 87/19
90/1 96/22 100/4
101/21
probed [1] 51/5
problem [7] 29/14
50/10 50/14 94/5 94/6
94/15 101/11
problems [7] 32/22
35/11 47/19 75/4
75/11 93/25 98/12
proceedings [7]
31/22 36/3 40/14
47/23 55/19 62/13
87/5
proceedings' [1]
59/14
process [9] 21/5 30/9}
40/21 40/25 42/22
65/7 80/14 89/9 92/23}
processes [3] 35/16
50/25 88/2
produced [3] 36/19
82/23 91/7
professional [1] 3/3
profile [1] 42/12
Project [6] 48/1 83/2
87/23 97/22 100/16
100/18
promise [3] 45/6
45/8 45/17
prompt [1] 34/11
proper [1] 54/12
properly [2] 100/9
100/25
proportion [1] 24/2
proposed [4] 24/13
39/8 43/11 43/12
prosecuted [2] 12/22
37/16
prosecutions [6]
14/2 14/14 88/24 89/3)
89/6 89/9
protect [1] 7/16
provide [15] 5/19
11/12 17/24 21/1
36/15 39/1 40/18
44/11 45/2 45/6 54/18
55/12 63/7 92/4 93/5
provided [21] 16/10
16/13 19/14 20/20
20/21 20/25 23/21
24/6 35/2 40/13 42/3
43/18 47/13 56/12
57/12 61/23 62/14
64/13 94/23 99/5
(42) part... - provided
Pp
provided... [1] 103/6
providers [1] 3/7
provides [2] 7/3
19/15
providing [7] 1/19
3/5 17/14 19/3 54/19
66/15 109/17
PS [3] 25/14 29/11
31/6
public [13] 3/6 9/9
16/1 20/5 20/15 22/12
26/7 38/17 41/16
41/18 44/16 94/22
97/7
publicly [6] 8/11
15/24 16/1 32/2 42/20}
55/16
publicly-owned [1]
16/1
published [3] 2/13
35/8 35/9
pulled [4] 52/5
purely [3] 7/22 16/6
94/21
purpose [8] 7/5
10/15 10/20 31/21
57/14 57/20 57/23
100/12
purposes [8] 2/10
30/21 66/13 73/11
95/3 106/7 106/8
106/14
pursued [1] 48/19
pushback [1] 73/21
put [15] 7/11 23/9
31/4 58/4 66/18 68/20
70/8 71/17 76/9 84/4
100/21 102/1 102/5
102/20 104/4
putting [4] 63/16
102/15 104/1 105/14
PVEN00000503 [1]
103/6
Qu
QC [2] 83/11 84/13
qualify [1] 97/6
quality [3] 11/7 76/2
89/17
Quarter [1] 60/13
Quarter 1 [1] 60/13
quarterly [5] 29/18
69/10 69/10 69/25
71/4
Queen's [1] 100/15
querying [1] 65/2
question [27] 5/22
13/6 18/4 26/23 27/2
27/4 27/6 30/6 53/7
57/18 61/6 63/1 66/14,
73/13 73/23 74/13
74/19 74/22 80/2
81/16 84/22 99/19
101/4 101/19 107/11
108/4 108/25
Questioned [6] 1/14
97/17 105/22 110/4
110/6 110/8
questioning [4] 23/5
69/9 78/12 86/2
questions [24] 1/17
12/14 17/3 21/2 35/13
42/9 45/20 57/18
66/19 67/4 67/24
68/19 74/19 74/22
75/5 75/6 78/16 86/4
97/13 105/18 105/23
106/3 108/1 108/2
quickly [1] 31/16
quite [15] 6/9 11/2
17/19 28/23 61/6
62/16 66/9 70/12
70/24 80/19 81/15
96/7 99/24 100/6
101/5
quo [1] 94/15
quote [2] 58/21
102/22
quoted [1] 15/25
R
radar [1] 85/21
radical [1] 97/12
raise [11] 8/12 17/2
29/8 29/15 71/5 73/2
73/23 73/24 74/10
77/25 103/7
raised [18] 22/2
29/20 34/17 35/13
36/7 57/11 71/8 71/13)
71/25 72/7 72/17 73/1
73/9 73/15 74/6 74/7
76/4 80/8
raising [1] 68/23
random [1] 71/24
range [2] 56/13 56/15]
rather [10] 9/24
14/13 47/8 66/17 90/2
97/1 100/22 102/5
102/18 103/1
reach [4] 23/2 23/11
36/9 81/18
reached [1] 41/10
reaction [1] 54/2
reactive [1] 53/17
read [11] 21/15 36/20
46/1 81/1 83/5 84/3
84/9 90/2 90/2 90/23
102/22
reading [2] 41/19
80/12
readout [1] 71/20
reads [1] 97/22
real [1] 58/5
really [17] 20/17
23/17 26/13 43/8
54/11 58/11 62/16
64/9 71/2 71/14 74/16
75/7 85/3 89/5 92/21
93/1 95/12
reason [12] 18/17
19/12 19/18 19/23
20/1 20/4 20/6 20/10
20/14 31/21 53/23
85/12
reasons [1] 20/17
reassurance [2]
78/18 78/21
reassured [1] 78/14
recall [16] 46/5 48/1
48/3 48/14 51/16
52/23 64/22 64/23
65/14 65/16 65/20
70/16 71/8 73/18 98/6
106/9
receipt [1] 97/7
receive [5] 34/12
36/13 44/22 44/25
45/15
received [17] 17/19
18/10 21/7 27/13 28/8
28/11 30/21 32/18
35/22 47/2 56/20
58/19 65/3 66/4 66/6
75/2 79/19
receiving [2] 55/5
65/14
recent [1] 92/1
recently [2] 79/9
94/24
recipient [2] 19/1
31/9
reckoning [3] 100/24
102/7 102/19
recognises [1] 7/5
recollection [1]
45/14
recommend [3]
34/11 36/13 87/4
recommendation [3]
44/21 44/23 76/17
recommendations
[6] 45/23 46/2 62/10
100/22 101/3 101/17
recommended [1]
44/25
recompense [1]
109/5
reconcile [1] 107/16
record [1] 108/9
recovering [2] 67/7
109/15
red [4] 91/13 91/17
91/20 102/16
redress [1] 109/6
reduce [1] 9/8
reduced [1] 69/23
reducing [1] 94/22
refer [8] 43/25 45/6
56/17 58/1 66/2 77/22
100/16 106/24
reference [8] 2/10
TIT 37/25 41/25 44/14)
80/24 81/25 82/7
referred [5] 21/12
42/21 43/23 50/1
69/11
referring [7] 40/15
52/2 58/25 59/5 100/1
104/10 106/6
refers [2] 31/22
34/14
reflect [1] 28/12
reflections [2] 75/13
93/20
refused [1] 87/8
regard [3] 19/2 60/3
105/2
regardless [2] 53/8
57/18
Regis [1] 107/6
register [7] 82/12
82/14 82/16 84/1
84/15 87/22 97/20
registers [2] 82/21
87/20
regret [4] 37/7 45/16
45/18 90/6
regrettable [1] 61/8
regrettably [1] 25/11
regular [1] 107/14
regularly [2] 47/25
70/24
regulated [1] 97/1
regulatory [2] 96/15
96/16
reinforced [1] 78/19
reiteration [1] 75/7
relate [1] 38/10
related [3] 16/9 34/2
82/15
relating [7] 33/14
33/18 40/20 41/25
51/20 55/7 95/15
relation [10] 24/12
27/2 37/21 52/21
57/21 75/21 91/18
93/21 99/23 106/4
relations [1] 3/6
relationship [2] 32/6
79/15
relevant [9] 4/11
12/24 13/1 13/19
42/21 44/18 58/3 66/5
92/10
reliability [1] 98/19
reliant [1] 18/18
relied [4] 13/10 18/11
21/16 29/23
reluctance [3] 72/11
72/25 73/14
reluctant [5] 68/19
72/3 77/8 78/1 91/10
rely [2] 20/24 23/14
remain [5] 32/10 36/4I
37/21 40/14 82/7
remember [9] 32/14
49/1 68/15 69/13 74/4)
T7A4I5 74/16 79/2 99/6
remind [3] 54/13
57/25 77/10
reminded [1] 76/23
reminding [1] 83/25
remit [1] 15/22
remote [1] 43/22
remotely [1] 1/6
remove [1] 11/22
removed [1] 42/25
remuneration [2]
17/12 79/17
repeat [1] 29/22
repeated [1] 56/19
replacement [1]
43/23
replied [1] 23/2
replies [6] 24/7 27/17
27/25 30/6 30/8 33/10
reply [2] 22/22 28/20
replying [1] 22/18
report [22] 35/8 35/9
35/13 43/24 43/24
61/24 71/20 74/20
81/5 81/12 81/21 82/3}
82/4 82/7 90/16 90/18
91/1 91/8 91/11
100/14 100/22 101/17)
reported [1] 91/3
reports [35] 36/18
36/19 43/25 44/3
44/14 44/15 44/17
44/18 54/17 61/22
61/24 62/5 80/25 81/1
81/3 81/6 82/3 82/23
89/24 90/3 90/6 90/8
94/17 100/20 100/23
101/8 102/4 102/7
102/10 102/13 102/15)
102/18 102/24 102/25)
103/2
representative [6]
11/19 17/22 32/11
78/14 84/21 94/16
representatives [5]
29/17 49/25 69/21
73/22 105/16
reputationally [1]
14/20
reputations [1]
108/22
request [4] 87/7 92/1
99/11 104/2
requested [1] 37/3
requests [2] 22/24
22/24
require [5] 24/16
26/5 26/13 26/14
34/11
required [6] 19/3
(43) provided... - required
R
required... [5] 21/17
23/15 54/10 76/15
76/19
requirements [1]
71/1
requires [1] 18/21
requiring [2] 13/24
101/2
resolve [3] 12/17
96/19 96/21
resolved [5] 35/20
54/4 55/4 59/17 71/10
resource [1] 17/20
respect [2] 2/23 7/19
respected [1] 10/19
respective [1] 93/4
respond [2] 21/19
22/2
response [22] 21/14
22/8 23/12 27/24
28/15 28/19 29/7
29/20 29/22 31/4
32/16 32/20 32/24
39/19 60/9 61/15
74/18 78/16 86/21
86/23 87/2 87/3
responses [8] 21/2
22/1 24/1 24/4 24/12
27/21 27/22 92/5
responsibilities [4]
5/14 6/9 15/16 92/20
responsibility [20]
3/17 4/6 5/13 5/15
5/16 10/18 11/22
13/23 15/7 15/14
15/20 15/20 15/23
23/22 38/19 39/9
48/18 63/21 83/8 98/4
responsible [6] 5/10
9/1 15/8 22/6 25/17
70/19
rests [1] 83/8
result [1] 14/10
resulting [1] 14/2
resume [2] 67/15
109/21
retail [1] 8/14
retain [2] 30/17 106/7)
retained [3] 30/14
30/15 71/23
returned [3] 21/13
21/15 30/25
reveal [1] 91/10
reverse [1] 64/2
review [12] 20/25
21/23 36/6 36/8 37/13,
44/3 76/12 80/25
81/24 83/11 84/12
100/13
reviewed [1] 37/12
reviews [1] 43/25
rewriting [1] 25/14
rewrote [1] 29/9
Richard [2] 38/1 38/2
right [49] 3/8 3/13
3/25 4/8 4/9 4/18 5/2
5/16 5/17 13/17 14/13
16/20 16/21 17/5 23/5)
27/6 31/14 33/22 38/4
42/2 42/13 42/21 43/7
43/13 46/15 47/3 47/9
47/10 56/9 56/14
56/20 61/4 64/18
64/25 65/5 65/23 66/1
66/8 67/12 77/16
78/22 84/3 84/8 85/14.
90/7 99/24 100/6
101/18 109/11
right-hand [1] 31/14
rightly [1] 63/23
rise [1] 94/3
risk [13] 82/12 82/14
82/16 82/21 84/1
84/15 87/20 87/22
87/25 88/5 94/20
97/20 97/21
risks [3] 83/3 87/24
88/14
robust [1] 104/17
rogue [1] 85/8
role [34] 4/10 5/9 7/8
7/9 8/2 8/25 10/11
11/17 12/19 13/4 13/9)
15/7 15/12 15/12 16/9)
16/19 25/8 28/5 33/15
33/17 33/21 37/2
37/20 49/18 58/14
72/14 77/3 82/13 89/8)
91/22 92/14 93/13
94/25 96/14
roles [2] 4/19 4/22
Rolfe [1] 98/15
room [1] 2/22
roughly [1] 72/14
route [3] 37/19 97/1
97/1
routine [2] 6/21
51/14
routinely [1] 25/6
Royal [2] 48/7 48/7
ruinous [1] 101/24
rule [2] 25/9 88/9
rules [1] 2/24
run [2] 12/21 13/11
running [2] 7/23 9/5
rural [5] 6/16 6/24
7/13 TINT 7/24
sadly [1] 105/1
safe [1] 72/22
safely [1] 70/7
safety [1] 37/9
said [11] 29/10 37/10
42/24 46/3 51/5 63/25
84/5 90/18 99/9 102/9)
107/3
same [7] 22/14 54/18
61/5 72/12 74/18 82/5
82/9
satisfactory [1] 60/9
satisfied [3] 51/3
59/22 59/23
saw [4] 17/11 17/17
44/20 52/15
say [80] 2/18 6/9 6/25)
7/23 8/9 8/24 12/8
16/22 17/6 18/3 19/6
20/23 22/16 25/13
25/23 27/20 29/18
36/22 37/4 41/2 41/19}
41/24 42/21 43/15
45/11 47/12 47/17
48/5 48/25 50/20
51/12 53/1 53/13
53/20 56/19 59/3
60/13 61/22 66/4 66/7
67/9 67/12 68/13 69/8
69/16 70/7 71/7 71/12
72/17 72/22 72/22
72/23 75/15 75/25
78/7 78/9 78/24 80/10}
80/25 81/7 84/17 89/1
89/24 90/13 91/13
91/14 91/19 93/8
93/10 93/24 94/14
99/24 100/19 101/5
101/11 102/3 102/17
104/20 105/8 108/9
saying [11] 7/16
19/10 22/18 22/19
32/20 46/4 52/23
71/14 74/18 85/12
102/23
says [8] 31/17 34/6
34/15 35/19 38/6
58/23 86/19 86/24
scale [1] 13/20
scenes [1] 17/24
scheme [9] 35/18
50/24 58/3 76/9 77/16
83/9 98/1 98/7 105/14
School [1] 5/3
Science [1] 5/4
scope [1] 100/12
scratch [1] 98/21
screen [24] 6/6 15/4
18/9 31/10 33/19
37/24 40/11 47/11
48/24 51/24 55/22
58/16 68/10 71/17
78/4 79/3 80/18 80/22
82/11 86/16 87/21
89/20 93/22 100/11
scrutiny [2] 75/8
98/11
sealed [1] 63/16
searching [1] 107/23
seat [1] 24/25
second [29] 16/17
31/15 35/6 35/8 36/17
43/24 44/14 44/15
47/15 47/15 51/6 51/7)
51/8 54/17 54/20
66/22 71/11 74/11
74/20 81/21 81/25
89/23 90/6 90/15
90/15 90/16 91/2 91/3
91/11
secretaries [5] 16/15
21/10 21/18 22/16
23/16
secretary [20] 4/5
5/7 15/1 20/13 22/5
23/4 23/22 33/16 40/2
62/7 73/2 74/2 74/3
74/5 74/8 87/14 88/23,
95/18 101/9 101/10
section [2] 58/22
95/14
sector [3] 4/23 23/3
64/8
securing [2] 6/15 7/2
security [1] 56/4
see [23] 1/3 1/8 1/10
1/11 18/9 31/13 36/19)
37/19 38/1 39/12
39/17 41/12 46/20
61/8 62/24 67/11
81/15 84/9 84/9 84/10
84/11 84/12 102/9
seeing [4] 47/19
81/14 86/13 105/5
seek [2] 99/20 100/7
seeking [1] 100/5
seem [1] 73/24
seemed [3] 28/13
30/16 54/9
seems [3] 42/10
71/24 98/18
seen [11] 30/7 30/12
39/13 39/14 61/22
71/16 82/16 82/20
94/23 101/1 104/12
Seeney [3] 107/6
107/23 108/17
selective [2] 44/6
56/2
send [2] 28/20 86/20
sending [1] 25/15
senior [2] 42/15
95/18
sense [3] 7/12 13/19
93/5
senses [1] 96/3
sensible [1] 21/1
sent [6] 22/10 30/18
37/23 38/15 82/18
82/23
sentence [4] 26/13
57/17 80/23 102/2
sentences [1] 27/18
separated [1] 8/19
separately [1] 72/7
September [2] 51/11
52/3
series [1] 35/15
servant [1] 96/8
servants [2] 42/15
96/6
serve [2] 57/14 63/12
served [7] 3/23 4/1
4/4 57/20 100/23
102/7 102/19
serves [1] 106/8
service [8] 7/20
18/12 18/21 54/14
85/3 93/5 96/6 97/4
services [12] 3/6
4/22 6/18 6/20 6/20
6/22 7/17 8/17 8/18
23/23 28/10 48/6
session [4] 64/14
81/9 81/11 84/19
set [10] 5/9 9/20 10/1
10/1 34/8 50/23 53/11
98/1 100/14 109/2
setting [1] 9/1
settings [1] 104/15
seven [1] 31/7
several [2] 44/6 80/7
shall [2] 67/14 97/16
share [2] 81/12 84/19
shared [2] 38/16 91/5]
shareholder [9] 8/25
9/9 9/11 11/18 15/8
15/11 15/12 16/5
63/19
shareholders [4]
10/16 11/4 15/17 64/3)
sharing [2] 103/12
104/8
she [14] 22/7 53/18
59/19 66/2 86/24
98/15 98/17 98/18
99/2 99/2 103/9
103/25 104/1 104/2
she's [1] 55/11
Sheffield [1] 70/22
ShEx [2] 65/9 98/24
shocked [1] 89/5
short [6] 34/10 46/18
67/9 67/19 86/2 88/11
short-term [2] 34/10
88/11
shortfalls [1] 107/13
shortly [1] 39/16
should [58] 8/11
10/19 11/2 12/1 12/16
13/7 16/4 25/15 25/18}
36/4 37/5 37/5 37/21
40/5 40/14 40/20 43/3
43/8 51/5 52/14 54/10)
54/12 54/12 55/15
55/17 60/18 60/19
60/22 61/22 63/4
63/15 64/7 67/24 68/1
70/13 77/17 77/19
(44) required... - should
Ss
should... [21] 77/22
77/24 78/2 81/24 85/7
85/17 85/20 89/23
90/2 90/18 96/13
96/14 100/12 100/17
100/19 101/9 101/15
101/18 102/23 102/23
103/2
shouldn't [4] 40/25
43/7 53/6 57/16
show [2] 30/8 65/1
showed [2] 84/7
103/25
showing [1] 84/10
shut [1] 72/9
side [1] 12/5
Sight [15] 35/6 43/24
44/14 44/15 51/6
54/17 54/20 74/20
81/21 81/25 89/23
90/6 90/15 90/16 91/2
Sight's [1] 35/8
sign [2] 23/13 31/2
signature [5] 2/2 2/3
2/4 2/6 31/6
signed [1] 42/15
significant [6] 6/2 7/1
7/21 50/14 88/8 88/11
signing [2] 24/22
24/23
silent [1] 82/8
Simon [3] 44/2 80/24
81/22
simply [5] 7/11 60/16
68/20 101/2 106/23
since [7] 4/19 35/23
36/8 52/5 89/16 104/2
105/25
sir [27] 1/3 1/8 1/11
2/21 40/10 46/10
46/16 46/20 46/24
47/1 66/12 66/20
66/21 67/13 67/16
67/21 68/6 85/22 86/6
86/11 86/15 93/10
97/13 105/23 106/2
109/13 109/22
Sir Wyn [3] 1/11 2/21
93/10
sit [2] 24/25 25/6
situation [3] 30/14
87/12 104/3
six [4] 25/24 28/5
43/14 49/20
slant [1] 56/3
slide [9] 33/25 34/6
34/14 34/25 36/20
44/20 44/24 79/5 84/4
slightly [3] 9/21
32/17 65/2
slowly [1] 91/1
small [6] 4/5 5/15
6/22 34/16 35/3 50/19)
SMEs [1] 6/20
so [85] 3/1 7/14 7/19
14/5 14/5 16/3 17/17
17/22 18/13 18/20
19/1 21/24 22/16
24/10 24/17 24/24
27/8 27/12 30/13
32/15 32/20 33/9
33/20 37/2 39/11
41/13 42/12 42/18
43/9 44/8 44/16 45/10
46/13 48/8 49/21 51/3
54/21 55/12 55/14
55/22 58/1 60/6 61/16
63/18 64/19 65/7
66/14 66/23 67/3
67/11 67/14 68/1
70/23 71/10 71/19
72/18 73/22 73/23
74/10 76/5 76/15
80/12 81/12 81/15
81/22 82/12 84/15
87/16 91/17 92/21
94/6 95/11 97/8 97/18)
98/18 98/22 98/22
99/2 105/19 107/21
107/24 108/9 108/19
109/18 109/19
social [10] 7/5 7/7
7/9 7/13 8/2 10/11
10/15 10/20 13/9
106/8
socially [1] 106/20
sold [1] 3/10
sole [2] 8/25 94/22
solicitor [1] 38/16
solve [1] 97/10
some [38] 4/10 6/20
9/20 19/14 19/15
19/20 20/2 20/16
22/11 22/11 22/22
23/1 24/20 29/2 32/25
33/1 34/10 35/13
35/14 35/20 38/13
42/9 47/20 50/12 52/6
56/7 68/24 71/17 74/1
75/11 75/18 78/13
79/18 79/25 80/16
85/10 102/9 108/15
somebody [1] 33/4
something [13] 2/18
10/6 25/10 29/12
29/25 48/19 48/21
53/18 53/19 58/3 60/3
105/11 105/13
sometimes [8] 9/24
20/6 25/11 25/12
27/21 31/7 32/18
75/10
Somewhat [1] 78/13
somewhere [1] 90/24!
soon [1] 72/10
sorry [10] 23/3 41/19
57/16 62/16 65/10
66/11 73/8 73/12
90/15 92/17
sort [16] 15/3 21/21
22/24 24/9 28/7 29/2
29/18 37/1 40/7 51/4
75/5 80/6 84/25 99/11
104/24 105/9
sorts [1] 76/16
sought [2] 53/15
77/19
sound [1] 101/17
sounded [1] 33/7
SpAds [1] 38/24
spanning [1] 47/7
Sparrow [5] 48/2
52/10 83/2 87/24
97/22
Sparrow' [1] 47/18
speak [4] 61/9 68/19
103/18 107/25
speaking [2] 16/13
72/14
Special [4] 39/24
39/25 40/1 40/6
specific [8] 2/15
10/20 26/8 27/17 47/8}
48/12 61/7 66/18
specifically [6] 34/3
39/6 46/4 51/19 57/1
87/23
spend [1] 107/17
spending [2] 107/20
108/17
spite [1] 98/10
SPM [1] 51/17
spoke [2] 23/19
107/3
Sport [1] 4/17
staff [3] 7/25 92/4
108/12
staffed [2] 12/21
13/11
stage [8] 14/12 36/2
37/4 60/6 62/25 87/5
87/11 101/2
stakeholders [4]
20/9 79/6 83/9 94/12
stance [2] 78/21
79/22
standard [8] 24/1
24/12 25/7 28/15
64/13 64/20 76/23
80/14
standards [3] 10/17
10/19 18/7
staring [1] 101/23
start [6] 3/2 20/3
24/24 28/3 62/9 87/25)
started [14] 13/3
28/11 28/18 28/22
28/25 29/11 29/15
33/7 49/21 62/11
68/22 69/3 79/9 86/5
starting [8] 12/7
25/22 29/6 40/12
68/12 69/6 86/17
98/21
state [13] 4/5 4/15
20/13 40/2 56/4 62/7
7Al2 74/5 74/8 78/18
92/15 96/24 101/10
statement [44] 1/20
1/21 1/24 2/1 2/7 2/11
2/12 2/15 3/4 5/9 6/6
8/8 12/4 15/5 16/7
17/6 18/8 33/17 40/12}
43/14 45/4 47/12
48/25 51/10 56/10
56/17 56/22 58/17
68/11 69/7 75/16
76/22 77/2 78/3 80/23)
85/1 88/22 89/21
91/14 93/23 96/12
99/4 106/22 108/14
states [1] 95/6
status [2] 94/15 97/6
statutory [1] 5/13
steers [1] 21/1
Stein [4] 68/1 105/21
105/22 110/8
step [1] 42/25
steps [1] 52/21
sticking [1] 30/5
still [5] 26/24 46/20
46/23 57/25 67/2
stood [1] 3/23
stop [1] 53/7
strange [1] 71/22
strategic [5] 9/12
11/8 13/2 13/2 76/24
strategy [19] 4/8 4/14
8/7 9/1 9/18 9/23
10/14 11/16 12/7
12/24 14/4 34/9 42/5
42/14 43/12 63/14
64/1 75/25 99/18
strike [2] 13/23 80/3
strikes [1] 53/19
strongly [3] 55/20
55/20 106/17
struck [1] 27/24
structural [2] 49/5
93/25
structure [1] 93/21
stuck [1] 30/1
stuff [1] 58/1
subject [12] 16/18
21/23 28/24 36/8
36/14 43/2 45/1 55/19
68/21 87/3 97/12
107/1
submission [1] 21/13)
subpostmaster [6]
65/14 79/16 103/8
103/12 106/18 107/6
subpostmasters [32]
7/23 27/17 28/1 28/9
29/7 30/7 32/10 34/16
35/4 35/14 60/6 60/10
64/21 65/1 65/4 65/13}
68/24 68/25 74/24
75/21 76/11 78/8
78/11 78/13 79/7
79/18 79/25 88/25
104/14 104/18 106/25)
108/7
subpostmasters' [1]
35/17
subpostmistress [1]
106/18
subpostmistresses
[2] 106/25 108/7
subsequent [1]
43/25
subsidiary [2] 3/11
3/14
subsidy [8] 7/4 7/19
17/13 17/17 76/25
94/22 97/7 97/8
substance [8] 23/8
23/10 24/6 42/5 42/13}
74/9 99/16 100/7
substantial [3] 33/11
33/12 101/14
succeeded [1] 98/15
successfully [1]
31/19
successive [1] 8/10
successor [2] 92/17
98/16
successors [1] 76/10]
such [14] 2/14 8/1
9/7 9/13 10/22 30/8
38/20 55/18 57/10
57/12 66/4 71/1 88/4
107/1
suffer [1] 47/20
suffered [1] 104/14
suffering [1] 32/23
suggest [5] 47/24
58/24 59/1 99/25
100/2
suggested [1] 59/12
suggestion [1] 48/10
suggests [1] 75/18
summarise [1] 89/1
summarised [1]
44/18
summary [5] 34/1
34/15 44/5 44/20
52/17
support [4] 17/25
35/14 95/25 96/2
supported [1] 104/6
supporting [1]
106/14
suppose [5] 29/19
48/16 93/1 101/8
101/15
supposed [2] 10/9
96/5
(45) should... - supposed
Ss
sure [14] 24/8 25/16
57/20 64/24 69/16
71/14 74/4 81/15
82/20 84/23 90/9
101/4 101/5 108/19
surgery [1] 97/12
surprise [3] 78/14
78/25 82/22
surprised [5] 65/8
70/12 84/3 84/8 84/12
surprising [1] 78/24
surrounding [1]
12/15
suspect [5] 59/24
62/5 70/17 74/10
97/11
suspected [2] 66/17
76/18
suspended [1]
103/24
suspicion [1] 61/9
suspicions [1] 98/18
sustainability [1]
8/16
Swift [10] 44/3 61/24
76/4 80/25 81/12
81/23 100/15 100/22
101/3 101/17
Swift's [1] 62/10
sympathetic [1]
76/16
sympathy [1] 106/24
system [37] 6/20
12/18 12/20 29/5
29/15 31/19 31/19
31/24 32/22 33/15
34/18 34/25 35/4 35/6
35/10 37/11 38/11
41/4 44/24 45/12
47/19 47/21 49/5 49/6)
49/8 50/14 50/18 51/1
51/17 55/8 74/23 75/4,
75/9 75/20 75/23
93/25 97/25
system-wide [2]
35/10 50/14
systemic [4] 34/20
35/6 50/13 98/12
systems [1] 12/12
T
tab [1] 82/15
take [6] 19/14 24/13
37/1 86/1 93/8 106/23
taken [16] 13/16 26/6
28/4 29/7 38/23 43/16
44/1 75/22 78/15
78/21 90/2 91/17
96/13 99/7 99/10
104/18
taking [5] 26/4 28/2
41/6 44/8 52/21
talk [3] 30/3 73/14
94/18
talked [1] 62/25
talking [7] 14/12 23/6
23/8 41/20 49/16
73/11 92/22
targets [1] 6/13
team [7] 24/9 24/15
27/14 76/13 85/6
93/14 93/15
technology [2] 4/23
8/13
temporary [1] 104/6
ten [6] 58/7 58/8 66/6
68/1 81/9 82/19
ten-ish [1] 66/6
tended [3] 25/9 25/20
28/9
tenor [2] 51/4 80/10
tensions [1] 79/14
term [7] 34/9 34/10
88/11 96/22 96/23
97/3 98/9
termed [1] 45/15
terminated [1] 12/23
terminations [1] 14/2
terms [9] 14/15 16/10
17/18 33/8 57/14
66/24 70/23 76/10
88/15
terribly [4] 107/1
Terry [3] 107/5 107/6
107/23
text [2] 83/5 104/4
than [28] 14/13 16/4
17/20 19/8 30/19 46/8)
47/8 48/8 49/22 60/2
63/4 67/3 69/4 72/17
75/15 75/17 77/18
78/6 85/24 90/2 97/1
100/22 101/2 102/6
102/18 103/1 105/23
106/1
thank [37] 1/4 1/12
1/18 2/7 2/17 2/20 3/1
16/7 40/8 40/10 46/16
47/1 56/6 56/18 66/8
66/10 66/20 67/13
67/14 68/6 79/5 86/15
88/17 91/12 97/15
97/18 103/5 105/19
105/20 106/2 109/1
109/9 109/11 109/14
109/19 109/20 109/22)
that [643]
that's [48] 3/9 3/13
3/19 3/25 4/9 4/18
4124 5/2 5/17 11/5
16/21 17/5 19/1 20/12
25/19 33/8 34/5 35/12
37/4 40/8 40/24 41/4
42/6 45/18 47/10
51/10 59/6 61/3 61/6
68/4 68/11 74/21 78/4
79/4 80/23 87/22
89/21 92/21 93/1
93/23 95/13 97/4 97/8
99/19 100/4 101/4
107/8 108/21
theft [3] 29/2 35/22
105/12
their [26] 7/25 8/20
10/4 12/22 13/18 30/1
34/18 37/9 41/11 50/4
50/24 52/8 60/1 65/13)
68/24 69/1 76/8 88/13
91/6 91/7 91/8 94/12
106/14 106/25 107/14
108/20
them [43] 8/4 20/25
21/10 22/10 24/11
25/12 30/8 30/22 40/3)
44/16 50/6 50/17 51/8
54/8 55/11 55/13
56/17 66/18 69/9
69/22 71/6 71/6 73/23
73/25 74/4 74/20
74/21 76/5 80/9 80/14
82/24 90/1 90/2 90/7
90/10 90/10 90/11
90/12 92/8 95/3
102/17 103/3 105/2
themselves [8] 6/9
23/19 50/21 57/13
57/19 65/17 68/25
105/5
then [57] 3/16 4/4 5/6
6/25 12/1 20/14 22/4
22/7 22/8 22/8 23/11
25/2 25/3 30/25 31/5
32/1 33/5 34/13 34/24
36/12 44/23 45/11
52/9 55/24 57/9 58/4
58/15 59/3 59/9 63/9
63/23 68/5 69/19
70/13 76/20 77/21
80/17 81/14 82/7 83/4
83/14 86/2 86/4 86/14,
88/7 96/10 96/25 99/8
100/16 100/19 101/8
101/20 103/16 103/18}
103/20 104/10 105/25}
theoretical [1] 9/21
there [106] 7/1 9/15
9/21 10/10 10/12
10/22 13/12 13/13
13/14 14/6 15/15
15/21 16/12 19/20
20/6 20/19 21/21 22/9
22/14 22/25 23/20
24/1 25/2 25/10 26/12
27/12 29/10 29/11
29/18 29/24 31/4
31/20 34/9 35/10 36/3
36/17 37/8 38/7 38/13
38/13 40/3 43/21
44/21 44/22 48/8 48/9
48/10 49/4 49/21
50/16 50/25 51/22
52/4 53/7 55/9 58/24
61/10 63/15 63/25
65/4 66/1 66/17 67/24
69/4 69/18 69/19
69/22 70/14 71/19
72/8 73/13 74/13
75/10 75/18 77/2 78/5)
79/7 79/14 82/3 83/4
83/15 84/21 85/1
85/11 92/9 92/12 94/1
94/4 94/6 94/13 95/14
95/19 95/21 96/11
97/5 98/6 98/8 98/12
99/25 103/14 104/16
104/20 104/22 104/23
105/8 107/5
there'd [2] 44/17
50/11
there's [13] 2/18 11/6)
11/17 20/2 20/16
25/18 28/23 65/7 82/2,
84/23 90/17 92/22
94/8
therefore [6] 8/18
38/17 56/3 64/5 81/18
90/13
Therein [1] 97/22
these [22] 8/15 16/22
20/8 26/6 27/21 27/22,
37/15 50/8 56/10 57/1
57/13 57/24 61/7 81/1
82/21 89/6 89/25
90/13 92/7 100/20
102/4 106/12
they [97] 2/9 9/13
10/5 10/7 11/11 11/11
11/20 13/19 16/10
16/24 17/6 18/12
21/11 22/4 22/5 22/18)
22/19 23/18 23/19
24/4 24/9 24/16 24/16
25/18 29/23 29/23
29/24 30/1 30/16
34/18 37/10 39/7
41/12 44/13 44/16
46/6 50/6 50/21 50/22
50/23 50/25 53/17
54/17 54/17 54/19
57/13 57/22 58/5
59/25 60/2 60/18
60/19 60/21 63/6
65/22 67/12 68/17
68/19 69/19 69/25
70/1 70/22 73/19
73/24 74/17 75/9
75/10 76/3 76/8 76/17
80/8 80/9 81/2 81/7
82/22 84/14 84/15
84/17 85/19 88/5
88/12 89/13 90/11
91/3 91/4 96/3 96/5
96/6 102/10 102/13
105/1 105/4 106/13
107/18 107/18 109/5
109/7
they'd [4] 50/23
50/24 58/9 60/19
they're [2] 53/16 59/6
thing [12] 22/25
26/12 28/25 31/5
58/12 59/6 68/16
70/25 74/18 89/7 91/2
105/9
things [17] 11/25
17/14 22/23 29/3
29/20 47/16 48/20
63/16 67/11 74/18
76/16 77/16 80/21
84/24 91/12 91/19
92/7
think [152]
thinking [2] 45/23
82/4
third [1] 34/6
this [173]
Thompson [8] 37/23
38/6 45/9 47/5 59/10
86/18 86/23 99/5
those [58] 7/17 9/3
9/22 10/5 10/18 13/18
14/13 14/14 14/15
14/16 14/25 15/23
16/4 17/9 17/18 18/17)
19/8 20/17 24/3 26/15
28/11 30/9 32/12
36/19 45/23 46/2
49/11 51/19 55/19
57/4 62/5 64/18 69/10
69/25 70/5 70/9 71/5
71/8 71/13 73/2 74/25I
75/5 81/6 81/24 85/7
85/8 88/15 90/8 91/9
95/1 96/2 96/16 97/13}
98/5 98/5 105/18
108/6 109/4
though [4] 19/8
55/15 64/7 107/10
thought [7] 8/15
26/18 37/12 37/17
37/18 48/16 107/20
thoughts [2] 59/2
100/3
three [15] 5/15 12/8
17/16 29/18 30/19
31/7 40/3 47/13 47/21
50/2 50/12 68/12 75/7
84/11 98/11
three years [1] 98/11
through [13] 9/10
17/3 23/7 24/22 30/3
35/20 41/14 65/17
68/2 71/21 86/8 87/6
89/9
throughout [4] 6/23
19/6 63/2 64/21
throwing [1] 33/2
thrown [1] 89/18
(46) sure - thrown
T
Tim [3] 76/20 77/25
100/13
time [75] 6/3 9/8 11/9
13/25 14/25 15/2 15/3
17/11 17/15 20/19
24/5 24/21 25/12
26/11 27/23 29/13
32/13 32/16 33/22
37/16 39/6 39/23
48/17 49/7 49/10
49/15 49/18 50/4
52/24 53/23 54/2
57/24 59/20 59/22
60/3 60/11 61/10 62/4
66/25 67/14 67/24
68/14 68/22 69/21
70/3 70/23 71/21
72/14 73/1 75/25
78/24 79/21 82/13
82/20 85/23 85/24
86/10 87/7 87/15
87/18 91/3 91/3 91/5
91/16 92/9 95/3 95/5
95/8 95/21 105/24
107/9 107/19 107/21
108/17 109/2
timely [2] 100/9
100/25
times [8] 5/22 9/15
21/8 29/19 50/2 53/16
72/23 73/9
timings [1] 33/8
today [5] 1/20 38/15
107/4 107/5 109/15
together [1] 52/5
told [19] 29/3 33/13
39/6 39/12 45/21 48/1
48/3 48/5 48/8 50/9
50/10 50/15 69/5 90/5)
98/6 100/17 100/19
103/9 103/11
Tom [1] 51/25
tomorrow [1] 109/21
tonal [1] 29/9
tone [5] 25/11 27/25
28/18 28/19 32/23
too [3] 63/22 63/24
94/1
took [10] 12/19 17/22
25/8 33/15 33/21
40/19 41/1 78/11
82/13 91/22
top [6] 25/22 31/14
37/1 83/6 92/18 92/24
top-line [1] 37/1
topics [2] 49/2 64/17
total [2] 67/24 72/20
totally [1] 106/21
touch [1] 108/15
towards [7] 45/5
58/21 68/12 72/18
89/21 93/23 104/25
trade [1] 79/11
tragedy [1] 108/16
tragically [1] 105/1
training [3] 35/14
50/24 96/9
transactions [1]
31/20
transcriber [2] 86/1
86/7
transcript [1] 2/10
transform [1] 79/10
transpire [1] 76/19
travel [1] 70/23
Treasury [5] 26/3
26/18 26/19 27/10
95/8
treated [1] 38/12
triaged [1] 21/9
trial [1] 41/8
Trudy [2] 103/22
104/10
true [3] 2/7 42/6
45/18
trust [1] 20/3
trusted [2] 21/10
22/16
truth [1] 102/11
try [1] 66/19
trying [2] 73/19
107/16
turn [2] 1/23 80/20
Turning [3] 5/6 58/15
93/20
twice [2] 45/24 72/1
two [20] 4/22 16/13
16/22 17/13 27/18
32/12 34/19 36/18
50/12 71/6 71/12
71/15 75/7 80/18
90/17 92/19 94/24
96/11 96/16 98/11
two paragraphs [1]
32/12
U
UKGI [54] 9/10 11/20
12/3 15/15 15/15
16/19 16/22 16/25
17/3 17/21 17/22
17/24 23/16 23/23
24/6 29/16 37/23
40/13 45/6 46/6 47/2
47/5 51/14 52/6 55/6
58/4 63/11 65/10 74/3
76/23 79/1 81/7 81/15
81/18 81/19 81/24
82/12 82/16 82/24
84/13 84/20 86/18
87/20 94/2 94/15
94/20 94/25 95/6
95/16 95/18 95/20
95/24 96/1 99/5
UKGI's [1] 59/11
UKG100000015 [1]
47/11
UKGI00006961 [1]
37/25
UKGI00006991 [1]
86/16
UKGI00016320 [1]
31/10
UKGI00016898 [2]
82/11 97/20
UKGI00020328 [2]
33/20 79/4
UKGI00042795 [1]
87/22
Um [2] 57/16 90/22
unable [2] 31/25
72/24
unclear [1] 36/3
uncomfortable [7]
28/1 28/4 28/16 28/17
28/18 32/13 32/16
under [10] 4/5 5/7
15/1 31/6 33/16 47/16
73/2 83/2 88/23 96/13
Under-Secretary [6]
4/5 5/7 15/1 33/16
73/2 88/23
underline [1] 63/12
underlined [1] 35/12
underlying [5] 43/5
44/12 47/9 54/5 60/15)
undermine [1]
105/13
Underneath [1] 52/3
underpinned [1]
62/15
underpinning [1]
817
understand [10] 2/18
17/9 27/6 34/11 37/8
43/9 49/7 51/15 93/3
106/11
understanding [7]
23/5 49/4 84/18 94/24
95/4 95/6 95/14
understood [4] 16/11
36/6 49/10 108/24
undertaken [1] 11/20
undertaking [3]
31/20 83/10 84/12
undertook [1] 9/11
underway [4] 36/3
36/8 38/7 52/19
unethically [1]
101/14
unfair [2] 52/17
52/23
unfairly [1] 38/13
unfortunate [1] 93/12]
unfortunately [7]
2/22 55/14 57/5 74/22
87/15 87/16 93/17
union [1] 79/12
University [1] 4/21
unless [1] 74/8
untenable [2] 83/21
85/10
until [7] 3/14 3/23
40/22 42/23 74/11
86/8 109/24
unusual [1] 104/3
unwise [1] 41/13
up [37] 7/7 12/19
25/8 25/21 28/25
29/10 29/12 33/9
33/15 33/21 34/8
36/17 39/5 43/15
45/17 47/25 50/24
57/6 67/25 68/13
68/18 70/24 75/8
77/21 78/19 80/18
82/13 83/6 84/4 87/17,
91/7 91/22 98/1
100/10 102/2 103/3
103/14
upcoming [1] 58/19
update [4] 58/18
72/12 99/6 99/10
updated [1] 24/5
updates [1] 11/25
upon [6] 5/18 11/16
23/14 33/17 98/23
98/24
urban [5] 6/17 6/24
7/13 7/18 7/24
us [3] 1/3 46/20
106/11
use [4] 32/9 50/4
63/6 63/19
used [5] 50/18 63/2
64/20 98/9 104/13
useful [2] 57/10
57/11
users [1] 31/19
using [1] 22/1
usual [4] 58/7 58/25
100/14 107/12
usually [3] 19/14
20/6 22/23
Vv
valid [1] 14/3
value [2] 7/13 56/23
values [1] 85/3
varied [1] 71/2
various [3] 17/21
103/13 104/9
varying [2] 103/13
104/9
vast [2] 19/7 22/25
vein [1] 82/9
Vennells [9] 51/11
51/25 53/25 62/21
73/6 103/6 103/8
103/9 103/11
Vennells' [1] 52/2
veracity [1] 98/20
verbal [3] 38/3 47/2
49/1
verification [1] 6/19
very [52] 2/20 5/23
5/24 7/15 18/22 19/15]
19/18 20/4 24/18
26/22 36/21 37/7 37/7
44/6 45/18 45/20 48/5
50/17 50/19 50/21
54/19 54/20 57/7
64/10 66/14 67/1
67/14 70/25 70/25
71/24 75/2 80/2 83/24!
84/3 84/8 84/11 89/5
89/7 89/25 90/13
90/19 96/25 99/19
101/4 101/4 101/17
102/1 105/20 106/3
109/11 109/19 109/20)
via [1] 37/19
viable [3] 7/6 7/19
7/22
Vice [1] 3/16
victim [2] 50/22
105/5
victims [7] 61/16
107/3 107/4 107/11
107/25 108/5 108/6
view [11] 12/5 27/24
41/7 44/10 52/18 53/3
53/21 61/11 72/2 82/6I
83/22
vigorously [2] 75/14
7517
virtue [1] 62/5
visible [2] 2/1 108/16
vital [1] 10/12
vociferous [2]
103/12 104/8
volume [3] 11/4
22/25 82/5
WwW
wait [1] 52/20
waited [1] 31/3
wall [1] 1041/1
want [8] 26/24 71/20
73/24 74/20 86/1
97/19 100/8 104/4
wanted [11] 2/18
17/2 25/7 30/9 31/4
31/9 68/17 70/20
75/19 75/22 90/3
wanting [1] 36/25
Warwick [2] 4/20
4/21
was [288]
wasn't [14] 13/12
14/5 28/7 34/2 39/12
51/3 57/22 73/8 73/8
76/5 76/16 81/13
95/25 98/8
watching [1] 81/8
way [27] 8/9 9/15
9/25 10/8 12/20 13/4
13/6 14/1 18/3 19/15
(47) Tim - way
Ww
way... [17] 22/14 23/9}
23/11 25/9 28/20
29/22 33/11 33/12
60/21 62/1 67/10 69/6
75/9 76/1 88/6 89/10
101/14
ways [2] 13/8 61/20
we [92] 1/5 6/6 8/8
13/20 15/4 15/13
17/11 17/15 17/19
18/8 18/18 28/2 30/5
30/21 31/10 31/13
31/15 33/19 34/11
36/9 36/13 37/24 38/1
38/23 39/1 39/3 39/22
40/5 40/11 41/1 43/13
44/20 45/4 45/8 46/3
46/13 47/11 47/15
47/24 48/24 51/9
51/23 52/5 52/15
54/25 58/16 59/1 60/3
61/23 62/2 62/3 62/4
62/17 62/20 62/25
63/7 67/6 67/8 67/15
68/2 68/10 73/11
77/14 78/3 79/3 80/22
82/11 82/14 83/11
86/1 86/5 86/5 86/8
86/16 86/25 87/4
87/20 87/20 87/25
89/20 93/22 97/2
100/2 100/20 102/4
102/23 102/25 103/14
103/16 103/20 103/22)
108/9
we'd [2] 7/16 72/22
we'll [5] 13/16 14/14
42/8 45/22 109/21
we're [2] 55/12 72/6
we've [5] 9/25 40/16
73/4 101/11 104/23
wear [1] 26/18
website [1] 2/13
Wechsler [1] 51/25
Wednesday [1] 1/1
week [4] 2/23 21/9
81/9 107/16
weekend [2] 38/14
103/15
weeks [1] 92/19
welcome [2] 59/2
100/3
welcomed [1] 79/14
well [49] 2/20 7/25
9/2 13/8 18/4 18/21
20/11 25/3 26/22
28/17 30/2 34/22
39/24 41/11 45/18
45/22 46/3 46/23
54/16 54/16 55/9
55/11 57/5 57/22 61/8
62/8 62/17 63/6 66/1
67/5 72/7 74/3 74/11
81/5 84/3 86/5 86/14
93/8 95/9 96/19 101/5)
101/16 102/1 102/20
105/18 107/8 108/13
108/24 109/14
went [3] 38/3 61/23
68/22
were [157]
weren't [4] 6/1 13/19
81/14 85/20
what [80] 6/2 13/14
19/1 20/1 26/2 26/7
26/11 26/17 26/20
26/25 27/9 27/14
28/13 28/15 29/10
29/20 30/8 30/24
33/13 40/23 41/24
42/24 45/15 45/20
45/22 48/1 48/3 48/9
49/11 49/14 50/4 50/9
50/23 54/2 57/17
57/18 59/5 59/20
61/12 61/15 62/20
62/24 65/12 66/23
66/24 67/11 67/14
71/23 71/23 72/2
75/16 75/18 75/20
76/18 76/19 78/5
80/10 83/22 84/10
84/25 89/16 92/19
92/21 92/25 95/7
100/8 101/5 101/5
101/9 101/20 102/17
102/21 103/1 103/13
103/23 104/9 106/13
107/10 107/15 108/25)
what's [3] 25/1
101/19 103/3
whatever [4] 22/13
31/8 71/20 90/17
whatsoever [2] 64/6
105/9
when [69] 3/23 9/15
10/5 10/7 11/19 11/23
11/24 12/19 13/3
13/20 15/8 15/9 15/17
19/2 19/17 19/19 20/2
20/2 20/4 22/16 25/2
25/8 26/20 27/23
27/23 28/3 29/11
29/16 29/20 33/15
33/20 36/9 36/19
45/19 45/19 46/1
48/22 49/18 50/8 51/4
63/24 64/7 65/4 68/15
71/8 72/14 73/9 73/21
76/1 76/14 82/3 84/4
88/23 89/5 91/7 91/22
92/13 93/12 93/18
98/3 98/15 99/2
102/17 102/21 103/7
104/16 106/4 107/16
108/16
whenever [4] 21/23
28/24 28/24 95/22
where [21] 9/19
10/10 15/13 17/11
18/5 18/17 29/24
35/21 42/1 42/25
53/16 69/9 69/18
69/19 77/15 84/5
89/13 102/3 103/14
107/25 109/15
whereby [2] 64/3
107/22
whether [26] 10/19
12/15 13/17 14/13
20/12 25/6 30/2 39/11
39/12 41/5 43/11 46/7
53/8 57/18 63/2 67/6
72/12 73/15 74/16
79/22 80/17 85/11
86/1 86/3 86/8 108/12
which [109] 1/20
2/15 5/10 5/13 5/14
7/4 7/6 7/18 7/21 9/16
10/14 11/15 11/19
12/5 12/19 13/4 13/9
13/10 13/21 16/5 16/9}
18/25 21/3 21/11
23/14 23/15 26/3 28/4
29/17 30/2 30/8 31/22
32/13 32/19 34/8
34/10 34/18 34/24
35/1 36/18 38/16
38/19 41/8 42/19
44/18 44/25 45/23
47/12 48/16 51/22
52/14 53/11 54/25
55/19 55/21 58/15
58/18 59/10 60/3 60/5
61/22 62/15 62/21
63/1 64/16 64/17 65/3)
68/21 68/25 69/1
69/14 70/19 70/22
71/12 71/22 72/6 75/2
76/23 77/22 78/2
78/17 81/20 82/4 82/9
82/15 82/21 83/2
83/14 84/13 86/9 89/7
89/12 89/14 91/4
91/22 92/2 92/23
92/25 93/6 93/7 94/19
95/4 96/11 96/16
96/25 97/21 103/10
106/6 109/18
while [5] 26/9 35/20
41/20 58/10 65/10
whilst [8] 4/1 32/2
42/18 43/19 43/23
57/1 65/24 95/11
Whip [1] 4/2
who [44] 1/5 9/11
12/21 13/11 16/8
16/13 16/15 16/17
16/18 16/22 24/6
24/13 28/9 28/9 28/13
30/17 32/10 33/4 38/2,
39/24 40/2 49/23 57/7,
61/11 61/13 65/14
65/17 69/10 75/3
75/21 76/13 78/15
81/3 81/15 85/6 85/7
95/13 96/1 101/13
104/10 104/14 104/18}
107/1 107/12
whoever [2] 18/24
65/10
whole [10] 34/2 47/7
48/6 50/3 58/9 71/21
77/16 89/16 94/11
108/13
wholly [2] 51/3 95/11
why [18] 15/9 18/20
30/17 36/23 42/8 46/1
48/14 51/22 53/1
74/23 82/1 89/4 89/11
90/13 99/15 99/16
100/4 104/1
wide [4] 35/10 50/14
71/1 75/9
widely [4] 73/7 73/17
79/13 108/23
wider [10] 7/5 7/7
12/24 13/19 14/23
14/25 15/22 41/25
56/13 108/8
wielded [1] 94/19
wife [2] 107/15
108/18
will [15] 2/12 2/14
30/5 38/16 39/1 42/22,
54/25 66/3 67/1 67/2
67/13 96/19 97/10
105/25 106/1
willingness [1] 68/9
wish [5] 30/4 72/9
75/13 76/8 106/24
wished [1] 13/9
wishes [1] 66/2
wishing [1] 66/16
withheld [3] 80/21
81/2 81/7
withholding [4] 81/3
81/16 81/18 91/6
within [19] 5/25 7/1
10/21 17/24 20/9 41/3}
61/12 81/12 85/17
92/18 96/20 101/7
101/12 102/17 106/15}
107/15 107/24 108/21
109/2
without [8] 8/4 18/24
22/22 66/15 66/16
92/20 95/3 96/22
WITN10910100 [1]
2/11
witness [7] 1/8 1/20
1/21 2/12 46/23 56/25}
66/13
witnesses [1] 41/13
wobble [1] 84/23
wobbles [2] 83/18
85/2
wonder [3] 15/17
46/10 86/1
wondered [2] 73/12
86/20
word [1] 40/24
words [6] 31/4 98/5
98/5 99/12 100/16
103/23
work [14] 1/19 4/11
4/25 6/13 6/21 17/24
24/19 24/21 25/9
36/11 82/8 91/7
100/18 109/17
worked [2] 16/19
24/3
working [4] 32/11
46/23 79/11 107/21
works [2] 9/3 10/1
worst [1] 105/3
worth [1] 34/19
would [208]
wouldn't [27] 14/1
14/15 22/14 33/12
36/22 37/3 39/11
39/13 39/14 48/18
49/10 49/15 50/3
53/14 53/20 53/21
54/21 57/5 57/11
61/18 61/18 62/3 74/6I
TAIT 87/11 93/17
100/6
write [4] 28/9 31/5
31/7 31/7
writer [3] 22/3 22/15
28/20
writing [6] 28/14 31/6I
65/9 65/17 65/20
101/1
written [3] 16/12
57/13 84/25
wrong [12] 13/18
27/24 29/25 54/7 54/8)
54/20 61/10 61/20
99/21 104/22 104/23
105/15
wrongful [2] 14/2
14/6
wrongfully [2] 12/22
12/23
wrote [2] 15/17 76/20
Wyn [3] 1/11 2/21
93/10
Mo
xxx [1] 31/11
Y
Yeah [4] 43/7 55/20
62/24 72/23
year [4] 29/19 35/25
50/2 77/1
(48) way... - year
Y
years [5] 17/16 47/22
50/12 75/8 98/11
years' [1] 34/19
yes [128]
yesterday [1] 103/4
yet [4] 100/23 102/6
102/18 103/2
you [549]
you'd [3] 14/15 77/14
86/3
you're [21] 15/2
19/19 20/8 22/17 23/6)
24/23 30/3 40/15 41/5
43/7 49/16 59/5 64/7
64/9 84/10 92/22 93/8
94/5 100/6 103/15
103/17
you've [10] 30/10
33/9 42/20 42/24 62/4
65/5 71/16 94/23
106/22 109/16
your [109] 1/15 2/7
2/8 2/11 2/15 2/19 3/2
3/4 5/8 5/9 5/18 6/3
6/4 6/6 8/8 12/4 12/5
13/5 16/9 16/11 16/16
16/17 16/19 17/6 18/7I
18/8 19/19 20/13
21/18 21/20 22/16
22/17 22/18 23/5
23/15 23/16 24/22
24/25 27/5 27/6 30/9
31/14 31/21 33/16
33/17 37/23 39/6
39/19 42/10 43/14
44/8 44/10 45/3 47/12
54/2 55/2 56/10 56/10
56/16 56/22 57/17
62/25 63/19 65/12
68/7 69/7 71/4 72/1
72/14 72/25 75/13
75/15 76/22 77/2
78/25 80/20 81/16
83/6 83/22 84/3 84/22
85/1 86/17 87/8 88/22
90/5 91/14 91/16 92/4,
93/7 93/11 93/20
96/11 98/16 98/23
99/4 99/5 100/11
101/19 102/11 106/22)
106/24 107/2 107/9
107/9 107/24 108/14
108/25 109/17
yours [1] 25/3
yourself [1] 56/24
Zo
Zebra [1] 100/16
(49) years - Zebra