OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Monday, 23 September 2024
(9.58 am)
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Good morning everybody, I've found my
glasses, you'll be glad to know.
MR BLAKE: This morning we're going to begin Phase 7 of the
Inquiry ~
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR BLAKE: — and we're going to hear from Mr Ellison of
YouGov.
GAVIN ELLISON (sworn)
Questioned by MR BLAKE
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. Can you state your full
name, please?
A. It’s Gavin Ellison.
Q. Thank you very much. You should have in front of you
two witness statements. The first is dated 17 September
this year, with a URN WITN11680100. Is that statement
true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
A. That's right.
Q. That statement exhibits your first report, that's
EXPG0000007. Perhaps that can be brought on to screen.
It's a report of September 2024 and it's 100 pages in
length different?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q_ We'll be looking at that in more detail shortly. You've
1
A. That's right.
Q. Thank you. That can come down for a minute.
Can you briefly outline your background and your
expertise, please?
A. Yes. So I'm the Head of Public Sector & Not for Profit
Research at YouGov, that's a department of around 17
staff and I have 25 years’ of experience in social
research world, so that includes expertise in study
design methods, questionnaire design, project
management, analysis and report writing.
QI think you worked with a team to compile these surveys
and the reports?
A. That's right, yes.
Q._ YouGov is a name that's familiar to many people but very
briefly can you tell us who YouGov are?
‘A. YouGov is an international market research and social
research agency, headquartered in the United Kingdom,
Uk-registered company, with over 1,000 staff around the
globe at the moment, and we've been operating since the
early 2000s.
Q._ Before we go to the results of the surveys, I just want
to ask you about methodology. You produced two
questionnaires, one that went to subpostmasters and one
that went to applicants to the Historic Shortfall
Scheme; is that right?
3
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
produced a second witness statement, that's
WITN11680200; is that statement true to the best of your
knowledge and belief?
That's right.
Can you see your signature on both of those witness
statements?
That's right.
Thank you. That second statement exhibits an addendum
report. Can we please tum up on to screen EXPG0000009.
That's entitled "Addendum to YouGov Report’, also dated
September 2024 and that's three pages long?
That's right.
Thank you. The second addendum report was produced
following questions received by a Core Participant; is
that correct?
That's right, yes.
Thank you very much. I'm going to ask for you to have
both of those reports in front of you. We'll be working
on screen from a slightly different document which just
has the tables that has been produced in it and that's
EXPG0000008. Perhaps that can be brought onto screen as
well. Thank you very much.
This table, this document, has on it all of the
tables that are produced within your core report; is
that right?
That's right, yeah.
You say at page 9 of your main report that YouGov used
their experience and judgement to ensure that all
questions were asked in a fair and balanced way.
Typically how might you do that?
Well, typically, for a process of questionnaire
development, looking at ideas for questions and then
working those up into a fair and balanced questions,
where we might be looking for things like whether
a question ~ it could be leading or not, whether the
scales are balanced, such as, as an example,
a satisfaction question, rather than state that -—
rather than the question wording being "How satisfied
are you with X, Y and Z", it should really read, "How
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with X, Y and Z,” and
that the satisfaction scale in that example goes -- is
balanced, so it has, for example, “very satisfied”,
“quite satisfied", a neutral option and then “quite
dissatisfied”, "very dissatisfied", so a five-point
balanced scale.
Also in the wording of questions where you might see
something like "Which of the following have happened" it
should really read something like "Which of the
following, if any, have happened”, so we're not
presuming that certain things have happened when they
4
(1) Pages 1-4
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
may not have happened
So really, in that process that we went through over
number of iterations of designing the questionnaires, we
were looking to make sure that those questions were
worded in a very neutral and inclusive way.
Thank you. One Core Participant has referred to the
potential for something called voluntary response bias.
What do you understand by that and to what extent might
that play a part in the response?
Well, the only survey that's compulsory is the census,
so we aren't reliant on people taking part in the
survey. That element of voluntary or often called
non-response bias is perhaps a sense that those who
didn't respond to the survey might have very different
reviews to those that did respond.
There's a number of things that we need to do to try
to make sure that everyone has a chance to respond who
can and we followed those processes and best practice,
in the sense that we invited everyone that we had access
to through an online email method. We repeated that
through a couple of reminders. We also sent everyone on
our lists a letter. So those who didn't have an email
address would have received a letter which contained
allink,
So the idea is just to be as inclusive as we
5
Not all of those who started the survey finished and we
see there in the box to the left the numbers who didn't
totally complete the form; is that correct?
That is correct, yeah.
Do you consider the number of respondents to be
statistically significant for the purposes of a survey?
Yes. To have those two numbers, for them to be over
1,000, is very useful. The response rate to the HSS
applicant survey is very strong, I would say, to get
anywhere near 50 per cent of those invited is very
strong.
It's not strictly applicable to this type of survey,
which was a census rather than a random probability
sample, but you can use an indicative margin of error,
for example, that might help in considering the results.
So, for something that is approaching 1,500 responses,
we'd be looking at a plus or minus of 2.5 per cent from
the true population; and for the survey of current
subpostmasters, that would be around plus or minus
3 per cent.
I would have liked the response rate to be higher
from the subpostmasters' side, there's no doubt about
that, but still having over 1,000 there is very helpful.
Are you aware of any reasons why the HSS applicant
response rate might be higher than the current
7
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
possibly can, when we're inviting everyone to take part
in the survey.
The fieldwork period was between 18 July and 15 August
of this year; is that correct?
That's right. Yeah.
Is that a typical or reasonable period for fieldwork?
I think allowing at least three weeks is considered to
be generally good for best practice purposes, so
that's -- that did allow for that to happen and we did
have to factor in that we were sending people letters in
addition to sending them email requests to take part.
Thank you. Could we please turn to the core report,
that’s EXPG0000007, and page 9. This chart does appear
in our other document but I also want to take you over
the page and the breakdown on the next page doesn't
appear, so we'll use the report just to look at this
first one. It's page 9.
The chart there, halfway down the page, shows the
completion rate, those who completed the questionnaire
For the current subpostmaster questionnaire, do we see
there 1,015 people responded?
That's right.
For the HSS -- Historic Shortfall Scheme -- applicants
there were 1,483?
That's right.
subpostmasters?
The methods that were applied are exactly the same for
both. As I've explained, the email invites and the
letter approach, and the repeating of reminders by
email, that was exactly the same, so there's nothing
within the method that would suggest why that is ~ why
it's lower for current subpostmasters. So you're just
speculating about levels and engagement from the current
subpostmasters. And then the nature of the
questionnaire and the subjects that are being covered,
applicants to the scheme are clearly feeling that it's
something they wanted to reply to in greater numbers,
greater proportions than the current subpostmasters.
Thank you. Over the page, please, we can see that
you've broken down by various factors the responses.
Looking at the current subpostmasters, it seems there
that there are slightly more males than females
responding, or it may simply be that there are more
males than females in the subpostmaster cohort?
There could be, yeah. I don't think we know the full
population demographics of current subpostmasters.
Looking at the age, it looks as though they are larger
in number towards the higher ages?
Yes, that's right.
Slightly older?
(2) Pages 5-8
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pp?
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Yes.
In terms of ethnicity, 59 per cent said that they were
white, 34 per cent reported as ethnic minorities?
Yeah, that's correct.
I think you've also said in the report that those from
ethnic minorities tended to be younger; is that correct?
That's right, yes. When we're looking at the analysis
by those demographic variables, we do have to be careful
sometimes that something that could look as if it is
a difference that is between ethnicities could actually
be driven potentially more by the age difference.
So where we see certain results, that might have
impacted on that?
Yes, the report does make that clear when we believe
that could be happening.
We see there in terms of region, 78 per cent of
respondents were from England -~
Yes.
-- and 87 per cent were from a single branch. Soa very
significant proportion were subpostmasters operating one
branch only?
Yes.
If we go over the page, please, we can see the breakdown
of responses from the HSS survey: very similar in terms
of male to female ratios -- before, we had 54 per cent
9
screen, please, EXPG0000008. We begin by looking at
training, if we go on to figure 2, so over the page,
please
This is the headline "Analysis of training’. Is the
headline really that we see here at the bottom, that
66 per cent plus 33 per cent, that's 99 per cent of
respondents, had received training at some point?
Yes, the figures on the screen have been moved around
Pardon?
The figures on the screen do not match the line-up from
the chart, the original chart. The figures I'm looking
at on the screen here have got decimal points —
Ah, yes.
-- and the alignment of the options is not correct.
So perhaps, if we tum back to EXPG0000007, maybe we'll
just work off the actual report itself. It's page 14
I think i's only that chart that that affects.
Okay.
If we could tum to page 14, please. So there at the
bottom, we can see "Net: Any training’, nearly everybody
who responded had received some sort of training at some
point?
That's right.
Is there anything else that stands out in respect of
that chant?
"1
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
male, here we have 57 per cent -- 66 per cent are over
the age of 60 and that was compared to 36 per cent of
the current subpostmaster respondents. So the
respondents to the Historic Shortfall Scheme survey
tended to be older; is that right?
That's right.
In terms of ethnicity, 68 per cent reported that they
were white, 28 per cent reported as being from an ethnic
minority. A slightly higher percentage of ethnic.
minorities in the current subpostmaster cohort compared
to the Historic Shortfall Scheme survey; is that right?
That's right.
Does that fit in with the analysis in terms of age group
and perhaps the amount of time that they have been
a subpostmaster for?
Yes. That's correct and, of course, there is -- within
the report, you'll see references to the length of time
at which they've been a subpostmaster and, of course,
that is obviously correlated with their age.
Thank you. Very similar proportions to current
subpostmasters in terms of the regions if we scroll down
slightly.
Let's start now by looking at the subpostmaster
survey. That's covered in Chapter 4 of your report.
I's page 13 where it begins, but let’s bring up onto
10
No, important things to remember sometimes in the
questionnaire and the report are that this is what
people are recalling having received, as well, so this
is all recall. So there's people remembering that they
have received training.
Let's move on, please. If we go back, then, to
EXPG0000008 and figure 3, so that's page 3, we'll then
move on. Subpostmasters were then asked about the
content of their training, types of training. Mostly,
they could tick all of the boxes, couldn't they, in
this?
That's right, it's a multiple choice response.
88 per cent received training on general transactions,
for example carrying out day-to-day transactions; high
numbers for balancing as well; but much smaller numbers
when it came to matters such as dealing with
discrepancies, use of the suspense account, dealing with
technical issues?
That's right. So, yes, it's useful here to remember
again about this is them recalling, so it's often,
I would suspect, what's at the top of their mind, what
they remember about the training were those key ones at
the top there: the general transactions and the
balancing. They're the ones that stuck in people's
minds from the training they'd received.
12
(3) Pages 9 - 12
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
If we turn now to figure 4, respondents were asked about
their satisfaction levels in respect of the training.
We see there red is net dissatisfaction, purple is net
satisfaction. A much larger number of the net
dissatisfied; is that right?
That's right, yeah.
42 per cent versus 25 per cent. 30 per cent there
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. I think you've said
in your report that the 42 per cent net dissatisfied
figure rises to 50 per cent amongst those aged between
50 and 59?
That's right, yes.
Can we tum now to figure 5, please, and this drills
down further and looks at length of service. Can you
assist us with this chart?
Yes. This is general satisfaction with the training
that was received, broken down by the length of time
working. The length of time working is one of those
things that immediately stands out when you look in the
data, in terms of the key differences in the way people
are responding to the survey, and there is a very
consistent pattem, whereby those with less experience,
who have been working for a shorter amount of time —-
typically two years or less or five years or less — do
tend to be generally more satisfied than those with
13
were very dissatisfied?
Yes, that's right, and there is the same dynamic in
terms of the length of service as well
What do you mean by that?
Well, those who have been working for two years or less,
they - 37 per cent of them are satisfied with the
Horizon system, and that compares to the 25 per cent
that we see for the response group as a whole, and, as
the length of time being a subpostmaster is longer, the
dissatisfaction levels rise.
We can see that, actually, if we tum over the page to
figure 7, those are the figures there. So satisfaction
levels slightly improve if you look at those who have
only worked for two years or less; is that correct?
That's right.
But is it also right to say that in every age category
there were more dissatisfied than there were satisfied?
That's true, yes, even those who have fewer than two
years’ of service.
Thank you. Could we turn over the page, please, to
figure 8. Respondents were then asked about issues
experienced on the Horizon system in the last 12 months,
and this provides that analysis, does it?
That's right. So, again, a multiple choice of issues
that have been experienced in the last year.
15
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
longer experience of being a subpostmaster, and this is,
an indication of that.
So those with the highest levels of satisfaction
with the training were those who had been in post for
two years or less, and it steadily decreases for the
length of time of being a subpostmaster.
You obviously can't say for sure but this might
indicate, mightn't it, that training has improved in
recent years, potentially?
It could. It could also be related to training that's
received soon after becoming a subpostmaster. I would
guess that that's more likely to have happen and
therefore it might be fresher in their minds,
potentially.
Let's leave training and move on to operation of the
Horizon system. Can we look at figure 6, please. This
looks at overall satisfaction with the Horizon system,
and the question at the bottom there, we see:
“Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
the Horizon IT system?"
A lot of red in this example?
Yes, it's kind of similar to the previous chart but,
yes, only around a quarter would say they're satisfied
with the current system operation.
We have there 25 per cent are or responded that they
14
They could tick as many boxes as they wanted?
Yes.
If we look at the top four, over half of respondents
experienced at least one of screen freezes, loss of
connection, issues with PIN pad and unexplained
discrepancies; is that correct?
That's right.
If we look at the bottom, we have the 6 per cent who
haven't experienced and the 2 per cent who don't know or
can't remember.
Yes.
Could I ask you, we won't turn it up on screen, but if
you could turn to page 18 of your first report. I think
you report there about subpostmasters mentioning issues
within open-ended comments. Could you explain that for
us, please?
Yes. So searching through the comments to look for
those who are talking about the current operation of the
Horizon system, we have ~ can find number of comments.
There is one that's detailed there, which says’
“In my opinion, Horizon is still flawed.
I regularly have unexplained discrepancies, often
altering daily or manifesting at balance.”
So these were boxes within the survey where people could
type in any response?
16
(4) Pages 13 - 16
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
oP
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
That's right.
If you continue looking at your own report, on page 19,
you've carried out some further analysis that isn’t
shown on this chart. Are you able to assist us with
that, please?
That's right, yes. So there is a connection, of course,
between the discrepancies, the issues that are being
experienced and the level of current satisfaction with
the system, as you might expect. So those who are
experiencing particular types of issues are less likely
to be satisfied with the system. So in the report it
states that 81 per cent of those who are satisfied with
the system still reported experiencing an issue but that
these issues tended to be things like the screen
freezes, the loss of connection and issues with the PIN
pad, which might be more ~ might perhaps be considered
to be less serious issues.
‘Those who were dissatisfied with the current
operation of the system, they were much more likely than
others to report issues such as unexplained
discrepancies, unexplained transactions, missing
transactions and double entry of transactions. So
there's a difference there between those who are
experiencing the different types of issues and their
resultant satisfaction with the current system.
7
52 per cent had called at least once a month.
Thank you. Let's turn to figure 9, please, and this
sets out the reasons why people have called or reported
calling the helpline. Once again, they could give
multiple reasons; is that correct?
Yes, multiple choice question
If we look there we can see 76 called as a result of
a technical issue; 46 per cent as a result of
a balancing issue -
That's right.
-- and then smaller figures for those other responses?
Yes.
Then at page 22, just below that chart, you have given
some more detail and broken that down a little more.
Are you able to assist us with that, please?
Yes, so there was a follow-up question to that because
we were interested in whether they felt that the
response they'd received was tailored to the issue that
they'd been experiencing or whether they felt that they
were being given a generic response, which resulted in
quite an even split: 45 per cent felt that the advice
they'd received was tailored; and 53 per cent felt that
it was a very generic response they were given. And
there were some differences in terms of whether they
felt the advice was tailored. Some differences in terms
19
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
If we look on that page, page 19, towards the bottom,
you also have carried out some analysis in terms of
frequency.
Mm.
Is it right to say that I think 65 per cent of those who
have experienced problems in the last 12 months have
experienced those on a monthly basis?
That's right, yes. 16 per cent a few times a week,
6 per cent once a week, and then, yeah, more on ~-a few
times a months and once a month.
Thank you. So a majority of those who responded
reported experiencing issues on a monthly basis?
Well, the majority of those who responded reported
issues and then two thirds of those who reported issues
reported that that was happening on a monthly basis.
Thank you. Moving on now to "Advice and Assistance"
that’s page 21 of your report. Can you assist us with
your initial findings there on page 21, before we move
on to figure 9?
Yes, so this is a section where we asked questions about
the Business Support Centre and we found that nearly
everyone who responded had contacted the Business
Support Centre in the last 12 months, 97 per cent of
those who responded had done so, and it was quite common
for them to be doing so at least once a month, so
18
of age and ethnicity, and in satisfaction.
So again, an interesting link with those who were
currently satisfied with the system, those who felt they
were given some tailored advice, 64 per cent of them
were satisfied with the system's 34 per cent of them
were dissatisfied.
So, in your view, you've set out a number of bullet
points, but the one that stands out there is that those
satisfied with the Horizon system, it was 64 per cent
versus 34 per cent of those who were dissatisfied?
Yes. So there's a clear link there between -- they've
been given tailored advice, rather than generic advice
and, given that nearly everyone is contacting the
Business Support Centre, that's clearly an important
element.
Thank you. Can we please turn to figure 10. That's
over the page. This addresses overall satisfaction with
the Business Support Centre. This is, I think, possibly
the first case where we have more of the purple than the
red: we have 42 per cent net satisfied against
26 per cent dissatisfied; is that correct?
That's right.
I think you've said at page 22 that a slightly lower
percentage of those were from an ethnic minority
background, that were satisfied?
20
(5) Pages 17 - 20
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
That's correct, yes. So the score for the satisfied was
45, for those who were white background, and 37 for
those from an ethnic minority background, and this
further reinforces the importance of the tailored advice
because 71 per cent of those who received tailored
advice were satisfied with the Business Support Centre
service, compared to just 17 per cent of those who felt
that they'd had a generic response.
Thank you very much. Moving now to transaction
corrections and figure 11, please. 81 per cent reported
receiving a transaction correction in the last
12 months; is that right?
That's correct.
Yes. If we, please, turn to figure 12, it looks at
those who have disputed transaction corrections.
46 per cent have disputed at least one in the last
12 months; is that correct?
That's right.
I think you've analysed this at page 24 of your report,
and you've said that younger subpostmasters and those
from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to
fall within that 46 per cent?
That's correct, yes. So the younger subpostmasters,
aged 18 to 39, 68 per cent of them had done that
disputing, and those from the ethnic minority
21
Thank you. If we look now at figure 14 over the page.
This just looks at those who have disputed a transaction
correction in the last 12 months. First, it looks at
whether respondents were satisfied with the outcome, and
we have there 40 per cent net dissatisfied against
33 per cent satisfied.
Yes. So this goes through the outcome and then the
response that was received, and how long it took to
respond.
It looks there as though there is a higher level of
dissatisfaction with the response received after raising
the dispute than in respect of the outcome of the
transaction. So the second one, there is a higher level
of dissatisfaction compared to the first, for example?
That's right.
There is, if we go down, even greater level of
dissatisfaction with how long it took the Post Office to
respond?
Yes, that's the element with the highest level of
dissatisfaction.
Tuming now to the issue of discrepancies and that's
page 28 of your report. Can you assist us with some
analysis that you've carried out at the very top of
page 28, please.
Yes. So 69 per cent of those surveyed reported that
23
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
backgrounds, 58 per cent, and those who had been.
a subpostmaster for two years or less, it was
63 per cent.
Thank you.
If we turn over the page, please, to figure 13 and
14. 13 and 14 look at satisfaction levels with elements
of the transaction corrections process. Let's look at
figure 13 first. Can you assist us with that?
Yes. So with 13, I mean, nearly everyone who took part
had the ability to respond to this question. So they
were asked about their satisfaction with the review or
dispute ROD function, and their level of satisfaction in
terms of their access to having sufficient data to be
able to review or dispute transaction corrections and,
for both of those elements, they felt that they were —
there was more dissatisfaction than there was
satisfaction,
If we look at the top one, broadly equal numbers between
satisfied and dissatisfied for the review or dispute
function itself?
Yes.
But then, if you look at the access to sufficient data,
there is far greater dissatisfaction with the access to
data?
That's correct, yes.
22
they had experienced an unexplained discrepancy since
the point of January 2020. Those who had been working
for longer were the most likely to have experienced
something. Those who -- and then, among that group, we
looked into the frequency with which that was happening.
Thank you. Could we bring onto screen, please,
figure 15, so that's figure 15 of EXPGO000007 and that
addresses the frequency of unexplained discrepancies.
Thank you. It's figure 15 - oh, sorry, EXPG0000008
Thank you, if we scroll down.
This addresses the frequency of unexplained
discrepancies. Most common in this box was a couple of
times a year, followed by once every two to three
months; is that right? We see there 25 per cent for
a couple of times a year, 21 per cent once every two to
three months?
That's right.
But then on the left-hand side, we see there a few times
a month and at least once a month so that's 17 and
18 per cent. Adding those two together on the left-hand
side, we get 35 per cent of respondents who experienced
an unexplained discrepancy once a month or more than
‘once a month; is that right?
Yes, sorry. Yes.
Thank you. Can we please turn to figure 16. This looks
24
(6) Pages 21 - 24
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
at those who have experienced an unexplained discrepancy
and it provides the amount of a typical discrepancy that
they may receive. Half of those were less than £200 or
half of the typical discrepancies were less than £200;
is that correct?
Yes, that's right.
If we add, for example, the 50 per cent, the 39 per cent
and the 5 per cent, we see there that 89 per cent
reported that a typical discrepancy is less than £1,000.
Sorry, £1,999.
Yes, if you at the first two, the less than £200 and —
so less than 1,000 would be 80 --
There are some figures that would be above £2,000,
although considerably smaller numbers?
Very few, yes.
We have there 1 per cent between 5,000 and 9,000 ~ so
5,000 and 9,999. You also have 1 per cent above 30,000?
Yes.
If you could have look at the bottom of page 28 in your
report, I think you say that 98 per cent of those
reporting discrepancies reported shortfalls, 34 per cent
of those also reported surpluses?
Yes, we were also interested in -- obviously, it's
a multiple, so whether they were shortfalls or whether
there had been any experience surpluses as well. So
25
discrepancies and you have significantly more net
dissatisfied than you have net satisfied; is that
correct?
That's correct, yes.
I think at page 30 you've also broken that down and
highlighted that those who served as a subpostmaster for
five years or less were more likely to be satisfied?
That's right, yes. So it's the same pattern that we've
seen previously.
But, again, still net dissatisfied?
Still net dissatisfied.
Moving now to suspension and termination, and that's
page 31 of your report. Can you assist us: you have
some analysis at the top of page 31 that isn't, I don't
think, addressed by the figure below?
That's right, so yes, 86 per cent had never been either
suspended or threatened with suspension but 4 per cent
reported that they had been suspended and reinstated and
8 per cent reported that they had been threatened with
suspension.
How about in terms of ethnic minorities?
Yes, so that varies a little bit, so looking within the
8 per cent who had been threatened with suspension, so
that figure for white respondents was 5 per cent,
whereas it was 12 per cent for those from an ethnic
27
ONOneRwON a
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
nearly all of them had experienced shortfalls; a third
had had some surpluses, though.
Thank you. Could we tum over, please, to figure 17 and
this looks at how discrepancies were resolved. We see
there the most significant figure is a subpostmaster
resolving it themselves, or through using the branch's
‘own money; is that correct?
That's right.
Does anything else stand out there for you?
Yes, there's some analysis of within that. So the
most likely group to be resolving it using their own —
or the branch's money was those with the 11 to 20 years
of service, so slightly longer servicing ~ longer
serving postmasters; and those who were using the
Business Support Centre was also significantly linked to
the length of service. So it was a much more popular
route among those with a more recent ~ more recently
become subpostmasters.
So, among those who had more recently become,
38 per cent had followed that route, compared to the
19 per cent overall, whereas that group who had been
serving for 11 to 20 years, just 11 per cent of them had
followed the Business Support Centre route.
Thank you. Turing then to figure 18, you look at
satisfaction levels regarding the resolution of
26
minority background and it was, in fact, 17 per cent of
those with an Asian-British ethnic minority background.
Are you able to comment in any way as to whether those
differences are statistically significant?
So they would be indicatively significant, yes.
ignificant of what, sorry?
So the difference between the percentages is - would be
considered statistically significant, if we were
following that, the path of statistical significance
Thank you. Page 31 also says that a subpostmaster from
a minority ethnic background is more likely than a white
subpostmaster to have been suspended and reinstated; is
that correct?
That's correct, yes.
I think the figures there were 6 per cent versus
2 per cent?
Yes, that's right. I mean, as a general point, things
that are mentioned in the report with differences
between subgroups would only be in the report if the
differences between them are large enough to be
considered to be statistically significant.
Thank you very much. Figure 19 drills that down
a little by length of service. Can you assist us with
that, please?
Yes. So this is the point at which they had been -- how
28
(7) Pages 25 - 28
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
recent that was. So it's a group of only just over 100
who had been either suspended or threatened with
suspension, and for 5 per cent of that group of just
over 100 that was within the last 12 months. The
largest group there, for whom that had happened, was the
38 per cent column that you can see there and, for that
group, it had happened 11 years or more ago.
So there seems to be quite a jump from four years
onwards in terms of length of service, as to those who
reported having been suspended or threatened with
suspension; is that correct?
That's right, yes.
I think at page 31 you've also noted that 77 per cent of
those who reported being suspended or threatened with
suspension were dissatisfied with how it was handled?
That's correct, and 4 per cent satisfied, with the
handling of it
Thank you. In your second report, you've addressed
a specific question. Can I please take you — we don't
need to bring it up on to screen ~ to page 2 of your
second report, and it's the first and second questions.
Taking them one by one, if we look at the first
question, can you assist us with that follow-up question
and your analysis?
Yes. So we were asked whether there was sufficient data
29
through all of the detailed responses that were
provided, there were some examples that we've -- that we
provided in that addendum of comments that related to
threats of suspension or suspension, that were also
connected to the issue of discrepancies, and we've
provided three examples of those in this addendum.
Thank you very much.
Let's move to the topic of audits, and can we please
look at ~ if you look at page 32 of your report, can
you assist us there?
Yes. So the question was asked whether, since January
2020, there had been an audit for the branch, and
78 per cent said that they had not had an audit;
12 per cent reported there had been one audit of the
branch and --
I think it was more likely for those who had been
a subpostmaster for only two years?
That's correct, yeah, very clear difference there for
the newer subpostmasters.
So the numbers that we're reporting are very low in
terms of those who had received a branch audit?
Yes, so 152 of those who had responded had received at
least one audit since January 2020.
Thank you. If we look at figure 20, please, that
addresses the issue of satisfaction with how the audits
31
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
within the survey to compare those who had been
suspended or threatened with suspension, with those who
had experienced unexplained discrepancies. So, in our
response to that question, we explained that the two
subjects of the suspension and the unexplained
discrepancies, they did come in separate parts of the
questionnaire. They're not linked in terms of being
able to see whether the unexplained discrepancies was ~
led, in fact, to suspension. So we can't do that.
We can only identify a correlation between them and
certainly not causation. There were actually only eight
who were surveyed who reported being suspended or
threatened with suspension in the last three years and
all of those had experienced unexplained discrepancy,
but we have to remember that quite a lot of those
responding to the survey had experienced an unexplained
discrepancy since January 2020. So it's an interesting
thing to look at but we can't see that there's any
causation going on between those two factors.
The second question on that page, there was another
issue that was addressed?
Yes, so we were asked if there was anything within the
open-ended comments or any additional information about
whether - about what the cause of suspension could be
and whether it was related to discrepancies. So looking
30
have been conducted and, actually, there were
57 per cent who were net satisfied; only 21 per cent who
were net dissatisfied.
Yes, that's right.
Again, I mean, it seems to be a trend in a lot of these
answers with greater satisfaction levels for those newer
subpostmasters; is that a fairer —
That's correct, all the way through, yes.
The subpostmaster contract, that's addressed at figure
21. The questions here looked at whether subpostmasters
had received their contract and also when they had
received their contract. This question was, if we see
at the bottom:
"Were you sent a copy of your contract ... before or
after beginning of your current role?”
The overwhelming majority had received a copy of
their contract?
Yes, that's right.
I think you've provided some more analysis at page 33.
Yes. So the recall of having received a contract, there
was a difference there with the age group. So those
aged 59 to ~ sorry, 50 to 59, 23 per cent of them, and
those aged 60 plus, 21 per cent of that group, were more
likely than the younger age group to have received
a copy of the contract after beginning the role.
32
(8) Pages 29 - 32
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pre>roe
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
After beginning their role?
Yes.
Yes?
After beginning their role.
Could we turn now to figure 22, and this addresses the
receipt of a contract after the Bates v Post Office
Common Issues judgment: subpostmasters were asked if
they had received a copy after that judgment, and it
seems there that a far greater proportion had not
received a copy after the Common Issues judgment than
had received a copy.
Yes, that's right. In comparison, 53 per cent said that
they could not recall having received that.
Thank you. That's just receiving the contract. If we
look at figure 23, that addresses the receipt of
guidance after the Bates judgment.
Yes, so that's the whole sample group again answering
the question whether they've received guidance.
A very significant proportion had not received any
guidance?
That's right, they could not recall that.
71 per cent said they hadn't received any guidance, only
8 per cent had received any guidance.
Yes. Again, there's that quite significant difference
in terms of how recent they became a subpostmaster.
33
awareness of whistleblowing and complaints mechanisms,
and what does this show us?
Yes, so a general awareness about the ability to
complain was low. Just over half were not aware about
the ability to raise a whistleblowing concern with the
Post Office. That would be the third ~ the bar at the
bottom, the 55 per cent group there.
So we have there the red is, "! was not aware of this at
all", and the one slightly to the left of the red is,
“I was aware of this, but would not know how to do it”
That's right
If you add those in each of those categories, so
complaining about a Business Support Manager or Area
Manager or complaining about treatment by the Post
Office or raising a whistleblowing issue with the Post
Office, in some cases you're getting towards 80 per cent
of respondents either not being aware at all, or not
being aware of how to do it.
That's right, yes.
Thank you. Could we turn to figure 26 and this shows
satisfaction levels from those who had complained. Now,
as you've just said, not a great proportion of people
actually knew how to complain so this number is quite
smaller of those who were analysed; is that correct?
Yes, this needs to be treated with a lot of caution
35
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
Can you assist us with that?
Yes. So those who had been in the role for 11 to
20 years and those who had been 21 years or more were
more likely than those who had been serving for less
time to report that they had not received any additional
information. So one comparison there would be that
38 per cent of those who had been serving for less than
two years could recall see having something, and
that's -- that is obviously, in comparison, is just
8 per cent of the overall sample group.
Thank you. Turning now to figure 24, and that addresses
the fairness of the contract, subpostmasters were asked
how fair they considered their contract to be.
32 per cent found it to be very unfair. Net unfair was
significantly more than net fair, is that —
That's correct, yes, and the longer they had been
serving the more likely they were to feel that it was
unfair.
Can you assist us with that analysis?
Yes. So those who had been serving for 11 to 20 years,
62 per cent of them felt that it was unfair and
60 per cent of those who'd been serving for longer than
20 years felt it was unfair.
Moving to the next topic, which was whistleblowing and
complaints, that's figure 25. This figure addresses
34
because it's around about 50 of the responses that
relate to this question.
Again, a fair amount of red there for net
dissatisfaction outweighing net satisfaction?
Yes, that's right, yeah. More significantly in terms of
the - when they had complained about the way that they
had been treated by the Post Office, rather than the way
that they complained about being treated by a Business
Support Manager or an Area Manager.
Could we next have look at the Post Office senior
leadership. There are a series of questions addressing
the senior leadership and management of the Post Office,
and it's figure 27. It looks at the two subpostmaster
Non-Executive Directors, we're going to be hearing from
them as our next witnesses. General awareness, of the
subpostmaster Non-Executive Director is high,
72 per cent; is that correct?
Yes. Very -- yes, relatively few are unaware of that.
I think at page 39 you address the question of whether
subpostmasters believe that they shared Board
information with them?
Yes, yes, that is right. So, yes, the majority
disagreed that those who were serving on the Board have
shared information with them, only around 50 ~
15 per cent agreed that they have been doing that.
36
(9) Pages 33 - 36
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Q. Thank you. Turing over to figure 28, please. This
looks at the overall board. Again, a fair amount of red
there. Can you assist us with those results, please?
A. Yes. So this is the general perceptions of what the
Board and what the Post Office, in terms of the
relationship, the concerns, that the views are being
listened to, and it ranges from a high, in terms of
agreement, in relation to a belief that the Post Office
is trying to improve its relationship. There's
30 per cent who agree with that, 51 per cent disagree,
and that drops to a low of 11 per cent agreement with
views being listened to at the Board level and
60 per cent disagreeing with that one.
Q._ So, in terms of headlines from this figure, the most
significant net disagree is that Post Office Limited
understand the concems of subpostmasters?
A. That's right yeah, and this one is a good example again
about the differences between length of service. So, to
give you an example, those who have less than two years’
length of service, 30 per cent of them would disagree
about trying to improve the relationship with the
subpostmasters. So significantly lower levels of
disagreement there, with that one from the 51 per cent,
whereas those with six years' plus service are more
likely than the 51 per cent to disagree. They would be
37
there are two more.
Figure 31 looks at, “To what extent do you feel
valued or undervalued by Post Office Limited?” A much
higher number in terms of the red: 72 per cent net
undervalued; only 14 per cent net valued.
A. Yes, and, again, that difference by length of service,
so those who have served for less than two years, their
undervalued percentage would be 50 per cent; those with
20 plus years’ service would be 76 per cent.
Q._ That 76 per cent would be significantly more undervalued
or feeling undervalued.
A. Feeling undervalued, yes. So the percentages here are,
yes, more negative than the general satisfaction with
the role.
Q._ If we look at this chart in front of us, there is
a considerable proportion that actually are in the very
extreme category, the very undervalued, as opposed to
the fairly undervalued?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. Very finally, for the subpostmaster survey, we have
figure 32. Can you assist us with that, please?
A. Yes, so this one placed four aspects of perceptions of
the Post Office Limited, the learning lessons from the
past was the one with the highest level of agreement,
but still just 26 per cent compared to 55 per cent who
39
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
55 per cent in disagreement about improving the
relationship.
Thank you. Finally, in terms of the current
subpostmaster survey, there were a series of questions
about being a subpostmaster now. If we could turn to
figure 29, what do we see there?
So on this one, the question being "How satisfied or
dissatisfied are you in your role as a subpostmaster”,
now, 31 per cent were satisfied and 48 per cent
dissatisfied. There's much higher levels of
dissatisfaction among men than women. That's
an interesting difference there. 53 per cent of men are
dissatisfied, compared to 43 per cent of women.
Thank you. You have also drilled down into satisfaction
and dissatisfaction by years of service, that's figure
30. Can you assist us with that, please?
Yes. So this shows the split between satisfied and
dissatisfied with their current role and, for those who
have been most recently appointed, up to the point of
five years, more are satisfied than are dissatisfied
with their role, but it's after that five-year point
that those who have been a subpostmaster for longer
tended to be dissatisfied rather than satisfied with
their role.
Thank you. If we finally look at figure 31 -- sorry,
38
disagreed; being a good place to work, the figure was
slightly lower; being considered to be trustworthy, just
17 per cent felt that, compared to 65 per cent who
disagreed; and, in terms of their perceptions of whether
it is professionally managed, 15 per cent compared to
68 per cent.
Some of those big differences, again, in terms of
length of service, though. So, to give one example of
that, being considered trustworthy, for those who have
served for less than two years, 38 per cent would agree
that it was trustworthy; but still 45 per cent would
have said -- would have disagreed with being
trustworthy.
So generally slightly more positive from those who had
served for less time, or at the very bottom category of
time, two years or less?
That's correct.
But still net dissatisfied or net —
Yes, the one that was probably most positive among that,
newer group was it being considered as being a good
place to work. So an example there would be 47 per cent
of those with less than two years’ service agreed that
it's a good place to work, compared to 31 per cent who
disagreed with that.
Thank you. In terms of headline from the figure that we
40
(10) Pages 37 - 40
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
currently see on screen, the bottom one seems to be the
smallest in terms of agreement and largest in terms of
net disagreement, and that is that the Post Office is
professionally managed?
Yes, that's right.
Thank you.
Page 43 of your report, and over the page, and over
the page again, you've briefly summed up some open
answers or you've quoted from some open answers to
various questions. Are you able to assist us with any
themes that emerged there?
Yes. So, at the end of the survey, we wanted to provide
everyone who had taken part with a chance to say
whatever they wanted to say, to talk about things that
hadn't been discussed previously, and we have done some,
a simple sort of thematic analysis of those comments
that were made.
The main things that we would point out were
feelings of being undervalued, underrepresented, issues
with -- current issues with the system and insufficient
training, possibly a lack of support and transparency
from senior leaders, as well. Many also mentioned
a feeling that the reason they felt undervalued was
often because they were simply not being paid enough for
the work they were doing and the hours that they were
41
in the process.
If we look at page 47, there's just one point I'd like
to ask you about and it's the second paragraph, final
sentence. It says:
"70% of those who have applied to the scheme but
said it had not yet concluded had applied recently post
October 2022."
So are we to understand by that that that's looking
at only approximately half of the respondents of this
survey because half had already received compensation,
and that, of that half, 70 per cent had applied after
October 2022?
That's right, yes.
Thank you. Can we bring back onto the screen the
various figures in EXPG0000008 and we're going to start
on page 33. Figure 33 identifies where applicants had
heard about the Historic Shortfall Scheme. We see there
most commonly receiving a letter from Post Office
Limited or from Herbert Smith Freehils.
That's right, yes. Again, a multiple choice list.
So there may be some repetition?
Yes
Thank you. Figure 34, please, so the next chart. This
looked at:
“Which, if any, of the following do you remember
43
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
putting in, and that's a lack of feeling valued and
a lack of recognition, and so we have given, you'll see
within the report, some indicative comments that express
those key themes that continue to be stated.
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. We're going to now move on
to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme survey. It might be
an appropriate moment to take our first morning break.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means.
MRBLAKE: Thank you.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: What time shall we resume?
MR BLAKE: 11.11
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right.
(11.01 am)
(Ashort break)
(14.13 am)
MR BLAKE: Thank you.
prop
Moving on to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme applicant
survey. We have already discussed that you received
1,483 responses. You begin at page 46 of your
substantive report, and there you say that there are
similar numbers to those who received compensation to
those who the process had not yet concluded; is that
correct?
That's right, yes, roughly the same proportion had had
the process concluded as to those who were still going
42
receiving after making the application?”
The most significant number there, 76 per cent,
recalled receiving an acknowledgement of their
application; but far fewer recalled receiving
information about how it would proceed, 29 per cent; or
next steps, again, 29 per cent; smaller still for a copy
of the terms of reference, et cetera.
That's right. So, again, a multiple choice question,
and, yes, the three there, the information about being
processed, about how it would be processed, the next
steps and terms of reference were very similar responded
to.
Thank you. Turing to figure 35, please, this addresses
the overall perceptions applying to the scheme and we
see there just under half, 47 per cent, found it hard to
understand the scheme and, in terms of completing the
paperwork, there was 57 per cent net hard response.
Much smaller numbers in terms of those respondents who
found understanding the scheme or completing the
paperwork to be very easy or quite easy
Er—
Certainly very easy, sorry.
That's right, yes.
In both of these, we see a fairly significant percentage
in the middle?
44
(11) Pages 41 - 44
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
PoP
Qa
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 23 September 2024
Yes. That's correct,
Moving on to the value of the claims, at page 49 of your
report, you say that 39 per cent valued their own claim
at less than £20,000; 14 per cent valued their claim
between £20,000 and £60,000. So, adding those two
together, is it right to say that a majority valued
their claim at £60,000 or less?
Yes, that's right.
Only 16 per cent valued their claim at more than
£100,000?
That's right.
The next figure, you're going to have to help me a great
deal with, that's figure 36. Can you assist us with
some broad themes from —
Yes. So this one, we were interested in the value of
their own claim, as you've just been -- as you've just
mentioned, and how that contrasted with the value from
the Post Office Limited in response to that claim, and
so we charted one against the other. So —
What do we see at the top and what do we see down the
side?
Yes, so the columns are the claimant value, so the value
that the claimant had placed on it, and the rows are the
value that the Post Office has placed upon it. So in
73 per cent of cases, where the claimant value was less
45
That point is, what, £100,000?
Yes
So in between the £20,000 and the £100,000, it was
perhaps, to some extent, less likely that the Post
Office would agree with your valuation when —
That's right.
-- compared to less than or more than?
Yes, that's right, although, I mean, those who had the
valuation -- their own valuation of 200,000 or more,
although there was a higher match than the middle
valuations, it still was only 17 per cent.
Thank you. Could we ~
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Sorry, I want to make sure I understand
A
what this is saying. If we just take the less than
20,000, first of all, all right. So am I right in
thinking that if the postmaster sought £15,000, in
73 per cent of cases of the Post Office also said
£15,000.
That's correct.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: But it doesn't mean that, in 27 per cent
A
of cases, the Post Office said nothing. They may have
said £11,000 or £12,000. That's what we're talking
about, is it?
No, in terms of the -- there are brackets there.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
47
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than £20,000, that was in complete agreement with the
Post Office valuation. So that's the highest
percentage.
Q._ That's in bold there, in the top left —
A. Yes, that's in bold in the top left-hand comer and, if
you going a kind of diagonal downwards from that top
left-hand comer to the bottom right hand corner, then
you can see where the claim values matched. So the 37,
the 12, the 9, and then the 17. So the matching of
claimant and Post Office value -- the percentage where
they matched fell but then it rose again for the very
highest claim levels.
In the bottom right-hand comer there's a summation
of that. So, for those who had a claim of £100,000 or
less, 71 per cent of those were matched by the Post
Office valuation but, for those who had a claim of more
than 100,000, there's 26 per cent of those had a match
with what the Post Office believed the valuation would
be.
Q._ So's it right to say that, at the lowest end, so the
less than 20,000, it was more likely that applicants
would receive the same valuation from the Post Office up
to a certain point, at which point the figures change
again?
A. That's right, yes.
46
A. So, in some cases, the Post Office valuation was higher
than the --
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: It could be higher as well. Right.
Fine. So does that apply throughout? So when we take
100,000 to 200,000, say, again, in 12 per cent of cases,
if the subpostmaster said 150,000, the Post Office
agreed, yes?
A. (The Witness nodded)
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: The drips have come back, by the way.
You don't understand that, but I occasionally get
dripped on!
So is that right: that in 12 per cent of cases, they
would say agree at 150,000?
A Um-
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I'm just taking 150 as an arbitrary
figure now. If the postmaster said 150.
‘A. Yes, so if the claimant value was there in that bracket
between 100 and 200, then there was a matching valuation
of also between
SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
A. So it would have been 9 per cent of cases but you can
see, above the 9 per cent there, it then became more
Sure —
common for the Post Office valuation to be lower than
the claimant valuation.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Sure, yes.
48
(12) Pages 45 - 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
©
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
A. We have 21 per cent above that, we have 25 per cent
above that.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR BLAKE: Moving, please, to figure 37. The survey then
looked at elements of the claim that were included
78 per cent, so a very high proportion, included a claim
for compensation for a Horizon discrepancy, and then it
moves quite considerably down, as you go down. The
second most significant was distress and inconvenience
A third is loss of earnings, and then much smaller
figures for those other matters, such as personal
injury.
A. Yes, again a multiple choice question.
Q. Thank you. So they could tick all of those if they
wanted to?
A. Yes, they could have done.
Q. Moving now to legal advice. Can we please look at
figure 38, and we see there the question at the bottom:
“At any point during the Scheme, did Post Office
Limited ...2"
Then we have the answers there. Only 33 per cent
reported having been informed of their right to obtain
legal advice; is that correct?
A. That's right yes.
Q_ Aneven lower percentage, only 10 per cent, reported
49
value of the claim that was pursued, based upon whether
there was legal advice or not. So we responded by
writing that those who did not seek legal advice at the
application stage were more likely to value their claim
at less than 20,000. That's 45 per cent of whom versus
9 per cent who did not. But there was not a significant
difference for those 20,000 and 200,000.
About one in five of those who sought legal advice
valued their claim at £200,000 or more, and that was
compared to 10 per cent of those who did not seek legal
advice. But it's worth noting that those seeking legal
advice were more likely to say they didn't know or
couldn't remember the value of their claim and they were
more likely to select "Prefer not to say" to that
question.
Q. Thank you. Can we tum, please, to figure 39 and this
addresses the sufficiency of legal support for legal
advice during the application process. Ah, that one
doesn't have a value in there.
Could we please bring up on screen EXPG0000007.
It's page 53. Thank you. That's figure 39. We see
there a lot of red. 63 per cent reported as not having
received financial support during the application
process; is that correct?
A. Yes, that's right. So 11 per cent in this chart said
51
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
having been provided with information about how they
could contact a legal representative?
That's right.
Page 52 of your report, the final paragraph, it's noted
that only 12 per cent actually received legal advice
during the application process?
Yes. That's right.
That's the application process, and we'll look in terms
of legal advice in respect of the actual offer.
Yes, the questionnaire asked at number of different
points in this journey, if you like, about whether legal
advice was obtained at different points.
Thank you. You were asked by a Core Participant
a follow-up question and, we don't need to turn it up,
but if you could look at your addendum report, on page 3
of that report, it's the first question on page 3, or
first two questions on page 3. Can you assist us with
that, please?
Yes. So we were asked whether it was possible to
differentiate the outcomes for those who were legally
represented and unrepresented. Now, we have noted that
not that many were ~ said that they were legally
represented, which does limit the analysis somewhat.
In a specific question, we were asked if the data
was sufficient to identify any differentiation in the
50
that they received some financial support that they
considered to be sufficient, and 7 per cent that they
had some financial support, but it was not considered to
be sufficient by them.
Thank you. On the same page, you've addressed some
open-ended answers. Are you able to briefly summarise
those?
Yes. So we were asked about receiving support,
receiving both financial support and legal support, and
why it was not -- why they had not done that. The most
‘commonly mentioned responses were a belief in financial
constraints, so they didn't believe that they could
afford to do so, a lack of awareness around that, and
some trust in the system. Some mentioned that they felt
that they didn't have sufficient evidence or
documentation to therefore engage legal support as well
Thank you. If we turn back to EXPG0000008, and turn to
figure 40. If we look at the bottom there, it says:
“How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the
legal advice you received?"
Overall, high levels of net satisfaction with the
legal advice received, 65 per cent, against a net
dissatisfaction of 7 per cent.
Yes, that's right but, again, remembering not a huge
number of respondents actually received any legal
52
(13) Pages 49 - 52
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
advice. So that is based on 176 replies.
If we turn over the page, please, to figure 41, that
addresses financial support for legal advice when
an offer was received. So this only applied to those
who had received an offer?
Yes, so that's a very small group of 65 responses
Ah, this one doesn't have a value either. Let's work
off the actual report. So let's turn to EXPG0000007 and
figure 41, that's page 55. Thank you.
So we see there 55 per cent say, yes, they received
financial support for legal advice: 32 per cent
considered it to be sufficient; 23 per cent said it
wasn't sufficient?
That's right, yes, and 29 per cent reported no financial
support at that point.
So compared to the earlier figures that we saw in terms
of those receiving financial support for legal advice
during the application process, there's a much higher
proportion who responded that they had received
financial support?
Yes.
At page 55, again, you have some open-ended responses.
Can you very briefly summarise those?
Yes, so this is at a different stage in the process but,
yes, the main reasons for not doing so at this point in
53
Yes, so this is intention to make an application and the
first one being for the fixed sum payment, and the
second one being for the interim payment as part of the
claim, and the majority, in both cases, don't have
an intention to do so.
Slightly more red on the interim payments than the fixed
sum payments?
Yes, that's right: 39 compared to 23.
Again, we don't need to turn it up on to screen but, if
you could look at your addendum report, please, there
was a follow-up question that was related to this issue
asked by a Core Participant, and that's the further
question.
Yes, so this question is whether the data is sufficient
to identify whether those in receipt of legal advice
were more or less likely to have made an application for
an interim payment. We found there was no differences
in the proportions saying they had done so, based on the
legal advice. We pointed out further, those who sought
legal advice at this stage were more likely than those
who did not to say that they intended to apply.
So what I've just talked about was whether they had
applied in the past, that was the same, but the
intention was different, based on whether there was
legal advice or not. So the intention differed by — in
55
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
the process, the key theme is around cost again, but
also that, having got to that point it the most felt to
be quite close to the end and that many just wanted it
to end at that stage and not to carry on.
Thank you. Can we turn now to figure 42, so page 57.
The survey then goes on to look at various payments and
types of payments. You address on that page interim
payments, those were payments that were introduced after
August 2022 in respect of 80 per cent of a claim.
Perhaps if you could tum to the top of page 57, we
don't need to scroll up, but can you just assist us with
the statistics there?
Yes. So this needs to -- the introduction to assist
with the charts. So the vast majority is 82 per cent of
those surveyed reported that they had not made
an application for an interim payment, and there were
many that were not aware that such an application was
available for them. We had ~- 14 per cent of those
surveyed had applied for the interim payment.
34 per cent weren't aware that such an application was
available; is that correct?
That's right, yes. We also had a question about
intention, which we'll come onto -—-
That's just these charts that are shown now. Can you
assist us with what these show, please?
54
the case of the fixed sum payments, the intention
differed by 51 per cent of those with legal advice
versus 37 per cent and, in terms of the interim payment,
it was 45 per cent compared to 18 per cent.
So do we summarise that: that those who had sought legal
advice were more likely to intend to apply for a fixed
‘sum payment or an interim payment, than those who hadn't
sought legal advice?
That's correct, yes.
Figure 43 then, please, over the page to page 58. It
looks at satisfaction with those two options. Quite
small numbers being analysed there because those were
only based on those who intended to make the
application; is that correct, or had already done so, in
fact?
Yes, that's right, yes.
Can you assist us with those figures there?
Yes. So with the interim payment process, the level of
satisfaction being 14 per cent, compared to those who
were ~ 48 per cent, who were dissatisfied. The fixed
‘sum payment option, the level of satisfaction there was
slightly higher: more satisfied than dissatisfied.
There was some evidence as well of differences in terms
of the more recent claimants, where the satisfaction
levels were likely to be higher than those who had
56
(14) Pages 53 - 56
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
claimed in the past.
Higher for both or higher for just one of them?
Just picking out the fixed sum payment option.
Thank you. So that fixed sum payment option, there is
a greater number — percentage in the purple than
interim payment, and a smaller in the red?
Yes.
Moving on to case assessors. That's figure 44, over the
page, please. Case Assessors provide an initial
valuation and, if we look at that figure, figure 44, it
assesses the proportion who were aware of the role and
more people were not aware of the role of the Case
Assessor than were aware; is that correct?
Yes. That's right. We'd found that 78 per cent had not
had -- reported not having received contact from a Case
Assessor, and 10 per cent had received some contact in
the past, and then that chart moves on to awareness of
what the role of the Case Assessor waslis.
If we look at figure 45 over the page that addresses
satisfaction with the service received from a Case
Assessor. That assesses quite a small number, only 151
respondents, because those were — if we scroll down
slightly -- those who had been contacted by a Case
Assessor?
Yes, so that relates to the 10 per cent who reported
87
about the involvement of the Independent Appeals Panel
(sic)
The one that stands out slightly more is the bottom one,
regarding the information provided to the individual
about the panel process, with a net dissatisfaction of
52 per cent, set against a net satisfaction of
20 per cent?
That's right.
We now turn to the offer from the Historic Shortfall
Scheme. Can we please turn over to figure 48. There is
a lot of information in your report at the top of
page 63 that isn't addressed by that particular figure.
Can you assist us with those statistics, please?
Yes, this was context -- contextual questions. So about
half of those surveyed had been informed of the outcome
that they had received, but around about half hadn't.
So rough split between those who knew and those who
didn't yet know about it, and there is some information
there about the likelihood of people who applied at
different points in time, about whether they had reached
the end, which I think would just reflect what you would
logically expect.
So the lowest number, 19 per cent had applied post
October 2022?
That's right, yes, they had not yet reached the end of
59
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
having been contacted, and then they were asked some
follow-up questions with some levels of satisfaction
with three aspects of the Case Assessors Service.
If we look there, there was, in particular, a greater
number dissatisfied with the time it took for a Case
Assessor to assess their claim, compared to only
17 per cent who were net satisfied?
Yes, the time taken was the element of least
satisfaction.
Moving on to the Independent Advisory Panel, that's the
panel that's tasked with assessing and recommending
a fair outcome for applicants, could we please look at
figure 46. That's over the page, thank you, if we
scroll down slightly. It seems as though there's
slightly more people who were unaware of the Independent
Advisory Panel than were aware; is that correct?
Yes, that's right, in comparison, 27 per cent being
aware of it versus 32 per cent who were unaware.
Over the page, please, to figure 47. This then
addresses the satisfaction with the amount of
information provided by the Panel and the length of time
to consider the claim. This seems relatively similar to
the responses to the Case Assessor satisfaction levels:
more red than purple?
That's right, and this is based on only those who knew
58
the process.
I think you also saw some differences in age; is that
correct?
Yes, so those older claimants were less likely to have
applied recently. They were obviously then, therefore,
more likely to have had an outcome by this point than
younger claimants, who had not reached the end of the
process
So a higher percentage reported reaching an outcome who
were aged 60 and above?
Yes, that's right.
If we look at figure 48, that addresses the satisfaction
with the amount of information provided. Can you assist
us with that, please?
Yes. So this chart shows only those who had had
an outcome, and they were asked about three elements of
the outcome that had been received, so the time it had
taken, the amount and the amount of information provided
about how the outcome was determined
There's a lot of red there, in particular, in this
particular chart, a large number in the "very
dissatisfied” category; is that correct?
Yes, so the one with the highest degree of very
dissatisfied was the offer amount, and then relatively
similar in terms of the time that it was taken to get to
60
(15) Pages 57 - 60
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
an outcome, and the amount of information provided about
how the outcome was determined
Thank you. We don't need to tur to it but, if you
could look at page 64, you provide some further
information. You drill down a little bit further into
those figures; can you assist us with some themes there?
Yes. So the subgroup analysis of these elements of the
outcome, they showed some particular differences in
terms of ethnicity. So those from an ethnic minority
background were more likely to say that they were
dissatisfied with the offer amount, that is a comparison
between 77 per cent and 53 per cent, and there was
a suggestion of higher levels of dissatisfaction among
a younger age groups compared to older subpostmasters —
sorry, claimants.
There was also higher levels of dissatisfaction
among ethnic minority applicants in terms of the time it
took and the amount of information that was provided.
Some quite large differences there, for example in the
time it took to reach an outcome, 71 per cent of ethnic
minority applicants were dissatisfied, compared to
46 per cent of white respondents.
I think you also say 92 per cent of those with an offer
accepted it either in full or in part?
Yes. That's right and only 8 per cent said that they
61
71 per cent versus 50 per cent. But, again, as we
pointed out eariier, this is a case of — possibly this
a correlation between those factors. We can't say that
one was caused by the other, necessarily.
Thank you. If we could please turn back to EXPG0000007,
page 65, and we have figure 49. It looks at the reasons
why applicants accepted the offer in part or in full;
what do we see there?
Again a multiple choice question, we're looking at only
those people who had accepted the offer in part or in
full, and we see there that the most common reason that
they gave was that they wanted the process to finish,
over 51 per cent say that. There were some interesting
differences on the basis of age group with this, so
those who had said that their financial circumstances
led them to want the process to finish, it was more
likely, you know ~ those in a younger age group said
that it was more likely that they wanted the process to
end because of financial circumstances, so that was
48 per cent versus 29.
Those who were satisfied with the offer, as we just
heard on the previous question, the older age groups
were more likely to be satisfied with the offer than the
younger age groups.
25 Q. Overall in terms of satisfaction, though, it's only
63
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
p>rp>roe
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
rejected the offer.
Those aged 60 plus were more likely to have accepted —
Yeah.
~ as those in Scotland when compared to England.
Yes, that's right, yeah
Can we please turn -- in fact, we don't need to bring it
up on screen, but if you could look at your addendum
report on page 3, there's a final question at the bottom
of that page that was posed by a Core Participant. Can
you assist us with that, please?
Yes, so this, again, asked us to look at those who had
legal advice and those who didn't. Was there any
difference in the proportion of those who were
dissatisfied with the outcome, based on whether they had
legal advice or not? So those who received legal advice
at any stage of the process, in order to create this, we
added them up because respondents were asked at
different stages whether they had received legal advice.
So we added them all together to create a group of
people who had received legal advice and at whatever
stage it was. Those who had received legal advice were
more likely than those who did not to be dissatisfied,
so they were more likely to be dissatisfied with the
offer amount, 77 per cent versus 56 per cent. They were
more likely to be dissatisfied with the time it took,
62
15 per cent who reported being satisfied with the offer?
That's right.
Thank you. Over the page, we don't need to turn to it
but, if you could please have a look at page 66, you
address briefly there dispute resolution. I think it
only applies to very small numbers?
Yes, only a very small number of people went down that
path. So, in the report, we detailed that there were
only 30 observations of those who were surveyed in
dispute resolution; 25 of them said that their claim did
not go to the small claims court or arbitration. More
were dissatisfied than satisfied with the process: 16
versus 4 for that.
Thank you. Very finally, there is a chart, figure 50,
over the page, with overall perceptions of the Historic
Shortfall Scheme. Overall dissatisfied was 49% versus
12 who were satisfied. Can you assist us with what we
see here?
Yes, so we have six elements of the overall process and
asked about those as a group. One of those patterns
that keeps coming up in this data is that difference
between younger and older age groups, so those in
a younger age group were the most likely group to be
dissatisfied in these element. Those older claimants
were less likely to be dissatisfied. Satisfaction
64
(16) Pages 61 - 64
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
levels were higher among those who had received
compensation, which I suspect is a logical conclusion.
So their overall satisfaction was 19 per cent compared
to 5 per cent of those who had not yet received
an outcome but, still, 19 per cent being satisfied isn’t
especially high, of course.
Then, yeah, we have six elements of the process as.
a whole: the amount of compensation; the time that it
took; having enough information; being easy to
understand; being fully informed throughout the process.
Q._ Again, we have considerable amounts of red there, not
very much purple.
A. That's right, yes, and some, again, interesting
differences in terms of ethnicity that are pointed out
in the report. So the one to draw attention to perhaps
around the scheme being easy to understand and navigate,
we have 46 per cent of white respondents being
dissatisfied with that, compared to 57 per cent of those
from an ethnic minority background
Q. Thank you very much. Then, finally, over the page and
over the page again, you've set out some open-ended
answers. Can you assist us with any trends that you saw
there?
A. Yes, so, again, similarly to survey 1, we wanted to
provide everyone with an opportunity to say anything
65
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much, Mr Ellison. I don't have
any questions.
I'l just check if the Chair has any questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No thank you, no.
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Ellison, I'm very grateful for all the
work you've done and I'm also grateful that you've come
here today to give oral evidence. Thank you.
MR BLAKE: Sir, if we take our second morning break now —
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR BLAKE: - and if we come back at 12.10. Thank you
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine.
(11.52 am)
(A short break)
(12.10 pm)
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr Blake.
MR BLAKE: Yes, sir, this afternoon, and possibly into
tomorrow morning, we're going to hear from Mr Ismail.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
SARFARAZ GULAM ISMAIL (sworn)
Questioned by MR BLAKE
MR BLAKE: Thank you can you give your full name, please?
A. Sarfaraz Gulam Ismail.
Q. Thank you. Mr Ismail, you should have in front of you
a witness statement dated 4 September this year; is that
67
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
QP
prop
>
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
else they wanted to report back. We did have a couple
of different boxes, though, we tried to have a box which
was encouraging if there was anything constructive or
positive that they had to said about the scheme, to
prompt around that. That was interesting. It was
revealing because some then wrote that they appreciated
the scheme, largely because it's acknowledged that the
Post Office was at fault, that the scheme was bringing
issues to light and the scheme was, of course, a pathway
to receiving some compensation.
So there were some positive elements there. Some
people found the scheme process easier to navigate than
others, and they wrote about their experiences there,
and there was that connection I mentioned earlier with
more recent applicants finding it slightly easier.
But then later boxes, the more negativity came
through about the scheme. So later opportunities to
make some comments. The thematic analysis of that,
there was generally felt to be a lack of clarity, the
time taken and inadequacy of the compensation amounts
were themes that came through.
So themes of speed and efficiency, communication
transparency, fairness in compensation, and, again,
similarly to survey number 1, we've provided examples of
comments that were made that fit those themes.
66
correct?
That's correct.
Can I ask you please to turn to the final substantive
page, which is page 144; can you confirm that that is
your signature?
Yes.
Can you confirm that that statement is true to the best
of your knowledge and belief?
Yes, that's correct.
Thank you. By way of background, you are a current
subpostmaster; is that right?
That's correct.
Your first branch was in Preston in January 2010?
Yes, that's correct.
I think you've said in your witness statement that you
worked on the counters using Horizon for about six days
a week, originally?
Yes.
I think your business has grown and you currently
oversee seven branches and a banking hub?
Yes, that's correct.
I think you still work on the counter in branches on
occasion?
Yes.
You're also a director of number of different companies,
68
(17) Pages 65 - 68
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PoP
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
covering not just the Post Office but also property and
retail businesses; is that right?
Yes.
Relevant for today’s purpose, you were appointed
a Non-Executive Director of Post Office Limited on
3 June 2021; is that right?
That's correct.
‘Sometimes referred to as a Subpostmaster Non-Executive
Director, or SPM NED?
Correct.
There are two subpostmaster Non-Executive Directors, the
other is Elliot Jacobs, who we're going to be hearing
from tomorrow.
Correct.
One issue that we have to deal with is that you are
subject to a current investigation by the Post Office,
which is not related to Horizon or discrepancies; is
that right?
Correct.
We won't go into detail but that means that, for the
time, being you've stepped back from the Board whilst
an investigation is taking place?
Correct.
Thank you. I'm going to start with your appointment as
a Subpostmaster Non-Executive Director. You describe in
69
Yes.
How long is the term of appointment?
It was three years, initially, but that has been
extended recently due to issues with the existing
recruitment of postmaster NEDs.
What are those issues very briefly?
The timescale wasn't met, unfortunately. So just to
give the business some cover with postmasters on the
Board, the business thought it would be worthwhile
extending myself and Mr Jacobs.
Thank you. How many days a month do you spend on your
Non-Executive Director work?
On average, ten days a work, and the advertisement,
initially, was for two days a month. It's very intense.
In your view, is that extra time commitment as a result
of what's currently going on in the Post Office in terms
of the Inquiry and in terms of redress, or is it, in
your view, more time consuming than two days, in any
event?
I -- from my observations being on the Board, I feel
it's probably a bit of both. This organisation is so
bureaucratic to get anything done, it just takes a very
long time. So that's part of the problem but, also,
with how much going on, there's so many fires at the
moment within this organisation that need putting out
1
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
your witness statement standing for election and I would
just like you to take us briefly through that process.
To start with, can any subpostmaster stand for election?
Yes. So, initially, a criteria was set by the Post
Office and applications were invited and, once
postmasters who met the criteria submitted their
applications, the Post Office then narrowed down who fit
the bill. Then once that was -- then it went to
an organisation to Green Park, who narrowed it down
further, and there was interviews taking place with
a panel, an independent panel. From 12, they whittled
down to six and, once it got to the point where there
was six, it was producing material for election purposes
from your fellow postmasters, who would then vote for
whom they thought would represent them the best within
the organisation.
So, throughout that election process, I gained the
most number of votes and Elliot Jacobs got the second
number of votes, and us two were both appointed to the
Post Office Board
Thank you. Is it all current subpostmasters who are
allowed to vote?
Yes.
Your appointments, were they both on the same date,
3 June 2021?
70
and, in order to deal with that, obviously time is
needed, hence why it does take a lot longer.
Thank you. I'm going to ask you some introductory
questions about the Board but we're going to drill down
into a lot more detail in due course.
In general, do you consider that the role of
‘Subpostmaster Non-Executive Director was something that
was welcomed by the board when you joined?
The Board — the NEDs on the Board were welcoming and
were hospitable. However, the wider Executive made it
difficult and, within my witness statement, I have
clearly provided evidence of situations when we didn't
feel as welcomed by the wider Executive.
Was that specific individuals or more broadly the
executive?
More broadly, from what I observed. There was times —
0 for example, in February '24, when I was told by
an individual on the wider Executive that "We don't want
to particularly deal with you and Mr Jacobs because we
feel really uncomfortable with what's been happening,
you've been going to the press". That was difficult to
hear but that ~ those were the conversations that were
happening. What was also disappointing was when I had
conversations from January ~~ throughout January ‘23 up
to March '23 with the former Chief People Officer, Jane
72
(18) Pages 69 - 72
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Davies, and she categorically said to me how the CEO was
not happy with the postmasters being on the Board
because we were too awkward, too challenging and that he
wanted that to be reversed.
That was Mr Read?
Yeah, Mr Read
At paragraph 49 of your witness statement, you talk
about the balance of executives to non-executives on the
Board and you highlight that there were two Executive
members and eight Non-Executive Directors. What in your
view is the overall balance of the Board in —
Can I have that on the screen, sorry?
Absolutely. So if we could bring up onto screen
WITN11170100. It’s page 18. It's in no way a memory
test about your witness statement. The point being made
there is that there are two executive members, and there
are eight directors, being Non-Executive Directors. Can
you assist us with your view as to the balance between
those two?
I feel it's an imbalance, and the reason I say that is,
firstly, the eight Non-Executive Directors, they are not
operationally savy. They are not necessarily aware of
what is happening in the business on a day-to-day basis,
the headwinds postmasters are facing, they're not
necessarily understanding postmaster economics and, from
73
Another issue you've highlighted, and we don't need to
tum it up, is you say the Board is required to
authorise any spend over £5 million and that, in your
view, the Board is seen as a cash machine; can you
expand upon that briefly?
Yes, so any time any authorisation for any specific
spend over 5 million is required, that comes to the
Board and, again, the Board makes a decision based on
information provided by the wider Executive. Now
sometimes the decisions are correct and sometimes they
are incorrect. But the business sees the Board in a way
to get their authorisations done. Anything below
5 milion, there's very limited visibility for the
Board.
At paragraph 56 -- again we don't really need to turn it
up ~ you've described the Board as "too deferential to
the Executive", and I think you've given an example in
respect of recruitment and I think you've said that the
Executive has overridden a decision of the Board, or
something along those lines. Can you assist us with
what you have explained there?
Yes, so there's been occasions when Board members have
been invited to conduct interviews for very senior
roles, highly paid senior roles within the organisation,
and the Board members who are part of the panel, this is
75
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
my observations whilst being on the Board, the two
Executive members who would produce information that
would be disseminated to the Board was from the wider
Executive's lens.
So, on a number of occasions, when we would receive
reports, myself and Mr Jacobs would provide criticism
and maybe that's why we were thought to be awkward.
We would give the document a sanity check in terms
of what's actually going on, on the front line. So, for
me, the imbalance is quite clear and unfortunately
decisions aren't made through selected information
that's provided to the Board by the Executive that are
on the Board.
Thank you. One of the roles that you've given
an example of is the Chief People Officer and you've
suggested that it might be helpful to have the Chief
People Officer on the wider Board. Can you assist us
with why that might be?
Yes. I feel, as an organisation, culturally, we've got
a long way to go. I heard Paula Vennells in her
testimony say how she started cultural change or she
tried in 2012. I don't feel we've even got off the
ground and, for me, if we want to own that, and fix
that, surely the Chief People Officer should be
a permanent fixture on the Board.
74
their skillset, they know what they are looking for.
‘And when the interviews have been conducted, the Board
members made it very, very clear that it should be
candidate A, out of A, B, C, D, for example. However,
the wider Executive has then totally ignored that
advice, providing no reasoning whatsoever, and then gone
and recruited candidate B.
Is that in respect of one particular role, several
roles?
A few roles. That's my observation while I have been
there.
Do any stand out in particular?
There was -- on the Chief Retail Officer, that one
stands out in particular. There was on the mail side,
on that side, yeah.
Thank you. Another issue in respect of the Board that
you've raised is in respect of information sharing
Mm-hm.
That's paragraph 84. You raise a concern that the Board
isn't given appropriate levels of information. If we
start with the Board as a whole, rather than just the
Subpostmaster Non-Executive Directors, what are your
concems about the level of information that the Board
as a whole are provided with?
So we receive some Board packs with too much
76
(19) Pages 73 - 76
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POP
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
information, too much noise, we then receive other Board
packs or other bits of information, where it's not the
right information, unfortunately, to make key decisions,
and it's resulted in some wrong decisions,
unfortunately. And, again, that's based on what the
Executive has provided.
So to give you an example, we've got information in
September '21 on a certain project — I'm not sure if
can mention the project name — but there was
information provided to the Board where this
subservience circled to lawyers that exists within this
organisation and, from my time on the Board, this was
the first time that was broken and that was because of
myself and Mr Jacobs resisting, and that resistance, in,
tum, resulted in the business saving £5 million. That
was the first time and that was totally against the
legal advice and Tim Parker, at the time, the Chair,
supported what we were saying. That was one example.
Are there particular parts within the business that you
feel are not providing of the Board with sufficient
information?
Yes, I feel procurement is particularly poor, legal is
extremely poor, from a — on a commercial perspective.
It depends who is dealing with which area from
a commercial side because this business has got so many
77
Who are you aware or who do you believe excluded you
from those meetings?
The wider Executive.
Anybody in particular?
There was -- Henry mentioned Nick, Nick Read
specifically mentioned to him he doesn't want us.
involved in any kind of information regarding salaries
and bonuses.
Ona separate topic, I think you've also mentioned in
your evidence being provided with information such as
exit interviews. Can you briefly tell us about that
issue?
So, for me, as part of my Non-Executive Director role,
and to keep on top of governance and understanding how
this organisation can be better and has got to be
better, I wanted to be cited on exit interviews on
previous NEDs to hopefully not make the same mistakes,
be a proactive learner. Unfortunately, the business
didn't provide me any access to that.
Were any reasons given to you for that?
No.
Today we're going to be spending quite a lot of time on
three particular topics, the first is known as the Past
Roles Project, the second is known as Project Phoenix,
and the third is known as Project Pineapple. I'm going
79
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
2
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
different avenues to it. It varies from who you're
getting, and the individual that's dealing with the
issue at that time, and their capabilities.
That's the Board as a whole.
Mm-hm.
Now, looking at just the Subpostmaster Non-Executive
Directors, is there a difference in the level of
information that you were provided with?
100 per cent.
Can you assist us with some examples of that?
Yes. So, up until recently, we were not provided access
to any of the other committee documents that we were not
on. So, for myself, I was on the Nominations Committee.
only had access to Nominations Committee papers and
the Board papers. For Elliot, he was on ARC, so he
had ~- for Audit and Risk Committee and for the Board
and for the Investment Committee.
There was times when, again, when I spoke to the
previous Chair, Henry, and to Jane Davies, they
particularly mentioned how the wider Executive ensured
myself and Mr Jacobs were blocked out of meetings that
involved talking about bonuses and salaries. We were
actively excluded from their meetings.
Was a reason ever given to you for that?
No.
78
to start with Project Phoenix and the Past Roles
Project.
Can we please start by looking at POL00448308,
please. This is the terms of reference for what is
known as the Past Roles Project. I'm going to read to
you briefly from this document. It says:
"Context
“After the Inquiry Compensation Hearing in December
2022, it became apparent that [the Post Office] had
recruited into its Remediation Unite team (RU Team)
employees who had previously worked for [Post Office] in
the auditing, investigation, suspension or termination
of postmasters connected to historic Horizon shortfall
cases."
Just pausing there, do you know why it was only
after the Inquiry’s compensation hearing that that link
seems to have been drawn between the two?
No.
It says:
“This risked undermining of the integrity of, or the
public or postmaster confidence in, the work being done
by the [Remediation Unit]. It also puts employees ‘at
risk’. The [Remediation Unit] took a ‘conflicts paper’
to the [Group Executive] on 7 July 2023 and a further
paper ... ‘past roles paper’ recommending work to
80
(20) Pages 77 - 80
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POP
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
identify {those employees within that unit who were]
potentially problematic historical roles with a view to
redeploying them and extending this thinking into the
wider business.”
So the Past Roles Project, just to understand it
correctly, is about identifying people from the
Remediation Unit, who were working on issues such as
compensation and redress, appeals against conviction,
assisting the Inquiry and, if they worked in a role
that, I think it says there, was problematic,
a potentially problematic historical role, they would be
redeployed within the business; is that right?
Yes.
Yes. The aim there:
“The aim of this project is to:
“[First] Review the past roles conducted by
colleagues currently employed within the [Remediation
Unit] and the Inquiry teams, to identify any that could
be (for want of a better word) potentially problematic
[Second] Identify where else in the business (other
than [the Remediation Unit] and Inquiry) such roles
might also pose a similar risk.
“[Third] Identify the employees who have those
potentially problematic backgrounds and who are working
81
No.
What do you see as the most significant risk of those
individuals being employed within the Remediation Unit?
It's morally wrong.
Why do you say that?
The number of conversations that postmasters have had
with me and Mr Jacobs criticising how individuals are
stil in that unit, it's incredible, and some of the
examples are probably not for this forum, but those are
some of the examples that have been given of things -
criminals have done in the past, not necessarily them
giving their own compensation out. This is how
postmasters are feeling and, for me, I don't think the
focus was right on this project and, to be clear, from
my observations at the time, there was no particular
appetite to deal with this issue.
The only point when some kind of urgency --it
wasn't even urgency -- awareness occurred, was at the
March '23 Board meeting. So myself and Mr Jacobs were
encouraged by the business to attend the Inquiry and we
did, and we saw Brian Trotter -- we heard Brian Trotter
give evidence and, for myself and Mr Jacobs, some of the
evidence was uncomfortable and, the following day,
I think we had a Board meeting, within a week or so we
had a Board meeting, and that's when we raised our
83
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 a
24 A
2 Qa
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
in roles in which that creates an identified risk.
[Fourth] Mitigate the risks, including by internal
and external comms, provided employee with appropriate
support... training and education, and exploring
redeployment.”
If we scroll down, please, it sets out there the
"Problematic past roles":
"Roles that were involved in the auditing,
investigation, suspension or termination of postmasters
and [Post Office] employees."
So there were some individuals who held roles in
auditing, investigating and suspending or terminating
postmasters, who were, at that point in time, employed
within the Remediation Team; is that right?
Yes.
If we scroll down, please, over the page, "The risks
that could emerge’, it says:
“For example: (i) Criticism of employees (say on
social media); (ii) Undermining the integrity of the
work being performed ... (ii) Undermining postmaster of
the public sector confidence in the work being performed
by [Post Office Limited], or the specific team."
If that is in order of priority, do you agree with
that prioritisation, that the first risk is criticism of
employees, say on social media?
82
concems about Mr Trotter working in the Remediations
Unit, and we specifically mentioned him because that's
why we came to the Inquiry.
And in that meeting, the General Counsel, Ben Foat,
said he would look into it.
Are you aware of what role Mr Trotter had within the
Remediation Unit?
No, I wasn't aware specifically of his role, at the
time, once he was rehired. However, prior to that, his
role as a Contracts Manager, yes, and conversations that
Ihave had had with individuals in the business,
probably earlier this year, regarding that specific
scenario, and on past roles, was one of the reasons --
and again, I'm not singling out Mr Trotter here at
all - one of the reasons the organisation did remove
quite a few individuals who were investigations
Contracts Managers at the time, was because culturally
they weren't in the right place.
And what this specific person said to me in our
private meeting was he was deeply disappointed once they
were rehired because he thought he'd already dealt with
this.
Do you know who was responsible for the rehiring?
No.
Can we please turn to POL00448615. We're moving forward
84
(21) Pages 81 - 84
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
now to 17 January this year, and this is an update to
the Group Executive. We see there the title "Past Roles
Review’, and it says, in the first paragraph:
“[The Group Executive] is asked to note the update
in respect of the ‘past roles’ work being undertaken in
[the Remediation Unit] and similar work being rolled out
across the business, since being approved by [the Group
Executive] on 7 July 2023 and clarified on 8 November
2023 and 20 December 2023."
So, looking at the timescales there, was that after
the meeting that you described?
Yes, that's correct. This was pressure that started to
be applied by myself and Mr Jacobs every few months.
So, from the summer of 2023, increasing as the year went
on and into January 2024?
Yes.
If we look at the bottom of this page, please, it then
sets out what we know as Project Phoenix, or the
difference between the Past Roles Project and Project
Phoenix. It says:
“For the avoidance of doubt, this work is not
concemed with dealing with any colleague in respect of
whom wrongdoing has been alleged. This work is about
the roles employees may have performed in the past and
not about how they may have performed those roles. If
85
recently been appointed, probably just about a year ago,
So is he a subpostmaster?
He is a subpostmaster. I'm not sure if he’s got the
relevant training, expertise, to be on the panel. But
he is a subpostmaster.
But he's not a Subpostmaster Non-Executive Director, or
he is?
No. I'm not sure why it says, "Postmaster NED" there,
no.
He is there:
“To provide a postmaster's view to the panel to
support the decisions made with regards to the past
roles of each individual case and how they relate to the
role that the colleague currently performs for the Post
Office."
‘Are you aware of Elliot Jacobs being lined up for
that particular role.
Yes, initially. A discussion did take place, where
Elliot was told he would be on the panel but, again,
nothing ~ nothing happened for that to be implemented,
unfortunately.
Do you know why?
No.
If we turn, please, to page 11, we then see a comms
plan, communications plan, relating to the Past Roles
87
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
there are specific allegations of wrongdoing made
against a colleague, they should be (and in many cases,
are being) picked up by the People team elsewhere."
Was that distinction between the Past Roles Review
and what we know as Project Phoenix, was that clear to
you, the difference between the two?
No. The point at which we got clarity was
February/March this year, when a specific ~ there was
an email from Owen Woodley which was very helpful, and
there was a briefing from Karen McEwan, which basically
outlined what Past Roles was and what Project Phoenix
was and, prior to that, my discussions with any NEDs
was, again, they were slightly confused and it was all
part and parcel of the information that was provided to
the wider Executive.
Do you have a view as to whether having those two
different workstreams is appropriate or not?
Yes, I think, for an investigation purpose, I feel it's
appropriate to split them, so we know which is in which
category, yes
If we tum to page 7, it sets out the panel there and,
on this particular document, it refers to "Postmaster
NED", and it has Mark Eldridge’s name there. Can you
assist us with whom Mark Eldridge is?
So Mark Eldridge is the Postmaster Director, who's
86
Project. I'd just like to react to you paragraph 3
under "Key themes for comms", it says:
“In carrying out this work we are acutely aware of
the duties we owe to our colleagues, and the views of
our trade unions. We also recognise that, in the vast
majority of cases, employees who have performed such
roles in the past will have carried out their duties
according to instructions given to them by the business
at the time, and in the belief that Horizon was robust."
Do you have any views on that paragraph?
Again, like I've said previously, I think the priority
is not right there
So we saw before, that reference to criticism of
employees being first in the list of risk.
Yeah.
We now see the focus here on duties to Post Office
employees; what is your concern there?
The default position within the Post Office at this
moment in time is protect, and I think that's quite
clear from both documents.
Thank you. Could we please move on then to POLO0448309.
If we could start on the final page, page 4, please. So
we're now in February 2024, so I think this is the
period in which you've said this issue came to the fore;
is that right?
88
(22) Pages 85 - 88
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
We were pushing. We were pushing very hard.
Vl just read a few paragraphs. It's from Elliot
Jacobs, and he says:
“Dear Board,
“Following on from our meeting almost 2 weeks ago
where I expressed in the strongest of terms my
frustration and utter disbelief that the matter of
Project Phoenix was still nowhere near resolved I am
concerned we have not received any update on the
activity since.”
So this is addressing Project Phoenix rather than
Past Roles?
Right. So just to clarify, this is prior to the clarity
being provided.
Yes.
‘So we were under the impression that there was just one
project, Project Phoenix, and everyone was in that
specific project.
Thank you. The second paragraph, he says:
“This is important and urgent ..."
I'm going to read the third paragraph. He says:
“The claim that this is ‘difficult’ will simply not
cut it. Ifit was easy someone might have done it by
now; but it is the fact that it is hard that we must
grasp the nettle and get it done. It is both optically
89
So we were referring to, for example, Stephen Bradshaw
at the time, because of the evidence that was provided.
That was one of the examples. Again, it was not a witch
hunt at all. It was a case of individuals and - and
after this email, there was still further evidence from
other individuals who weren't investigators but it was
also very uncomfortable listening
Listening to their evidence before the Inquiry?
Yeah.
If we scroll down, he says:
“We were told the committee was due to meet last
week, but I am not aware of any outcome from that
meeting — I would be grateful of an update on that
meeting and the decisions that came from it ..."
If we scroll up, please, from page 2, you have the
response from Owen Woodley and I think this was the
response you were referring to before. If we scroll
down, thank you. He says:
“Here is an update from the business, Elliot and
Board .
“As a reminder, we have two separate programmes of
activity under way which Karen is overseeing for us.
One is ‘Project Phoenix’ and the other is 'Past Roles’.
These programmes are doing separate activities overseen
by separate panels to determine appropriate action. The
1
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
and morally wrong that this has not been dealt with
before. This is not a ‘witch hunt’ (as it has been
verbalised previously ..."
Just pausing there, do you know who referred to it
as a “witch hunt"? We can ask Mr Jacobs tomorrow, so it
doesn't matter if you don't know.
It did come to one of the Board meetings and I can't
remember but -- I do remember the phrase but I don't
remember who used it.
*... this is about making certain the culture and
frankly the future of the business is not mired in the
wrongdoing of bad people who do truly awful things some
of whom — to this very day ~- believe they did the
right thing!"
Was there anybody that you're aware of that
Mr Jacobs had in mind; was this something that was
drafted between the two of you?
Yes, yes.
Did you have anybody in particular in mind, in respect
of that sentence that I've just read?
Some of the investigators that are still within the
business.
Those who are still investigating or not?
Their job title has been changed but ~
Do you have anybody in particular in mind?
90
panels are not decision making fora on individual
employment cases. Any actions required on individuals
on the back of the panel recommendation are then managed
separately as part of a relevant employment process.
"Project Phoenix is a review of all historical
investigations where allegations have been made by
postmasters of wrongdoing on the part of Post Office
andior Post Office employees (both current and past) as
part of the public Inquiry Human Impact Hearings.”
Just pausing there, do you know why the
investigation into wrongdoing by members of the
investigations team did not begin until the Public.
Inquiry's Human Impact Hearings?
Because there was no real urgency within the business to
deal with this. Unfortunately, it’s been — some of the
issues the organisation has been dealing with have been
Inquiry led, and then that's -- that's the reality.
When it came to that ~ the email prior to this, that
Mr Jacobs sent, one of the frustrations we had was we
are Non-Executive Directors, yes, but we are also
postmasters, and I've attended the Inquiry a lot, and
seen people like Jo Hamilton, Seema Misra and seen how
they were treated, and seeing what they went through,
how are postmasters treated the way they are by this
organisation and why are employees getting a better
92
(23) Pages 89 - 92
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
deal? That's what it felt like.
‘And, again, to emphasise, this was not a witch hunt.
This was just parity. The postmasters were not given
enough time, were not given a chance to defend
themselves. They are suspended immediately if there's
any discrepancies within their branches but, yet, nobody
seems to be suspended when even investigations are still
ongoing, when it came Phoenix or Past Roles. So it was,
very frustrating.
The email continues:
“Chris represents SEG on the Phoenix panel and I'm
sure he would confirm that he and the panel fully grasp
the importance of what they are dealing with.
“Past Roles is a review of any current employee who
may have previously undertaken a role in the past —
between 1999 and 2017 ~ related to the subject of the
Public Inquiry. This is to ensure that they create no
conflict and pose no risk to either the integrity and
independence of work being done now, or to
postmaster/public confidence in that work."
If we scroll up, please, to page 1. We have at the
bottom a response from Karen McEwan the Group Chief
People Officer. She says:
"We have Nic Marriott [and she gives some further
names] all supporting Chris (on Phoenix) and Sarah
93
discovered was the approach they were taking for the
last couple of years was actually wrong. So this was
really disappointing and really frustrating for the
Board. As you've said, our understanding was this is
a high priority. How can you say i's the highest or
a very high priority but not have the correct plan in
place to be fair to the employees, and a proper strategy
to deal with the issue?
It's the first reference that's been made in Phase 7 to
"NBIT". Can you previously tell us what NBIT is?
That's the New Branch IT System
‘So Mr Brocklesby, who was responsible for that new
system, was also spending his time on the Past Roles
Project; is that right?
Yeah, which just seemed very bizarre to myself and
Mr Jacobs.
If we scroll up, we have the response from Mr Jacobs.
We'll be hearing from him tomorrow but can you assist us
with your views on what is said here. He says:
“In case it would seem that I'm implying due process
and rigour should not be applied, for the avoidance of
doubt, I am not saying that.
“I do not deny the importance of that - we know
this organisation has failed horrifically in doing that
before!
95
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
Gray's team (Past Roles). They are three of our most
capable members of the People team, with significant ER
experience. This is our highest priority and is, as you
point out, very complex and time consuming."
In your view, was it the highest priority?
From my observations, we were being told that it's
a priority but it didn't feel like it was, and
I remember Mr Jacobs raising a point about Chris
Brocklesby being on this panel. He was brought in to
look after NBIT, and Mr Jacobs said, "Well, why are we
not utilising his expertise where it needs to be?
Surely he's wasted on this panel”. But it was
a scenario where the business said, "We'll look into
it’,
And just to provide a little bit more context to
this email, regarding Sarah Gray's team, Sarah Gray is
the Interim General Counsel, at this moment in time.
They have had this project since, we saw on the previous
document, December '22. They weren't fully aware, from
my understanding and my observations, until myself and
Mr Jacobs came to the Inquiry in March ‘23, and I just
don't feel the Board have got confidence in that Legal
Team.
And when it came to April '24, our Legal Team then
went to get legal advice and what they found out and
94
“It does however seem odd that not a single one is
suspended whilst this is ongoing? Why/s that? We seem
to suspend people on a regular basis when investigations
are ongoing? Why not on this matter?
“And is redeploying really the only solution? How
does that fix the culture challenge we have here?
“I think further Board discussion and ongoing update
on this is vital."
Were those views that you shared?
Correct.
Could we please turn to POL00448649, please. We're now
in April 2024 and this is a meeting of the Board. We
have Ben Tidswell, there as the Senior Independent
Director but also the nominated Chair of that meeting;
is that because there wasn't, at that point, a Chair?
Correct. Henry Staunton was sacked towards the end of
January, so Ben took over as chair until we found a new
Chair.
We have you there listed as Non-Executive Director. We
have Mr Read in attendance as the Group Chief Executive
Officer, and we have also possibly a relevant name for
the material that we'll be looking at, Nicola Marriott,
the HR Director, as one of the attendees.
Could we please tum over the page and there's
a section on the past roles review. So was this the
96
(24) Pages 93 - 96
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
first opportunity when this matter was discussed after
Mr Jacobs's email, at a Board meeting?
Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
So we have there "NR", Mr Read. He introduced the
matter. The second bullet point:
[He] summarised the new categorisations and
employee populations under review:
“In respect of category one, comprising 5 current
employees due to give evidence at the Inquiry within
Phases 5 and 6, a consistent approach was required in
respect of these individuals ahead of and after the
Inquiry to prevent conflicts arising;
“The second category (previously known as Past
Roles) involved reviewing all current employees within
the Remediation Unit prioritising those who undertook
activity relating to the subject matter of the Inquiry
in past roles
Then you have a third category which:
"included and expanded on the scope of Project
Phoenix and would focus on addressing any misconduct
allegations arising against current police as a result
of evidence given at the Inquiry in later Phases, in
addition to evidence provided at the Human Impact
Hearings.”
So it seems as though the scope of Project Phoenix,
97
employee misconduct allegations. These meetings had
taken a significant amount of time to arrange, and it
was not until February 2024 that the first meeting with
an affected postmaster had occurred."
We then reach the point at which you address, or are
recorded as addressing, the Board. "SI" is yourself.
It says you:
“.. queried why [Stephen Bradshaw] had not been
suspended. [You were] advised that the approach taken
was to let the misconduct process and the investigation
reach conclusion; to suspend otherwise was considered
very high risk from an employment law perspective.
[You] expressed [your] views on this approach and
advised that [you were] receiving comment in from
postmasters who were concerned that [Mr Bradshaw]
remained in the business. [You] shared [your] view that
this was a cultural issue and the Company could not move
on until individuals in this category exited the
business.”
Just pausing at that point, can you expand upon your
views there?
I was getting several postmasters still contacting me
from a business as usual perspective, saying why is
Steve Bradshaw still working within the Post Office?
And my response was: the business is dealing with it.
99
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
by this stage, had expanded to go beyond the evidence
that was heard at the Human Impact Hearings; is that
right?
Yes.
*[Mr Read] outlined the population and noted that the
population could increase with other current employees
potentially coming within scope for investigation as
a result of evidence heard in Phases 5 and 6;
[Mr Read] emphasised the need for a consistent and
fair approach as well as acting quickly. [Mr Read] also
noted the value of documents disclosed to the Inquiry
and that these potentially could be utilised to assist
with consistency of approach ...”
The next paragraph, we now get to Nicola Marriott:
[Nicola Marriott] advised that she wished to
provide the Board with an update on the current status,
work undertaken to date and take the Board through the
proposed next steps. [She] reiterated the 3 categories
and the employee populations within these. [She] spoke
through all the work undertaken in relation to Project
Phoenix noting the evidence [collected]", and she gives
various figures there.
"There had been delays as the ACI team wished to
‘engage with the postmasters who have provided evidence
at the Human Impact Hearings that had led to the current
98
And when, obviously, questioning Nicola Marriott about
it, the approach was to ensure the Post Office is not
exposed to any high-risk employment issues and,
unfortunately, that was the approach that we had to go
with because that's what HR were doing, and they were
responsible for the project.
For me, what was really important was this business
moves forward and, from a cultural perspective to —
from within the organisation but also to get postmasters
back onside, it was really important the business moved
on and, unfortunately, this business redeploys,
recycles, there's very ~ it's disappointing when
individuals need to be exited and they are not exited,
and, again, I'm not singling Steve Bradshaw out at all,
I'm talking generally on both projects.
*[Ms Marriott] took the point however advised that in
the ongoing investigation into (Mr Bradshaw] no evidence
had been found to support the allegations and there was
no evidence to date of gross misconduct. The Chair
pointed out that there was the evidence the postmasters
had provided in the Human Impact Hearings, so caution
against the position of stating there was no evidence to
support the allegations. The Chair noted that the
investigations being conducted were internal and queried
if there should be external assurance conducted to
100
(25) Pages 97 - 100
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POP
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
validate the approach taken
What's your view on external assurance in relation
to this project?
I was in agreement with the Chair. I think the project,
from what I saw since March '23, it just — there was
a lot of the wider Executive mentioning things are going
on, "We are doings investigations”, but there was no
hard facts in terms of where the investigations were
leading. So, if we did go external, it probably would
have been executed a lot quicker in terms of a project.
It says there:
“[You] referenced the meetings with postmasters who
had made allegations against [Mr Bradshaw] and queried
the level of explanation provided regarding the
investigation process. [Ms Marriott] noted the
employer's duty to protect an employee; in light of this
the approach advised to postmasters had been more
general. [You] queried whether the process could be
simplified. [She] advised [you] that engagement had
been had with post masters via their legal advisers as
this is how the postmasters had advised that they wished
to be engaged. [You] queried whether there was
a timescale for conclusion of the investigations. [She]
replied that the team had not wished to push too hard
given the sensitivities for postmasters in recounting
101
audits, et cetera, because of the work that needed to be
covered for the Historic Shortfall Scheme; is that
right?
That's correct.
What's your view on that?
Disappointing, and we did express, myself and Mr Jacobs,
disappointment because, like I said previously, for the
organisation to move on, we both believed decisions
needed to be made on these individuals who were in
Phoenix and Past Roles.
Thank you. If we turn over the page I'm just going to
read a few more passages from these minutes.
The first bullet point there:
“[Ms Marriott] detailed the proposed approaches in
relation to the different employee populations within
category 2, noting the benefits and risks involved. For
the 23 ‘red’ employees, it was proposed that
a referencing exercise was run to understand the
appetite for voluntary redundancy or redeployment.”
Can you assist us with who the “red” employees were?
They were the high-risk ~
Not their names, just --
No, they were the high-risk employees.
Thank you. If we scroll down, we have there, we can see
on the right-hand side, about halfway down, it involves
103
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
events. That said, engagement with all the postmasters
who had made allegations in relation to [Mr Bradshaw}
were due to be completed by the end of June. The team
was similarly looking to complete meetings with
postmasters in relation to other cases.”
Broadly, were you satisfied with that explanation?
No. However, there was no other choice. It was one of
them situations where, unfortunately, we had to let the
process do what it has to do with the right people
dealing with it, for example in this case Nicola
Marriott, and we had to let the process happen. There
was no way of us getting it done any quicker.
Moving on to the Past Roles Project, it says there:
"The Chair asked [Ms Marriott] to provide an
overview of category two. [She] spoke through the
category outlining the work that had been undertaken to
assess for conflicts arising from the roles associated
with the activity covered by the Inquiry and current
roles and detailed the employee population that this
work had identified. [She] noted proposed restructuring
however this had not been actioned due to the need to
retain the workforce given the high number of new
applications to the [Historic Shortfall Scheme]."
So it seems there that some individuals weren't
redeployed who had been involved in investigations or
102
you again:
"SI queried whether redeployment was appropriate for
‘red’ individuals within this population as opposed to
exiting these individuals from the bid. [Mr Jacobs]
agree with [you] that redeployment was not appropriate
for individuals classified as ‘red’. There was
discussion regarding how the proposed approach would be
executed with [Mr Jacobs] querying whether the exercise
could be conducted one time and once and the Chair
querying the continuation of this population in the
business during the consultation period. [Ms Marriott]
reminded the Board that there were no allegations of
wrongdoing in respect of the ‘red’ population within the
Remediation Unit and that this group were ‘red’ only
because they undertook roles historically linked to the
subject of the Inquiry."
What is your view as to the redeployment of those
red individuals?
I wasn't happy, hence why I ensured I told the Board of
my view.
Why do you hold that view?
Because I just don't feel it's appropriate for the
individuals who were in the "red" category to be,
firstly, within the business, and I feel it's an insult
that they were in the Remediations Unit.
104
(26) Pages 101 - 104
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
That unit in particular?
Yes.
Because of the work that they do with subpostmasters
and -
Correct. So a postmaster who was potentially
terminated, wrongly prosecuted, has then got
an individual who potentially has done all that damage
to them and their life, then giving them the
compensation. That just does not sit well with me.
MR BLAKE: Sir, I see time is running on.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR BLAKE: I think we can return to this document after
lunch. So perhaps we'll take the lunch break now.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. What time shall we resume?
MR BLAKE: If we come back at 2.10.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine.
(1.09 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(2.10 pm)
MR BLAKE: Thank you.
If we return to that document that we were on before
the lunch break and page 4, thank you very much. This
is the Board minutes of 29 April this year. Can we
scroll down to the bottom, please. Halfway down that
final bullet point, we have Lorna Gratton sharing her
105
role and, for me, I think the notes, the minutes are
quite clear. We had, for myself and Elliot, both of us
were getting a lot of communication and text messages,
various conversations with postmasters sharing concerns
regarding some of the previous revelations throughout
the Inquiry, and what we did at this specific Board
meeting was express them concerns.
Are you concemed about any matters there in terms of
those individuals in particular?
In what respect, sorry?
Was action subsequently taken in that respect; are you
aware of any action being taken?
Not to the level that postmasters were expecting, and
{don't feel, from what I observed, and still seen
whilst being on the Board, that it was to the level the
Board were expecting, and I've not been given any
further information on Ms Corfield. Regarding Tracy,
a postmaster, even after this, contacted me, advising me
that she had been visiting his branch.
So, again, I'm not sure how this has been executed
because clearly there's been some miscommunication at
some point.
Thank you. If we scroll down, we can see the Board
resolved to take number of different actions. First
was:
107
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14 A
15 Q
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 A
24 a
25 A
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
preference that employees who were within the wider
business who were found to be "red" be offered voluntary
redundancy.
You agreed, and the Chair confirmed that there were
no objections to that approach.
If we scroll over the page, please, to the second
bullet point, it says there:
“Information arising from the Inquiry in respect of
T Marshall and M Corfield was discussed.”
This is, again, a reference to you sharing:
the concerns expressed by postmasters of
T Marshall remaining in her current post. The Chair
shared his expectation that these employees would come
out of the business at this time, if the material
warranted that. [You] agreed with this as did OW [Owen
Woodley] and it was confirmed ... that T Marshall coming
out of the business was presently being considered.
[Mr Woodley} confirmed that if there were issues.
employees would be taken out of the business until the
end of the Inquiry ..."
Can you assist us there with your views as expressed
there?
So firstly, regarding Tracy Marshall, she wasn't
actually taken out of the business. She was only taken
out from the postmaster engagement aspect of her job
106
"The proposed approach as set out in the paper in
relation to category 1 employees", that was approved.
"Subject to the Board being provided with details of
and being satisfied as to costs and funding, the
proposed approach as set out in the paper in relation to
category 2 employees be and is hereby APPROVED, save
that the 23 employees with the red categorisation would
in preference exit the business rather than be
redeployed
So it looks as though one of the resolutions from
this particular meeting was a change in respect of those
who had been categorised in the red categorisation; is
that right?
Yes.
Then third:
"The proposed approach as set out in the paper in
relation to category 3 employees [was] APPROVED however
with any investigations conducted following the
conclusion of the Inquiry.”
Thank you. That can come down.
Can you assist us with which team within the Post
Office carries out these investigations?
Into employees?
Yes.
So it's the panel that the Post Office has put together,
108
(27) Pages 105 - 108
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and then, beyond that, we're not really told ~ I've not
been told specifically who is doing what investigations.
We get a high level overview as provided by Karen, Owen,
and Nicola and that's it. There's never any real detail
given or “An investigation hearing is happening on XY
date", we don't really get provided with anything like
that. So it’s a case of the Post Office conducting the
investigation on the Post Office's terms and then the
Board basically being given that information by the
wider Executive.
Are there members of the Investigations Team carrying
out those investigations?
I wouldn't know. I'm not privy to that information.
Do you have any concerns about the fact that those
investigations are being carried out internally?
Yes.
Why?
Because, for me, and as I've said in my statement,
I believe the investigation process within the Post
Office is flawed, the whistleblowing process I also
believe is flawed, and then when we appointed the
current Whistleblowing Champion to the board, Amanda
Burton, prior to her appointment as the Whistleblowing
Champion and RemCo Chair, I raised serious concerns
because she had been on the Board of two previous
109
level, and I accept that, and there's more
responsibility that's got to be taken from the wider
Executive level, and culture is owned ultimately by the
Executive because they are responsible for the
day-to-day practices that go on within the business.
Thank you. Could we please turn to POL00448298. If we
look at page 3, please, we're going slightly back in
time. This was an email exchange that came just before
that Board meeting, so the Board minutes were 29 April
This is an email from Mr Jacobs to members of the Board.
Did you have input into this correspondence?
Yes, we did work on emails together, myself and
Mr Jacobs.
Thank you. It says:
“Dear Members of the Board,
“We are writing to you today with an urgent and
deeply troubling concem that demands our immediate
attention and action.
“This follows on the previous emails and requests
[and you've highlighted there the number of requests] ~
all of which have failed to result in any outcomes
beyond confirming we have 6 staff members classified as.
Phoenix and 127 in Past Roles.”
You then, if we scroll down, address the further
revelations that have occurred at the Inquiry,
11
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
organisations who had major governance and compliance
issues.
But we still went ahead and appointed her and, for
me, that was really disappointing. And when I've got —
when I'm having discussions with female staff members
regarding investigations and one female staff member
approached me and said -- she basically went through
a sequence of events that happened to her, and I said,
“well, why don't you speak up? Put it through
whistleblowing", and she basically said to me "Saf, how
can I do that?", and I said, "What do you mean?"
And she goes, “If this organisation do what they
did, to me, with the highest-ranking female, who was
Jane Davies as a whistleblower, publicly exposing her in
a Business and Trade Select Committee hearing, and she
then loses her job, what chance have I got?"
And it was really, really difficult and, sorry, just
to finish this answer, when you see the Post Office
‘employee surveys, which have been provided to the
Inquiry, and you see one in three women have received
unwanted comments, it's really disappointing that this
culture persists within this organisation.
Where do you see responsibility for that lying?
It starts from the top. So there's certain
responsibility for that that's got to be taken at Board
110
including:
"individuals responsible for postmaster
‘engagement today knew about remote access since 2011,
yet chose to remain silent ...”
You say itis:
*... a damning indictment of their character and
integrity."
Further on
“It is unacceptable that individuals within our
business continue to hold positions of influence”,
et cetera.
If we scroll up, we can see the response from Lorna
Gratton of UKGI, she says:
"I share your concerns on this ~ though I thought
we had time to discuss as a Board at 6.00 pm on Monday
(after the GT discussion meeting)?"
There was a discussion at this Board meeting that
we've just been seeing about it, I think it's a Grant
Thornton report; is that correct?
Yes.
Was it your understanding, at the point in time in which
this email was sent, that the Grant Thomton discussion
was to come first in that Board meeting, or prior to the
discussion about Past Roles and Phoenix?
Sorry, can you just repeat the question?
112
(28) Pages 109 - 112
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>)
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Absolutely. So the question here was that the Grant
Thornton discussion meeting was going to take place
first —
Yes, that's correct.
--is that your recollection?
Yes,
If we scroll up, we can see a response from Mr Jacobs.
He says:
“The [Grant Thornton] report is about governance ...
this is a KEY governance issue. It worries both Saf and
I that the Board can convene on a discussion on a report
from an extemal firm but not actually get one from our
own business ... Perhaps this is why an external review
is necessary into this entire matter?"
If we scroll up, we can see Mr Read's response:
"Be assured we are all troubled by the appalling
developments and revelations that are emerging at the
Inquiry .
"... we have not been as forthright in our actions
as many would have liked ... this is because it is not
straightforward."
If we scroll up, Mr Tidswell says:
“Itis on the agenda for Monday (and has been since
you raised it last week). We will deal with it first,
to make sure there is sufficient time to discuss.
113
who were lawyers probably understand why things are
taking a bit longer but for -- definitely myself,
Mr Jacobs and, at the time, Henry Staunton, and there
was a ~ I can't remember ~ Henry Staunton as well,
yes, definitely and a few of the other NEDs have also
expressed concems as to the speed and space at which
this is being executed?
I'd like to look at one particular example that might
assist you with the issue of redeployment within the
Post Office. Could we please turn to POL00329521
This is correspondence that the Inquiry has seen in
a previous phase. If we start on the bottom of page 2,
please, this is correspondence from Mr Posnett to people
who were part of historic investigations, and he says —
this is 21 April 2015, so sometime ago now:
"Please note the cases below and whether you were
a Criminal Investigator or Financial Investigator. Can
you let me know whether you have any hard copy or
electronic copy documents, emails, evidence, etc, or
indeed any information relating to the cases detailed.”
It sets out there a number of cases, referred to as
“historic investigation cases”
If we scroll up, please, we have Mr Thomas saying:
“Dear Mr Posnett
“I am pleased to advise you that I do still have the
115
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
I think your concems are widely shared across the
Board."
So it seems as though, following representations
made by you and Mr Jacobs, that the matter was given
greater prominence at Board level; is that right?
That's correct.
Do you think there was sufficient attention drawn to it
by 29 April?
Not sufficient to what I would expect because I don't
think, from my time, deep with regard to ~ with regards
to dealing with this matter, that the other independent
NEDs understood how much discontent this was creating
within the postmaster community.
Are you satisfied with how those matters are going now,
as at the present date?
No, because I still feel they should be done by
an external organisation.
In terms of the length of time, who do you consider is
responsible for the length of time that those projects
have taken?
The Legal Team, which the Board just do not have
confidence in.
When you say the Board: the majority of the Board, all
of the Board, some of the Board?
Some of the Board. I think the individuals on the Board
114
electronic documents relating to the Astwood Bank &
Priory Road cases."
If we scroll up, we have Mr Graham Ward, who says:
"Why are you pleased ... you have breached the DPA
[Data Protection Act] as you should have deleted them
years ago [smiley face]."
If we scroll up, please, we have Mr Thomas’
response, and he says:
"Because I want to prove that there is FFFFilinnn no
‘Case for the Justice Of Thieving Sub Postmasters’ and
that we were the best Investigators they ever had and
they were all crooks!! Oh and we never hit our [Post
Office] profit targets any more as we stopped getting
£XX million pounds in recoveries from bloody good
financial recoveries through my good friends Ward,
Harbinson, Posnett and the likel!
“End of Rant!! Hence why Scott had to get rid of us
cos we is right and spoke out!!! Power To The People
Wolfie Smith!!"
If we scroll slightly up, we have the response from
Mr Ward:
{will be right ifI get VR [I think that's
voluntary redundancy) ... I fear the 2 years currently
on offer may not be there next time!”
Looking at this as an example, do you have concerns
116
(29) Pages 113 - 116
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POP
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
about individuals who previously worked in the
Investigations Team currently working within the
business, irrespective of whether there is a specific
allegation or evidence of specific wrongdoing against
them?
Yes,
Why?
I just don't feel i’s right, morally, that they should
be in that position, and with these individuals when
I was reading the bundle that was sent to me, I was
stunned when I saw this email. And this is evidence
that we've got, there's obviously evidence — we don't
know what we don't know — and my concems are, for
example, redeployment and VR, which has resulted in
a lot of rehiring again, that it's a gravy train
People just board it again and again when they feel like
it, and that cannot happen. And that's really
disappointing.
Are you aware of individuals who were in the
Investigation Team? So if we scroll over to page 2,
thank you, we have all of those recipients of that
email. Are you aware of those -- any of those
individuals or those who worked closely with them still
in roles within the Post Office?
The Post Office has got 3,500 employees and 7,000
417
We're now going to move on to a new topic, although
related, and that's what we know as Project Pineapple.
In your statement at paragraph 274 onwards, you've
discussed three events that you say you considered to be
of relevant wider context. The first of those is
a letter sent by the CEO to the Lord Chancellor, and
perhaps we can bring that up onto screen. That's
POL00448381. This is a letter dated 9 January this year
from Mr Read to the then Lord Chancellor, and it begins:
“As you give urgent consideration to the [scandal]
as to whether and how the process for appeals against
convictions flowing from the Horizon IT Scandal can be
accelerated, you should be in no doubt of today's Post
Office's determination to ensure that proper redress is
achieved for all those affected by the business's
abysmal behaviour over the relevant time period. We
are, individually and collectively, working as hard and
as quickly as we possibly can to get compensation to
those affected, to support the Inquiry, and to provide
ministers and officials in our sponsoring Department
with whatever assistance they require.”
Had you seen this letter before it was sent to the
Lord Chancellor?
No. Nobody on the Board had seen this letter, to my
knowledge.
119
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
prop
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
postmasters. It's very difficult for me to know who
knew who on this email trail unfortunately.
I think one of your concerns is that those who worked in
roles that are relevant to the matters being
investigated —
Yes.
~ by the Inquiry are still in some roles?
Yes.
Do you know numbers or proportions or anything along
those lines?
We're not privy to that information. We were never
given a specific breakdown, unfortunately.
Thank you. On a totally different topic, it's staying
with this email, if we tum to the first page, please.
(On the topic that is raised in the bottom email on that
page, the potential targets or potential bonuses paid to
Investigators, was that ever anything that was discussed
at Board level, from your recollection?
To specific Investigators? There was, I think, earlier
this year, maybe January, February time, where concerns
were raised after Mr Bradshaw's evidence about where
some of the funds ~ recovered funds had got to but
never a discussion regarding bonuses paid for recovering
debts from innocent postmasters.
Thank you. That can come down, please.
118
So it hadn't been raised at Board level officially?
No.
Hil take you to the third paragraph, and I'll just read
that paragraph. It says there:
“In an effort to fast-track the appeals process
ourselves and to encourage people to come forward, we
asked our external legal advisers, Peters & Peters,
together with Simon Baker KC and Jacqueline Carey KC to
undertake a review of all our historic prosecutions.
The aim of the exercise was to identify potential
appeals against convictions which, following the
judgment in Hamilton, we would be highly likely to
concede in Court. This has enabled us to write,
proactively, to a further 30 potential appellants in
addition to the 142 resolved cases and the five awaiting
consideration, encouraging them to mount an appeal, have
their convictions quashed, and obtain appropriate
compensation.”
So the test there in that particular paragraph seems
to be those that would be highly likely to be conceded
in court. Was that your understanding of that
particular category?
Yes.
Second, it says:
“A natural corollary to this exercise has been to
120
(30) Pages 117 - 120
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
identify those cases in which, on the information
available to us and following the judgment in Hamilton,
we would be bound to oppose an appeal. Typically, these
cases involve convictions obtained by reliance on
evidence unrelated to the Horizon computer system. The
number of such cases is very much more significant, at
369, with a further 11 still under review. There are
another 132 in which we cannot determine the sufficiency
of evidence without more information. This clearly
raises acute political, judicial, and communications
challenges against the very significant public and
Parliamentary pressure for some form of acceleration or
bypassing of the normal appeals process.”
So pointing out there that there is a very much more
significant number of cases that don't fall within that
first category.
‘What is your view as to what's written there?
For me, this entire document was very disappointing
because it highlights that the culture, unfortunately,
within the organisation still has not changed at all and
it's saying, again, the reason why these postmasters
have not come forward is because they are guilty, and
that point was raised at Board, and in a private
NED-only meeting, which is not minuted, and the Board
was disappointed with this lack of judgement in sending
121
Can you give us an indication as to the strength of
feelings that was expressed at that Non-Executive
Director meeting?
I think one of the NEDs said it was careless; another
individual said it was a lack of judgement. There was
definitely a feeling of disappointment but, again, it
felt like the Post Office of the past, which is trying
to close rank and protect itself, whereas being open and
honest about what's happened and what's going on would
have been a much more helpful position to move forward.
That can come down. That was the first event that is
set out in your statement.
The second concems the use of the term
“untouchables”. The Inquiry can't look into what was or
wasn't said at a Parliamentary committee, so I'm not
going to address that particular aspect of it. But can
you assist us with who used the term "untouchables"?
The CEO, Nick Read.
When was that?
On 18 January, at a NED-only session, I think, at 2.30
in the afternoon, and also in a Board meeting towards
the end of '22 and '23
What did you understand that term to mean or to have
been used?
That was in relation to certain individuals within the
123
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
pro
prop
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
this letter out
And from the discussions that we had as a Board, the
Chair was going to speak to the CEO, Nick Read, about
the letter.
So this letter is 9 January.
Mm-hm.
Can you assist us with approximately that Non-Executive
Director-only meeting took place, was it shortly after?
It was a private meeting. It was in January before
Mr Staunton was dismissed
Who was in attendance, all of the Non-Executive
Directors, some of them?
It was open to all the Non-Executives, but I couldn't
tell you if someone gave their apologies but —
Was Mr Staunton there?
Mr Staunton was there,
The letter then says:
"We make absolutely no value judgement about what
you and your colleagues determine as the right course of
action, but consider it essential for you to understand
the very real and sensitive complexities presented each
case.”
Would you have expected a letter like this to have
been considered at Board level?
Yes, 100 per cent.
122
organisation, for example the Investigators, the Legal
Department, individuals within the Legal Team, the
Retail Team
Why did you understand that term to have been used?
Because they're untouchable. There's no accountability
for them. And, from what we had seen -- what I had
seen, what Mr Jacobs had seen — since we'd joined the
Board, it was clear that it took ~ to me certainly, it
did feel like there were, potentially ~ they were
untouchable because there'd been complaints, there'd
been various points where, for example, on the Legal
Team side, on the Past Roles side, it just wasn't moving
quick enough, and there was no performance management,
no accountability
Can you assist us with how that term was used? Is it
saying that they have been untouchable but we're going
to be taking action or was it that they are untouchable
or they should be untouchable?
They are untouchable.
Was a reason given for that?
No.
That's the second event. You've said that there was
a third event, which was discussions regarding
individuals still working in the business; is that the
Project Phoenix and Past Roles matter?
124
(31) Pages 121 - 124
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
‘A. No, not necessarily just that. So there was concerns
raised about the Retail Team, and when we appointed
a Chief Retail Officer, Martin Roberts, two or three
months after his appointment, the wider Executive and
also the CEO, they were all saying the same thing, that
“He's not good enough for the role. It's not the level
we expect”,
‘And myself, Mr Jacobs and other individuals
within - on the Board, we were looking at specific
datasets. So when we said, "What are the Retail Team
doing, they're not engaging with the postmaster NEDs,
how do we measure success?" So we looked at the
postmaster surveys. There's been plenty of time that
they've had to implement and get things moving in the
right direction, but they weren't, and they were getting
worse and worse. And the response was "Well, this and
people like Martin, for example, are who are
untouchable”.
‘And when it came to the discussions after -- sorry,
to finish my first point -- two or three months after
Martin started, there was always discussions had "We
need to do something, we need to do something”, but
nothing ever happened
The lack of performance management within the Post
Office is unbelievable. I've never seen anything like
125
MR BLAKE: Thank you.
A. Thank you
Q._ In fact that -- yes, well. I'm sure somebody can look
up what date the Sunday was.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Page has played detective and, if you
look at the top of the email, Sunday, 14 January means
that it must have been 7 January, which was the Sunday.
MR BLAKE: So, in fact, it looks as though this was prior to
that letter from Mr Read to the Secretary of State for
Justice —
A. Yes.
Q. ~ because that was the 9th?
A. Yes. The conversation happened the Sunday prior, the
7th. So Mr Staunton's date -
Q. The date there is wrong?
Yeah, yeah.
>
Q. Thank you. First of all, although it's not a transcript
or an exact note, is it a fair summary of the matters
that were discussed with Mr Staunton?
A. Yes.
Q. The first paragraph, we'll go through each paragraph
step by step:
“Saf said the views expressed by Richard Taylor, and
previously by management and even members of the Board
still persisted ~- that those [post masters] who had not
127
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
A
Qa
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
it.
Thank you.
That was the third event, and that takes us now to
what we know as or what we refer to as the Project
Pineapple email. Can we please turn to POL00448302 and
it's page 4. This is a note from Mr Staunton to
himself, which is later forwarded on to you, sent on
14 January this year, but it says, "Note of conversation
with Saf and Elliot on Sunday, 10 January".
Now, you've addressed this at paragraphs 277 to 279
in your statement. I think the dates are wrong in the
statement because it's clear here that the conversation
took place, or seems to be clear that it took place, on
10 January; would you agree with that?
Sorry, what's the date in the statement?
I'm not sure but I think it was slightly later.
What number paragraph?
277 to 279. Yes, that says Sunday, 7 January, at 27.
It's page 113 of the statement.
Sorry?
Page 113 of the witness statement, paragraph 277.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, they both agree it was a Sunday.
A.
Yes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: It's a question of which date is right.
A.
Pd
Yes, the date you've got on here is.
126
come forward to be exonerated were ‘guilty as charged’.
Itis a view deep in the culture of the organisation
({including] at Board level) including that postmasters
are not to be trusted. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE."
Can you assist us with the views expressed by
Mr Taylor? What was that about?
Mr Taylor was the Director of Corporate Affairs, and his
views were in the press, how he thought postmasters were
on the take and dipped their hands in some of the tills
and, for myself and Mr Jacobs, that was very
disappointing but not surprising, because, from my time
in dealing with the wider Executive, there is always
a level of suspicion when dealing with post masters.
That's not just as a Non-Executive; that is also as
a postmaster.
Do you have anyone in mind?
No, I think it's just a general cultural problem:
Second paragraph:
"Martin Roberts and certain members of his team were
singled out. There has been no feedback on the
investigation into Roberts ({including] for
inappropriate behaviour and lack of integrity). He was
responsible for the postage stamps debacle where changes
were made to accounts by his team just like Fujitsu."
Just pausing there, what was that issue?
128
(32) Pages 125 - 128
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
That was very, very disturbing for myself and Mr Jacobs
when we heard this, and you'll hear from Mr Jacobs
tomorrow, but he had firsthand experience of that
happening in his branch, and when I had a meeting with
Mr Roberts prior to this, so late ‘23, my words to
Mr Roberts were, "Your actions are more brazen than the
actions of Fujitsu, and what happened in the past,
Fujitsu went through the back door and you're going
through the front door". And Martin advised me, "Saf
I've become aware of it and I'm looking into it".
And then nothing -- I wasn't -- neither myself nor
Mr Jacobs were given any update beyond that.
What exactly was it that happened with the postage
stamps?
So they're not called "Investigators" any more; they are
called "Branch Assurance Visits". So you've got
employees of the Post Office going into branches to
input stamps on postmasters Horizon terminals to ensure
the back office side of the Post Office matches to what
the postmasters have got on their systems.
Now, some postmasters were aware and some were not
aware, of this happening, but my duty as a postmaster
NED was to ensure this was raised, and Elliot raised
this also at ARC, which brought the problem to the
surface but, again, as I've said, nothing ever --
129
That's Ben Foat, the General Counsel?
Yes, but that's regarding the entire Legal Team, so Ben
Foat, Sarah Gray, their team.
“He and other members of their senior team act as if
[postmasters] ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT (‘as per
my experience’ they both said)."
Can you assist us with that quotation?
So, for example, the way Mr Jacobs was treated
throughout his investigation was exactly what it says
there, which is "You are guilty until proven innocent”
and, unfortunately, the way some postmasters are now
dealt with, the letter initially may say, "This is
a voluntary investigation and voluntary attendance", but
you've not got a choice technically, bar to go and
defend yourself. And the overall way in which, as I've
mentioned previously, the way in which investigations
are being conducted, and how the Post Office is marking
its own homework, was very, very uncomfortable for us
and we were calling it out.
"No one believes us’ is a constant refrain from
[postmasters]. WHILST FOAT IS AT THE HELM, NOTHING WILL
CHANGE."
Why have you singled out Mr Foat in particular?
We didn't. We were talking in general terms of the
Legal Team, and the tone of this, just to be clear as
131
p>rpro
©
1A
12
13Q
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 A
24 a
25 A
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
there's been no feedback to either of us since this has
happened, to say, "This has now been stopped”, only
until we received the report a few days ago August.
Until then, I've had no correspondence whatsoever on
that,
So, again, we were just ignored when we put this
forward.
It says there "If Elliot had not been on the [Audit and
Risk Committee] the controls would not have been
strengthened. Roberts and his team do not want any
extension to their terms of office because they believe
new [postmasters] would not have the experience to
challenge them.”
if we scroll down to the next paragraph, please --
Can I just go back on to one point, if you don't mind.
I think what's quite telling on the previous point that
you mentioned was the other NEDs in the room, I don't
think they quite realised the magnitude of this issue
and I think this is where having that operational
sawiness/nous now played a massive role in terms of
bringing the reality of what we were actually doing on
the ground to Board level.
Thank you. The next paragraph:
“Equally Saf and Elliot are FED UP WITH THE AMOUNT
OF POWER FIELDED BY FOAT."
130
well was Henry's filenote. I didn't even know what
a filenote was until Henry did this, and the tone maybe
should have been better. I do accept that.
Does the tone reflect the conversation?
The tone does reflect the conversation, yes.
“We must" —
Capital letters and -- yeah.
Did capital letters indicate that you felt particularly
strongly about something or that you were raising your
voice or what do you ~
No, it's the way that Mr Staunton has documented it, but
he's documented accurately what we discussed
“We must also part company with all those investigators
who behaved so terribly with [the postmasters]. What on
earth is coming if Steve Bradshaw is still with us —
his performance at the Inquiry was a disgrace and
reflected terribly on Post Office. Foat used his
leadership of the Inquiry Team as an instrument of his
power -- it all has to stop. The [postmaster] ‘is not
the enemy’, ‘Only [postmasters] can solve this’ and tell
us how to change. JB is an ex-policeman.”
Who is that a reference to?
John Bartlett.
He is the current Head of the Investigation Team?
Yes.
132
(33) Pages 129 - 132
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
9
10
1
12 Qa
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 A.
24
2 Qa
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
“His behaviour has been unacceptable and he needs to
move on to prove that we have changed.”
Next paragraph:
“The payment to one [postmaster] of £16 as
compensation said it all.”
Did you have direct experience of that matter?
Yeah, so that was a point Mr Jacobs specifically
mentioned. They had waited for so long, and they got
paid £16. How disappointing is that?
The next paragraph:
“There are some 48 people involved in
Investigations. There are over 40 just like Bradshaw.
These people need to go. Project Phoenix was allowed by
Foat to go into the long grass.”
Can you assist us with what was meant there?
So, as we've discussed prior to the break, how the Legal
Team have had this specific project and they've been
dealing with it for nearly two years, and nothing seems
to have happened. And what, regarding ~- sorry,
regarding the previous paragraph, I did reach out to JB
and to Sarah Gray at a drinks reception in October '23
and I specifically mentioned "Allow postmasters to work
with you, let's try and make this a better place and
deal with the issues quicker”, and I never got any
response.
133
Executive providing guidance and improving the culture
significantly. The current culture was described as
‘toxic’ (references to our reaction to fake notes, ATM
differences, et cetera, et cetera).”
“Toxic” is a phrase that's mentioned by a number of
people, it may mean different things; what did you mean
by the reference to “toxic” there?
For me it's got various meanings: not what's expected,
misinformation, unfortunately, there's some
disinformation, that kind of culture towards
postmasters
It says:
"We discussed a suggestion that we set up a BOARD
Committee on Culture with both [postmasters] on it with
one or two others. It would need to have teeth. It
would be outside Saf and Elliot's [Non-Executive
Director] responsibilities and would require additional
rem. It would have the benefit of making us more PM
centric. We need as a Board to be seen to grip the
situation."
Do you have anything to add in respect of that
paragraph?
No, I think it's pretty clear what Mr Staunton's
intentions were in trying to deal with the issue
It says:
135
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
The only response I ever received from Sarah Gray,
as the Interim Head of Legal was after I submitted my
statement to the Core Participants after three, four
days, I got an email saying, "Can we reset the
relationship?", which I thought was a bit ironic.
In terms of Steve Bradshaw, I did mention at at
least two to three Board meetings, towards the back end
of '23 that the business needs to be prepared for what's
‘coming out and, again, ignored. And then once Steve
Bradshaw gave testimony, the Board and the wider
executive were "How is Steve still in the business?
What's going on? Why have we not dealt with this?” And
that's providing you some context in terms of where the
long grass came from because we thought it should have
been dealt with.
Sticking with that paragraph, it says:
"Bradshaw went into one of Saf's stores some years
ago and immediately said ‘we are closing you down'."
Is that something you recall?
Yes.
“[Postmasters] tell him not much has changed since.
There is a complete lack of respect for [post masters]
and that has to change."
Next paragraph:
“As a Board, we need to send a signal to the
134
"Both thought there ought to be [Postmaster
Non-Executive Director] membership on all committees
[including] RemCo."
That was something you spoke about earlier on in
your evidence today:
“It may be another [postmaster] director would be
needed ~ but that may be difficult ...it was noted that
the December bonuses went down badly with [postmasters}
There were no similar bonuses for [postmasters]. Our
generous Sick Leave was highlighted -- there are no
similar benefits to [postmasters]. How are we accepting
so many people drawing sick leave payments [especially]
in HR”
If we scroll, please, to page 3, we see at the
bottom of page 3, Mr Staunton sends this note to both
yourself and Mr Jacobs. He says:
"Ihave done a file note of our conversation. Is
that a fair reflection of your views. How do you feel
about me sending it to [Non-Executive Directors] before
the next meeting? The English does not need to be
perfect. The key points are important. Are there any
points I have missed?"
Who was it understood by you to potentially be
receiving this file note?
The ~ initially, the NEDs, so we can have a discussion.
136
(34) Pages 133 - 136
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Was there due to be a meeting?
Yes.
If we scroll up, we see from yourself, and you say:
“This seems fine.”
If we scroll up further we can see the response from
Mr Jacobs. He says:
"Yes, this is a fair reflection of our discussion."
He then addresses a point on ATM discrepancies.
Next paragraph, he says:
“One final thing to add: 'Pathclearing' risks looks
like a witch hunt ~ if we start going into branches
saying ‘you've got losses to make good’ this will have
echoes of the past..."
Very quickly, can tell us what path clearing was?
So there is a programme that still hasn't got off the
ground yet which is called RTP, retail path clearing,
and this project is to get the Post Office Network ready
for the new branch systems. Now, the purpose of this
project is to ensure branches’ books balance before the
new system is implemented. Now, the problem myself and
Mr Jacobs had was the tonality and the current culture
in the organisation did not give us any confidence at
all to have this programme executed in the manner it
should be and what was not helpful either was the
individuals who are responsible for this programme,
137
very difficult to walk into a branch with -- who has
a shortfall, with the cultural baggage that you have to
have a neutral starting point. It's very difficult,
Thank you. The final paragraph there:
"Since we spoke we saw the VoC....”
I think that might be VoP, Voice of the Postmaster?
Yes.
*... have issued a press release ~ it backs up
everything Saf and I said to you when we spoke to you.”
Just pausing there, who are Voice of the Postmaster?
Voice of the Postmaster are an independent organisation
who have more postmasters than the NFSP, active
postmasters. This is a voluntary organisation and quite
a few of the postmasters I speak to are very, very
complimentary of the VOP, in terms of how they've helped
them, and an example is in my statement when I was
contacted by a member of the VOP regarding the Yateley
Post Office —
We'll come to that shortly.
Okay.
Thank you very much, and we'll also come to the press
release itself in a moment,
Okay.
Let's scroll up, please the response from Mr Staunton:
“Dear Both,
139
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
accountable, for example Martin Roberts at the October
the '23 Board meeting. He was informing the Board about
a horror story about one specific postmaster who
potentially did something, which then was relayed back
to the board which gave the Board the wrong kind of
perception of postmasters and, unfortunately, we kept
getting a few stories like this, and then we were having
one-to-ones with Martin he would repeat these kinds of
stories
Now, our fear was, if he’s running that programme,
it's going to look like exactly what itis as in the
echoes of the past. And there probably will be branches
with shortfalls, but it's about how we deal with them
going forward, and we just did not have the confidence
that the business could execute this.
So the business having not significantly chased
shortfalls for a number of years might -- are going to
reach a point at which they have to confront people's
shortfalls, is that the issue?
Yes, yes, and I'm not saying the business shouldn't do
that. Of course the business should do that. That's
the right thing to do. However, there's a way and
an approach to do this and, as we've seen from the
correspondence, as we've seen from some of the
conversations that myself and Elliot were having, it's
138
"Would you like me to copy the Independent
[Non-Executive Directors] with my file note and Elliot's
clarification? Accordingly, it would not go to Nick but
may help elicit a joint view from the [Non-Executive
Directors}
“Nick has his hands full and is under ENORMOUS,
STRESS with the Select Committee and defending himself
in yet another Investigation. I will brief him after
the conversation with the [Non-Executive Directors]."
Were you aware of any particular stress on Mr Read
at this point in time?
Yes. He'd been through a lot.
If we scroll up, we can see your response. You say:
"Yes happy to send it, but it might be worth sending
along with the [Voice of the Postmaster] press release
too?"
If we scroll up, Mr Staunton says:
“Have just this minute sent a note to Di...”
Was Di his secretary, Diane Blanchard
Yes, she's our collective PA.
*... forwarding the [Voice of the Postmaster] press
release, Elliot's clarification email, and my file
note."
You say:
“Thank you for your support and effort Henry it's,
140
(35) Pages 137 - 140
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
refreshing to see and much appreciated.”
If we scroll up above, Mr Staunton says:
“Lam determined to get it right for existing
[postmasters] and past wronged [postmasters]. However
I nonetheless appreciated your thanks."
What was your view of Mr Staunton's leadership up
the Post Office?
My experiences with Mr Staunton were positive.
I thought he brought a commercial perspective to the
business that was well needed. He was wanting to get
more involved in fixing the issues that I don't think —
Tim Parker was a lot more trusting of the wider
executive, whereas Henry Staunton quite quickly saw some
of the issues that were occurring, especially regarding
information that was and was not coming to Board. And,
for him, getting justice for the postmasters that have
been wronged was one of his top priorities.
Thank you. That's 15 January. There's then a Teams
meeting on 18 January. Can we please turn to
POL00448503.
We see there an email to the Non-Executive
Directors, from Mr Staunton.
“Ahead of our call on Thursday, please see email
below and attached copy of the Voice of the Postmaster
press release for January, together with a letter
4141
Inquiry are not new to postmaster or employees within
[Post Office]. This is common language, and the
approach will never change without a complete overhaul."
Then they call for the removal of Mr Read as CEO and
they say he has failed to provide compensation, failed
with the cultural overhaul, failed to remove the CFO,
failed to remove the CRO, failed to remove individuals
drenched in guilt in the past, failed to reduce central
costs, failed to hold to account the woeful party
engagement team.
What was your view of this press release?
I agreed with the press release, maybe they went a bit
too far regarding Mr Read because they wouldn't
necessarily be aware of the pressures Mr Read was under
but the vast majority, from a postmaster’s perspective
looking into the organisation, it's quite clear that the
business has failed on number to these points
Now, we saw that email, the covering tell that attached
both this press release but also the filenote as well
and Mr Jacobs’ email. That was sent to Non-Executive
Directors. Were you aware that they were also
circulated at some point to Mr Read?
Yes. Mr Staunton did send them to Mr Read.
And —
That's what I've been told.
143
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pPpo
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
addressed to me.
“In addition, please see attached file note
I prepared following my conversation with Saf and Elliot
‘on Sunday ~ they have agreed last night that I could
share with you. They were very supportive of Nick, but
you will see that the [Voice of the Postmaster] have
made negative statements about Nick.”
Can we please turn to POL00448537, and this is the
Voice of the Postmaster press release. They say:
“We deplore the actions of the Post Office in the
past and the present and we believe nothing will change
and the only way for the Post Office to move forward is
a complete overhaul of the organisation ..."
It looks like it's a bit of a manifesto for change;
is that right?
Yes.
First:
“Justice for previous postmasters and compensation
paid as soon as possible.”
Then there's a reference to the pay increase, lack
of a pay increase.
Third:
"The removal of any employees from within [the Post
Office] that were employed during the Horizon scandal
period. The revelations this week and throughout the
142
Yes.
We did ask for disclosure. My solicitors did ask. But
the Post Office refused
But you weren't aware at the time that it took place,
you weren't asked in advance as to whether that could be
shared with Mr Read?
From my understanding, my understanding was that it
would be shared with Mr Read
Thank you. Do you recall a conversation about that?
Yeah. I think from what I recall, the initial sequence
of events was to have it discussed with the NEDs, then
once that's happened, to then escalate it to Mr Read, to
then — so then he is aware of our concerns, and then
hopefully have a plan of action to help solved issues.
Was it your understanding that that would be on
a confidential basis?
100 per cent on a confidential basis.
Moving now to the Teams meeting of 18 January, can you
recall now who attended that meeting?
Yes. Lorna Gratton was not invited, and I think Ben
Tidswell gave his apologies.
Thank you. Was Mr Read present?
Yes, for some of the meeting, the first part.
Do you know why it was only some of the meeting and not
all of the meeting?
144
(36) Pages 141 - 144
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
can't remember. Maybe it was ~ there's always
a point, so, for example, after Board meetings, we have
a NED-only discussion as well, and Mr Read would leave
the room or sign off, if it was an online meeting. So
I'm assuming where we had a situation where there was
just specific topics to go through, just with NEDs only,
so Mr Read gave his update and then exited the meeting.
There came a point, you say in your statement, that you
were informed that Mr Read had sent that correspondence
to Mr Foat and Mr Roberts. Can you assist us with how
you were informed of that?
Yes. So what was extremely disappointing was Mr Read
had already sent the email to Mr Foat, Mr Roberts and to
other individuals within the organisation, who were in
their team and, whilst on the call, at no point did he
mention that he had done that. So we were unaware. And
Mr Read then left the meeting as he would, and the
discussion moved on to the rest of the agenda
‘And then Amanda Burton advised the meeting that,
just to make the Board aware, the remaining individuals
on the call, that she had had a discussion with
someone -- with Ben? Or she had a discussion with
someone who received this email. And my heart sunk,
feeling "Wow, I'm already vulnerable, this put me in
an even more compromised position"
145
POL00448387, and that's an email from him at 6.17 pm, so
the same evening. If we scroll down, he says, as
follows, he says:
“Nick confirmed that he had sent the confidential
note to the Independent NEDs entitled Project Pineapple
to Ben and Martin amongst others. This note contained
the private comments of our postmaster NED colleagues
inter alia on Ben and Martin
“I have suggested he immediately apologise to Elliot
and Saf as this was a very serious incident as far as
they and other [Non-Executive Directors] were concerned.
Elliot and Saf were now exposed to further
investigations from these two individuals particularly
in view of the fact that Investigations were
‘untouchable’ (to use Nick's words). I suggested he
apologised to all of the NEDs at our private meeting
before the Board, which he is happy to do."
Just pausing there, at this time, did Mr Read
apologise to you on this occasion?
No, he blamed Henry for sending him the email
It then says:
“Nick said it was an accident resulting from the
huge pressures on him. There is a lot on his mind
including the investigation on him. He understands it
was a serious lapse and was very apologetic.”
147
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POoPoO
>
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
Just pausing there, why do you say you were vulnerable?
Because I'm a postmaster.
What do you mean by that?
The culture in this organisation, as it's been
documented, is you are guilty until proven innocent. If
there is something potentially - postmasters are seen
with suspicion, unfortunately, and being on the Board
now going not necessarily up against, but that’s what it
looked like, all we were doing was our duties as
Directors, calling things out, trying to put this
organisation in a better place, but it looked like it
was myself and Mr Jacobs against the untouchables.
That's what this looked like.
So we were extremely vulnerable, extremely
concemed, and the fact that Mr Read had sent the email
was a horrendous breach of trust. And I sent an email
at 10.00 -- sorry, am I jumping the gun?
No, you carry on, please.
Okay. So I then sent an email at 10.00 because,
honestly, I was so disappointed, asking some serious
questions of Mr Read's judgement -
I think we'll come to that.
Okay, I'm sorry.
There's one email before that that I'd like to take you
to, and that's Mr Staunton's email. Can we turn to
146
There's a reference there to an investigation on
Mr Read. Very briefly, because we will come to it in
due course, what did you understand that to be
a reference to?
That was the investigation into the complaints made
against Mr Read by the former Chief People Officer, Jane
Davies.
Thank you. After that occasion, there's a reference
there to a meeting before the Board and a potential
apology. Was there a subsequent occasion on which
Mr Read did apologise?
No. He -- as I've said previously, he blamed Henry for
sending him the email, which I just, I couldn't get my
head round, to be honest. And for me, as I've said, it
was a massive breach of trust. It's not something that
I would have expected a CEO to have done. It was very,
very disappointing and a very scary time
Can we please turn to POLO0448383. If we could look at
page 2, this is your 10.08 pm email. Second page,
please, you say:
"Dear Nick,
"Lam writing to address a deeply concerning and
distressing matter that has recently come to my
attention. As you are aware, there was a confidential
meeting held between myself, Elliot, and the Chairman,
148
(37) Pages 145 - 148
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
where we discussed our observations and concerns
regarding the operations of the Post Office and our
ongoing cultural issues. Regrettably, it has come to my
knowledge that the notes of this meeting, which were
intended to be kept in strict confidence, have been
circulated to the individuals who were the subject of
our discussion."
You set, if we scroll down, a number of different
questions. So you say:
“I request that you thoroughly investigate how this
breach of confidentiality occurred and address the
following questions:
"1, Was this breach a result of negligence or
a lack of judgement on your part?
"2. How can a mistake of this magnitude happen
within this organisation, especially when dealing with
sensitive matters and with all the current spotlight on
us?
"3, By exposing me to such a compromising and
jeopardising position, how do you expect me to continue
working effectively with the individuals involved?
“Furthermore, I would like to enquire if incidents
of mistakenly sending confidential information to the
end user have occurred in the past?"
Did you receive a substantive response to these
149
MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir.
Mr Ismail was there something that arose from our
previous discussions that you wanted to say?
A. Yes, I would just like to give clarity on one of the
questions you asked me regarding the inputting of stamps
onto postmasters' Horizon terminals. I'm not sure if
Iwas clear before. The problem myself and Mr Jacobs
had with that practice in the current Post Office was
that created shortfalls and those shortfalls then
required postmasters to dispute. However, it was the
Post Office going in, creating them shortfalls, which
was problematic. I just thought I wanted to clear that
up.
Q._ In your view, did the postmaster have sufficient
visibility of what was going on at their terminal when
the Post Office was coming in to input that information?
A. So some postmasters were not aware. Some postmasters
were aware but, either way, they had very little choice.
They were told "This is what we need to do, and you need
to review and dispute it, if you've got an issue”
Q._ In terms of those who weren't aware, was there a notice
that was subsequently sent round or information provided
to those subpostmasters?
A. I'mnot sure how they were communicated with but one of
the reasons I know they weren't aware is because they
151
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
questions?
A. still haven't received a response to any of these —
to this email
Q. Thank you. If we scroll down slightly. There's
reference there to becoming aware of the distribution of
non-disclosure agreements. Again, we're not going to go
into what was or wasn't said before Parliament or going
into legal advice in that respect but, in broad terms,
what was your concern regarding non-disclosure
agreements?
A. For me, there was organisations who could -- and
individuals, who could be more helpful to the Inquiry
but, unfortunately, they had to abide by the NDAs and,
for me, that was morally wrong.
MR BLAKE: Thank you. If we scroll down, your email
continues, and if we go over to the first page we see
that Mr Jacobs echoes your views. We'll be hearing from
Mr Jacobs tomorrow in respect of his email.
Sir, that might be an appropriate moment to take our
afternoon break. Thank you. If we could come back at
3.30.
(3.17 pm)
(A short break)
(3.30 pm)
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr Blake.
150
weren't at the branch when the practice took place when
they received the assurance visit.
Q. Thank you.
Moving to another document, POLO0448385. There was
a Board meeting on 29 January of this year, and this is
a note that you prepared in advance of that Board
meeting. We'll see ~ I think we have at least two
versions. I think this was your original draft; is that
correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. That's a longer list of concems to add to those that
were in the original Project Pineapple email; is that
correct?
A. Correct.
Q You say:
“As we prepare for the upcoming board meeting,
I wish to draw your attention to several critical
matters to consider and discuss further.”
Was the aim of this to send this to everybody who
was going to be attending the Board?
A. Correct.
Q. The first issue was the confidential email on Project
Pineapple. You say you've sent an email raising serious
concems about how and why this has happened. However,
your response remains unanswered since your
152
(38) Pages 149 - 152
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
communication on 18 January:
"Would this lack of respect and response be the same
if it was another [Non-Executive Director] or is it
because I am [postmaster]?"
Second, the "Role of Legal”, you say:
"Despite ongoing investigations spanning years, over
40 employees remain employed within the organisation,
whose continued presence raises serious questions about
our hiring and retention policies causing embarrassment
for [the Post Office]."
Are those all the issues that we have already spoken
about?
Yes.
If we scroll down, there is another heading of
"Culture":
“Postmaster discrimination must end immediately,
this rhetoric that they are all on the ache and are the
same is unacceptable. Richard Taylor comments are
common within the walls of {the Post Office] and I was
stunned to leam this also the business legal position
as the Chairman confirmed to me after my persistent
requests for clarity.”
Can you assist us with the writing in red, please?
So this was ~ there's two versions of this. This
version has more clarity on it and a bit more context,
153
If we look at the first one, you say:
“First and foremost, [their] inability to adapt to
the evolving needs of postmasters ...”
Can you assist us very briefly with that first
issue?
The simple test was looking at the postmaster survey
and, for me, they had failed miserably because the
results were getting worse, and what was not helpful
either was when it came to the VOP, the business being
told -- so Henry was specifically told, and I'm assuming
so were the Retail Team, from Sarah Gray, not to
communicate with the VOP, which for me was very
disappointing because, as an organisation, we should be
communicating with anybody who represents postmasters.
Is that because the formal lines of communication are
with the National Federation of SubPostmasters or the
Communication Workers Union, rather than this new
organisation, or something else?
No, the default position within the Post Office is to
communicate with the NFSP. That is the recognised body.
However, as I've said previously, the VOP has now got
more members than the Federation and, for me, even if
the CWU has a few members, we should still be talking to
them. We shouldn't be trying to play one off the other.
And the legal advice, which is privileged, the Post
155
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
and this was something that I felt I needed to add on to
the cultural piece, just to give it some more context,
and this was after the letter that was sent to Alex
Chalk.
What did you mean by that paragraph?
For me, the business still has this perception that
postmasters are on the take, unfortunately, and, as
Richard Taylor's comments — Richard Taylor’s comments
mentioned, and also, unfortunately, the letter to Alex
Chalk, for me, it's still not the right position that
this organisation should be in.
So where you refer to the business legal position,
that's the letter to the Lord Chancellor?
Yes, and, even from -- sorry, from an investigations
perspective, the default position within Legal is not
right. It's, again, protect the Post Office at all
costs and it's not a neutral position to start from.
Thank you. If we scroll down, the next part in bold,
“A Comprehensive reevaluation of the Retail and
Postmaster Engagement Team", and you give a series of
reasons why you consider there should be
a comprehensive, at this point, re-evaluation. We'll
see the later version, I think, calls for it to be
disbanded altogether.
Yeah.
154
Office didn't waive privilege on that. For me, it was
disappointing seeing that response to stifle any kind of
conversation that could take place for the betterment of
postmasters.
Thank you. If we scroll over the page, please, you then
say:
“Additionally [their] track record
Can you assist us with that point, please?
So there was — we had strategy days in'21. We have
them every year. There was some in July '21, July '22
and July '23. What was disappointing was there was
specific targets set to try and get the business in the
right direction, and this business, to be clear, is
dealing with an unprecedented level of issues. So the
strategy is really important to ensure there's still
a Post Office left after this Inquiry.
Now, what was disappointing was the Executive would
cherry pick which ~ the wider Executive, sorry, would
cherrypick the issues that they wanted to implement.
Now, the example here, regarding DMBs, were when myself
and Mr Jacobs had a discussion, the payback period and
the planning that was done regarding DMBs was 40 years.
It was so poor, in terms of the way it was planned, and
this is a huge cost to the business.
So it was disappointing that there was no effective
156
(39) Pages 153 - 156
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
execution of strategies that had been discussed
The next example you give is in relation to the
postmaster surveys. What was the issue there, briefly?
The postmaster surveys were just not a true reflection
of what was going on. So, if you look at July '24’s
Board meetings, how the sets of data was presented from
the Postmaster Engagement Team and from the HR team,
from Tim Perkins in the HR team, and the difference was
the data was very similar, however the data presented by
Tim Perkins was accurate, and had integrity, and was
trying — and said, "Yeah, we're not good enough, and
these are our problems, let's make a plan to fix",
whereas the Postmaster Team was quite happy with the
30 per cent that were happy and they didn't look at the
70 per cent.
So, unfortunately, this manipulation of data,
I found very unhelpful to mark your own homework again
and, potentially, be linked to bonuses within the
organisation's culture unfortunately.
The next paragraph, you say there, refers to recent
incidents such as — that's the stamps issue, I think,
isn't it?
Yeah.
Then you say:
“Individuals within this team have several
157
Thank you. Can we please turn to POLO0448406, and this
is the final version, or this is an updated version that
was sent to Mr Staunton —
Yes.
-- broadly the same. I think, if we scroll down, we can
see "Suspended Historic Employees”, is now a standalone
topic. I think it wasn't a standalone topic —
Just to break it down, the point of this note was we
want to set this business up for success. We want it to
be right. We want it to be here for generations to come
and, by giving the Board an opportunity to see what's
really causing stress to postmasters and causing stress
to the Postmaster NEDs and bringing it to life to
produce a plan to deal with it, that’s where this note
was going.
Another point to just add to this, and I'm not sure
if you're going to come to this, hence why I'm
mentioning this now, once Mr Staunton was dismissed,
this note never actually made it to the Board,
unfortunately and myself -- and Mr Jacobs will speak for
himself tomorrow ~- I was definitely on the edge and
I was ready to resign if the business could not do this.
because the level of resistance that we were getting
constantly for what we were trying to do was bitterly
disappointing.
159
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
complaints against them
Very briefly, can you assist us with that?
A. Sorry, is it the paragraph where, "Moreover, recent
incidents", that one?
Q. “Individuals within this team”, the final highlighted
paragraph.
A. (Pause) It's in reference to what I've already
mentioned. So the untouchables, the performance levels
and the fact that we're discussing this, but there's
just no performance management, and how, within the
organisation, we're told in September and October how
morale is low because people are worried when they're
getting their -- when they are going to be receiving
their bonuses, and it just showed the huge cultural
disconnect with the wider Executive and the postmasters
of today.
@. Moving on, the next part in bold is the NDA issue, which
we've already addressed
A. We've discussed.
Q. We then have "Establishment of a [postmaster] Oversight
Committee”, and that's, I think, the matter that we saw
in your previous correspondence with Mr Staunton, that
was something that was floated as a potential
recommendation; is that right?
A. That's correct.
158
Q. The next paragraph we see there, as discussed, it is now
disbandment of the Engagement Team. If we scroll over
the page, now the "Role of Legal Counsel”, and it now
refers to Ben Foat specifically. Why Ben Foat in
particular?
‘A. Because Ben Foat was the Head of Legal, and we had had
discussions regarding whistleblowing and how that was
marking its own homework within Legal and how it
shouldn't be; it should be a totally separate function
So that point was specifically to help Ben to be in
a better position to manage his workload but also help
the organisation getting in a better position to deal
with investigations and whistleblowing.
Q. Thank you. Could we tum to POL00448384, please.
Mr Staunton responds, and he says:
"Dear Both,
“Elliot, I think you were going to raise a number of
these issues with Nick. His responses would help Saf
finalise his note.
“How would you like me to take this forward?
Options are:
“Copy your note to Nick
"Copy to Nick and all [Non-Executive Directors}
"You just present these issues at the private
meeting
160
(40) Pages 157 - 160
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
“Other.
“A good outcome would be making some big changes
whilst maintaining your relationships [including] with
Nick -- quite difficult.”
Two days later, Mr Staunton was dismissed. Do you
know how or were any of those options ultimately taken
up?
We couldn't. The plan for me was to go to Board and
present these points to the Board and to see where the
Board wants to take action and, as I said previously,
resigning was going through my thought process
However, I would have been letting down the postmasters
of today/yesterday, and there would be no oversight. So
I just couldn't do that.
How did you hear of Mr Staunton’s dismissal?
From Sky News.
Did anyone tell you why it hadn't been notified in
advance to, for example, Non-Executive Directors?
Because it's a ~ there is a tiered Board system. So
there's certain individuals on the Board who know
everything. Then there's other individuals who know
alittle bit more, and then there's Postmaster NEDs who
know on a need-to-know basis. So there was clearly,
clearly, from looking back, in hindsight, issues and
discussions being had, which I was not privy to, which
161
completely incorrect.
Do you know if there were, in fact, other Non-Executive
Directors who did threaten to resign?
I raised the question at the private NED meeting, and
I wasn't given an answer.
Thank you. One final document before we finish for the
day. Can we please look at POL00448514. If we could
start on page 2, please. This is 31 January this year,
an email from Martin Roberts, the Group Chief Retail
Officer. He says as follows:
“ElliowSaf,
“L appreciate you taking the time last evening to
apologise and explain the dreadful situation I found
myself in over the last few weeks.
“The allegations and comments were uncalled for and
upset me a great deal and should never have happened and
the detail sent to me under the title Project Pineapple
was unacceptable.
“I would now ask that you please put in writing the
apology and retract all the allegations and statements
presented in the email that I was copied in on.
“I look forward to receiving the email reply so we
can move on and continue working together.”
How did you feel on receiving this email?
‘So myself and Mr Jacobs had a discussion and I do
163
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
QP
prop
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
resulted in Mr Staunton's dismissal.
What was your understanding at the time for the reasons
for his dismissal?
I wasn't given any clear instructions and, from the
conversations Mr Staunton had, for example on redress,
it was unhelpful when a Government Minister advised him
to puta sticky plaster approach on the Post Office to
hobble on through to the next election. And that was
unhelpful for all of us: for the CEO, for the Board. It
was unfair.
So the explanation that we were provided after
Mr Staunton was dismissed was his behaviour became
erratic. I never saw that but I wouldn't be seeing
Mr Staunton every week so I wouldn't necessarily be in
his company, if you see what I mean. So, forme,
I didn't see what Mr Staunton had done wrong until later
‘on when Mr Tidswelll briefed the Board in terms of what,
how, and why, ultimately. And Mr Tidswell also
mentioned that there were some NEDs who were willing to
resign, and it was a very vague statement, and for --
from the conversations myself and Mr Jacobs had, certain
individuals within this wider Executive thought it was
me and Mr Jacobs, and we made it very clear to the NEDs
and to the wider Executive that at no point did we imply
that Mr Staunton should go or we would go. That's just
162
sympathise with Martin. I feel he was put in an unfair
position as well and, again, like you said, the way he
received it, he didn't expect either, and there's
an email after this where we -
Shall we have a look at that?
Yeah.
That's on the first page. Shall we scroll over to the
first page, please. You have Mr Jacobs.
Yes.
Was this email discussed with you before it was sent?
Yes, we did that quite regularly
He says:
“As promised, Saf and I sat down and talked with
Martin after the Board meeting yesterday. An honest and
open discussion was had and we believe we had put the
matter to bed.
“This evening, we received the email below from.
Martin asking us to retract the statements made in the
document.
“Whilst we have both made clear the tone and the way
it was delivered was unacceptable and should never have
been circulated; the content is not something we feel is
incorrect with regards to the Retail Team leadership and
performance.
“When we look at the points in question, our
164
(41) Pages 161 - 164
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
position remains that these are both important and
urgent issues which must be addressed, not ignored ~
regardless of how they came into his mailbox."
Then you set out there all of the issues, and you
say:
“None of the above represent issues that we believe
we can or should withdraw from the record -- however
they were inappropriately delivered to the people who
received them as a result of Henry's actions.
"We have a call booked with Martin for our quarterly
catch-up tomorrow morning (a standing call in the
diary) -- and we are not looking to inflame matters.
further, but clearly, we cannot just issue some sort of
blanket withdrawal.
“As such, your guidance would be appreciated on how
you think we should approach this."
It might be suggested that all of this infighting,
that the request for a written apology in response to
the Project Pineapple email and, frankly, from all
sides, is more like a playground than a £1 billion
company. What do you say about that?
I agree with you. It's really disappointing and, for
myself and Mr Jacobs, once Henry was dismissed, as
I said before the break, we were left in a very
vulnerable position, and the business didn't help us.
165
29 February 2024. We see there the attendees were
Mr Read; Kathryn Sheratt, the interim CFO; the
Transformation Director; Lorna Gratton from UKGI; and
others.
I'm just going to read to you a very short passage
from that. If we scroll down, Lorna Gratton says as
follows:
"Need as much support as you can get from Ben
Tidswell to try to get the Board functioning properly.
We need to try and find a way through the Project
Pineapple memo."
Mr Read says’
“We'll have a Board meeting tomorrow and see where
we can get to. Postmaster NEDs may use tomorrow as
an [opportunity] to criticise on funding and
anti-postmaster sentiment. Need to avoid tomorrow
morning being a proper road crash."
Kathryn Sheratt says:
“Had a bit of a flavour of it on Monday, they think
it did not do enough for the postmasters. Elliot
mentions where the investment for the future of the
business and the postmaster rem is front and centre,
costs are rising, and this has been a theme of theirs
for quite a while.”
Mr Read says:
167
22
23
24
ONOneRwON a
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
23 September 2024
Myself and Mr Jacobs had to clean the mess up. So we
proactively organised meetings with Martin and with Ben
because, for us, it was ~- the organisation is more
important than any of us, and we had to repair our
relationships. The points we made were very clear and
we stuck with the points we had made because, for us,
they were correct and they needed to be dealt with
However, the business didn't do anything to manage
the relationship, or help us put it to the past and move
forward and, looking back, yes, it does seem very
playground style. It's like when my children fight. It
seems that kind of a scenario, unfortunately. But,
again, this is the lack of taking ownership, and this is
a classic example of someone senior within the business
saying, "Right, let's have an adult conversation. This
needs to be nipped in the bud. Let's move this business
forward”. And, unfortunately, that just didn't happen.
It was left to me and Mr Jacobs.
MR BLAKE: Sir, I said one final email. There is one more
final document on this topic and can I just take that
very briefly?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Of course.
MRBLAKE: Thank you. It is BEISO000753. This is a note
from Minister Hollinrake's office, taken by the Private
Secretary to the then Minister. It's a meeting on
166
"This goes back to whether the Postmaster Directors
are playing a role of a director, or of a trade union
rep. don't know where that's going to go. They are
extremely exposed as a result of Project Pineapple. Not
sure how to patch this up. Ina slight stand-off.”
How were your relations with Mr Read and others at
this point in time?
A. So it was difficult once Henry had left because of the
way the Board's tier system was working, and I feel for
Mr Jacobs it was difficult also because Mr Staunton did
mention in a private phone call that the UKGI rep and
one of the previous NEDs, whilst his investigation was
going on -- this was all while Pineapple was
happening ~ they did make anti-Semitic remarks about
him. So, for him, he was already feeling really ~ his
morale was low; and for myself, as well.
And once we moved forward, once Mr Staunton had
left, Mr Tidswell took the realm (sic). It was very
difficult to try and be in a position of where the
business understands where we are at. So there was
a bit of a stand-off. And all we were trying to do is
put the business in the right direction, and it clearly
shows how the wider Executive, and on this occasion it's
the CEO, Nick Read, how they just couldn't digest the
critique that myself and Mr Jacobs, and the challenges
168
(42) Pages 165 - 168
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 23 September 2024
OYE ARON A
ONAARwONH
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we were producing for the wider Executive. Hence, 1 create a drama."
why their opinion is we were acting more like trade 2 The Minister says:
union reps. 3 “These are businesspeople and I think that if I felt
‘And again, from my perspective, the last two budgets 4 I had a business that was in terminal decline, I'd be
this organisation has done, I rejected both on the 5 pretty worried as well. They are bound to look for
understanding it did not address what postmasters were 6 solutions, radical ones, but what can we do to try to
asking for, and the business just ignored me and carried 7 spread a picture to the network that there is a more
on. 8 positive future. The more you can indicate there is
Within them budgets, again, there's plenty for the 9 a sustainable future to this the better. We can all see
incremental increases for POL staff and their bonuses 10 with what's happened over the last few weeks there is
but it just does not go far enough. And these are the "1 an appetite for change here and articulate it to your
true realities of what's going on but, clearly, as this 12 advantage, to set a new perspective.”
note shows, the wider Executive just does not want to 13 If we just go over the page, please, about three
listen to that 14 quarters of the way down, just below “Let's park it
Loma Gratton continues: 15 now’, the Minister says:
“They're not in a good place and aren't operating in 16 “In terms of other messaging, the mutualisation has
a way appropriate for the business.” 7 died down a bit.”
Mr Read says’ 18 Mr Read says:
“How can they ensure their own self-interest doesn't 19 "Met them on Monday [Voice of the Postmaster] etc.
cut across their role in supporting {the Post Office] as 20 Their main point was about the future of the Post Office
a business.” 21 and representation of postmasters. We are going to see
The Minister says: 22 some governance work done by Grant Thorton in a few
"Keen to support any way we can." 23 weeks’ time.”
Mr Read says: 24 Lorna Gratton says:
“Want to try to create an environment where we don't 25 "I don't think postmaster oversight of the Board is
169 4170
worth it, I think there's good mileage for more 1 And this meeting, this entire document, clearly
postmaster input in the retail part of the business." 2 shows what I said previously, which is this was -- this
Were you aware of the nature of the relationship 3 isa tiered board, was a tiered board, and individuals
between the Executive level and either UKGI or the 4 are given information on a need-to-know basis, which is
Department for Business, as set out here? 5 not the way a proper, functioning, good governance
I did have some understanding but, from my observations 6 compliant board looks like, unfortunately.
being on the Board, I slowly started realising. 7 MRBLAKE: Thank you very much.
Initially, I wasn't ~ let me rephrase. The previous. 8 Sir, we will be exploring those issues further
UKGI shareholder, Tom Cooper, I feel was more 9 tomorrow.
transparent and a lot more open. Now, I've not got any 10 SIRWYN WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. So don't discuss
criticisms either way, but I think Lorna's taken the "1 your evidence overnight, all right?
role slightly differently and, once Lorna started, 12 There may be some confusion about our start times.
obviously I had already had a certain amount of 13 I think, on our website, it was still being suggested
experience being on the Board, and then I realised quite 14 that we start at 9.45. I think we've agreed, have we
quickly that Lorna's style was very, very different. 15 not, that we're going to start at 10.00 in this phrase,
She was very, very close to the wider Executive, and 16 giving ourselves an extra quarter of an hour to get.
she clearly, obviously, from this, raises points which 17 ready for the fray, so to speak. So just in case
are not in the business's interests because what myself 18 anybody was under any doubt about that.
and Mr Jacobs were asking for, for the last two or three 19 See you at 10.00 tomorrow, albeit remotely.
years, was automation, one example, producing a new 20 (4.04 pm)
system which is not a replacement for Horizon. That's 21 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am the following day)
not good enough. We need a system that is 2030, 22
minimum, ready for what the future looks like for this 23
network. So this was very basic asks that myself and 24
Mr Jacobs had. 25
171
172
(43) Pages 169 - 172
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 23 September 2024
INDEX
GAVIN ELLISON (swom) ...
Questioned by MR BLAKE .
SARFARAZ GULAM ISMAIL (sworn) 67
Questioned by MR BLAKE ..... 67
173
(44) Pages 173 - 173
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
1,015 [1] 6/21 150 [2] 48/15 48/16 I 85/9 85/9 85/14 40/23
WR BLAKE IDE) 1/5 I 1483 [2] 6/24 42/19 I450,000 [2] 48/6 2024 [8] 1/11/22 —_I32 [2] 31/9 39/21
ME ee "ws 1,500 [1] 7/16 48/13 2/11 85/15 88/23 32 per cent [3] 34/14
42/11 42/16 49/4 67/1I 19999 [1] 25/10 454 [1] 57/21 96/12 99/3 167/1 53/11 58/18
67/5 67/9 67/11 67/17) 1-09 [1]. 105/17 152 [1] 31/22 2030 [1] 171/22 33 [3] 32/19 43/16
67/22 105/10 105/12 I10 [1] 20/16 46 [4] 24/2564/12 I21 [3] 18/17 18/18 I 43/16
405/15 105/20 127/1 10 January [2] 126/9 I 133/4 133/9 32/10 33 per cent [3] 11/6
42778 150115 1611 I 126/14 46 per cent [2] 18/8 I21 April [1] 115/15 I 23/6 49/21
166/19 166/23 172/7 I19 Per cent [4] 49/25 I 45/9 21 per cent [4] 24/15/34 [1] 43/23
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: ©1/10 57/16 57/25 I 17 [5] 1/16 3/6 24/19 I 32/2 32/23 49/1 34 per cent [5] 9/3
[29] 1/3 1/7 4218 I 19.00 [5] _146/17 26/3 46/9 21 years [1] 34/3 I 20/5 20/10 25/21
42/10 42/12.47/13 I 146/19 172/15 172/19]17 January [1] 85/1 I22 [3] 19/13 20/23 I 54/20
47/20 47/25 48/3 4g/9I 172/21 47 per cent [5] 21/7 I 33/5 35 [1] 44/13
48/15 48/20 48/25 I19-08 pm [1] 148/19 I 28/1 40/3 47/11 58/7 I23 [4] 33/15 55/8 I 35 per cent [1] 24/21
4913 67/4 67/6 67/10 I100 [3] 29/1 29/4 I176 [1] 53/1 103/17 108/7 36 [1] 45/13
6726716 67/19 I 48/18 18 [4] 16/13 21/24 I23 per cent [2] 32/22I36 per cent [1] 10/2
105/11 105/14 105/16I 100 pages [1] 1/22 I 26/24 73/14 53/12 369 [1] 121/7
126/22 126/24 127/5 I100 per cent [3] 78/9 I18 January [4] 23 September 2024 I37 [3] 21/2 46/8 49/4
450/25 166/22 172/10] 122/25 144/17 123/20 141/19 144/18] [4] 1/4 37 per cent [2] 15/6
eer 400,000 [6] 45/10 I 153/1 24 [2] 21/1934/11 I 56/3
. 46/14 46/17 47/1 47/3] 18 July [4] 6/3 25 [3] 3/7 34/25 38 [1] 49/18
24 [3] 778 1560/9 I 48/5 48 per cent [2] 24/20I 64/10 38 per cent [4] 26/20
156/10 11 [7] 21/10 26/12 I 56/4 25 per cent [5] 13/7 I 29/6 34/7 40/10
‘22 [3] 94/19 123/22 I 26/22 34/2 34/20 I19 [3] 17/2 18/1 14/25 15/7 24/14 49/1/39 [5] 21/24 36/19
156/10 87/24 121/7 28/22 26 [1] 35/20 51/16 51/21 55/8
23 [11] 72/24 72/25 I11 per cent [3] 26/22I19 per cent [4] 26/21I26 per cent [3] 20/21I39 per cent [2] 25/7
83/19 94/21 101/5 I 37/11 51/25 59/23 65/3 65/5 39/25 46/17 45/3
123/22 129/5 133/21 I11 years [1] 29/7 I1999 [4] 93/16 27 [1] 36/13 4
134/8 138/2 156/11 I11,000 [1] 47/22 2 27 per cent [2] 47/20 I* __
"24 [2] 72/17 94/24 I11.01 [1] 42/13 400 58/17 4 per cent [2] 27/17
"24's [1] 157/5 11.11 [1] 42/11 2 percent [2] 16/9 {274 [1] 119/3 29/16
‘as [1] 131/5 11.13 [1] 42/15 28/16 277 [4] 126/10 4 September [1]
‘at [1] 80/22 11.52 [1] 67/13 2 years [1] 116/23 I 126/18 126/18 126/21) 67/25
"Case [1] 116/10 113 [2] 126/19 2,000 [1] 25/13 279 [2] 126/10 4.04 [1] 172/20
‘conflicts [1] 80/23 I 126/21 2.10 [2] 105/15 126/18 40 [3] 52/18 133/12
‘difficult’ [1] 89/22 I12 [4] 21/14 46/9 105/19 28 [4] 23/22 23/24 I 153/7
‘guilty [1] 128/41 64/17 70/11 2.30 [1] 123/20 25/19 37/1 40 per cent [1] 23/5
‘is [1] 132/19 12 months [7] 15/22 I2.5 per cent [1] 7/17 I28 per cent [1] 10/8 I40 years [1] 156/22
"No [4] 131/20 18/6 18/23 21/12 20 [3] 31/24 34/23 I29 [2] 38/6 63/20 44 [2] 53/2 53/9
‘Only [1] 132/20 21/17 23/3 29/4 39/9 29 April [3] 105/23 I42 [1] 54/5
‘past [3] 80/25 85/5 I12 per cent [5] 27/25/20 December [1] 111/9 114/8 42 per cent [3] 13/7
91/23 31/14 48/5 48/12 50/5I 85/9 29 February 2024 [1] I 13/9 20/20
‘Pathclearing' [1] 12,000 [1] 47/22 20 per cent [1] 59/7 I 167/1 43 [2] 41/7 56/10
137/10 12.10 [2] 67/11 67/15I20 years [4] 26/12/29 January [1] 152/5 I43 per cent [1] 38/13
‘Project [1] 91/23 I127 [1] 111/23 26/22 34/3 34/20 __I29 per cent [3] 44/5 I44 [2] 57/8 57/10
‘red’ [5] 103/17 104/3I13 [5] 10/25 22/5 20,000 [8] 45/4 45/5 I 44/6 53/14 45 [2] 21/2 57/19
4104/6 104/13 104/14 I 22/6 22/8 22/9 46/1 46/21 47/3 47/15I5— 45 per cent [4] 19/21
toxic’ [1] 135/3 132 [1] 121/8 51/5 51/7 So 40/11 51/5 56/4
‘untouchable’ [1] I14{5] 11/16 11/19 I200 [4] 25/3 25/4 —_I3 June [2] 69/6 70/25I46 [2] 42/19 58/13
147/15 22/6 22/6 23/1 25/11 48/18 3 percent [1] 7/20 I46 per cent [5] 19/8
‘we [1] 134/18 14 January [2] 126/8 I200,000 [4] 47/9 48/5I3,500 [1] 117/25 24/16 21/22 61/22
‘witch [4] 90/2 127/6 51/7 51/9 3.17 [1] 150/22 65/17
‘you've [1] 137/12 I14 percent [4] 39/5 I2000s [1] 3/20 3.30 [2] 150/21 47 [2] 43/2 58/19
esr. am .I 45/4 54/18 56/19 — I2010 [1] 68/13 150/24 47 per cent [2] 40/21
: 142 [4] 120/15 2014 [1] 112/3 30 [4] 27/5 38/16 44/15
lit] 13677 —~—~*«(144 [1] 68/4 2012 [4] 74/22 64/9 120/14 48 [3] 59/10 60/12
et —_I45 [3] 24/7 24/7 24/9 I2015 [1] 115/15 30 per cent [4] 13/7 I 133/11
1 15 August [1] 6/3 I2017 [1] 93/16 37/10 37/20 157/14 I48 per cent [3] 38/9
1 billion [1] 165/20 I15 January [4] 2020 [4] 24/2 30/17 I30,000 [1] 25/17 56/20 63/20
4 per cent [2] 25/16 I 141/18 31/12 31/23 31 [6] 27/13 27/14 I49 [4] 45/2 63/6
25/17 15 per cent [3] 36/25 I2024 [2] 69/6 70/25 I 28/10 29/13 38/25 I 64/16 73/7
1,000 [5] 3/18 7/8 I 40/5 64/1 2022 [5] 43/7 43/12 I 39/2 5
7/23 25/9 25/12 15,000 [2] 47/16 54/9 59/24 80/9 34 January [1] 163/8
47/18 2023 [5] 80/24 85/8 I31 per cent [2] 38/9 I5 million [4] 75/3
(45) MR BLAKE: - 5 million
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
5 7 52/6 achieved [1] 119/15 I 137/8
among 7a? FO7I7 IAbout [99] 3/22 7/22 Iact [1] 98/23 addressing [4] 36/11
Seuition.. 3) 5 awe Um, 28 8/8 12/8 12/20 12/22 Iacknowledged [1] _ I 89/11 97/20 99/6
S percent {4} 25/8 lf pereoue ay sz. I 13/1 15/21 16/14 I 667 adjourned [1] 172/21
27/24 29/3 65/4 52/23 16/18 18/20 22/11 acknowledgement I Adjournment [1]
5,000 [2] 25/16 25/17I7,000 [4] 117/25 27/21 30/23 30/24 I [1] 44/3 105/16
sate) a0 tart yor aus 35/3 35/4 35/13 35/14] across [3] 85/7 114/1I adult [1] 166/15
sa) sort sez Po ber cont [2] 4ayt1 I 36/1 36/6 3618 37/18 I 169/20 advance [3] 144/5
bana faa 37/21 38/1 38/5 41/14] act [2] 116/5 131/4 I 152/6 161/18
43/3 43/17 44/5 44/9 Iacting [2] 98/10 _ Iadvantage [1] 170/12
13/10 2115
Sryper cont El ee ee oa I 44/10 47/23 50/1 169/2 advertisement [1]
St per cont [5} 27/10I 63/1 50/11 51/8 52/8 54/22 Iaction [8] 91/25 7413
37123 STDS EN 72 per cent [2] 36/17 I 95/22 59/1 59/5 59/14) 107/11 107/12 111/18] advice [43] 18/16
eons bain 59/16 59/18 59/19 I 122/20 124/17 144/14] 19/21 19/25 20/4
59/20 60/16 60/19 I 161/10 20/12 20/12 21/4 21/6
2 a aan ia 19 73 per cent [2] 45/25) 64/4 64/20 66/4 66/13) actioned [1] 102/21 I 49/17 49/23 50/5 50/9
nan 7611] 1917 66/17 68/16 72/4 73/8Iactions [7] 92/2 50/12 51/2 51/3 51/8
73/15 76/23 78/22 I 107/24 113/19 129/6 I 51/11 51/12 51/18
79/11 81/6 84/1 85/23I 129/7 142/10 165/9 I 52/20 52/22 53/1 53/3
53 per cent (4) 022 77 per cent [3] 29/13I 85/25 87/1 90/10 94/6I active [1] 139/12 53/11 53/17 55/15
54 per cent [1] 9/25 I 61/12 62/24 100/1 103/25 107/8 actively [1] 78/23 I 55/19 55/20 55/25
55 [2] 53/9 53/22 I78 percent [4] 9/16 I 109/14 112/3 112/18 Iactivities [1] 91/24 I 56/2 56/6 56/8 62/12
55 per cent [4] 35/7 I 31/13.49/6 57/14 112/24 113/9 117/1 I activity [4] 89/10 62/15 62/15 62/18
38/1 39/25 53/10 7th [4] 127/14 118/21 122/3 122/18 I 91/22 97/16 102/18 I 62/20 62/21 76/6
56 [1] 75/15 I 123/9 125/2 128/6 _ actual [3] 11/16 50/9 I 77/17 94/25 150/8
56 percent [1] 62/24/99 132/9 136/4 136/19 I 53/8 155/25
87 [2] 54/554/10 IB November [1] 65/8 I 138/2 138/3 138/13 actually [14] 9/10 advise [1] 115/25
57 per cent [4] 10/1 I8 per cent [5] 27/19 I 142/7 144/9 152/24 I 15/17 30/11 32/1 advised [10] 98/15
32/2 44/17 65/18 27/23 33/23 34/10 I 193/8 153/12 165/21 I 35/23 39/16 50/5 99/9 99/14 100/16
53 [1] 51/21 76 per cent [3] 39/9
eo
58 [1] 56/10 61/25 168/14 170/13 170/20I 52/25 74/9 95/2 101/17 101/19 101/21
58 per cent [1] 22/1 I80 [1] 25/12 172/12 172/18 106/24 113/12 130/21) 129/9 145/19 162/6
59 [3] 13/11 32/22 80 per cent [2] 36/16 I@bove [8] 25/13 159/19 advisers [2] 101/20
acutely advising
59 percent [1] 9/2 _I81 percent [2] 17/12) oc olutely [3] 73/13 ladapt [1] 155/2 I Advisory [2] 58/10
6 82 per cent [1] 54/14I 1139/1 122/18 add [7] 25/7 35/12 I 58/16
6 per cent [3] 16/8 I84[1] 76/19 abysmal [1] 119/16 I 135/21 137/10 152/11I Affairs [1] 128/7
18/9 28/15 86 per cent [1] 27/16 accelerated [1] 154/1 159/16 affected [3] 99/4
6.00 pm [1] 112/15 I87 percent [4] 9/19 I 119/13 added [2] 62/17 119/15 119/19
6.17 pm [1] 147/1 88 per cent [4] 12/13 Iacceleration [1] 62/19 affects [1] 11/17
60 [4] 10/2 32/23 I89 percent [1] 25/8 I 121/12 addendum [8] 2/8 _Iafford [1] 52/13
60/10 62/2 ——_————Iaccept [2] 111/1 2/10 2/13 31/3 31/6 I after [40] 14/11 23/11
60 per cent [2] 34/22/92 I 12/3 50/15 55/10 62/7 32/15 32/25 33/1 33/4
37/13 9 January [2] 119/8 Iaccepted [4] 61/24 I adding [2] 24/20 45/5I 33/6 33/8 33/10 33/16
60,000 [2] 45/5 45/7 I 122/5 62/2 63/7 63/10 addition [4] 6/11 38/21 43/11 44/1 54/8
62 per cent [1] 34/21 I9 per cent [2] 48/21 Iaccepting [1] 136/11 I 97/23 120/15 142/2 I 80/8 80/16 85/10 91/5
63 [1] 59/12 51/6 access [8] 5/19 additional [3] 30/23 I 94/10 97/1 97/11
63 per cent [2] 22/3 I9,000 [1] 25/16 22/13 22/22 22/23 I 34/5 135/17 105/12 107/18 112/16
51/22 9,999 [1] 25/17 78/11 78/14 79/19 I Additionally [4] 118/21 122/8 125/4
64 [1] 61/4 9.45 [1] 172/14 112/3 156/7 125/19 125/20 134/2
64 per cent [2] 20/4 I9.58[1] 1/2 accident [1] 147/22 Iaddress [10] 5/23 I 134/3 140/8 145/2
20/9 92 per cent [1] 61/23 Iaccording [1] 88/8 I 36/19 54/7 64/5 99/5 I 148/8 153/21 154/3
65 [2] 53/6 63/6 97 per cent [1] 18/23 IAccordingly [1] 111/24 123/16 148/22] 156/16 162/11 164/4
65 per cent [3] 18/5 I98 per cent [1] 25/20I 140/3 149/11 169/6 164/14
40/3 52/22 99 per cent [1] 11/6 Iaccount [2] 12/17 addressed [10] afternoon [3] 67/17
66 [1] 64/4 9th [4] 127/12 143/9 27/15 29/18 30/21 I 123/21 150/20
66 per cent [2] 10/1 I, I accountability [2] 32/9 52/5 59/12 again [62] 12/20
I A 124/5 124/14 126/10 142/1 158/18 I 15/24 19/4 20/2 27/10
68 per cent [3] 10/7 Iabide [1] 150/13 accountable [1] 165/2 32/5 33/17 33/24 36/3}
21/24 40/6 ability [3] 22/10 35/3 I 138/1 addresses [15] 20/17I 37/2 37/17 39/6 40/7
69 per cent [1] 23/25I 35/5 accounts [1] 128/24 I 24/8 24/11 31/25 33/5I 41/8 43/20 44/6 44/8
able [7] 17/4 19/15 {accurate [1] 157/10 I 33/15 34/11 34/25 46/11 46/24 48/5
22/14 28/3 30/8 41/10I accurately [1] 132/12) 44/13 51/17 53/3 49/13 52/24 53/22
ache [1] 153/17 57/19 58/20 60/12 54/1 55/9 62/11 63/1
(46) 5 million... - again
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
A 42/8 47/15 47/15 115/25 141/3 146/17 I 156/2 161/6 162/4 I appreciate [1]
again. [35] 63/9 I 49/14 62/19 67/6 148/22 153/4 172/21 I 166/4 169/23 171/10 I 163/12
eet 66/13 65/21 I 70/2184/15 86/13 IAmanda [2] 109/22 I 172/18 appreciated [4] 66/6
65/24 66/23 75/8 91/4 92/5 93/25 97/14] 145/19 anybody [6] 79/4 I 141/1 141/5 165/15
75/15 715 78/18 98/20 100/14 102/1 Iamong [8] 24/4 26/17I 90/15 90/19 90/25 —_Iapproach [20] 8/4
sana senserig I 05/7 111/21 113/16 I 26/19 38/11 40/19 I 155/14 172/18 95/1 97/10 98/10
88/11 94/3 94/2 114/23 116/12 117/21I 61/13 61/17 65/1 —_—_Ianyone [2] 128/16 I 98/13 99/9 99/13.
100/14 104/1 196/10 I 119/15 120/9 121/20 Iamongst [2] 13/10 I 161/17 4100/2 100/4 101/1
407/20 117/15 117/16] 122/11 122/13 125/5 I 147/6 anything [13] 11/24 I 101/17 104/7 106/5
117/16 121/21 123/6 I 127/17 132/13 132/19) amount [18] 10/14 I 26/9 30/22 65/25 66/3I 108/1 108/5 108/16
129/25 130/6 134/9 I 1339/5 136/2 137/23 I 13/23 25/2 36/3 37/2 I 71/22 75/12 109/6 138/23 143/3 162/7
1450/6 154/16 157/17 I 144/25 146/9 147/16 I 58/20 60/13 60/18 118/9 118/17 125/25 I 165/16
149/17 153/11 153/17I 60/18 60/24 61/1 135/21 166/8 approached [1]
tear 166/13 169/4 I se 4i16 160/23 162/9 I 61/11 61/18 62/24 anywhere [1] 7/10 I 110/7
against [19] 20/20 I 163/20 165/4 165/17 I 65/8 99/2 130/24 apologetic [1] 147/25 approaches [1]
ys 45/19 52/22 59/6I 195/19 168/13 168/21) 171/13 apologies [2] 122/14 I 103/14
716 81/8 Bere 97/21) 170/9 172/11 amounts [2] 65/11 I 144/21 approaching [1] 7/16}
100/22 101/13 117/4 [Allegation [1] 117/4 I 66/20 apologise [4] 147/9 appropriate [12] 42/7I
419/11 120/11 121/14 Iallegations [11] 86/1 Ianalysed [3] 21/19 I 147/19 148/11 163/13] 76/20 82/3 86/17
146/8 146/12 148/6. I 92/6 97/21 99/1 35/24 56/12 apologised [1] 86/19 91/25 104/2
4158/1 100/18 100/23 101/13I analysis [17] 3/10 I 147/16 104/5 104/22 120/17
age [17] 8229/11 I 1022 104/12 163/15 I 9/7 10/13 11/4 15/23 Iapology [3] 148/10 I 150/19 169/17
40/2 10/13 10/19 163/20 17/3 18/2 23/23 26/10I 163/20 165/18 approved [4] 85/7
15/16 20/1 32/21 alleged [1] 85/23 27/14 29/24 32/19 appalling [1] 113/16 I 108/2 108/6 108/17
32/24 60/2 61/14 allow [2] 6/9 133/22 I 34/19 41/16 50/23 apparent [1] 80/9 approximately [2]
allowed [2] 70/22 61/7 66/18 appeal [2] 120/16 43/9 122/7
La pe eae 133/13 another [11] 30/20 121/3 April [6] 94/24 96/12
aged [6] 13/10 21/24 allowing [1] 6/7 75/1 76/16 121/8 appeals [6] 59/1 81/8I 105/23 111/9 114/8
32/22 32/23 60/10 almost [1] 89/5 123/4 136/6 140/8 119/11 120/5 120/11 I 115/15
62/2 along [3] 75/20 118/9I 152/4 153/3 153/14 I 121/13 arbitrary [1] 48/15
agency [1] 3/17 140/15 159/16 appear [2] 6/13 6/16 I arbitration [1] 64/11
agenda [2] 113/23 already [11] 42/18 Ianswer[2] 110/18 appellants [1] 120/14) ARC [2] 78/15 129/24)
145/18 43/10 56/14 84/21 163/5 appetite [3] 83/16 are [179]
ages [1] 8/23 145/13 145/24 153/11Ianswering [1] 33/17 I 103/19 170/11 area [3] 35/13 36/9
ago [7] 29/7 87/1 158/7 158/18 168/15 Ianswers [6] 32/6 applicable [1] 7/12 I 77/24
89/5 115/15 116/6 171113 41/9 41/9 49/21 52/6 Iapplicant [3] 7/9 7/24I aren't [3] 5/11 74/11
1430/3 134/18 also [57] 2/10 4/21 65/22 42117 169/16
agree [9] 37/10 40/10} 5/21 6/14 9/5 14/10 I anti [2] 167/16 applicants [10] 3/24 Iarising [4] 97/12
47/5 48/13 82/23 15/16 18/2 25/17 168/14 6/23 8/11 43/16 46/21] 97/21 102/17 106/8
104/5 126/14 126/22 25/22 25/23 26/15 anti-postmaster [1] I 58/12 61/17 61/21 arose [1] 151/2
165/22 27/5 28/10 29/13 31/4I 167/16 63/7 66/15 around [12] 3/6 3/18
agreed [8] 36/25 32/11 38/14 41/22 anti-Semitic [1] application [14] 44/1 I 7/19 11/8 14/23 36/1
40/22 48/7 106/4 47/17 48/19 54/2 168/14 44/4 50/6 50/8 51/4 I 36/24 52/13 54/1
1406/15 142/4 143/12 54/22 60/2 61/16 any [72] 4/24 7/24 51/18 51/23 53/18 59/16 65/16 66/5
172/14 61/23 67/7 68/25 69/1I 11/20 16/25 25/25 54/16 54/17 54/20 arrange [1] 99/2
agreement [6] 37/8 71/23 72/23 79/9 28/3 30/18 30/23 55/1 55/16 56/14 articulate [1] 170/11
37/11 39/24 41/2 46/1 80/22 81/23 88/5 91/7) 33/19 33/22 33/23 applications [3] 70/5 Ias [195]
1401/4 92/20 95/13 96/14 34/5 41/10 43/25 70/7 102/23 Asian [1] 28/2
agreements [2] 96/21 98/10 100/9 49/19 50/25 52/25 applied [12] 8/2 43/5 I Asian-British [1]
1450/6 150/10 109/20 115/5 123/21 I 62/12 62/16 65/22 43/6 43/11 53/4 54/19) 28/2
Ah [3] 11/13 51/18 125/5 128/14 129/24 I 67/2 67/3 70/3 71/18 I 55/23 59/19 59/23 ask [10] 2/17 3/22
53/7 132/13 139/21 143/19] 75/3 75/6 75/6 75/6 I 60/5 85/13 95/21 16/12 43/3 68/3 72/3
ahead [3] 97/11 143/21 153/20 154/9 I 76/12 78/12 79/7 applies [1] 64/6 90/5 144/2 144/2
1410/3 141/23 160/11 162/18 168/10) 79/19 79/20 81/18 apply [3] 48/4 55/21 I 163/19
aim [4] 81/14 81/15 [altering [1] 16/23 I 85/22 86/12 88/10 I 56/6 asked [27] 4/4 12/8
420/10 152/19 although [5] 25/14 89/9 91/12 92/2 93/6 Iapplying [1] 44/14 13/1 15/21 18/20
albeit [1] 172/19 47/8 47/10 119/1 93/14 97/20 100/3 appointed [7] 38/19 I 22/11 29/25 30/22
Alex [2] 154/3 154/9 127/117 102/12 107/8 107/12 I 69/4 70/19 87/1 31/11 33/7 34/12
alia [1] 147/8 altogether [1] 154/24) 107/16 108/18 109/4 I 109/21 110/3 125/2 I 50/10 50/13 50/19
alignment [1] 11/14 [always [3] 125/21 I 109/14 111/21 115/18 appointment [4] 50/24 52/8 55/12 58/1
all [62] 2/23 4/3 7/1 128/12 145/1 115/20 116/13 117/22I 69/24 71/2 109/23 60/16 62/11 62/17
12/4 12/10 26/1 30/14I2™ [14] 1/2 42/13 129/12 129/15 130/10) 125/4 64/20 85/4 102/14
31/1 32/8 35/9 35/17 42/15 47/15 67/13 133/24 136/21 137/22I appointments [1] 120/7 144/5 151/5
89/8 91/12 95/22 140/10 142/23 150/2 I 70/24 asking [4] 146/20
(47) again... - asking
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
A 78/16 130/8 137/19 72/20 72/21 75/22 I 166/23
asking...[3] 164/16 [Auditing [3] 80/12 [balanced [5] 4/4 4/8 I 75/23 76/2 76/10 belief [6] 1/18 2/3
4169/7 171/19 82/8 82/12 4/11 4/17 4/20 80/17 83/10 85/23 I 37/8 52/11 68/8 88/9
asks [1] 171/24 audits [3] 31/8 31/25 Ibalancing [3] 12/15 I 87/1 90/1 90/2 90/24 Ibelieve [11] 9/14
aspect [2] 106/25 I 03/1 12/24 19/9 92/6 92/15 92/16 36/20 52/12 79/1
123/16 August [3] 6/3 54/9 IBank [1] 116/1 92/16 95/9 98/23 99/8) 90/13 109/19 109/21
aspects [2] 39/22 I 130/3 banking [1] 68/20 I 100/18 101/10 101/17I 130/11 142/11 164/15}
58/3 authorisation [1] _Ibar [2] 35/6 131/14 I 101/20 102/16 102/21) 165/6
assess [2] 58/6 75/6 Bartlett [1] 132/23 I 102/25 107/16 107/19Ibelieved [2] 46/18
102/17 authorisations [1] _Ibased [9] 51/1 53/1 I 107/20 107/21 108/12I 103/8
assesses [2] 57/11. I 75/12 55/18 55/24 56/13 I 109/2 109/25 110/19 I believes [1] 131/20
57/21 authorise [1] 75/3 I 58/25 62/14 75/8 77/5I 112/18 113/19 113/23] below [7] 19/13
assessing [1] 58/11 [automation [1] basic [1] 171/24 120/1 120/25 122/24 I 27/15 75/12 115/16
Assessor [7] 57/13. I 171/20 basically [4] 86/10 I 123/10 123/24 124/4 I 141/24 164/17 170/14
57/16. 57/18.57/21_ Iavailable [3] 54/18 I 109/9 110/7 110/10 _I 124/10 124/11 124/16/ Ben [15] 84/4 96/13
57/24 58/6 58/23 54/21 121/2 basis [10] 18/7 18/12I 125/13 127/7 128/20 I 96/17 131/1 131/2
assessors [3] 57/8 I@venues [1] 78/1 18/15 63/14 73/23 I 130/1 130/2130/8 I 144/20 145/22 147/6
57/9 58/3 average [1] 71/13 I 96/3 144/16 144/17 I 130/9 132/3 133/1 147/8 160/4 160/4
assist [50] 13/15 [avoid [1] 167/16 161/23 172/4 133/17 134/15 140/12I 160/6 160/10 166/2
17/4 18/17 19/15 22/8I2V0idance [2] 85/21 IBates [2] 33/6 33/16 I 141/17 143/25 146/4 I 167/8
23/22 27/13 28/23 95/21 be [198] 149/5 157/1 161/12 Ibenefit [1] 135/18
29/23 31/10 34/1 awaiting [1] 120/15 Ibecame [4] 33/25 161/17 164/22 167/23] benefits [2] 103/16
34/19 37/3 38/16 aware [41] 7/24 35/4 I 48/22 80/9 162/12 before [23] 3/21 9/25I 136/11
39/21 41/10 45/13 35/8 35/10 35/17 because [62] 19/16 I 18/18 32/14 88/13 best [8] 1/18 2/2 5/18
50/17 54/11 54/13 35/18 54/17 54/20 21/5 36/1 41/24 43/10] 90/2 91/8 91/17 95/25I 6/8 68/7 70/15 97/3
54/25 56/17 59/13 57/11 57/12 57/13 56/12 57/22 62/17 105/21 111/8 119/22 I 116/11
60/13 61/6 62/10 58/16 58/18 73/22 63/19 66/6 66/7 72/19] 122/9 136/19 137/19 Ibetter [10] 79/15
64/17 65/22 73/18 79/1 84/6 84/8 87/16 I 73/3 77/13 77/25 84/2) 146/24 147/17 148/9 I 79/16 81/19 92/25
7417 75/20 78/10 I 88/3. 90/15 91/12 84/17 84/21 91/2 150/7 151/7 163/6 I 132/3 133/23 146/11
86/24 95/18 98/12 94/19 107/12 117/19 I 92/14 96/15 100/5 164/10 165/24 160/11 160/12 170/9
103/20 106/21 108/21) 117/22 129/10 129/21I 103/1 103/7 104/15 Ibegin [4] 1/5 11/1 I betterment [1] 156/3
4115/9 122/7 123/17 I 129/22 140/10 143/14] 104/22 105/3 107/21 I 42/19 92/12 between [32] 6/3
424/15 12815 1314/7 I 143/21 14/4 144/13 I 109/18 109/25 111/4 Ibeginning [4] 32/15 I 9/10 13/10 17/7 17/23
433/18 145/10 153/23) 145/20 148/24 150/5 I 113/20 114/9 114/16 I 32/25 33/1 33/4 20/11 22/18 25/16
4155/4 156/8 158/2 I 191/17 151/18 151/21) 116/9 121/19 121/22 Ibegins [2] 10/25 28/7 28/19 28/20
assistance [2] 18/16 I 151/25 171/3 124/5 124/10 126/12 I 119/9 30/10 30/19 37/18
119/21 awareness [6] 35/1 I 127/12 128/11 130/11Ibehaved [1] 132/14 I 38/17 45/5 47/3 48/18)
assisting [1] 61/9 I 35/3 36/15 52/13 134/14 143/13 146/2 Ibehaviour [4] 119/16I 48/19 59/17 61/12
associated [1] 57/17 83/18 146/19 148/2 151/25 I 128/22 133/1 162/12 I 63/3 64/22 73/18
102/17 awful [1] 90/12 153/4 155/7 155/13 I being [78] 4/13 8/10 I 80/17 85/19 86/4 86/6
assuming [2] 145/5 [Awkward [2] 73/3 I 155/15 158/12 159/23] 10/8 14/1 14/6 15/9 _I 90/17 93/16 148/25
q5S/10 74I7 160/6 161/19 166/3 I 17/7 19/20 29/14 30/7I 171/4
assurance [4] 100/253. ~~~*«I*«*168/6 168/8 168/10 I 30/12 35/17 35/18 I beyond [4] 98/1
101/2 129/16 1852/2 I>——=—— I 17118 36/8 37/6 37/12 38/5 I 109/1 111/22 129/12
assured [1] 113/16 back [22] 11/15 12/6 Ibecome [3] 26/18 I 38/7 40/1 40/2 40/9 I bias [2] 5/7 5/13
Astwood [1] 116/1. I 42/14 48/9 82/17 63/5] 26/19 129/10 40/12 40/20 40/20 [1] 104/4
at [239] 66/1 67/11 69/21 92/3I becoming [2] 14/11 I 41/19 41/24 44/9 55/2I big [2] 40/7 161/2
100/10 105/15 111/7 I 150/5 55/3 56/12 56/19 [1] 70/8
ATM [2] 135/3 137/8 I 49g 129/19 130/15
bed [1] 164/16 58/17 64/1 65/5 65/9 ion [1] 165/20
attached (3) 141/24 I 4134/7 138/4 150/20 I been [147] 2/20 3/19 I 65/10 65/16 65/17 43] 27/22 61/5
attend [1] 83/20 161/24 166/10 168/1 I 10/14 10/18 11/8 69/21 71/20 73/2 71/21 94/15 115/2
attendance [3] 96/20 background [10] 3/3 I 13/23 14/4 15/5 15/25] 73/15 73/17 74/1 134/5 142/14 143/12
122/11 134/13 20/25 21/2 21/3 28/1 I 19/19 20/12 22/1 24/2I 79/10 80/21 82/20 I 153/25 161/22 167/19
28/2 28/11 61/10 25/25 26/21 27/16 82/21 83/3 85/5 85/6 I 168/21 170/17
attended [2] 92/21 I 65/19 68/10
27/18 27/19 27/23 85/7 86/3 87/16 88/14I bits [1] 77/2
atten aes 121 96/23 IPackgrounds [3] I 28/12 28/25 29/2 _I 89/14 93/19 94/6 94/9] bitterly [1] 159/24
Ney 21/21 22/1 81/25 29/10 30/1 31/12 100/24 106/17 107/12) bizarre [1] 95/15
attending [1] 152/20 backs [1] 139/8 31/14 31/16 32/1 34/2) 107/15 108/3 108/4 IBLAKE [6] 1/11
attention [5] 65/18 I P34 [1] 90/12 34/3 34/4 34/7 34/16 I 109/9 109/15 115/7 I 67/16 67/21 150/25
Tae 14/7 tag/o4 [Padly [1] 136/8 34/20 34/22 36/7 118/4 123/8 131/17 I 173/4 173/8
452/17 baggage [1] 139/2 I 36/25 38/19 38/22 I 146/7 155/9 161/25 Iblamed [2] 147/20
audit [7] 31/12 31/13 [Baker [1] 12018 41/15 45/16 48/21 I 167/17 1714/7 171/14 I 148/12
B1/1454/21 31123 [Palance [5] 16/23 I 49/22 50/1 57/23 58/1] 172/13 Blanchard [1] 140/19
73/8 73/11 73/18 59/15 60/17 71/3 BEIS0000753 [1] blanket [1] 165/14
(48) asking... - blanket
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
B 107/2 113/10 126/22 I 150/8 53/24 54/1 54/11 55/9] 75/4 75/20 77/9 78/10
blocked [1] 78/21 131/6 135/14 136/1 Ibroadly [5] 22/18 55/23 59/16 61/3 62/7I 79/11 79/15 80/3
bloody [1] 116/14 136/15 139/25 143/19] 72/14 72/16 102/6 63/1 64/4 65/5 66/16 I 84/25 86/23 90/5 95/5
board [140] 36/20 160/16 164/20 165/1 I 159/5 69/1 69/20 71/3 71/23] 95/10 95/18 99/20
36/23 37/2 37/5 37/12 169/5 Brocklesby [2] 94/9 I 72/4 72/22 75/11 77/9I 103/20 103/24 105/12)
69/21 70/20 71/9 bottom [22] 11/5 95/12 83/9 87/4 87/6 87/19 I 105/23 106/21 107/23
71/20 72/4 72/8 72/9 I 11/20 14/18 16/8 18/1Ibroken [5] 8/15 89/24 90/8 90/8 90/24! 108/20 108/21 110/11
72/9 73/2 73/9 73/11 I 22/19 32/13 35/7 13/17 19/14 27/5 91/6 91/12 92/20 93/6] 112/12 112/25 113/7
74/1 74/3 74/12 74/13) 40/15 41/1 46/7 46/13) 77/13 94/7 94/12 95/6 95/18] 113/11 113/15 115/17
49/18 52/18 59/3 62/8I brought [5] 1/21 2/21I 96/14 100/9 101/7 118/25 119/7 119/12
UN rue roti rand 85/17 93/22 105/24 94/9 129/24 141/9 110/3 113/12 115/2 119/18 122/7 123/1
75/16 75/19 75/22 115/12 118/15 136/15Ibud [1] 166/16 118/22 122/13 122/14] 123/11 123/16 124/15
75/25 76/2 76/16 bound [2] 121/3 budgets [2] 169/4 122/20 123/6 123/16 I 126/5 127/3 128/5
76/19 76/21 76/23 170/5 169/9 124/16 125/15 125/22I 130/15 131/7 132/20
76/25 77/1 7/10 box [3] 7/2 24/12 bullet [5] 20/7 97/5 I 126/8 126/16 128/11 I 133/15 134/4 136/25
77/12 77/20 78/4 66/2 103/13 105/25 106/7 I 129/3 129/22 129/25 I 137/5 137/14 140/13
78/15 78/16 83/19 boxes [5] 12/10 16/1 Ibundle [1] 117/10 1341/2 131/13 132/11 I 141/19 142/8 144/18
83/24 83/25 89/4 90/7I 19/24 66/2 66/16 bureaucratic [1] 136/7 138/13 140/3 I 145/10 146/25 148/18
91/20 94/22 95/4 96/7IDracket [1] 48/17 71/22 140/14 142/5 143/15 I 149/15 153/23 155/4
96/12 97/2 98/16 brackets [1] 47/24 IBurton [2] 109/23 143/19 144/2 144/4 I 156/8 158/2 159/1
98/17 99/6 104/12 Bradshaw [13] 91/1 I 145/19 146/8 146/11 150/8 I 159/5 163/7 163/23
104/19 105/23 107/6 I 29/8 99/15 99/24 business [81] 18/21 I 150/13 151/18 151/24! 165/7 166/20 167/8
107/15 107/16 107/23I 100/14 100/17 101/13} 18/22 20/14 20/18 158/9 160/11 162/13 I 167/14 169/19 169/23
Tow/3 10019 tpo1za, I 102/2 132/15 133/12 I 21/6 26/15 26/23 _I 465/13 166/12 169/11) 170/6 170/8 170/9
Fo/25 110/28 11179 I 134/6 134/10 134/17 I 35/13 36/8 68/19 71/8] 169/12 170/6 17116 Ican't [9] 14/7 16/10
to 11410 114/18 IBradshaw's [1] 7119 73/23 75/11 I 174/11 30/9 30/18 63/3 90/7
412/45 112/17 112/23] 118/21 TIS 771977125 — Ibypassing [1] 121/13) 115/4 123/14 145/1
Hat 1142 11416 [branch [13] 9/19 I 79NB eta Bt12 I candidate [2] 76/4
9/21 31/12 31/15 81/21 83/20 84/11 76/7
Marea ape ape 31/21 68/13 95/11 I 85/7 88/8 90/11 90/22\call [7] 141/23 143/4 Icannot [3] 117/17
114105 117/16 118/18I 107/19 129/4 129/16 I 91/19 92/14 94/13 I 145/15 145/21 165/10] 121/8 165/13
119/24 120/1 121/23 I 137/18 139/1 152/1 I 99/16 99/19 99/23 165/11 168/11 capabilities [1] 78/3
121/24 122/2 122/24 branch's [2] 26/6 99/25 100/7 100/10 Icalled [8] 5/75/12 I capable [1] 94/2
123/21 124/8 125/9 I 25/12 100/11 104/11 104/24) 19/1 19/3 19/7 129/15) capital [2] 132/7
127/24 128/3 130/22 [branches [6] 68/20 I 106/2 106/14 106/17 129/16 137/16 132/8
134/7 134/10 134/25 I 98/22 93/6 129/17 106/19 106/24 108/8 I calling [3] 19/4 careful [4] 9/8
135/13 135/19 138/2 I. 137/11 138/12 110/15 111/5 112/10 I 131/19 146/10 careless [1] 123/4
138/2 138/5 138/5 IPranches' [1] 137/19} 113/13 117/3 124/24 calls [1] 154/23 Carey [1] 120/8
141/15 145/2 145/20 brazen [1] 129/6 134/8 134/11 138/15 Icame [16] 12/16 carried [6] 17/3 18/2
146/7 147/17 1489/9 [breach [4] 146/16 138/16 138/20 138/21) 66/16 66/21 84/3 23/23 88/7 109/15
1452/5 152/6 152/16 148/15 149/11 149/13] 141/10 143/17 153/20] 88/24 91/14 92/18 169/7
452/20 157/6 159/11 Ibreached [1] 116/4 I 154/6 154/12 155/9 I 93/8 94/21 94/24 carries [1] 108/22
1459/19 161/8 161/9 break [11] 42/7 42/14) 156/12 156/13 156/24I 111/8 125/19 134/14 I carry [2] 54/4 146/18
1461/10 161/19 161/20) 67/9 67/14 105/13 159/9 159/22 165/25 I 145/8 155/9 165/3 carrying [3] 12/14
1462/9 162/17 164/14 105/22 133/16 150/20I 166/8 166/14 166/16 Ican [140] 1/12 1/21 I 88/3 109/11
1467/9 167/13 170/25 150/23 159/8 165/24 I 167/22 168/20 168/22) 2/5 2/9 2/21 3/2 3/3 I case [20] 20/19 56/1
4741/7 171144 172/3 breakdown [3] 6/15 I 169/7 169/17 169/21 I 3/15 5/18 6/1 7/14 57/8 57/9 57/12 57/15
4172/3 17216 9/23 118/12 170/4 171/2 17115 I 8/14 9/23 11/20 13/13] 57/18 57/20 57/23
Board's [1] 168/9 {Brian [2] 83/21 83/21 Ibusiness's [2] 13/14 14/16 15/11 58/3 58/5 58/23 63/2
body [1] 155/20 IDrief [1] 140/8 119/15 171/18 1619 18/17 19/7 I 87/13. 91/4 95/20
bold [4] 46/4 46/5 [briefed [1] 162/17 I businesses [1] 69/2 I 20/16 22/8 23/22 102/10 109/7 122/22
154/18 158/17 briefing [1] 86/10 Ibusinesspeople [1] I 24/25 27/13 28/23 I 172/17
bonuses [9] 78/22 {briefly [16] 3/3.3/15 I 170/3 29/6 29/19 29/23 Icases [24] 35/16
79/8 118/16 118/23 41/8 52/6 53/23 64/5 Ibut [120] 3/14 6/14 I 30/10 31/8 31/9 34/1 I 45/25 47/17 47/21
1436/8 136/9 157/18 70/2 71/6 75/5 79/11 I 7/14 7/23 10/25 12/15 34/19 37/3 38/16 48/1 48/5 48/12 48/21
158/14 169/10 80/6 148/2 155/4 14/7 14/22 15/16 39/21 43/14 45/13 55/4 80/14 86/2 88/6
booked [1] 165/10 I 97/3 158/2 166/21 I 16/12 17/13 20/8 46/8 48/21 49/17 92/2 102/5 115/16
books [1] 137/19 [Pring [8] 10/25 24/6 I 22/22 24/18 27/10 I S0/17 61/16 63/23 I 115/20 115/21 115/22]
both [29] 2/5 2/18 8/3I 29/20 43/14 51/20 27/17 30/15 30/18 54/5 54/11 54/24 4116/2 120/15 121/1
22/15 44/24 52/9 55/4I 92/6 73/13 119/7 35/10 38/21 39/25 56/17 59/10 59/13 121/4 121/6 121/15
57/2 70/19 70124 (bringing [3] 66/8 40/11 40/18 43/5 44/4I 60/13 61/6 62/6 62/9 Icash [4] 75/4
71/21 aei20 89/25 I 130/21 159/13 46/11 46/16 47/20 I 64/17 65/22 67/22 I catch [1] 165/11
92/8 100/15 103/8 ‘(British [1] 28/2 48/10 48/21 50/15 _I 68/3 68/4 68/7 70/3 I catch-up [1] 165/11
broad [2] 45/14 51/6 51/11 52/3 52/24) 73/12 73/17 74/17 I categorically [1] 73/1
(49) blocked - categorically
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
Cc 41/13 93/4 110/16 clarity [6] 66/19 86/7 I 78/16 78/17 91/11 completely [1] 163/1
ronan fo) 25/15 IChancellor [4] 119/6 I 89/13 151/4 153/22 I 110/15 123/15 130/9 Icompleting [2] 44/16
aucgories [2] 35/12 Pog 119/23 154/13 I 153/25 135/14 140/7 158/21 I 44/19
categorisation [2] change [10] 46/23 I classic [1] 166/14 committees [1] completion [1] 6/19
1408/7 108/12 74/21 108/11 131/22 Iclassified [2] 104/6 I 136/2 complex [1] 94/4
categorisations [1] 132/21 134/23 142/11] 111/22 common [8] 18/24 I complexities [1]
97/6 142/14 143/3 170/11 Iclean [1] 166/1 24/12 33/7 33/10 122/21
categorised [1] changed [4] 90/24 Iclear [22] 9/14 20/11 I 48/23 63/11 143/2 compliance [1] 110/1
108/12 121/20 133/2 134/21 I 31/18 74/10 76/3 153/19 compliant [1] 172/6
category [18] 15/16 changes [2] 128/23 I 83/14 86/5 88/20 commonly [2] 43/18 Icomplimentary [1]
39/17 40/15 60/22 161/2 107/2 124/8 126/12 52/11 139/15
86/20 97/8 97/13 Chapter [1] 10/24 126/13 131/25 135/23) comms [3] 82/3 comprehensive [2]
97/18 99/18 102/15 character [1] 112/6 I 143/16 151/7 151/12 I 87/24 88/2 154/19 154/22
102/16 103/16 104/23Icharged’ [1] 128/1 156/13 162/4 162/23 Icommunicate [2] comprising [1] 97/8
1408/2 108/6 108/17 chart [17] 6/13 6/18 I 164/20 166/5 155/12 155/20 compromised [1]
420/22 121/16 114/11 11/11 11/17 clearing [2] 137/14 Icommunicated [1] 145/25
causation [2] 30/11 11/25 13/15 14/22 137/16 151/24 compromising [1]
30/19 17/4 19/13 39/15 clearly [12] 8/11 communicating [1] I 149/19
cause [1] 30/24 43/23 51/25 57/17 20/14 72/12 107/21 155/14 compulsory [1] 5/10
60/15 60/21 64/14 121/9 161/23 161/24 Icommunication [5] Icomputer [1] 121/5
caused [1] 63/4 I charted [1] 45/19 I 165/13 168/22 169/12] 66/22 107/3 153/1 Iconcede [1] 120/13
causing [3] 153/9
159/12 159/12 charts [2] 54/14 171/17 172/1 155/15 155/17 conceded [1] 120/20
caution [2] 35/25 54/24 close [3] 54/3 123/8 Icommunications [2] Iconcern [5] 35/5
100/21 chased [1] 138/16 I 171/16 87/25 121/10 76/19 88/17 111/17
census [2] 5/10 7/13 check [2] 67/3 74/8 Iclosely [1] 117/23 Icommunity [1] 150/9
cent [205] cherry [1] 156/18 — closing [1] 134/18 I 114/13 concerned [6] 85/22
central [1] 143/8 cherrypick [1] cohort [2] 8/19 10/10 companies [1] 68/25 I 89/9 99/15 107/8
centre [8] 18/21 156/19 colleague [3] 85/22 Icompany [5] 3/18 I 146/15 147/11
18/23 20/14 20/18 IChief [10] 72/25 86/2 87/14 99/17 132/13 162/15 I concerning [1]
24/6 26/15 26/23 74/15 74/16 74/24 —_Icolleagues [4] 81/17 I 165/21 148/22
167/22 76/13 93/22 96/20 I 88/4 122/19 147/7 __Icompare [1] 30/1 _ I concerns [22] 37/6
centric [1] 135/19 I 125/3 148/6 163/9 Icollected [1] 98/21 Icompared [22] 10/2 I 37/16 76/23 84/1
CEO [9] 73/1 119/6 [Children [1] 166/11 [collective [1] 140/20 I 10/10 21/7 23/14 106/11 107/4 107/7
4122/3 123/18 125/5 IChoice [10] 12/12 __Icollectively [1] 26/20 38/13 39/25 I 109/14 109/24 112/14
4143/4 148/16 162/9 I 19/24 19/6 43/20 44/8] 119/17 40/3 40/5 40/23 47/7 I 114/1 115/6 116/25
168/24 49/13 63/9 102/7 column [1] 29/6 51/10 53/16 55/8 56/4) 117/13 118/3 118/20
certain [11] 4/25 9/12) 131/14 151/18 columns [1] 45/22 I 56/19 58/6 61/14 123/13 125/1 144/13
46/23 77/8 90/10 chose [1] 112/4 come [25] 3/2 30/6 I 61/21 62/4 65/3 65/18] 149/1 152/11 152/24
110/24 123/25 128/19I Chris [3] 93/11 93/25] 48/9 54/23 67/7 67/11Icompares [1] 15/7 Iconcluded [3] 42/22
161/20 162/21 171/13] 94/8 90/7 105/15 106/13 _Icomparison [5] 42/25 43/6
certainly [3] 30/11 Iciteled [1] 77/11 108/20 112/23 118/25I 33/12 34/6 34/9 58/17I conclusion [4] 65/2
44/22 124/8 circulated [3] 143/22I 120/6 121/22 123/11 I 61/11 99/11 101/23 108/19
cetera [5] 44/7 103/1 I 149/6 164/22 128/1 139/19 139/21 Icompensation [18] conduct [1] 75/23
112/11 135/4 1356/4 ICifcumstances [2] I 146/22 148/2 148/23 I 42/21 43/10 49/7 65/2I conducted [8] 32/1
CFO [2} 143/6 167/2 I 63/15 63/19 149/3 150/20 159/10 I 65/8 66/10 66/20 76/2 81/16 100/24
chair [16] 67/3 77/17 [sited [1] 79/16 159/17 66/23 80/8 80/16 81/8I 100/25 104/9 108/18
78/19 96/14 96/15 _ Iclaim [22] 45/3 45/4 Icomes [1] 75/7 83/12 105/9 119/18 I 131/17
96/17 96/18 100/19 I 45/7 45/9 45/16 45/18] coming [7] 64/21 120/18 133/5 142/18 I conducting [1] 109/7
100/23 101/4 102/14 I 46/8 46/12 46/14 98/7 106/16 132/15 I 143/5 confidence [8] 80/21
4104/9 106/4 106/12 I 46/16 49/5 49/6 51/1 I 134/9 141/15 151/16 Icompile [1] 3/11 82/21 93/20 94/22
109/24 122/3 51/4 51/9 51/13 54/9 Icomment [2] 28/3 Icomplain [2] 35/4 I 114/22 137/22 138/14!
Chairman [2] 148/25 I 55/4 58/6 58/22 64/10] 99/14 35/23 149/5
153/21 89/22 comments [15] complained [3] 35/21I confidential [6]
Chalk [2] 154/4 claimant [6] 45/22 I 16/15 16/17 16/19 _I 36/6 36/8 144/16 144/17 147/4
154/10 45/23 45/25 46/10 —_ I 30/23 31/3 41/16 42/3I complaining [2] 148/24 149/23 152/22
challenge [2] 96/6 I 48/17 48/24 66/18 66/25 110/21 I 35/13 35/14 confidentiality [1]
130/13 claimants [5] 56/24 I 147/7 153/18 154/8 Icomplaints [5] 34/25I 149/11
challenges [2] 60/4 60/7 61/15 64/24] 154/8 163/15 35/1 124/10 148/5 I confirm [3] 68/4 68/7
121/11 168/25 claimed [1] 57/1 _ Icommercial [3] 158/1 93/12
challenging [1] 73/3 claims [2] 45/2 64/11I 77/23 77/25 141/9 complete [6] 7/3 46/1I confirmed [5] 106/4
Champion [2] 109/22I“latification [2] commitment [1] 102/4 134/22 142/13 I 106/16 106/18 147/4
109/24 140/3 140/22 TANS 143/3 153/21
chance [4] 5/17 clarified [1] 85/8 committee [12] completed [2] 6/19 I confirming [1]
clarify [1] 89/13 78/12 78/13 78/14 I 102/3 111/22
(60) categories - confirming
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
Cc 32/17 32/20 32/25 correctly [1] 81/6 criteria [2] 70/4 70/6 I 163/7 172/21
conflict [1] 93/18 33/6 33/14 34/12 correlated [1] 10/19 Icritical [1] 152/17 days [9] 68/16 71/11
conflicts [2] 97/12 34/13 correlation [2] 30/10 ise [1] 167/15 I 71/13 71/14 71/18
102/17 Contracts [2] 84/10 I 63/3 ising [1] 83/7 130/3 134/4 156/9
84/17 correspondence [7] Icriticism [4] 74/6 161/5
confront [1] 138/18
confused [1] 86/13
confusion [1] 172/12
contrasted [1] 45/17 I 111/11 115/11 115/13) 82/18 82/24 88/13 deal [15] 45/13 69/15
controls [1] 130/9 130/4 138/24 145/9 I criticisms [1] 171/11 I 72/1 72/19 83/16
convene [1] 113/11 I 158/22 critique [1] 168/25 I 92/15 93/1 95/8
connected [2] 31/5 conversation [11] Icos [1] 116/18 CRO [1] 143/7 113/24 133/24 135/24
connection [4] 16/5 I 126/8 126/12 127/13 Icost [2] 54/1 156/24 Ierooks [1] 116/12 I 138/13 189/14 160/12
18 17/18 OHA 132/4 132/5 136/17 costs [4] 108/4 143/9Icultural [9] 74/21 I 163/16
consider [7] 7/5 140/9 142/3 144/9 I 154/17 167/23 99/17 100/8 128/17 Idealing [15] 12/16
SBI22 72/6 114/18 I 156/3 166/15 could [68] 4/10 6/12 I 139/2 143/6 149/3 I 12/17 7/24 78/2
129/20 182/18 154/21Iconversations [8] I 8/20 9/9 9/10 9/15 I 154/2 158/14 85/22 92/16 93/13
considerable [2] 72/22 72/24 83/6 I 11/19 12/10 14/10 culturally [2] 74/19 I 99/25 102/10 114/11
3O/16 611 84/10 107/4 138/25 I 14/10 15/20 16/1 84/17 128/12 128/13 133/18
162/5 162/21 16/12 16/13 16/15 culture [14] 90/10 I 149/16 156/14
considerably [2]
25/14 49/8
ion [1] 81/8 I 16/24 19/4 24/6 25/19] 96/6 110/22 111/3 dealt [6] 84/21 90/1
consideration [2] ions [4] 26/3 30/24 33/5 33/13) 121/19 128/2 135/1 I 131/12 134/12 134/15)
119/10 120/16 119/12 120/11 120/17I 33/21 34/8 35/20 135/2 135/10 135/14 I 166/7
considered [15] 6/7 121/4 36/10 38/5 47/12 48/3] 137/21 146/4 153/15 IDear [6] 89/4 111/15
17/16 28/8 28/21 Cooper [1] 17119 49/14 49/16 50/2 157/19 115/24 139/25 148/21
34/13 40/2 40/9 40/20ICOPied [1] 163/21 50/15 51/20 52/12 current [39] 6/20 160/16
52/2 52/3 53/12 99/11I COPY [13] 32/14 54/10 55/10 58/12 7/18 7/25 8/7 8/8 8/13I debacle [1] 128/23
106/17 119/4 122/24 I 32/16 32/25 33/8 61/4 62/7 63/5 64/4 I 8/16 8/21 10/3 10/10 Idebts [1] 118/24
considering [1] 7/15 33/10 33/11 44/6 73/13 81/18 82/17 10/20 14/24 16/18 December [4] 80/8
consistency i] 115/18 115/19 140/1 I 88/21 88/22 96/11 17/8 17/18 17/25 85/9 94/19 136/8
98/13 141/24 160/22 160/23I 96/24 98/6 98/12 32/15 38/3 38/18 December ‘22 [1]
consistent [3] 13/22 IC°re [8] 2/14 2/24 5/6) 99/17 101/18 104/9 I 41/20 68/10 69/16 94/19
97/10 98/9 6/12 50/13 55/12 62/9] 111/6 115/10 138/15 I 70/21 92/8 93/14 97/8) decimal [1] 11/12
constant [1] 131/20 134/3 142/4 144/5 148/18 I 97/14 97/21 98/6 decision [3] 75/8
constantly [1] 159/24 Corfield [2] 106/9 150/11 150/12 150/20) 98/16 98/25 102/18 I 75/19 92/1
constraints [1] 52/12 107/17 156/3 159/22 160/14 I 106/12 109/22 132/24I decisions [7] 74/11
constructive [1] 66/3ICorner [4] 46/5 46/7 I 163/7 135/2 137/21 149/17 I 75/10 77/3 77/4 87/12
consultation [1] 46/7 46/13 couldn't [7] 12/10 151/8 91/14 103/8
404/11 corollary [1] 120/25 I 51/13 122/13 148/13 Icurrently [8] 20/3 decline [1] 170/4
Corporate [1] 128/7 I 161/8 161/14 168/24 I 41/1 68/19 71/16 decreases [1] 14/5
wa 2] 7118 I correct [71] 1/24 ICounsel [4] 84/4 81/17 87/14 116/23 Ideep [2] 114/10
2/15 6/4 7/3 7/4 9/4 I 94/17 131/1 160/3 I 117/2 128/2
Sie sne 9/6 10/16 11/14 15/14/counter [1] 68/22 I cut [2] 89/23 169/20 I deeply [3] 84/20
contacted [5] 18/22 I 16/6 19/5 20/21 21/1 Ieounters [1] 68/16 ICWU [1] 155/23 114/17 148/22
Sra se ag7/i8 I 21132117 21123 couple [5] 5/21 24/12, - default [3] 88/18
139/17 22/25 25/5 26/7 27/3 I 24/15 66/1 95/2 DUS 5415 155/19
contacting [2] 20/13 I 27/4 28/13 26/14 [course [10] 10/16 {daily [1] 16/23 defend [2] 93/4
ae 29/11 29/16 31/18 I 10/18 17/6 65/6 66/9 Idamage [1] 105/7 I 131/15
contained [2] 5/23 I 22483416 35/24 I 72/5 122/19 136/21 Idamning [1] 11216 Idefending [1] 140/7
71 36/17 40/17 42/23 I 148/3 166/22 data [13] 13/20 22/13I deferential [1] 75/16
content[2] 129 I 45/147/19.49/23—Jeourt [3] 64/11 22/22 22/24 29/25 I definitely [4] 115/2
104/22 51/24 64/21 56/9 I 120/13 120/21 50/24 55/14 64/21 I 115/5 123/6 159/21
context (71 5914 I 96/14 87/13 58/16 /eover [1] 71/8 116/5 157/6 157/9 I degree [1] 60/23
Or atid s19/6 I 60/3 60/22 68/1 68/2 covered [4] 8/10 I 17/9 187/16 delays [1] 98/23
134/43 153/98 1542 I 68/9 68/12 68/14 I 10/24 102/18 103/2_Idatasets [1] 125/10 Ideleted [1] 116/5
contextual [1] 59/14 I 88/21 69/7 69/10 — Ieovering [2] 69/1 Idate [11] 70/24 98/17Idelivered [2] 164/21
continuation [1] 69/14 69/19 69/23 I 143/18 100/19 109/6 114/15 I 165/8
104/10 75/10 85/12 95/6 crash [1] 167/17 I 126/15 126/24 126/25Idemands [4] 111/17
continue [5] 17/2 I 96/1096/16 103/4 lereate [5] 62/16 127/4 127/14 127/15 Idemographic [1] 9/8
OM Tiel tag I 108/5 112/19 1134 I 62/19 93/17 169/25 Idated [4] 1/16 2/10 I demographics [1]
163/23 114/6 152/9 152/13 I 170/1 67/25 119/8 8/21
continued [1] 153/6 I 152/14 182/21 158/25Icreated [1] 151/9 dates [1] 126/11 deny [1] 95/23
continues [3] 93/10 166/7 creates [1] 82/1 Davies [4] 73/1 78/19I department [4] 3/6
150/16 169/15 correction [2] 21/11 Icreating [2] 114/12 I 110/14 148/7 119/20 124/2 4171/5
23/8 451/11 day [10] 12/14 12/14 Idepends [1] 77/24
contract [14] 32/8 corrections [4] 21/10ICriminal [1] 115/17 I 73/23 73/23 83/23 I deplore [1] 142/10
21/15 22/7 22/14 criminals [1] 83/11 I 90/13 111/5 111/5 describe [1] 69/25
(61) conflict - describe
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
D 13/20 19/24 19/25 I 103/7 123/6 23/17 23/20 36/4 I 88/20 98/11 115/19
Fo eg I 28/4 28/18 28/20 disbanded [1] 154/24] 38/11 38/15 52/23 I 116/1
described [3] 75116 I 3748 40/7 55/17 _Idisbandment [1] 59/5 61/13 61/16 —_Idoes [18] 6/13 9/14.
design [2} 3/9 3/9 I 99/23 60/2 61/8 61/19] 160/2 dissatisfied [44] 4/15] 10/13 15/23 26/9 35/2I
63/14 65/14 135/4 disbelief [1] 89/7 4/19 4/19 13/5 13/8 I 48/4 50/23 72/2 96/1
designing [1] 5/3 I different [20] 1/23 Idisclosed [1] 98/11 I 13/9 14/19 1/1 15/17I 96/6 105/9 132/4
Despite [1] 153/6
detail [6] 1/25 19/14 2/19 5/14 17/24 50/10) disclosure [3] 144/2 I 17/18 20/6 20/10 132/5 136/20 166/10
69/20 72/5 109/4 50/12 53/24 55/24 150/6 150/9 20/21 22/19 23/5 27/2I 169/11 169/13
163/17 59/20 62/18 66/2 disconnect [1] 27/10 27/11 29/15 does it [1] 15/23
detailed [6] 16/20 68/25 78/1 86/17 158/15 32/3 38/8 38/10 38/13) doesn't [7] 6/15
31/1 64/8 102/19 103/15 107/24 118/13] discontent [1] 38/18 38/20 38/23 47/20 51/19 53/7 79/6
103/14 115/20 135/6 149/8 171/15 I 114/12 40/18 52/19 56/20 90/6 169/19
details [1] 108/3 differentiate [1] discovered [1] 95/1 I 56/22 58/5 60/22 doing [11] 18/25
detective [1] 127/5 50/20 discrepancies [20] 60/24 61/11 61/21 36/25 41/25 53/25
determination [1] differentiation [1] 12/17 16/6 16/22 17/7I 62/14 62/22 62/23 91/24 95/24 100/5
119/14 50/25 17/21 23/21 24/8 62/25 64/12 64/16 109/2 125/11 130/21
determine [3] 91/25 differently [1] 171/12] 24/12 25/4 25/21 26/4I 64/24 64/25 65/18 146/9
4121/8 122/19 difficult [11] 72/11 I 27/1 30/3 30/6 30/8 Idisseminated [1] _ Idoings [1] 101/7
determined [3] 60/19 72/21 110/17 118/1 30/25 31/5 69/17 93/6I 74/3 don't [37] 8/20 16/9
61/2 141/3 136/7 139/1 139/3 137/8 distinction [1] 86/4 I 27/14 29/19 48/10
development [1] 4/7 I 161/4 168/8 168/10 Idiscrepancy [8] 24/1 distress [1] 49/9 50/14 54/11 55/4 55/9
Seveloomente 1] 168/19 24/22 25/1 25/2 25/9 Idistressing [1] 61/3 62/6 64/3 67/1
113/1 ? digest [1] 168/24 30/14 30/17 49/7 148/23 72/18 74/22 75/1
Di [2] 140/18 140/19 dipped [1] 128/9 discrimination [1] distribution [1] 150/5I 75/15 83/13 90/6 90/8)
diagonal [1] 466 direct [1] 133/6 153/16 disturbing [1] 129/1 I 94/22 104/22 107/14
Dine Tt] 140/19 (direction [3] 125/15 Idiscuss [4] 112/15 IDMBs [2] 156/20 109/6 110/9 114/9
156/13 168/22 113/25 152/18 172/10) 156/22 117/8 117/12 117/13
diary [1] 165/12 . )
daar 5/18 6/9 6/9 (director [22] 36/16 discussed [16] 41/15Ido [85] 4/5 5/8 5/16 I 121/15 130/15 130/17
30/6 49/19 51/3 51/6 I 98/25 69/5 69/9 69/25] 42/18 97/1 106/9 6/20 7/5 9/8 11/10 141/11 168/3 169/25
51/10 55/21 62/22 71/12 72/7 79/13 118/17 119/4 127/19 I 13/24 15/4 30/9 35/10) 170/25 172/10
64/10 66/1 83/21 86/25 87/6 96/14 132/12 133/16 135/13) 35/18 38/6 39/2 43/25I done [26] 18/24
84/15 87/18 90/7 96/19 96/23 122/8 144/11 149/1 157/1_ I 45/20 45/20 52/13 21/24 41/15 49/16
90/13 90/19 92/12 123/3 128/7 135/17 158/19 160/1 164/10 I 55/5 56/5 63/8 71/11 I 52/10 55/18 56/14
101/9 103/6 106/15 I 1986/2 136/6 153/3. discussing [1] 158/9 I 72/6 76/12 79/1 80/15) 67/7 71/22 75/12
1407/6 110/13 111/11 I 1867/3 168/2 discussion [20] 82/23 83/2 83/5 84/23] 80/21 83/11 89/23
111/12 123/23 124/4 IDirector-only [1] 87/18 96/7 104/7 86/16 87/22 88/10 89/25 93/19 102/12
124/9 132/2 132/8 122/8 112/16 112/17 112/22I 90/4 90/8 90/12 90/25) 105/7 114/16 128/4
133/6 133/20 134/6 Idirectors [22] 36/14 I 112/24 113/2 113/11 I 92/10 95/23 102/9 136/17 145/16 148/16)
135/6 137/22 1389/4 I 69/11 73/10 73/17 118/23 136/25 137/7 I 102/9 104/21 105/3 I 156/22 162/16 169/5
138/14 143/23 144/2 73/17 73/21 76/22 145/3 145/18 145/21 I 109/14 110/11 110/11) 170/22
144/2 145/15 147/18 I 78/7 92/20 122/12 145/22 149/7 156/21 I 110/12 110/23 114/7 Idoor [2] 129/8 129/9
148/3 148/11 149/25 I 136/19 140/2 140/5 I 163/25 164/15 114/18 114/21 115/25I double [1] 17/22
151/14 154/5 161/15 I 140/9 141/22 143/21 Idiscussions [9] 116/25 118/9 125/12 Idoubt [5] 7/22 85/21
161/17 162/24 163/3 I 146/10 147/11 160/23) 86/12 110/5 122/2 125/22 125/22 128/16I 95/22 119/13 172/18
163/24 164/11 167/20I 191/18 163/3 168/1 I 124/23 125/19 125/21) 130/10 132/3 132/10 Idown [51] 3/2 6/18
168/10 168/14 169/6 Idisagree [4] 37/10 I 151/3 160/7 161/25 I 135/21 136/18 138/20) 8/15 10/21 13/14
17116 37/15 37/20 37/25 disgrace [1] 132/16 I 138/21 138/22 138/23] 13/17 19/14 23/16
didn’t [20] 5/14 5/22 disagreed [5] 36/23 I disinformation [1] 144/9 144/24 146/1 I 24/10 27/5 28/22
7/2 51/12 52/12 52/15) 40/1 40/4 40/12 40/24I 135/10 146/3 147/17 149/20 I 38/14 45/20 49/8 49/8
59/18 62/12 72/12 Idisagreeing [1] dismissal [3] 161/15 I 151/19 159/22 159/24) 57/22 58/14 61/5 64/7
79/19 94/7 131/24 37/13 162/1 162/3 161/5 161/14 163/2 I 70/7 70/9 70/12 72/4
1432/1 156/1 157/14 Idisagreement [3] dismissed [5] 122/10] 163/25 165/21 166/8 I 82/6 82/16 91/10
162/16 164/3 165/25 I 37/23 38/1 41/3 159/18 161/5 162/12 I 167/20 168/21 170/6 I 91/18 103/24 103/25
1466/8 166/17 disappointed [3] 165/23 document [15] 2/19 I 105/24 105/24 107/23
died [1] 170/17 84/20 121/25 146/20 Idispute [8] 22/12 I 2/23 6/14 74/8 80/6 I 108/20 111/24 118/25
differed [2] 55/25 IiSappointing [19] I 22/14 22/19 23/12 I 86/22 94/19 105/12 I 123/11 130/14 13618
S6/2 72/23 95/3 100/12 I 64/5 64/10 151/10 I 105/21 121/18 152/4 I 147/2 149/8 150/4
difference [16] 9/10 I 103/6 110/4 110/21 I 151/20 163/6 164/19 166/20 I 150/15 153/14 154/18
Ott 17/2308;7 31/18) 117/18 121/18 128/11]disputed [3] 21/15 I 172/1 159/5 159/8 161/12
32/21 33/24 38/12. I 139/9 145/12 148/17 I 21/16 23/2 documentation [1] I 164/13 167/6 170/14
30/6 51/7 62/13 64/21] 155/13 156/2 156/11 Idisputing [1] 21/25 I 52/16 170/17
78/7 85/19 86/6 157/8I 156/17 156/25 159/25I dissatisfaction [15] Idocumented [3] down' [1] 134/18
165/22 13/3 15/10 22/16 132/11 132/12 146/5 Idownwards [1] 46/6
differences [16] Gicappointment [2] I 22/23 23/11 23/14 Idocuments [5] 78/12/DPA [1] 116/4
(2) described - DPA
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
D Eldridge [2] 86/24 Iemployees [34] Equally [1] 130/24 I exactly [5] 8/2 8/5
draft [1] 1528 86/25 80/11 80/22 81/1 Er [2] 44/21 94/2 129/13 131/9 138/11
drafted [1] 90/17 [Eldridge’s [1] 86/23 I 81/24 82/10 82/18 erratic [1] 162/13 Iexample [38] 4/11
drama [1] 170/1 election [5] 70/1 70/3I 82/25 85/24 88/6 error [1] 7/14 4116 4/17 7/15 12/14
draw [2] 65/15 70/13 70/17 162/8 88/14 88/17 92/8 escalate [1] 144/12 I 14/21 23/14 25/7
152/17 electronic [2] 115/19I 92/25 95/7 97/9 97/14) especially [4] 65/6 37/17 37/19 40/8
drawing [1] 136/12 116/1 98/6 103/17 103/20 I 136/12 141/14 149/16] 40/21 61/19 72/17
drawn [2] 80/17 element [5] 5/12 103/23 106/1 106/13 Iessential [1] 122/20 I 74/15 75/17 76/4 77/7,
4114/7 20/15 23/19 58/8 106/19 108/2 108/6 IEstablishment [1] 77/18 82/18 91/1
dreadful [1] 163/13 64/24 108/7 108/17 108/23 I 158/20 102/10 115/8 116/25
drenched [1] 143/8 elements [8] 22/6 117/25 129/17 142/23) et [5] 44/7 103/1 117/14 124/1 124/11
drill [2] 61/5 72/4 22/15 49/5 60/16 61/7) 143/1 153/7 159/6 112/11 135/4 135/4 I 125/17 131/8 138/1
drilled [4] 38/14 64/19 65/7 66/11 employer's [1] et cetera [5] 44/7 139/16 145/2 156/20
drills [2] 13/13 28/22 elicit [1] 140/4 101/16 103/1 112/11 135/4 I 157/2 161/18 162/5
drinks [1] 133/21 Elliot [20] 69/12 employment [4] 92/2I 135/4 166/14 171/20
dripped [1] 48/11 70/18 78/15 87/16 92/4 99/12 100/3 etc [2] 115/19 170/19Iexamples [7] 31/2
drips [1] 48/9 87/19 89/2 91/19 enabled [1] 120/13 ethnic [16] 9/3 9/6 31/6 66/24 78/10 83/9)
driven [1] 9/11 107/2 126/9 129/23 Iencourage [1] 120/6 I 10/8 10/9 20/24 21/3 I 83/10 91/3
drops [1] 37/11 130/8 130/24 138/25 Iencouraged [1] 21/21 21/25 27/21 exchange [1] 111/8
due [9] 71/4 72/5 142/3 147/9 147/12 I 83/20 27/25 28/2 28/11 61/9] excluded [2] 78/23
91/11 95/20 97/9 _I 148/25 160/17 163/11] encouraging [2] 66/3] 61/17 61/20 65/19 I 79/1
4102/3 100/21 137/11 I 167/20 120/16 ethnicities [1] 9/10 Iexecute [1] 138/15
1493 Elliot's [3] 135/16 Iend [16] 41/12 46/20 Iethnicity [5] 9/2 10/7 Iexecuted [5] 101/10
during [7] 49/19 50/6 140/2 140/22 54/3 54/4 59/21 59/25) 20/1 61/9 65/14 104/8 107/20 115/7
51/18 51/23 53/18 Elliot/Saf [1] 163/11 I 60/7 63/19 96/16 evaluation [1] 154/22) 137/23
704/41 142/24 Ellison [6] 1/8 1/10 I 102/3 106/20 116/17 Ieven [13] 15/18 execution [1] 157/1
duties [4] 88/4 88/7 1/14 67/1 67/6 173/2 I 123/22 134/7 149/24 I 19/21 23/16 49/25 executive [74] 36/14
88/16 146/9 else [5] 11/24 26/9 153/16 74/22 83/18 93/7 36/16 69/5 69/8 69/11
duty [2] 101/16 66/1 81/21 155/18 ended [5] 16/15 107/18 127/24 132/1 I 69/25 71/12 72/7
429/22 elsewhere [1] 86/3 I 30/23 52/6 53/22 145/25 154/14 155/22I 72/10 72/13 72/15
dynamic [4] 15/2 email [53] 5/20 5/22 I 65/21 evening [3] 147/2 72/18 73/9 73/10
————____ -_—__I 6/11 8/3 8/5 86/9 91/5I enemy’ [1] 132/20 163/12 164/17 73/16 73/17 73/21
E 92/18 93/10 94/16 engage [2] 52/16 event [5] 71/19 74/2 74/12 75/9 75/17,
each 14] 35/12 87/13 I 97/2 111/8 111/10 98/24 123/11 124/22 124/23] 75/19 76/5 76/22 77/6)
Cae orioy > I 112/22 117/11 117/22] engaged [1] 101/22 I 126/3 78/6 78/20 79/3 79/13
earlier [6] 53/16 63/2I 118/2 118/14 118/15 Iengagement [9] 8/8 Ievents [4] 102/1 80/24 85/2 85/4 85/8
66/14 84/12 118/19 I 126/5 127/6 134/4 I 101/19 102/1 106/25 I 110/8 119/4 144/11 I 86/15 87/6 92/20
136/4 140/22 141/21 141/23] 112/3 143/10 154/20 Iever [6] 78/24 116/11) 96/19 96/20 101/6
early [1] 3/20 143/18 143/20 145/13) 157/7 160/2 118/17 125/23 129/25] 109/10 111/3 111/4
earnings [1] 49/10 I 145/23 146/15 146/16Iengaging [1] 125/11 I 134/1 4122/7 122/11 123/2
earth [1] 132/15 146/19 146/24 146/25I England [2] 9/17 every [6] 15/16 24/13) 125/4 128/12 128/14
easier [2] 66/12 147/1 147/20 148/13 I 62/4 24/15 85/13 156/10 I 134/11 135/1 135/16
66/15 148/19 150/3 150/15 IEnglish [1] 136/20 162/14 136/2 136/19 140/2
easy [6] 44/20 44/20 I 150/18 152/12 152/22I ENORMOUS [1] everybody [3] 1/3 I 140/4 140/9 141/13
44/22 65/9 65/16 I 152/23 163/9 163/21 I 140/6 11/20 152/19 141/21 143/20 147/11
89/23 163/22 163/24 164/4 Ienough [10] 28/20 everyone [10] 5/17 I 153/3 156/17 156/18
echoes [3] 137/13 164/10 164/17 165/19] 41/24 65/9 93/4 5/19 5/21 6/1 18/22 I 158/15 160/23 161/18
138/12 150/17 166/19 124/13 125/6 157/11 I 20/13 22/9 41/13 162/22 162/24 163/2
economies [1] 73/25 [emails [3] 111/12 I 167/20 169/11 171/22) 65/25 89/17 168/23 169/1 169/13
edge [1] 159/21 111/19 115/19 enquire [1] 149/22 everything [2] 139/9 I 171/4 171/16
education [1] 82/4 embarrassment [1] Iensure [9] 4/3 93/17 I 161/21 Executive's [1] 74/4
effective [1] 156/25 I 1539/9 100/2 119/14 129/18 evidence [30] 52/15 Iexecutives [3] 73/8
effectively [1] 149/21/emerge [1] 82/17 I 129/23 137/19 156/15) 56/23 67/8 72/12 I 73/8 122/13
efficiency [1] 66/22 emerged [1] 41/11 169/19 79/10 83/22 83/23 exercise [4] 103/18
effort [2] 120/5 emerging [1] 113/17 Iensured [2] 78/20 91/2 91/5 91/8 97/9 I 104/8 120/10 120/25
140/25 emphasise [1] 93/2 I 104/19 97/22 97/23 98/1 98/8I exhibits [2] 1/20 2/8
eight [4] 30/11 73/10 emphasised [1] 98/9 Ientire [4] 113/14 98/21 98/24 100/17 existing [2] 71/4
73/17 73/24 employed [5] 81/17 I 121/18 131/2 172/1 I 100/19 100/20 100/22I 141/3
either [13] 27/16 29/2] 82/13 83/3 142/24 entitled [2] 2/10 115/19 117/4 117/11 exists [1] 77/11
35/17 53/7 61/24 153/7 14715 117/12 118/21 121/5 Iexit [3] 79/11 79/16
93/18 130/1 137/24 [employee [9] 82/3 entry [1] 17/22 121/9 136/5 172/11 I 108/8
151/18 155/9 164/3 I 93/14 97/7 98/19 99/1Ienvironment [1] _Ievolving [1] 155/3 exited [4] 99/18
47414 171/14 101/16 102/19 103/15] 169/25 ex [1] 132/21 100/13 100/13 145/7
110/19 equal [1] 22/18 exact [1] 127/18 exiting [1] 104/4
(53) draft - exiting
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
E
exonerated [1] 128/1
expand [2] 75/5
9
19/20
expanded [2] 97/19
9
8/1
expect [6] 17/9 59/22
1
1
14/9 125/7 149/20
64/3
expectation [1]
1
06/13
expected [3] 122/23
1
35/8 148/16
expecting [2] 107/13
1
07/16
experience [10] 3/7
4,
9
1
experience’ [1] 131/6)
1/3 13/22 14/1 25/25
4/3 129/3 130/12
33/6 171/14
experienced [15]
15/22 15/25 16/4 16/9)
1
2.
7/8 18/6 18/7 24/1
4/3 24/21 25/1 26/1
30/3 30/14 30/16
experiences [2]
6
16/13 141/8
experiencing [5]
1
1
7/10 17/13 17/24
8/12 19/19
expertise [4] 3/4 3/8
8
7/4 94/11
EXPG0000007 [7]
1
5
/21 6/13 11/15 24/7
1/20 53/8 63/5
EXPG0000008 [6]
2
4
/21 11/1 12/7 24/9
3/15 52/17
EXPG0000009 [1]
2/9
explain [2] 16/15
1
63/13
explained [3] 8/3
3
0/4 75/21
explanation [3]
1
01/14 102/6 162/11
exploring [2] 82/4
1
72/8
exposed [3] 100/3
147/12 168/4
exposing [2] 110/14
149/19
express [3] 42/3
1
03/6 107/7
expressed [8] 89/6
9
1
1
9/13 106/11 106/21
15/6 123/2 127/23
28/5
extended [1] 71/4
extending [2] 71/10
8
1/3
extension [1] 130/11
extent [3] 5/8 39/2
47/4
external [8] 82/3
100/25 101/2 101/9
113/12 113/13 114/17)
120/7
extra [2] 71/15
172/16
extreme [1] 39/17
extremely [5] 77/23
145/12 146/14 146/14)
168/4
F
face [1] 116/6
facing [1] 73/24
fact [12] 28/1 30/9
56/15 62/6 89/24
109/14 127/3 127/8
146/15 147/14 158/9
163/2
factor [1] 6/10
factors [3] 8/15
30/19 63/3
facts [1] 101/8
failed [11] 95/24
111/21 143/5 143/5
143/6 143/7 143/7
143/8 143/9 143/17
155/7
fair [12] 4/4 4/8 34/13)
34/15 36/3 37/2 58/12
95/7 98/10 127/18
136/18 137/7
fairer [1] 32/7
fairly [2] 39/18 44/24
fairness [2] 34/12
66/23
fake [1] 135/3
fall [2] 21/22 121/15
familiar [1] 3/14
far [6] 22/23 33/9
44/4 143/13 147/10
169/11
fast [1] 120/5
fast-track [1] 120/5
fault [1] 66/8
fear [2] 116/23
138/10
February [6] 72/17
86/8 88/23 99/3
118/20 167/1
February 2024 [1]
99/3
February/March [1]
6/8
FED [1] 130/24
Federation [2]
155/16 155/22
feedback [2] 128/20
130/1
feel [26] 34/17 39/2
71/20 72/13 72/20
73/20 74/19 74/22
77/20 77/22 86/18
94/7 94/22 104/22
104/24 107/14 114/16
117/8 117/16 124/9
136/18 163/24 164/1
164/22 168/9 171/9
feeling [9] 8/11 39/11
39/12 41/23 42/1
83/13 123/6 145/24
168/15
feelings [2] 41/19
123/2
fell [1] 46/11
fellow [1] 70/14
felt [20] 19/17 19/19
19/21 19/22 19/25
20/3 21/7 22/15 34/21
34/23 40/3 41/23
52/14 54/2 66/19 93/1
123/7 132/8 154/1
170/3
female [4] 9/25 110/5
110/6 110/13
females [2] 8/17 8/19
few [18] 18/8 18/9
24/18 25/15 36/18
76/10 84/16 85/13
89/2 103/12 115/5
130/3 138/7 139/14
155/23 163/14 170/10
170/22
fewer [2] 15/18 44/4
FFFFiiinnn [1] 116/9
FIELDED [1] 130/25
fieldwork [2] 6/3 6/6
fight [1] 166/11
figure [70] 11/2 12/7
13/1 13/10 13/13
14/16 15/12 15/21
18/19 19/2 20/16
21/10 21/14 22/5 22/8
23/1 24/7 24/7 24/9
24/25 26/3 26/5 26/24
27/15 27/24 28/22
31/24 32/9 33/5 33/15
34/11 34/25 34/25
35/20 36/13 37/1
37/14 38/6 38/15
38/25 39/2 39/21 40/1
40/25 43/16 43/23
44/13 45/12 45/13
48/16 49/4 49/18
51/16 51/21 52/18
53/2 53/9 54/5 56/10
57/8 57/10 57/10
57/19 58/13 58/19
59/10 59/12 60/12
63/6 64/14
figure 15 [1] 24/7
Figure 31 [1] 39/2
figures [14] 11/8
11/10 11/11 15/12
19/11 25/13 28/15
43/15 46/23 49/11
53/16 56/17 61/6
98/22
file [5] 136/17 136/24
140/2 140/22 142/2
filenote [3] 132/1
132/2 143/19
final [13] 43/3 50/4
62/8 68/3 88/22
105/25 137/10 139/4
158/5 159/2 163/6
166/19 166/20
finalise [1] 160/19
finally [5] 38/3 38/25
39/20 64/14 65/20
financial [14] 51/23
52/1 52/3 52/9 52/11
53/3 53/11 53/14
53/17 53/20 63/15
63/19 115/17 116/15
find [2] 16/19 167/10
finding [4] 66/15
findings [1] 18/18
fine [5] 48/4 67/12
105/14 105/16 137/4
finish [5] 63/12 63/16
110/18 125/20 163/6
finished [1] 7/1
fires [1] 71/24
firm [4] 113/12
first [48] 1/16 1/20
6/17 16/13 20/19 22/8
23/3 23/14 25/11
29/21 29/22 42/7
47/15 50/16 50/17
55/2 68/13 77/13
77/16 79/23 81/16
82/24 85/3 88/14 95/9
97/1 99/3 103/13
107/24 112/23 113/3
113/24 118/14 119/5
121/16 123/11 125/20)
127/17 127/21 142/17)
144/23 150/16 152/22)
155/1 155/2 155/4
164/7 164/8
firsthand [1] 129/3
firstly [3] 73/21
104/24 106/23
fit [3] 10/13 66/25
70/7
five [7] 4/19 13/24
27/7 38/20 38/21 51/8
120/15
five-year [1] 38/21
fix [3] 74/23 96/6
157/12
fixed [7] 55/2 55/6
56/1 56/6 56/20 57/3
57/4
fixing [1] 141/11
fixture [1] 74/25
flavour [1] 167/19
flawed [3] 16/21
109/20 109/21
floated [1] 158/23
flowing [1] 119/12
Foat [13] 84/4 130/25
131/1 131/3 131/21
131/23 132/17 133/14)
145/10 145/13 160/4
160/4 160/6
focus [3] 83/14 88/16)
97/20
follow [5] 19/16
29/23 50/14 55/11
58/2
follow-up [2] 29/23
58/2
followed [4] 5/18
24/13 26/20 26/23
following [14] 2/14
4/22 4/24 28/9 43/25
83/23 89/5 108/18
114/3 120/11 121/2
142/3 149/12 172/21
follows [4] 111/19
147/3 163/10 167/7
fora [1] 92/1
fore [1] 88/24
foremost [1] 155/2
form [2] 7/3 121/12
formal [1] 155/15
former [2] 72/25
148/6
forthright [1] 113/19
forum [1] 83/9
forward [14] 84/25
100/8 120/6 121/22
123/10 128/1 130/7
138/14 142/12 160/20)
163/22 166/10 166/17)
168/17
forwarded [1] 126/7
forwarding [1]
140/21
found [14] 1/3 18/21
34/14 44/15 44/19
55/17 57/14 66/12
94/25 96/17 100/18
106/2 157/17 163/13
four [4] 16/3 29/8
39/22 134/3
Fourth [1] 82/2
frankly [2] 90/11
165/19
fray [1] 172/17
Freehills [1] 43/19
freezes [2] 16/4
17/15
frequency [4] 18/3
24/5 24/8 24/11
fresher [1] 14/13
friends [1] 116/15
front [7] 1/15 2/18
39/15 67/24 74/9
129/9 167/22
frustrating [2] 93/9
95/3
frustration [1] 89/7
(64) exonerated - frustration
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
F 78/2 92/25 99/22 17215 131/5 131/10 146/5 I 170/16
Frustrations [1] I 102/12 107/3 116/13 Igooat [1] 137/12 GULAM [3] 67/20 I hasn't [4] 137/15
92/19 125/15 138/7 141/16 Igot [33] 11/12 54/2 I 67/23 173/6 have [231]
Fujitsu [3] 128/24 I 155/8 158/13 159/23 I 70/12 70/18 74/19 Igun [1] 146/17 haven't [2] 16/9
4129/7 129/8 160/12 74/22 77/7 77/25 H. I, 1502
full [7] 1112 8/20 give [17] 19/4 37/19 I 79/15 86/7 87/3 94/22/"* having [20] 7/23 12/3
61/24 63/7 63/11 40/8 67/8 67/22 71/8 I 105/6 110/4 110/16 I had [210] 22/13 29/10 32/20
67/22 140/6 74/8 77/7 83/22 97/9 I 110/25 111/2 117/12 Ihadn't [6] 33/22 33/13 34/8 49/22 50/1
fully [3] 65/10 93/12 I 119/10 12311 137/22 I 117/25 118/22 126/25) 41/15 56/7 59/16 51/22 54/2 57/15 58/1
94S 151/4 154/2 154/20 I 129/16 129/20 131/14] 120/1 161/17 65/9 86/16 110/5
function [3] 22/12 157/2 133/8 133/24 134/4 Ihalf [10] 16/3 25/3 130/19 138/7 138/16
22/20 160/9 given [29] 19/13 135/8 137/12 137/15 I 25/4 35/4 43/9 43/10 I 138/25
functioning [2] 167/9I 19/20 19/28 20/4 151/20 155/21 171/10I 43/11 44/15 59/15 I he [64] 73/3 78/15
1725 20/12 20/13 42/2 governance [6] 59/16 78/15 79/6 84/5 84/9
funding [2] 108/4 74/14 75/17 76/20 79/14 110/1 113/9 halfway [3] 6/18 84/20 84/21 87/2 87/3
167/18 78/24 79/20 83/10 I 113/10 170/22 172/5 I 103/25 105/24 87/5 87/7 87/10 87/19
funds [2] 118/22 88/8 93/3 93/4 97/22 IGovernment [1] Hamilton [3] 92/22 I 89/3 89/19 89/21
118/22 101/25 102/22 107/16I 162 120/12 121/2 91/10 91/18 93/12
further [22] 13/14 I 109/5 109/9 114/4 Graham [1] 116/3_ Ihand [7] 24/18 24/20 I 93/12 94/9 95/19 97/4
Try ota esia ss/1gI 118/12 124/20 129/12IGrant [5] 112/18 I 46/5 46/7 46/7 46/13 I 97/6 113/8 115/14
162/4 163/5 172/4 I 112/22 113/1 113/9 I 103/25 116/8 128/8 128/22
eve oN roo 80/24) ives [2] 93/24 98/21I 170/22 handled [1] 29/15 I 129/3 131/4 132/24
407/17 111/24 112/8 giving [4] 83/12 grasp [2] 89/25 93/12Ihandling [1] 29/17 133/1 136/16 137/6
420/14 121/7 137/5 I 105/8 159/11 172/16 Igrass [2] 133/14 hands [2] 128/9 137/8 137/9 138/2
147/12 152/18 165/13I9!4d [1] 1/4 134/14 140/6 138/8 141/9 141/10
172/8 glasses [1] 1/4 grateful [3] 67/6 67/7 Ihappen [6] 6/9 14/12 I 143/5 144/13 145/15,
Furthermore [1] globe [1] 3/19 91/13 102/11 117/17 149/15] 145/16 145/17 147/2
149/22 go [28] 3/219/23 IGratton [7] 105/25 I 166/17 147/3 147/4 147/9
future [6] 90/11 11/2 12/6 23/16 49/8 I 112/13 144/20 167/3 Ihappened [19] 4/22 I 147/15 147/17 147/20
167/21 17018 170/9 I 84/11 69/20 74/20 I 167/6 169/15 170/24 I 4/24 4/25 5/1 29/5 I 147/24 148/12 148/12
170/20 171/23 98/1 100/4 101/9 I gravy [4] 117/15 29/7 87/20 110/8 160/15 163/10 164/1
—_—n I 1119/5 127/21 130/15 IGray [5] 94/16 131/3 I 123/9 125/23 127/13 I 164/2 164/3 164/12
G 131/14 133/13 133/14] 133/21 134/1 155/11 I 129/7 129/13 130/2 I 168/15
gained [1] 70/17 I 140/3 145/6 150/6 Gray's [2] 94/1 94/16I 133/19 144/12 152/24I he'd [2] 84/21 140/12
gave [6] 63/12 150/16 161/8 162/25 Igreat [3] 35/22 45/12 I 163/16 170/10 he's [6] 87/3 87/6
122/14 134/10 138/5 I 162/25 168/3 169/11 I 163/16 happening [10] 9/15 I 94/12 125/6 132/12
444/21 145/7 170/13 greater [9] 8/12 8/13 I 18/15 24/5 72/20 138/10
GAVIN [3] 1/10 1/14 I90es [5] 4/16 23/7 I 22/23 23/16 32/6 33/9] 72/23 73/23 109/5 I head [5] 3/5 132/24
173/2 54/6 110/12 168/1 I 57/5 58/4 114/5 129/4 129/22 168/14 I 134/2 148/14 160/6
general [15] 12/13 I90ing [58] 1/5 1/8 _IGreen [1] 70/9 happy [6] 73/2 heading [1] 153/14
12/23 13/16 28/17 I 2/17 30/19 36/14 42/5Igrip [1] 135/19 104/19 140/14 147/17Iheadline [3] 11/4
35/3 36/15 37/4 39/13) 42/25 43/15 45/12 Igross [1] 100/19 157/13 17/14 11/5 40/25
72/6 84/4 94/17 46/6 67/18 69/12 I ground [3] 74/23 _IHarbinson [1] 116/16I headlines [1] 37/14
401/48 128/17 1314/1 I 69/24 71/16 71/24 I 130/22 137/16 hard [8] 44/15 44/17 Iheadquartered [1]
131/24 72/3 72/4 72/21 74/9 Igroup [34] 10/13 89/1 89/24 101/8 3/17
generally [5] 6/8 79/22 79/25 80/5 15/8 24/4 26/11 26/21I 101/24 115/18 119/17I headwinds [1] 73/24
13/25 40/14 66/19 I 89/21 101/6 103/11 I 29/1 29/3 29/5 29/7 _Ihas [58] 2/20 2/20 hear [5] 1/8 67/18
100/15 111/7 113/2 114/14 I 32/21 32/23 32/24 I 2/23 4/17 5/6 5/17_—_I 72/22 129/2 161/15
generations [1] 119/1 122/3 123/9 I 33/17 34/10 35/7 14/8 45/24 67/3 68/19I heard [7] 43/17 63/22
159/10 123/16 124/16 129/8 I 40/20 53/6 62/19 71/3 75/19 76/5 77/6 I 74/20 83/21 98/2 98/8}
generic [4] 19/20 129/17 134/12 137/11] 63/14 63/17 64/20 77/25 79/15 85/23 129/2
19/23 20/12 21/8 138/11 138/14 138/17I 64/23 64/23 80/24 86/23 90/1 90/2 90/24] hearing [9] 36/14
generous [1] 136/10 146/8 150/6 150/7 85/2 85/4 85/7 93/22 I 92/16 95/24 102/9 69/12 80/8 80/16
get [26] 7/9 24/21 151/11 151/15 152/20I 96/20 104/14 163/9 I 105/6 105/7 107/20 I 95/18 109/5 110/15
48/10 60/25 71/22 157/5 158/13 159/15 I groups [4] 61/14 108/25 113/23 115/11] 150/17 172/21
75/12 89/25 94/25 159/17 160/17 161/11] 63/22 63/24 64/22 117/14 117/25 120/13) Hearings [6] 92/9
98/14 100/9 109/3 I 167/5 168/3 168/13 Igrown [1] 68/19 120/25 121/20 127/5 I 92/13 97/24 98/2
4109/6 113/12 116/17 I 189/12 170/21 172/15] GT [1] 112/16 128/20 130/1 130/2 I 98/25 100/21
116/22 119/18 125/14}gone [1] 76/6 guess [1] 14/12 132/11 132/19 133/1 Iheart [1] 145/23
good [15] 1/36/8 —Iguidance [7] 33/16 I 134/21 134/23 139/1 Iheld [2] 82/11 148/25
Tartg tear tomy I 37/17 40/1 40/20 I 33/18 33/20 33/22 I 140/6 14375 143/17 IHELM [4] 131/21
16719 167/14 172/16 I 40/23 116/14 116/15 I 33/23 135/1 165/15 I 148/23 149/3 152/24 Ihelp [9] 7/15 45/12
getting [14] 35/16 I 125/6 187/11 161/2_ Iguilt [1] 143/8 153/25 154/6 155/21 I 140/4 144/14 160/10
169/16 171/1 171/22 I guilty [4] 121/22 155/23 167/23 169/5 I 160/11 160/18 165/25}
(65) frustrations - help
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
H hindsight [1] 161/24 I 92/22 92/24 95/5 96/5]I ensured [1] 104/19 II specifically [1]
help. [1] 166/9 hiring [1] 153/9 101/21 104/7 107/20 Il ever [1] 134/1 133/22
helped [1] 139/15 {his [33] 84/8 84/9 I 110/10 114/12 114/14II expressed [1] 89/6 I1 spoke [1] 78/18
helpful [7] 7/23 74/16] 94/11 95/13 106/13 I 119/11 124/15 125/12] fear [1] 116/23 I still [2] 114/16
86/9 123/10 137/24 107/19 125/4 128/7 128/8 131/17 132/21 II feel [9] 71/20 73/20 I 150/2
460/12 155/8 128/19 128/24 129/4 I 133/9 133/16 134/11 I 74/19 77/22 86/18 II submitted [1] 134/2
helpline [1] 19/4 130/10 131/9 132/16 I 136/11 136/18 138/13I 104/24 164/1 168/9 _II suggested [1]
hence [5] 72/2 132/17 132/18 133/1 I 139/15 145/10 149/10I 171/9 147/15,
104/19 116/17 159/17] 140/68 140/19 141/17 I 149/15 149/20 151/24II felt [2] 154/1 170/3 II suspect [1] 65/2
469/1 144/21 145/7 147/23 I 152/24 157/6 158/10 II found [2] 157/17 II that [1] 113/11
Henry [13] 78/19 150/18 160/11 160/18I 158/11 160/7 160/8 I 163/13 Ithen [1] 146/19
79/5 06/16 115/3 160/19 162/3 162/12 I 160/20 161/6 161/15 II gained [1] 70/17 _II think [69] 3/11 6/7
41514 13/2 140128 I 162/15 165/3 168/12 I 162/18 163/24 165/3 II get [1] 116/22 9/5 11/17 13/8 16/13
441/13 147/20 148/12) 168/15 165/15 168/5 168/6 _II got [2] 110/16 134/4I 18/5 20/18 20/23
155/10 165/23 168/8 INistoric [14] 3/24 168/23 168/24 169/19II had [5] 72/23 124/6 I 21/19 25/20 27/5
Henry's [2] 132/1 6/23 10/4 10/11 43/17I however [17] 72/10 I 129/4 170/4 171/13 I 28/15 29/13 31/16
1465/9 59/9 64/15 80/13 76/4 84/9 96/1 100/16)I have [8] 3/7 72/11 I 32/19 36/19 59/21
her [9] 74/20 105/25 102/23 103/2 115/14 I 102/7 102/21 108/17 I 73/12 76/10 84/11 60/2 61/23 64/5 68/15
106/12 106/25 109/23I 115/22 120/9 159/6 I 138/22 141/4 151/10 I 136/17 136/22 147/9 I 68/19 68/22 75/17
110/3 110/8 110/14 __Ihistorical [3] 81/2 152/24 155/21 157/9 II heard [1] 74/20 75/18 79/9 81/10
110/16 81/11 92/5 161/12 165/7 166/8_II jumping [1] 146/17 I 83/24 86/18 88/11
Herbert [1] 43/19 _ [historically [1] HR [5] 96/23 100/5 II just [9] 3/21 94/21 I 88/19 88/23 91/16
here [20] 10/1 11/5 I 104/15 136/13 157/7 157/8 I 104/22 117/8 130/15 I 96/7 101/4 105/12
1142 12/19 32/10 hit [1] 116/12 HSS [4] 6/23 7/8 7/24I 148/13 151/12 161/14] 107/1 112/18 114/1
3o2 6418678 [hm [3] 76/1878/5 I 9/24 166/20 114/25 116/22 118/3
gaia sae ging I 122/6 hub [1] 68/20 I know [1] 151/25 I 118/19 123/4 123/20
95/19 96/6 113/1. hobble [1] 162/8 —_I huge [4] 52/24 Hook [1] 163/22 126/11 126/16 128/17
126/12 126/25 156/20 hold [3] 104/21 147/23 156/24 158/14I1 mean [5] 22/9 28/17I 130/16 130/19 135/23
459/10 170/11 171/5 I 112/10 143/9 Human [6] 92/9 32/5 47/8 162/15 139/6 144/10 144/20
hereby [1] 10816 IHollinrake's [1] 92/13 97/23 98/2 _II mentioned [1] 146/22 152/7 152/8
high [14] 12/14 36/16 166/24 98/25 100/21 66/14 154/23 157/21 158/21
3917 49/6 52/21 65/6 Ihomework [3] hunt [4] 90/5 91/4 II needed [1] 154/1_ I 159/5 159/7 160/17
95/5 95/6 99/12 100/3I 131/18 17/17 160/8 I 93/2 137/11 I never [2] 133/24 I 170/3 171/14 171/11
102/22 103/21 103/23) honest [3] 123/9 hunt’ [1] 90/2 162/13 172/13 172/14
4109/3 148/14 164/14 1 I!Monetheless [1] [I thought [3] 112/14
high-risk [3] 10/3 IHonestly [1] 146/20 II_____I 14/5 134/5 141/9
103/21 103/23 hopefully [2] 79/17 Ilaccept[1] 111/1 I1 observed [2] 72/16 II told [1] 104/19
higher [20] 7/21 7/25 144/14 lagree [1] 165/22 107/14 l understand [1]
8/23 10/9 23/10 23/13I Horizon [21] 14/16 Il agreed [1] 143/12 I1 occasionally [1] I 47/13
38/10 39/4 47/10 4/1I 14/17 14/20 15/7 I also [2] 6/14 109/20] 48/10 I want [1] 47/13
48/3 53/18 56/22 15/22 16/19 16/21 Ilam [7] 89/8 91/12 I1 only [1] 78/14 I wanted [2] 79/16
56/26 57/2 87/2 Bolo I 20/9 42/6 42/17 49/7 I 95/22 115/25 141/3 lI please [1] 29/19 _ I 151/12
61/13 61/16 65/1 68/16 69/17 80/13 I 148/22 153/4 I prepared [1] 142/3 II was [16] 35/8 35/10
highest [10] 14/3 88/9 119/12 1121/5 _Il appreciate [1] Iraised [2] 109/24 I 72/17 78/13 99/22
23/19 39/24 46/2 129/18 142/24 151/6 I 163/12 163/4 101/4 117/10 117/10
46/12 60/23 94/3 94/5) 171/21 task [2] 16/12 68/3 II realised [1] 171/14 I 139/16 146/20 151/7
95/5 110/13 horrendous [1] I believe [1] 109/19 II recall [1] 144/10 I 153/19 159/21 159/22
highest-ranking [1] I,146/16 Ican [1] 77/9 I regularly [1] 16/22 I 161/25 163/21
110/13 horrifically [1] 95/24 II can't [2] 90/7 145/1 II rejected [1] 169/5 II wasn't [6] 84/8
highlight [1] 73/9 [horror [1] 138/3 I could [1] 142/4 I remember [1] 94/8 I 104/19 129/11 162/4
highlighted [5] 27/6 [hospitable [1] 72/10 I! couldn't [2] 122/13 I1 request [1] 149/10 I 163/5 171/8
75/1 111/20 136/10 Ihour [1] 172/16 148/13 Iright [1] 47/15 I will [2] 116/22 140/8I
158/5 hours [1] 41/25 I did [3] 133/20 134/6II said [8] 103/7 110/8II wish [1] 152/17
highlights [1] 121/19 how [81] 4/5 4/13 I 171/6 110/11 139/9 161/10 I1 would [12] 7/9 7/21
highly [3] 75/24 4/14 14/19 23/8 23/17II didn't [2] 132/1 165/24 166/19 172/2 I 12/21 14/11 70/1
4120/42 120/20 26/4 27/21 28/25 162/16 Isat [1] 164/13 91/13 114/9 148/16
him [14] 79/6 84/2 I 29/15 31/25 33/25 —_II do [6] 90/8 95/23 I saw [2] 101/5 149/22 151/4 161/12
95/18 134/21 14078 I 34/13 36/10 35/18 I 110/14 116/25 132/3 I 117/11 163/19
141/16 147/1 147/20 I 39/23 38/7 44/5 44/10] 163/25 I say [1] 73/20 I wouldn't [3] 109/13
447/23 147/24 148/13I 45/17 50/1 52/19 _II don't [11] 8/20 I see [4] 105/10 162/13 162/14
462/6 168/15 168/15 I 60/19 61/2 71/2 74/11) 27/14 67/1 74/22 — I sent [1] 146/16 _I rd [5] 43/2 88/1
himself [3] 126/7 71/24 73/1 74/21 83/13 90/8 107/14 II share [1] 112/14 I 115/8 146/24 170/4
140/7 159/21 78/20 79/14 83/7 114/9 130/17 141/11 II slowly [1] 171/7 I I" [4] 67/3 89/2 120/3I
83/12 85/25 87/13 I 170/25 Ispeak [1] 139/14 I 120/3
(66) help... - I'l
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
] 113/22 115/12 115/23] 112/1 128/3 128/3 106/8 107/17 109/9 I 167/2
im [38] 21735 116/3 116/7 116/20 I 128/21 136/3 147/24 I 109/13 115/20 118/11Iinternal [2] 82/2
116/22 117/20 118/14] 161/3 42111 121/9 141/15 I 100/24
Ayoa fara roe 122/14 127/5 130/8 inclusive [2] 5/5 5/25I 149/23 151/16 151/22I internally [1] 109/15
80/5 84/14 87/3 87/8 I 130/14 130/15 131/4 Iinconvenience [1] I 172/4 international [1] 3/16
g9rt 93/11 95/00. I 132/15 136/14 137/3 I 49/9 informed [5] 49/22 _Iinterviews [5] 70/10
Too/14 100/15 103/11) 137/5 137/11 138/10 Iincorrect [3] 75/11 I 59/1565/10 145/9 I 75/23 76/2 79/11
407/20 109/13 110/5 I 140/13 140/17 141/2 I 163/1 164/23 145/11 79/16
123/15 126/16 12713 I 145/4 146/5 147/2 increase [3] 98/6 informing [1] 138/2 Iinto [30] 4/8 24/5
429/10 138/20 145/5 I 148/18 149/8 149/22 I 142/20 142/21 initial [3] 18/18 57/9 I 38/14 61/5 67/17
145/24 146/2 146/23 I 150/4 150/15 150/16 Iincreases [1] 169/10 I 144/10 69/20 72/5 80/10 81/3
4151/6 151/24 155/10 I 150/20 151/6 151/20 Iincreasing [1] 85/14 Iinitially [7] 70/4 71/3 I 84/5 85/15 92/11
489/16 159/17 167/5 I 199/3 153/14 154/18 Iincredible [1] 83/8 I 71/14 87/18 131/12 I 94/13 100/17 108/23
I've [241] 1/3 8/3 55/22) 195/1 155/22 156/5 incremental [1] 136/25 171/8 141/11 113/14 123/14
8/11 90/20 92/21 I 157/5 159/5 159/17 I 169/10 injury [1] 49/12 128/21 129/10 129/17
107/16 109/1 109/18 I 159/22 160/2 162/15 Iindeed [1] 115/20 innocent [4] 118/24 I 133/14 134/17 137/11
4110/4 125/25 129/10 I 13/2 163/7 167/6 independence [1] I 131/5 131/10 146/5 I 139/1 143/16 148/5
170/3 170/13 93/19 input [4] 111/11 150/7 150/8 165/3
Sean tooo sapreglignored [5] 76/5 independent [9] I 129/18 151/16 171/2 I introduced [2] 54/8
455/21 188/7 171/10 I 130/6 134/9 165/2 I 58/10 58/15 59/1 __Iinputting [1] 151/5_I 97/4
idea [1] 5/25 169/7 70/11 96/13 114/11 I Inquiry [37] 1/6 71/17] introduction [1]
ideas [1] 4/7 ii [4] 82/19 139/11 140/1 147/5 I 80/8 81/9 81/18 81/22I 54/13,
identified [2} ea Iii[1] 82/20 indicate [3] 14/8 I 83/20 84/3 91/8 92/9 Iintroductory [1] 72/3
402/20 imbalance [2] 73/20 I 132/8 170/8 92/17 92/21 93/17 investigate [1]
identifies (1) 43/16. I 74/10 indication [2] 14/2 I 94/21 97/9 97/12 149/10
identify [9] 30/10 Iimmediate [1] 114/17] 123/1 97/16 97/22 98/11 _ investigated [1]
50/25 26/15 81/1 _ Iimmediately [5] indicative [2] 7/14 I 102/18 104/16 106/8 I 118/5
81/18 81/21 1/24 I 19/1993/5 134/18 I 42/3 106/20 107/6 108/19 I investigating [2]
120/10 4124/1 147/9 153/16 indicatively [1] 28/5 I 110/20 111/25 113/18] 82/12 90/23
identifying [1] 81/6 Impact [6] 92/9 92/13Iindictment [1] 112/6 I 115/11 118/7 119/19 Iinvestigation [24]
if [162] 4/24 9/9 9/23 97/23 98/2 98/25 individual [7] 59/4 123/14 132/16 132/18] 69/16 69/22 80/12
10/21 11/2 14/15 100/21 72/18 78/2 87/13 92/1I 143/1 150/12 156/16 I 82/9 86/18 92/11 98/7
41/19 12/6 13/1 15/11Iimpacted [1] 9/13 105/7 123/5 Inquiry's [2] 80/16 99/10 100/17 101/15
15/13 16/3 16/8 16/12! implement [2] individually [1] 92/13 109/5 109/8 109/19
47/2 18/1 19/7 21/14 125/14 156/19 119/17 instructions [2] 88/8 I 115/22 117/20 128/21
22/5 22/18 22/22 23/1I!mplemented [2] individuals [45] 162/4 131/9 131/13 132/24
23/16 24/10 25/7 87/20 137/20 72/14 82/11 83/3 83/7Iinstrument [1] 140/8 147/24 148/1
25/11 25/19 28/8 imply [1] 162/24 84/11 84/16 91/4 91/6] 132/18 148/5 168/12
28/19 29/22 30/22 __ [implying [1] 95/20 I 92/2 97/11 99/18 insufficient [1] 41/20] investigations [26]
31/9 31/24 32/12 33/7! importance [3] 21/4 I 100/13 102/24 103/9 Iinsult [1] 104/24 84/16 92/6 92/12 93/7
33/14 35/12 38/5 93/13 95/23 104/3 104/4 104/6 integrity [6] 80/20 96/3 100/24 101/7
38/25 39/15 43/2 important [9] 12/1 104/18 104/23 107/9 I 82/19 93/18 112/7 101/8 101/23 102/25
43/25 46/5 47/14 20/14 89/20 100/7 112/2 112/9 114/25 I 128/22 157/10 108/18 108/22 109/2
47/16 48/6 48/16 100/10 136/21 156/15) 117/1 117/9 117/19 I intend [1] 56/6 109/11 109/12 109/15)
48/17 49/14 50/11 165/1 166/4 117/23 123/25 124/2 Iintended [3] 55/21 110/6 115/14 117/2
50/15 50/24 52/17 impression [1] 89/16} 124/24 125/8 137/25 I 56/13 149/5 131/16 133/12 147/13)
52/18 53/2 54/10 55/9) improve [3] 15/13 143/7 145/14 145/20 Iintense [1] 71/14 147/14 153/6 154/14
57/10 57/19 57/22 37/9 37/21 147/13 149/6 149/21 Iintention [6] 54/23 160/13
58/4 58/13 60/12 61/3 improved [1] 14/8 150/12 157/25 158/5 I 55/1 55/5 55/24 55/25) Investigator [2]
62/7 63/5 64/4 66/3 improving [2] 38/1 161/20 161/21 162/22) 56/1 115/17 115/17
67/3 67/9 67/11 73/13 135/1 172/3 intentions [1] 135/24 I investigators [8]
74/23 76/20 77/8 81/9) ability [1] 155/2 infighting [1] 165/17 Iinter [1] 147/8 90/21 91/6 116/11
82/6 82/16 82/23 inadequacy [1] 66/20Iinflame [1] 165/12 inter alia [1] 147/8 118/17 118/19 124/1
85/17 85/25 86/21 inappropriate [1] influence [1] 112/10 Iinterest [1] 169/19 129/15 132/13
1
28/22 information [46] __Iinterested [3] 19/17 Iinvestment [2] 78/17
See Sag inappropriately [1] I 30/23 34/6 36/21 I 25/23 .45/15 167/21
Soe ae as 65/8 36/24 44/5 44/9 50/1 Iinteresting [6] 20/2 Iinvited [5] 5/19 7/10
oro; oeity seas (incident [1] 147/10 I 58/21 545911 I 30/17 se/i2.63/13 I 70/5 75/23 144/20
Soe ae yo6 , lincidents [3] 149/22 I 59/18 60/13 60/18 I 65/13 66/5 invites [1] 8/3
Toe oats 08024 I 157/21 15814 61/1 61/5 61/18 65/9 Iinterests [1] 171/18 Iinviting [1] 6/1
406/14 106/18 107/23} included [3] 49/5 74/2 74/11 75/9 76/17I interim [13] 54/7 involve [1] 121/4
Soo ae e725) 4916 971/19 76/20 76/23 77/1 77/2I 54/16 54/19 55/3 58/6] involved [9] 78/22
Monte tae tang Iincludes [1] 3/8 I 77/3 77/7 T7M0 7/21I 55/17 56/3 56/7 56/18I 79/7 82/8 97/14
including [8] 82/2 I 78/8 79/7 79/10 86/14I 57/6 94/17 134/2 I 102/25 103/46 133/11
(67) I'm - involved
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
1 132/11 135/8 135/23 I 146/21 149/14 138/5 156/2 166/12 Ileave [4] 14/15
involved... [2] 141/11I 138/11 138/13 138/25Ijudgment [6] 33/7 Ikinds [1] 1386/8 136/10 136/12 145/3
149/21 139/3 140/25 142/14 I 33/8 33/10 33/16 [Kingdom [1] 3/17 __Iled [4] 30/9 63/16
involvement [4] 59/1] 143/16 146/4 148/15 I 120/12 121/2 knew [5] 35/23 58/25I 92/17 98/25
involves [1] 103/25 I 154/10 154/16 154/17Ijudicial [1] 121/10 I 59/17 112/3 118/2 eft [13] 7/2 24/18
ironic [1] 134/5 158/7 161/19 165/22 IJuly [7] 6/3 80/24 —_Iknow [37] 1/4 8/20 I 24/20 35/9 46/4 46/5,
irrespective [1] 166/11 166/25 168/23] 85/8 156/10 156/10 I 16/9 35/10 51/12 46/7 145/17 156/16
4783 iterations [1] 5/3 156/11 157/5 59/18 63/17 76/1 165/24 166/18 168/8
is [378] its [4] 37/9 80/10 _Ijump [1] 29/8 80/15 84/23 85/18 I 168/18
Ismail [6] 67/18 131/18 160/8 jumping [1] 146/17 I 86/5 86/19 87/22 90/4] left-hand [4] 24/18
67/20 67/23 67/24 _ [itself [4] 11/16 22/20 I June [3] 69/6 70/25 I 90/6 92/10 95/23 24/20 46/5 46/7
151/2 173/6 123/8 139/22 102/3 109/13 115/18 117/13I legal [58] 49/17
isn't [6] 17/3274 [yg *([iust [108] 2/19 3/21 I 117/13 118/1 118/9 I 49/23 50/2 50/5 50/9
69/12 65/5 76/20. [S—_—__—__ I 9/25 6/16. 8/7 11/16 _I 119/2 126/4 132/1 I 50/11 51/2 51/3 51/8
157/22 Jacobs [57] 69/12 I 19/13 21/7 23/2 26/22 144/24 151/25 161/6 I 51/10 51/11 51/17
issue [32] 17/13 1918I O18 7110 72/19 2ar1 2013 33/4 34/9 I 161/20 161/21 161/23] 51/17 52/9 52/16
19/9 19/48 23/21 7416 77/14 78/21 83/7I 35/4 35/22 39/25 40/2I 161/23 163/2 168/3 I 52/20 52/22 52/25
30/21 31/5 31/25 83/19 83/22 85/13 43/2 44/15 45/16 172/4 53/3 53/11 53/17
Baris seit cog I 82/16 89/3 90/5 90/16] 45/16 47/14 48/15 knowledge [6] 1/18 I 55/15 55/19 55/20
Jet 76/16 78/3 79/12I 9219 94/8. 94/10 I 54/3 54/11 54/24 _I 2/3 68/8 97/3 119/25 I 55/25 56/2 56/5 56/8
83/16 88/24 95/8 94/21 95/16 95/17 55/22 57/2 57/3 59/21) 149/4 62/12 62/15 62/15
part? 113/10 118/9 I 109/68 104/4 104/8 I 63/21 67/3 69/1 70/2 Iknown [5] 79/23 I 62/18 62/20 62/21
tans 130/18 135/24) 111/10 114/13 113/7 I 74/7 71122 76/24 7816] 79/24 79/25 80/5 I 7/17 77/22 94/22
138/19 181/20 19/09) (14/4 115/3 124/7 I gorts 81/5 87/1 88/1 I 97/13 94/24 94/25 101/20
4155/5 15713 167/21. I 125/8 128/10 129/1 I agra eg/13 89/16 90/4], I 114/21 12017 124/1
158/17 165/13 129/2 129/12 131/8 I 90/20 92/10 93/3 SI 1.24 /2 124/11 131/2
: 133/7 136/16 137/6 I 94/15 94/21 95/15 lack [14] 41/21 42/1 I 131/25 133/16 134/2
issued [1] 139/68 137/21 146/12 150/17I 99/20 101/5 103/11 I 42/2 52/13 66/19 4150/8 153/5 153/20
issues [42] 12/18 I 150/18 151/7 156/21 I 103/22 104/22 105/9 I 121/25 123/5 125/24 I 154/12 184/15 155/25
15/21 15/24 16/5 159/20 162/21 162/23) 110/17 111/8 112/18 I 128/22 134/22 142/20I 160/3 160/6 160/8
16/14 17/7 170 163/25 164/8 165/23 I 112/25 114/21 117/8 I 149/14 153/2 166/13 I legally [2] 50/20
17/14 17/15 17/17
47120 17/24 18/12 I 18/1 166/18 168/10 I 117/16 120/3 124/12 Ilanguage [1] 143/2 I 50/22
18/14 18/14 33/7 168/25 171/19 171/25] 125/1 128/14 128/17 Ilapse [1] 147/25 length [18] 1/23
33/10 41/19 41/20 [Yacobs' [1] 143/20 I 128/24 128/25 130/6 Ilarge [3] 28/20 60/21 I 10/17 13/14 13/17
86/9 71/4 7116 81/7 [YACObS's [1] 97/2 I 130/15 131/25 133/12] 61/19 13/18 14/6 15/3 15/9
92/16 10/3 106/18 Yacqueline [1] 120/8 I 138/14 139/10 140/18} largely [1] 66/7 26/16 28/23 29/9
1140/2 133/24 141/11 [Sane [4] 72/25 78/19 I 145/6 145/6 145/20 Ilarger [2] 8/22 13/4 I 37/18 37/20 39/6 40/8}
141/14 144/14 149/3 I 110/14 148/6 146/1 147/18 148/13 Ilargest [2] 29/5 41/2 I 58/21 114/18 114/19
153/11 156/14 156/19/Uanuary [28] 24/2 I 151/4 151/12 154/2_ Ilast [18] 15/22 15/25 IIens [1] 74/4
400/18 160/24 161/24) 30/17 31/11 31/23 I 157/4 158/10 158/14 I 18/6 18/23 21/11 less [35] 13/22 13/24
4165/2 165/4 165/6 I 08/13. 72/24 72/24 I 159/8 159/16 160/24 I 21/16 23/3 29/4 30/13) 13/24 14/5 15/5 15/14]
85/1 85/15 96/17 161/14 162/25 165/13) 91/11 95/2 113/24 17/10 17/17 22/2 25/3}
ae 118/20 119/8 122/5 I 166/17 166/20 167/5 I 142/4 163/12 163/14 I 25/4 25/9 25/11 25/12
te al 44 102 122/9 123/20 126/8 I 168/24 169/7 169/11 I 169/4 170/10 171/19 I 27/7 34/4 34/7 37/19
it's [86] 126/9 126/14 126/18 I 169/13 170/13 170/14Ilate [1] 129/5 39/7 40/10 40/15
1/22 6/17 7/12 8/7
8/11 10/25 11/16
11/17 12/12 12/19
12/20 14/22 24/9
127/6 127/7 141/18 I 172/17 later [8] 66/16 66/17 I 40/16 40/22 45/4 45/7]
141/19 141/25 144/18Ijustice [4] 116/10 97/22 126/7 126/16 I 45/25 46/15 46/21
152/5 153/1 163/8 127/10 141/16 142/18I 154/23 161/5 162/16 I 47/4 47/7 47/14 51/5
January 2010 [1] law [1] 99/12 55/16 60/4 64/25
S07 sort seria. I 8/18 K___lawyers 2] 77/11 lessons (1) 39/23
3821 40nd 23/3 so/a}2anuary 2020 [1] IKaren [4] 86/10 4115/1 let [5] 99/10 102/8
sore si/11 S11 I 31/23 91/22 93/22 109/3 leaders [1] 41/22 I 102/11 115/18 171/8
B38 ee Tata. {9B L2] 132/21 133/20 IKathryn [2] 167/2 leadership [5] 36/11 Itet's [15] 10/23 10/25
71/21 73/14 73/14 IJ@opardising [1] 167/18 36/12 132/18 1414/6 I 12/6 14/15 19/2 22/7
73/20 77/2 77/4 83/4 I 149/20 KC [2] 120/8 120/8 I 164/23 31/8 53/7 53/8 133/23
83/8 86/18 89/2 92/15I90 11] 92/22 Keen [1] 169/23 _Ileading [2] 4/10 139/24 157/12 166/15
94/6 95/5 95/9 100/110 [3] 90/24 106/25 Ikeep [1] 79/14 101/9 466/16 170/14
104/22 104/24 108/25] 110/16 keeps [1] 64/21 learn [1] 153/20 letter [19] 5/22 5/23
foo Hoda 42/18 [ohn [1] 132/23 kept [2] 138/6 149/5 Ilearner [1] 79/18 I 8/4 43/18 119/6 119/8
T7817 11a oined [2] 72/8 124/7 Ikey [8] 12/22 13/20 learning [1] 39/23 I 119/22 119/24 122/1
Hoa tort 156 oint [1] 140/4 42/4 54/1 77/3 88/2 Ileast [10] 6/7 16/4 I 122/4 122/5 122/17
joe Delt werie Journey [1] 50/11 I 113/10 136/21 18/25 19/1 21/16 422/23 127/9 131/12
426/24 127/17 128/17 judgement [6] 4/3 [kind [8] 14/22 46/6 I 24/19 31/23 58/8 141/25 154/3 154/9
121/25 122/18 123/5 I 79/7 83/17 135/10 I 134/7 152/7 154/13
(68) involved... - letter
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
L linked [4] 26/15 30/7 ILord Chancellor [3] I 161/2 118/4 127/18 149/17
ag I 104/15 157/18 119/6 119/9 154/13 Imale [2] 9/25 10/1 I 152/18 165/12
letters [3] 6/10 132/7 Ii t3) 43/20 88/14 ILorna [8] 105/25 Imales [2] 8/17 8/19 Imay [16] 5/18/18
letting [1] 161712 I 152/11 112/12 144/20 167/3 Imanage [2] 160/11 I 25/3 43/21 47/21
level (29) 17/8 22/12 Ilisted [1] 96/19 167/6 169/15 170/24 I 16/8 85/24 85/25 93/15
53/10. 23/13 23/16 {listen [1] 169/14 47112 managed [3] 40/5 I 116/24 131/12 135/6
53/19 37/12 39/24. {listened [2] 37/7 ILorna's [2] 171/11 I 41/4 92/3 136/6 136/7 140/4
50/18 s6/21 7ei23 I 37/12 17115 management [6] 167/14 172/12
78/7 101/14 107/13 Ilistening [2] 91/7 loses [1] 110/16 3/10 36/12 124/13 I maybe [6] 11/15 74/7
fo7/8 10973 1111 I 918 loss [3] 16/417/15 I 125/24 127/24 158/10I 118/20 132/2 143/12
11/3 11415 118/18 Ilists [1] 5/22 49/10 Manager [5] 35/13 I 145/1
4120/1 120/24 125/6 little [7] 19/14 27/22 Ilosses [1] 137/12 _ I 35/14 36/9 36/9 84/10] McEwan [2] 86/10
4128/3 128/13 130/22 I 28/23 61/5 94/15 ot [19] 14/21 30/15 IManagers [1] 84/17 I 93/22
151/18 161/22 32/5 35/25 51/22 manifesting [1] me [53] 45/12 73/1
levele [241 ToD logical [1] 65/2 59/11 60/20 72/2 72/5) 16/23 74/10 74/23 79/13
14/3 15/10 15/13 22/6I logically [1] 59/22 79/22 92/21 101/6 manifesto [1] 142/14 I 79/19 83/7 83/13
26/25 32/6 35/21 long [9] 2/11 23/8 101/10 107/3 117/15 Imanipulation [1] 84/19 99/22 100/7
37/22 38/10 46/12 23/17 71/2 71/23 140/12 141/12 147/23) 157/16 105/9 107/1 107/18
52/21 56/25 58/2 74/20 133/8 133/14 I 171/10 manner [1] 137/23 I 107/18 109/18 110/4
58/23 61/13 61/16 134/14 low [5] 31/20 35/4 Imany [12] 3/14 16/1 I 110/7 110/10 110/13
65/1 76/20 158/8 longer [11] 14/1 15/9I 37/11 158/12 168/16 I 41/22 50/22 54/3 115/18 117/10 118/1
life [2] 105/8 159/13 24/3 26/13 26/13 lower [6] 8/7 20/23 I 54/17 71/11 71/24 121/18 124/8 129/9
light [2] 66/9 101/16 34/16 34/22 38/22 37/22 40/2 48/23 77/25 86/2 113/20 135/8 136/19 140/1
like (42) 4/9 422 I 72/2 11812 182/11 I 49/25 136/12 4142/1 145/24 148/14
ioe tata 43/2 60/11 '00k [61] 6/16 9/9 lowest [2] 46/20 [March [5] 72/25 149/19 149/20 150/11
JOD Bet Batt op/29I 13/19 14/16 15/13 I 59/23 83/19 86/8 94/21 150/14 181/5 153/21
93/1 94/7 103/7 109/6I 16/3 16/8 16/17 18/1 Ilunch [3] 105/13 4101/5 4154/6 154/10 155/7
115/8 116/16 117/16 19/7 22/6 22/7 22/18 I 105/13 105/22 margin [1] 7/14 155/12 155/22 156/1
422/23 123/7 124/9 I 22/22 23/1 25/19 lying [1] 110/23 mark [4] 86/23 86/24 I 160/20 161/8 162/15
125/17 125/25 128/24I 26/24 29/22 30/18 lng 86/25 157/17 162/23 163/16 163/17;
133/12 137/11 138/7 I 31/9 31/9 31/24 33/15)’ _______Imarket [1] 3/16 166/18 169/7 171/8
438/11 140/1 142/14 I 36/10 38/25 39/15 _IM Corfield [1] 106/9 Imarking [2] 131/17 Imean [13] 15/4 22/9
jaer9 140/14 146/13 I 43/2 49/17 50/8 50/15Imachine [1] 75/4 I 160/8 28/17 32/5 47/8 47/20
146/24 149/22 151/4 I 92/18 54/6 55/10 made [25] 41/17 Marriott [11] 93/24 I 110/11 123/23 135/6
460/20 164/2 168/20 I 57/10 57/19 58/4 54/15 55/16 66/25 I 96/22 98/14 98/15 _I 135/6 146/3 154/5
466/11 169/2 171/23 I 58/12 60/12 61/4 62/7I 72/10 73/15 74/11 I 100/1 100/16 101/15 I 162/15
17216 62/11 64/4 84/5 85/17) 76/3 86/1 87/12 92/6 I 102/11 102/14 103/14] meanings [1] 135/8
liked [2] 7/21 113/20 I 94/1094/13 11177 I 95/9 104/13 102/2_ I 104/11 means [3] 42/8 69/20
likelihood [1] 59/19 I 115/8 123/14 127/3 I 103/9 114/4 128/24 IMarshall [4] 106/9 I 127/6
likely [36] 14/12 127/6 138/11 148/18 I 142/7 148/5 159/19 I 106/12 106/16 106/23I meant [4] 133/15
17/40 17/19 21/21 I 1595/1 187/5 157/14 I 162/23 164/18 164/20IMartin [15] 125/3 _Imeasure [1] 125/12
24/3 26/11 27/7 28/11I 163/7 163/22 164/5 I 166/5 16/6 125/17 125/21 128/19I mechanisms [1] 35/1
31/16 32/24 34/4 164/25 170/5 magnitude [2] 129/9 138/1 138/8 I media [2] 82/19
34/17 37/25 46/21 _ [looked [8] 24/5 32/10) 130/18 149/15 4147/6 147/8 163/9 I 82/25
47/4 5114 51/12 51/14I 43/24 49/5 125/12 Imail [1] 76/14 164/1 164/14 164/18 Imeet [1] 91/11
55/16 55/20 56/6 146/9 146/11 146/13 Imailbox [1] 165/3 I 165/10 166/2 meeting [52] 83/19
56/25 60/4 60/6 61/10I!0king [30] 1/25 4/7 Imain [4] 4/2 41/18 I massive [2] 130/20 I 83/24 83/25 84/4
62/2 62/22 62/23 4/9 5/4 7/17 8/16 8/22) 53/25 170/20 148/15 84/20 85/11 89/5
62/25 63/17 63/18 9/7 10/23 11/1 11/11 Imaintaining [1] match [3] 11/10 91/13 91/14 96/12
63/23 64/23 64/25 __I 17/2 27/22 30/25 43/8I 161/3 46/17 47/10 96/14 97/2 99/3 107/7
120/12 120/20 63/9 76/1 78/6 80/3 Imajor [1] 110/1 matched [3] 46/8 I 108/11 111/9 112/16
limit [1] 50/23 85/10 96/22 102/4 _Imajority [10] 18/11 I 46/11 46/15, 112/17 112/23 113/2
imi 116/25 125/9 129/10 I 18/13 32/16 36/22 Imatches [1] 129/19 I 121/24 122/8 122/9
ted en I 143/16 15/6 161/24 I 45/6 54/14 55/4 88/6 Imatching [2] 46/9 I 123/3 123/21 12914
165/12 166/10 114/23 143/15 48/18 136/20 137/1 138/2
foe $915 75113 looks [20] 8/22 13/14Imake [16] 5/4 5/17 _I material [3] 70/13 I 141/19 144/18 144/19}
line [2] 117110 74/9 I 14/17 21/14 23/2 23/3) 9/14 47/13 66/1 86/13) 96/22 106/14 444/23 144/24 144/25
23/10 24/25 26/4 66/18 77/3 79/17 __I matter [14] 89/7 90/6I 145/4 145/7 145/17
line-up [1] 1110 I 36/43 37/2 39/2 56/11I 113/25 122/18 133/23) 96/4 97/1 97/5 97/16 I 145/19 147/16 148/9
lined [4] 87/16
lines [3] 75/20 63/6 108/10 127/8 I 137/12 145/20 157/12) 113/14 114/4 114/11 I 148/25 149/4 152/5
118/10 155/15 137/10 142/14 171/23] 168/14 124/25 133/6 148/23 I 152/7 152/16 160/25
link [4] 5/24 20/2 172/6 makes [1] 75/8 158/21 164/16 163/4 164/14 166/25
20/11 80/16 Lord [4] 119/6 119/9 Imaking [5] 44/1 matters [9] 12/16 167/13 172/1
119/23 154/13 90/10 92/1 135/18 I 49/11 107/8 114/14 I meetings [11] 78/21
(59) letters - meetings
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
M 170/2 170/15 28/11 29/7 31/16 95/16 95/17 96/20 78/21 83/7 83/19
meetings...[10] ministers [1] 119/20 I 32/19 32/23 34/3 34/4I 97/2 97/4 98/5 98/9 I 83/22 85/13 90/5
78/23 79/2 90/7 99/1 I Minorities [4] 9/3 9/6I 34/15 34/17 36/5 98/10 99/15 100/17 I 90/16 92/19 94/8
101/12 102/4 134/7_ I 10/10 27/21 37/24 38/20 39/1 101/13 102/2 103/6 I 94/10 94/21 95/16
145/2 157/6 166/2 I Minority [12] 10/9 39/10 39/13 40/14 104/4 104/8 106/18 I 95/17 103/6 104/8
member [2] 110/6 20/24 21/3 21/21 45/9 46/16 46/21 47/7I 111/10 111/13 113/7 I 111/10 111/13 113/7
139/17 21/25 28/1 28/2 28/11) 47/9 48/22 51/4 51/9 I 113/15 113/22 114/4 I 114/4 115/3 124/7
members [18] 73/10 61/9 61/17 61/21 51/12 51/14 55/6 115/3 115/13 115/23 I 125/8 128/10 129/1
65/19 55/16 55/20 56/6 115/24 116/3 116/7 I 129/2 129/12 131/8
73/16 74/2 75/22
75/25 76/3 92/11 94/2
109/11 110/5 111/10
111/15 111/22 127/24}
128/19 131/4 155/22
155/23
membership [1]
memo [1] 167/11
memory [1] 73/14
men [2] 38/11 38/12
mention [4] 77/9
134/6 145/16 168/11
mentioned [19]
28/18 41/22 45/17
52/11 52/14 66/14
78/20 79/5 79/6 79/9
84/2 130/17 131/16
133/8 133/22 135/5
154/9 158/8 162/19
mentioning [3] 16/14
101/6 159/18
mentions [1] 167/21
mess [1] 166/1
messages [1] 107/3
messaging [1]
170/16
met [3] 70/6 71/7
170/19
method [2] 5/20 8/6
methodology [1]
3/22
methods [2] 3/9 8/2
middle [2] 44/25
47/10
might [24] 4/5 4/9
4/21 5/8 5/14 7/15
7/25 9/12 14/7 14/13
17/9 17/16 17/16 42/6)
74/16 74/18 81/23
89/23 115/8 138/17
139/6 140/14 150/19
165/17
mightn't [4] 14/8
mileage [1] 171/1
million [5] 75/3 75/7
75/13 77/15 116/14
mind [7] 12/21 90/16
90/19 90/25 128/16
130/15 147/23
minds [2] 12/25
14/13
minimum [1] 171/23
Minister [6] 162/6
166/24 166/25 169/22)
minus [2] 7/17 7/19
minute [2] 3/2 140/18
minuted [1] 121/24
minutes [4] 103/12
105/23 107/1 111/9
mired [1] 90/11
miscommunication
[1] 107/21
misconduct [4]
97/20 99/1 99/10
100/19
miserably [1] 155/7
misinformation [1]
135/9
Misra [1] 92/22
missed [1] 136/22
missing [1] 17/21
mistake [1] 149/15
mistakenly [1]
149/23
mistakes [1] 79/17
Mitigate [1] 82/2
Mm [4] 18/4 76/18
78/5 122/6
Mm-hm [3] 76/18
78/5 122/6
moment [7] 3/19
42/7 71/25 88/19
94/17 139/22 150/19
Monday [5] 1/1
112/15 113/23 167/19)
170/19
money [2] 26/7 26/12
month [9] 18/10
18/25 19/1 24/19
24/19 24/22 24/23
71/11 71/14
monthly [3] 18/7
18/12 18/15
months [13] 15/22
18/6 18/10 18/23
21/12 21/17 23/3
24/14 24/16 29/4
85/13 125/4 125/20
morale [2] 158/12
168/16
morally [4] 83/4 90/1
117/8 150/14
more [105] 1/25 8/17
8/18 9/11 13/25 14/12
15/17 17/16 17/19
18/9 19/14 19/14
20/19 21/21 22/16
24/22 26/16 26/17
26/17 26/19 27/1 27/7
56/22 56/24 57/12
58/15 58/24 59/3 60/6
61/10 62/2 62/22
62/23 62/25 63/16
63/18 63/23 64/11
66/15 66/16 71/18
72/5 72/14 72/16
94/15 101/17 103/12
111/14 116/13 121/6
121/9 121/14 123/10
129/6 129/15 135/18
139/12 141/11 141/12
145/25 150/12 153/25:
153/25 154/2 155/22
161/22 165/20 166/3
166/19 169/2 170/7
170/8 171/1 171/9
171/10
Moreover [1] 158/3
morning [7] 1/3 1/5
42/7 67/9 67/18
165/11 167/17
most [17] 24/3 24/12
26/5 26/11 37/14
38/19 40/19 43/18
44/2 49/9 52/10 54/2
63/11 64/23 70/18
83/2 94/1
Mostly [1] 12/9
mount [1] 120/16
move [16] 12/6 12/8
14/15 18/18 31/8 42/5
88/21 99/17 103/8
119/1 123/10 133/2
142/12 163/23 166/9
166/16
moved [4] 11/8
100/10 145/18 168/17
moves [3] 49/8 57/17
100/8
moving [17] 18/16
21/9 27/12 34/24
42/17 45/2 49/4 49/17
57/8 58/10 84/25
102/13 124/12 125/14
144/18 152/4 158/17
Mr [166] 1/8 1/11
67/1 67/6 67/16 67/18
67/21 67/24 71/10
72/19 73/5 73/6 74/6
77/14 78/21 83/7
83/19 83/22 84/1 84/6
84/14 85/13 90/5
90/16 92/19 94/8
94/10 94/21 95/12
116/21 118/21 119/9
122/10 122/15 122/16] 137/21 146/12 150/17}
124/7 125/8 126/6
127/5 127/9 127/14
127/19 128/6 128/7
128/10 129/1 129/2
129/5 129/6 129/12
131/8 131/23 132/11
133/7 135/23 136/15
136/16 137/6 137/21
139/24 140/10 140/17IMr Page [1] 127/5
141/2 141/6 141/8
141/22 143/4 143/13
143/14 143/20 143/22IMr Read [36] 73/5
143/23 143/23 144/6
144/8 144/12 144/22
145/3 145/7 145/9
145/10 145/10 145/12) 143/13 143/14 143/22)
145/13 145/13 145/17I 143/23 144/6 144/8
146/12 146/15 146/21
146/25 147/18 148/2
148/6 148/11 150/17
150/18 150/25 151/2
151/7 156/21 158/22
159/3 159/18 159/20
160/15 161/5 161/15
162/1 162/5 162/12
162/14 162/16 162/17I 146/21
162/18 162/21 162/23IMr Roberts [4] 129/5
162/25 163/25 164/8
165/23 166/1 166/18
167/2 167/12 167/25
168/6 168/10 168/10
168/17 168/18 168/25] 136/15 139/24 140/17
169/18 169/24 170/18] 141/2 141/8 141/22
171/19 171/25 173/4
173/8
MR BLAKE [6] 1/11
67/16 67/21 150/25
173/4 173/8
Mr Bradshaw [3]
100/17 101/13 102/2
Mr Bradshaw's [1]
118/21
Mr Brocklesby [1]
95/12
Mr Ellison [3] 1/8
67/1 67/6
Mr Foat [3] 131/23
145/10 145/13
Mr Graham [1] 116/3
Mr Ismail [3] 67/18
67/24 151/2
Mr Jacobs [52] 71/10) 84/6 84/14
72/19 74/6 77/14
133/7 136/16 137/6
150/18 151/7 156/21
159/20 162/21 162/23)
163/25 164/8 165/23
166/1 166/18 168/10
168/25 171/19 171/25)
Mr Jacobs’ [1]
143/20
Mr Jacobs's [1] 97/2
Mr Posnett [2]
115/13 115/24
73/6 96/20 97/4 98/5
98/9 98/10 119/9
127/9 140/10 143/4
144/12 144/22 145/3
145/7 145/9 145/12
145/17 146/15 147/18)
148/2 148/6 148/11
167/2 167/12 167/25
168/6 169/18 169/24
170/18
Mr Read's [2] 113/15
129/6 145/10 145/13
Mr Staunton [25]
122/10 122/15 122/16)
126/6 127/19 132/11
143/23 158/22 159/3
159/18 160/15 161/5
162/5 162/12 162/14
162/16 162/25 168/10)
168/17
Mr Staunton's [6]
127/14 135/23 141/6
146/25 161/15 162/1
Mr Taylor [2] 128/6
128/7
Mr Thomas [1]
115/23
Mr Thomas’ [1]
116/7
Mr Tidswell [4]
113/22 162/17 162/18)
168/18
Mr Trotter [3] 84/1
Mr Ward [1] 116/21
(60) meetings... - Mr Ward
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
M 103/22 52/22 58/7 59/5 59/6 I 119/24 98/21 103/16
Mr Woodley [1] narrowed [2] 70/7 _Inettle [1] 89/25 nodded [1] 48/8 nous [1] 130/20
106/18 70/9 network [3] 137/17 Inoise [1] 77/1 November [1] 85/8
Ms [6] 100/16 101/15 National [1] 155/16 I 170/7 171/24 nominated [1] 96/14 Inow [59] 10/23 13/1
102/14 103/14 104/11Iatural [1] 120/25 — Ineutral [4] 4/18 5/5 INominations [2] 13/13 18/16 21/9 23/1
407/17 nature [2] 8/9 171/3 I 139/3 154/17 78/13 78/14 23/21 27/12 33/5
Ms Corfield [1] navigate [2] 65/16 Inever [12] 27/16 non [39] 5/13 36/14 I 34/11 35/21 38/5 38/9)
407/17 66/12 109/4 116/12 118/11 I 36/16 69/5 69/8 69/11) 42/5 48/16 49/17
Ms Marriott [5] NBIT [3] 94/10 95/10 I 118/23 125/25 133/24] 69/25 71/12 72/7 73/8} 50/21 54/5 54/24 59/9)
100/16 101/15 102/14 95/10 143/3 159/19 162/13 I 73/10 73/17 73/21 67/9 75/9 78/6 85/1
403/14 104/11 NDA [1] 158/17 163/16 164/21 76/22 78/6 79/13 87/6I 88/16 88/23 89/24
much [35] 1/12 1/15 INDAs [1] 150/13 new [13] 95/11 95/12I 92/20 96/19 122/7 I 93/19 96/11 98/14
DI17 222 12/15 13/4 [Rear [2] 7/10 89/8 I 96/17 97/6 102/22 I 122/11 122/13 123/2 I 105/13 114/14 115/15}
47921/9 2616 (nearly [6] 11/20 I 119/1 130/12 137/18 I 128/14 135/16 136/2 I 119/1 126/3 126/10
28/22 31/7 38/10 39/3] 18/21 20/13 22/9 26/1] 137/20 143/1 155/17 I 136/19 140/2 140/4 I 129/21 130/2 130/20
DR AIBAONO I 39/18 170/12 171/20 140/9 141/24 143/20 I 131/11 137/48 137/20
53/18 65/12 65/20 [Recessarily [8] 63/4 Inewer [3] 31/19 32/6 I 147/11 150/6 150/9_ I 138/10 143/18 144/18
87/1 67/5 71/24 76125I 73/22 73/25 83/11 I 40/20, 153/3 160/23 161/18 I 144/19 146/8 147/12
F7t 1087/22 114/12, I 125/1 143/14 1468 INews [1] 161/16 I 163/2 155/21 156/17 156/20
12116 121/14 123/10 I 162/14 next [24] 6/15 34/24 Inon-disclosure [2] I 159/6 159/18 160/1
434/01 139/21 141/1 (Necessary [1] 113/14] 36/10 36/15 43/23 I 150/6 150/9 160/3 160/3 163/19
167/8 172/7 172/10 INED [9] 69/9 86/23 I 44/6 44/10 45/12 Non-Executive [32] I 170/15 171/10
multiple [9] 12/12 87/8 121/24 123/20 I 98/14 98/18 116/24 I 36/14 36/16 69/8 nowhere [1] 89/8
15/24 19/5 19/6 25/24I 129/23 145/3 147/7 I 130/14 130/23 133/3 I 69/11 69/25 71/12 NR [1] 97/4
163/4 133/10 134/24 136/20I 72/7 73/10 73/17 I number [36] 5/3 5/16
smut fo) 89124 3 85/9 I NED-only [1] 121/24 I 137/9 154/18 157/2 I 73/21 76/22 78/6 I 7/5 8/23 13/4 16/19
Tae psa sare [NEDs [20] 71/5 72/9 I 157/20 158/17 160/1 I 79/13 87/6 92/20 I 20/7 36/23 39/4 44/2
4165/2 79/17 86/12 114/12 I 162/8 96/19 122/7 122/11 I 50/10 52/25 57/5
mutualisation (1) I 119/5.129/4 126/11 NESP [2] 199/12 I 123/2 135/16 136/2 I 67/21 58/5 59/23
170/16 130/17 136/25 144/11 155/20 136/19 140/2 140/4 60/21 64/7 66/24
my (a5) 113 16/01 I 14516 14715 147/16 I Nic [1] 99/24 140/9 141/21 143/20 I 68/25 70/18 70/19
Oy ny yan. I 199/13 161/22 162/19] Nick [16] 79/5 79/5 I 147/11 183/3 160/23 I 74/5 83/6 102/22
rerio I 162/23 167/14 168/12) 122/3 129/18 14013 I 161/18 163/2 107/24 111/20 115/21
Barts orto gore o4sg] Need [29] 5/16 29/20 I 140/6 142/5 142/7 /non-executives [2] I 121/6 121/15 126/17
Ba1D0 Oa/20 Or! I B0/t4 54/11 55/9 61/3] 147/4 147/22 148/21 I 73/8 122/13 4135/5 1386/17 143/17
99108 104/20 109/18 I 62/6 64/3 71/25 75/1 I 160/18 160/22 160/23/non-response [1] I 149/8 160/17
Tato 146/18-117/13I 75/15 98/9 100/13 I 161/4 168/24 5/13 number 4 [1] 66/24
Hora 125/90 128/11] 102/21 125/22 125/22INick's [1] 147/15 I None [1] 165/6 numbers [13] 7/2 7/7
10/8 120199 13116. I 139/13 134/25 135/15INicola [6] 96/22 nonetheless [1] 8/12 12/15 12/15
Toa ia9/i6 tao I 135/19 136/20 151/19] 98/14 98/15 10011 I 1441/5 22/18 25/14 31/20
too 1aile tazig I 131/19 161/23 16778 I 102/10 109/4 nor [2] 13/8 129/11 I 42/21 44/18 56/12
Map tain tag. I 167/10 167/16 171/22Inight [1] 142/4 normal [1] 121/13 I 64/6 118/9
145/23 148/13 148/23] 172/4 nipped [1] 166/16 [not [186] oo...
i497 153/91 11/11 [needed [7] 72/2 Ino [61] 7/22 12M —_Inote [22] 85/4 115/16
166/11 169/4 171/6 I 103/1 103/9 136/7 47/24 53/14 55/17 126/6 126/8 127/18 I objections [1] 106/5
myself [34] 71/10 141/10 154/1 166/7 I 67/4 67/4 73/14 76/6 I 136/15 136/17 136/24I observation [1]
74/6 77/14 78/13 needs [8] 35/25 78/25 79/21 80/18 140/2 140/18 140/23 I 76/10
78/21 83/19 83/22 54/13 94/11 128/4 83/1 83/15 84/8 84/24] 142/2 147/5 147/6 observations [8]
85/13 94/20 95/15 133/1 134/8 155/3 86/7 87/8 87/9 87/23 I 152/6 159/8 159/14 I 64/9 71/20 74/1 83/15
103/6 107/2 111/12 I 188/16 92/14 93/17 93/18 159/19 160/19 160/22) 94/6 94/20 149/1
4115/2 125/8 128/10 IMegative [2] 39/13 100/17 100/19 100/22) 166/23 169/13 17116
1429/1 129/11 137/20 I 142/7 101/7 102/7 102/7 noted [9] 29/13 50/4 Iobserved [2] 72/16
138/25 146/12 148/25I Negativity [1] 66/16 I 102/12 103/23 104/12) 50/21 98/5 98/11 107/14
1451/7 156/20 159/20 Inegligence [1] 106/5 114/16 116/9 I 100/23 101/15 102/20] obtain [2] 49/22
162/21 163/14 163/25I 149/13 119/13 119/24 120/2 I 136/7 120/17
165/23 166/1 168/16 Ineither [2] 13/8 122/18 124/5 124/13 Inotes [3] 107/1 135/3I obtained [2] 50/12
168/25 171/18 171/24] 129/11 124/14 124/21 125/1 I 149/4 121/4
—— net [29] 11/20 13/3 I 128/17 128/20 130/1 Inothing [10] 8/5 obviously [10] 10/19
N 13/3 13/4 13/9 20/20 I 130/4 132/11 135/23 I 47/21 87/20 87/20 14/7 25/23 34/9 60/5
name [6] 1/13 3/14 _ 23/5 27/1 27/2 27/10 I 136/9 136/10 145/15 I 125/23 129/11 129/25] 72/1 100/1 117/12
67/22 77/9 86/23 27/11 32/2 32/3 34/14I 146/18 147/20 148/12) 131/21 133/18 142/11] 171/13 171/17
96/21 34/15 36/3 36/4 37/15} 155/19 156/25 158/10) notice [1] 151/21 occasion [5] 68/23
names [2] 93/25 39/4 39/5 40/18 40/18) 161/13 162/24 notified [1] 161/17 I 147/19 148/8 148/10
41/3 44/17 52/21 nobody [2] 93/6 noting [3] 51/11 168/23
(61) Mr Woodley - occasion
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
(e) older [7] 8/25 10/5 onwards [2] 29/9 I 117/4 117/23 118/9 I 164/25 165/10 166/4
occasionally [1) I 80/4 61/14 63/22 119/3 118/9 118/16 121/42 I 172/12 172/13
310 64/22 64/24 open [14] 16/15 123/14 123/23 124/17] ourselves [2] 120/6
occasions [2] 74/5 I" [269] 30/23 41/8 41/9 52/6 I 124/18 125/3 125/20 I 172/16
75/22 once [24] 18/9 18/10 I 53/22 65/21 122/13 I 126/4 126/13 127/18 Iout [58] 11/24 12/14
occurred [5] 83/18 I 18/25 19/1 19/4 24/13) 12378 164/15 171/10 I 132/9 132/10 135/15 I 13/19 17/3 18/2 19/3
90/4 111/28 149/11 I 24/15 24/19 24/22 I open-ended [5] 143/1 145/4 145/22 I 20/7 20/8 23/23 26/9
149/24 24/23 70/5 70/8 70/12I 16/15 30/23 52/6 149/13 150/7 150/7 I 41/18 55/19 57/3 59/3
occurring [1] 141/14 I 84/9 84/20 104/9 53/22 65/21 151/22 153/3 155/16 I 63/2 65/14 65/21
October [6] 43/7 134/9 144/12 159/18 Ioperating [3] 3/19 I 155/18 159/2 161/6_ I 71/25 76/4 76/12
43/12 59/24 133/21 I 165/23 168/8 168/17 I 9/20 169/16 162/25 165/7 166/9 I 76/14 78/21 82/6
4138/1 158/11 168/17 171/12 operation [4] 14/15 I 168/2 171/4 171/19 I 83/12 84/14 85/6
odd [4] 96/1 one [86] 3/23 3/23 I 14/24 16/18 17/19 oral [1] 67/8 85/18 86/21 88/3 88/7
off [8] 11/16 53/8 5/6 6/17 9/20 13/18 I operational [1] order [3] 62/16 72/1 I 94/4 94/25 100/14
74/22 137/18 145/4 I 16/4 16/20 20/8 21/16I 130/19 82/23 100/20 106/14 106/17
155/24 168/5 168/21 22/18 23/13 29/22 operationally [1] organisation [37] 106/19 106/24 106/25)
offer [15] 50/9 53/4 I 29223114 31/23 I 73/22 70/9 70/16 71/21 108/1 108/5 108/16
53/5 59/9 60/24 61/11I 24/6 35/9 37/13 37/17I operations [1] 149/2 I 71/25 74/19 75/24 108/22 109/12 109/15)
61/23 62/1 62/24 63/7) 37/23 38/7 39/22 opinion [2] 16/21 77/12 79/15 84/15 115/21 116/18 121/14)
63/10 63/21 63/23 39/24 40/8 40/19 41/1) 169/2 92/16 92/25 95/24 122/1 123/12 128/20
64/1 116/24 43/2 45/15 45/19 51/8I opportunities [1] 100/9 103/8 110/12 I 131/19 131/23 133/20
offered [1] 106/2 51/18 53/7 55/2 55/3 I 66/17 110/22 114/17 121/20] 134/9 146/10 165/4
: 57/2 59/3 59/3 60/23 Iopportunity [4] 65/25I 124/1 128/2 137/22 I 1741/5
office [27] Poa 338 63/4 64/20 65/15 97/1 159/11 167/15 I 139/11 139/13 142/13] outcome [18] 23/4
36/10 36/12 37/5 37/8I 69/15 74/14 76/8 oppose [1] 121/3 I 143/16 145/14 146/4 I 23/7 23/12 58/12
37/15 39/3 39123 41/3) 76/13 77/18 84/13 I opposed [2] 39/17 I 146/11 149/16 153/7 I 59/15 60/6 60/9 60/16
43/18 45/18 45/24 84/15 89/16 90/7 91/3} 104/3 154/11 155/13 155/18] 60/17 60/19 61/1 61/2
46/2 46/10 46/16 91/23 92/19 96/1 optically [1] 89/25 158/11 160/12 166/3 I 61/8 61/20 62/14 65/5
46/18 46/22 47/5 96/23 97/8 102/7 option [4] 4/18 56/21 I 169/5 91/12 161/2
47/17 47/21 48/1 48/6) 104/9 108/10 1140/6 I 57/3 57/4 organisation's [1] outcomes [2] 50/20
48/23 49/19 66/8 69/1I 110/20 113/12 115/8 I options [4] 11/14 157/19 111/21
69/5 69/16 70/5 70/7 I 118/3 123/4 130/15 I 56/11 160/21 161/6 I organisations [2] outline [1] 3/3
70/20 71/16 80/9 131/20 133/4 134/17 Ior [145] 4/10 4/15 110/1 150/11 outlined [2] 86/11
80/11 82/10 82/22 I 135/15 137/10 138/3 I 5/12.6/6 7/17 7/19 organised [1] 16/2 I 98/5
87/15 sale seria I 138/8 141/17 146/24 I 8/18 13/24 13/24 original [3] 11/11 I outlining [1] 102/16
92/7 92/8 99/24 too/2I 151/4 151/24 1556/1 I 13/24 14/5 14/19 152/8 152/12 outside [1] 135/16
108/22 108/25 109/7 I 155/24 158/4 163/6 I 14/25 15/5 15/14 16/9I originally [1] 68/17 Ioutweighing [1] 36/4
109/20 110/18 115/10] 186/19 166/19 168/12I 16/23 19/3 19/19 22/2I other [27] 6/14 19/11 Iover [52] 3/18 5/2
416/13 117/24 117/25] 17/20 22/11 22/14 22/19 45/19 49/11 63/4 6/14 7/7 7/23 8/14
123/7 125/25 129/17 IOnes [4] 12/22 12/24 I 24/22 25/3 25/24 26/6) 69/12 77/1 77/2 78/12I 9/23 10/1 11/2 15/11
429/19 129/19 130/11] 1938/8 170/6 26/12 27/7 27/17 29/2I 81/21 91/6 91/23 98/6I 15/20 16/3 20/17 22/5
431/17 132/17 137/17/ ongoing [7] 93/8 29/7 29/10 29/14 30/2) 102/5 102/7 114/11 I 23/1 26/3 29/1 29/4
139/18 141/7 142/10 I 96/2 96/4 96/7 100/17I 30/12 30/23 31/4 115/5 125/8 130/17 I 35/4 37/1 41/7 41/7
442/12 142/24 143/2 I 149/3 153/6 32/14 34/3 35/13 131/4 145/14 147/11 I 53/2 56/10 57/8 57/19
144/3 149/2 151/g IOnline [2] 5/20 145/4 I 35/14 35/15 35/17 155/24 161/1 161/21 I 58/13 58/19 59/10
151/11 151/16 153/10 OMly [47] 5/10 9/21 I 36/9 38/7 39/3 39/11 I 163/2 170/16 63/13 64/3 64/15
153/19 154/16 155/19I 11/17 14/23 15/14 40/15 40/16 40/18 others [6] 17/20 65/20 65/21 75/3 75/7
1456/1 156/16 162/7 I 28/19 29/1 30/10 41/9 43/19 44/5 44/19I 66/13 135/15 147/6 I 82/16 96/17 96/24
30/11 31/17 32/2 44/20 45/7 46/14 47/7I 167/4 168/6 103/11 106/6 117/20
Offtes Et 1088 33/22 36/24 39/5 43/9I 47/9 47/22 50/16 51/2I otherwise [1] 99/11 I 119/16 133/12 150/16
119/14 45/9 47/11 49/21 51/9 51/12 52/15 ought [1] 136/1 153/6 156/5 160/2
Officer [10] 72/25 49/25 50/5 53/4 56/13] 52/19 55/16 55/25 our [46] 5/22 6/14 163/14 164/7 170/10
7AI15 TAINT 74/24 57/21 58/6 58/25 56/7 56/14 57/2 61/24I 30/3 36/15 42/7 67/9 I 170/13
76/13 93/23 96/21 60/15 61/25 63/9 62/15 63/7 63/10 83/25 84/19 88/4 88/5I overall [15] 14/17
125/3 148/6 163/10 63/25 64/6 64/7 64/9 I 64/11 66/3 69/9 69/17I 89/5 94/1 94/3 94/24 I 14/19 20/17 26/21
officially [1] 120/1 78/14 80/15 83/17 71/17 72/14 74/21 95/4 111/17 112/9 34/10 37/2 44/14
96/5 104/14 106/24 I 75/19 77/2 79/1 80/12) 113/12 113/19 116/12) 52/21 63/25 64/15
officials [1] 119/20
121/24 122/8 123/20 I 80/20 80/21 82/9 119/20 120/7 120/9 I 64/16 64/19 65/3
often 14) 2 12120 130/2 134/1 142/12 I 82/12 82/22 83/24 135/3 136/9 136/17 I 73/11 131/15
oh [2] 24/9 116/12 144/24 145/3 145/6 I 85/18 86/17 87/6 137/7 138/10 140/20 I overhaul [3] 142/13
Okay [6] 11/18 49/3 onside [1] 100/10 90/23 92/8 93/8 93/19] 141/23 144/13 146/9 I 143/3 143/6
139/20 139/23 146/19/Onte [8] 2/21 10/25 I 95/5 99/5 102/25 147/7 147/16 149/1 I overnight [1] 172/11
146/23 24/6 43/14 54/23 103/19 109/5 112/23 I 149/2 149/7 150/19 I overridden [1] 75/19
73/13 119/7 151/6 115/17 115/18 115/19) 151/2 153/9 157/12 Ioversee [1] 68/20
(62) occasionally - oversee
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
fe)
overseen [1] 91/24
oversight [3] 158/20
161/13 170/25
overview [2] 102/15
109/3
overwhelming [1]
32/16
OW [1] 106/15
owe [1] 88/4
Owen [4] 86/9 91/16
106/15 109/3
own [13] 17/2 26/7
74/23 83/12 113/13
131/18 157/17 160/8
169/19
owned [1] 111/3
ownership [1]
166/13
)
PA [1] 140/20
packs [2] 76/25 77/2
pad [2] 16/5 17/16
page [110] 4/2 6/13
6/15 6/15 6/17 6/18
8/14 9/23 10/25 11/2
11/16 11/19 12/7
15/11 15/20 16/13
17/2 18/1 18/1 18/17
18/18 19/13 20/17
20/23 21/19 22/5 23/1
23/22 23/24 25/19
27/5 27/13 27/14
28/10 29/13 29/20
30/20 31/9 32/19
36/19 41/7 41/7 41/8
42/19 43/2 43/16 45/2
50/4 50/15 50/16
50/17 51/21 52/5 53/2,
53/9 53/22 54/5 54/7
54/10 56/10 56/10
57/9 57/19 58/13
58/19 59/12 61/4 62/8)
62/9 63/6 64/3 64/4
64/15 65/20 65/21
68/4 68/4 73/14 82/16
85/17 86/21 87/24
88/22 88/22 91/15
93/21 96/24 103/11
105/22 106/6 111/7
115/12 117/20 118/14
118/16 126/6 126/19
126/21 127/5 136/14
136/15 148/19 148/19)
150/16 156/5 160/3
163/8 164/7 164/8
170/13
page 1 [1] 93/21
page 11 [1] 87/24
page 113 [2] 126/19
overseeing [1] 91/22
126/21
page 13 [1] 10/25
page 14 [2] 11/16
11/19
page 144 [1] 68/4
page 18 [2] 16/13
73/14
page 19 [1] 18/1
page 2 [6] 29/20
91/15 115/12 117/20
148/19 163/8
page 21 [2] 18/17
18/18
page 22 [1] 20/23
26/11 45/3 45/16 47/9IPage 24 [1] 21/19
page 28 [3] 23/22
23/24 25/19
page 3 [8] 12/7 50/15
50/16 50/17 62/8
111/7 136/14 136/15
page 30 [1] 27/5
page 31 [4] 27/13
27/14 28/10 29/13
page 32 [1] 31/9
page 33 [2] 32/19
43/16
page 39 [1] 36/19
page 4 [3] 88/22
105/22 126/6
Page 43 [1] 41/7
page 46 [1] 42/19
page 47 [1] 43/2
page 49 [1] 45/2
Page 52 [1] 50/4
page 53 [1] 51/21
page 55 [2] 53/9
53/22
page 57 [2] 54/5
54/10
page 58 [1] 56/10
page 63 [1] 59/12
page 64 [1] 61/4
page 65 [1] 63/6
page 66 [1] 64/4
page 7 [1] 86/21
page 9 [3] 4/2 6/13
6/17
pages [2] 1/22 2/11
paid [6] 41/24 75/24
118/16 118/23 133/9
142/19
panel [19] 58/10
58/11 58/16 58/21
59/1 59/5 70/11 70/11
75/25 86/21 87/4
87/11 87/19 92/3
93/11 93/12 94/9
94/12 108/25
panels [2] 91/25 92/1
paper [4] 80/25 108/1
108/5 108/16
paper’ [2] 80/23
80/25
papers [2] 78/14
78/15
paperwork [2] 44/17
44/20
paragraph [35] 43/3
89/21 98/14 119/3
120/3 120/4 120/19
126/17 126/21 127/21
130/23 133/3 133/10
135/22 137/9 139/4
154/5 157/20 158/3
158/6 160/1
paragraph 274 [1]
119/3
paragraph 277 [1]
126/21
paragraph 3 [1] 88/1
paragraph 56 [1]
75/15
paragraph 84 [1]
76/19
paragraphs [2] 89/2
126/10
paragraphs 277 [1]
126/10
parcel [1] 86/14
Pardon [1] 11/9
parity [1] 93/3
park [2] 70/9 170/14
Parker [2] 77/17
141/12
Parliament [1] 150/7
Parliamentary [2]
121/12 123/15
part [24] 5/9 5/11 6/1
6/11 22/9 41/13 55/3
61/24 63/7 63/10
71/23 75/25 79/13
86/14 92/4 92/7 92/9
115/14 132/13 144/23
149/14 154/18 158/17
171/2
Participant [5] 2/14
5/6 50/13 55/12 62/9
Participants [1]
134/3
particular [27] 17/10
58/4 59/12 60/20
60/21 61/8 76/8 76/12
76/14 77/19 79/4
79/23 83/15 86/22
87/17 90/19 90/25
105/1 107/9 108/11
115/8 120/19 120/22
123/16 131/23 140/10:
160/5
particularly [5] 72/19
77/22 78/20 132/8
147/13
parts [2] 30/6 77/19
party [1] 143/9
50/4 73/7 75/15 76/19] 80/5 81/5 81/16 82/7
85/3 88/1 88/10 89/19) 83/11 84/13 85/2
127/21 128/18 130/14) 93/14 93/15 94/1
133/20 134/16 134/24I 97/17 102/13 103/10
passage [1] 167/5
passages [1] 103/12
past [45] 39/24 55/23
57/1 57/17 79/23 80/1
85/19 85/24 86/4
86/11 87/12 87/25
88/7 89/12 92/8 93/8
95/13 96/25 97/13
111/23 112/24 123/7
124/12 124/25 129/7
137/13 138/12 141/4
142/11 143/8 149/24
166/9
patch [1] 168/5
path [4] 28/9 64/8
137/14 137/16
pathway [1] 66/9
pattern [2] 13/22
27/8
patterns [1] 64/20
Paula [1] 74/20
Pause [1] 158/7
pausing [8] 80/15
90/4 92/10 99/20
128/25 139/10 146/1
147/18
pay [2] 142/20
142/21
payback [1] 156/21
payment [14] 54/16
54/19 55/2 55/3 55/17
56/3 56/7 56/7 56/18
56/21 57/3 57/4 57/6
133/4
payments [8] 54/6
54/7 54/8 54/8 55/6
55/7 56/1 136/12
people [41] 3/14 5/11
6/10 6/21 12/3 12/4
13/20 16/24 19/3
35/22 57/12 58/15
59/19 62/20 63/10
64/7 66/12 72/25
74/15 74/17 74/24
81/6 86/3 90/12 92/22
93/23 94/2 96/3 102/9
115/13 116/18 117/16)
120/6 125/17 133/11
133/13 135/6 136/12
148/6 158/12 165/8
people's [2] 12/24
138/18
per [206]
percentage [9] 10/9
20/24 39/8 44/24 46/3
46/10 49/25 57/5 60/9
percentages [2] 28/7
39/12
perception [2] 138/6
154/6
perceptions [5] 37/4
39/22 40/4 44/14
64/15
perfect [1] 136/21
performance [6]
124/13 125/24 132/16)
158/8 158/10 164/24
performed [5] 82/20
82/21 85/24 85/25
88/6
performs [1] 87/14
perhaps [12] 1/21
2/21 5/13 10/14 11/15)
17/16 47/4 54/10
65/15 105/13 113/13
119/7
period [7] 6/3 6/6
88/24 104/11 119/16
142/25 156/21
Perkins [2] 157/8
157/10
permanent [1] 74/25
persisted [1] 127/25
persistent [1] 153/21
persists [1] 110/22
person [1] 84/19
personal [1] 49/11
perspective [9]
77/23 99/12 99/23
100/8 141/9 143/15
154/15 169/4 170/12
Peters [2] 120/7
120/7
phase [3] 1/5 95/9
115/12
Phase 7 [2] 1/5 95/9
Phases [3] 97/10
97/22 98/8
Phases 5 [2] 97/10
98/8
Phoenix [21] 79/24
80/1 85/18 85/20 86/5)
86/11 89/8 89/11
89/17 92/5 93/8 93/11
93/25 97/20 97/25
98/21 103/10 111/23
112/24 124/25 133/13)
Phoenix’ [1] 91/23
phone [1] 168/11
phrase [3] 90/8 135/5I
172/15
pick [1] 156/18
picked [1] 86/3
picking [1] 57/3
ure [1] 170/7
piece [1] 154/2
PIN [2] 16/5 17/15
Pineapple [11] 79/25
119/2 126/5 147/5
152/12 152/23 163/17)
165/19 167/11 168/4
168/13
place [18] 40/1 40/21
40/23 69/22 70/10
(63) overseeing - place
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
P point [56] 4/19 11/7 Ipoor [3] 77/22 77/23 I 114/13 125/11 125/13] prepare [1] 152/16
place. [1a] Barta I 11/22 24/2 28/17 156/23, 128/15 129/22 132/19] prepared [3] 134/8
Pate OI7 1143/2 28/25 38/19 38/21 Ipopular [1] 26/16 _I 133/4 136/1 136/6 I 142/3 152/6
122/8 126/13 126/13 I 41/18 43/2 46/23 population [8] 7/18 I 138/3 139/6 139/10 I presence [1] 153/8
133/23 144/4 146/11 I 46/23 47/1 49/19 8/21 98/5 98/6 102/19) 139/11 140/15 140/21Ipresent [5] 114/15
152/1 156/3 169/16 I 53/15 53/25 54/2 60/6I 104/3 104/10 104/13 I 141/24 142/6 142/9 I 142/11 144/22 160/24
placed [3] 39/22 70/12 73/15 82/13 populations [3] 97/7 I 143/1 146/2 147/7 161/9
45/23 45/24 83/17 86/7 94/4 94/8 I 98/19 103/15 151/14 153/4 153/16 I presented [4] 122/21
plan [7] 87/25 87/25 96/15 97/5 99/5 99/20) pose [2] 81/23 93/18 I 154/20 155/6 157/3 I 157/6 157/9 163/21
95/6 144/14 157/12 I 100/16 103/13 105/25) posed [1] 62/9 157/4 157/7 157/13 I presently [1] 106/17
159/14 161/8 106/7 107/22 112/21 I position [18] 88/18 I 158/20 159/13 161/22I press [11] 72/21
lanned [1] 156/23 121/23 125/20 130/15) 100/22 117/9 123/10 I 167/14 167/16 167/22I 128/8 139/8 139/21
planning [1] 156/22 130/16 133/7 137/8 I 145/25 149/20 153/20I 168/1 170/19 170/25 I 140/15 140/21 141/25I
plaster [1] 162/7 138/18 139/3 140/11 I 154/10 154/12 154/15) 171/2 142/9 143/11 143/12
lay [2] 5/9 155/24 143/22 145/2 145/8 =I 154/17 155/19 160/11) postmaster's [2] 143/19
Pay ie [2] 127/5 145/15 154/22 156/8 I 160/12 164/2 165/1 I 87/11 143/15 pressure [2] 85/12
re ba 159/8 159/16 160/10 I 165/25 168/19 postmaster/public [1] 121/12
playground [2] 162/24 168/7 170/20 I positions [1] 112/10 I 93/20 pressures [2] 143/14
16400 166/11 pointed [4] 55/19 _I positive [6] 40/14 __I postmasters [76] 147/23
playing [1] 168/2 63/2 65/14 100/20 40/19 66/4 66/11 26/14 70/6 70/14 71/8I Preston [1] 68/13
lease [102] 1/13 2/9 pointing [1] 121/14 I 141/8 170/8 73/2 73/24 80/13 82/9I presuming [1] 4/25
ea 6/12 8/14 9/23. [Points [14] 11/12 I Posnett [3] 115/13 I 82/13 83/6 83/13 92/7I pretty [2] 135/23
14/4 11/3 11/19 12/6 20/8 50/11 50/12 115/24 116/16 92/21 92/24 93/3 170/5
13/13 14/16 15/20 59/20 124/11 136/21 Ipossible [2] 50/19 98/24 99/15 99/22 prevent [1] 97/12
16/16 17/5 19/2 19/15 136/22 143/17 161/9 I 142/19 100/9 100/20 101/12 I previous [16] 14/22
20/16 21/10 21/14 164/25 166/5 166/6 I possibly [7] 6/1 101/17 101/20 101/21I 63/22 78/19 79/17
22/5 23/24 24/6 24/25 17117 20/18 41/21 63/2 101/25 102/1 102/5 94/18 107/5 109/25
26/3 28/24 29/19 31/8 POL [1] 169/10 67/17 96/21 119/18 I 106/11 107/4 107/13 I 111/19 115/12 130/16)
31/24 37/1 37/3 38/16 POL00329521 [1] post [90] 14/4 23/17 I 118/1 118/24 121/21 I 133/20 142/18 151/3
39/21 43/23 44/13 115/10 33/6 35/6 35/14 35/15] 127/25 128/3 128/8 I 158/22 168/12 171/8
49/4 49/17 50/18 POL00448298 [1] 36/7 36/10 36/12 37/5I 128/13 129/18 129/20] previously [16] 27/9
51/16 51/20 53/2 111/6 37/8 37/15 39/3 39/23} 129/21 130/12 131/5 I 41/15 80/11 88/11
54/25 55/10 56/10 POL00448302 [1] 41/3 43/6 43/18 45/18) 131/11 131/21 132/14] 90/3 93/15 95/10
57/9 58/12 58/19 126/5 45/24 46/2 46/10 132/20 133/22 134/21I 97/13 103/7 117/1
59/1059/13 60/14 [POLO0448308 [1] I 46/15 46/18 46/22 _I 134/22 135/11 135/14) 127/24 131/16 148/12
82/6 62110 63/5 64/4 I 803 47/4 ATIV7 47/21 48/1] 136/8 136/9 136/11 I 156/21 161/10 172/2
67/22 68/3 0/3 80/4 IPOL00448309 [1] I 48/6 48/23 49/19 _I 138/6 139/12 139/13 Iprior [10] 84/9 86/12
Boe Bb/18 BAS I 88/21 59/23 66/8 69/1 69/5 I 139/14 141/4 141/4 I 89/13 92/18 109/23
BE/17 87/24 aii /POLO0448381 [1] I 69/16 70/4 70/7 70/20) 141/16 142/18 146/6 I 112/23 127/8 127/13
38/22 91/15 93/21 I 119/8 71/16 80/9 80/11 151/10 151/17 151/17I 129/5 133/16
96/11 96/11 96/24 POL00448383 [1] 82/10 82/22 87/14 154/7 155/3 155/14 I priorities [1] 141/17
1405/24 106/6 1141/6 148/18 88/16 88/18 92/7 92/8] 156/4 158/15 159/12 I prioritisation [1]
4114/7 115/10 115/13 IPOL00448384 [1] I 99/24 10/2 106/12 _ I 161/12 167/20 16916 I 82/24
415/16 115/23 116/7 160/14 108/21 108/25 109/7 I 170/21 prioritising [1] 97/15
118/14 118/25 126/5 IPOL00448385 [1] 109/8 109/19 110/18 Ipostmasters' [2] priority [7] 82/23
430/14 136/14 139/24) 152/4 115/10 116/12 117/24I 116/10 1541/6 88/11 94/3 94/5 94/7
441/19 141/23 14/2 IPOL00448387 [1] 117/25 119/13 123/7 Ipotential [7] 5/7 95/5 95/6
14218 146/18 14a/18 I 147/1 125/24 129/17 129/19I 118/16 118/16 120/10I Priory [1] 116/2
448/20 153/23 156/5 IPOL00448406 [1] 131/17 132/17 137/17I 120/14 148/9 158/23 I private [9] 84/20
1456/8 159/1 160/14 159/1 139/18 141/7 142/10 I potentially [16] 9/11 I 121/23 122/9 147/7
4163/7 163/8 163/19 IPOL00448503 [1] I 142/12 142/23 143/2 I 14/9 14/14 81/2 81/11) 147/16 160/24 163/4
1464/8 170/13 141/20 144/3 149/2 151/8 81/19 81/25 98/7 166/24 168/11
pleased [2] 115/25 POL00448514 [1] 151/11 151/16 153/10) 98/12 105/5 105/7 privilege [1] 156/1
1416/4 163/7 153/19 154/16 155/19) 124/9 136/23 138/4 I privileged [1] 155/25
plenty [2] 125/13 POL00448537 [1] 155/25 156/16 162/7 I 146/6 157/18 privy [3] 109/13
1469/9 142/8 169/20 170/20 pounds [1] 116/14 118/11 161/25
plus [7] 7177/19 IPOL00448615 [1] [postage [2] 128/23 power [3] 116/18 I proactive [1] 79/18
41/6 32/23 37/24 39/9 84/25 129/13 130/25 132/19 proactively [2]
62/2 POL00448649 [1] postmaster [55] practice [4] 5/18 6/8 I 120/14 166/2
pm [10] 67/15 105/17I 96/11 47/16 48/16 71/5 151/8 1852/1 probability [1] 7/13
405/19 112/15 135/18 police [1] 97/21 73/25 80/21 82/20 practices [1] 111/5 I probably [8] 40/19
4147/1 148/19 180/22 IPOliceman [1] 132/21] 86/22 86/25 87/8 I Prefer [1] 51/14 71/21 83/9 84/12 87/1
450/24 172/20 policies [1] 153/9 I 93/20 99/4 105/5 preference [2] 106/1 I 101/9 115/1 138/12
political [1] 121/10 I 106/25 107/18 112/2 I 108/8 problem [5] 71/23
(64) place... - problem
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
P proper [4] 95/7 71125 160/17 95/3 95/3 96/5 100/7
problem. [4] 126/17I 119/14 167/17 17215 IG raised [12] 76/17 100/10 109/1 109/6
properly [1] 167/9 I__I 83/25 109/24 113/24 I 110/4 110/17 110/17
problematte I 812 property [1] 69/1 quarter [2] 14/23 118/15 118/21 120/1 I 110/21 117/17 156/15
81/10 81/11 81/19 _ [Proportion [10] 9/20 172/16 121/23 125/2 129/23 I 159/12 165/22 168/15}
81/25 82/7 151/12 I 33/9.33/19 35/22 quarterly [1] 165/10 I 129/23 163/4 realm [1] 168/18
problems [2] 18/6 I 39/16 42/24 49/6 quarters [1] 170/14 Iraises [3] 121/10 [reason [6] 41/23
157/42 53/19 57/11 62/13 Iquashed [1] 120/17 I 153/8 171/17 63/11 73/20 78/24
proceed [1] 44/5 proportions [4] 8/13 Iqueried [6] 99/8 raising [5] 23/11 121/21 124/20
rocess [41] 4/6 5/2 I 10/20 55/18 118/9 100/24 101/13 101/18] 35/15 94/8 132/9 reasonable [1] 6/6
err 42/22 42/25 43/1IProposed [8] 98/18 I 101/22 104/2 152/23 reasoning [1] 76/6
50/6 50/8 51/18 51/24I 102/20 103/14 103/17I querying [2] 104/8 Irandom [1] 7/13 reasons [11] 7/24
53/18 53/24 54/1 104/7 108/1 108/5 I 104/10 ranges [1] 37/7 19/3 19/5 53/25 63/6
56/18 59/5 60/1 60/8 I 108/16 question [37] 4/10 Irank [4] 123/8 79/20 84/13 84/15
62/16 63/12 63/16 IProsecuted [1] 105/6I 4/12 4/13 14/18 19/6 Iranking [1] 110/13 I 151/25 154/21 162/2
63/18 64/12 64/19 IProsecutions [1] 19/16 22/10 29/19 IRant [1] 116/17 recall [9] 12/4 32/20
65/7 65/10 66/12 70/2I 120/9 29/23 29/23 30/4 rate [4] 6/19 7/8 7/21 I 33/13 33/21 34/8
70/17 92/4 95/20 protect [4] 88/19 30/20 31/11 32/12 7/25 134/19 144/9 144/10
99/10 101/18 101/18 I 101/16 123/8 154/16 I 33/18 36/2 36/19 38/7Irather [10] 4/12 4/13 I 144/19
102/9 102/11 109/19 [Protection [1] 116/5 I 44/8 49/13 49/18 7/13 20/12 36/7 38/23) recalled [2] 44/3 44/4
4109/20 119/11 120/5 IProve [2] 116/9 133/2I 50/14 50/16 50/24 I 76/21 89/11 108/8 I recalling [2] 12/3
421/13 161/11 PROVED [1] 131/5 I 51/15 54/2255/11_ I 155/17 12/20
processed [2] 44/10 [Proven [2] 131/10 I 85/13 55/14 62/8 63/9)ratios [1] 9/25 receipt [3] 33/6 33/15I
44/10 146/5 63/22 112/25 113/1 Ire [1] 154/22 55/15
processes [1] 5/18 [Provide [12] 41/12 I 126/24 163/4 164/25 Ire-evaluation [1] receive [6] 25/3
t [1] 57/9 61/4 65/25 74/6 IQuestioned [4] 1/11 I 154/22 46/22 74/5 76/25 77/1
ie halla 79/19 87/11 94/15 I 67/21 173/4 173/8 I reach [5] 61/20 99/5 I 149/25
produce [2] 74/2 I 98/16 102/14 119/19 Iquestioning [1] 99/11 133/20 138/18 Ireceived [65] 2/14
159/14 143/5 100/1 . reached [3] 59/20 I 5/23 11/7 11/21 12/3
produced [5] 2/1 provided [35] 31/2 I questionnaire [8] 3/9I 59/25 60/7 42/5 12/13 12/25
O13 2/00 2194 3/22 I 31/3 31/6 32/19 50/1 I 4/6 6/19 6/20 8/10 reaching [1] 60/9 I 13/17 14/11 19/18
producing [3] 70/13 I 58/21 59/4 60/13 12/2 30/7 50/10 react [1] 88/1 19/22 21/5 23/8 23/11
4169/1 171/20 60/18 61/1 61/18 I questionnaires [2] _ I reaction [1] 135/3 I 31/21 31/22 32/11
professionally [2] _ I 99/24 72/12 74/12 3/23 5/3 read [49] 4/14 4/23 I 32/12 32/16 32/20
40/5 41/4 75/9 76/24 77/6 77/10I questions [24] 2/14 I 73/5 73/6 79/5 80/5 I 32/24 33/8 33/10
profit [2] 3/5 116/13 I 78/8 78/11 79/10 82/3] 4/4 4/7 4/8 4/21 5/4 I Bora 9/21 90/20 33/11 33/13 33/18
rogramme [4] 86/14 89/14 91/2 18/20 29/21 32/10 —_I 96/20 97/4 98/5 98/9 I 33/19 33/22 33/23
era ara rasla7izs) 97/23 98/24 100/21 I 36/11 38/4 41/10 I 98/10 103/12 119/9 I 34/5 42/18 42/21
138/10 101/14 108/3 109/3 I 50/17 58/2 59/14 67/2I 120/3 122/3 123/18 I 43/10 50/5 51/23 52/1
programmes [2] 109/6 110/19 151/22 I 67/3 72/4 146/21 4127/9 140/10 143/4 I 52/20 52/22 52/25
91/21 91/24 162/11 149/9 149/12 150/1 I 143/13 143/14 143/22I 53/4 53/5 53/10 53/19
project [48] 3/9 77/8 IProvides [2] 15/23 151/5 153/8 143/23 144/6 144/8 I 57/15 57/16 57/20
77/9 79/24 79/24 25/2 quick [1] 124/13 144/12 144/22 145/3 I 59/16 60/17 62/15
79/25 80/1 80/2 80/5 IProviding [4] 76/6 Iquicker [3] 101/10 I 145/7 145/9 145/12 I 62/18 62/20 62/21
81/5 81/15 83/14 77/20 134/13 135/1 I 102/12 133/24 145/17 146/15 147/18] 65/1 65/4 89/9 110/20
85/18 85/19 85/19 [Public [8] 3/5 80/21 I quickly [5] 98/10 148/2 148/6 148/11 I 130/3 134/1 145/23
86/5 86/11 88/1 89/8 I 82/21 92/9 92/12 119/18 137/14 141/13] 167/2 167/5 167/12 I 150/2 152/2 164/3
gg/11 89/17 89/17 I 93/17 93/20 121/11 I 171/15 167/25 168/6 168/24 I 164/17 165/9
89/18 92/5 94/18 publicly [1] 110/14 Iquite [29] 4/18 4/18 I 169/18 169/24 170/18I receiving [15] 21/11
95/14 97/19 97/25 [Purple [5] 13/3 20/19I 18/24 19/21 29/8 —IRead's [2] 113/15 I 33/14 43/18 44/1 44/3
98/20 100/6 101/3__ I 57/5 58/24 65/12 30/15 33/24 35/23 I 146/21 44/4 52/8 52/9 53/17
101/4 101/10 102/13 IPurpose [3] 69/4 44/20 49/8 54/3 56/11Ireading [1] 117/10 I 66/10 99/14 136/24
4119/2 124/25 126/4. I 86/18 137/18 57/21 61/19 74/10 ready [4] 137/17 158/13 163/22 163/24
133/13. 135/17 137/17 Purposes [3] 6/8 7/6 I 79/22 84/16 88/19 I 159/22 174/23 172/17Irecent [8] 14/9 26/17
137/19 147/5 152/12 I 70/13 107/2 130/16 130/18 Ireal [3] 92/14 109/4 I 29/1 33/25 56/24
te0/22 165/17 1e5/19IPursued [1] 51/1 I 139/13 141/13 143/16) 422/21 66/15 157/20 18/3
167/10 168/4 push [1] 101/24 157/13 161/4 164/11 Irealised [2] 130/18 Irecently [9] 26/17
projects [2] 100/15 [Pushing [2] 89/1 89/1) 167/24 171/14 17114 26/19 38/19 43/6 60/5I
114/19 put [11] 108/25 110/9I quotation [1] 131/7 Irealising [1] 171/7 I 71/4 78/11 87/1
prominence [1] 130/6 145/24 146/10 Iquoted [1] 41/9 realities [1] 169/12 I 148/23
1414/5 162/7 163/19 164/1 R reality [2] 92/17 reception [1] 133/21
promised [1] 164/13 I 164/15 166/9 168/22 I__I 430/21 recipients [1] 117/21
rompt [1] 66/5 puts [1] 80/22 radical [1] 170/6 really [22] 4/14 4/23 Irecognise [1] 88/5
prompt putting [2] 42/1 raise [3] 35/5 76/19 I 5/2 11/5 72/20 75/15 Irecognised [1]
(65) problem... - recognised
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
R referring [2] 91/1 139/22 140/15 140/22I 23/22 25/20 27/13 I 76/17 85/5 85/22
recognised...[1]__ 91/17 141/25 142/9 143/11 I 28/18 28/19 29/18 90/19 97/8 97/11
155/20 refers [3] 86/22 143/12 143/19 29/21 31/9 34/5 41/7 I 104/13 106/8 107/10
recognition [1] 42/2 I 157/20 160/4 relevant [7] 69/4 87/4I 42/3 42/20 45/3 50/4 I 107/11 108/11 134/22
recollection [2] reflect [3] 59/21 92/4 96/21 118/4 50/15 50/16 53/8 135/21 150/8 150/18
113/5 118/18 132/4 132/5 119/5 119/16 55/10 59/11 62/8 64/8) 153/2
recommendation [2] reflected [1] 132/17 Ireliance [1] 121/4 65/15 66/1 112/19 respond [6] 5/14
92/3 158/24 reflection [3] 136/18 Ireliant [1] 5/11 113/9 113/11 130/3 I 5/15 5/17 22/10 23/9
recommending [2] I 137/7 157/4 rem [2] 135/18 reported [29] 9/3 I 23/18
58/11 80/25 refrain [1] 131/20 I 167/22 10/7 10/8 17/13 18/12I responded [11] 6/21
record [2] 1567 _Ifefreshing [1] 141/1 Iremain [2] 112/4 18/13 18/14 18/15 I 11/21 14/25 18/11
refused [1] 144/3 I 153/7 19/3 21/10 23/25 25/9] 18/13 18/22 18/24
165/7
recorded [1] 99/6
recounting [1]
regard [1] 114/10 remained [1] 99/16 I 25/21 25/22 27/18 31/22 44/11 51/2
regarding [25] 26/25 Iremaining [2] 106/12I 27/19 29/10 29/14 53/19
101/25 59/4 79/7 84/12 94/16 145/20 30/12 31/14 49/22 respondents [19] 7/5
recovered [1] 118/22 101/14 104/7 106/23 Iremains [2] 152/25 I 49/25 51/22 53/14 9/17 10/3 10/4 11/7
recoveries [2] 107/5 107/17 110/6 I 165/1 54/15 57/15 57/25 13/1 15/21 16/3 23/4
116/14 116/15 118/23 124/23 131/2 Iremarks [1] 168/14 I 60/9 64/1 24/21 27/24 35/17
recovering [1] 133/19 133/20 139/17IRemCo [2] 109/24 Ireporting [2] 25/21 I 43/9 44/18 52/25
118/23 141/14 143/13 149/2 I 136/3 31/20 57/22 61/22 62/17
recruited [2] 76/7 150/9 151/5 156/20 IRemediation [12] reports [3] 2/18 3/12 I 65/17
80/10 156/22 160/7 80/10 80/22 80/23 74/6 responding [3] 8/18
recruitment [2] 71/5 regardless [1] 165/3 I 81/7 81/17 81/22 represent [2] 70/15 I 13/21 30/16
75/18 regards [3] 87/12 82/14 83/3 84/7 85/6 I 165/6 responds [1] 160/15
recycles [1] 100/12 114/10 164/23 97/15 104/14 representation [1] response [40] 5/7
red [21] 13/3 14/21 IFegion [1] 916 Remediations [2] 170/21 5/9 5/13 7/8 7/21 7/25
20/20 35/8 35/9 36/3 IFegions [1] 10/21 84/1 104/25 representations [1] I 12/12 15/8 16/25
37/2 39/4 51/22 55/6 registered [1] 3/18 Iremember [13] 12/1 I 114/3 19/18 19/20 19/23
57/6 58/24 60/20 Regrettably [1] 149/3I 12/19 12/22 16/10 representative [1] 21/8 23/8 23/11 30/4
65/11 103/20 104/18 regular [1] 96/3 30/15 43/25 51/13 50/2 44/17 45/18 91/16
104/23 106/2 108/7 ITegularly [2] 16/22 I 90/8 90/8 90/9 94/8 Irepresented [2] 91/17 93/22 95/17
408/12 153/23 164/11 115/4 145/1 50/21 50/23 99/25 112/12 113/7
redeployed [3] 81/12I"ehired [2] 84/9 remembering [2] represents [2] 93/11 I 113/15 116/8 116/20
102/25 108/9 84/21 12/4 52/24 155/14 125/16 133/25 134/1
redeploying [2] 81/3 rehiring [2] 84/23 reminded [1] 104/12 Ireps [1] 169/3 137/5 139/24 140/13
96/5 117/15 reminder [1] 91/21 Irequest [2] 149/10 149/25 150/2 152/25
redeployment [7] reinforces [1] 21/4 Ireminders [2] 5/21 165/18 153/2 156/2 165/18
82/5 103/19 104/2 reinstated [2] 27/18 I 8/4 requests [4] 6/11 responses [12] 7/16
104/5 104/117 11579 I 28/12 remote [1] 112/3 111/19 111/20 153/22) 8/15 9/24 19/41 31/1
4117/14 reiterated [1] 98/18 Iremotely [1] 172/19 Irequire [2] 119/21 36/1 42/19 52/11 53/6)
redeploys [1] 100/11 rejected [2] 62/1 removal [2] 142/23 I 135/17 53/22 58/23 160/18
redress [4] 71/17 169/5 143/4 required [5] 75/2 responsibilities [1]
81/8 119/14 162/5 relate [2] 36/2 87/13 Iremove [4] 84/15 75/7 92/2 97/10 135/17
reduce [1] 143/8 related [7] 14/10 143/6 143/7 143/7 151/10 responsibility [3]
redundancy [3] 30/25 31/3 55/11 rep [2] 168/3 168/11 Iresearch [4] 3/6 3/8 I 110/23 110/25 111/2
1403/19 106/3 116/23 69/17 93/16 119/2 repair [1] 166/4 3/16 3/17 responsible [8]
reevaluation [1] relates [1] 57/25 repeat [2] 112/25 reset [1] 134/4 84/23 95/12 100/6
154/19 relating [4] 87/25 I 138/8 resign [3] 159/22 1114/4 112/2 114/19
refer [2] 126/4 97/16 115/20 116/1 Irepeated [1] 5/20 162/20 163/3 128/23 137/25
154/12 relation [11] 37/8 repeating [1] 8/4 resigning [1] 161/11 Irest [1] 145/18
reference [14] 44/7 98/20 101/2 102/2 repetition [1] 43/21 Iresistance [2] 77/14 Irestructuring [1]
44/11 80/4 88/13 95/9 102/5 103/15 108/2 Irephrase [1] 171/8 159/23 102/20
106/10 132/22 135/7 108/5 108/17 123/25 Ireplacement [1] resisting [1] 77/14 Iresult [9] 19/7 19/8
442/20 148/1 148/4 157/2 171/21 resolution [3] 26/25 I 71/15 97/21 98/8
1448/8 150/5 158/7 relations [1] 168/6 Ireplied [1] 101/24 64/5 64/10 111/21 149/13 165/9
referenced [1] relationship [7] 37/6 Ireplies [1] 53/1 resolutions [1] 168/4
101/12 37/9 37/21 38/2 134/5Ireply [2] 8/12 163/22 I 108/10 resultant [1] 17/25
references [2] 10/17 166/9 171/3 report [51] 1/20 1/22 Iresolved [4] 26/4 resulted [5] 19/20
1435/3 relationships [2] 2/9 2/10 2/13 2/24 89/8 107/24 120/15 77/4 77/15 117/14
referencing [1] 161/3 166/5 3/10 4/2 6/12 6/16 9/5I resolving [2] 26/6 I 162/1
403/18 relatively [3] 36/18 I 9/14 10/17 10/24 26/11 resulting [1] 147/22
referred [4] 5/6 69/8 58/22 60/24 11/16 12/2 13/9 16/13Irespect [24] 11/24 results [5] 3/21 7/15
90/4 115/21 relayed [1] 138/4 16/14 17/2 17/11 13/2 23/12 50/9 54/9 I 9/12 37/3 155/8
release [9] 139/8 17/20 18/17 21/19 75/18 76/8 76/16 resume [2] 42/10
(66) recognised... - resume
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
R
resume... [1] 105/14
114/5 116/18 116/22
117/8 122/19 125/15
retail [12] 69/2 76/13 126/24 138/22 141/3
124/3 125/2 125/3
125/10 137/16 154/19}
155/11 163/9 164/23
171/2
retain [1] 102/22
retention [1] 153/9
retract [2] 163/20
164/18
return [2] 105/12
105/21
revealing [1] 66/6
revelations [4] 107/5
right-hand [2] 46/13
103/25
rigour [1] 95/21
rise [1] 15/10
rises [1] 13/10
rising [1] 167/23
risk [12] 78/16 81/23
93/18 99/12 100/3
111/25 113/17 142/25] 103/21 103/23 130/9
reversed [1] 73/4
review [14] 22/11
22/14 22/19 81/16
85/3 86/4 92/5 93/14
96/25 97/7 113/13
120/9 121/7 151/20
reviewing [1] 97/14
reviews [1] 5/15
rhetoric [1] 153/17
Richard [4] 127/23
153/18 154/8 154/8
rid [1] 116/17
right [135] 1/19 2/4
risk’ [1] 80/23
risked [1] 80/20
risks [4] 82/2 82/16
103/16 137/10
Roberts [10] 125/3
128/19 128/21 129/5
4129/6 130/10 138/1
145/10 145/13 163/9
robust [1] 88/9
ROD [1] 22/12
role [32] 32/15 32/25
33/1 33/4 34/2 38/8
38/18 38/21 38/24
2/7 212 2M6 2/25 3/1
3/13 3/25 4/1 6/5 6/22) 39/14 57/11 87/12
6/25 8/24 9/7 10/5
10/6 10/11 10/12
11/23 12/12 12/19
13/5 13/6 13/12 15/2
15/15 15/16 15/24
16/7 17/1 17/6 18/5
18/8 19/10 20/22
21/12 21/18 23/15
24/14 24/17 24/23
25/6 26/8 27/8 27/16
28/17 29/12 32/4
32/18 33/12 33/21
35/11 35/19 36/5
36/22 37/17 39/19
41/5 42/12 42/24
43/13 43/20 44/8
44/23 45/6 45/8 45/11
46/7 46/13 46/20
81/9 81/11 84/6 84/8
84/10 87/14 87/17
93/15 107/1 125/6
130/20 153/5 160/3
168/2 169/20 171/12
roles [47] 74/14
75/24 75/24 76/9
81/22 82/1 82/7 82/8
82/11 84/13 85/2
85/19 85/24 85/25
86/4 86/11 87/13
87/25 88/7 89/12 93/8
93/14 94/1 95/13
96/25 97/14 97/17
102/13 102/17 102/19)
46/25 47/6 47/8 47/15) 193/10 104/15 111/23
47/15 48/3 48/12
112/24 117/24 118/4
49/22 49/24 50/3 50/7) 118/7 124/12 124/25
51/25 52/24 53/14
54/22 55/8 56/16
57/14 58/17 58/25
59/8 59/25 60/11
61/25 62/5 64/2 65/13
68/11 69/2 69/6 69/18
77/3 81/12 82/14
83/14 84/18 88/12
88/25 89/13 90/14
95/14 98/3 102/9
103/3 103/25 108/13
roles' [2] 85/5 91/23
rolled [1] 85/6
room [2] 130/17
145/4
rose [1] 46/11
rough [1] 59/17
roughly [1] 42/24
round [2] 148/14
151/22
route [3] 26/17 26/20
26/23
rows [1] 45/23
142/15 154/10 154/16I running [2] 105/10
156/13 158/24 159/10) 138/10
166/15 168/22 172/11
road [2] 116/2 167/17I 48/16 50/22 51/25
76/10 79/24 80/1 80/5} 15/2 27/8 42/24 46/22
80/25 81/2 81/5 81/16I 52/5 55/23 70/24
RTP [1] 137/16
RU [1] 80/10
run [1] 103/18
Ss
Saf [14] 110/10
113/10 126/9 127/23
129/9 130/24 135/16
139/9 142/3 147/10
Saf's [1] 134/17
20/23 21/20 31/13
33/12 33/22 35/22
40/12 43/6 47/17
47/21 47/22 48/6
53/12 61/25 63/15
63/17 64/10 66/4
84/19 88/11 88/24
94/10 94/13 95/4
95/19 102/1 103/7
109/18 110/7 110/8
110/10 110/11 123/4
123/5 123/15 124/22
139/9 147/22 148/12
148/14 150/7 155/21
157/11 161/10 164/2
165/24 166/19 172/2
salaries [2] 78/22
T9IT
same [15] 8/2 8/5
79/17 125/5 147/2
153/2 153/18 159/5
sample [3] 7/14
33/17 34/10
sanity [1] 74/8
Sarah [7] 93/25
94/16 94/16 131/3
133/21 134/1 155/11
SARFARAZ [3] 67/20
67/23 173/6
sat [1] 164/13
satisfaction [38]
4/12 4/16 13/2 13/4
13/16 14/3 14/17
15/12 17/8 17/25 20/1
20/17 22/6 22/11
22/12 22/17 26/25
31/25 32/6 35/21 36/4
38/14 39/13 52/21
56/11 56/19 56/21
56/24 57/20 58/2 58/9
58/20 58/23 59/6
60/12 63/25 64/25
sacked [1] 96/16
65/3
satisfied [43] 4/13
4/15 4/17 4/18 13/8
13/25 14/19 14/23
15/6 15/17 17/11
17/12 20/3 20/5 20/9
22/19 23/4 23/6 27/2
27/7 29/16 32/2 38/7
38/9 38/17 38/20
38/23 52/19 56/22
102/6 108/4 114/14
save [1] 108/6
said [64] 9/2 9/5 13/8Isaving [1] 77/15
savviness [1] 130/20
savviness/nous [1]
130/20
savvy [1] 73/22
saw [13] 53/16 60/2
65/22 83/21 88/13
94/18 101/5 117/11
68/15 73/1 75/18 84/5I 139/5 141/13 143/18
158/21 162/13
say [55] 4/2 7/9 14/7
14/23 15/16 18/5
25/20 41/13 41/14
48/5 48/13 51/12
125/10 127/23 129/25I 51/14 53/10 55/21
57/18 72/6 76/8 79/13) 131/6 133/5 134/18
61/10 61/23 63/3
63/13 65/25 73/20
74/21 75/2 82/18
114/23 119/4 130/2
131/12 137/3 140/13
140/24 142/9 143/5
145/8 146/1 148/20
149/9 151/3 152/15
152/23 153/5 155/1
156/6 157/20 157/24
165/5 165/21
saying [13] 47/14
55/18 77/18 95/22
99/23 115/23 121/21
124/16 125/5 134/4
137/12 138/20 166/15)
says [62] 16/20
28/10 43/4 52/18 80/6
80/19 81/10 82/17
85/3 85/20 87/8 88/2
89/3 89/19 89/21
91/10 91/18 93/23
95/19 99/7 101/11
102/13 106/7 111/14
112/13 113/8 113/22
115/14 116/3 116/8
120/4 120/24 122/17
126/8 126/18 130/8
131/9 134/16 135/12
135/25 136/16 137/6
137/9 140/17 141/2
147/2 147/3 147/21
20/20 20/25 21/1 21/6Iscales [1] 4/11
58/7 63/21 63/23 64/1
147/12 160/18 163/11) 64/12 64/17 65/5
82/1 82/24 83/2 88/14I 164/13
42/20 45/3 45/6 46/20
82/25 83/5 95/5 112/5
160/15 163/10 164/12
167/6 167/12 167/18
167/25 169/18 169/22
169/24 170/2 170/15
170/18 170/24
scale [2] 4/16 4/20
scandal [3] 119/10
119/12 142/24
scary [1] 148/17
scenario [3] 84/13
94/13 166/12
scheme [24] 3/25
6/23 8/11 10/4 10/11
42/6 42/17 43/5 43/17
44/14 44/16 44/19
49/19 59/10 64/16
65/16 66/4 66/7 66/8
66/9 66/12 66/17
102/23 103/2
scope [3] 97/19
97/25 98/7
score [1] 21/1
Scotland [1] 62/4
Scott [1] 116/17
screen [21] 1/21 2/9
2/19 2/21 11/1 11/8
11/10 11/12 16/4
16/12 17/14 24/6
29/20 41/1 43/14
51/20 55/9 62/7 73/12
73/13 119/7
scroll [45] 10/21
24/10 54/11 57/22
58/14 82/6 82/16
91/10 91/15 91/17
93/21 95/17 103/24
105/24 106/6 107/23
111/24 112/12 113/7
113/15 113/22 115/23}
116/3 116/7 116/20
117/20 130/14 136/14)
137/3 137/5 139/24
140/13 140/17 141/2
147/2 149/8 150/4
150/15 153/14 154/18)
156/5 159/5 160/2
164/7 167/6
searching [1] 16/17
second [25] 2/1 2/8
2/13 23/13 29/18
29/21 29/21 30/20
43/3 49/9 55/3 67/9
70/18 79/24 81/21
89/19 97/5 97/13
106/6 120/24 123/13
124/22 128/18 148/19)
153/5
secretary [3] 127/9
140/19 166/25
section [2] 18/20
96/25
sector [2] 3/5 82/21
see [77] 2/5 4/21
(67) resume... - see
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
s sense [2] 5/135/19 I 171/9 28/6 28/8 28/21 33/19I Smith [2] 43/19
= ET G0 7/D I Sensitive [2] 122/21 Isharing [4] 76/17 I 33/24 37/15 44/2 116/19
wae sino 149/17 105/25 106/10 107/4 I 44/24 49/9 51/6 83/2 Iso [307]
40/17 14/5 11/20 13/3] Sensitivities [1] she [26] 73/1 74/21 I 94/2 99/2 121/6 social [4] 3/7 3/16
44/18 15/8 15/11 19/7) 101/25 74/21 93/23 93/24 I 121/11 121/15 82/19 82/25
24/14 24/18 25/8 26/4ISeNt [22] 5/21 32/14 I 98/15 98/18 98/19 _I significantly [8] solicitors [1] 144/2
59/6 30/8 30/18 32/12) 92/19 112/22 117/10 I 98/21 101/19 101/23 I 26/15 27/1 34/15 36/5I solution [1] 96/5
34/8 38/6 44/1 4o/2 I 119/6 119/22 126/7 I 102/15 102/20 106/23) 37/22 39/10 1356/2 I solutions [1] 170/6
43/17 44/15 44/24 I 140/18 143/20 145/9 I 106/24 107/19 109/25) 138/16 solve [1] 132/20
45/20 45/20 46/8 145/13 146/15 146/16I 110/7 110/10 110/12 Isilent [1] 112/4 solved [1] 144/14
48/22 49/18 1/21 I 146/19 147/4 151/22 I 110/15 112/13 145/21)similar [12] 9/24 I some [98] 11/7 11/21
53/10 63/8 63/11 152/23 154/3 159/3 I 145/22 171/16 171/17I 10/20 14/22 42/21 I 11/21 17/3 18/2 19/14
64/18 83/2 85/2 87/24I 163/17 164/10 she's [1] 140/20 44/11 58/22 60/25 —_I 19/24 19/25 20/4
88/16 103/24 105/10 [Sentence [2] 43/4 ISheratt [2] 167/2 81/23 85/6 136/9 23/22 25/13 26/2
107/23 110/18 110/20] 90/20 167/18 136/11 157/9 26/10 27/14 31/2
410/23 112/12 113/7 ISentiment [1] 167/16 I short [5] 42/14 67/14 Isimilarly [3] 65/24 I 32/19 35/16 40/7 41/8
113/15 136/14 137/3 ISeParate [6] 30/6 I 105/18 150/23 167/5 I 66/24 102/4 41/9 41/15 42/3 43/21
4137/5 140/13 1411. I 79/9.91/21 91/24 shorter [1] 13/23 ISimon [1] 120/8 45/14 47/4 48/1 52/1
441/21 141/23 142/2 I 91/25 160/9 shortfall [13] 3/24 Isimple [2] 41/16 52/3 52/5 52/14 52/14
4142/6 150/16 152/7 ISeParately [1] 92/4 I 6/23 10/4 10/11 42/6 I 155/6 53/22 56/23 57/16
454/23 159/6 160/11 [September [7] 1/1 I 42/17 43/17 59/9 __I simplified [1] 101/19 I 58/1 58/2 59/18 60/2
4160/1 161/9 162/15 I 1/16 1/22 2/11 67/25 I 64/16 80/13 102/23 I simply [3] 8/18 41/24) 61/4 61/6 61/8 61/19
462/16 167/1 167/13 I 77/8 158/11 103/2 139/2 89/22 63/13 65/13 65/21
4170/9 170/21 172/19 ISeduence [2] 110/8 Ishortfalls [9] 25/21 Isince [16] 3/19 24/1 I 66/6 66/10 66/11
seeing [4] 92/23 144/10 25/24 26/1 138/13 I 30/17 31/11 31/23 __I 66/11 66/18 71/8 72/3I
H12/18 1856/2 162/13 [Series [3] 36/11 38/4 I 138/17 138/19 151/9 I 85/7 89/10 94/18 76/25 77/4 78/10
seek [2] 51/3 51/10 I 194/20 151/9 151/11 101/5 112/3 113/23 I 82/11 83/8 83/10
seeking [1] 51/11 [Serious [7] 17/17 Ishortly [3] 1/25 122/8) 124/7 130/1 134/21 I 83/17 83/22 90/12
seem [4] 95/20 96/1 I 109/24 146/20 147/10} 139/19 139/5 152/25 90/21 92/15 93/24
96/2 166/10 147/25 152/23 153/8 Ishould [28] 1/15 4/14Isingle [2] 9/19 96/1 I 102/24 107/5 107/21
Seema [1] 92/22 _ IServed [4] 27/6 39/7 I 4/23 67/24 74/24 76/3I singled [2] 128/20 I 107/22 114/24 114/25
seemed [1] 95/15 I 40/10 40/15 86/2 95/21 100/25 I 131/23 118/7 118/22 121/12
seems [17] 8/16 29/8/Service [18] 13/14 I 114/16 116/5 17/8 Isingling [2] 84/14 I 122/12 128/9 129/21
30/8 33/9 41/1 50/14 I 19/3 15/19 21/7 26/13) 119/13 124/18 132/3 I 100/14 129/21 131/11 133/11
58/22 80/17 93/7 26/16 28/23 29/9 134/14 137/24 138/21Isir [7] 67/9 67/17 134/13 134/17 135/9
97/25 102/24 114/3 I 37/18 37/2037/24 I 154/11 154/21 155/13] 105/10 150/19 151/1 I 138/24 141/13 143/22]
120/19 126/13 133/18I 38/15 39/6 39/9 40/8 I 156/23 160/9 162/25 I 166/19 172/8 144/23 144/24 146/20
4137/4 166/12 40/22 57/20 58/3 163/16 164/21 165/7 Isit [1] 105/9 154/17 151/17 154/2
seen [16] 27/9 75/4 [Servicing [1] 26/13 I 165/16 situation [3] 135/20 I 156/10 161/2 162/19
92/22 92/22 107/14 IServing [8] 26/14 _I shouldn't [3] 138/20 I 145/5 163/13 165/13 170/22 171/6
415/11 119/22 119/24) 26/22 34/4 34/7 34/17I 155/24 160/9 situations [2] 72/12 I 172/12
t24l6 124/7 124/7 _ I 34/20.34/22 36/23 I show [2] 35/2 54/25 I 102/8 somebody [1] 127/3
425/25 135/19 138/23 session [1] 123/20 Ishowed [2] 61/8 six [6] 37/24 64/19 Isomeone [5] 89/23
138/24 146/6 set [15] 20/759/6 I 158/14 65/7 68/16 70/12 122/14 145/22 145/23
sees [1] 75/11 65/21 70/4 108/1 shown [2] 17/4 54/24] 70/13 166/14
SEG [1] 93/11 108/5 108/16 123/12 Ishows [7] 6/18 35/20Iskillset [1] 76/1 something [25] 4/22
select [3] 51/14 135/13 149/8 156/12 I 38/17 60/15 168/23 ISky [1] 161/16 4/23 5/7 7/16 8/12 9/9}
110/15 140/7 159/9 165/4 170/12 I 169/13 172/2 slight [1] 168/5 24/4 34/8 72/7 75/20
selected [1] 74/11. I 17/5 SI [2] 99/6 104/2 slightly [24] 2/19 90/16 125/22 125/22
self [1] 169/19 sets [6] 19/3 82/6 _Isic [2] 59/2 168/18 I 8/17 8/25 10/9 10/22 I 128/4 132/9 134/19
self-interest [1] 85/18 86/21 115/21 Isick [2] 136/10 15/13 20/23 26/13 I 136/4 138/4 146/6
169/19 157/6 136/12 35/9 40/2 40/14 55/6 I 148/15 151/2 154/1
Semitic [1] 168/14 Seven [1] 68/20 side [11] 7/22 24/18 I 56/22 57/23 58/14 I 155/18 158/23 164/22
send [4] 134/25 several [4] 76/8 24/21 45/21 76/14 I 58/15 59/3 66/15 _—_I sometime [1] 115/15
140/14 143/23 152/19] 99/22 152/17 187/25 I 76/15 7/25 103/25 I 86/13 111/7 116/20 _I sometimes [5] 9/9
sending [8] 6/10 6/11IShall [4] 42/10 124/12 124/12 129/19I 126/16 150/4 171/12 I 12/1 69/8 75/10 75/10
121/25136/19 140/14] 105/14 164/5 164/7 Isides [1] 165/20 slowly [4] 171/7 somewhat [1] 50/23
147/20 148/13 149/23IShare [2] 112/14 sign [1] 145/4 small [6] 53/6 56/12 Isoon [2] 14/11
sends [1] 136/15 142/5 signal [1] 134/25 57/21 64/6 64/7 64/11I 142/19
senior [8] 36/10 shared [8] 36/20 signature [2] 2/5 smaller [8] 12/15 sorry [22] 24/9 24/24
36/12 41/22 75/23 I 30/24 96/9 99/16 68/5 19/11 25/14 35/24 I 25/10 28/6 32/22
75/24 96/13 131/4 I 106/13 114/1 144/6 I significance [1] 28/9 I 44/6 44/18 49/10 57/6I 38/25 44/22 47/13
166/14 144/8 significant [21] 7/6 Ismallest [1] 41/2 61/15 73/12 107/10
shareholder [1] 9/20 26/5 28/4 28/5 Ismiley [1] 116/6 110/17 112/25 125/19
(68) see... - sorry
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
s
sorry... [8] 126/15
126/20 133/19 146/17]
146/23 154/14 156/18)
158/3
sort [3] 11/21 41/16
165/13
sought [5] 47/16 51/8
55/19 56/5 56/8
space [1] 115/6
spanning [1] 153/6
speak [5] 110/9
122/3 139/14 159/20
172/17
specific [20] 29/19
50/24 72/14 75/6
82/22 84/12 84/19
86/1 86/8 89/18 107/6
117/3 117/4 118/12
118/19 125/9 133/17
138/3 145/6 156/12
specifically [9] 79/6
84/2 84/8 109/2 133/7I
133/22 155/10 160/4
160/10
speculating [1] 8/8
speed [2] 66/22
115/6
spend [3] 71/11 75/3
75/7
spending [2] 79/22
95/13
split [4] 19/21 38/17
59/17 86/19
SPM [1] 69/9
spoke [7] 78/18
98/19 102/15 116/18
136/4 139/5 139/9
spoken [1] 153/11
sponsoring [1]
119/20
spotlight [1] 149/17
spread [1] 170/7
staff [6] 3/7 3/18
110/5 110/6 111/22
169/10
stage [7] 51/4 53/24
54/4 55/20 62/16
62/21 98/1
stages [1] 62/18
stamps [5] 128/23
129/14 129/18 151/5
157/21
stand [5] 26/9 70/3
76/12 168/5 168/21
stand-off [1] 168/5
standalone [2] 159/6
159/7
standing [2] 70/1
165/11
stands [5] 11/24
13/19 20/8 59/3 76/14}
start [15] 10/23 43/15]
69/24 70/3 76/21 80/1
80/3 88/22 115/12
137/11 154/17 163/8
172/12 172/14 172/15)
started [6] 7/1 74/21
85/12 125/21 171/7
171/12
starting [1] 139/3
starts [1] 110/24
state [3] 1/12 4/12
127/9
stated [1] 42/4
statement [24] 1/17
1/20 2/1 2/2 2/8 67/25)
68/7 68/15 70/1 72/11
73/7 73/15 109/18
119/3 123/12 126/11
126/12 126/15 126/19)
126/21 134/3 139/16
145/8 162/20
statements [5] 1/16
2/6 142/7 163/20
164/18
states [1] 17/12
stating [1] 100/22
statistical [1] 28/9
statistically [4] 7/6
28/4 28/8 28/21
statistics [2] 54/12
59/13
status [1] 98/16
Staunton [29] 96/16
115/3 115/4 122/10
122/15 122/16 126/6
127/19 132/11 136/15)
139/24 140/17 141/2
141/8 141/13 141/22
143/23 158/22 159/3
159/18 160/15 161/5
162/5 162/12 162/14
162/16 162/25 168/10)
168/17
Staunton's [6]
127/14 135/23 141/6
146/25 161/15 162/1
staying [1] 118/13
steadily [1] 14/5
step [2] 127/22
127/22
Stephen [2] 91/1
99/8
stepped [1] 69/21
steps [3] 44/6 44/11
98/18
Steve [6] 99/24
100/14 132/15 134/6
134/9 134/11
Sticking [1] 134/16
sticky [1] 162/7
stifle [1] 156/2
still [40] 7/23 16/21
17/13 27/10 27/11
39/25 40/11 40/18
42/25 44/6 47/11 65/5
68/22 83/8 89/8 90/21
90/23 91/5 93/7 99/22
99/24 107/14 110/3
114/16 115/25 117/23
118/7 121/7 121/20
124/24 127/25 132/15
134/11 137/15 150/2
154/6 154/10 155/23
156/15 172/13
stop [1] 132/19
stopped [2] 116/13
130/2
stores [1] 134/17
stories [2] 138/7
138/9
story [1] 138/3
straightforward [1]
113/21
strategies [1] 157/1
strategy [3] 95/7
156/9 156/15
strength [1] 123/1
strengthened [1]
130/10
stress [4] 140/7
140/10 159/12 159/12
strict [1] 149/5
strictly [1] 7/12
strong [2] 7/9 7/11
strongest [1] 89/6
strongly [1] 132/9
stuck [2] 12/24 166/6
study [1] 3/8
stunned [2] 117/11
153/20
style [2] 166/11
171/15
Sub [1] 116/10
subgroup [1] 61/7
subgroups [1] 28/19
subject [6] 69/16
93/16 97/16 104/16
108/3 149/6
subjects [2] 8/10
30/5
submitted [2] 70/6
134/2
subpostmaster [39]
6/20 8/19 10/3 10/10
10/15 10/18 10/23
14/1 14/6 14/11 15/9
22/2 26/5 27/6 28/10
28/12 31/17 32/9
33/25 36/13 36/16
38/4 38/5 38/8 38/22
39/20 48/6 68/11 69/8
69/11 69/25 70/3 72/7
76/22 78/6 87/2 87/3
87/5 87/6
subpostmasters [28]
3/23 7/19 8/1 8/7 8/9
8/13 8/16 8/21 9/20
10/21 12/8 16/14
21/20 21/23 26/18
31/19 32/7 32/10 33/7
34/12 36/20 37/16
37/22 61/14 70/21
105/3 151/23 155/16
subpostmasters' [1]
7/22
subsequent [1]
148/10
subsequently [2]
107/11 151/22
subservience [1]
77/11
substantive [3] 42/20)
68/3 149/25
success [2] 125/12
159/9
such [14] 4/11 12/16
17/20 49/11 54/17
54/20 79/10 81/7
81/22 88/6 121/6
149/19 157/21 165/15)
sufficiency [2] 51/17
121/8
sufficient [15] 22/13
22/22 29/25 50/25
52/2 52/4 52/15 53/12,
53/13 55/14 77/20
113/25 114/7 114/9
151/14
suggest [1] 8/6
suggested [5] 74/16
147/9 147/15 165/17
172/13
suggestion [2] 61/13
135/13
sum [7] 55/2 55/7
56/1 56/7 56/21 57/3
57/4
summarise [3] 52/6
53/23 56/5
summarised [1] 97/6
summary [1] 127/18
summation [1] 46/13
summed [1] 41/8
summer [1] 85/14
Sunday [8] 126/9
126/18 126/22 127/4
127/6 127/7 127/13
142/4
sunk [1] 145/23
support [31] 18/21
18/23 20/14 20/18
21/6 26/15 26/23
35/13 36/9 41/21
51/17 51/23 52/1 52/3)
52/8 52/9 52/9 52/16
53/3 53/11 53/15,
53/17 53/20 82/4
87/12 100/18 100/23
119/19 140/25 167/8
169/23
supported [1] 77/18
supporting [2] 93/25
169/20
supportive [1] 142/5
sure [18] 5/4 5/17
14/7 47/13 48/20
48/25 77/8 87/3 87/8
93/12 107/20 113/25
126/16 127/3 151/6
151/24 159/16 168/5
surely [2] 74/24
94/12
surface [1] 129/25
surpluses [3] 25/22
25/25 26/2
surprising [1] 128/11
survey [28] 5/10 5/12)
5/14 6/2 7/1 7/6 7/9
7/12 7/18 9/24 10/4
10/11 10/24 13/21
16/24 30/1 30/16 38/4
39/20 41/12 42/6
42/18 43/10 49/4 54/6
65/24 66/24 155/6
surveyed [6] 23/25
30/12 54/15 54/19
59/15 64/9
surveys [6] 3/11 3/21
110/19 125/13 157/3
157/4
suspect [2] 12/21
65/2
suspend [2] 96/3
99/11
suspended [13]
27/17 27/18 28/12
29/2 29/10 29/14 30/2
30/12 93/5 93/7 96/2
99/9 159/6
suspending [1]
82/12
suspense [1] 12/17
suspension [16]
27/12 27/17 27/20
27/23 29/3 29/11
29/15 30/2 30/5 30/9
30/13 30/24 31/4 31/4,
80/12 82/9
suspicion [2] 128/13
146/7
sustainable [1] 170/9I
sworn [4] 1/10 67/20
173/2 173/6
sympathise [1] 164/1
system [24] 14/16
14/17 14/20 14/24
15/7 15/22 16/19 17/9)
17/11 17/13 17/19
17/25 20/3 20/9 41/20)
52/14 95/11 95/13
121/5 137/20 161/19
168/9 171/21 171/22
system's [1] 20/5
systems [2] 129/20
137/18
(69) sorry... - T Marshall
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
T 95/10 122/14 132/20 I 64/12 66/12 71/18 theirs [1] 167/23 I 96/24 100/12 107/21
table fy DBS I 134/21 137/14 143/18] 76721 81/22 89/11 Ithem [52] 6/11 7/7 I 109/4 110/24 11411
tables (2) 2/20 2124 I 181/17 108/8 129/6 139/12 I 12/20 15/6 18/25 20/4) 117/12 124/5 125/13
tailored (7] 19/18 {telling [1] 13016 I 185/17 185/22 165/20] 20/5 21/24 26/1 26/22I 130/1 135/9 138/22
T9122 19/35 20/4. [ten [1] 71/13 166/4 28/20 29/22 30/10 I 141/18 142/20 1485/1
Don2 ova 1/5 tend [1] 13/25 thank [114] 1/12 1/15) 32/22 34/21 36/15 I 146/24 148/1 148/8
take [24] 6/1 6/11 [tended [4] 976 10/5 I 2/8 2113 2/17 2122 312) 36121 36/24 37/20 I 150/4 183/24 156/15
Sit oon9 4or7 47/14), 17/14 38/23 5/6 6/12 8/14 10/20 I 52/4 54/18 57/2 62/17I 158/9 161/20 161/21
48/4 67/9 70/2 7212 (term [6] 71/2 123/13 I 15/20 18/11 18/16 I 62/19 63/16 64/10 I 161/22 164/3 1699
87/18 OBI17 tom13 I 123/17 123/23 124/4 I 19/2 20/16 21/9 22/4 I 70/15 81/3 83/11. I 4174/1
107/24 113/2 12013 I 124/15 23/1 24/6 24/9 24/10 I 86/19 88/8 102/8 _I therefore [3] 14/13
4128/9 146/24 160/19 {terminal [2] 151/15 I 24/25 26/3 26/24 I 105/8 105/8 107/7 I 52/16 60/5
15417 15673 160120. I 170/4 28/10 28/22 29/18 I 116/5 117/5 117/23 _I these [35] 3/11 16/24
461/10 168/20 terminals [2] 129/18 I 31/7 31/24 33/14 I 120/16 122/12 124/6 I 17/14 32/5 44/24
taken [19] 41/13 58/8) 151/8 34/11 35/20 37/1 38/3] 130/13 138/13 139/16) 54/24 54/25 61/7
0/18. 80/25 66/20 (terminated [1] 105/6 I 38/14 38/25 40/25 I 143/23 151/11 155/24] 64/24 91/24 97/11
99/2 99/9 101/1,_Iterminating [1] 82/12] 41/6 42/5 42/9 42/16 I 156/10 158/1 165/9 I 98/12 98/19 99/1
106/19 106/24 106/24\ termination [3] 27/12I 43/14 43/23 44/13 I 169/9 170/19 103/9 103/12 104/4
tout dov/42 410/28) 80/12 82/9 47/12 49/14 50/13 Ithematic [2] 41/16 I 106/13 108/22 117/9
tt12 114720 1616 [terms [63] 9/29/16 I 51/16 51/21 52/5 I 66/18 12113 121/21 133/13
466/24 174/14 9/24 10/7 10/13 10/21] 52/17 53/9 54/5 57/4 Itheme [2] 54/1 138/8 143/17 147/13
13/20 15/3 18/2 19/24] 58/13 61/3 63/5 64/3 I 167/23 149/25 150/2 187/12
takes [2] 71/22 126/3
taking [10] 5/14 19/25 22/13 27/21 64/14 65/20 67/1 67/4Ithemes [8] 41/11 160/18 160/24 161/9
29/22 48/15 69/22 29/9 30/7 31/21 33/25] 67/5 67/8 67/11 67/22) 42/4 45/14 61/6 66/21) 165/1 169/11 170/3
70/10 95/1 115/2 36/5 37/5 37/7 37/14 I 67/24 68/10 69/24 66/22 66/25 88/2 they [192]
124/17 163/12 166/13I 98/3 39/4 40/4 40/7 I 70/21 71/11 72/3 themselves [2] 26/6 Ithey'd [5] 12/25
talk [2] 41/14 73/7 40/25 41/2 41/2 44/7 I 74/14 76/16 88/21 93/5 19/18 19/19 19/22
talked [2] 55/22 44/11 44/16 44/18 89/19 91/18 103/11 Ithen [89] 4/7 4/18 8/9] 21/8
164/13 47/24 50/8 53/16 56/3] 103/24 105/20 105/22 12/6 12/7 12/8 15/21 Ithey're [9] 12/24
talking [6] 16/18 56/23 60/25 61/9 107/23 108/20 111/6 I 18/9 18/14 19/11 14/23 30/7 73/24
47/22 78/22 100/15 I &1/17 63/25 65/14 111/14 117/21 118/13) 19/13 22/22 23/7 24/4I 124/5 125/11 129/15
131/24 155/23 71/16 71/17 74/8 80/4I 118/25 126/2 127/1 I 24/18 26/24 46/7 46/9) 158/12 169/16
targets [3] 116/13 89/6 101/8 101/10 127/2 127/17 130/23 I 46/11 48/18 48/22 _I they've [6] 10/18
118/16 156/12 107/8 109/8 114/18 I 139/4 139/21 140/25 I 49/4 49/7 49/10 49/21I 20/11 33/18 125/14
tasked [1] 58/11 130/11 130/20 131/24] 141/18 144/9 144/22 I 54/6 56/10 57/17 58/1I 133/17 139/15
Taylor [4] 127/23 134/6 134/13 139/15 I 148/8 150/4 150/15 I 58/19 60/5 60/24 65/7I Thieving [1] 116/10
12816 1428/7 153/18 I 1590/8 151/21 156/23 I 150/20 151/1 152/3 I 65/20 66/6 66/16 70/7Ithing [5] 30/18 90/14
Taylor's [2] 154/8 162/17 170/16 154/18 156/5 159/1 I 70/8 70/8 70/14 76/5 I 125/5 137/10 138/22
154/8 terribly [2] 132/14 160/14 163/6 166/23 I 76/6 77/1 85/17 87/24I things [16] 4/9 4/25
team [47] 3/11 80/10 132/17 172/7 172/10 88/21 92/3 92/17 5/16 12/1 13/19 17/14,
80/10 82/14 82/22 _ Itest [3] 73/15 120/19 Ithanks [1] 141/5 94/24 97/18 99/5 28/17 41/14 41/18
86/3 92/12 94/1 94/2 I 1595/6 that [854] 105/6 105/8 108/15 I 83/10 90/12 101/6
94/16 94/23 94/24 _ testimony [2] 74/21 that's [202] 109/1 109/8 109/21 I 115/1 125/14 135/6
98/23 101/24 102/3. I 134/10 their [70] 4/3 10/19 I 110/16 111/24 119/9 I 146/10
108/21 109/11 114/21Itext [1] 107/3 12/9 12/21 13/2 14/13) 122/17 129/11 130/4 Ithink [79] 3/11 6/7
4117/2 117/20 124/2 Ithan [76] 4/12 4/13 I 17/24 22/11 22/12 134/9 137/8 138/4 8/20 9/5 11/17 13/8
4124/3 124/12 1125/2 I 7/13 7/25 8/13 8/17 I 22/13 26/11 32/11 138/7 141/18 142/20 I 16/13 18/5 20/18
125/10 128/19 128/24] 8/19 13/25 15/17 32/12 32/17 33/1 33/4] 143/4 144/11 144/12 I 20/23 21/19 25/20
430/10 131/2 131/3 15/18 17/19 20/12 34/13 38/18 38/21 144/13 144/13 144/13] 27/5 27/15 28/15
1431/4 131/25 132/18 I 20/19 22/16 23/12 38/24 39/7 40/4 44/3 I 145/7 145/17 145/19 I 29/13 31/16 32/19
132/24 133/17 143/10I 24/22 25/3 25/4 25/9 I 45/3 45/4 45/7 45/9 I 146/19 147/21 151/9 I 36/19 59/21 60/2
145/15 154/20 155/11] 20/11 25/12 27/2 45/16 47/9 49/22 51/4I 156/5 157/24 158/20 I 61/23 64/5 68/15
4157/7 157/7 157/8 28/11 32/24 33/10 51/9 51/13 58/6 63/15] 161/21 161/22 165/4 I 68/19 68/22 75/17
157/13 157/25 158/5 I 34/4 34/7 34/15 34/22I 64/10 65/3 66/13 70/6) 166/25 171/14 75/18 79/9 81/10
160/2 164/23 36/7 37/19 37/25 75/12 76/1 78/3 78/23Ithere [291] 83/13 83/24 86/18
teams [3] 81/18 38/11 38/20 38/23 83/12 88/7 90/24 91/8Ithere'd [2] 124/10 88/11 88/19 88/23
141/18 144/18 39/7 39/13 40/10 93/6 101/20 103/22 I 124/10 91/16 96/7 101/4
technical [2] 12/18 40/22 45/4 45/9 46/1 I 105/8 112/6 120/17 I there's [50] 5/16 7/22) 105/12 107/1 112/18
19/8 46/17 46/21 47/7 47/7I 122/14 128/9 129/20 I 8/5 12/4 17/23 20/11 I 114/1 114/7 114/10
technically [1] 47/10 47/14 48/2 130/11 131/3 131/4 I 26/10 30/18 33/24 114/25 116/22 118/3
131/14 48/23 51/5 55/6 55/20I 145/15 151/15 155/2 I 37/9 38/10 43/2 46/13] 118/19 123/4 123/20
teeth [1] 135/15 56/7 56/22 56/25 57/5I 156/7 158/13 158/14 I 46/17 53/18 58/14 126/11 126/16 128/17)
tell [9] 3/15 79/11 57/13 58/16 58/24 169/2 169/10 169/19 I 60/20 62/8 71/24 130/16 130/18 130/19)
60/6 62/22 63/23 169/20 170/20 75/13 75/22 93/5 135/23 139/6 141/11
(70) table - think
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
T tick [3] 12/10 16/1 _Itonality [1] 137/21 I Trotter [5] 83/21 typically [4] 4/5 4/6
think... [19] 144/10 49/14 tone [5] 131/25 132/2) 83/21 84/1 84/6 84/14) 13/24 121/3
Tidswell [7] 96/13 132/4 132/5 164/20 Itroubled [1] 113/16
toe ndpateees 113/22 144/21 162/17Itoo [8] 73/3 73/3 troubling [1] 111/17 U
158/21 159/5 159/7_ I 162/18 167/9 168/18 I 75/16 76/25 77/1 true [7] 1/18 2/2 7/18 IUK [1] 3/18
tier [1] 168/9 101/24 140/16 143/13) 15/18 68/7 157/4 UK-registered [1]
aed tiered [3] 161/19 took [18] 22/9 23/8 169/12 3/18
474/11 172/13 172/14] 172/3 1172/3 23/17 58/5 61/18 truly [1] 90/12 UKGI [5] 112/13
thinking [2] 47/16 tills [1] 128/9 61/20 62/25 65/9 trust [3] 52/14 167/3 168/11 1741/4
81/3 Tim [4] 77/17 141/12 I 80/23 96/17 100/16 146/16 148/15 17119
third [12] 26/1 35/6 157/8 157/10 122/8 124/8 126/13 Itrusted [1] 128/4 ultimately [3] 111/3
49/10 79/25 81/24 time [71] 10/14 10/17I 126/13 144/4 152/1 I trusting [1] 141/12 161/6 162/18
89/21 97/18 108/15 13/17 13/18 13/23 168/18 trustworthy [4] 40/2 IUm [1] 48/14
420/3 124/23 126/3 14/6 15/9 34/5 40/15 Itop [16] 12/21 12/23 I 40/9 40/11 40/13 unacceptable [5]
142/22 40/16 42/10 58/5 58/8I 16/3 22/18 23/23 try [8] 5/16 133/23 112/9 133/1 153/18
thirds [1] 18/14 58/21 59/20 60/17 27/14 45/20 46/4 46/5I 156/12 167/9 167/10 I 163/18 164/21
this [341] 60/25 61/17 61/20 46/6 54/10 59/11 168/19 169/25 170/6 Iunanswered [1]
this’ [1] 132/20 62/25 65/8 66/20 79/14 110/24 127/6 Itrying [9] 37/9 37/21 I 152/25
Thomas [1] 115/23 69/21 71/15 71/18 141/17 1423/7 135/24 146/10 Iunaware [4] 36/18
Thomas’ [1] 116/7 71/23 72/1 75/6 77/12) topic [9] 31/8 34/24 I 155/24 157/11 159/24 58/15 58/18 145/16
Thornton [5] 112/19 77/13 77/16 77/17 79/9 118/13 118/15 168/21 unbelievable [1]
412/22 113/2 113/9 78/3 79/22 82/13 119/1 159/7 159/7 turn [54] 2/9 6/12 125/25
470/22 83/15 84/9 84/17 88/9I 166/20 11/15 11/19 13/1 uncalled [1] 163/15
thoroughly [1] 88/19 91/2 93/4 94/4 Itopics [2] 79/23 13/13 15/11 15/20 uncomfortable [4]
449/10 94/17 95/13 99/2 145/6 16/12 16/13 19/2 72/20 83/23 91/7
104/9 105/10 105/14 Itotally [5] 7/3 76/5 20/16 21/14 22/5 131/18
those [219]
though [12] 8/22 106/14 111/8 112/15 I 77/16 118/13 160/9 I 24/25 26/3 33/5 35/20Iunder [10] 44/15
ISG Quo 40/8 66/14) 112/21 113/25 114/10I towards [7] 8/23 18/1I 38/5 50/14 51/16 _I 88/2 89/16 91/22 97/7
6305 66/2 97/25, I 114/18 114/19 115/3 I 35/16 96/16 123/21 I 52/17 52/17 53/2 53/8) 121/7 140/6 143/14
108/10 112/14 114/3 I 116/24 118/20 119/16] 134/7 135/10 54/5 54/10 55/9 59/9 I 163/17 172/18
42718 125/13 128/11 140/11Itoxic [2] 135/5 135/7 I 59/10 61/3 62/6 63/5 Iundermining [3]
thought [13] 70/15 I 144/4 147/18 148/17 Itrack [2] 120/5 156/7 I 64/3 68/3 75/2 75/15 80/20 82/19 82/20
71/9 74/7 84/21 162/2 163/12 168/7 I Tracy [2] 106/23 77/15 84/25 86/21 _I underrepresented [1]
112/14 128/8 134/5 I 170/23 107/17 87/24 96/11 96/24 4119
434/14 136/1 141/9 _ Itimes [8] 18/8 18/10 Itrade [4] 88/5 110/15 I 103/11 111/6 115/10 Iunderstand [15] 5/8
451/12 161/11 162/20) 24/13 24/15 24/18 I 168/2 169/2 118/14 126/5 141/19 I 37/16 43/8 44/16
threaten [1] 163/3 I 72/16 78/18 172/12 trail [1] 118/2 142/8 146/25 148/18 I 47/13 48/10 65/10
threatened [8] 27/17 Itimescale [2] 71/7 Itrain [1] 117/15 159/1 160/14 65/16 81/5 103/18
97/19 27/23 29/2 101/23 training [20] 11/2 I Turning [5] 23/21 115/1 122/20 123/23
29/10 29/14 30/2 timescales [1] 85/10 I 11/4 11/7 11/20 11/21) 26/24 34/11 37/1 124/4 148/3
30/13 title [3] 85/2 90/24 I 12/5 12/9 12/9 12/13 I 44/13 understanding [13]
163/17 12/22 12/25 13/2 two [54] 1/16 3/22 I 44/19 73/25 79/14
threats [1] 31/4 94/20 95/4 112/21
three [20] 2/11 6/7 [today [7] 67/8 79/22 I 13/16 14/4 14/8 14/10) 7/7 13/24 14/5 15/5
24/13 24/16 30/13 111/16 112/3 136/5 I 14/15 41/21 82/4 87/4I 15/14 15/18 18/14 120/21 144/7 144/7
158/16 161/13 transaction [7] 21/9 I 22/2 24/13 24/15 144/15 162/2 169/6
ed Coser today's [2] 69/4 21/11 21/1 se 24/20 25/11 30/4 171/16
410/20 119/4 125/3 119/13 22/14 23/2 23/13 30/19 31/17 34/8 understands [2]
125/20 134/3 134/7_ Itoday/yesterday [1] Itransactions [6] 36/13 37/19 39/1 39/7I 147/24 168/20
170/13 171/19 161/13 12/13 12/14 12/23 40/10 40/16 40/22 understood [2]
together [8] 24/20 17/21 17/22 17/22 45/5 50/17 56/11 114/12 136/23
three pages [1] 2/11 . 420/
through [27] 5/2 5/20 45/6 62/19 108/25 transcript [1] 127/17 I 69/11 70/19 71/14 undertake [1] 120/9
5/21 16/17 23/7 26/6 I 111/12 120/8 141/25 ITransformation [1] I 71/18 73/9 73/16 undertaken [5] 85/5
163/23 167/3 73/19 74/1 80/17 86/6] 93/15 98/17 98/20
oi) ale ooloee [told [12] 72/17 87/19 Itransparency [2] I 86/16 90/17 91/21 I 102/16
98/17 98/20 102/15 91/11 94/6 104/19 41/21 66/23 102/15 109/25 125/3 Iundertook [2] 97/15
410/7 110/9 116/15 109/1 109/2 143/25 Itransparent [1] 125/20 133/18 134/7 I 104/15
127/21 129/8 129/9 151/19 155/10 155/10) 171/10 135/15 147/13 152/7 I undervalued [10]
140/12 145/6 161/11 158/11 treated [6] 35/25 153/24 161/5 169/4 I 39/3 39/5 39/8 39/10
1462/8 167/10 Tom [1] 171/9 36/7 36/8 92/23 92/24) 171/19 39/11 39/12 39/17
throughout [7] 48/4 tomorrow [13] 67/18 I 131/8 type [2] 7/12 16/25 I 39/18 4119 41/23
65/10 70/17 72/24 69/13 90/5 95/18 treatment [1] 35/14 Itypes [4] 12/9 17/10 Iunexplained [14]
1407/5 131/9 142/25 129/3 150/18 159/21 Itrend [1] 32/5 17/24 54/7 16/5 16/22 17/20
Thursday [1] 141/23 165/11 167/13 167/14Itrends [1] 65/22 typical [4] 6/6 25/2 17/21 24/1 24/8 24/11
167/16 172/9 172/19 Itried [2] 66/2 74/22 I 25/4 25/9 24/22 25/1 30/3 30/5
(71) think... - unexplained
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
U 140/17 141/2 141/6 I 46/16 46/18 46/22 I 166/5 166/10 166/21 I was [491]
unexplained. [a] I 146"8 151/13 15919 I 47/5 47/9 47/9 48/1 I 167/5 168/18 171/15 Iwaslis [1] 57/18
30/8 30/14 30/13 1641/7 165/11 166/1 I 48/18 48/23 48/24 I 171/15 171/16 171/16I wasn't [15] 53/13
unfair [7] 34/14 168/5 57/10 171/24 172I7 172/10 I 71/7 83/18 84/8 96/15
34/14 34/18 34/21 [UPcoming [1] 152/16I valuations [1] 47/11 Ivia [4] 101/20 104/19 106/23 123/15
34/23 162/10 16/1 IUPdate [9] 85/1 85/4 Ivalue [16] 45/2 45/15I view [23] 20/7 71/15 I 124/12 129/11 10/7
unfortunately [26] I £9/9.91/13 91/19 96/7I 45/17 45/22 45/22, I 71/18 73/11 73/18 I 459/7 162/4 163/5
TIT TAO TYE 77/5 I 9816 129/12 145/7 I 45/24 45/25 46/10 _I 75/4 81/2 86/16 87/11] 171/8
79/18 87/21 92/15. IUPdated [1] 159/2 I 48/17 51/1 51/4 51/13] 94/5 99/16 101/2___ Iwasted [1] 94/12
100/4 100/11 1092/8 [upon [4] 45/24 51/1 I 51/19 53/7 98/11 103/5 104/17 104/20 Iway [33] 4/4 5/5
4118/2 118/12 121/19 I 75/5 99/20 122/18 104/21 121/17 128/2 I 13/20 28/3 32/8 36/6
131/11 135/9 138/6 IwPSset [1] 163/16 valued [8] 39/3 39/5 I 140/4 141/6 143/11 I 36/7 48/9 68/10 73/14)
146/7 150/13 154/7_ [Urgency [3] 83/17 42/1 45/3 45/4 45/6 I 147/14 151/14 74/20 75/11 91/22
1454/9 157/16 157/19 I 83/18 92/14 45/9 51/9 views [14] 37/6 37/12) 92/24 102/12 131/8
159/20 166/12 166/17IUTgent [4] 89/20 values [1] 46/8 88/4 88/10 95/19 96/9] 131/11 131/15 131/16
17216 111/16 119/10 165/2 Ivariables [1] 9/8 99/13 99/21 106/21 I 132/11 138/22 142/12
unhelpful [3] 157/17 URN [4] 1/17 varies [2] 27/22 78/1 I 127/23 128/5 128/8 I 151/18 156/23 164/2
1462/6 162/9 us [80] 3/15 13/15 I various [8] 8/15 136/18 150/17 164/20 167/10 168/9
union [3] 155/17 16/16 17/4 18/17 41/10 43/15 54/6 visibility [2] 75/13 169/17 169/23 170/14)
1468/2 169/3 19/15 22/8 23/22 98/22 107/4 124/11 I 151/15 171/11 172/5
27/13 28/23 29/23 135/8
31/10 34/1 34/19 35/2Ivast [3] 54/14 88/5
isit [1] 152/2 we [495]
unions [1] 88/5 g [1] 107/19 Iwe'd [3] 7/17 57/14
unit [15] 80/22 80/23
37/3 38/16 39/15 143/15 its [1] 129/16 4124/7
aa ae ea 39/21 41/10 45/13 IVennells [1] 74/20 I vital [1] 96/8 we'll [19] 1/25 2/18
85/6 97/15 104/14. I 90/17 54/11 54/25 Iverbalised [1] 90/3 IVoC [1] 139/5 6/16 11/15 12/7 50/8
104/25 105/41 56/17 59/13 60/14 Iversion [4] 153/25 Ivoice [10] 132/10 I 54/23 94/13 95/18
Unite [1] 80/10 61/6 62/10 62/11 184/23 159/2 159/2 I 139/6 139/10 139/11 I 96/22 105/13 127/21
United [1] 3/17 64/17 65/22 70/2 _I versions [2] 152/8 I 140/15 140/21 141/24] 139/19 139/21 146/22
unprecedented [1] I 70/19 73/18 74/17 I 153/24 14216 142/9 170/19 I 150/17 152/7 154/22
teeta 75/20 78/10 79/6 Iversus [11] 13/7 __I voluntary [8] 5/7 167/13
unrelated [1] 121/5 I 79/11 86/24 91/22 I 20/10 28/16 51/5 56/3I 5/12 103/19 106/2 [we're [28] 15 1/8
unrepresented [1] I 95/10.95/18 102/12 I 58/18 62/24 63/1 116/23 131/13 131/13I 4/24 6/1 9/7 31/20
Bors 103/20 106/21 107/2 I 63/20 64/13 64/16 I 139/13 36/14 42/5 43/15
until [15] 78/11 92/12I 108/21 116/17 120/13Ivery [114] 1/12 1/15 IVoP [6] 139/6 139/15] 47/22 63/9 67/18
94/20 98/17 99/3 1214/2 122/7 12311 I 2/47 2/22 3/14. 4/17 I 139/17 155/9 155/12 I 69/12 72/4 79/22
99/18 106/19 130/3 I 129/17 124/15 126/3 I 4/19 5/5 5/14 7/8 7/9 I 155/21 84/25 88/23 96/11
130/4 131/5 131/10 I 128/5 130/1 131/7 7/10 7/23 9/19 9/24 Ivote [2] 70/14 70/22 I 109/1 111/7 118/11
132/2 146/5 162/16 I 131/18 132/15 132/21] 10/20 13/21 15/1 votes [2] 70/18 70/19I 119/1 124/16 150/6
1472/21 133/15 135/18 137/14] 19/23 21/9 23/23 VR [2] 116/22 117/14) 157/11 158/9 158/11
untouchable [7] 137/22 145/10 149/18] 25/15 28/22 31/7 vulnerable [4] 145/24) 172/15
124/5 124/10 124/16 I 153/23 155/4 156/8 I 31/18 31/20 33/19 146/1 146/14 165/25 Iwe've [16] 3/19 27/8
158/2 162/9 164/18 I 34/14 36/18 39/16 wosftft””_ I 31/2 31/5 66/24 74/19)
aie 124/18 124/19 165/25 166/3 166/4 I 39/17 39/20 40/15 woe 74/22 77/7 112/18
untouchables [4] 166/6 166/9 42/5 44/11 44/20 waited [1] 133/8 117/12 133/16 138/23}
123/14 123/17 146/12! us' [1] 131/20 44/22 46/11 49/6 53/6Iwaive [1] 156/1 138/24 158/18 158/19)
158/8 use [6] 6/16 7/14 53/23 60/21 60/23 walk [1] 139/1 172/14
unwanted [1] 110/21 12/17 123/13 147/15 I 64/6 64/7 64/14 65/12) walls [1] 153/19 website [1] 172/13
up [59] 2/9 4/8 10/25 167/14 65/20 67/1 67/5 67/6 Iwant [15] 3/21 6/14 Iweek [8] 18/8 18/9
14/10 16/12 19/16 [used [7] 4/2 90/9 7116 71/14 71/22 47/13 63/16 72/18 I 68/17 83/24 91/12
29/20 29/23 38/19 123/17 123/24 124/4 I 75/13 75/23 76/3 76/3I 74/23 79/6 81/19 113/24 142/25 162/14)
41/8 46/22 50/14 124/15 132/17 86/9 89/1 90/13 91/7 I 116/9 130/10 159/9 I weeks [4] 6/7 89/5
50/14 51/20 54/11 useful [2] 7/8 12/19 I 93/9 94/4 95/6 95/15 I 159/9 159/10 169/13 I 163/14 170/10
55/9 55/11 58/2 62/7 IUSer [4] 149/24 99/12 100/12 105/22 I 169/25 weeks’ [1] 170/23
62/17 64/21 72/24 using [4] 26/6 26/11 I 118/1 121/6 121/11 Iwanted [15] 8/12 welcomed [2] 72/8
73/13 752 75/16 26/14 68/16 121/14 121/18 122/21I 16/1 41/12 41/14 72/13
zai eerie usual [1] 99/23 128/10 129/1 129/1 I 49/15 54/3 63/12__ I welcoming [1] 72/9
91/15 93/21 95/17 utilised [1] 98/12 131/18 131/18 137/14) 63/18 65/24 66/1 73/4) well [28] 2/22 4/6
4110/9 112/12 113/7_ [Utilising [1] 94/11 139/1 139/3 139/14 I 79/16 151/3 151/12 I 5/10 12/3 12/15 15/3
utter [1] 89/7 139/14 139/21 142/5 I 156/19 15/5 18/13 25/25
ie31 ier 11620 vo I 247/10 147125 148/2 wanting [1] 141/10 I 41/22 48/3 52/16
4149/7 127/4 130/24 I---I 148/16 148/17 148/17Iwants [1] 161/10 56/23 94/10 98/10
135/13 137/3 137/5 IWague [1] 162/20 151/18 155/4 155/12 IWard [3] 116/3 105/9 110/9 115/4
4139/8 139/24 140/13 IValidate [1] 101/1 157/9 157/17 158/2 I 116/15 116/21 425/16 126/22 127/3
valuation [12] 46/2 I 162/20 162/23 165/24Iwarranted [1] 106/15] 132/1 141/10 143/19
(72) unexplained... - well
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
Ww 62/20 119/21 95/15 97/18 99/5 171/16 work [30] 11/16 40/1
well... [4] 145/3 164/2 whatsoever [2] 76/6 I 108/21 110/19 111/21Iwill [14] 88/7 89/22 I 40/21 40/23 41/25
168/16 170/5 130/4 112/21 114/21 115/6 I 113/24 116/22 131/21I 53/7 67/7 68/22 71/12)
went [14] 3/23 3/24 when [62] 4/25 6/1 I 117/14 120/11 121/1 I 137/12 138/12 140/8 I 71/13 80/21 80/25
5/2 64/7 70/8 85/14 9/7 9/14 12/16 13/19 I 121/8 121/24 123/7 142/6 142/11 143/3 82/20 82/21 85/5 85/6)
92/23 94/25 110/3 32/11 36/6 47/5 48/4 I 124/23 126/7 126/24 I 148/2 159/20 172/8 I 85/21 85/23 88/3
110/7 129/8 134/17 I 93/3 62/4 72/8 72/12 I 127/7 129/24 131/10 Iwilling [1] 162/19 93/19 93/20 98/17
1436/8 143/12 72/17 72/23 74/5 131/15 131/16 134/5 Iwish [1] 152/17 98/20 102/16 102/20
were [286] 75/22 76/2 78/18 137/16 138/4 138/5 Iwished [4] 98/15 103/1 105/3 111/12
weren't [11] 54/20 78/18 83/17 83/25 138/18 147/17 148/10) 98/23 101/21 101/24 I 133/22 170/22
84/18 91/6 94/19 86/8 92/18 93/7 93/8 I 148/13 149/4 151/11 Iwitch [4] 90/5 91/3 I worked [8] 3/11
102/24 125/15 144/4 I 94/24 96/3 97/1 100/1I 156/12 156/25 156/18] 93/2 137/11 15/14 68/16 80/11
4144/5 151/21 151/25 I 100/12 109/21 110/4 I 158/17 161/25 161/25I withdraw [1] 165/7 I 81/9 117/1 117/23
4152/1 110/5 110/18 114/23 I 165/2 171/17 171/21 Iwithdrawal [1] 118/3
what [127] 5/85/8 I 117/9 117/11 117/16 I 172/2 17214 165/14 Workers [1] 155/17
12/2 12/21 15/4 28/6 I 123/19 125/2 125/10 Iwhile [3] 76/10 within [74] 2/24 8/6 Iworkforce [1] 102/22
30/24 35/2 37/4 37/5 I 125/19 128/13 129/2 I 167/24 168/13 10/16 16/15 16/24 I working [17] 2/18 4/8I
38/6 39/2 42/10 45/20I 129/4 130/6 13/9 Iwhilst [9] 69/21 74/1 I 21/22 26/10 27/22 I 13/18 13/18 13/23
45/20 46/18 47/1 139/16 149/16 151/15I 96/2 107/15 131/21 I 29/4 30/1 30/22 42/3 I 15/5 24/2 81/7 81/25
47/14 47/22 54/25 I 1592/1 152/1 155/9 I 145/15 161/3 164/20 I 70/15 71/25 72/11 I 84/1 99/24 117/2
55/22 57/18 59/21 I 196/20 158/12 158/13] 168/12 75/24 7711177119 I 119/17 124/24 149/21
63/8 64/17 71/6 72/16] 162/6 162/17 164/25 Iwhistleblower [1] 81/1 81/12 81/17 163/23 168/9
72/23 73/10 73/23 166/11 110/14 82/14 83/3 83/24 84/6I workload [1] 160/11
75/21 76/1 76/22 77/5 where [44] 4/9 4/21 Iwhistleblowing [10] I 88/18 90/21 92/14 workstreams [1]
77/18 80/4 83/2 84/6 I 9/12 10/25 16/24 34/24 35/1 35/5 35/15I 93/6 97/9 97/14 98/7 I 86/17
84/19 85/18 86/5 18/20 20/19 43/16 —_I 109/20 109/22 109/23I 98/19 99/24 100/9 _Iworld [1] 3/8
86/11 86/11 88/17 I 49/25 46/8 46/10 110/10 160/7 160/13 I 103/15 104/3 104/13 Iworried [2] 158/12
92/23 93/1 93/13 56/24 70/12 77/2 Iwhite [7] 9/3 10/8 I 104/24 106/1 108/21 I 170/5
94/25 95/10 95/19 I 77/10 81/21 87/18 I 24/2 27/24 28/11 109/19 110/22 111/5 Iworries [1] 113/10
tO0/s 10/7 101/5 I 89/6 92/6 94/11 94/13] 61/22 65/17 112/9 114/13 115/9 Iworse [3] 125/16
402/9 104/17 108/14 I 1071/8 102/8 110/23 Iwhittled [1] 70/11 I 117/2 117/24 121/15 I 125/16 155/8
407/6 107/10 107/14 I 118/20 118/21 124/11Iwho [210] 121/20 123/25 124/2 Iworth [3] 51/11
4109/2 110/11 110/12 I 128/23 130/19 134/13] who'd [1] 34/22 125/9 125/24 142/23 I 140/14 171/1
410/16 114/9 117/13 I 145/5.145/5 149/1_ Iwho's [1] 86/25 143/1 145/14 149/16 Iworthwhile [1] 71/9
4119/2 121/17 122/18 I 194/12 158/3 159/14 Iwhole [6] 15/8 33/17 I 153/7 153/19 154/15 Iwould [92] 5/23 7/9
123/14 123/23 124/6 I 161/9 164/4 167/13 I 65/8 76/21 76/24 78/4) 155/19 157/18 157/25] 7/19 7/21 8/6 12/21
124/6 124/7 125/10 I 187/21 168/3 168/19 Iwhom [6] 29/5 51/5 I 158/5 158/10 160/8 I 14/11 14/23 25/12
1426/4 126/4 126/17 168/20 169/25 70/15 85/23 86/24 162/22 166/14 169/9 I 25/13 28/5 28/7 28/19)
4127/4 128/6 128/25 whereas [6] 26/21 90/13 without [2] 121/9 34/6 35/6 35/10 37/20)
4129/7 129/13 129/19 I 27/25 37/24 123/8 — Iwhose [1] 153/8 143/3 37/25 39/8 39/9 39/10
430/21 131/9 132/1 141/13 157/13 why [44] 7/24 8/6 8/6 IWITN11170100 [1] 40/10 40/11 40/12
432/10 132/12 132/14IWhereby [1] 13/22 19/3 52/10 52/10 63/7I 73/14 40/21 41/18 44/5
1433/15 133/19 135/6 whether [39] 4/9 4/10I 72/2 74/7 74/18 80/15)I WITN11680100 [1] 44/10 46/18 46/22
435/23 137/14 137/24) 19/17 19/19 19/24 83/5 84/3 87/8 87/22 I 1/17 47/5 48/13 48/21
438/11 141/6 143/11 23/4 25/24 25/24 28/3) 92/10 92/25 94/10 ‘WITN11680200 [1] 59/21 59/21 70/1
443/25 144/10 145/12! 29/25 30/8 30/24 96/2 96/4 99/8 99/23 I 2/2 70/14 70/15 71/9 74/2I
1446/3 146/8 146/13 30/25 31/11 32/10 104/19 104/21 109/17Iwitness [11] 1/16 2/1) 74/3 74/5 74/6 74/8
1448/3 150/7 150/9 33/18 36/19 40/4 110/9 113/13 115/1 I 2/5 48/8 67/25 68/15 I 81/11 84/5 87/19
451/15 151/19 154/5 50/11 50/19 51/1 116/4 116/17 117/7 70/1 72/11 73/7 73/15I 91/13 93/12 95/20
1455/8 156/11 156/17 55/14 55/15 55/22 121/21 124/4 131/23 I 126/21 97/20 101/9 104/7
1457/3 157/5 158/7 55/24 59/20 62/14 134/12 144/24 146/1 Iwitnesses [1] 36/15 I 106/13 106/19 108/7
459/24 162/2 162/15 62/18 86/16 101/18 I 152/24 154/21 159/17I woeful [1] 143/9 113/20 114/9 120/12
1462/16 162/17 165/21 101/22 104/2 104/8 I 160/4 161/17 162/18 I Wolfie [1] 116/19 120/20 121/3 122/23
1469/6 170/6 1714/18 115/16 115/18 117/3 I 169/2 women [3] 38/11 123/9 126/14 130/9
171/23 172/2 119/11 144/5 168/1 idely [1] 114/1 38/13 110/20 130/12 135/15 135/16)
what's [17] 12/21 which [74] 2/19 4/22 Iwider [28] 72/10 won't [2] 16/12 69/20I 135/17 135/18 136/6
74/16 72/20 74/9 4/23 5/23 7/13 10/18 I 72/13 72/18 74/3 Woodley [4] 86/9 138/8 140/1 140/3
101/2 103/5 121/17 I 16/20 17/16 19/20 74/17 75/9 76/5 78/20I 91/16 106/16 106/18 I 144/8 144/15 145/3
123/9 123/9 126/15 I 24/5 28/25 34/24 79/3 81/4 86/15 101/6Iword [1] 81/19 145/17 148/16 149/22)
130/16 134/8 134/12 I 49/25 46/23 50/23 106/1 109/10 111/2 Iworded [1] 5/5 151/4 153/2 156/17
1435/8 159/11 169/12 I 94/23 59/21 65/2 66/2I 119/5 125/4 128/12 I wording [2] 4/13 156/18 160/18 160/20)
170/10 68/4 69/17 77/24 82/1] 134/10 141/12 156/18] 4/21 161/2 161/12 161/13
whatever [3] 41/14 86/7 86/9 86/10 86/19) 158/15 162/22 162/24Iwords [2] 129/5 162/25 163/19 165/15)
86/19 88/24 91/22 168/23 169/1 169/13 I 147/15 wouldn't [4] 109/13
(73) well... - wouldn't
INQ00001185
INQ00001185
w 112/4 137/16 140/8
wouldn't... [3] 143/13I¥Ou [469]
Teal tee you'll [4] 1/4 10/17
Wow [1] 145/24 42i2 12912
write [1] 120/13 you're [8] 8/7 35/16
45/12 68/25 78/1
writing [6] 3/10 51/3
111/16 148/22 153/23] 90/15 129/8 159/17
163/19 you've [45] 1/25 8/15
i 9/5 13/8 17/3 20/7
eee (2) 12117 I oo23 21/19 21/20
23/23 27/5 29/13
wrong [9] 77/4 83/4
90/1 95/2 126/11 29/18 32/19 35/22
41/8 41/9 45/16 45/16
teote 0 I sais e5r2t 67/7 6717
wrongdoing [7] 68/15 69/21 72/21
74/14 74/15 75/1
85/23 86/1 90/12 92/7I
75/16 75/17 75/18
92/11 104/13 117/4
wronged [2] 141/4 I 76/17 79/9 88/24 95/4
144/17 111/20 119/3 124/22
126/10 126/25 129/16)
131/14 151/20 152/23)
YouGov [7] 1/9 2/10
wrongly [1] 105/6
wrote [2] 66/6 66/13
x 3/6 3/14 3/15 3/16 4/2
XX [4] 11614 IYounger [10] 9/6
XY [1] 109/5 21/20 21/23 32/24
— _I 6077 61/14 63/17
Y 63/24 64/22 64/23
Yateley [1] 139/17 Iyour [108] 1/12 1/18
yeah [28] 4/1 6/5 7/4 I 1/20 2/2 2/5 2/24 3/3
8/20 9/4 13/6 18/9 I 3/3 4/2 10/24 13/9
31/18 36/5 37/17 62/3] 16/13 17/2 18/17
62/5 65/7 73/6 76/15 I 18/18 20/7 21/19
88/15 91/9 95/15 23/22 25/19 27/13
127/16 127/16 132/7 I 29/18 29/20 29/24
133/7 144/10 152/10 I 31/9 32/14 32/15 38/8
154/25 157/11 157/23] 41/7 42/19 45/2 47/5
164/6 50/4 50/15 55/10
year [19] 1/17.6/4 I 59/11 62/7 67/22 68/5
15/25 24/13 24/15 I 68/8 68/13 68/15
38/21 67/25 84/12 _ I 68/19 69/24 70/1
85/1 85/14 86/8 87/1 I 70/14 70/24 71/11
105/23 118/20 119/8 I 71/15 71/18 73/7
126/8 152/5 156/10 I 73/10 73/15 73/18
163/8 75/3 76/22 79/10
years [34] 13/24 88/17 94/5 95/19
13/24 14/5 14/9 15/5 I 99/13 99/16 99/20
15/14 22/2 26/12 101/2 103/5 104/17
26/22 27/7 29/7 29/8 I 106/21 112/14 112/21
30/13 31/17 34/3 34/3I 113/5 114/1 118/3
34/8 34/20 34/23 118/18 119/3 120/21
38/15 38/20 39/7 124/17 122/19 123/12
40/10 40/16 71/3 95/2) 126/11 129/6 132/9
116/6 116/23 133/18 I 136/5 136/18 140/13
134/17 138/17 153/6 I 140/25 141/5 141/6
156/22 171/20 143/11 144/15 145/8
years' [6] 3/7 15/19 148/19 149/14 150/9
37/19 37/24 39/9 150/15 150/17 151/14
40/22 152/8 152/17 152/25
yes [237] 152/25 157/17 158/22)
yesterday [2] 161/13 160/22 161/3 162/2
164/14 165/15 168/6 170/11
yet [9] 42/22 43/6 172/11
59/18 59/25 65/4 93/6I yourself [4] 99/6
131/15 136/16 137/3
(74) wouldn't... - yourself