ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Friday, 27th September 2024
(10.00 am)
MR BLAKE: Good morning, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Good morning.
MR BLAKE: This morning we're going to hear from Ms Burton.
AMANDA BURTON (sworn)
Questioned by MR BLAKE
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. Can you give your full
name, please?
A. Amanda Jane Burton.
Q. Ms Burton, you should have in front of you a witness
statement dated 3 September of this year; is that right?
That's right.
Could I ask you to have a look at the final substantive
page, please.
Yes.
\s it dated 3 September?
Yes.
Is that your signature?
Itis.
oP
preroer
Can you confirm that as the date of signature, that
signature is true to the best of your knowledge and
belief?
I can confirm that.
>
Q. Thank you. I think you've told me in advance that there
1
appointed a Post Office Non-Executive Director in
April 2023; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. I want to begin just by asking you a little
bit about your appointment. Can we bring on screen,
please, POL00363049, we're going to be looking at your
letter of appointment dated 27th April of 2023. If we
scroll over to page 3, please, and paragraph 2.1 sets
out there the time commitment as Director. And the
appointment letter says:
"You will be expected to devote such time as is
necessary for the proper performance of your duties as
a director. Overall, we anticipate that you will spend
a minimum of 24 days per year each year on work for the
Company, following the induction phase."
In practice, how much time do you spend in this
role?
A. Agreat deal more than 24 days.
Q. Do you think that the minimum of 24 days as set out
there was realistic?
A. No, although some things happened, for instance my
review of the bonus scheme that nobody could have
foreseen at the time I was appointed.
Q. If we put to one side work on the Inquiry, work on the
fallout, so the matters relating to the Horizon issues,
3
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
prop
27 September 2024
may be some subsequent developments which caused you to
reflect on some matters that you have addressed in your
witness statement, but the statement itself is true to
the best of your knowledge and belief?
Itis.
Thank you. That witness statement has the Unique
Reference Number of WITN11330100 and will be published
on the Inquiry's website shortly.
By way of background, you are a qualified solicitor;
is that right?
Yes, I am.
You have a wide range of business experience in public
companies and you've set those out in your witness
statement and that includes as Global Chief Operating
Officer of Clifford Chance; is that correct?
That is.
And you retired from Clifford Chance in 2014?
\ did.
And subsequently have been developing a portfolio of
Non-Executive Director positions?
Correct.
And you have recently also become chair of a publicly
listed distribution company?
'have.
Thank you. Relevant for today's purpose, you were
nevertheless, do you think that that is a correct period
of time for the role?
Normally you'd anticipate as a Non-Executive Director to
spend around up to 30 days a year on a particular role,
and if this was a stable organisation, I would expect
‘that to be about the right time.
Are we to read into that that it's your view that it's
not a stable organisation?
Correct.
One matter that we dealt with in the previous phases was
the issue of overboarding. Do you feel that you have
sufficient time, and do you feel that other members of
the Board have sufficient time?
I think we definitely find that Post Office is the most
time-consuming one in each of our portfolios, but
I think we're all professional enough to be able to
manage the workload.
Do you have any concerns in respect of other board
members?
No, other than the postmaster NEDs, actually, because
they're also running full time businesses and so I do
think it's a particular strain for them to also sit on
the Board.
Thank you. That can come down. You became chair of the
Remuneration Committee on 26th May of 2023 so as good as
4
(1) Pages 1-4
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
straight away, or very soon into your time on the Board.
I think you've said in your witness statement that you
were always going to take that role but it was brought
forward; is that right?
That's correct, yes.
And why was it brought forward?
It was brought forward because I was asked to undertake
a review of a particular bonus scheme very shortly after
I joined the Board, and as a result of that review, it
was decided that I would take over the chair of the
Remuneration Committee a month earlier.
And the review concerned something called the
Transformation Incentive Scheme. Can you assist us with
what the Transformation Incentive Scheme was?
It was designed as a one-off bonus scheme and it was put
in place during the time of the pandemic when it was
difficult, as was the case with a lot of companies, to
determine the financial health of the organisation,
et cetera and therefore more difficult to put in place
certain financial metrics. So this was put in place for
other purposes, and replaced the normal annual bonus
scheme.
And why does there need to be a review of that scheme?
Because one of the submetrics had some wording in that
was not actually correct, which related to this Inquiry,
5
time, with confirmation from Sir Wyn Williams and team
that the Post Office's performance supported and enabled
the Inquiry to finish in line with expectations."
And it's set out that that outcome had been
achieved. In simple terms, what was the issue with
this?
Well, the issue was that during the time of this plan,
the Inquiry became a statutory inquiry, and clearly the
‘onus on people to provide evidence changed considerably,
and it would not have been appropriate at all to have
any suggestion that Sir Wyn would be involved in a bonus
scheme.
Is there a broader issue, not simply that it was based
on the Inquiry before it was a statutory inquiry, but
irrespective of the status of the Inquiry, do you see
any issue with performance being -- and a bonus being
based on compliance with an investigation into
wrongdoing by the company?
I understand -- I wasn't in the Post Office when this
was set, but I understand the rationale was to ensure
that the team were fully engaged with the Inquiry, and
absolutely had to deliver what was required of them.
Definitely in hindsight, this would not have been
appropriate, regardless of whether it was a public or
statutory inquiry but I understood that to be the reason
7
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
and it had -- the wording assumed that Sir Wyn would be
reviewing the out-turn of the metric.
Thank you. Perhaps the best place to see that is
POL00363154. This is a document we after going to come
back to but if I can just take you to page 3 of this,
it's a Simmons & Simmons report, and we'll get to that
in due course but it sets out there in a table, the
bonus metric. It's page 3. Thank you. So was it
concerning the table that we see, if we scroll down to
paragraph 1.4?
That's correct, yes.
And the wording there, this is taken from the annual
report, it stated:
"Delivery of all the required information and
support for the Horizon Inquiry satisfying the
requirements of Sir Wyn Williams, ensuring there is
a clear measurable plan created to demonstrate action on
improving the overall culture to be postmaster centric
and to ensure processes for Postmasters are addressed in
line with recommendations from the Inquiry. Any actions
or plans must have been endorsed by the Inquiry and the
Board".
Then it says, "Inquiry support" is the metric and
then it sets out there a target:
“All required evidence and information supplied on
6
for it.
Thank you. That can come down. When you were
conducting your review of this, were you aware of the
background to the Horizon issues?
Yes, I had been following it, just as a member of the
public has been, as well, and I was obviously horrified
by what had been happening, and, you know, very
distressed around the issues that the postmasters and
postmistresses faced. I was -- so I had that element of
knowledge, I literally had only just joined the Post
Office so I hadn't really started my induction by the
time I was asked to do this review, so my further
knowledge didn't really happen until later on.
We heard evidence later this week from Saf Ismail, one
of the Non-Executive Director postmasters, and in his
view there were number of people on the Board he said
who didn't really appreciate the extent of the scandal
until the ITV drama. Were you one of those people?
No.
Do you think that you had a sufficient grip at the time
that you were investigating these issues on the
seriousness of the underlying matters?
I believe so, yes.
Were you, at the time that you were carrying out the
review, aware of other ongoing disputes regarding the
8
(2) Pages 5-8
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
quantum of bonuses among senior executives?
I had had one meeting with the Chair of the Remuneration
Committee shortly after I joined, and she informed me of
some of the discussions that had taken place in the past
so I did have some knowledge of some of the issues that
had been happening.
And can you give us an idea of some of those issues?
That there had been requests to the Shareholder for an
increase in the pay of the Chief Executive.
And in your view, was that relevant background to the
review that you carried out?
At that stage no, because I was purely looking at the
appropriateness of this metric, and how it had come
about.
Looking back now at the work you carried out, and the
information you know now about various disputes
regarding bonuses or other income, would you have
carried out your review differently?
I don't think so, no.
Do you think your conclusions would have been any
different?
No.
Could we please turn to BEIS0000655, this is an email
note of a meeting with Minister Hollinrake of
22nd May 2023 and I'm just going to read to you a few
9
involved in an inquiry. So I was still very much
learning at that point.
Yes. Who in particular had briefed you?
I actually didn't really receive any brief, as such.
I just asked to see as many documents as I possibly
could in order to make up my own mind. I was conscious
that there were certain people who might be conflicted
in the outcome, so I was careful not to talk to too many
people.
"The Shareholder was involved throughout and there was
appropriate governance. In [Mr Staunton's] view, the
wording which said that Sir Wyn approved it was a huge
mistake and he is baffled that it went through so many
clearances without being picked up on."
Do you share that bafflement?
Yes, still to this day I do not know how the wording was
not picked up and particularly when it went into the
report and accounts.
If we scroll down, please, we see towards the bottom of
the page, it says:
"DB [and that's David Bickerton, the Director
General of the Department for Business and Trade] said
that the most recent issue was the third time that
mistakes had been made at the Post Office related to
senior management compensation. The review which DBT is
1
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
>
p>po>
27 September 2024
passages from it. If we scroll down we see the
attendees and then it says:
"HS [so that's Mr Staunton] the Chair of Post Office
expressed how disappointed he was regarding the bonus
payment issue (the submetric which referred to the
Inquiry). He has confidence in Amanda Burton as the new
RemCo Chair, and values her judgment. She has produced
her report, which the Board have had sight of today.”
If we scroll up slightly we can see this was 22 May,
can you assist us, was that a draft version of the
report at that stage?
Yes, it would have been.
Can you recall when you were first asked to write the
report or to investigate the matters?
Right at the beginning of May.
So you had been working on this for three weeks or so?
Yes.
“Amanda is satisfied that the decision to introduce the
submetric wasn't an unreasonable one to take, given that
the Inquiry was at this time non-statutory.”
Just pausing there, I think from your evidence today
I think you take a slightly broader view on that.
Yes, I think, as I say, I was so new into the Post
Office at the time that I was taking certain things at
face value and in fact this is the first time I've been
10
commissioning will look into whether there are more
deep-rooted issues here."
Were you aware that this was the third time that
mistakes had been made by the Post Office?
I had been told that there had been some mistakes, yes.
Were you aware then or are you aware now of what those
other two mistakes were?
I certainly recall one was in relation to the
enhancement that the Chief Executive and Finance
Director can get in certain circumstances, and that
although the Remuneration Committee had approved the
change and had requested that the Chief People Officer
ensure that the appropriate approval from the
Shareholder took place, that approval did not take
place. So I'm certainly aware of that one.
And do you have an idea of what the other one was?
I can't recall, I'm sorry.
At the bottom we see:
"[Minister Hollinrake] mentioned that [Mr Staunton]
asked previously to effectively double [Nick Read's]
pay. [Minister Hollinrake] said he was not willing to
agree to this as not only is the Post Office publicly
owned but it is also under huge financial pressures.
[Mr Hollinrake] asked [Henry Staunton] if this request
came from [Mr Read] and [Mr Staunton] said that this
12
(3) Pages 9 - 12
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
isn't the case."
Again, was that something that you were aware of?
I wasn't aware about the request to double pay but
I knew there had been discussions around Mr Read's pay.
We may hear evidence next week from Mr Staunton to the
effect that Mr Read was obsessed with his pay. What's
your view on that?
He certainly did take an interest in his pay. That is
absolutely correct, yes.
I mean, everybody takes an interest in their pay.
A beyond average interest? Unusual interest?
Yes, I would have said, considering the background
against which we were operating, when I would have
considered it was, you know, a highly sensitive matter,
and we needed to be more circumspect, I think sometimes
Mr Read did ask for information about his pay and bonus
opportunity et cetera which I might not have expected.
Looking at the range of issues here that we've just
seen, if we scroll back to the previous page, the
reference of a third time that mistakes had been made.
The underlying issues that you were investigating, do
you think it is common or uncommon for a business of the
Post Office's size to have these kinds of issues?
It's uncommon, but most organisations do not run
remuneration committees in the way this one is set up.
13
the things we have been missing is a very clear strategy
and normally strategy sets the direction for bonuses and
for setting metrics and long-term bonuses, as well.
With the lack of that, we have struggled somewhat to put
in place appropriate metrics, and I'm really looking
forward to having that resolved through the current
strategic review, because I think once we have a clear
direction, it'll be much easier for the Remuneration
Committee to set sensible targets.
I appreciate this is a difficult question to answer but
do you think the executive pay at the Post Office is
sufficient?
I think it depends from whose perspective you're looking
at. I think from the postmaster's perspective it would
certainly look to be more than sufficient. If you are
running a charity, for example, and obviously we have
a clear social purpose, it would be more than
sufficient. If you are running a public company, then
it would be less sufficient. So I think it depends on
the circumstances.
Do you think it's sufficient to attract somebody of good
enough calibre, good enough quality, to lead the
organisation?
Some people definitely would not be attracted because of
the package, it would put people off. Others might be
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
Q. And can you assist us with what you mean by that?
A. In public companies, normally what happens is that your
policy is reviewed every three years and approved by
shareholders and you are entitled to operate within that
policy and you do not need to go back to shareholders
each time you want to make a pay rise, for example,
provided it is within the policy.
Here we're very restricted and have to go to the
Shareholder if we want to change something.
Q. And when you say "the Shareholder" do you mean the
Department for Business?
A. Yes.
‘And you see that as a problem?
A. It makes it more complicated and as say, more unusually
restrictive for the Committee. So it's something that
I've certainly had to get up to speed on in the way that
this organisation operates, and there are a lot of rules
and regulations that we have to follow, such as managing
public money, et cetera and it is very complex. So in
the end I had to have drafted a table showing exactly at
what point we need consent for what.
Q. We may get to it, but in due course the Chair will have
to be making recommendations. Is there anything that
you would recommend to overcome that issue?
A. I think it would -- well, I think first of all, one of
14
2
more attracted because of the social purpose of the Post
Office. So just like you can get fantastic Chief
Executives running charities, they don't necessarily do
it for the pay, they're doing it for other reasons. So
I think you have to look in the market in a particular
way.
Q. And in your view, looking forward to the future, is it
sufficient?
A. I would hope so. As I say, I think the constrains on
what we're able to do might put people off. So for
instance, normally you would expect to be able to give
a regular salary increase in line with the overall
workforce. Here, we're not able to do that. We have to
keep going back for consent. So I would hope, as part
of the discussions around the future of the Post Office,
we might be able to come to a more sensible arrangement
where we take some of the issues away from the sort of
adversarial nature between ourselves and the
Shareholder.
Q. Thank you. On the same topic, and still dealing with
issues of the involvement of the Department for Business
can we please have a look at BEISO000656, please. This
is still addressing your report, your review. We're now
on 25th May. It's another meeting with
Minister Hollinrake if we scroll down, please. We see
16
(4) Pages 13 - 16
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
there are a number of people in attendance including
Lorna Gratton, the UKGI director and the Non-Executive
Director Shareholder. There is a section at the
beginning of the meeting that addresses the bonus issue.
Can we scroll, thank you.
"NR [so Mr Read] explains that the [Post Office]
Board had an emergency meeting last night to review the
report written by Amanda Burton, the new Chair of RemCo,
into the issue. He summarised the main themes of
discussion during the board meeting."
I'd just like to take those one by one.
"LG [Lorna Gratton] pushed hard for [you] to change
the tone of the report so it shows more remorse, and
[you] said [you] would reflect on it."
What do you recall of that conversation?
There was a Board meeting where I presented my draft
report to the Board, and a number of comments were made,
not just from Ms Gratton but from others as well. And
I was very keen to ensure that this was my report and
put in my words. So that's why I said I would reflect
onit. It wasn't meaning to say that I didn't agree
that, you know, the tone was right or not right, but
I just wanted to make sure that the words were mine.
And did you amend the report following that discussion?
\ did.
17
‘on this and provide an update."
Were you aware of what the "lively debate" was?
I think it was more a discussion as to whether we could
rely on clawback or not. And Mr Read did express, you
know, concerns that people were being asked to hand back
their bonus, but actually, everybody did so.
And was ita lively debate?
1-
“Lively” suggests that there was strong differences of
opinions or strong views?
I can't -- no, not in my recollection. Not in that
respect, no.
Can we please turn to RLIT0000342. And this is your
final report. Is that right?
Correct.
If we scroll down slightly, we can see on that first
main paragraph under "What has been reviewed?" it says
at the final sentence of that paragraph:
"Following commission of the report to
Minister Hollinrake on 26th May 2023, some additional
clarification has been requested and this final report
reflects that clarification where I have been able to
give it”
Can you assist us with what that was addressing?
Yes. The Minister did make some comments and I'm sorry,
19
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
Q. Can you give us -- we'll look at the report shortly.
You don't have to give us the exact words but what kind
of thing did you change?
A. Certainly I reviewed the actions following the comments
made and I think I made one or two changes to the action
plan.
Q. In terms of the overall tone, though, did you change
that?
A. Idid, yes.
Q. How?
A. I—well, I put in the wording that you see now in
relation to that the metric was entirely inappropriate.
Q. The second bullet point:
"The Chair was keen that the report has clear
actions and [Ms Gratton] put for one of them to be
removing bonus metrics to do with the inquiry."
That's correct.
And was that implemented?
Yes.
Third:
"There was lively debate about handing back the
bonus. [Mr Read] had spoken to everybody involved,
suggesting that they return the money. From a legal
perspective, the approach will be voluntary not
mandatory. [Mr Read] will engage with the SMT further
18
prop,
I now can't recall entirely what they were, but again,
I reflected on them but as I say, I was very keen to
make sure this was my report.
Q. On coming into the business and being new in the
business, was this level of involvement from the
Shareholder Non-Executive, from the Minister, did that
strike you as unusual in any way?
A. Yes, I was quite surprised by it.
Did you have any concerns in that regard?
A. My concern was that I am an independent Non-Executive
Director and I wanted to remain so, and the reason that
I've been asked to do this report was because I was
completely new to the organisation and didn't come with
any knowledge of the personalities involved et cetera,
and I wanted to retain that independence.
Q. And --
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: You may have already mentioned this, but
was it Mr Staunton personally who asked you to do it, or
a number of people involved, or what?
A. Yes, it was Mr Staunton, yes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. Thanks.
MR BLAKE: Thank you. From this experience can you assist
us with anything to do with the culture vis-a-vis, for
example, the Shareholder or the Department for Business
more broadly?
2
20
(5) Pages 17 - 20
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
It certainly seemed quite a difficult relationship.
I think because of some of the mistakes that had
happened in the past and now this as well, I think the
Department had lost confidence in the ability of people
within Post Office to manage remuneration issues.
So on the one hand, as you describe, you had more
involvement by Shareholder and Government than in other
companies you're used to, but at the same time, there
was a feeling amongst that that Shareholder that things
hadn't been going right?
Correct.
Can we please turn to page 7, the bottom of page 6 on to
page 7. I'll skip through, but there's a whole section
there that sets out the timeline and your views as to
how things progressed over time and how it was that the
metric became inserted and accepted.
We then move to "Findings", I'm just going to take
you paragraph by paragraph here. If we scroll down
slightly, I think the first finding is essentially that
it was a one-off scheme and that's something you've
already set out for us.
Paragraph 2 you highlight issues there with clarity;
is that right?
Correct, yes.
And what were those issues, briefly?
21
"In hindsight it was clearly inaccurate to suggest that
Sir Wyn would be in any way involved in determining
whether any part of the bonus had been achieved. There
was no deliberate intention on anyone's part to mislead
the role of Sir Wyn in this matter."
Do you think you had a sufficient evidential basis
to reach that conclusion?
As far as I could tell, there was no deliberate
intention. As I say, I was doing this on my own. I had
no support, and I didn't want to particularly talk —-
I know it may sound very strange but I didn't
particularly want to talk to the individuals involved,
because I was just concerned that people would have
their own perspective, which might then cloud my
judgment. So I very much relied on the documents.
Because I think one of the other findings either in this
report or in the Simmons & Simmons report is that there
was a fundamental lack of documentation of the entire
process. Given that finding and given that you didn't
speak to anybody, do you think that you had a sufficient
basis to reach that conclusion?
As far as I can tell.
Looking back at it now, are you content with that
conclusion or would you have put it differently?
I have not come across anything that suggests to me that
23
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
The scheme was over-complicated and there were far too
many metrics. Normally remuneration committees prefer
to have very clear line of sight and very short, a few
number of metrics. There were too many, it was very
complicated in terms of how they were going to be
reviewed, it was almost like a complete industry going
‘on in the background, which I would not normally expect
to see.
Was that in any way symptomatic of any other issues
within the business that you've experienced?
I do think the business can be very bureaucratic, and
things take a long time, as a result. And there are
sometimes, as I say, a lack of clear line of sight as to
what you're attempting to achieve, which does cause
confusion.
If we scroll down to paragraph 3 I'll just read from
paragraph 3, it says:
"However, the wording of the first submetric was
completely inappropriate once the Inquiry was placed on
a statutory footing and the timelines moved
considerably.”
Was that wording that you had added following the
conversation that we have just seen or was that there
before?
That was there before.
22
anybody was deliberately misleading.
Thank you. It then says:
"Having said that, numerous people both inside and
outside [the Post Office] saw the wording over many
months, and no one questioned it. The wording was
substantially the same in the letter to the Permanent
Secretary, the February 2022 Remco and the DRR. I do
not find the grouping of the 6 submetrics into 4 as
being material ..."
The next paragraph, paragraph 4, essentially finds
that the Shareholder was involved in the process; is
that a fair rough summary of that paragraph?
UKGI, yes. And the Shareholder itself also signed off
the bonus. As I say, everything has to be signed off by
the Shareholder, and this did go through a process and
was signed off by the Shareholder.
Then paragraph 5, my summary of it is that it should
have been revisited once it was obvious that it no
longer applied. But it wasn't deliberate. Is that
a fair summary? Is there something else that you would
add in summary of paragraph 5?
No; as I say it continues to be a mystery to me as to
why nobody spotted the problem but I have not discovered
anything that would suggest that it was deliberate.
If we turn over the page, please, we have "Conclusions
24
(6) Pages 21 - 24
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
and Recommendations", if we scroll down:
"In conclusion, the rationale for TIS looks sound
and the Shareholder was consulted in July 2021."
Again, revisiting that from the evidence you gave
earlier today, I think you have a slightly more nuanced
position than the fact that it looked sound?
In relation to that submetric, yes.
Yes.
"However, the TIS became too complex with 17
submetrics, and many people involved in the drafting and
approval process over a long period of time. Itis
difficult to understand why the Inquiry first submetric
was not questioned by anyone, and yet seen by so many
people. However, having taken into account the
discretion available to RemCo and the confirmation
I have received that RemCo considered that there had
been very good progress in supporting the Inquiry,
I consider that the decision made should be taken in
that light."
In essence, the Committee exercised their discretion
irrespective of the fact that it wasn't met in any
event; is that your finding?
Correct, yes.
If we scroll over the page, you set out a list of
recommendations. One of them, the first one:
25
Have those proposals been implemented?
Most have. I would say number 6 is the one that we need
to work on, but that would make most sense once we have
a clear strategy which hopefully will be agreed by the
Shareholder because I think then that will put into
context what we hope to achieve through bonus schemes.
Thank you. In terms of an apology, I understand that
there was an apology to the Inquiry. Did there need to
be an apology to subpostmasters?
Yes.
Why do you say that?
Because this did cause unnecessary distress. It just
means that Post Office once again looks as though it's
not listening and not being sympathetic and
understanding of the issues.
Are you aware of an apology being issued to
subpostmasters?
I do believe that on the website there was some
information addressed to the postmasters, from memory.
Do you think enough was done to apology to
subpostmasters in respect of this particular issue?
Probably not.
Can we please turn to POL00447839, please. This is
a Remuneration Committee evaluation report produced on
3 July 2023, so after the production of your review.
27
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
27 September 2024
"Variable pay schemes, whether short-term or
long-term, need to be simple, transparent and clear.
2: "The timeline between the initial proposal,
design and approval of variable pay schemes needs to be
shortened as it does not make sense to have schemes
being debated months (even a year) after the awards
should have been made.
3: "When assessing whether metrics have been
achieved, there needs to be a clear audit trail ...
4:"The RemCo must assess whether any metrics remain
valid if circumstances change ...
5: "RemCo needs to be mindful of all stakeholders
when putting in place new schemes, when determining the
outturn and when reporting on reward due in the DRR.
6: "[Post Office] needs to reengage with the
Shareholder. Just reading the RemCo minutes and
background information, I can see that a large amount of
time is taken in schemes being drafted at a detailed
level but I think we need better engagement at the macro
level ...
7: "The RemCo will review the terms of the 2022/23
STIP when it meets later in June and I will be
recommending that RemCo exercises its discretion not to
award the element of bonus specifically relating to the
Inquiry."
26
Can you give us a little bit of background as to why
this was produced?
Yes, it's perfectly normal practice every year to review
the Board itself and each committee. This was an
evaluation done before I joined. So this report came to
this committee, but it had already taken place. And the
purpose of this was to look at what the proposed actions
were.
If we scroll down to the recommendations, so these
recommendations had already been drafted before your
report, had they?
They had.
And in some ways they are consistent with your report?
Correct.
So if we look at paragraph 1:
"It is recommended the committee focus greater
efforts to ensure that remuneration structures and
packages are simplified.”
And that coincides with one of your recommendations?
That's correct.
"The quality of papers/presentations submitted to the
Committee from management require improvement.”
Do you know what went wrong prior to your time, that
there were such difficulties in the paper trail?
There had been a churn of Chief People Officers, and
28
(7) Pages 25 - 28
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
people in their teams as well. And so I think there was
just a lack of memory and new people turning up all the
time, it meant that things got lost. And clearly, it's
important to document things, have good minutes, and
minutes that reflect the decisions. And I just think
some things got rushed through and were poor quality.
An issue that we've been looked at in previous phases is
a potential failure to pass on information to people who
come into the business. Is this a wider concern that
you have?
Yes, I -- well, the Board is very new, for example, and
so we don't have the corporate memory and therefore are
having to rely on others quite a lot. And you wouldn't
expect to see the churn of staff that we are seeing, for
understandable reasons. But it does make it harder, and
it makes it harder to get that paper trail.
And is this simply a fallout of the historic scandal or
is there something wider that you're concerned about
within the business that leads to those issues?
I think the Post Office is under a lot of stress as an
organisation, not just because of the Inquiry and
what -- the awful things that have happened in the past,
but just also, it's at a bit of a crossroads in terms of
its future, and that, even in a stable organisation,
would cause some issues.
29
incentive plans."
And it's this last paragraph I'd like to spend a bit
of time on:
"The appointment of a new head of HR provides an
opportunity to reset the relationship with the
committee. It must be recognised that the environment
in which the company is operating and pressures it is
under (both internal and external) make the job of the
HR team and RemCo difficult."
What do you understand by those concerns about the
environment?
It's acknowledging that people are under stress, and how
you continue to motivate them, not necessarily through
pay, but in other ways, to ensure that people stay and
do a good job.
"Turnover in the HR team also means that corporate
memory is sometimes missing. However, it has been
disappointing that some decisions which should have been
taken at RemCo have not (eg certain senior exec exit
packages)."
Can you assist us with that, please?
I actually can't. I don't know what that is
particularly referring to.
Are you aware of any individuals amongst the former
Executive Team being paid when exiting the company, and
31
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
If we scroll down, please, to page 5. We can see at
paragraph 10 or box 10:
"Please include any thoughts you have about the
operation of the Committee and any ideas for its future
operation."
It says:
“More to do to get a better timetable of
decision-making;
"More to go to balance, reward, fairness and
affordability;
"More to go to simplify reward structures;
"Trust needs to continue to be built between the
Executive and the Committee -- a focus on
engagementi/listening/incentivisation would be helpful;
"The interplay with Shareholder approval remains
a significant working issue for the Committee -- in
particular the level of approvals required for any
executive board comp."
Was this drafted before your report?
Yes. I think these are comments from individual members
of the Remuneration Committee.
And does this in some way coincide with the concerns you
have already raised?
Correct.
"There seems to be much merit in trying to simplify the
30
authorisations hadn't been through the usual channels?
With the help of people in HR, I have -- and actually,
Mr Ismail also prompted me to have a look at some
particular examples. Unfortunately a lot of these
people because they'd left I obviously didn't know them
and wasn't necessarily sure where to look. But we
looked through the documents just to check whether there
had been issues with whether the Remuneration Committee
should have signed off or not.
The ones that I saw, I could you see that the
Remuneration Committee had been consulted. Some of the
decisions looked potentially a bit odd, but they had
been consulted.
In broad terms what was odd about the decisions?
Just in the way that some of the exit packages were
proposed. But as I say, a discussion had clearly gone
through the Remuneration Committee. I didn't sit on it
at that time. I assume they had good reasons for
agreeing to the proposals.
It says:
"In addition, the process of STIP LTIP design
continues to a problem. More interaction before the end
of the previous [financial year] would speed up
framework design and would help with the creation and
presentation of the supporting papers on the metrics
32
(8) Pages 29 - 32
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
themselves. As a result, the quality of RemCo papers
has been poor and decisions delayed for too long.”
Again, that's much in line with your evidence so
far?
Correct.
Can we please turn to POL00448606. We're now moving to
the 5 August this year and this is an email from
yourself to the Postmaster Non-Executive Directors. And
you say:
"Further to [your] email of 26th July I have had
a look back through RemCo meetings and also got some
further information from Nic Marriott. All of the below
happened when Angela Williams was Chief People Officer.
Most of the arrangements were signed off by RemCo.
although having gone through the papers I think that
they sometimes lacked clarity and there wasn't
consistent sign-off."
You say:
"As you know, lan and I have worked hard to put in
place better governance around senior pay and we are all
determined to learn from the past."
Is this the email that you were just referring to?
Correct.
Can you assist us, insofar as you haven't already
covered it, what the governance concerns were regarding
33
report; this was done by the Government. And it was --
they were instructed pretty shortly after I was also
asked to do my review, but their conclusions came up
later.
And can you assist us with why there were the two
reviews, then: your review and this review?
I'm afraid I wasn't party to the decision on
Simmons & Simmons because as I say, it was outside of
Post Office. I'm guessing it would have been because of
this lack of trust in relation to what was happening in
the Post Office.
And do you agree with the findings in this report?
We come at our conclusions in a different way, but
I think we both conclude in similar fashion.
Perhaps we'll go through a few recommendations and a few
findings and we can see -- if we turn over the page,
please, we can see the background. Over the page again,
thank you.
"We have been asked by the Minister to conduct an
independent review into the governance practices of, and
decisions made by, the Post Office's ... Remuneration
Committee in relation to the remuneration metric known
as the Inquiry Support Target ...”
If we scroll down, that's the section I took you to
earlier. The summary of findings can be found on
35
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
senior pay?
Just following the policies and procedures, so sometimes
retrospective approval had to be given which wouldn't
normally happen, and I just think that some of the
proposals could have been better thought through.
But as I say, I've found that RemCo was aware --
RemCo is only responsible for very senior pay packages,
so there will be people that fall below this, but as
I say, I think that there clearly needs to be
a tightening up of the processes, more clarity on the
policies. We have been doing all that. I would hope
that we are in a better place.
What do you see as the cause of that issue?
I think, again, it is a sign of an organisation under
some stress. And a sign of the fact that some people
were interims, so Mrs Williams, for example, was an
interim. I say lack of corporate memory, and I think
also just a lack of understanding of the environment in
which we were operating.
Can we now turn to that Simmons & Simmons review, that's
at POL00363154. It's the August 2023 review that was
carried out. Can you assist us with a bit of background
as to why this was carried out?
This was carried out at the request of
Minister Hollinrake so this was not a Post Office
34
page 4. They say:
"Before addressing our findings, it is important to
note that the Inquiry moved on to a statutory footing on
1 June 2021 and was, from that point, anticipated to
finish in the autumn of 2022. Neither RemCo nor [Post
Office] Human Resources appear to have recognised the
significance of this change and particularly the
consequences that the performance that the Inquiry
Support Target incentivised would now be compelled by
law.
"Had that been considered and appropriately
addressed by RemCo, then the issues that we have
considered in this review would not have arisen because
the target would likely not have been approved either at
all, or certainly not in its final form. A number of
those ... we have spoken with have acknowledged that in
hindsight.”
Is that a finding that you agree with?
Ido.
Yes. If we scroll down, thank you. At 1.13.
"Findings in relation to [the Post Office's]
governance around remuneration:
"From the evidence we have seen, we conclude that
there are aspects of [the Post Office's] governance
around remuneration that would benefit from further
36
(9) Pages 33 - 36
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
consideration and enhancement because they do not align
with best practice for a private corporation. However,
those findings ought to be balanced against the facts
that [the Post Office] is a public corporation and
therefore has particular requirements that are different
to those of a private corporation. Our recommendations
are therefore focused on maximising the effectiveness of
[the Post Office's] governance around remuneration.”
Do you agree with that?
Ido.
Is there a tension there between the two?
There is to some extent, yes. We do try and comply with
the code on corporate governance, which is designed for
private corporations and public limited companies. But
there are certain issues which we can't comply with.
For instance, the make-up of Remuneration Committee
members and, as I say, we have to go consistently to the
Shareholder for approval for any changes.
And is that a problem?
I just think it does create extra work, and perhaps
extra focus on pay, which, to be honest, we don't need.
I think if there was more flexibility done in a proper
way, and absolutely aligned to a strategy, that would
really assist.
Thank you. If we scroll down, I'm just going to skip
37
that the documents are there so that when you hand over
to the next person, it's very clear why those decisions
were made.
1.17:
"We have also concluded that [the Post Office]
intended the Inquiry Support Target to be validated
internally and we have found that it did not intend for
a confirmation specific to this target to be obtained
from Sir Wyn Williams or his team.
"The language of the Inquiry Support Target was not
considered or discussed in the course of RemCo preparing
the Directors’ Remuneration Report which RemCo approved
for inclusion in the annual report and accounts."
Et cetera.
I think you've said that your conclusions are
slightly different to these. What do you see as the
fundamental difference between the two here?
They are broadly the same. I think they just added one
or two more which we adopted as part of the Remuneration
Committee, and we have also tracked now the
recommendations from the Grant Thornton report as well,
which came out later.
Thank you. So we see below here the Summary of
Recommendations. Have you taken forward those
recommendations?
39
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
27 September 2024
through these findings quite quickly:
"Findings in relation to the Inquiry Support Target.
“Because there is more than one way in which to
interpret the target we consider there was a justifiable
basis on which RemCo could decide that it had been
achieved and there was therefore a justifiable basis on
which to make the award."
Do you agree with that?
Yes.
"The Post Office is not able to evidence the basis on
which RemCo awarded [the] bonuses including the Inquiry
Support Target, because there are no written records of
the rationale for its decision and the recollections of
those involved are inconclusive. This means that it is
practically impossible to ascertain the basis for
RemCo's decision in respect of the Inquiry Support
Target. The fact that RemCo's decision making was not
better recorded is a clear governance failing, including
‘on the part of the RemCo members who should have
identified that the minutes were deficient."
Do you agree with that?
Ido.
Does that concern you?
Well, it was clearly something that needed to be
rectified, because I think you always have to ensure
38
Yes.
If we scroll over the page we can see some more. Again,
do you feel that you have sufficiently implemented those
recommendations?
Yes, we have.
Can we please turn to POL00438390. We're moving now to
23 April this year and this is an email that we've seen
before with Mr Ismail. It's an email chain where you
emailed the two Non-Executive Director subpostmasters.
If we scroll down. we can see you say:
"I welcome your views on the following. The
Remuneration Committee is discussing what would be the
most appropriate metrics for the long-term incentive
scheme. We have asked management whether there is
a target we could put in to improve the customer
experience or improve footfall ..."
If we scroll up, we can see the response from
Mr Ismail. He says:
"I have received your email, and I appreciate the
opportunity to provide input on the subject. In regards
to the [long-term incentive plan] I suggest the
following factors:
1: "Postmaster profitability; postmaster
remuneration percentage increase; reduction in central
overhead costs; increase in footfall that leads to
40
(10) Pages 37 - 40
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POorOoOPryD
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
profitability; commercial deals made over the period and
their payback; postmaster survey results over the last
three years; cultural changes from the postmasters’
perspective.
"I am disappointed with the management's suggestion
as postmasters have limited control over customer
complaints and they are aware of this. I am willing to
discuss this further and would like to know if it's
possible to have similar input for the [short-term
incentive plan]."
Can you assist us with the background to that is
email exchange?
Yes. The Remuneration Committee had been looking at the
targets for the long-term incentive scheme, and felt
that we ought to have one in that related to customers,
because we are obviously a customer-facing business. It
proved remarkably difficult to receive some sensible
proposals, and eventually the retail team suggested one
to do with customer complaints. The Remuneration
Committee were rather surprised by this and didn't feel
that this would be an appropriate metric, and I took it
upon myself to ask Mr Ismail and Mr Jacobs myself,
because I really valued their input, which was why this
email was sent.
So I did it as an open question because I just
41
The first question was: are you aware of that complaint?
Yes.
Are you aware of it actually happening?
That there's a rosy picture?
Yes.
I do think that when the last postmaster survey was
presented to the Board, it was perhaps done ina light
that did look a little skewed, whereas when you read the
actual survey results, you could see that the views of
postmasters were quite polarised and I think more should
have been done to bring those out to the board meeting.
Although as I say, we actually did see the results
ourselves.
Why do you think it is that a rosy picture is painted of
those kinds of things at board level?
Well, you would probably have to ask the people who
presented what was in their minds, but sometimes what
can happen is that people do feel that they are expected
to give a positive outlook on things, but, you know,
it's important that the Board sees the background
papers, and is able to challenge.
I want to move on to the topic of whistleblowing and you
as the Speak-Up Champion. You have been Speak-Up
Champion since August of 2023; is that right?
That's correct.
43
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
27 September 2024
wanted to test whether my thoughts were correct.
And what's your view of his proposals?
Some of these are actually already in the short-term
incentive scheme. So some are more appropriate for
short-term schemes and some of them are in the long-term
scheme. So it was good to see that broadly, even though
he wasn't aware of the details, that we were in
agreement.
Looking at, for example, those final two bullet points,
do you think that there is a sufficient emphasis on
postmasters' feedback on cultural change?
Certainly in the metrics, there are metrics to do with
the postmaster survey results, and they have been for
awhile, actually. It's not just the current schemes.
I think, when we determine the strategy, it will be much
clearer to look at the cultural changes. I just --
that's what I talked about before. I think we've been
a little bit hampered by the fact that we haven't got
a clear strategy.
We've heard some evidence that a slightly rosy picture
is painted of the postmaster survey results amongst the
Board. Are you aware of that?
Yes.
And has that happened?
Sorry?
42
Perhaps we can just have a look at a document by way of
background. It's POL00448689. This is an email to
Mr Staunton that just pre-dates your time as Speak-Up
Champion. Can you just assist us with what a Speak-Up
Champion is?
Yes, the Post Office decided, as part of the
recommendations that came out of the judgments, that
there should be a board member who is Speak-Up Champion.
And the role is not to do the investigations myself --
although, as I'm sure we'll come on, there is one
exception to that -- but to ensure that the policies and
processes are properly run, and the Board has confidence
that people feel able to speak up, and they know the
channels in which they can speak up, and that there will
be no detriment to them if they do speak up.
Thank you.
This email is from somebody calling themselves
John Doe, it would be a remarkable coincidence if that
is their actual name. It looks like an anonymous
whistleblowing email or an email that's entitled
"Whistleblowing". It's Mr Staunton, and it says as
follows:
"I am writing to you directly because I don't trust
the Post Office whistleblowing process and escalations
into Nick Read have not been dealt with. This email
44
(11) Pages 41 - 44
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
will also be sent to Sir Wyn Williams and Darren Jones.
"The disaster of NBIT is well known across different
levels within the business. Recently a number of people
have raised concerns to Nick Read that have been
ignored. More than one individual is aware and has told
Nick the Board have been told untruths by the NBIT team
and the [Chief Information Officer] about the extent of
defects timescales for R2 rollout that now wouldn't be
delivered until August, if then.”
So this email in the first instance raises concerns
about the NBIT programme. Were those concerns that you
were aware of prior to seeing this document?
I knew that there were concerns as to whether the
timetable would be achieved, and that the costs were
increasing.
If we scroll down, there are concerns raised about the
governance in place for NBIT. If we scroll over the
page, please, the letter says:
“Anyone who questions the CIO or Programme Director
are badged as difficult and troublemakers when in
reality it's a case of having the experience to see the
mistakes being made and wanting to do the right thing.
These people are bullied either into staying quiet or
there are campaigns to undermine them. This is exactly
what happened in the past when people too scared to
45
it's a waste of public money."
There's then a concern raised about the culture of
the business, regarding treatment of junior and female
employees.
If we scroll down, there's another paragraph, and
more criticism of Mr Read.
"Nick made comments last week to the senior team
about the horrific behaviours of the people who were
part of the Horizon debacle especially if they are still
in the business. He doesn't seem to see how much of
this is still going on and it feels like he's doing
exactly what those people did before saying if you were
here in the past you need to go regardless of the
situation.”
That's echoing some of the evidence that we heard
earlier this week from the Non-Executive Director
subpostmasters.
"A lot of people are also saying this is
hypocritical when he doesn't manage his own team or
their behaviour. He has lost the respect and support of
a lot of senior leaders in the business by failing to
address known issues, allowing unacceptable behaviours
and backing poor performing and inappropriate members to
his own team. There is a common perception that his
priority is clinging on to his job by his fingertips
47
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
speak up and say what's really going on because of the
repercussions even from Nick."
So there's a complaint there about bullying; is that
right?
Yes.
If we scroll down to the final paragraph, there's
a complaint there about criticism of the Chief
Information Officer again, suggesting that he's open
about misleading the Board with inaccurate dates and
costs for NBIT and is incapable of making a decision or
having a difficult conversation.
Could we scroll over the page, please. There's
criticism directly of Mr Read again.
"Nick Read has openly acknowledged and accepted the
failings of some of his [Group Executive] team to more
than one employee that's been to him to express
concerns, but has taken no action to deal with it. He
is also aware of toxic behaviour from senior leaders and
again does nothing to address it even when he's
witnessed it directly. He refuses to make the difficult
decisions and nods along when people raise concerns,
saying everything they want to hear, but then does
nothing to resolve it. He is aware he has senior people
in role not doing what they should like Jeff Smyth, and
again does nothing to manage or deal with it even though
46
rather than actually leading the business in any way
Et cetera.
This email, I think it's an email, is then discussed
at a board meeting. Could we please turn to POL00448509
and that's a board meeting of 5 July 2023. Am I right
to say that is the email that was discussed at this
board meeting?
That's correct, yes.
Thank you. We see there that you are in attendance,
5 July 2023. And the second item, after the welcome and
conflicts of interests, et cetera, is entitled
"Speak-Up". And it says:
"The Chairman spoke to the above materials ..."
There seems to have been an email from the Head of
Investigations and an email from Mr Foat that were being
discussed in this context.
Yes.
"... noting the advice provided by [Mr Foat] and
[Mr Bartlett] and advised that he had replied to the
whistleblower. The Chairman shared his view that some
of the allegations raised did not appear to be strictly
whistleblowing issues and that it may be in order for
the Board to consider a different approach to address
allegations of this nature."
48
(12) Pages 45 - 48
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
2
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
If we scroll over the page, please, we then have
Mr Read advising that he was of a similar view and set
out his perspective on the allegations.
Now, just pausing there, do you think it's
appropriate for Mr Read to be addressing the Board in
relation to those allegations when, as we've seen,
a fair amount of that criticism was directed towards
Mr Read himself?
Yes, I can see that there may be circumstances where it
is inappropriate, however the whistleblowing was on
a variety of topics where we did need the Chief
Executive's input because certain decisions were going
to have to be made.
If we scroll down, please, we have some views from
yourself over the page. It says there:
"AB advised that she thought the proposed changes
all sounded very sensible, however noted the significant
amount of activity going on in the business and that for
employees it was not always clear as to what the
priorities were. AB queried who would have
responsibility for this. [Mr Read] advised that whilst
historically this had been T McInnes, this would be part
of the Chief of Staff's role and that the Chief of Staff
would work with the business to undertake a governance
and meeting cadence overview to ensure alignment with
49
Yes.
Has it concluded?
No.
Can you assist us with who is undertaking this
investigation?
This particular one is being done by Grant Thornton.
Thank you. If we scroll over to page 5, we see there an
action point.
"SJ [that's Simon Jeffreys] advised that the Board
also needed to appoint a whistleblowing champion. The
Chairman invited Board members to express their
interests in this role by way of to the Chairman. SJ
emphasised the need for the Board to make sure an
individual with the right profile was appointed for this
position.”
Now, this was the board meeting of 5 July. I think
you've said that you became whistleblowing champion in
August. Did you put yourself forward after this
meeting?
I did, yes.
Were you the only person that put yourself forward, as
far as you're aware?
As far as I'm aware, yes.
And why did you want to take up this role?
I -- well, I suspected that nobody else would volunteer
51
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
2
27 September 2024
accountability and decision-making process.”
Can you assist us with what your concerns were as
expressed there?
That we needed proper organisation. This was going to
be a considerable amount of work to look into the
whistleblowing allegations, and that we needed to make
sure it was sensibly staffed up, because otherwise we
would once again add additional workloads to people and
they wouldn't necessarily understand what the priorities
were. And these allegations were clearly very serious,
and needed proper focus.
There's suggestion there that this would be the Chief of
Staff's role. Did that happen?
I believe that she does look at the allocation of roles
and responsibilities and projects within the
organisation.
Ah, so investigating the issues wasn't the Chief of
Staff's role; it was --
No, no, no.
-- their role to decide who would take it forward?
Yeah, yeah. Well, to make sure that people had the
right bandwidth. If they needed to drop things to be
able to help with this investigation, then who was going
to take up the work they were doing, for example?
Are you aware of this investigation being undertaken?
50
and it clearly needed to be done, so I thought I would
be able to do this role on top of my other roles.
Why do you think others wouldn't volunteer for that
role?
Just because of the amount of time everyone was already
undertaking in their various roles. I was still
relatively new to the organisation, and I had been
involved in whistleblowing issues for other
organisations, so I did have some background in this
regard.
Thank you. Could we please turn to POL00447997. This
is the speak-up policy and it's version 9.0. Do you
know if this is the most up-to-date version?
Itis.
Was it developed prior to you taking up that role?
There was a speak-up policy in place but it was revised
several times, I think. I think this was May? Yes.
Yes, if we scroll over the page and look at the very
bottom, at the very bottom of the page it has "Group
Policy Speak Up_May 24"?
Yes.
So you have been involved in the drafting of this
document, or the finalising of this document?
Well, just understanding what it said and whether we
needed to make some changes, yes.
52
(13) Pages 49 - 52
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Q. Can we turn to page 3, please, and it sets out there the
core principles. [ll just read out the first few
bullet points, it says:
"The [Post Office] will treat Speak-Up disclosures
consistently, fairly, appropriately, and professionally,
and afford the protections from the Public Interest
Disclosure Act ... reporters raising a genuine concern
will be protected from reprisals, even if they turn out
to be mistaken;
"Encourage the reporting of any concerns as soon as
possible in the knowledge that [Post Office] will take
all concerns raised seriously and investigate them
fully. Concerns will be kept confidential and disclosed
only on a 'need to know' basis."
3: "The Speak Up team will seek to not reveal
a Reporter's identity outside of the team without the
prior agreement of the Reporter. However, there may be
occasions when details need to be shared where there is
a risk of harm to the Reporter or others or where we
need to do so for legal or regulatory reasons, or are
required to disclose documents to the Post Office
Horizon IT Inquiry.
"[Post Office] will promote and publicise how staff
can raise these concerns;"
And:
53
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means.
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much.
(11.19 am)
(A short break)
(11.37 am)
MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir.
I'm going to move on to the topic of the dismissal
of Mr Staunton. This is the first time that we have
dealt with this in any depth in the Inquiry. The
allegation that we're going to look at has been dealt
with already in a Parliamentary committee and the
various names that we're going to deal with has already
been dealt with publicly, and I think you set that out
in your witness statement.
Who is Jane Davies?
A. She was the previous Chief People Officer.
Q. Thank you. And I think you've said in your witness
statement that your paths had previously crossed?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. In June 2023 I think you've said that following
a probationary period she wasn't offered a permanent
position at the Post Office?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've set out at paragraph 19 that she subsequently
wrote to Mr Staunton, so far as you're aware, and that
55
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
"That [Post Office] will provide a training and
awareness programme to ensure all employees are aware of
the Speak Up policy and procedure.”
Is this a policy just for employees or does it
extend to subpostmasters?
A. It does extend to postmasters as well but I agree that,
actually, on reflection, we could be clearer on that.
But if you look at the top, it does say that it's the
right thing for colleagues and postmasters.
Q. So with regards to actively promoting and publicising,
for example, the Inquiry has carried out a survey and
there were some issues with the knowledge of either the
fact that you are able to report a whistleblowing
concern, or how to. Do you have any future plans in
this regard?
A. Well, obviously we've already reviewed the survey that
was done and I'll definitely be taking that up, yes.
I mean, it is clear that some postmasters do know about
the Speak Up because they are speaking up, but obviously
we need to do more to make sure that everyone is aware.
MR BLAKE: Thank you.
Sir, that might be an appropriate moment to take our
morning break.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = All right.
MR BLAKE: Can we come back at 11.35, please.
54
Mr Staunton later shared with you and Mr Tidswell a copy
of a draft letter from her solicitors which raised
concerns regarding Mr Read: is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now we won't go through the complaints one by one but
can you assist us in broad terms what was the nature of
the complaints?
A. The complaints were partly to do with potential
discrimination, partly to do with bullying, and partly
to do with not dealing with poor performance, amongst
others.
Q. You've said in your statement that there was a view that
it was shared in an attempt to secure more favourable
terms. Can you help us with who held that view?
A. Mr Staunton.
Q. On 4 September of 2023 you've said that this became
a formal whistleblowing report and that you oversaw the
investigation because by that stage you were the
Speak-Up Champion; is that right?
A. That's correct, yes. Mr Staunton asked me to do that
role.
Q. Was this entitled "Project Rose"?
A. Yes. Rose 2, I think itis. Sorry, we have so many
projects, it's sometimes difficult to remember, but
I think it's Rose 2.
56
(14) Pages 53 - 56
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
You've said in your statement that Lorna Gratton also
asked to be involved. Can you assist us with why she
wanted to be involved?
Because this related to the Chief Executive it was
obviously something that was going to be of interest to
the Shareholder.
You've set out in your statement that the Post Office
was advised by Pinsent Masons and a barrister, Ms Tutin;
is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
You say you became aware that Henry Staunton was also
the subject of one of the complaints. The original
complaint that you saw hadn't named Mr Staunton; is that
correct?
No, it just referred to a board member making some
inappropriate comments.
There came a point at which he became subject of an
investigation. Can you assist us with when, if the
4 September was the whistleblowing report, we know that
there was a Teams call in January of 2024. Can you
assist us with when it became known to you that
Mr Staunton was part of that complaint?
From memory it was sometime in November. So it was as
a result of Ms Tutin meeting with Ms Davies to go
through her complaints.
57
than Mr Staunton's, and that there was undue focus on
Mr Staunton because he didn't fit a particular mould.
What is your view on that?
No, that is not correct. The focus clearly was on
Mr Read because most of the allegations related to him.
Paragraph 26 of your witness statement, you say that
Mr Staunton made repeated attempts to have the
investigation stopped. Can you assist us with the
sequence of events there?
Yes. Over several weeks, he spoke to myself, to
Ms Gratton, to the Chief People Officer, to the General
Counsel, and generally being very firm that we should
stop the investigation. He did this under the guise
that it was causing a great deal of stress to Mr Read,
and that he felt that this was unfair and therefore the
investigation should stop.
Why do you say "guise"?
Because we were obviously also aware that there was an
investigation into his own remarks.
And is it your view that he was asking to stop the
investigation because it concerned him rather than his
concern regarding Mr Read?
That thought did cross my mind, yes.
You've described it as a guise. You said it crossed
your mind. Is it your belief that that is why?
59
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
2
27 September 2024
And how did you come to be aware of that information?
Pinsent Masons informed us.
Did you have at that point in time any conversations
with any members of the Board about that particular?
Well, Ms Gratton was also aware because she was also
part of the overseeing process. And we spoke to
Mr Tidswell as the Senior Independent Director, as we
felt that we would have to investigate these further
allegations, and that Mr Staunton needed to be aware.
And again, in broad terms, what was the nature of those
allegations?
It was to do with remarks in relation to a recruitment
process for a Non-Executive Director and they concerned
a potential gender matter and a racist matter.
It might be suggested that those complaints about
Mr Staunton were taken further than Ms Davies had
intended, perhaps to get rid of the chair. What's your
view on that?
No, not at all. Clearly, if those comments had been
made, they were not appropriate for a very senior person
within the organisation and we felt that we absolutely
could not ignore the fact that this had now been brought
to our attention.
It might be suggested that the complaint was principally
and overwhelmingly concerning Mr Read's conduct rather
58
Yes, it did seem coincidental that as soon as
Mr Staunton had been informed that there was also an
investigation into him, that these conversations took
place.
‘And can you please take us through, step by step, your
understanding of what Mr Staunton is said to have done
in respect of trying to stop that investigation?
As I say, he had conversations with a number of people.
He also tried to delay his own interview with the
barrister.
How would you describe the conversations that he had, so
far as you're aware, from discussions with those
individuals?
That they were quite of an aggressive nature.
To who?
Particularly to the General Counsel and to the Chief
People Officer.
Are you aware of the content of that conversation?
That he was just adamant that the investigation had to
stop, and that people were not supportive of management,
and that they should follow what he recommended.
Is this, for you, just an issue with an individual, or
does it say something more significant about the Post
Office as a business?
Bearing in mind the absolute requirement to have a good
60
(15) Pages 57 - 60
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
functioning speak-up facility, it would be entirely
inappropriate to stop an investigation once somebody had
spoken up. It's really important that the process is
followed through, no matter who that relates to.
Obviously it's difficult when more senior people are
involved, just because of the nature of it but you still
have to absolutely go through same process. And so this
was not to do with individuals; this was to do with
absolutely following the policy.
Irrespective of the particular complaint on this
particular occasion, does this incident itself, do you
think, tell us anything about the broader business?
I think it tells me something about Mr Staunton's view
of speak-ups. I don't think he necessarily appreciated
how important it was that we followed the process.
One matter you've highlighted in your statement is
you've said that there's an issue that the Board can't
get rid of the Chair. What's that concern?
That's to do with the governance arrangements with the
Shareholder, so it is the Shareholder who decides who is
appointed and if that person needs to be removed.
Ordinarily, how would you have expected this matter to
have been dealt with at board level?
I would have expected that there would have been an
ability in the articles for the other directors to be
61
categorising them
And he sets them out.
Just looking at this first paragraph it does seem --
this is prior to Henry Staunton's departure -- as though
there was a concern about the pressures on Nick Read?
Oh, absolutely, which I also shared. This was during
the time when obviously there had been the ITV
programme, Mr Read had to appear before the Select
Committee. There was a lot of media scrutiny. There
was a lot of stress within the organisation, and yes,
Mr Read was under -- and of course this investigation
going on, as well -- and it would be very surprising if
someone didn't feel under stress in those circumstances.
In those circumstances, how can you be confident, as
confident as you are, with regards to Mr Staunton's
motives?
I think he was genuinely concerned about Mr Read.
Is there a "but" there?
No, no, I genuinely do think he was concerned about
Mr Read, yes.
I think your evidence earlier was that that wasn't his
principal motivation?
That was my opinion but I also definitely think he was
concerned about Nick, yes.
Number 1:
63
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
able to agree to remove a director. That's normally
what you would see.
Again, looking forward to the future in terms of
recommendations, is there anything that you consider
there should be changed about the position?
I think it would be more -- it would be appropriate to
review the articles and really consider what makes most
sense to be kept within the remit of the shareholder and
what makes most sense to be kept with the directors. It
is quite difficult, when you're expected to be
a director of a company and be independent but then have
one arm tied behind your back.
Does the same situation apply to the Non-Executive
Directors as it does to the Chair in terms of removal?
From memory, yes. The -- well, certainly the
Shareholder approves all appointments and I am pretty
sure has to agree to removals.
Thank you. Can we please turn to POL00448674. This is
an email from Mr Tidswell of 16th January this year, to
Mr Staunton, with you copied in. He says:
"As promised, I have spoken with Amanda. She agrees
with my suggestion that it would be sensible in all the
circumstances (and particularly bearing in mind the
intense pressures on Nick) for the Board to review the
allegations raised by Rose about Nick, with a view to
62
"Allegations where we think there is documentary
evidence which is sufficiently unequivocal that
Marianne Tutin [the barrister] can be asked to confirm
her conclusions without the need to interview Nick. The
most obvious applies to the two points about the bonus
multiplier, which I looked at in detail for my interview
and where the documents are plain in showing the
allegation is wrong.”
Very briefly, what was the issue about the bonus
multiplier?
That was the matter that I referred to earlier when
there had been -- the process hadn't been entirely
followed to get shareholder consent. But that was
actually all well documented, so I think that was behind
Mr Tidswell's thinking that because there was a clear
document trail, that perhaps we could narrow down some
of the things that Ms Tutin was going to interview him
about, because at this stage, Mr Read had not been
interviewed.
2:
"Allegations where the subject matter is not of
sufficient significance to warrant an investigation
process. This might (without wanting to second-guess
the Board) include items such as Angela Williams working
for two companies for a period (which was common
64
(16) Pages 61 - 64
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
knowledge) and the decision to award her leave status
(which may feed into (1) above). The Board may then
feel comfortable in asking Marianne not to continue to
investigate these matters."
Again very briefly what were those matters?
This was Ms Williams, who was the interim CPO. She was
due to leave the organisation, and was asked to stay on
for a period, by which time she'd already taken on
a position in another company. So I understand that
Mr Read agreed she could try and juggle the two jobs for
a period.
Number 3:
“Allegations not falling into 1 or 2 above which may
still need some degree of investigation but which ought
to be relatively limited in number and scope and perhaps
can be managed with Nick more easily.
“Amanda makes the point that Marianne is carrying
out a dual exercise of gathering material to defend the
claim which we understand has been issued. Presumably
Nick would be happy to discuss items in (1) or (2) if
she needed his input, as long as it was understood that
they were no matters under investigation?"
Can you assist us, was it an independent
investigation that was being carried out by the
barrister or was it something else?
65
It certainly raises grievances.
And under your policy, of which you've been involved,
would it qualify as a whistleblowing complaint?
We did not treat it as that. Instead it went through
a grievance process through HR.
And why is that?
Because we felt these were grievances being raised by
Mr Ismail and Mr Jacobs.
It says there:
"Saf said that the views expressed by Richard Taylor
and previously by management and even members of the
Board, still persisted -- that those [postmasters] who
had not come forward to be exonerated and were ‘guilty
as charged’. Something needs to be done.”
He then names other individuals, Martin Roberts and
certain members of his team were singled out.
"Equally, Saf and Elliot are fed up with the amount
of power wielded by Ben Foat.”
Do those matters qualify as whistleblowing
complaints?
Potentially they could be but as say, we considered them
to be a grievance.
And what do you see is the difference between
a whistleblowing complaint and a grievance?
Agrievance will be to do with issues like bullying or
67
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
No, this was an independent investigation.
And can an independent investigation be carried out
whilst also gathering material to defend a claim?
This, perhaps, is slightly clumsy wording, but what was
meant by this was that it was the same issues were
raised for the Employment Tribunal. So rather than
creating two lots of work, the purpose was to make sure
that the same points were covered.
Thank you. It then says:
"If you think this might be workable and valuable in
reassuring Nick, I think the next step is to get Lorna
involved."
Et cetera.
This then brings us, in terms of the dates, we are
also at the same time as what we know as Project
Pineapple. Can we please turn to POL00448300. And it's
page 2. Over the page, please. Thank you very much.
So this is going on at a very similar time when we
are back a couple of days, January 14th now.
In your view, should we read in anything to the
timing of the Project Pineapple email to the issues that
we've just been discussing?
I don't believe so.
Do you consider this Project Pineapple email to be
a whistleblowing complaint?
66
other sort of HR matters, and this seemed to us to be
more to do with how people were behaving in the
organisation.
A fundamental cultural issue about presuming that
subpostmasters are guilty as charged, do you consider
that to be a grievance or a matter for the
whistleblowing policy?
I think it could fall into either category, to be
honest.
The reason I ask is we know that this email was
subsequently forwarded by Mr Read to individuals who
were named in the email. Do you see that as a breach of
the confidentiality obligations of your Speak-Up Policy,
if not in letter, at least in theory?
Um, yes.
Because I think you have raised issues of, for example,
Mr Staunton's disclosure to Parliament in relation to
Ms Davies' complaint.
(Witness nodded)
Isn't disclosure, it might be said that disclosure of
this email is very much in a similar category to that?
Yes, it was immensely unfortunate.
And do you think those actions, for whatever reason,
might discourage others from coming forward?
Potentially, and we were also concerned about the
68
(17) Pages 65 - 68
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
complaints against Mr Read being made public for the
same reason. So we did put out a communication to
everyone to reassure them that this is not the normal
process, and our expectation is to keep things
confidential until the moment when there might be
a reason to make something public.
Were things going quite wrong in mid-January 2024?
It was certainly a very difficult period.
Could we turn, please, to POL00448301. This is the
email that we've seen before from Mr Staunton to the
Non-Executive Directors. He says:
“Nick confirmed that he had sent the confidential
note to the independent [Non-Executive Directors]
entitled Project Pineapple to Ben and Martin amongst
others. This note containing the private comments of
‘our postmaster [Non-Executive Directors] ..."
And this email also addresses the fact that Nick was
under huge pressures:
a lot on his mind ... he understands it was
a serious lapse and was very apologetic."
Were you aware of any apology being made to the
Subpostmaster Non-Executive Directors?
I know that the postmaster, in line with the Executive
Directors, definitely wanted an apology from Mr Read and
I understand they feel they did not get one.
69
Director at the time, had given notice that he intended
to leave the Post Office, and so it would be necessary
to find a replacement.
Now, that replacement could either be someone
internal or appointment of a new person. The
Shareholder advised the Board that they wanted this
person to be externally appointed and to have some sort
of Government type background.
And what was the view of the Chair?
The -- well, in the initial discussions at the Board,
the Chair agreed to that. But he then seemed to change
his mind.
‘And do you know why?
He said it was because there were so many issues facing
the Post Office that we didn't need yet another matter
which would involve people being distracted in
interviewing, et cetera and so felt it would be more
appropriate to appoint somebody internally.
And was your view that that view was legitimately held?
I could absolutely understand the rationale for trying
to reduce the number of things that were going on in the
Post Office, because there were just huge amounts.
However, there had been a very, very clear steer from
the Shareholder as to what they wanted, and it seemed to
me that this was not the moment to -- I think I said the
ral
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
And were you --
I think he did it more in the context of the
circumstances in which he accidentally forwarded the
note.
Are you aware of any corrective action within the
business to make sure that this kind of issue doesn't
crop up again?
Well, unfortunately it's almost impossible to prevent
someone forwarding something that they shouldn't do.
But what is important is for people to pause a moment
before they press the "send" button and make sure they
see what the attachments are.
Does this, once again, go to some sort of an overall
cultural issue within the organisation?
As I say, the organisation has been under huge stress.
Mr Read himself was very stressed at this point, and
I just think he just sent it without really realising
what was attached. He hadn't meant to send the embedded
attachments.
If that can come down. On the same day, an issue arose
regarding the appointment of the Senior Independent
Director. You've addressed that at paragraph 44 of your
witness statement. Can you previously explain to us
what the issue was there?
Yes. Mr Tidswell, who was the Senior Independent
70
words "pick a fight" -- with the Shareholder.
If we could bring on to screen your witness statement
WITN11330100. It's paragraph 45, page 13, that I'd like
to ask you about. Thank you. Page 13, paragraph 45.
You say there:
"I had various discussions with Mr Tidswell and
Ms Gratton as this was yet another example of
Mr Staunton's inappropriate conduct. It is well
accepted that cultural change starts at the top. The
Post Office was in the very unfortunate position of
having a Chair of the Board who was acting contrary to
best practice."
Can you expand upon that, please?
Yes, well, we have already discussed the issues in
relation to Mr Staunton trying to persuade people to
stop the investigation into Mr Read. He had also, I had
been told, shouted at the General Counsel in an
open-plan situation, so other staff could see. And he'd
had various conversations with the Chief People Officer,
which had led her to consider that she might need to
resign.
Thank you.
We have heard this week from the Subpostmaster
Non-Executive Directors who broadly paint a positive
picture of Mr Staunton's commitment to the involvement
72
(18) Pages 69 - 72
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
of subpostmasters, for example. Why do you think it is
that there is this gulf of views with regards to
Mr Staunton?
I think it is correct. Mr Staunton absolutely wanted
the -- a better future for the postmasters. He wanted
resolution of the historical compensation process.
I completely agree with all those comments. I don't
think we're inconsistent in that.
The suggestion might be made that he was more on the
side of the postmasters than other members of the Board
and that it's effectively the establishment getting rid
of him. What's your view as to that?
No, I don't think that's correct. As I say, I genuinely
believe he wanted to do the best for the postmasters but
I think he got very frustrated with the fact that we're
a public corporation and some of the policies and
processes we have to follow, and perhaps wasn't the
right person for this particular role.
Thank you. I'd like to move on quickly to Past Roles
and Phoenix. Can we bring up on to screen POL00448297.
This is an email that we've seen from Mr Jacobs raising
concerns that current employees who are still in the
business and were involved in the Horizon scandal are
still employed. There's another number of emails along
the same lines chasing up action. It seems as though
73
a category of wrongdoers. Why do you think they haven't
been suspended?
I think because the People Team have been going through
a particular process and didn't feel that there was
sufficient information to warrant a suspension.
Have you heard the term "untouchables" being used by
Mr Read?
have.
And what was your understanding as to that term at the
time it was used?
I heard it in relation to 18th January meeting this
year. From memory, the context was Mr Staunton said
something like "As Nick describes, there are certain
people who are untouchables", and Mr Read agreed with
that comment.
So in your view, the term came from Mr Staunton rather
than Mr Read?
Yes, but I think he was quoting Mr Read.
Ah. Thank you. And what did you understand that to
mean?
I understood that -- well, there was, again, confusion
as to quite what this referred to and there seemed to be
different names attached to it. But it seemed to
suggest that there were certain people who were above
normal policies and processes, and that action wouldn't
75
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
27 September 2024
action is not taken, certainly in their view, swiftly.
Were you aware of the differences between Past Roles
and Phoenix?
Not initially. I think it was all a little bit confused
as to what we were actually talking about, so it did
take a while for the Board to understand that there were
two different types of people.
And in your view, was there sufficient priority given to
both of those projects?
No, I think we could have been a lot quicker. I think
this was a very difficult topic, but at some point
decisions have to be made.
And looking at the present day, do you think there has
been sufficient action taken in that regard?
Itis definitely improving.
What's your view of the "Suspend now" proposal that was
put forward by Mr Ismail and Mr Jacobs this week?
I think, again, it depends on the individual concerned.
As you know, there are a range of different employees
involved in these matters, and I think it would be very
unfair for some, and others it might be more
appropriate.
I mean, there are some names that we've heard mentioned
where it's certainly in the view of the Subpostmaster
Non-Executive Directors they would clearly fall within
74
be taken against them if action was necessary.
And in your understanding, who did that relate to?
On 18 January, the reference was to Mr Bartlett.
And was there another occasion when it was in reference
to somebody else?
I believe it was in relation to potentially the previous
investigators.
Have you personally done anything to challenge that?
It's definitely not a -- I know there was concern as to
whether this was a sort of word used generally in the
organisation, and I have definitely not heard it
anywhere else. And in my personal view, you definitely
can't have people who are untouchable. That is -- just
makes a very unhealthy organisation if that’s the case.
‘And as Speak-Up Champion, have you done anything to see
whether there is any substance to that allegation?
Well, the very fact that we are running multiple
investigations into people and indeed investigated the
allegations in relation to the Chair and the Chief
Executive, I would hope would underpin confidence that
there are no people who are untouchable.
On a related subject, looking at the investigations and
the Investigations Team, we've heard evidence, for
example, from Mr Jacobs, who is subject to an
investigation himself. Who is responsible for oversight
76
(19) Pages 73 - 76
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
of that Investigations Team, so far as you're aware?
It was the General Counsel.
Do you consider that the Board has sufficient oversight
in respect of, for example, the recovery of apparent or
alleged shortfalls?
I think it's something we definitely need to review. We
are -- the Board as a whole is getting more information
now and there are regular updates to the Board around
the number of investigations. But I think it would
really benefit us to sort of really stand back and
review some of the processes.
You'll have seen in your pack in preparation for today
various correspondence between Mr Read and Fujitsu,
regarding the provision of witness evidence in criminal
proceedings. Was that something that you were aware of
before preparing for the Inquiry?
Yes. I don't think I saw that correspondence, but I --
from memory, Mr Woodley did describe the correspondence
to the Board.
‘And what is your view now, having seen that
correspondence, of the approach that was taken by Post
Office Investigators?
I think some of the -- we should look at some of the
language that's used, and I think people just need to
stand back and understand what it is they're trying to
77
happened.
Is there any content that was changed that you consider
the Inquiry should be aware of or concerned about?
I think the first report was actually just too long, and
we also wanted to focus on the actions that were going
to come out of it.
Are there any aspects of that report that you don't
agree with?
From memory, no. I have adopted all the proposals for
the Remuneration Committee, as I mentioned before, we
now have a tracker for the numerous corporate governance
proposals for remuneration.
Moving on to NBIT. Have you seen the results in the
YouGov survey regarding technical issues still being
experienced by subpostmasters?
I've had a very, very quick look, unfortunately I've had
a very busy week for other companies, but yes, I did
have a quick look.
Have you seen or heard about the concerns raised by
Mr Jacobs and Mr Ismail about the current system as.
well?
In their evidence?
Yes.
No, I haven't been able to watch all their evidence, I'm
afraid.
79
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOorOoOPryo
27 September 2024
achieve. We do need to get a balance, in terms of being
confident that where there actually has been wrongdoing,
the police want to look into something, that we are able
to provide evidence to the police. I think we need to
get that better into balance?
‘And what in particular are your concerns relating to the
particular correspondence that you've seen.
I think, although the term "victim" would be understood
in the criminal context, I think just in the -- the fact
that we have got our own background to this, we just
need to really review how we approach things.
Thank you.
I'm just going to deal with a few small
miscellaneous topics before we finish, before I move on
to subpostmaster questions.
Governance issues. Grant Thornton. Were you aware
of any changes being made to the Grant Thornton report
before it was finalised?
As you'd expect, a draft was put before the Board, and
I also saw the draft of the remuneration element,
because obviously I'm very interested in that. And we
were given an opportunity to comment and if we thought
that some of the information was incorrect, to ask Grant
Thornton to reconsider and that is entirely what you
would expect in these sort of reports. So that process
78
The kinds of issues that have been identified, ongoing
issues with the Horizon system, is that something that
you have been made aware of at board level?
Yes, we are aware of issues. I would also say it would
be highly -- in my experience, highly unusual if there
weren't issues with computer systems. That is partly
the nature of the beast.
I think what's more concerning is how those issues
are dealt with.
With regards to the new system, what are the key issues
that you're aware of that are of concern to the Board?
Well, there's a broad one in terms of usability. It's
a very, very old-fashioned system. It wouldn't help us
moving to a more digital world, for example, it's not
user-friendly. We couldn't sort of allow customers to
input their own data into it, for example. So there's
lots of things from a practical, commercial point of
view. It really does need changing. There are issues
with, I believe, screen freezes, et cetera.
Sorry, you're talking about the Horizon system?
Yes.
In terms of the NBIT system, the new system —-
Oh, I'm so sorry.
-- what are the concerns of the board?
There are various concerns. One that it's overrun on
80
(20) Pages 77 - 80
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Qa
A.
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
budget; two, that it's taken much longer than we were
expecting; and three, that some of the back end
processes are not as they should be.
I think the Inquiry had understood from submissions made
in October 2022 that the Post Office planned on retiring
Horizon by 2024. And there's a document in your bundle,
I don't think we need to get it up on to the screen but
by 21st November of 2023, the Post Office sought to
extend the Horizon contract to 2030. Can you assist us
with what caused that change of circumstance?
Yes. There'd been some external reports into the system
as it was being developed, which made us pause for
thought as to the direction on insourcing, outsourcing,
et cetera. And these are quite fundamental issues which
need time to be addressed, and obviously we felt we
would need the further support of Fujitsu for a further
period to allow us to get into a better place.
Who do you consider has ultimate responsibility for on
the one hand the delay, and on the second hand, the cost
of the new system and how both of those are out of line
with projections?
Well, the ultimate responsibility is with the Board.
And is it your view that the Board failed to properly
scrutinise those issues, that they were provided with
incorrect information, or something else?
81
are now fully aware that they can do so.
One entirely miscellaneous question. It relates to
paragraph 51 of your statement, where you say that there
are too many versions of the contract. What do you mean
by that?
This is the franchise agreement with postmasters. You
would expect there just to be one, but there seemed to
be numerous ones which I don't think is -- and also
potentially not entirely known who signed what. So
that, obviously, is not appropriate.
And has that been addressed?
Not yet, no. I would hope that following the strategic
review, once we know what direction we're going in, then
we will be able to revisit what is an appropriate modern
franchise agreement.
Quite a lot of emphasis today has been placed on the
strategic review and what it may offer. When is that
going to be taking place?
We've had a very first high-level look at it very
recently. More work is being done and then we will be
consulting with the Shareholder because it's really
important that we get the Shareholder's agreement.
Are we talking months, years?
No, no, hopefully by the end of this year.
MR BLAKE: Thank you.
83,
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
rPOoOPrP.D
2
27 September 2024
I think we were not given the right information in terms
of the complexity of some of the issues facing NBIT, and
therefore the knock-on consequences of time and money.
And who didn't provide the correct information?
People in the IT Team.
Is there anybody in particular?
I'm not hugely familiar with the IT Team so I'm sorry,
but I think Zdravko Mlandenov would be one name.
Thank you. I think we have the full spelling of that
name?
Sorry, yes, I'm sure I've mispronounced it.
Compensation and redress. You've said in your statement
you're pleased that the Government has moved to
exonerate all postmasters, and the speed of the
compensation process. Do you know what steps have been
taken by the Post Office to identify those who were
prosecuted who haven't yet come forward?
Yes, communications are going out to a broad audience to
try and see if we can capture those who haven't made
a claim so far.
Do you think the steps that have been taken so far are
sufficient?
I'm sure there's always more that can be done. I would
hope, though, with the publicity generally around this
matter, that postmasters who haven't yet made a claim
82
Sir, I don't have any further questions. I know
there are questions from Mr Henry and Mr Jacobs.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, let them ask them.
MR BLAKE: Thank you.
Questioned by MR HENRY
MR HENRY: Thank you, sir.
Ms Burton, you would agree that the degradation of
the subpostmasters by wrongful prosecution or fraudulent
civil suit is an atrocious chapter in the Post Office's
history?
I certainly would.
And so therefore this Inquiry is examining the Post
Office's turpitude, its myriad wrongdoing, and its
failure over many years to treat the subpostmasters with
dignity and justice. You would agree?
I agree.
And knowing that, when the Inquiry's subject matter is
the raw material of human misery, and how the Post
Office inflicted that, how could it ever be appropriate
for very senior management to be enriched with bonuses
arising from an examination into the Post Office's own
wrongdoing?
This was a new team that had been brought in, who were
not there at the time that these awful events happened,
and I understand it was felt important that they
84
(21) Pages 81 - 84
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
absolutely focused on what was required to ensure that
the Inquiry could undertake the job in hand.
New team or not, how could it ever be thought right that
very senior management be rewarded for cooperating with
the Inquiry, an inquiry into the Post Office's historic
and arguably continuing misfeasance?
As I say, I wasn't there when the metric was set, but
the Remuneration Committee felt it was an appropriate
metric at that -- have I just gone quiet -- at that
stage, this was a public inquiry, not a statutory
inquiry. Definitely by the time it became a statutory
inquiry, it was not appropriate.
Well, irrespective of whether it was a non-statutory or
statutory inquiry, nobody questioned the propriety of
the scheme, did they?
As I understand it, no.
And it was only until after there had been public
‘outrage after the publication of the annual report and
accounts that there was then a realisation that this was
potentially misconceived; would you agree?
I would.
But you were still then of the view, at the time of
finalising your report, that such an incentive scheme
was acceptable, weren't you?
Not that particular submetric, but the rest of it, yes,
85
a conclusion on how these serious misrepresentations
were made, not least, of course, that the Chairman had
signed off on the metric, did you?
No.
No. So there is no explanation in your report on how
a multitude of very senior executives, the Board and its
advisers, RemCo in particular, allowed this to happen
with blatantly false information being published in the
annual report and accounts?
That's correct, and I couldn't find any reason for it.
Now I know that you were unassisted, but I mean you must
have asked these questions. Did you encounter
opposition, or did you encounter blank faces with people
saying, "I can't remember"? I mean, the fact that you
reached no conclusion on this matter calls into question
the efficacy of the study you conducted?
No one was able to explain to me why they had missed it.
I did ask the question, and everyone accepted they just
didn't focus on it. I do not know why.
So it looks, from the complexity and the intricacy of
all of the equations, et cetera, et cetera, that an
enormous amount of time was devoted to constructing
this, yet nobody can explain to you why this serious
error occurred?
Correct.
87
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27 September 2024
which was not to do with the Inquiry.
But the bonus metric, you accept, should never have been
countenanced so far as that specific factor was
concerned, regardless of whether the Inquiry was
statutory or not?
I'm sorry, I don't think I entirely followed your
question. Sorry.
Well, you -- I thought I understood -- and forgive me if
I am wrong -- that it is now with hindsight that you say
the bonus metric for alleged cooperation with the
Inquiry should not have been countenanced, and that is
regardless of whether the Inquiry was on a statutory
footing or not.
Correct.
Right. Now, how did this happen because the predicate
for the bonus that the Inquiry metric had been achieved
and had been endorsed, no, less by the Chairman of the
Inquiry? This was grossly inaccurate, wasn't it?
It was.
And anyone paying the slightest attention during the
whole process of devising or constructing this incentive
or checking the annual report and accounts ought to have
realised this.
They should.
Yet, and correct me if I am wrong, you never reached
86
Now, can you help me: is it not right that the Post
Office retained Herbert Smith Freehills to review the
transformation and incentive scheme regarding bonuses
for work on the Inquiry?
I'm sorry, I don't know.
You don't know. Well, they certainly were the Post
Office's lawyers at the time, and were the Post Office's
lawyers, and had been for some considerable time in
various guises, including lawyers to the Inquiry. Do
I take it from your answer that you did not consider
asking who the solicitors were who reviewed and, as it
were, fact-checked this scheme?
I don't think lawyers did fact-check the scheme when it
was put in place.
So they didn't, as it were, ask for it to be reviewed so
that it was legally appropriate?
Not as far as I'm aware, no.
I see. Now, it follows that you can offer no
explanation for the serious errors, including the
misrepresentation that the Inquiry had concluded and
that Sir Wyn Williams had personally approved the
metric?
No, I have not been able to find any explanation.
Right.
Now, this all makes for, at the very least -- and
88
(22) Pages 85 - 88
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
I use understatement -- an undignified spectacle;
wouldn't you agree?
A. I would.
Q. Because these are very important legal documents: the
annual report and accounts, and they severely
misrepresented the facts.
A. In that particular instance, absolutely.
Q. And scrutiny, it appears, came there none, and it's
troubling on many levels; you would agree?
A. I would.
Q. Crass errors of judgment, propriety, and very serious
errors of fact?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say -- and it's an answer that you have given on
numerous occasions this morning to Mr Blake -- that this
is a sign of an organisation under some stress?
A. Yes, that would certainly be one factor. Absolutely.
Q. Yes. Well, of course, I ask you now to consider the
other side of the equation, the postmasters: the
subpostmasters need no education in stress, do they?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Difficult to trust anyone again, when all you've ever
had has been taken away from you after you've been
falsely accused, wrongly imprisoned, or bankrupted?
A. lagree.
89
that the Post Office's requiring not one, not two, not
three, not four, but five expert reports into a person's
medical condition?
A. I'm sorry, I'm not able to comment because I don't know
the detail.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I don't think that's capable of answer,
Mr Henry.
MRHENRY: So be it, sir. I'll move on.
But let us deal with something which I hope you will
be able to answer. You recognise, surely, the
unfortunate perspective, the unfairness, at least in the
eyes of the subpostmasters, that the Board was devising
a TIS such as this while many of the Post Office's
victims have had to turn to a charitable fund to have
their bills paid?
A. The purpose of this particular part of the scheme was to
ensure that everything was done to make sure all the
evidence necessary for the Inquiry was put in place and
handed over. So I don't actually see that as
contradictory.
Q. Well, we know, unfortunately, given the timescale of
this Inquiry and the constant disruption to its
progress, that that certainly was not accomplished.
But in conclusion, this, please: you say that there
has been an apology to the subpostmasters for this
1
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
A.
prop
27 September 2024
And the plight of the subpostmasters, the vast majority
‘of whom are yet to receive full and fair compensation,
is both painful and financially precarious?
Agreed.
So whilst such incentive schemes were being constructed
and devised, the subpostmasters were living on food
banks and charity, many of them. You would agree?
Yes.
And I suggest that this rather than being a speedy
process is an attritional process which -- and I don't
suggest that you know this personally -- but it's an
attritional process, these three schemes, two of which
are overseen by the Post Office, which is designed to
drive subpostmasters to settle at a loss. Has that ever
been the subject of discussions at board level?
No.
Has anybody properly considered, without of course
descending into the detail of individual cases, but has
anybody properly considered the nature of the process
and what is being done in the Post Office's name?
In relation to the compensation scheme?
Yes.
Yes, there is a whole team looking at it.
Right. So do you think it's appropriate that in one
case -- and I won't mention her name at this stage --
90
metric. We know that there has been an apology to the
Chairman and to the Inquiry Team; but can you please
point me to an apology to the subpostmaster Core
Participants in relation to this TIS?
I don't believe there will be one in those terms, no.
MR HENRY: = Thank you.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Mr Jacobs?
Questioned by MR JACOBS
MR JACOBS: Can you hear me now, Ms Burton?
A.
a
Ican.
I will say that again.
Good afternoon. I represent a large number of
subpostmasters. I want to ask you about the YouGov
survey. Gavin Ellison gave evidence from YouGov on
Monday, the 23rd. Have you read that survey or heard
about it?
Ihave, I say, read it in broad terms, and it was.
discussed at a board meeting.
Thank you. So about 100 current subpostmasters
responded, so -- 1,000 I ought --
Yes.
-- to say. And you'll know, then, that in the executive
summary -- we don't need to turn it up -- 92 per cent of
those who responded said they'd experienced some form of
issue with Horizon in the last 12 months. 98 per cent
92
(23) Pages 89 - 92
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
of those who'd experienced discrepancies reported
shortfalls, and the most common resolution of those was
either for them to use branch money or the
subpostmasters resolve it themselves; 70 per cent
suffered from screen freezes; 68 per cent loss of
connection; 57 per cent say unexplained discrepancies
occurred in their branches; and, just to round off,
65 per cent of subpostmasters who responded said they
experienced issues with Horizon at least once a month,
and 35 per cent said it was a few times a month.
Does that sound familiar --
It does.
- from your understanding of the report?
So the clear message, then, is that a significant,
a very significant, representative sample of current
subpostmasters say that the problems with the Horizon
system, which Mr Justice Fraser identified, haven't gone
away. Do you agree with that?
It certainly looks like that from the feedback that was
given in the survey.
Right. And you said that this was discussed at a board
meeting. Can you tell us a little it about that?
Yes. We had a board meeting that was already planned
this Tuesday, and obviously this survey had just come
out. So it was on the agenda to look at it and
93,
wider Executive, is cherrypicking what information it
gives to the board, which he said is not helpful. Would
you agree with that as well?
To be honest, it's very difficult to know what you don't
know, so I think there are -- there can be some
instances where perhaps information is given in
a certain way and at other times, actually, it's very
honest information.
But there is a concern, Ms Burton, isn't there, that the
Board is still not receiving accurate information from
the Executive in relation to subpostmaster issues?
It certainly seems there is an issue following survey
results, although, to be fair, the postmaster survey we
did earlier in the year that the Board looked at also
raised issues around dissatisfaction with their own
remuneration, for example. So we haven't just heard it
from here that there are issues generally. We are aware
of them.
Mr Ismail also said -- it was part of his evidence --
that the employee surveys, he didn't feel that the Board
were receiving information from the Executive that was
presented in a helpful or accurate way?
Well, I think, again, the employee engagement surveys
are very helpful, and we actually felt that they were
properly presented to the Board.
95
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
27 September 2024
understand what we were going to do about it because
obviously the results of the survey were disappointing.
Yes, and this Tuesday, is that Tuesday, 24th September?
Yes.
The one just gone. That was the day when Saf Ismail
gave evidence.
(Witness nodded)
And we asked him about this survey, and we said -- we
asked him if he knew if the Post Office board or senior
executives, before the survey came out, were aware of
the huge dissatisfaction amongst subpostmasters with how
the Horizon system is working and how they're being
treated by the Post Office. And he said the Board is
certainly not aware to the level that the YouTube --
YouGov survey broke things down, and the specific
points.
And he said that what the Board tends to be told in
terms of current and existing bugs, for example, is
there are a number of bugs, and we fixed X number of
bugs, and there is no specific detail. Is that correct?
Does that accord with your view of the sort of
information you're given?
Yes.
And that's helpful, thank you.
He went on to say, importantly, the Executive, the
94
What can the Board do, or what should the Board do,
about these very real concerns, we say, that the
Executive is cherrypicking the information that gets
passed on to the Board?
Definitely continue to do surveys. Also, actual visits
to branches to speak to postmasters ourselves and to
talk to a wider group of people.
To be absolutely honest, in any organisation there
is a danger that things get filtered upwards and, as
a Non-Executive Director, I think we're always alive to
that, and therefore have to find other ways to do checks
and balances to assure ourselves that we are being given
the right information.
It must be important, don't you think, that in an
important where there have been deceptions and
misrepresentations by senior executive members it must
be important in terms of changing culture, that
something is done to ensure that the Executive today is
candid and transparent in its dealings with the Board;
do you accept that?
Ido.
And do you have any ideas as to what can be done, in
relation to the Executive in particular?
I think we need to make it very clear that we must
receive the right information and it mustn't be filtered
96
(24) Pages 93 - 96
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Qa
A
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
in any way and to see sort of the next tier down, as
well, so not just relying on the senior management.
I think that's good practice for a number of reasons.
To have wider engagement with postmasters and mistresses
as well, and I do think that the fact that we have
postmaster NEDs is really critical and I really welcome
their role.
Thank you. That's helpful.
I just have one other point arising from an answer
you gave to Mr Blake at about quarter past 12 this
afternoon. You were asked about subpostmasters who have
been prosecuted but haven't yet come forward and you
said that communications have been sent to a broad
audience. Could you just elaborate on that, please?
I understand letters are -- they either have gone out or
are going out to as many people as we understand were
postmasters and mistresses during that period.
And so the broad audience would be people who were
postmasters during that time?
Yes.
MR JACOBS: = Thank you. That's helpful.
I don't have any further questions, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Can I ask you, Ms Burton, in relation to
prop
>
persons who are entitled to be exonerated under the
recent legislation, if I can put it in that way, is the
97
only those who could sit on particular committees could
get papers; is that right?
That's correct.
And that that meant that some were excluded from seeing
all of the materials that were being circulated to some
members of the Board?
That's correct, and that included myself.
Yes. And, in fact, it came to pass that you'd discussed
that with the Chair and the company secretary; is that
right?
\ did.
And on consulting Mr Staunton, you said:
"Mr Staunton said access could be given to
independent NEDs.”
And you said that meant that Ms Gratton, although
she wasn't independent, sat on all of the committees and
also got the papers. But what that meant was that the
change meant that neither Mr Ismail nor Mr Jacobs were
getting papers for committees they didn't sit on?
That's correct.
And the committee included the Remuneration Committee?
(Witness nodded)
There were never any SPM representatives on the
Remuneration Committee, were there?
No.
99
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
process of identifying and notifying them being handled
solely by the Ministry of Justice or jointly with Post
Office and the Ministry of Justice? Or what, if I can
put it in that way, is the process for notifying these
people?
A. I'm afraid I don't know, Sir Wyn.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. All right. Thank you. No doubt
I'll find out from somewhere else.
MR BLAKE: Sir, there is just a question from Ms Patrick.
Questioned by MS PATRICK
MS PATRICK: Good morning, Ms Burton. My name is
Ms Patrick. I think you know I represent another group
of subpostmasters who were convicted and have since been
acquitted -- sorry, since had their convictions quashed.
I just want to ask you about one part of your
witness statement because you haven't been asked about
it before. You've just confirmed with Mr Jacobs your
view that the addition of subpostmaster NEDs to the
Board is a helpful thing.
A. Yes.
Q. And I just want to look at one issue that arose. It's
been being called the two-tier approach to the Board.
And in your witness statement you deal with that, and
you say that when you joined the Board -- it's at
paragraph 59 of your statement -- you recognise that
98
Q. Now, was that kind of two-tier approach indicative of
the continuing possible apparent belief that there was
some suspicion afforded to the role that an SPM might
play in the business?
I agree it was not helpful.
And has that now changed?
It has.
And is that as part, as a result, of the recommendations
made by the Grant Thornton report?
No, actually. Because I was having conversations with
Mr Ismail and Mr Jacobs about some remuneration issues,
I realised that they still couldn't see the papers
that I could see. So I asked again whether it was
possible for them to also get those papers and that has
now been agreed and, much more recently, it's also been
agreed that any of us can attend any committee meeting
even if we're not a member and we can attend as an
prop
>
observer, and that will also apply to the Remuneration
Committee.
Q. And the Grant Thornton, what, did recognise that this
kind of two-tier approach was unhelpful, didn't it?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And recommended changes to remedy that?
A. It did.
MS PATRICK: Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
100
(25) Pages 97 - 100
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you, Ms Patrick.
Is that it, Mr Blake?
MR BLAKE: tis, yes, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you very much, Ms Burton, for
your witness statement and for attending to give oral
evidence. I am very grateful to you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR BLAKE: Sir, could we come back at 1.50?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: What's the time now? Yes, certainly.
Yes, certainly. Yes. Fine.
MR BLAKE: Thank you very much.
(12.47 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(1.50 pm)
MR STEVENS: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you.
MR STEVENS: We are hearing from Sir Martin Donnelly.
SIR MARTIN DONNELLY (sworn)
Questioned by MR STEVENS
MR STEVENS: Please can you state your full name.
A. Martin Eugene Donnelly.
Q. Thank you for attending the Inquiry today to give oral
evidence and thank you for your detailed witness
statement to which I would like to turn now. It should
be in front of you. Do you have a copy of it? Do you
104
matters.
We'll start with your career. You joined the Civil
Service in 1980.
A. Yes.
Q. And you held a range of positions across a number of
departments, being made Acting Permanent Undersecretary
to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2010?
A. That's right.
Q. You were then made Permanent Secretary to the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills in October 2010?
A. Yes.
Q. You remained in that post until that department closed
and became the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy in July 2016?
A. Yes. In practice, then parts of the department were
split off. The core department had the energy part
joined on to it, and then I was briefly a Joint
Permanent Secretary whilst setting up the separate
Department of International Trade.
Q. And you served as Permanent Secretary of the new
Department for International Trade, I believe, in
September 2016 to April 2017?
A. Yes.
And at that point you left the Civil Service?
A. That's correct.
2
103
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
27 September 2024
see that?
Yes. I have my own copy.
And it runs to 33 pages, excluding the list of exhibits.
Could I ask you, please, to turn to page 33.
Yes.
Is that your signature?
Yes.
Now, before I ask you whether that's true to the best of
your knowledge and belief, there's one correction
I understand we need to make. If we could have
paragraph 6 on the screen, please, which is at page 3.
In the middle of the third line, it says:
"I joined Boeing in July 2019 and worked as UK
Managing Director until October 2023."
I understand that should read October 2022.
Yes.
Thank you, that can come down.
Subject to that one correction, are the facts stated
in that witness statement true to the best of your
knowledge and belief?
They are.
Thank you. That, for the reference, is WITN11250100.
Sir Martin, that statement will be uploaded to the
Inquiry's website shortly. I'm going to ask you some
questions on it, not on everything, but on certain
102
Sir Martin, you are the first Permanent Secretary we've
heard evidence from, so I want to touch on the role of
Permanent Secretary first.
You say in your statement -- we don't need to turn
it up -- paragraph 10 that the role of Permanent
Secretary is to be the Civil Service Head of Department?
That's correct. The senior permanent civil servant in
the department.
In respect of your role as Permanent Secretary and
fulfilling that role, did you have a private office or
staff to assist you with that?
Yes, I did.
Can you just summarise the extent of the private office
or staff you had to help.
So I had, over most of this time, a principal private
secretary; usually two junior private secretaries to
assist; a diary secretary, and some clerical support.
We'll come to their roles in due course as we go through
your evidence. I want to look at the Department itself
as well, the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills. Please can we bring up paragraphs 7 and 8 of
your statement, which is on page 3.
We see the section giving an overview of the
Department. You refer to the creation of the Department
in 2009. That's before your appointment. You go on to
104
(26) Pages 101 - 104
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
say at paragraph 8 that the Department had:
"had a very wide range of specific
responsibilities within its central objective of
promoting economic growth through investment in skills,
and education, trade and investment promotion, fostering
innovation and helping businesses to grow."
How did postal affairs and oversight of the Post
Office fit within the Department?
The Department was probably the widest range of
responsibilities I came across in my time as a civil
servant. It was -- the Post Office, together with Royal
Mail, of course, at the start of this period, was one of
about 45 partner organisations which were split up in
terms of their supervision between different parts of
the Department. The Post Office was one of six or so,
which was supervised by the Shareholder Executive, and
that arrangement remained the case throughout my time as
Permanent Secretary.
I mean, you do go on to say in your statement about the
range and extent of the functions being large. The
extent of the functions the Department had, do you think
that had a negative effect on its ability to oversee
postal affairs as an individual issue or area?
It certainly had consequences for how we had to do it.
Given the range of responsibilities, it was necessary to
105
public assets which were the Royal Mail, which were
being sold, and the question of whether the taxpayer was
getting value for money for them. That was my role as
Accounting Officer and it was a specific one in that
case.
In the second case, which was a bit different, I was
actually annoyed by the fact that the Post Office had
made this accounting error because, although the
accounts were their responsibility, within the Business
Department we tried very hard to -- and I think
succeeded -- in achieving a high level of financial
transparency. Accounts were produced on time. Our
departmental accounts were not qualified and I was angry
that the Post Office had messed this one up, and I had
to report it in the reporting accounts for that year.
Given those were -- we'll come back to some of those
later. Given those were the two issues you were
involved with, is it fair to say that postal affairs or
the Post Office wasn't one of the top agenda items for
the Department as a whole whilst you were Permanent
Secretary?
Certainly from my perspective as Permanent Secretary,
the major policy issue that took up most of my time was
the Royal Mail privatisation. I was aware of other
issues, but, as across the range of the partner bodies
107
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
delegate considerably within the Department into the
various groups and, for most of the time I was there,
certainly by the end, we had six separate groups with
their own responsibilities.
Whether that was better or worse than other models
is difficult to say in abstract. What I would say --
and you may want to come back to this separately -- is
we were, from the time that I joined, and increasingly
over that period, under considerable resource pressure
or, to put it more bluntly, we didn't have as much
funding or as many people as we would have liked to have
had to do all the things that we had to do. So we had
to do the best we could with what we had.
But in terms of structures, I thought at the time
that the structures we had were reasonable ones.
I will come back to the point of the resourcing you
refer to later.
In terms of at a Department level, I think in your
statement you refer to personal involvement in the sale
‘of Royal Mail and an accounting issue with Post Office
Limited's consolidated accounts towards the end of 2015.
Is that broadly right? Those are the two areas in which
you had personal involvement?
Yes, and in the first case that was because of my
specific Accounting Officer responsibilty for the
106
from the Student Loan Company to the Ordnance Survey and
so on, my primary concern was to ensure that these were
being handled within a structure which made sense. It
wasn't possible for me to follow in detail every single
issue, nor would it have been desirable, in terms of the
responsibilities of the people involved. I relied on
them to raise issues, but from my perspective, yes,
those were the two salient points when the Post Office
was directly on my agenda.
We'll come to your personal involvement shortly.
Just to put it again, I suppose, in terms of that,
what you were dealing with, in terms of what the
Department as a whole prioritised or had at the top of
its agenda, is it fair to say that postal affairs wasn't
‘on, say, the top five agenda items for the Department as
a whole?
Well, the top five agenda items shifted over time. So
early on, we had a bit of a crisis over student funding.
Later in my time, we had a crisis over steel. We had
continued challenges over funding. We had issues around
regional development coming thorough. We had a problem
‘over the funding of further education colleges. So
these were the issues which tended to be at the top of
the political agenda and therefore affected what I was
concerned with as the senior official serving the
108
(27) Pages 105 - 108
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Secretary of State.
But in parallel -- and I don't want to sound too.
bureaucratic about this, but it was important -- we were
running a large and complex organisation. So issues
around staffing, around funding, around appointments,
these all came up and took up quite a lot of time, and
so of course did reducing the funding over this period
in a managed way.
So the Post Office was one of the issues being dealt
with within the system during this time. That's how
I would put it.
Let's look at your role, and I think touching on what
you just said. Could we look at paragraph 15 of your
statement. It's page 5. We see you start off
describing the role of the Permanent Secretary. I'm not
going to go through all of that, but if we go down to
17, you say:
"Given the range of work across the core Department,
the Permanent Secretary has to ensure that systems are
in place to manage it effectively without personal
intervention, while maintaining an overview of the
Department's work."
And as you've mentioned in doing that, you had
Directors General reporting to you?
Yes.
109
judgment in identifying which issues needed to be raised
with you?
Yes, within the context that obviously more junior
officials were being managed by more senior officials
and I would expect, where there was an issue that they
weren't sure about or required guidance, that they would
go to the more senior officials and, where necessary,
those officials would bring me in. Or the other way
round, that the Secretary of State would say to me, as
happened on one or two issues, you know, "Have a look at
this, try and sort it out." That didn't happen very
often but it did happen occasionally.
Can you recall -- so you referred to conversations with
your Director General. Let's focus purely on
Shareholder Executive at the minute. Can you recall to
what extent you tested whether the Director General was
providing you with the appropriate information or the
most relevant information for you?
Well, I guess there are two parts to that. One was
I had to personally have confidence in the people doing
those jobs, that they would do it professionally and
ethically, and I did have that confidence, as I built my
team. And, secondly, they would use their judgment
which I would then rely on to inform me of issues where
I could add value or whether I should be aware, either
111
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
One of those was the Chief Executive of the Shareholder
Executive?
Yes.
What responsibility did you have as Permanent Secretary
to satisfy yourself that a Director General and their
team were performing the role effectively?
I think that was one of my core responsibilities. It
was to ensure that the system, as far as I was aware and
could professionally judge, was equipped with the people
and the resources and the motivation, the values, to do
the jobs that it had to do in different settings. And
that required looking at the funding; it required
looking at the senior leadership; it required ensuring
that I had time with those Directors General to know
what was on their minds and how I could help. And it
also required letting them get on with it without
excessive intervention, where that was going to actually
complicate their lives and make running the Department
as a whole more difficult.
\s it fair to summarise your evidence in terms of that
reporting line as follows: you first say that you were
reliant on accurate information being communicated to
and by your officials?
Yes.
And, secondly, you placed reliance in your officials’
110
for Accounting Officer reasons or because they would be
politically important or because 10 Downing Street were
involved, and so on.
My question is, how did -- or did you test that judgment
to see if it was being exercised properly?
So obviously it's a judgment that I would make over time
through contact with them. The other, more formal,
arrangement was that we had an annual appraisal and
I would collect information from others with whom they
worked, including their own staff, and including, in the
case of the Shareholder Executive, as a lot of its
function was actually outside the business department,
from others that it was working with. And I was
reassured by the feedback I received.
Would one of those sources of feedback on the Director
General with responsibility for Shareholder Executive
have been the Chair of Post Office Limited?
Not that I recall. I did, as you know, have separate
meetings, roughly once a year, with the Chair of Post
Office, and the Chair could at any point have contacted
me to say, "I'm not happy with what's going on." That
would have been unusual but not completely outside
normal behaviour.
The process of assessment tended to be more within
Government. So from ministers, from other Permanent
112
(28) Pages 109 - 112
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Secretaries, particularly the Treasury.
In your statement -- we don't need to bring it up, I'll
read it -- in response to the types of issues that would
be raised to your attention, you've referred to
reviewing a large amount of briefing information, and
you prioritise "issues that affect the whole Department
or top of the political agenda.”
When we say "issues that affect the whole
Department", can you just say what you mean by that?
Again, this would often be questions of funding. Were
we having difficulty in managing an issue which was
arising which would affect the Department's
effectiveness and credibility with ministers? Were we
being asked by 10 Downing Street or others for a new
initiative which had to be managed? Were we dealing
with a sudden crisis, for example the steel crisis, or
the sort of issue that would rapidly become very
political, and again affect how we were perceived as
doing our job: for example, the Student Loans Company
difficulties at some points with their IT in delivering
loans accurately to students.
So they tended to be those sorts of issues, or
points that I knew were on the Secretary of State's mind
or were likely to come forward.
But you will also understand that with 40-odd
113
coming into the system, everybody was working off the
same information further up, and the challenge I see, in
retrospect, is we weren't getting access to the correct
information on which to take decisions.
Going slightly out of order, because you've raised it
there, you refer in your statement to cuts and having to
cut the budget, once early in the stage of the Coalition
Government, and then the second time around in 2015
onwards. To what extent did those cuts affect the
resource or headcount available to oversee Post Office
within the Department?
It's hard to make a direct connection and, as I say in
my statement, I was aware of the importance of the work
that ShEx were doing, and indeed other parts of the
Department were doing, and I sought -- I think with some
success -- to ensure that there was an acceptable level
of funding and support.
Now, it would have been good to have had more, and
in the past there was more, and from 2015 onwards we had
to start another process which was very painful and
difficult, and involved the projected closure of some
offices. So I think at the time, I'd say it was almost
less the resource levels, because nobody came to me and
said, "I cannot do this with the resource I have." In
some policy areas we said, "Well, we just can't do as
115
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
partner organisations and a very wide range of issues,
there were quite a lot of problems of people resigning
or questions of how we would cover emerging areas. So
there was quite a lot of organisational material that
would come up to me that we would be managing through
the departmental board and its systems.
On reflection, the fact that there was such a broad area
and issues to cover from such a wide spectrum, did that
prevent, or do you think it may have prevented, issues
such as the Horizon issues we're looking at breaking
through to the top level of the Civil Service?
I find that a difficult question to answer. I think I'd
make two points. One was that because we'd set the
Department up with this range of responsibilities, it
was inevitable that a lot of responsibility would be
devolved to the Directors General. That was not
necessarily a bad thing. They would competent people.
It did mean, though, that there was less overall
bandwidth for drilling down into individual issues. But
my question to myself would be, if we had had more
resource, I'm not sure it would have been best used at
the most senior levels. It might have been better used,
actually, at the detailed levels of how many people were
engaged in working out the detail of what was going on,
because the problem was, once you've got information
114
much work on regional policy, we're going to have to cut
this down to a minimum."
But I did not get the impression the Shareholder
Executive did not have the resources they needed.
What was true for me, and I think for my senior
team, was we had to spend a lot of time trying to shrink
the organisation, deal with inevitable morale issues,
manage the partner organisations and, latterly, some
issues about the speed with which we could renew board
members, because there was a degree of involvement, some
would say interference, by Special Advisers, which
caused some difficulties with some partners. All of
these things became very time consuming.
So keeping all the plates spinning against this
complexity with limited resources didn't, in my memory,
honestly, lead us to make any particular mistakes, but
it did give us less thickness of people, less bandwidth.
Before I move on, now, on reflection, having been in the
Civil Service for several decades -- now having left,
obviously -- do you have any comments to make, other
comments to make, on the size of the portfolio of the
Department and whether that's appropriate?
I think it comes down again to this point of how many
senior officials do you need and how do they add value?
And the challenge, I think, is if you don't get
116
(29) Pages 113 - 116
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
additional perspectives or additional information, then
they're unlikely to add a lot of value.
I do think there's a question about resource levels
in terms of being able to be close to, or closer to,
what is going on. But then of course you have to be
able to rely on the information that you are getting.
So I would say, in retrospect, the model of BIS had
some advantages. You could link up different policy
areas. You could make them work better together than if
they were in separate departments. But it did have
consequences for how we had to manage issues, and that
meant it had a high level of devolving responsibilities.
Before I move on to look at the role of the Accounting
Officer, just couple of points on your knowledge. You
say in your statement that you don't recall any real
discussion on things like bugs and errors in the Horizon
system whilst you were Permanent Secretary.
None at all.
When did you first become aware that Post Office
conducted its own prosecutions?
Probably about 2019 -- I think when I read the Nick
Harvey (sic) book.
So during your -- Nick Wallis, sorry.
Sorry, yes.
So during your period of time as Permanent Secretary,
117
BIS accounts. However, this did not include Royal Mail
and the Post Office; as noted above they had a separate
report and accounts produced to commercial standards
given their status as a public corporation."
I assume there when you say "a separate report and
accounts" you're referring to the accounts filed with
Companies House?
Yes.
And if we look over the page, please, at paragraph 39 at
the very top, you, I think, effectively make three
points. First, you were not the Accounting Officer for
Royal Mail or Post Office?
Except insofar as we've discussed on the Royal Mail
share sale, when it came to the disposal of public
taxpayer assets, I was the person who had to provide
a judgment that that was value for money.
So that, with that into account as well.
(Witness nodded)
So that's the other one you say you're accountable as
Accounting Officer for any transactions between the Post
Office and the Department. Is that what you mean when
you refer to being accountable there?
Yes, and hypothetically, if there had been some issue of
having to be alone, or any financial arrangements which
involved the Department with the Post Office, I can't
119
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
your evidence is you weren't aware of its prosecutorial
function?
Not at all.
Were you aware that it was involved in prosecutions and
that subpostmasters were being prosecuted by someone?
No, that never came to my attention, because I guess it
was never connected to anything that someone said, "This
is important, we should be concerned about it."
I want to look at the role of the Accounting Officer in
relation to Post Office Limited. I'll cover this in
a bit of detail, because you're, as I say, the first
Permanent Secretary we have at the Inquiry.
You were the Accounting Officer for the Department
as Permanent Secretary?
Yes.
And that gave you certain personal responsibilities in
respect of the Department's expenditure of public money?
Yes.
Please can we look at your statement at page 14,
paragraph 38. You refer to the Accounting Officer role,
and about six lines down you say:
"As Accounting Officer, maintaining transparency of
BIS spending was a key objective. This led to
a successful consolidation of the accounts of most of
the Partners for which BIS had oversight into the main
118
quite imagine what those would have been, but if they
involved funding from the Department, then I would have
been involved as Accounting Officer or supervising it,
yes.
So that, as I understand it, derives from your role as
Accounting Officer to the Department?
Yes.
But you are not Accounting Officer to the Post Office or
to Royal Mail itself?
No. That and -- you mentioned managing public money.
That was, as far as I could see, a logical evolution of
the system that you had an arm's-length body that was
a public corporation and it had a pretty high degree on
its autonomy, for example, on how many salaries, on how
many people it employed, which did not have to come to
the Department or ultimately to me for approval, and
they did have to produce accounts to commercial
standards and be audited and so on.
And the third point you say is that public corporations
do not have accounting officers. I want to look that in
a little bit of detail now, but before I do, in summary,
what, if any, responsibility did you have as an
Accounting Officer in respect of Post Office's accounts?
As Accounting Officer, I don't think I directly had
a responsibility for their accounting process. I did
120
(30) Pages 117 - 120
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
have a wider reputational responsibility for how they
were doing it and we had the point about the non-cash
error which we discussed. And ultimately, of course,
they were using public funds because they were in the
public sector and the public sector stood behind them.
So, had they had a financial crash or run out of
money, I would have had to have been involved in that
residual role, but not for their normal expenditure, no.
I want to look at each of those three points now. Some
of these may be perfectly clear to you, so we'll have to
go through it stage by stage to make sure it's clear to
us.
The first point is you being the Accounting
Officer -- not the Accounting Officer, sorry, for Royal
Mail and Post Office. Could we look, please, at
UKGI00006045. It’s a document by the Treasury, Managing
Public Money, July 2013. As briefly as you can, can you
summarise what this document is used for?
No, I'm not sure I can now, especially at 11 years
distance. Essentially, the Treasury were trying,
though, to set out a framework for broadly who was
responsible for where the money went, and technically
I think my Accounting Officer responsibilities were
delegated by the Treasury Accounting Officer and,
similarly, to other Permanent Secretaries and there were
121
levels of autonomy and with that went a different level
of Accounting Officer responsibility so it wasn't always
entirely black and white, in practice, this system.
Let's look at the public corporations role, please, and
first a point on public corporations. That document can
come down for the time being.
You may have listened to evidence in the Inquiry's
Phase 5 and 6 hearings where ministers and civil
servants referred to the Post Office as an arm's-length
body. Did you hear that evidence?
Yes, I heard some of it, not all of it.
Now, colloquially that may be correct but I understand
there's a difference between an arm's-length body and
a public corporation for the purposes of public.
accounts; is that correct?
Yes, I think "arm's-length body" is not really
a technical term. It covered a range of
non-departmental bodies, and there used to be trading
funds, and so on. And essentially, once you had a unit
with some financial autonomy outside the Department, it
tended to be known as an arm’s-length body.
Can we please look at RLITO000325. This is a Cabinet
Office document from 2016 called the Classification of
Public Bodies: Guidance for Departments. Is this
a document you would have been familiar with when you
123
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
practical arrangements whereby some other arm's-length
bodies had some quasi-Accounting Officer status. Now
I'm not a professional accountant and I'm not sure I can
take you much further into that.
I'm also aware that the precise definition of
Accounting Officer in the case of a public corporation
was slightly work in progress over this period.
Well, let's pause that because we'll come to it shortly.
Could we look, please, at page 19, paragraph 3.1.1. So
this is the role of the Accounting Officer and it says:
"Each organisation in central government --
department, agency, trading fund, NHS body, NDPB or
arm's-length body -- must have an Accounting Officer."
We will leave aside public corporations for the
time, but do I take it this supports your position that
you were Accounting Officer of the Department, and then
sponsor arm’s-length bodies or public corporations --
well, no, sorry ~
No, not public corporation --
Sorry, sponsor arm’s-length bodies would have their own
accounting officers?
It did depend on the level of the autonomy of the
organisation, but it is true to say that -- and I don't
know offhand quite what the status of the other 44 or so
were in this category, but yes, there were different
122
were Permanent Secretary?
Well, I would have expected my Finance Team to be
familiar with the detail and I would have expected to
have understood the broad lines of what they were saying
about what did and did not fall within the public
sector, which was not always a straightforward issue.
Can we turn to page 4, please. We see it says:
“Public bodies are diverse, which means
classification is not always a simple process. For ease
of reference, and to help departments understand the
different delivery models that exist, this guidance sets
‘out the main categories of public body. This guidance
covers: the ALBs that are classified [that's the
arm's-length bodies that are classified]; other
non-classified central government and Parliamentary
entities, and public corporations".
And I think your evidence before is that there are
different categories of arm's-length bodies that fall
within the first group there, the ALBs that are
classified; is that right?
Yes, in terms of how we worked with them and managed
them. That is right. And some of those categories, I'm
afraid, changed over time.
Could we look at page 29, please. This is chapter six
on public corporations. And on the left column towards
124
(31) Pages 121 - 124
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
the bottom, it says:
"A body will be classified as a public corporation
where:"
It says:
"It is classified as a market body -- a body that
derives more than 50 per cent of its production costs
from the sale of goods or services at economically
significant prices ..."
There's detail we don't need there. It goes on to
say (2):
"It is controlled by central government, local
government, or other public corporations, and it has
substantial day-to-day operating independence so that it
should be seen as an institutional unit separate from
its parent department."
And is it your evidence that the Post Office
fulfilled those requirements to be a public corporation?
Definitely.
Thank you.
I can say why if you want, but that may be too much
unhelpful detail.
Please do.
Well, briefly, because this a sectoral classification
issue, it's concerned with what does the Government
stand behind? So if a public corporation goes bust in
125
over the page. Sorry, two pages over, page 210. And
the last sentence says -- this is a sentence you rely
on:
"Public corporations do not have Accounting Officers
and are not subject to managing public money as a matter
of course."
This sentence isn't in the 2013 edition of Managing
Public Money. Is it your evidence, though, that that
reflects practice or reflects how Government worked
whilst you were Permanent Secretary?
Yes. I think it was, and I've thought about this, that
it was helpful, although you can argue a bit belated, to
write this down in 2023, or whenever. Already when
Iwas a Permanent Secretary, it was clear that there was
not expected to be the same level of responsibility for
expenditure that there was as an Accounting Officer
within the Department. So for example, I would control
gifts that came into the Department or hospitality. We
would have registrars.
A public corporation was completely outside that
arrangement. They were expected to follow commercial
accounting rules, but -- and this, I think, is where it
gets a bit less clear -- they were also expected to work
within broad public sector parameters.
So, you know, in terms of behaviour, in terms of not
127
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
some way or doesn't fulfil its contractual obligations,
the ONS want to know what's on the Government's balance
sheet and how much they stand to lose.
If it had a slightly different level of control that
meant that it was largely, but not entirely, private
sector-controlled, the ONS would argue that if it went
bankrupt, it was a private sector issue. So their
primary concern here is to work out what assets the
taxpayer is essentially responsible for, as I understand
the system.
Okay, thank you.
I want to go to your evidence that public
corporations do not have Accounting Officers, and you
refer to the 2023 edition of Managing Public Money. Can
we please bring that up. It's UKGI00043211, and
page 208, please.
So this is obviously a 2023 document. It was
brought into place after you'd left the Civil Service.
We see, towards the bottom of the box at the top, it
says:
"This annex is intended to consolidate existing
guidance in relation to their responsibilities for
public money and to provide some advice on common issues
that arise."
Can we turn, please, to paragraph 7.3.13, which is
126
going completely off the rails, in their spending
decisions. And I think it took some time to write down
the way we were all working, which was that the logical
consequence of having a public corporation with all of
these other disciplines, external auditors and so on,
was that the Accounting Officer system couldn't really
function in the same way, nor should it have to because
there were other disciplines in place. But at the same
time, the public corporation was going to have to go on
reporting to its shareholder, if that's the right image,
to Government for the way it behaved.
And how was that understanding as to the public
corporation acting to public standards? How was that
communicated to the public corporation?
Well, again, this, I think, evolved over time. I could
not point you to a specific document. From my
perspective, these arrangements were managed within the
Shareholder Executive with full approval of the
Treasury. So the fact that the Royal Mail, first of
all, then the Post Office, became a public corporation.
We appointed a board, and from my perspective, having
the Chief Executive, the Board, the auditors, meant that
insofar as I reflected on the issues that were
problematic, the Post Office wasn't, because it had
these levels of effective control.
128
(32) Pages 125 - 128
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
And I was not, for example, ever called to the
Public Accounts Committee to discuss the Post Office
because it was seen that that was a rather separate
organisation.
If we can go down slightly, please, to show the next
paragraph, thank you.
Again referring to public corporations, it says:
"They should instead be subject to levels of control
and governance that are deemed appropriate by the
sponsor department and agreed in the context of the
framework document and approved by Treasury. It may be
the nature of the body is such that it would be
appropriate to consider if that requirement for
compliance with the principles of Managing Public Money
should be imposed. This should be achieved through the.
exercise of shareholder rights and is not the default
position. If this outcome is sought, it may be
appropriate to appoint the Chief Executive as an
accountable person mirroring the role of the Accounting
Officer for central government bodies to ensure the
shareholder expectations in this regard are met."
Again, was that idea of how you could approach
public corporations and have an accountable person
within them, was that practice within Government at the
time you were Permanent Secretary?
129
adapted to suit the corporate context while delivering
public sector discipline."
At the time, were you aware of what contractual
framework documents were in place to govern the
relationship between Post Office and the Department?
No, not in detail.
Why not?
Because there was an evolution in how the Shareholder
Executive were working with the Post Office over this
period. It came out of the Royal Mail. We set up the
Board. We had someone on it, and I was aware of all of
that. I didn't know how far that had been written down
in any contractual document and I wasn't sure -- insofar
as I thought about it, I accepted that the Shareholder
Executive were managing this relationship as it evolved.
We were putting the Non-Executive Director on the Board,
and the system was providing, in substance, what was
required.
Do you think it would have helped to, for example, when
Post Office became an independent business, to have sat
down, reviewed the business as a whole, and set down
a framework as to what -- how Government oversight would
work?
I think it's always helpful to have as much transparency
as you can in these cases, although the fundamental
131
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
Well, again, I wasn't close to all the detail of this,
given it was being handled between Treasury, Shareholder
Executive, and the finance function. But from my
perspective as an Accounting Officer, I can see this as
a logical development of what we were doing and, seven
years later, it was written down.
The important step that was taken when I was
Permanent Secretary was beginning to put civil servants
‘on the Board and, as you know, that was not
uncontentious at the time. I thought it was a sensible
idea, and I hoped and expected would give us an
additional level of effective control without cutting
across the structures that had been put in place to
provide the level of operational autonomy which people
wanted the Post Office to have.
That document can come down.
I'd like to go back to the 2013 version of Managing
Public Money briefly, please. Page 55.
Sorry, I should say UKGI00006045. Page 55, please.
Towards the bottom, we should see "Public corporations".
Thank you.
So we're referring to public corporations here, and
over the page at 7.7.2, it says:
"Sponsor Department should define any contractual
relationship with a corporate in a framework document
130
thing is maintaining an open relationship of trust and
transparency between the people involved and, if you
don't have that, then any number of contractual
documents are not going to work well in my experience.
And I think that this is a sensible way of
developing the relationship, certainly when there's an
element of stability involved and I think, for quite
a lot of the time that we were dealing with the Post
Office, there was an evolution in the development of its
Board and so on, and also, I think, some question over
what the final model might be for the Post Office.
So I can understand why there wasn't, as far as
I know, any formal document on these lines. But
I think, yes, I think it's a good idea, over time, to
have those in addition to the fundamental point about
the relationship of trust and transparency.
Should there have been a review of the operations of
Post Office Limited, including the fact it conducted
prosecutions, to determine how the Department would
oversee prosecutions?
I speak under control here, but my understanding was
that Post Office prosecutions had stopped at some point
before this period.
There were ongoing prosecutions at that -- that stopped
shortly after separation.
132
(33) Pages 129 - 132
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Right.
But at the -- let's look at it from the point of, say,
2011 when there's a plan to separate the businesses.
Should the Department have reviewed the operations that
Post Office were carrying out, such as prosecutions, to
determine how it could best oversee them?
I don't feel competent to comment on the precise nature
of decisions on prosecutions. Clearly, with what we
know now, it was a very peculiar system that the Post
Office had in place until they no longer ran their own
prosecutions and it was not an acceptable one, and that
should, therefore, have been picked up at some point.
When I joined the Department in late 2010 I wasn't
aware of that level of detail of how the Post Office
performed its prosecutions. In terms of the wider
relationship between the Department and the Post Office,
my understanding was -- and I think this is correct --
that there was a lot of discussion about what the
relationship should be as it moved out of the Royal Mail
as we moved towards the Royal Mail privatisation.
And that seems, to me, in substance, to fill the
question of well, how are we going to do this? We'll
set up this Board, and so on. At some point it was.
obviously sensible to codify it. I think the question
as to why it wasn't done earlier, I don't know. But the
133
sponsors [arm's-length bodies it sponsors] operates
effectively and to a high standard of probity".
And under "Governance" we can see there's:
"Work cooperatively with partners in the public
interest" and:
"Treat its customers and business counterparties
fairly, honestly and with integrity."
If Post Office was a formal arm's-length body to
which this document applied, does it follow that your
role as Accounting Officer, you would have a
responsibility to ensure that it treated its
subpostmasters fairly, honestly, and with integrity?
If you go back to your previous box, I did not sign off
the accounts for the Post Office. I did sign off the
accounts for the business department and for those
arm's-length bodies that were consolidated within those
accounts. So there is a significant difference here in
terms of the level of control, which I just need to be
clear about. However, on the wider point, yes, I think
that, as the senior official in the Department, all the
bodies, whatever their status, should have been doing
all of this and in the case of the Post Office, it
clearly did not happen.
So I have to accept some responsibility for the fact
that one of the organisations which was part of our
135
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
key question was: was the system providing the
information that was required by the Department as
asponsor? And I did not have any reason to think, from
what I was being told, that that was not the case.
I want to look at the -- there's one more point in the
Accounting Officer's role. If we look at page 9,
please, of the same document. We have
“responsibilities” and it sets out there the principles
for managing public money. In box 1.1 we -- I think
it's the Nolan Principles there. The Accounting Officer
has to follow those principles when expending public
money, correct?
Yes.
If we turn to page 19, please. This the role of the
Accounting Officer towards the bottom, please, the
special responsibilities of Accounting Officers. In
particular, the Accounting Officer must personally sign
the accounts, the annual report and the governance
statement. And if we look there at box 3.1:
"Standards expected of the Accounting Officer's
organisation."
So:
“Acting within the authority of the minister(s) to
whom he or she is responsible, the Accounting Officer
should ensure that the organisation, and any ALBs it
134
overall grouping was not meeting these standards, and
I think that's appalling and I wish we had done better.
That can come down. Thank you.
Let's turn, then, to the system of oversight
because, as I understand your evidence, it's that as.
Permanent Secretary, you can't be involved in every
individual, minor decision; your responsibility is to
establish systems of work that ensure that, or should
ensure that, these ALBs and public corporations are run
effectively?
Yes, and it's not just minor decisions, it's also major
decisions because when you have the a level of
complexity that we were dealing with, you have to be
able to empower people to take decisions and follow them
through in a structure, because otherwise you're not
going to get effective outcomes or value for money. So
it's really important that these structures are set up
and are robust, because there's no alternative.
If we look, please, at your statement page 12,
paragraph 30. You refer to three main ways in which
issues or risk could be escalated up from the various
parts of the Department to your attention. The first
was through morning meetings with the senior team, so
Directors General. So in the case of Post Office, that
would be information coming from Shareholder Executive?
136
(34) Pages 133 - 136
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 27 September 2024
Ah, yes, that's right -- if there were any.
"The second was through my regular one-to-one meetings
with each individual Director General ..."
So again, that's information from Shareholder
Executive?
As one of the DGs, yes.
"The third was through the Departmental top-level risk
register and ‘dashboard’. Each of the Directors General
contributed to this, drawing upon the risk registers
held by each of their own Groups, and it was updated by
the Departmental ... secretariat in between meetings.”
So again, that's information coming from Shareholder
Executive?
Yes, putting together all of their information and then
putting forward the most important issues that they saw
for the Board as a whole.
Another way matters could be raised is through the
Secretary of State or a junior minister; would you
agree?
Yes, because that, if you like, is the policy line, and
I did not get involved in most policy areas, again
because I didn't have time, but also because I didn't
usually have anything to add to what was going on, and
it wouldn't have been helpful and it could have actually
made things less effective. But if ministers wanted me
137
know, I know that the ministers or Number 10 are
concerned about area X. I might have asked for
something. If there were major issues around resourcing
or the structure of the Department, they would know that
I would want to see it.
But the bottom line really was I needed to be aware
of issues that might produce problems for the
organisational structures of the Department, like
a steel crisis, how are we going to manage that? What
resources were we going to have to find? Or major
political issues which were causing significant
difficulty, and the Royal Mail privatisation was
obviously one that was politically contentious. Student
loans, of course, was another. Some business crises
occurred rather regularly, or another area like that.
So it was really keeping me in touch with issues
where I was likely to have to engage to add value or to
communicate what the Department had to do.
So is it fair to infer from what you're saying that it's
unlikely that they would have raised Post Office issues
with you or on the Horizon matters, because they
obviously weren't -- well, your evidence is they weren't
taking up your time when you were Permanent Secretary?
Yes, because they were being handled in a
straightforward, it seemed, way up to the relevant
139
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to focus on something, they could say so, and they did.
Q. You also say -- oh, another way of matters being raised
with you would be through being copied into briefings?
A. Yes. But if I can give you a little background on that,
I would get a large amount of material every evening,
usually in three folders. One was "For action for you",
something I had to deal with immediately, possibly
organisational, possibly a major policy issue. One
would be questions of organisation, diary, and so on.
And there would be a third, of papers you might just
want to have a quick glance at to be aware of, which
would be a subset of the several hundred pages and
sometimes more of documents that would have come in to
my private office during the day.
So there inevitably had to be a process of filtering
and, again, I tried to stay in touch with as much
information as I could, but I needed to focus on the
areas that I was leading on or adding value in.
Q. In your statement you refer to your private office --
sorry, that can come down. Thank you.
You refer to your private office highlighting or
identifying what were the key documents. Do you know
how they went about that, how they filtered out what was
important to you or what wasn't?
A. It was a bit of an iterative process. I would say, you
138
Minister, and there was nothing additional coming from
Shareholder Executive to say, "Red flag here".
MR STEVENS: Sir, we're making very good progress. That's
probably a good time to take a break, though, for the
afternoon. I wonder if we could come back at 3.05.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Certainly, yes.
MR STEVENS: Thank you, sir.
(2.53 pm)
(A short break)
(3.05 pm)
MR STEVENS: Sir, can you see and hear me?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.
MR STEVENS: I'm going to move on to the timeline now
starting in 2012. Following pressure from MPs, Post
Office instructed Second Sight to conduct a review,
which I'm sure you're aware of now. I want to look at
an email, please. UKGI00001424.
So this is from Mike Whitehead, if we just go down
slightly to see the signature, please. We see within
the Department, Shareholder Executive. Do you recall
Mr Whitehead?
A. Vaguely.
Q. He is -- it's hard to tell here because of the
redactions, but he is emailing Mike Granville at Post
Office and others, and he says:
140
(35) Pages 137 - 140
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
"I understand through Will" -- you see in the CC
line that we have a Will Gibson, also Shareholder
Executive -- "I understand through Will that Alice has
asked us to agree a defensive line if pressed on the
Cabinet Office commissioning the independent review (as
advocated in Andrew Bridgen quote yesterday)."
He says, "How about?
"This is an operational matter for Post Office
Limited who have already commissioned an independent,
sudden review by forensic accountants'."
Were you told about the commissioning of the Second
Sight review at the time?
No, not that I recall at all.
In this email, what's being discussed is a member of
Parliament, Andrew Bridgen, seeking an independent
review commissioned by the Cabinet Office into an IT
system that was used by a public corporation your
department sponsored. Is that something that should
have been raised with you as Permanent Secretary?
I think in these sorts of issues I would expect the
senior officials involved to take a judgment as to why
that might need to be the case or not.
Well, he's taken a judgment, and my question is, looking
at it, is that the type of issue that you would expect
to have been raised with you?
144
a Cabinet Office review. The issue of substance for the
Shareholder Executive is whether that would be justified
on its merits. If they don't think it is, and if they
believe that the Post Office independent external review
referred to deals suitably with the issue, I would not
have expected them to raise it with me, because what
wider issue are they saying it raises?
I'd only expect them to come to me if they thought
that the Post Office review was not going to be
effective or sufficiently independent or find out the
evidence that was required. And then the question would
be: well, how do you do that? But that wasn't their
view at the time.
Thank you. That document can come down.
That leads to the interim report. We don't need to
bring it up, but at paragraph 84 of your statement you
refer to a number of documents that the Inquiry sent to
you that you did not have sight of --
That's right.
-- at the time. You don't mention the Interim Report
within there. Were you aware of the publication of the
Interim Report at the time it was published in
July 2013?
No, I have no recollection of that crossing my desk in
any substantive way. Probably my office would have been
143
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
No, given the range and complexity of the Department,
I would have not expected that to be the case unless
someone more senior in the Shareholder Executive felt
that it raised difficult issues which were of wider
concern.
So again, what we have here is the commissioning of an
independent review or seeking of a review commissioned
by the Cabinet Office. The software is the software
that produces Post Office's accounts on which it
prosecutes people. Why is that not serious enough to be
raised with you in circumstances where earlier you
referred to an accounting issue on the late filing of
accounts being raised with you?
Well, the accounting point was a direct issue for the
overall credibility of the Department's accounting, for
which I was personally responsible to Parliament. So
I had a close concern with the quality of accounting
both because of the credibility to Parliament and
because I wanted to make sure the Department had the
highest standards of accounting. Now, the Post Office's
accounting systems were separate because of their
status. Nonetheless, there was a reputational issue
there.
I hadn't seen this. It looks as though someone
outside Government is suggesting there should be
142
copied into the fact that it was coming out, but I did
not spend any time focusing on it and I have no
recollection of it.
Jo Swinson, the then Junior Minister, made a statement
to Parliament on the Interim Report on 9 July 2013.
Does that in itself show it was a matter of some
significance to the Department?
It showed it was a matter of some significance to the
Department but not out of the ordinary. There were
statements being made several times a week by Junior
Ministers. We had five rising to seven. This was
a normal part of business. A whole range of statements
would be made on every occasion that Parliament was
sitting. Occasionally, they would involve the Secretary
of State in major issues. I come back to the Royal Mail
as one of those. Junior Ministers, that was part of
their job and their normal responsibilities.
The Inquiry heard evidence from Jo Swinson and that she
was told that Post Office Limited had commissioned
external lawyers to review past prosecutions following
the Interim Report. Does that not make it a level of
significance where past prosecutions by the corporation
are being reviewed, where it's so significant that you
should have had sight of it, or been involved in it in
some way?
144
(36) Pages 141 - 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
In retrospect, obviously these were important moments.
At the time, this was a standard Junior Minister
reporting on an issue. The Shareholder Executive team
did not flag this up, and I am sure in good faith, on
the basis that they did not see anything substantively
significant out of the normal process of a review being
commissioned in an area and followed up, and so on, as
happened in a lot of areas across our area of Government
and more widely.
So it would have required someone to say, "This is
actually significant for the following reasons",
otherwise it would have been a normal bit of Government
business.
You say "with retrospect". Trying to put yourself in
the position at the time with what you knew then, is it
not something you think you should have been informed
of?
It's difficult, knowing what we know now, to go back to
then. AllI would say is I had confidence in the teams
dealing with these areas, and if their judgment -- and
they were closer to this than I was, and this wouldn't
just have been true of the Shareholder Executive, it
would have been true elsewhere -- unless I had some very
powerful additional information which would mean that I
felt I had a legitimate role in challenging what was
145
something -- is that the type of meeting you would have
assisted the Secretary of State with?
No.
Why not?
Because it was a straightforward policy meeting with the
Junior Minister and the Secretary of State dealing with
several issues related to a specific organisation.
There was no wider engagement of the Department, and it
wouldn't have been possible or arguably helpful for me
to have attended all of the meetings that the Secretary
of State held dealing with policy, because I didn't have
specific additional value to add.
This is how the system was supposed to work.
If you'd had -- no, let me ask one question first. At
this point, how much time was spent by you on the issues
relating to cuts which you referred to earlier?
I think at that summer, a very large amount, including
coming in at weekends and so on, because there was
a difficult negotiation with the Treasury over how much
capital and current spending we were likely to get,
which meant that some of our programmes could not have
continued if the initial figures we were given had been
the final ones. So there was a very difficult complex
negotiation at official level and at ministerial level
to try to ensure that we could go on to functioning to
147
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
going on, I would not do so, both because I didn't think
it would have been professional, and because it wasn't
possible across the range of the Department.
Now, our Legal Team could have picked up on
something unusual, and didn't, and of course lawyers
would have been involved. In other areas, the Finance
Team might have picked up on something. But I have to
say that that would not have been close to being
something that I would have been concerned about without
additional input.
Can we look, please, at UKGI00001834. It's an email
from Tim McInnes at Shareholder Executive, 10 July 2013,
so two days after the Interim Report is published and
a day after Jo Swinson's statement in Parliament. It's
to the private offices of the Secretary of State
Sir Vince Cable and Jo Swinson. And in CC we see "perm
sec, BIS." Now, is that your private office?
Yes.
It says:
“Ahead of the meeting with Post Office tomorrow at
12.00, please see attached a briefing that covers some
background to the session and highlights areas that Post
Office management will be keen to cove off.”
So referring to a meeting between the Post Office,
Secretary of State, and Jo Swinson. Is that
146
do what we'd been asked to do, and that was taking up
a lot of my time, yes.
Now, is it your evidence that you wouldn't have been
involved in these sorts of issues, even if you'd had the
time, for example? So you didn't have to deal with the
cuts, this just isn't the level of priority that you're
dealing with -- or was it just because you didn't have
enough time to deal with it?
Essentially, as I've tried to set out in my evidence
statement, my job with the Department as we had it was.
to ensure the systems and culture were in place to be
effective and supportive, to give people the time and
resources to do their jobs, and also to connect with the
Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister, with
a range of stakeholders, and manage key critical policy
issues where additional input was needed because, for
example, a critical industry might require additional
emergency help, and that would involve the Treasury and
10 Downing Street and so on.
So for policy issues which ministers were being
briefed on, and were engaging with, I would not normally
have got involved because that wasn't how the system was
designed to work, given what we were trying to do, and
it wouldn't have been efficient for me to try to jump
into issues I didn't know much about or I knew less
148
(37) Pages 145 - 148
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o>
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
about than the people doing it the briefing, unless --
and this is an important caveat, of course -- there was
some question over whether the briefing was correct or
whether there had been an argument with the Minister, or
whether there were wider implications, or whether
10 Downing Street were involved. Only if there was
something else going on, and even then, my first port of
call would always have been to the senior officials to
say, "Are we happy with this? What's happening? Have
we thought about these options?", you know, "Have you
got it under control?"
The Inquiry has heard evidence about the Simon Clarke
Advice of 15th July 2015, and you say in your statement
that you didn't see that at the time.
I have no recollection of that, no.
Have you read his advice as part of the documents that
the Inquiry sent to you?
What was it on again?
If we can bring it up.
Yes, if you could.
It's POLO0006357. So it's an “advice on the use of
expert evidence relating to the integrity of the [it
should say] Fujitsu Services Limited Horizon system."
And if we turn to page 13, we see "Conclusions"?
"What does this all mean? In short, it means
149
I would have been most concerned about this in addition,
obviously, to the human implications -- that there would
have appeared to have been a cover-up in a public sector
organisation of this type of material? I mean, that's
absolutely nuclear. How on earth could this have
happened?
Just focusing on the content of the advice, if at the
time that it had been provided to you and you were aware
of Mr Clarke's advice and his view that Mr Jenkins had
breached expert duties to the court, what would you have
done as Permanent Secretary, if anything?
Well, I would have wanted our departmental lawyers --
and presumably the Shareholder Executive lawyers in the
first instance -- to get to grips with this and to make
sure that those of us who weren't lawyers fully
understood the implications of what was being said here
and, following on from that, how many cases were
involved.
And I would have wanted the legal redress system to
have worked immediately. My -- probably -- we are in
a hypothetical territory here -- but my responsibility
and my main concern would then have been, assuming that
was all going on as rapidly as possible, how on earth
did this happen? And what does this tell us about the
organisation we are dealing with?
151
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27 September 2024
Dr Jennings [that should be Gareth Jenkins, the expert
witness used in the trial and who provided witness
evidence] has not complied with his duties to the court,
the prosecution or the defence. It is pertinent to
recall the test under which a prosecution expert labours
And it goes on.
So Mr Clarke is advising, in his view, that Gareth
Jenkins had breached expert duties. Have you read or
are aware now of the content of that advice?
I am now aware of it, yes. I was not then.
That can come down.
The Inquiry will in due course determine who was
aware of that advice at the time. Assuming -- and this
is assuming -- that advice had made the way into the
Department and an official had it in the Department,
would you have expected, as Permanent Secretary, to be
briefed on the contents of that advice or the gist of
it?
I would have expected to have been briefed as the
consequences of this became clear, yes, that actually,
a large, potentially large, number of criminal cases --
and I'm not a lawyer, so I may not use the terms
accurately here -- were completely unsafe and that
nothing had been done about this. And indeed -- and
150
And we have all these layers of management and
boards and so on, and yet this could have been
overlooked, hidden, whatever. It would have suggested
to me that we had a massively dysfunctional
organisation, and there would have been a lot of
consequences to have been discussed, obviously with
ministers as well, because rightly this would become
a public scandal, as it should have, and we had
responsibility for an organisation which was not
anywhere near to fulfilling not just the Nolan
Principles but normal, commercial behaviour.
So, you know, it's -- it would have absolutely been,
you know, you ring the alarm bell and you start doing
stuff about the organisation as well as the miscarriages
of justice that may have arisen.
I want to move on slightly in the chronology and look at
the sale of Royal Mail which you were involved with. To
what extent, if at all, were you involved in matters
such as the content of the prospectus of the Royal Mail
sale -- sorry, the IPO?
Not at all. That was not my area of expertise or
responsibility. It was precisely what the Shareholder
Executive was set up to do and bring in expertise as
necessary.
My role, very clearly, was when they had done their
152
(38) Pages 149 - 152
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
jobs -- and I remember having them in and saying, "You
know, you do your work. Your job is not to sell the
Royal Mail; it's to let me know whether you think it's
value for money and what the evidence is. And if it
isn't value for money and we don't sell it, then you've
done your job all the same, so don't push it in the
wrong direction. You've got to be objective about
this".
But that was my job.
Did anyone raise with you, during the sale, or discuss
with you, anything to do with Horizon claims or the
Horizon IT System at all?
No, I have no recollection of that at all coming up.
Did you have to take -- as part of your assessment as to
whether it was value for money, et cetera, did you have
to investigate or look at any of the due diligence in
respect of the sale?
No, I expected all that to have been done by the
Shareholder Executive. Again, it was their core
activity and I had every reason to assume they would do
it efficiently and no reason to assume that there was
any question about it, not least because this was
a commercial document.
Could we look, please, at -- well, no first I want to
turn to some meetings you had with Alice Perkins.
153
intervention in their day-to-day or operational
business.
Did you have any discussion about the type of
information that the Shareholder Executive Non-Executive
Director could pass back to the Department?
No, it wasn't that level of discussion. I know the
Shareholder Executive did look at whether there were
limited issues on which there might be a case for their
non-exec director recusing him or herself, but that did
not come up at my level. I expected it to be an
additional level of transparency and connectivity with
what was going on in the Post Office.
Could we look, please, at BEISO000010. Thank you. So
it's a briefing from Peter Batten to you. Do you recall
working with Peter Batten?
Not in detail, no.
So it’s for a meeting on 8 April and the recommendations
summarise the point, the lines to take, and at the
bottom it says:
"Note risks [on] the Valuation Office agency and
Horizon Working Group."
‘And then if we turn to page 3, please, we see it
says:
“All in-branch transactions performed by
subpostmasters and [Post Office] staff are recorded by
155
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
Firstly, how often did you meet Alice Perkins in your
role as Permanent Secretary?
So I think we have in the papers, pretty much all of
them. I think it was about once a year. And I think on
the first occasion it was with Paula Vennells, and
that's the only meeting with Paula Vennells that I can
recall, and after that it was just with Alice Perkins.
When you met Alice Perkins, did she raise or discuss
with you the role of the Shareholder Non-Executive
Director?
I have a vague recollection of this from the first
meeting, and I was briefed that she was not entirely
happy with that. I knew both the Shareholder Executive
and our ministers thought that it was the right thing to
do and I quite wanted her to think that she was happy
with it. I only had limited sympathy with her concerns,
to be honest. I thought it wasn't appropriate not to
have a Shareholder Executive Non-Exec Director, but
I don't recall that there was a difficult discussion on
it, in the meeting.
Do you recall what her reasons were? You say you
weren't impressed with them. What were they?
I don't have a clear recollection, and so this may be
from the briefing: that she, and perhaps some of the
Post Office team, were worried there would be too much
154
[Post Office's] accounting software, known as ‘Horizon’.
Shortly after joining [Post Office] and in response to
persistent grumblings by a small number of former
subpostmasters, Alice commissioned a review of the
integrity of the Horizon system. An independent report,
published in July 2013 found that there were 'no
systemic’ issues with the software, but made
recommendations about [Post Office's] training and
support processes.
"Following the report, [Post Office] has worked to
establish a working group under an independent chair
that has set up a mediation process for former
subpostmasters who feel wronged by the Horizon system."
Then it goes on to provide details of the working
group.
Can you recall what you thought when you read that?
No. I did read it, and it was not the major point for
the meeting -- in fact, it was some way down the
briefing -- and, as far as I can remember, it did not
come up.
The fact that I read it and didn't feel there was
anything requiring action for me was not surprising
given what is said there. And I was equally concerned
about the Valuation Office Agency risks mentioned, but
these were points for me to note at that stage. There
156
(39) Pages 153 - 156
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
was no suggestion that I should raise them with Alice or
that there were wider concerns.
Knowing what you know now, do you think that is a fair
and full briefing?
No.
Would you have expected the briefing to include details
of the review of past prosecutions?
There is this difference between knowing what we know
now and knowing what the Shareholder Executive, in good
faith, knew at the time, and I want to be clear about
that. I'm sure they were writing this in good faith at
the time.
It is one example of when more information could
have been provided and the fact that it wasn't
reflected, I think, the Shareholder Executive's view
that this was not a major issue, particularly compared
with the other ones, which they already mentioned,
mutualisation and the change in status of various
postmasters and the finances, all of which were very
live, ongoing issues.
Do you think the language there, we see “and in response
to persistent grumblings by a number of former
subpostmasters", is that the sort of language you would
expect in a briefing describing the types of complaints
that were being made through the Mediation Scheme?
157
parts of the Post Office.
If they had not been satisfied with the result, then
they could have briefed me for that meeting to say
something like, you know, "Be aware, we have an
outstanding issue with the Post Office here where we're
not happy with what has been going on, and you ought to
flag up our concerns, and this is what we plan to do
next."
Without that, it's -- it isn't the sort of material
or the sort of meeting in which I would have expected
that issue to have come up, as it were, at that -- just
on those terms.
Could we look, please, at POLO0116554. If we go down to
the bottom of the page, please. This not an email you
would have seen at the time. It's internal to Post
Office from Belinda Crowe to Martin Edwards on 12th May
2014. It says:
“As requested, please find below a note for Paula
including recent activity, a timeline of upcoming events
for the Scheme, a suggestion for the date of the next
Board subcommittee in light of the above, and some
suggested names of people for Paula to consider with
whom she might discuss the Tony Hooper meeting.”
Referring there to Sir Anthony Hooper there, the
Chair of the Working Group.
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
27 September 2024
I would say that it was not a fair description of what
had been happening over so many years. In the context
of just mentioning it briefly at the end of a brief for
a meeting which was essentially for me to listen to
Alice, and just have a bit of background, you know, it's
a sort of -- I wouldn't say it was a major failing but
it could certainly have been put better, yes.
Can you assist with why it may have been put in that
way?
No, except I assume -- as I say, I'm sure the briefers
were working in good faith, but this must have reflected
their views at the time.
That can come down. Thank you.
If you'd been told at that point, prior to your
briefing with Alice Perkins, that there had previously
been a review of criminal convictions and that the CCRC,
the Criminal Cases Review Commission, was in contact
with Post Office, would it have changed your approach to
the meeting with Alice Perkins?
The meeting with Alice Perkins was one of an annual
series of, you know, “Let's just touch base on how it's
all going, you can tell me anything on your mind." It
wasn't an operational meeting in that sense. So I would
have expected that to have been followed up in the first
instance by the Shareholder Executive with the relevant
158
If we go over the page, please. Further down. It
says:
"Discussion with an external sounding board ahead of
meeting Tony Hooper."
At number 4, your name. It says:
"At some point will need to engage with this issue
and getting an early perspective/understanding may be
a useful side effect."
Were you ever approached by Paula Vennells or
someone else at Post Office to discuss the Working Group
or Sir Anthony Hooper?
No, not that I recall. No.
What we can see here is, internally within POL, the Post
Office, sorry -- the view that you'll need to be engaged
at some point. Was that ever made known to you?
No.
The Mediation Scheme itself and the proposed changes to
it, and closing the Working Group, are those matters
that you think should have been raised with you as
Permanent Secretary?
Well, I think again there's a distinction between what
we know now and what we knew at the time. On the basis
that this was a process being managed by the Post
Office, supervised by the Shareholder Executive,
ministers being kept informed, I can understand why it
160
(40) Pages 157 - 160
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
wasn't highlighted to me.
Could we look, please, at WITN00800100. This is Mark
Russell's witness statement to the Inquiry. And page 6,
paragraph 16, please. It says:
"The appointment of Shareholder Executive
[Non-Executive Directors] complements but does not
replace the primary points of departmental contact. In
the case of [Post Office Limited], the key contacts were
between the Post Office CEO and (i) the Minister, and
(ii) the Permanent Secretary/Accounting Officer. Such
meetings provide senior members of the Department with
a direct line of sight into the ALB and are a key
mechanism for reinforcing departmental objectives for
the ALB."
Do you agree with that?
Not in precisely those terms, no, because we had over 40
arm's-length bodies of very different types with
different challenges, and it was clearly not practical
or, I would argue, desirable for there to be key
contacts between those Chief Executives and me, as the
Permanent Secretary, or my successors or predecessors,
because it would not be a professional way of doing
business.
I would interpret this as meaning officials
reporting to the Permanent Secretary and of course, in
161
been few appeals. Wrongly, I did not consider the risk
of unsafe convictions as a result of failings in the
Horizon system to be significant, in large part because
of the repeated and categorical assurances that [Post
Office] had provided to [Shareholder Executive]/UKGI and
others about the Horizon system."
And then if we could look over the page at 217,
please. It says:
"The strong assertions made to Ministers in
submissions around the integrity of Horizon were wrong
and make for uncomfortable reading now. At the very
least, the submissions should have been clearer that the
views were the views of [Post Office] and that they
needed to be balanced by alternative points of view.
The submissions may have led to Ministers being too
cautious in their engagement on Horizon but, as
mentioned above, their direct involvement and clear
determination to pursue their own courses may not have
meant that this advice had any particular impact or
consequence."
That can come down, thank you.
We have that. We also have, in Mr Callard’s
evidence to the Inquiry, he accepted that he wasn't
curious enough, and showed undue deference to what the
Post Office was telling him.
163
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
this case, those officials were within the Shareholder
Executive.
I can understand it in that perspective.
I think you said in your evidence earlier you met once
with Paula Vennells?
Yes.
Did you ever discuss with Mr Russell your level of
contact with Post Office directly?
No, because again, apart from the meetings I had with
Alice Perkins, which I did not do with most of the
chairs, the Post Office was obviously a larger and more
significant organisation, and I thought that that was,
therefore, appropriate, I would have done so had the
Shareholder Executive wanted me to do so, and at no
point did they say that they did.
Could we -- I want to look now at how Shareholder
Executive handled matters. If we could go still in Mark
Russell's statement, please, but go to paragraph 214,
page 94,
Mr Russell says:
"When I did learn that Post Office was undertaking
its own prosecutions I also took some comfort that, in
spite of the [Post Office] led Prosecution Policy, the
courts were making criminal convictions with the strict
standard of proof that is applied, and that there had
162
With reflection, do you think there's anything the
Department could have done, in terms of oversight of
Shareholder Executive, to correct these issues that they
identify: a lack of curiosity and not identifying the
right issues at Post Office?
Again, I find this a difficult question to answer, which
I have reflected on. The challenge of adding additional
layers is if you do not have additional information on
which to base your challenge, it can merely add
bureaucracy and actually make it more difficult to get
at the facts which is why, earlier on, I mentioned that
I thought if we'd had more resource, having more
resource at expert level connected with the detail and
following it up was perhaps one of the areas where this
did not work. It also did not work through various
levels of management and it did not work through the
Post Office Board.
The difficulty I have is that inside the business
department as it was and, you know, one of the
consequences of the range of responsibilities was that
I was perhaps, you know, submerged in managing all of
this all the time. I wasn't as out there in the wider
world as I might have been. But it's very difficult to
see how you manage a structure which isn't getting the
information it needs if no one is challenging at the
164
(41) Pages 161 - 164
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
basis of the information provision, because the problem
of having an extra layer or an extra set of questions is
we would have received the same answers that ministers
got.
The truth is that we did not, inside the Department,
manage to pick up on what was going on inside the Post
Office in these areas, and that is a matter of huge
regret and had awful consequences over very many years.
But I-- the people involved at senior levels, I have
said in my statement, and I believe, were competent and
professional. I do not see any lack of that in terms of
the people who were making those decisions. So it's not
clear to me that adding another level would necessarily
have produced a different result.
And I come back to this problem of how do you deal
with a department which is not -- I'm sorry, with an
organisation like the Post Office, which is not
following the standards of honesty and integrity, at
least in these issues, which you tend to rely on and
you're not really resourced to second-guess?
Now, you know, I don't think that's a good enough
excuse for what happened, but I think it is what
happened.
The Inquiry has heard evidence from Richard Callard and
he -- there's an email we can go to -- he received
165
raised, the Post Office were of course just sticking to
various positions that they held, and we didn't ever get
to the stage inside the organisation of saying, you
know, "We've really got to not just talk about having
a zero-based review or an independent review; we've got
‘to get right to the bottom of this and take as much time
and spend as much money as is needed."
That can come down. Thank you.
Part of your evidence is that there is a lack of
information flowing from Post Office to the Department.
The point you've just made there is, within the
Department itself, connecting the dots and acting on it,
on the information it had, on reflection, having heard
what you heard, can you assist us in any way by way of
recommendations as to how, if it was done again, the
Department could have put those things together and
could have acted differently?
I wish I could come up with an easy answer to that
question. It looks to me, knowing what we know now, and
having read everything that I've read and, you know, the
great work that went on to right this injustice, that
‘one of the problems was that it had lasted so long. So
there was never a moment when people went back to the
beginning and said, "But hold on, you know, there's
always been issues here" and they then just got used to
167
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27 September 2024
something called the Deloitte report, which -- in fact,
let's bring that up, please. It's POLO0028069. You say
in your evidence that you didn't receive this document
at the time. Are you now aware of it, or its --
I'm aware of it in outline. I haven't read it in
detail.
So there were initial findings made on Fujitsu's ability
to access remotely branch account data; are you aware of
that?
Yes.
And this was sent to Richard Callard by email. And if
it wasn't raised, do you think this document should have
been raised with you or raised within the Department?
Well, knowing what we know now, it definitely should
have been raised further within, first of all, the
Shareholder Executive and then, I would hope, more
widely. Because the question I draw from this -- and
it's for you and the Inquiry to decide, of course -- is
that at what stage did all of these different pieces of
evidence amount to, "Really, we've got this wrong, the
scales have shifted", and why did we not pick that up?
And I think that is the challenge which bothers me
most about the professionalism of how we handled this.
There were too many occasions where something else came
in, but it was never connected properly, it wasn't
166
accepting the assurances that were being given.
And, of course, then there were a series of reviews,
and so on and everyone said, "Well, we're looking into
this" or whatever. But we didn't step back and say,
"But fundamentally, you know, either the people raising
all these issues over all these years are, you know,
dishonest or completely deluded, or there's something
here we haven't got to" and we relied too much on the
Post Office to do it. And inside the Department, this
was one of our silos and it didn't get out of that.
So I struggle to see how we could have better picked
that up. Obviously people could have performed, and
should have performed, better at various times in
various ways. In the overall structures? I think I'd
come back to we should have had more people in detail
marking the Post Office and accepting that that was.
against all of the movement towards arm’s-length bodies,
commercial responsibility, avoiding micromanagement.
And we should have said this is too important to leave
it to the organisation, as long and in as many ways as
has happened.
I want to look at one last topic, please. It's late
2015 now. Could we look at UKGI00017443. Can we look
at page 3, please.
So this is from Mark Russell, the Shareholder
168
(42) Pages 165 - 168
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Executive, to other Shareholder Executive officials. It
says:
"Some negative feedback from BNR" -- I take that to
be Baroness Neville-Rolfe -- "on ShEx, I'm afraid, in
accordance with GIB and PO [Post Office]. Came through
Martin.”
Would that be you?
Yes.
Can you recall what Baroness Neville-Rolfe said to you
or emailed you?
Not in detail. This was -- it was not unusual for me to
chat to Junior Ministers about how things were going
over a cup of tea and particularly with a new group, as
we had after the election. It was also not unusual for
Officials to come to me and say, you know, "We're having
a bit of an issue with Minister X on this", and I would
see what I could do to ensure that the system worked
better, taking, you know, both sides' legitimate
concerns into account.
On this occasion, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who was
a very experienced Minister and had a lot of commercial
experience, raised these issues with me and, as far as
I can recall -- because, you know, it was something
I did as part of my normal job. I spoke, either that
day or the next -- probably the next morning -- to Mark,
169
issues. I can't remember whether she specifically
mentioned Horizon or not.
You said that you -- I think you said you left it after
this and didn't do anything further?
Well, I did what she asked me to and I-- what I said
I would do, which was to raise it with Shareholder
Executive, with Mark as the head of the Shareholder
Executive, pass on the concerns, and then it was up to
him to follow up, and there was follow-up, and I did not
hear any more from the Minister.
But in your role as Permanent Secretary, did you -- was
it not incumbent on you to see that the concerns had
been addressed and follow up on them?
Well, insofar as I can recall, Mark said that he would
follow this up, and he did. And, as with other such
issues, I did not hear any more of a problem, so
I assumed that it was being managed.
Could we look, please, at UKGI00006366. If we go to
page 3, please. It's an email from the then Secretary
of State, Sajid Javid's private office, regarding the
restatement of accounts -- so it's the issue we
discovered earlier -- and reporting what the Secretary
of State wanted from it.
We see your private office is in copy. So
presumably this -- these emails would have been raised
171
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
and I made, I think, the points that he has accurately
put down there. I passed them on and I didn't hear any
more. So, as in other such cases, I assumed that action
had been taken, communication properly restored, and
things were going on in a satisfactory way.
This was at the time when Baroness Neville-Rolfe had
asked Tim Parker to commission or carry out an
independent review, and at this point Jonathan Swift QC,
as he then was, was reviewing the situation. If we go
to page 2, please, at the bottom. We see Richard
Callard's email in response, it says:
"Marvellous. Yes, [we] can give you a full
briefing. The problem is we cannot deliver what she
wants (a green locked GIB, and a Post Office without
a perceived but non-existent IT problem)."
We know, of course, that it wasn't simply
a perceived IT problem.
No.
Was it the case that Baroness Neville-Rolfe had raised
with you concerns about Shareholder Executive's handling
of the Horizon issues?
I cannot recall in detail. I do think that the previous
email's account was accurate. I think she did say that
there were they were too technocratic and they weren't
aware of the politics around some of these Post Office
170
with you, given you were hands-on, as it were, on this
issue?
Yes, I'm sure I saw this, and I think I may have written
something about the restatement of accounts point.
I certainly followed up with our own finance people and
with the Shareholder Executive, and made clear my
annoyance of what had happened, and desire to ensure it
wasn't going to happen again, which was the other key
point.
And so this is December 2015, so the next month on from
the last email we saw. If we go to page 1, please,
further up the chain. It's an email from Baroness
Neville-Rolfe's private office. Again, we see you're in
copy or your private office is in copy but, again, it's
likely you would have seen this because you were
involved with the issue? Would you agree?
Probably.
And what is reported from Baroness Neville-Rolfe to have
said is:
"These are very disappointing developments on top of
earlier difficulties in the Post Office with the Horizon
IT system. The good news is that we have a new
chairman -- Tim Parker and two new non-execs --
Carla Stent and Ken McCall. Carla Stent will chair the
Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee and Ken McCall, the
172
(43) Pages 169 - 172
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Senior Independent Director. Tim is working on these
issues with their management and I have discussed the
matter with Mark Russell who is engaged with this issue.
I will be kept informed on matters progressing.”
So it's evident that Baroness Neville-Rolfe is still
concerned about the Horizon issues?
And she is taking it forward in a way which she finds
satisfactory, and that was positive.
Why, at this stage, did you not seek to follow up on it
when it had been raised by a Junior Minister as a matter
of importance?
Because I had already followed up on it with Mark
Russell. What we see here is what is now happening, and
the fact that there was the new corporate governance
level, and that Mark and team were engaged, and that the
Minister notes that. So that is what the system is
meant to be doing, and so now this takes place.
So from my point of view, that's what should be
happening, and it is happening.
So from your perspective, within the Department, it's
being handled by the relevant body, Shareholder
Executive, and that's the Department functioning
properly?
Correct.
That can come down.
173
think, and did behave, as though they had access to the
organisation, and could query its decisions.
The Inquiry has heard evidence about the use of risk
registers, both at the corporate level with Post Office,
and in Shareholder Executive, and indeed you've said in
your witness evidence, with the Department. And my
understanding from your evidence is the Department risk
register didn't refer to the Horizon issues as a risk?
No, it was much higher level. So if you look at one of
the report and accounts, you can see the sort of risks,
because we write them in the report. They were things
like the 2020 change programme, the 30 per cent cuts,
apprenticeship targets, higher education funding and
accountability, Student Loans Company, capacity, partner
board appointments. It was those sorts of level of
issue, and those are all set out in the accounts.
On reflection, do you think there's any changes you
could -- sorry, I'll restart that.
Do you think there's any changes or any benefit in
amending or changing the way in which risks are
identified and reported within the Department?
Well, the risk registers, as I think others have said,
are basically a management tool, and there were plenty
of risk registers at a devolved level, inside the
Shareholder Executive, in other parts of the Department,
175
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
9
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27 September 2024
I have a couple of questions on just your
reflections generally. The Inquiry has heard evidence
recommending that ministers should have express powers
to involve themselves in decision making in arm's-length
bodies. What do you say to that?
That's quite a sweeping comment. I think essentially
ministers always did have power. They could, for
example, have said to a chief executive or a chair
-- and occasionally this happened across Government,
I believe -- you know, "You know longer have my
confidence" in which case it would have been impossible
for the person to carry on.
I think the point is perhaps a slightly more nuanced
‘one. It's how easy was it for ministers to engage on
issues below that rather excessively dramatic, you know,
risk to the Board, resigning, or whatever, level.
And in my experience, ministers did, as they should
have been allowed to, ask probing questions, expect to
get responses from the relevant organisations, not just
the Post Office, but more widely, and where these issues
were politically sensitive or raised other issues, they
could be very forensic and concrete.
So I'm not sure myself there is an issue about
a lack of power, though it perhaps would be better to be
explicit about that, but in my experience, ministers did
174
so that those devolved levels of responsibility were
working with the more granular risks. I don't think
that there is a particular solution to having a huge
risk register. In my experience that doesn't work well.
The challenge, is, once you've identified risks at
different levels, you know, well, how are you dealing
with them and how do you use that to produce a more
effective outcome?
And finally, you've referred in your statement to
a suggestion of implementing the Nolan Principles into
Post Office, or a similar public corporation. How do
you think that would have helped in this situation?
Well, I put it there just as an example of perhaps being
explicit, but the problem I have personally with that is
it shouldn't be necessary to say that. Public servants
understand, those of us who join the public sector do so
‘on the basis we want to work ethically and effectively.
So I think it's perhaps useful to remind people of them,
but, you know, signing up shouldn't make a difference
because it ought to be implicit in everything everyone
does. And obviously, you know, we're all imperfect and
we don't manage to do it as well as we should, but it's
just a core responsibility of anybody working in public
services.
25 MRSTEVENS: Those are all the questions.
176
(44) Pages 173 - 176
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Sir, I think there are questions from Core
Participants: yes, from Hudgells and from HJA as well.
Do you have any questions before I hand over to the
floor?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Oh no, let the Core Participants go.
Questioned by MS PAGE.
MS PAGE: Sir Martin, I'm acting on behalf of a group of
2
subpostmasters, and I want to talk about a very
important year for the Horizon scandal, 2013. And in
that summer, just for context, we have both the Second
Sight Report being published and also the Clarke Advice
that you've looked at earlier, and that you pointed out
would have been nuclear, if it had come to your
Department and been dealt with as it should have been.
Also important in that year was the Network
Transformation Programme, and Post Office was securing
640 million over a three-year period. That's right,
isn't it? You were kept abreast of that, weren't you?
In broad terms, yes. I don't recall the precise figure.
And it was all part of trying to keep 11,500 branches
going. Again, you may not remember the figure, but that
was part of the overall package, wasn't it?
Well, in April of that year, internal documents show
that the Post Office was looking at making a change in
direction for the Network Transformation Programme,
177
presented to the Board by their Communications Director
called Mark Davies, and I see you're nodding so I think
we're on the right document?
Yes.
And Mark Davies presented the paper to the Board saying,
"Well, we want to move to compulsion and we need to know
how we're going to deal with that from a communications
point of view.”
And what we see here is his annex A, the first
paragraph:
"The following script seeks to set out how we could
try to sell compulsion to ministers, with a view to how
they might sell it on to other elements of government,
Parliament, and the media.”
And so clearly that's quite direct at the start
there, isn't it, suggesting that this is about selling
compulsion?
(Witness nodded)
It's a frank introduction, isn't it, shall we say?
Well, as I say, I didn't find the tone or frankly the
content of this piece particularly impressive.
Well, if we just go down, we can see that there's
a contrast, isn't there, between the language of the
introduction and then if we go down to the paragraph “it
means continuing", this is the script that he wants to
179
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
which is perhaps emblematic of the Post Office attitude
towards subpostmasters, because they were going to move
from a voluntary process to a compulsory process whereby
they compelled subpostmasters to move their branches
into the Network Transformation Programme. And internal
documents made free use of that word "compulsion".
This was an issue not least because ministers in
your Department had already publicly committed to the
process being voluntary. And in light of what came up
in the Common Issues trial about the relationship
between Post Office and subpostmasters, would you agree
this rather goes to the heart of the way that the Post
Office behaved towards subpostmasters, this attitude of
compulsion?
Well, I read one of the documents just recently which
referred to that, I think it was a PR document, and
I found the tone distasteful, frankly. I -- beyond
that, I was aware that this was an important issue.
politically for ministers, and I didn't know that the
Post Office was talking to itself in those terms.
Shall we look at that document, because I suspect I know
which one you're talking about?
Yeah.
It's POL00027540. And if we could go, please, to
page 33. This is an annex to a document that was
178
sell:
"It means continuing the existing network
transformation plan which has so far introduced whatever
number of new Post Offices with longer opening hours,
modern environments, but introducing a planned approach
which will mean that new models will be introduced
alongside compensation for existing subpostmasters who
leave the business."
This is the way he wants to dress up the compulsion;
is that fair?
Well, my concern with this was simply that ministers’
decisions were respected and that the process worked
professionally and loyally to do that. So as I say,
when I read this document, I was very unimpressed.
Yes, because in fact, in Annex D, we don't necessarily
need to go to it, page 37, Mr Davies actually sets out
all those occasions when the ministers committed to a
voluntary process. So in other words, this is a script
that he seeks to suggest Post Office can sell to the
ministers, sell to the Department, to change ministers’
policies and to change the stance that they've taken
publicly.
It looks, doesn't it, as if he wanted to keep the
compulsion element covert?
Well, I think it's difficult for me to comment on an
180
(45) Pages 177 - 180
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
internal PR Post Office document. As I say, my concern
was to ensure that ministers absolutely that the
information they needed and then the decisions they took
‘on this and other key issues were respected, and, you
know, I would expect the Post Office to respect them in
spirit, as well as in letter.
When we look at page 39, we see that you're actually
named as one of the people that he seeks to engage in
his delivery of this strategic plan. He says:
"In addition to regular meetings with day-to-day
Shareholder Executive contacts a series of meetings with
key BIS officials are taking place over the coming
weeks: they include Howard Orme, Mark Russell,
Anthony Odgers and Martin Donnelly.”
Do you sort of recognise this script or this
mechanism that he sought to try to use to sell
compulsion?
No, I do not, and I don't recall having any such
meeting. I'm also aware, as I mentioned briefly, that
this was a time when there was a massive amount of
engagement in how the Department's finances were going,
which was taking up a lot of my time.
In this effort to apparently use you and your team and
your ministers to carry out this sort of rather covert
move to compulsion, looking back, knowing everything
181
Department and of ShEx to discuss that Mrs Vennells was
thought not to be capable of remaining in post in 2014?
I did not see it at the time.
No, I appreciate that. I'm just working on a shorthand
so we can save bringing the document up. Everybody is
familiar with it.
Yes.
If you remember, it was a PowerPoint presentation where
there was a conversation about remove, retain, or retain
and review.
Now you've just said that wasn't a document that was
escalated up to you at the time, and you're nodding.
You have to say "yes" or "no" for the transcriber.
That is correct, in my recollection.
Thank you. And that was dated February 2014, take it
from me.
Now at that point, February 2014, Post Office has
separated from Royal Mail and of course that was an
issue that had touched your desk.
Yes.
The flotation. And Post Office continued on, of course,
with the major public subsidy, with an aim that the
subsidy would be reduced and mutualisation was the goal.
And again, you're nodding, Sir Martin?
I would just say that was, I believe, Government policy
183
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27 September 2024
that we know that the Post Office was doing covertly in
2013 around Second Sight, around Horizon, what was going
on internally with the Clarke Advice, do you think that
this shows the way that Post Office was operating? It
was using whatever levers it had in Government to
advance a covert agenda.
I'm not sure I in all honesty could go that far. And
the Post Office obviously had the right to give their
views to ministers, but I would reiterate that this does
sound unpleasantly manipulative and it's not how I think
you deal with arguments. You put them in
a straightforward way to people and let them respond.
MS PAGE: Thank you. Those are my questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you Ms Page. Next?
Questioned by MS PATRICK
MS PATRICK: Thank you, sir.
>
Sir Martin, my name is Angela Patrick. I represent,
with Mr Moloney KC, a number of subpostmasters who were
convicted and have since had their convictions quashed,
including Mrs Hamilton and Mr Trousdale, you can see
near me. I want to ask you about one issue.
We have looked just now at 2013, I want to go back
to 2014 and ask you about one document. Have you seen
the slide deck that the Inquiry has been looking at with
a number of witnesses which was produced by the
182
at the time.
Indeed, indeed.
Yes.
Now, Ms Vennells at that time is responsible for
a partner organisation, albeit a public corporation,
which was politically and socially important, and
dependent on a substantial Government subsidy; is that
fair?
Yes.
Whether that subsidy was in safe hands and whether the
Post Office would ever be in a position to operate
without public support, an important policy issue with
the public purse, wasn't it?
Yes, and for the provision of service.
Now, ought that discussion, prompted by somebody under
a ShEx or a Department umbrella, ought that discussion
or the concern that she was simply not up to the job to
have been put on your radar?
I think it was important that the Shareholder Executive
did their job for the Post Office as for other
organisations, which they were sponsoring --
Can I just stop you, Sir Martin. It's a simple
question. Ought it to have been put on your radar that
someone under a ShEx or a departmental banner, thought
that Ms Vennells might not be up to the job?
184
(46) Pages 181 - 184
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
So the point I was going to make -- let me start at the
‘other end. If they had thought the answer was yes,
definitely. The idea that they were reviewing, not
necessarily.
Okay. So it's a conversation that's going on at a time
when the business is newly separated from Royal Mail,
with the associated political significance of that
process. Ought that political significance ought to
have been part of the consideration as to whether, if
there was a doubt or certainty, that question mark over
Ms Vennells ought to have been escalated up for your
consideration?
It depends how big the question mark was, honestly —
Okay.
-- and what the alternatives were. I would have been
interested to have known that. I, having seen the
document, I accepted that the Shareholder Executive
would have thought: well this is our job, this is what
we do. We review people. We decide whether they're up
to it or whether we get anybody better or what we can do
in the middle. And since they decided not to pursue
that, I can see why they didn't tell me, though I would
have been, as I say, interested to know, because it's
a very important job.
Okay. And of course you've talked about the judgment
185
she wasn't aware of this discussion.
Now, professional, senior people at ShEx who you
thought could be responsible for their job, would you
have expected them to have raised these concerns with
the Chair?
Yes.
Okay. Ms Perkins also said at the time that, although
the discussion wasn't raised with her -- that's her
evidence -- that she also had doubts, including as to
Ms Vennells' personal grip on the Horizon issue. We've
discussed some of your meetings with Ms Perkins,
including that you were having a meeting in April 2014,
some time after this discussion. We've seen the
briefing note. As an aside, can you remember if
Ms Perkins raised any of her personal concerns about
Ms Vennells' capabilities in that April meeting?
Itwas 10 years ago, but I am pretty confident that, had
she done so, I would have remembered, because that is
a significant issue. And in terms of the levels of
control of the Post Office, the first level was the
Board. And so obviously, the Chair of the Board's view,
you know, what's communicated or not communicated, is
very, very important.
But as far as you can recall, neither ShEx nor the Chair
raised these concerns with you?
187
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
9
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the fact that you were leaving judgment to these
Officials.
Now this is a conversation that's occurring at
a time when Parliamentarians and the press are asking
serious questions as to whether the Post Office have
wrongly prosecuted its own people for years. It's an
issue that was being investigated by the Post Office at
a significant and considerable cost to the public purse.
Was that an issue that ought to have factored into the
judgment as to whether that doubt over Ms Vennells'
capabilities ought to have been escalated up to you?
A. I find that difficult to answer, because the Shareholder
Executive needed to look at, in the round, how the Post
Office was being run, and how far the relatively new
Chief Executive was on top of the job, and they had --
or they should have had -- access to all of the
evidence, including the importance of the job, required
to make that judgment. And they were experienced
people, and would not, honestly, at the time, have
second-guessed their judgment without additional
information.
But the fact that they were concerned is something
I would actually have liked to have known.
Q. Okay. Now Ms Perkins, who was in the chair at the time,
has been asked about this document, and she says that
186
A. No.
Q. And your view is that that really isn't something that
‘ought to have been on your radar?
A. The fact that ShEx concluded that they should stick with
the Chief Executive meant that, in a sense, there wasn't
anything changing. I would have appreciated, in
retrospect, knowing that they'd had that question mark.
And I am surprised that they didn't contact the Chair of
the Board on that issue, given the Chair's important
role in supervising, really, the Chief Executive.
Q. And in 2015 when a question mark is raised by the
Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, with you as to whether
ShEx is really doing its job properly, whether it's
politically aware enough of the sensitivities around the
Post Office, at no point in that conversation did anyone
say, "Hang on a minute, last year we were talking about
whether Paula was up to the job"?
A. No.
MS PATRICK: Thank you. Those are all the questions that
'have.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR STEVENS: Thank you, sir.
I think that's everyone, so we break until Tuesday
morning.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right.
188
(47) Pages 185 - 188
27 September 2024
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Well, Sir Martin, I am very grateful to you for
fielding all those questions this afternoon, and for
providing a witness statement. And as was pointed out
to you, it was the first time that we'd heard from
a Permanent Secretary, so thank you for that part of
your witness statement which educates me about the role
of a Permanent Secretary.
Right. We'll resume again on Tuesday, as you
suggest, Mr Stevens.
MR STEVENS: Thank you, sir.
(4.22 pm)
(the hearing adjourned until Tuesday, 1st October 2024)
189
INDEX
AMANDA BURTON (sworn) ....
Questioned by MR BLAKE ....
Questioned by MR HENRY ...
Questioned by MR JACOBS
Questioned by MS PATRICK ...
SIR MARTIN DONNELLY (sworn) .....
Questioned by MR STEVENS ..
Questioned by MS PAGE.
Questioned by MS PATRICK
190
27 September 2024
84
92
98
101
101
177
182
(48) Pages 189 - 190
MR BLAKE: [14] 1/3
1/5 1/8 20/22 54/21
54/25 55/2 55/6 83/25
84/4 98/9 101/3 101/8
101/11
MR HENRY: [3] 84/6
91/8 92/6
MR JACOBS: [2]
92/9 97/21
MR STEVENS: [10]
101/15 101/17 101/20}
140/3 140/7 140/41
140/13 176/25 188/22]
189/10
MS PAGE: [2] 177/7
182/13
MS PATRICK: [4]
98/11 100/25 182/16
188/19
SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
[20] 1/4 20/17 20/21
54/24 55/1 84/3 91/6
92/7 97/23 98/7 101/1
101/4 101/9 101/16
140/6 140/12 17/5
182/14 188/21 188/25]
THE WITNESS: [1]
101/7
‘dashboard’ [1]
137/18
“guilty [4] 67/13
‘Horizon’ [1] 156/1
"need [1] 53/14
‘no [1] 156/6
‘This [1] 141/8
-- and [2] 7/16 174/9
/
IUKGI [1] 163/5
1
4,000 [4] 92/20
1.1 [1] 134/9
1.13 [1] 36/20
4.17 [4] 39/4
4.4 [1] 6/10
1.50 [2] 101/8 101/14
40 [8] 30/2 30/2
104/5 112/2 113/14
139/1 146/12 148/19
10 Downing [1]
149/6
10 years [1] 187/17
10.00 [1] 1/2
100 [1] 92/19
11 years [1] 121/19
11,500 [1] 177/20
11.19 [1] 55/3
11.35 [4] 54/25
11.37 [1] 55/5
12 [2] 97/10 136/19
12 months [1] 92/25
12.00 [1] 146/21
12.47 [4] 101/12
12th [1] 159/16
13 [3] 72/3 72/4
149/24
14[1] 118/19
14th [1] 66/19
15 [1] 109/13
15th [1] 149/13
16 [1] 161/4
16th January [1]
62/19
17 [2] 25/9 109/17
18 [1] 76/3
18th [1] 75/11
19 [3] 55/24 122/9
134/14
1980 [1] 103/3
1st [1] 189/12
2
2.4 [1] 3/8
2.53 [1] 140/8
2009 [1] 104/25
2010 [3] 103/7
103/10 133/13
2011 [1] 133/3
2012 [1] 140/14
2013 [10] 121/17
127/7 130/17 143/23
144/5 146/12 156/6
177I9 182/2 182/22
2014 [7] 2/17 159/17
182/23 183/2 183/15
183/17 187/12
2015 [7] 106/21
115/8 115/19 149/13
168/23 172/10 188/11
2016 [3] 103/14
103/22 123/23
2017 [1] 103/22
2019 [2] 102/13
117/21
2020 [1] 175/12
2021 [2] 25/3 36/4
2022 [4] 24/7 36/5
81/5 102/15
2022/23 [1] 26/21
2023 [17] 3/2 3/7
4/25 9/25 19/20 27/25
34/21 43/24 48/6
48/11 55/20 56/16
81/8 102/14 126/14
126/17 127/13
2024 [5] 1/1 57/20
69/7 81/6 189/12
2030 [1] 81/9
208 [1] 126/16
210 [1] 127/1
214 [1] 162/18
217 [1] 163/7
21st November [1]
81/8
22 May [1] 10/9
22nd May 2023 [4]
9/25
23 [2] 26/21 40/7
23rd [1] 92/15
24 [4] 3/14 3/18 3/19
52/20
24th September [1]
94/3
25th May [1] 16/24
26 [1] 59/6
26th July [1] 33/10
26th May [1] 4/25
26th May 2023 [1]
19/20
27th [1] 3/7
27th September 2024I
[4] 11
29 [1] 124/24
3
3 July 2023 [1] 27/25
3.05 [2] 140/5 140/10
3.4 [1] 134/19
3.1.1 [4] 122/9
30 [2] 4/4 136/20
30 per cent [1]
175/12
33 [2] 102/4 178/25
33 pages [1] 102/3
35 per cent [1] 93/10
37 [1] 180/16
38 [1] 118/20
39 [2] 119/9 181/7
4
4 September [1]
57/19
4.22 [1] 189/11
40 [1] 161/16
40-odd [1] 113/25
44 [2] 70/22 122/24
45 [3] 72/3 72/4
105/13
5
5 July 2023 [1] 48/11
50 per cent [1] 125/6
51 [1] 83/3
55 [2] 130/18 130/19
57 per cent [1] 93/6
59 [1] 98/25
6
640 million [1]
ATTN7
65 per cent [1] 93/8
68 per cent [1] 93/5
7
7.3.13 [1] 126/25
7.7.2 [1] 130/23
70 per cent [1] 93/4
8
8 April [1] 155/17
84 [1] 143/16
9
9.0 [4] 52/12
92 per cent [1] 92/23
94 [1] 162/19
98 per cent [1] 92/25
A
AB [2] 49/16 49/20
ability [4] 21/4 61/25
105/22 166/7
able [23] 4/16 16/10
16/11 16/13 16/16
19/22 38/10 43/21
44/13 50/23 52/2
54/13 62/1 78/3 79/24
83/14 87/17 88/23
91/4 91/10 117/4
117/6 136/14
about [113] 3/5 4/6
9/14 9/16 13/3 13/16
18/21 29/18 30/3
31/10 32/14 42/17
45/7 45/11 45/16 46/3
46/7 46/9 47/2 47/8
54/18 58/4 58/15
60/23 61/12 61/13
62/5 62/25 63/5 63/17
63/19 63/24 64/5 64/9
64/18 68/4 68/25 72/4
74/5 79/3 79/19 79/20
80/20 92/13 92/16
92/19 93/22 94/1 94/8
96/2 97/10 97/11
98/15 98/16 100/11
105/13 105/19 109/3
111/6 116/9 117/3
117/21 118/8 118/21
121/2 124/5 127/11
131/14 132/15 133/18
135/19 138/23 139/2
141/7 141/11 146/9
148/25 149/14 149/10
149/12 150/25 1541/1
151/24 152/14 153/7
153/22 154/4 155/3
156/8 156/24 157/10
163/6 166/23 167/4
169/12 170/20 172/4
173/6 174/23 174/25
175/3 177/8 178/10
178/22 179/16 182/21
182/23 183/9 185/25
186/25 187/15 188/16
189/6
above [7] 48/14 65/2
65/13 75/24 119/2
159/21 163/17
abreast [1] 177/18
absolute [1] 60/25
absolutely [17] 7/22
13/9 37/23 58/21 61/7)
61/9 63/6 71/20 73/4
85/1 89/7 89/17 89/21
96/8 151/5 152/12
181/2
abstract [1] 106/6
accept [3] 86/2 96/20
135/24
acceptable [3] 85/24
115/16 133/11
accepted [7] 21/16
46/14 72/9 87/18
131/14 163/23 185/17
accepting [2] 168/1
168/16
access [5] 99/13
115/3 166/8 175/1
186/16
accidentally [1] 70/3
accomplished [1]
91/23
accord [1] 94/21
accordance [1]
169/5
account [5] 25/14
119/17 166/8 169/19
170/23
accountability [2]
50/1 175/14
accountable [4]
119/19 119/22 129/19)
129/23
accountant [1] 122/3
accountants’ [1]
141/10
accounting [53]
106/20 106/25 107/4
107/8 112/1 117/13
118/9 118/13 118/20
118/22 119/11 119/20)
120/3 120/6 120/8
120/20 120/23 120/24}
120/25 121/13 121/14I
121/23 121/24 122/2
122/6 122/10 122/13
122/16 122/21 123/2
126/13 127/4 127/16
127/22 128/6 129/19
130/4 134/6 134/10
134/15 134/16 134/17
134/20 134/24 135/10)
142/12 142/14 142/15)
142/17 142/20 142/21
156/1 161/10
accounts [30] 11/18
39/13 85/19 86/22
87/9 89/5 106/21
107/9 107/12 107/13
107/15 118/24 119/1
119/3 119/6 119/6
120/17 120/23 123/15]
(49) MR BLAKE: - accounts
A
accounts... [11]
129/2 134/18 135/14
135/15 135/17 142/9
142/13 171/21 172/4
175/10 175/16
accurate [4] 95/10
95/22 110/22 170/23
accurately [3] 113/21
150/24 170/1
accused [1] 89/24
achieve [3] 22/14
27/6 78/1
achieved [7] 7/5 23/3
26/9 38/6 45/14 86/16
129/15
achieving [1] 107/11
acknowledged [2]
36/16 46/14
acknowledging [1]
31/12
acquitted [1] 98/14
across [10] 23/25
45/2 103/5 105/10
107/25 109/18 130/13)
145/8 146/3 174/9
Act [1] 53/7
acted [1] 167/17
acting [6] 72/11
103/6 128/13 134/23
167/12 177/7
action [13] 6/17 18/5
46/17 51/8 70/5 73/25)
74/1 74/14 75/25 76/1
138/6 156/22 170/3
actions [6] 6/20 18/4
18/15 28/7 68/23 79/5
actively [1] 54/10
activity [3] 49/18
153/20 159/19
actual [3] 43/9 44/19
96/5
actually [31] 4/20
5/25 11/4 19/6 31/22
32/2 42/3 42/14 43/3
43/12 48/1 54/7 64/14
7AI5 78/2 79/4 91/19
95/7 95/24 100/10
107/7 110/17 112/12
114/23 137/24 145/11
150/21 164/10 180/16)
181/7 186/23
adamant [1] 60/19
adapted [1] 131/1
add [9] 24/21 50/8
111/25 116/24 117/2
137/23 139/17 147/12)
164/9
added [2] 22/22
39/18
adding [3] 138/18
164/7 165/13
addition [5] 32/21
98/18 132/15 151/1
181/10
additional [15] 19/20
50/8 117/1 117/1
130/12 140/1 145/24
146/10 147/12 148/16)
148/17 155/11 164/7
164/8 186/20
address [3] 46/19
47/22 48/24
addressed [8] 2/2
6/19 27/19 36/12
70/22 81/15 83/11
171/13
addresses [2] 17/4
69/17
addressing [4] 16/23
19/24 36/2 49/5
adjourned [1] 189/12
Adjournment [1]
101/13
adopted [2] 39/19
79/9
advance [2] 1/25
182/6
advantages [1] 117/8)
adversarial [1] 16/18
advice [14] 48/19
126/23 149/13 149/16)
149/21 150/10 150/14)
150/15 150/18 151/7
151/9 163/19 177/11
182/3
advised [6] 48/20
49/16 49/21 51/9 57/8)
71/16
advisers [2] 87/7
116/11
advising [2] 49/2
150/8
advocated [1] 141/6
affairs [4] 105/7
105/23 107/18 108/14}
affect [5] 113/6 113/8
113/12 113/18 115/9
affected [1] 108/24
afford [1] 53/6
affordability [1]
30/10
afforded [1] 100/3
afraid [5] 35/7 79/25
98/6 124/23 169/4
after [20] 5/8 6/4 9/3
26/6 27/25 35/2 48/11
51/18 85/17 85/18
89/23 126/18 132/25
146/13 146/14 154/7
156/2 169/14 171/3
187/13
afternoon [5] 92/12
97/11 101/15 140/5
189/2
again [49] 13/2 20/1
25/4 27/13 33/3 34/14
35/17 40/2 46/8 46/13
46/19 46/25 50/8
58/10 62/3 65/5 70/7
70/13 74/18 75/21
89/22 92/11 95/23
100/13 108/11 113/10
113/18 116/23 128/15}
129/7 129/22 130/1
137/4 137/12 137/21
138/16 142/6 149/18
153/19 160/21 162/9
164/6 167/15 172/8
172/13 172/14 177/21
183/24 189/8
against [6] 13/13
37/3 69/1 76/1 116/14
168/17
agency [3] 122/12
155/20 156/24
agenda [9] 93/25
107/19 108/9 108/14
108/15 108/17 108/24
113/7 182/6
aggressive [1] 60/14
ago [1] 187/17
agree [28] 12/22
17/21 35/12 36/18
37/9 38/8 38/21 54/6
62/1 62/17 73/7 79/8
84/7 84/15 84/16
85/20 89/2 89/9 89/25
90/7 93/18 95/3 100/5I
137/19 141/4 161/15
172/16 178/11
agreed [8] 27/4 65/10)
71/11 75/14 90/4
100/15 100/16 129/10
agreeing [1] 32/19
agreement [5] 42/8
53/17 83/6 83/15
83/22
agrees [1] 62/21
Ah [3] 50/17 75/19
137/1
ahead [2] 146/20
160/3
aim [1] 183/22
alarm [1] 152/13
ALB [2] 161/12
161/14
albeit [1] 184/5
ALBs [4] 124/13
124/19 134/25 136/9
Alice [12] 141/3
153/25 154/1 154/7
154/8 156/4 157/1
158/5 158/15 158/19
158/20 162/10
align [4] 37/4
aligned [1] 37/23
alignment [1] 49/25
alive [1] 96/10
all [81] 4/16 6/14
6/25 7/10 14/25 26/12
29/2 33/12 33/20
34/11 36/15 49/17
53/12 54/2 54/24 55/1
58/19 62/16 62/22
64/14 73/7 74/4 79/9
79/24 82/14 84/3
87/21 88/25 89/22
91/17 98/7 99/5 99/16
106/12 109/6 109/16
116/12 116/14 117/18}
118/3 123/11 128/3
128/4 128/20 130/1
131/11 135/20 135/22}
137/14 141/13 145/19}
147/10 149/25 151/23}
152/1 152/18 152/21
153/6 153/12 153/13
153/18 154/3 155/24
157/19 158/22 164/21
164/22 166/15 166/19)
168/6 168/6 168/17
175/16 176/21 176/25}
177/20 180/17 182/7
186/16 188/19 189/2
allegation [3] 55/10
64/8 76/16
allegations [14]
48/22 48/25 49/3 49/6
50/6 50/10 58/9 58/11
59/5 62/25 64/1 64/21
65/13 76/19
alleged [2] 77/5
86/10
allocation [1] 50/14
allow [2] 80/15 81/17
allowed [2] 87/7
174/18
allowing [1] 47/22
almost [3] 22/6 70/8
115/22
alone [1] 119/24
along [2] 46/21 73/24
alongside [1] 180/7
already [19] 20/17
21/21 28/6 28/10
30/23 33/24 42/3 52/5
54/16 55/11 55/12
65/8 72/14 93/23
127/13 141/9 157/17
173/12 178/8
also [61] 2/22 4/21
4/22 12/23 24/13
29/23 31/16 32/3
33/11 34/18 35/2 39/5)
39/20 45/1 46/18
47/18 51/10 57/1
57/11 58/5 58/5 59/18
60/2 60/9 63/6 63/23
66/3 66/15 68/25
69/17 72/16 78/20
79/5 80/4 83/8 95/14
95/19 96/5 99/17
100/14 100/15 100/18
110/16 113/25 122/5
127/23 132/10 136/11
137/22 138/2 141/2
148/13 162/22 163/22)
164/15 169/14 177/11
177/15 181/19 187/7
187/9
alternative [2]
136/18 163/14
alternatives [1]
185/15
although [12] 3/21
12/11 33/15 43/12
44/10 78/8 95/13
99/15 107/8 127/12
131/25 187/7
always [12] 5/3 38/25]
49/19 82/23 96/10
123/2 124/6 124/9
131/24 149/8 167/25
174/7
am [18] 1/2 2/11
20/10 41/5 41/7 44/23)
48/6 55/3 55/5 62/16
86/9 86/25 101/6
145/4 150/11 187/17
188/8 189/1
AMANDA [8] 1/6 1/10}
10/6 10/18 17/8 62/21
65/17 190/2
amend [1] 17/24
amending [1] 175/20
among [1] 9/1
amongst [6] 21/9
31/24 42/21 56/10
69/14 94/11
amount [12] 26/17
49/7 49/18 50/5 52/5
67/17 87/22 113/5
138/5 147/17 166/20
181/20
amounts [1] 71/22
Andrew [2] 141/6
141/15
Angela [3] 33/13
64/24 182/17
angry [1] 107/13
annex [4] 126/21
178/25 179/9 180/15
annoyance [1] 172/7
annoyed [1] 107/7
annual [10] 5/21 6/12
39/13 85/18 86/22
87/9 89/5 112/8
134/18 158/20
anonymous [1]
44/19
another [14] 16/24
47/5 65/9 71/15 72/7
73/24 76/4 98/12
115/20 137/17 138/2
139/14 139/15 165/13}
answer [11] 15/10
88/10 89/14 91/6
91/10 97/9 114/12
(60) accounts... - answer
A
answer... [4] 164/6
167/18 185/2 186/12
answers [1] 165/3
Anthony [3] 159/24
160/11 181/14
Anthony Odgers [1]
181/14
anticipate [2] 3/13
4/3
anticipated [1] 36/4
any [74] 4/18 6/20
7/11 7/16 9/20 11/4
20/7 20/9 20/14 22/9
22/9 23/2 23/3 25/21
26/10 30/3 30/4 30/17
31/24 37/18 48/1
53/10 54/14 55/9 58/3
58/4 69/21 70/5 76/16
78/17 79/2 79/7 84/1
87/10 88/23 96/8
96/22 97/1 97/22
99/23 100/16 100/16
100/25 112/20 116/16)
116/20 117/15 119/20)
119/24 120/22 130/24}
131/13 132/3 132/13
134/3 134/25 137/1
143/25 144/2 153/16
153/22 155/3 163/19
165/11 167/14 170/2
171/10 171/16 175/17)
175/19 175/19 177/3
181/18 187/15
any way [1] 48/1
anybody [7] 23/20
24/1 82/6 90/17 90/19
176/23 185/20
anyone [6] 25/13
45/19 86/20 89/22
153/10 188/15
anyone's [1] 23/4
anything [19] 14/23
20/23 23/25 24/24
61/12 62/4 66/20 76/8
76/15 118/7 137/23
145/5 151/11 153/11
156/22 158/22 164/1
171/4 188/6
anywhere [2] 76/12
152/10
apart [1] 162/9
apologetic [1] 69/20
apology [10] 27/7
27/8 27/9 27/16 27/20
69/21 69/24 91/25
92/1 92/3
appalling [1] 136/2
apparent [2] 77/4
100/2
apparently [1]
181/23
appeals [1] 163/1
appear [3] 36/6 48/22
63/8
appeared [1] 151/3
appears [1] 89/8
applied [3] 24/19
135/9 162/25
applies [1] 64/5
apply [2] 62/13
100/18
appoint [3] 51/10
71/18 129/18
appointed [6] 3/1
3/23 51/14 61/21 71/7,
128/21
appointment [8] 3/5
3/7 3/10 31/4 70/21
71/5 104/25 161/5
appointments [3]
62/16 109/5 175/15
appraisal [1] 112/8
appreciate [4] 8/17
15/10 40/19 183/4
appreciated [2]
61/14 188/6
apprenticeship [1]
175/13
approach [10] 18/24
48/24 77/21 78/11
98/22 100/1 100/21
129/22 158/18 180/5
approached [1]
160/9
appropriate [28] 7/10)
7/24 11/11 12/13 15/5)
40/13 41/21 42/4 49/5)
54/22 58/20 62/6
71/18 74/22 83/10
83/14 84/19 85/8
85/12 88/16 90/24
111/17 116/22 129/9
129/13 129/18 154/17)
162/13
appropriately [2]
36/11 53/5
appropriateness [1]
9/13
approval [9] 12/13
12/14 25/11 26/4
30/15 34/3 37/18
120/16 128/18
approvals [1] 30/17
approved [7] 11/12
12/11 14/3 36/14
39/12 88/21 129/11
approves [1] 62/16
April [8] 3/2 3/7 40/7
103/22 155/17 177/23}
187/12 187/16
April 2014 [1] 187/12
April 2017 [4] 103/22
April 2023 [1] 3/2
are [154] 2/9 4/7 6/19
12/1 12/6 14/4 14/17
15/15 15/18 17/1
22/12 23/23 27/16
28/13 28/18 29/12
29/14 30/20 31/12
31/24 33/20 34/12
36/24 37/5 37/7 37/15
38/12 38/14 39/1
39/15 39/18 41/7
41/16 42/3 42/4 42/5
42/12 42/22 43/1 43/3
43/18 44/12 45/16
45/20 45/23 45/24
47/9 47/18 48/10
50/25 53/20 54/2
54/13 54/19 60/18
61/5 63/15 64/7 66/14
66/19 67/17 68/5 70/5
70/12 73/22 73/23
74/19 74/23 75/13
75/14 76/13 76/17
76/21 76/21 77/7 77/8
78/3 78/6 79/7 80/4
80/9 80/10 80/11
80/18 80/24 80/25
81/3 81/14 81/20
82/18 82/21 83/1 83/4
83/23 84/2 89/4 90/2
90/13 94/19 95/5
95/17 95/17 95/24
96/12 97/15 97/16
97/24 101/17 102/18
102/21 104/1 106/22
109/19 111/19 117/6
120/8 124/8 124/13
124/14 124/17 124/19]
127/5 129/9 129/21
132/4 133/22 136/9
136/17 136/18 139/1
139/9 143/7 144/23
149/9 150/10 151/20
151/25 155/25 160/18
161/12 166/4 166/8
168/6 172/20 175/16
175/20 175/23 176/6
176/25 177/1 181/12
182/13 186/4 188/19
area [7] 105/23 114/7
139/2 139/15 145/7
145/8 152/21
areas [12] 106/22
114/3 115/25 117/9
137/21 138/18 145/8
145/20 146/6 146/22
164/14 165/7
arguably [2] 85/6
147/9
argue [3] 126/6
127/12 161/19
argument [1] 149/4
arguments [1]
182/11
arise [1] 126/24
arisen [2] 36/13
152/15
arising [3] 84/21 97/9I
113/12
arm [1] 62/12
arm's [17] 120/12
122/1 122/13 122/17
122/20 123/9 123/13
123/16 123/21 124/14}
124/18 135/1 135/8
135/16 161/17 168/17,
174/4
arm's-length [17]
120/12 122/1 122/13
122/17 122/20 123/9
123/13 123/16 123/21
124/14 124/18 135/1
135/8 135/16 161/17
168/17 174/4
arose [2] 70/20 98/21
around [22] 4/4 8/8
13/4 16/15 33/20
36/22 36/25 37/8 77/8
82/24 95/15 108/20
109/5 109/5 109/5
115/8 139/3 163/10
170/25 182/2 182/2
188/14
arrangement [4]
16/16 105/17 112/8
127/21
arrangements [5]
33/14 61/19 119/24
122/1 128/17
articles [2] 61/25
62/7
as [322]
ascertain [1] 38/15
aside [2] 122/14
187/14
ask [21] 1/14 13/16
41/22 43/16 68/10
72/4 78/23 84/3 87/18)
88/15 89/18 92/13
97/23 98/15 102/4
102/8 102/24 147/14
174/18 182/21 182/23}
asked [29] 5/7 8/12
10/13 11/5 12/20
12/24 19/5 20/12
20/18 35/3 35/19
40/14 56/20 57/2 64/3)
65/7 87/12 94/8 94/9
97/11 98/16 100/13
113/14 139/2 141/4
148/1 170/7 171/5
186/25
asking [5] 3/4 59/20
65/3 88/11 186/4
aspects [2] 36/24
79/7
assertions [1] 163/9
assess [1] 26/10
assessing [1] 26/8
assessment [2]
112/24 153/14
assets [3] 107/1
119/15 126/8
assist [25] 5/13
10/10 14/1 19/24
20/22 31/21 33/24
34/22 35/5 37/24
41/11 44/4 50/2 51/4
56/6 57/2 57/18 57/21
59/8 65/23 81/9
104/11 104/17 158/8
167/14
assisted [1] 147/2
associated [1] 185/7
assume [5] 32/18
119/5 153/20 153/21
158/10
assumed [3] 6/1
170/3 171/17
assuming [3] 150/14
150/15 151/22
assurances [2] 163/4I
168/1
assure [1] 96/12
at [252]
atrocious [1] 84/9
attached [3] 70/18
75/23 146/21
attachments [2]
70/12 70/19
attempt [1] 56/13
attempting [1] 22/14
attempts [1] 59/7
attend [2] 100/16
100/17
attendance [2] 17/1
48/10
attended [1] 147/10
attendees [1] 10/2
attending [2] 101/5
101/22
attention [5] 58/23
86/20 113/4 118/6
136/22
attitude [2] 178/1
178/13
attract [1] 15/21
attracted [2] 15/24
16/1
attritional [2] 90/10
90/12
audience [3] 82/18
97/14 97/18
audit [2] 26/9 172/25
audited [1] 120/18
auditors [2] 128/5
128/22
August [5] 33/7
34/21 43/24 45/9
51/18
August 2023 [1]
34/21
authorisations [1]
32/1
authority [1] 134/23
autonomy [5] 120/14
(61) answer... - autonomy
A
autonomy... [4]
122/22 123/1 123/20
130/14
autumn [1] 36/5
available [2] 25/15
115/10
average [1] 13/11
avoiding [1] 168/18
award [3] 26/24 38/7
65/1
awarded [1] 38/11
awards [1] 26/6
aware [77] 8/3 8/25
12/3 12/6 12/6 12/15
13/2 13/3 19/2 27/16
31/24 34/6 41/7 42/7
42/22 43/1 43/3 45/5
45/12 46/18 46/23
50/25 51/22 51/23
54/2 54/20 55/25
57/11 58/1 58/5 58/9
59/18 60/12 60/18
69/21 70/5 74/2 77/1
77/15 78/16 79/3 80/3,
80/4 80/11 83/1 88/17,
94/10 94/14 95/17
107/24 110/8 111/25
115/13 117/19 118/1
118/4 122/5 131/3
131/11 133/14 138/11
139/6 140/16 143/21
150/10 150/11 150/14}
151/8 159/4 166/4
166/5 166/8 170/25
178/18 181/19 187/1
188/14
awareness [1] 54/2
away [4] 5/1 16/17
89/23 93/18
awful [3] 29/22 84/24
165/8
back [31] 6/5 9/15
13/19 14/5 16/14
18/21 19/5 23/23
33/11 54/25 62/12
66/19 77/10 77/25
81/2 101/8 106/7
106/16 107/16 130/17)
135/13 140/5 144/15
145/18 155/5 165/15
167/23 168/4 168/15
181/25 182/22
background [18] 2/9
8/4 9/10 13/12 22/7
26/17 28/1 34/22
35/17 41/11 43/20
44/2 52/9 71/8 78/10
138/4 146/22 158/5
backing [1] 47/23
bad [4] 114/17
badged [1] 45/20
baffled [1] 11/13
bafflement [1] 11/15
balance [4] 30/9 78/1
78/5 126/2
balanced [2] 37/3
163/14
balances [1] 96/12
bandwidth [3] 50/22
114/19 116/17
bankrupt [1] 126/7
bankrupted [1] 89/24
banks [1] 90/7
banner [1] 184/24
Baroness [9] 169/4
169/9 169/20 170/6
170/19 172/12 172/18)
173/5 188/12
barrister [4] 57/8
60/10 64/3 65/25
Bartlett [2] 48/20
76/3
base [2] 158/21
164/9
based [3] 7/13 7/17
167/5
basically [1] 175/23
basis [11] 23/6 23/21
38/5 38/6 38/10 38/15)
53/14 145/5 160/22
165/1 176/17
Batten [2] 155/14
155/15
be [252]
bearing [2] 60/25
62/23
beast [1] 80/7
became [15] 4/24 7/8
21/16 25/9 51/17
56/16 57/11 57/17
57/21 85/11 103/13
116/13 128/20 131/20}
150/21
because [114] 4/20
5/7 5/24 9/12 15/7
15/24 16/1 20/12 21/2
23/13 23/16 27/5
27/12 29/21 32/5 35/8
35/9 36/13 37/1 38/3
38/12 38/25 41/16
41/23 41/25 44/23
46/1 49/12 50/7 52/5
54/19 56/18 57/4 58/5
59/2 59/5 59/18 59/21
61/6 64/15 64/18 67/7
68/16 71/14 71/22
75/3 78/21 83/21
86/15 89/4 91/4 94/1
98/16 100/10 106/24
107/8 112/1 112/2
114/13 114/25 115/5
115/23 116/10 118/6
118/11 121/4 122/8
125/23 128/7 128/24
129/3 131/8 136/5
136/12 136/15 136/18}
137/20 137/22 137/22
139/21 139/24 140/23
142/18 142/19 142/21
143/6 146/1 146/2
147/5 147/11 147/18
148/7 148/16 148/22
152/7 153/22 161/16
161/22 162/9 163/3
165/1 166/17 169/23
172/15 173/12 175/11
176/20 178/2 178/7
178/21 180/15 185/23
186/12 187/18
become [4] 2/22
113/17 117/19 152/7
been [196]
been -- the [1] 64/12
before [30] 7/14
22/24 22/25 28/5
28/10 30/19 32/22
36/2 40/8 42/17 47/12
63/8 69/10 70/11
77/16 78/14 78/14
78/18 78/19 79/10
94/10 98/17 102/8
104/25 116/18 117/13
120/21 124/17 132/23
177/13
begin [1] 3/4
beginning [4] 10/15
17/4 130/8 167/24
behalf [1] 177/7
behave [1] 175/1
behaved [2] 128/11
178/13
behaving [1] 68/2
behaviour [5] 46/18
47/20 112/23 127/25
152/11
behaviours [2] 47/8
47/22
behind [4] 62/12
64/14 121/5 125/25
being [75] 7/16 7/16
11/14 19/5 20/4 24/9
26/6 26/18 27/14
27/16 31/25 45/22
48/16 50/25 51/6
59/12 65/24 67/7 69/1
69/21 71/16 75/6 78/1
78/17 79/14 81/12
83/20 87/8 90/5 90/9
90/20 94/12 96/12
98/1 98/22 99/5 103/6
105/20 107/2 108/3
109/9 110/22 111/4
112/5 113/14 117/4
118/5 119/22 121/13
123/6 130/2 134/4
138/2 138/3 139/24
141/14 142/13 144/10
144/23 145/6 146/8
148/20 151/16 157/25)
160/23 160/25 163/15)
168/1 171/17 173/21
176/13 177/11 178/9
186/7 186/14
BEIS0000010 [1]
155/13
BEIS0000655 [1]
9/23
59/25 100/2 102/9
102/20
believe [13] 8/23
27/18 50/14 66/23
73/14 76/6 80/19 92/5)
103/21 143/4 165/10
174/10 183/25
Belinda [1] 159/16
bell [1] 152/13
below [5] 33/12 34/8
39/23 159/18 174/15
Ben [2] 67/18 69/14
benefit [3] 36/25
77/10 175/19
best [11] 1/22 2/4 6/3
37/2 72/12 73/14
102/8 102/19 106/13
114/21 133/6
better [19] 26/19
30/7 33/20 34/5 34/12,
38/18 73/5 78/5 81/17)
106/5 114/22 117/9
136/2 158/7 168/11
168/13 169/18 174/24)
185/20
between [23] 16/18
26/3 30/12 37/11
39/17 67/23 74/2
77/13 105/14 119/20
123/13 130/2 131/5
132/2 133/16 137/11
146/24 157/8 160/21
161/9 161/20 178/11
179/23
beyond [2] 13/11
178/17
Bickerton [1] 11/21
big [1] 185/13
bills [1] 91/15
BIS [6] 117/7 118/23
118/25 119/1 146/17
181/12
bit [18] 3/5 28/1
29/23 31/2 32/12
34/22 42/18 74/4
107/6 108/18 118/11
120/21 127/12 127/23
138/25 145/12 158/5
169/16
black [1] 123/3
BLAKE [5] 1/7 89/15
BEIS0000656 [1] 30/18 42/22 43/7
16/22 43/11 43/15 43/20
belated [1] 127/12 44/8 44/12 45/6 46/9
belief [6] 1/23 2/4 48/5 48/6 48/8 48/24
97/10 101/2 190/4
blank [1] 87/13
blatantly [1] 87/8
bluntly [1] 106/10
BNR [1] 169/3
board [97] 4/13 4/18
4/23 5/1 5/9 6/22 8/16
10/8 17/7 17/10 17/16)
17/17 28/4 29/11
49/5 51/9 51/11 51/13)
51/16 57/15 58/4
61/17 61/23 62/24
64/24 65/2 67/12 71/6I
71/10 72/11 73/10
74/6 77/3 77/7 77/8
77/19 78/19 80/3
80/11 80/24 81/22
81/23 87/6 90/15
91/12 92/18 93/21
93/23 94/9 94/13
94/17 95/2 95/10
95/14 95/20 95/25
96/1 96/1 96/4 96/19
98/19 98/22 98/24
99/6 114/6 116/9
128/21 128/22 130/9
131/11 131/16 132/10)
133/23 137/16 159/21
160/3 164/17 174/16
175/15 179/1 179/5
187/21 188/9
Board's [1] 187/21
boards [1] 152/2
bodies [16] 107/25
122/2 122/17 122/20
123/18 123/24 124/8
124/14 124/18 129/20)
135/1 135/16 135/21
161/17 168/17 174/5
body [14] 120/12
122/12 122/13 123/10)
123/13 123/16 123/21
124/12 125/2 125/5
125/5 129/12 135/8
173/21
Boeing [1] 102/13
bonus [22] 3/22 5/8
5/15 5/21 6/8 7/11
7/16 10/4 13/16 17/4
18/16 18/22 19/6 23/3)
24/14 26/24 27/6 64/5I
64/9 86/2 86/10 86/16I
bonuses [7] 9/1 9/17
15/2 15/3 38/11 84/20)
88/3
book [1] 117/22
both [12] 24/3 31/8
35/14 74/9 81/20 90/3I
142/18 146/1 154/13
169/18 175/4 177/10
(62) autonomy... - both
B
bothers [1] 166/22
bottom [14] 11/19
12/18 21/12 52/19
52/19 125/1 126/19
130/20 134/15 139/6
155/19 159/14 167/6
170/10
box [5] 30/2 126/19
134/9 134/19 135/13
branch [3] 93/3
155/24 166/8
branches [4] 93/7
96/6 177/20 178/4
breach [1] 68/12
breached [2] 150/9
151/10
break [5] 54/23 55/4
140/4 140/9 188/23
breaking [1] 114/10
Bridgen [2] 141/6
141/15
brief [2] 11/4 158/3
briefed [6] 11/3
148/21 150/18 150/20)
154/12 159/3
briefers [1] 158/10
briefing [13] 113/5
146/21 149/1 149/3
154/24 155/14 156/19
157/4 157/6 157/24
158/15 170/13 187/14}
briefings [1] 138/3
briefly [9] 21/25 64/9
65/5 103/17 121/17
125/23 130/18 158/3
181/19
bring [12] 3/5 43/11
72/2 73/20 104/21
111/8 113/2 126/15
143/16 149/19 152/23
166/2
bringing [1] 183/5
brings [1] 66/14
broad [12] 32/14
56/6 58/10 80/12
82/18 92/17 97/13
97/18 114/7 124/4
127124 177/19
broader [3] 7/13
10/22 61/12
broadly [6] 20/25
39/18 42/6 72/24
106/22 121/21
broke [1] 94/15
brought [6] 5/3 5/6
5/7 58/22 84/23
126/18
budget [2] 81/1 115/7I
bugs [4] 94/18 94/19
94/20 117/16
built [2] 30/12 111/22
bullet [3] 18/13 42/9
53/3
bullied [1] 45/23
bullying [3] 46/3 56/9
67/25
bundle [1] 81/6
bureaucracy [1]
164/10
bureaucratic [2]
22/11 109/3
Burton [13] 1/5 1/6
1/10 1/11 10/6 17/8
84/7 92/9 95/9 97/23
98/11 101/4 190/2
business [42] 2/12
11/22 13/22 14/11
16/21 20/4 20/5 20/24
22/10 22/11 29/9
29/19 41/16 45/3 47/3
47/10 47/21 48/1
49/18 49/24 60/24
61/12 70/6 73/23
100/4 103/10 103/13
104/20 107/9 112/12
131/20 131/21 135/6
135/15 139/14 144/12)
145/13 155/2 161/23
164/18 180/8 185/6
businesses [3] 4/21
105/6 133/3
bust [1] 125/25
busy [1] 79/17
but [160] 2/3 4/15 5/3
6/5 6/7 7/14 7/20 7/25
12/23 13/3 13/24
14/22 15/10 17/18
17/22 18/2 19/6 20/1
20/2 20/17 21/8 21/13
23/11 24/19 24/23
26/19 27/3 28/6 29/15
29/23 31/14 32/6
32/12 32/16 34/6 34/8
35/3 35/13 37/14
43/17 43/19 44/11
46/17 46/22 52/16
54/6 54/8 54/19 56/5
56/24 61/6 62/11
63/18 63/23 64/13
65/14 66/4 67/21
70/10 71/11 73/14
74/11 75/18 75/23
77/9 77/17 79/17 81/7
82/8 83/7 85/7 85/22
85/25 86/2 87/11
90/11 90/18 91/2 91/9)
91/24 92/2 95/9 97/12
99/17 102/25 106/14
107/25 108/7 109/2
109/3 109/16 111/12
112/22 113/25 114/19)
116/3 116/16 117/5
117/10 120/1 120/8
120/21 121/8 122/15
122/23 122/25 123/12)
125/20 126/5 127/22
128/8 130/3 132/13
132/21 133/2 133/25
137/22 137/25 138/4
138/17 139/6 140/24
143/12 143/16 144/1
144/9 146/7 151/21
152/11 153/9 154/18
155/9 156/7 156/24
158/6 158/11 161/6
162/18 163/16 164/23
165/9 165/22 166/25
167/24 168/4 168/5
170/15 171/11 172/14
174/20 174/25 176/14
176/19 176/22 177/21
180/5 182/9 186/22
187/17 187/24
button [1] 70/11
c
Cabinet [5] 123/22
141/5 141/16 142/8
143/1
Cable [1] 146/16
cadence [1] 49/25
calibre [1] 15/22
call [2] 57/20 149/8
Callard [2] 165/24
166/11
Callard's [2] 163/22
170/11
called [6] 5/12 98/22
123/23 129/1 166/1
179/2
calling [1] 44/17
calls [1] 87/15
came [20] 12/25 28/5
35/3 39/22 44/7 57/17
75/16 89/8 94/10 99/8
105/10 109/6 115/23
118/6 119/14 127/18
131/10 166/24 169/5
178/9
campaigns [1] 45/24
can [155] 1/8 1/21
1/24 3/5 4/24 5/13 6/5
8/2 9/7 10/9 10/10
10/13 12/10 14/1 16/2}
16/22 17/5 18/1 19/13)
19/16 19/24 20/22
21/12 22/11 23/22
26/17 27/23 28/1 30/1
31/21 33/6 33/24
34/20 34/22 35/5
35/16 35/17 35/25
40/2 40/6 40/10 40/17
41/11 43/18 44/1 44/4
44/14 49/9 50/2 51/4
53/1 53/24 54/25 56/6
56/14 57/2 57/18
57/20 59/8 60/5 62/18)
63/14 64/3 65/16
65/23 66/2 66/16
70/20 70/23 72/13
73/20 81/9 82/19
82/23 83/1 87/23 88/1
88/18 92/2 92/9 92/10)
93/22 95/5 96/1 96/22
97/23 97/25 98/3
100/16 100/17 101/15}
101/16 101/20 102/17}
104/13 104/21 111/13}
111/15 113/9 118/19
121/17 121/17 121/19}
122/3 123/5 123/22
124/7 125/20 126/14
126/25 127/12 129/5
130/4 130/16 131/25
132/12 135/3 136/3
138/4 138/20 140/11
143/14 146/11 149/19}
150/12 154/6 156/16
156/19 158/8 158/13
158/22 160/13 160/25
162/3 163/21 164/9
165/25 167/8 167/14
168/23 169/9 169/23
170/12 171/14 173/25}
175/10 179/22 180/19}
182/20 183/5 184/22
185/20 185/22 187/14
187/24
can't [12] 12/17
19/11 20/1 31/22
37/15 61/17 76/13
87/14 115/25 119/25
136/6 171/1
candid [1] 96/19
cannot [3] 115/24
170/13 170/22
capabilities [2]
186/11 187/16
capable [2] 91/6
183/2
capacity [1] 175/14
capital [1] 147/20
capture [1] 82/19
career [1] 103/2
careful [1] 11/8
Carla [2] 172/24
172/24
Carla Stent [1]
172/24
carried [9] 9/11 9/15
9/18 34/22 34/23
34/24 54/11 65/24
66/2
carry [3] 170/7
174/12 181/24
carrying [3] 8/24
65/17 133/5
case [21] 5/17 13/1
45/21 76/14 90/25
105/17 106/24 107/5
107/6 112/11 122/6
134/4 135/22 136/24
141/22 142/2 155/8
161/8 162/1 170/19
174/11
cases [6] 90/18
131/25 150/22 151/17)
158/17 170/3
cash [1] 121/2
categorical [1] 163/4
categories [3]
124/12 124/18 124/22)
categorising [1] 63/1
category [4] 68/8
68/21 75/1 122/25
cause [4] 22/14
27/12 29/25 34/13
caused [3] 2/1 81/10
116/12
causing [2] 59/14
139/11
cautious [1] 163/16
caveat [1] 149/2
CC [2] 141/1 146/16
CCRC [1] 158/16
cent [9] 92/23 92/25
93/4 93/5 93/6 93/8
93/10 125/6 175/12
central [6] 40/24
105/3 122/11 124/15
125/11 129/20
centric [1] 6/18
CEO [1] 161/9
certain [13] 5/20
10/24 11/7 12/10
31/19 37/15 49/12
67/16 75/13 75/24
95/7 102/25 118/16
certainly [30] 12/8
12/15 13/8 14/16
15/15 18/4 21/1 36/15}
42/12 62/15 67/1 69/8)
74/1 74/24 84/11 88/6I
89/17 91/23 93/19
94/14 95/12 101/9
101/10 105/24 106/3
107/22 132/6 140/6
158/7 172/5
certainty [1] 185/10
cetera [14] 5/19
13/17 14/19 20/14
39/14 48/3 48/12
66/13 71/17 80/19
81/14 87/21 87/21
153/15
chain [2] 40/8 172/12
chair [29] 2/22 4/24
5/10 9/2 10/3 10/7
14/22 17/8 18/14
58/17 61/18 62/14
71/9 71/11 72/11
76/19 99/9 112/17
112/19 112/20 156/11
159/25 172/24 174/8
186/24 187/5 187/21
187/24 188/8
Chair's [1] 188/9
chairman [8] 48/14
(53) bothers - chairman
Cc
chairman... [7] 48/21
51/11 51/12 86/17
87/2 92/2 172/23
chairs [1] 162/11
challenge [8] 43/21
76/8 115/2 116/25
164/7 164/9 166/22
176/5
challenges [2]
108/20 161/18
challenging [2]
145/25 164/25
champion [9] 43/23
43/24 44/4 44/5 44/8
51/10 51/17 56/19
76/15
Chance [2] 2/15 2/17
change [17] 12/12
14/9 17/12 18/3 18/7
26/11 36/7 42/11
71/11 72/9 81/10
99/18 157/18 175/12
177/24 180/20 180/21
changed [6] 7/9 62/5
79/2 100/6 124/23
158/18
changes [11] 18/5
37/18 41/3 42/16
49/16 52/25 78/17
100/23 160/17 175/17)
175/19
changing [4] 80/18
96/17 175/20 188/6
channels [2] 32/1
44/14
chapter [2] 84/9
124/24
charged [1] 68/5
charged’ [1] 67/14
charitable [1] 91/14
charities [1] 16/3
charity [2] 15/16 90/7
chasing [1] 73/25
chat [1] 169/12
check [2] 32/7 88/13
checked [1] 88/12
checking [1] 86/22
checks [1] 96/11
cherrypicking [2]
95/1 96/3
chief [28] 2/14 9/9
12/9 12/12 16/2 28/25)
33/13 45/7 46/7 49/11
49/23 49/23 50/12
50/17 55/16 57/4
59/11 60/16 72/19
76/19 110/1 128/22
129/18 161/20 174/8
186/15 188/5 188/10
chronology [1]
152/16
churn [2] 28/25
29/14
ClO [1] 45/19
circulated [1] 99/5
circumspect [1]
13/15
circumstance [1]
81/10
circumstances [9]
12/10 15/20 26/11
49/9 62/23 63/13
63/14 70/3 142/11
civil [11] 84/9 103/2
103/24 104/6 104/7
105/10 114/11 116/19)
123/8 126/18 130/8
claim [4] 65/19 66/3
82/20 82/25
claims [1] 153/11
clarification [2]
19/21 19/22
clarity [3] 21/22
33/16 34/10
Clarke [4] 149/12
150/8 177/11 182/3
Clarke's [1] 151/9
classification [3]
123/23 124/9 125/23
classified [6] 124/13
124/14 124/15 124/20)
125/2 125/5
clawback [1] 19/4
clear [30] 6/17 15/1
15/7 15/17 18/14 22/3
22/13 26/2 26/9 27/4
38/18 39/2 42/19
49/19 54/18 64/15
71/23 93/14 96/24
121/10 121/11 127/14)
127/23 135/19 150/21
154/23 157/10 163/17)
165/13 172/6
clearances [1] 11/14
clearer [3] 42/16 54/7I
163/12
clearly [16] 7/8 23/1
29/3 32/16 34/9 38/24
50/10 52/1 58/19 59/4)
74/25 133/8 135/23
152/25 161/18 179/15)
clerical [1] 104/17
Clifford [2] 2/15 2/17
Clifford Chance [2]
2/15 2/17
clinging [1] 47/25
close [4] 117/4 130/1
142/17 146/8
closed [1] 103/12
closer [2] 117/4
145/21
closing [1] 160/18
closure [1] 115/21
cloud [4] 23/14
clumsy [1] 66/4
Coalition [1] 115/7
code [1] 37/13
codify [1] 133/24
coincide [1] 30/22
coincidence [1]
44/18
coincidental [1] 60/1
coincides [1] 28/19
colleagues [1] 54/9
collect [1] 112/9
colleges [1] 108/22
colloquially [1]
123/12
column [1] 124/25
come [51] 4/24 6/4
8/2 9/13 16/16 20/13
23/25 29/9 35/13
44/10 54/25 58/1
67/13 70/20 79/6
82/17 93/24 97/12
101/8 102/17 104/18
106/7 106/16 107/16
108/10 113/24 114/5
120/15 122/8 123/6
130/16 136/3 138/13
138/20 140/5 143/8
143/14 144/15 150/12
155/10 156/20 158/13}
159/11 163/21 165/15
167/8 167/18 168/15
169/15 173/25 177/13
comes [1] 116/23
comfort [1] 162/22
comfortable [1] 65/3
coming [11] 20/4
68/24 108/21 115/1
136/25 137/12 140/1
144/1 147/18 153/13
181/12
comment [6] 75/15
78/22 91/4 133/7
174/6 180/25
comments [11]
17/17 18/4 19/25
30/20 47/7 57/16
58/19 69/15 73/7
116/20 116/21
commercial [9] 41/1
80/17 119/3 120/17
127/21 152/11 153/23}
168/18 169/21
commission [3]
19/19 158/17 170/7
commissioned [6]
141/9 141/16 142/7
144/19 145/7 156/4
commissioning [4]
12/1 141/5 141/11
142/6
commitment [2] 3/9
72/25
committed [2] 178/8
180/17
committee [37] 4/25
5/11 9/3 12/11 14/15
15/9 25/20 27/24 28/4
28/6 28/16 28/22 30/4I
30/13 30/16 30/21
31/6 32/8 32/11 32/17
35/22 37/16 39/20
40/12 41/13 41/20
55/11 63/9 79/10 85/8)
99/21 99/21 99/24
100/16 100/19 129/2
172/25
committees [5]
13/25 22/2 99/1 99/16)
99/19
common [6] 13/22
47/24 64/25 93/2
126/23 178/10
Commonwealth [1]
103/7
communicate [1]
139/18
communicated [4]
110/22 128/14 187/22)
187/22
communication [2]
69/2 170/4
communications [4]
82/18 97/13 179/1
179/7
comp [1] 30/18
companies [8] 2/13
5/17 14/2 21/8 37/14
64/25 79/17 119/7
company [12] 2/23
3/15 7/18 15/18 31/7
31/25 62/11 65/9 99/9
108/1 113/19 175/14
compared [1] 157/16
compelled [2] 36/9
178/4
compensation [7]
11/25 73/6 82/12
82/15 90/2 90/21
180/7
competent [3]
114/17 133/7 165/10
complaint [11] 43/1
46/3 46/7 57/13 57/22
58/24 61/10 66/25
67/3 67/24 68/18
complaints [11] 41/7
41/19 56/5 56/7 56/8
57/12 57/25 58/15
67/20 69/1 157/24
complements [1]
161/6
complete [1] 22/6
completely [8] 20/13
22/19 73/7 112/22
127/20 128/1 150/24
168/7
complex [4] 14/19
25/9 109/4 147/23
complexity [5] 82/2
87/20 116/15 136/13
142/1
compliance [3] 7/17
129/14 172/25
complicate [1]
110/18
complicated [3]
14/14 22/1 22/5
complied [1] 150/3
comply [2] 37/12
37/15
compulsion [9]
178/6 178/14 179/6
179/12 179/17 180/9
180/24 181/17 181/25)
compulsory [1]
178/3
computer [1] 80/6
concern [20] 20/10
29/9 38/23 47/2 53/7
54/14 59/22 61/18
63/5 76/9 80/11 95/9
108/2 126/8 142/5
142/17 151/22 180/11
181/1 184/17
concerned [21] 5/12
23/13 29/18 58/13
59/21 63/17 63/19
63/24 68/25 74/18
79/3 86/4 108/25
118/8 125/24 139/2
146/9 151/1 156/23
173/6 186/22
concerning [3] 6/9
58/25 80/8
concerns [35] 4/18
19/5 20/9 30/22 31/10)
33/25 45/4 45/10
45/11 45/13 45/16
46/17 46/21 50/2
53/10 53/12 53/13
53/24 56/3 73/22 78/6
79/19 80/24 80/25
96/2 154/16 157/2
159/7 169/19 170/20
171/8 171/12 187/4
187/15 187/25
conclude [2] 35/14
36/23
concluded [4] 39/5
51/2 88/20 188/4
conclusion [7] 23/7
23/21 23/24 25/2 87/1
87/15 91/24
conclusions [7] 9/20
24/25 35/3 35/13
39/15 64/4 149/24
concrete [1] 174/22
condition [1] 91/3
conduct [4] 35/19
58/25 72/8 140/15
conducted [3] 87/16
117/20 132/18
conducting [1] 8/3
confidence [8] 10/6
(64) chairman... - confidence
Cc
confidence... [7] 21/4I
44/12 76/20 111/20
111/22 145/19 174/11
confident [4] 63/14
63/15 78/2 187/17
confidential [3]
53/13 69/5 69/12
confidentiality [1]
68/13
confirm [3] 1/21 1/24
64/3
confirmation [3] 7/1
25/15 39/8
confirmed [2] 69/12
98/17
conflicted [1] 11/7
conflicts [1] 48/12
confused [1] 74/4
confusion [2] 22/15
75/21
connect [1] 148/13
connected [3] 118/7
164/13 166/25
connecting [1]
167/12
connection [2] 93/6
115/12
connectivity [1]
155/11
conscious [1] 11/6
consent [3] 14/21
16/14 64/13
consequence [2]
128/4 163/20
consequences [8]
36/8 82/3 105/24
117/11 150/21 152/6
164/20 165/8
consider [16] 25/18
38/4 48/24 62/4 62/7
66/24 68/5 72/20 77/3
79/2 81/18 88/10
89/18 129/13 159/22
163/1
considerable [4]
50/5 88/8 106/9 186/8
considerably [3] 7/9
22/21 106/1
consideration [3]
37/1 185/9 185/12
considered [8] 13/14
25/16 36/11 36/13
39/11 67/21 90/17
90/19
considering [1]
13/12
consistent [2] 28/13
33/17
consistently [2]
37/17 53/5
consolidate [1]
126/21
consolidated [2]
106/21 135/16
consolidation [1]
118/24
constant [1] 91/22
constrains [1] 16/9
constructed [1] 90/5
constructing [2]
86/21 87/22
consulted [3] 25/3
32/11 32/13
consulting [2] 83/21
99/12
consuming [2] 4/15
116/13
contact [5] 112/7
158/17 161/7 162/8
188/8
contacted [1] 112/20
contacts [3] 161/8
161/20 181/11
containing [1] 69/15
content [7] 23/23
60/18 79/2 150/10
151/7 152/19 179/21
contentious [1]
139/13
contents [1] 150/18
context [10] 27/6
48/17 70/2 75/12 78/9
111/3 129/10 1314/1
158/2 177/10
continue [4] 30/12
31/13 65/3 96/5
continued [3] 108/20
147/22 183/21
continues [2] 24/22
32/22
continuing [4] 85/6
100/2 179/25 180/2
contract [2] 81/9
83/4
contractual [5] 126/1
130/24 131/3 131/13
132/3
contradictory [1]
91/20
contrary [1] 72/11
contrast [1] 179/23
contributed [1] 137/9
control [10] 41/6
126/4 127/17 128/25
129/8 130/12 132/21
135/18 149/11 187/20)
controlled [2] 125/11
126/6
conversation [8]
17/15 22/23 46/11
60/18 183/9 185/5
186/3 188/15
conversations [7]
58/3 60/3 60/8 60/11
72/19 100/10 111/13
convicted [2] 98/13
182/19
convictions [5] 98/14I
158/16 162/24 163/2
182/19
cooperating [1] 85/4
cooperation [1]
86/10
cooperatively [1]
135/4
copied [3] 62/20
138/3 144/1
copy [6] 56/1 101/25
102/2 171/24 172/14
172/14
core [9] 53/2 92/3
103/16 109/18 110/7
153/19 176/23 177/1
177/5
corporate [9] 29/12
31/16 34/17 37/13
79/11 130/25 131/1
173/14 175/4
corporation [22] 37/2I
37/4 37/6 73/16 119/4
120/13 122/6 122/19
123/14 125/2 125/17
125/25 127/20 128/4
128/9 128/13 128/14
128/20 141/17 144/22
176/11 184/5
corporations [16]
37/14 120/19 122/14
122/17 123/4 123/5
124/16 124/25 125/12
126/13 127/4 129/7
129/23 130/20 130/22
136/9
correct [52] 2/15
2/21 4/1 4/9 5/5 5/25
6/11 13/9 18/17 19/15)
21/11 21/24 25/23
28/14 28/20 30/24
33/5 33/23 42/1 43/25
48/9 55/19 55/23 56/4
56/20 57/9 57/10
57/14 59/4 73/4 73/13
82/4 86/14 86/25
87/10 87/25 89/13
94/20 99/3 99/7 99/20
103/25 104/7 115/3
123/12 123/15 133/17
134/12 149/3 164/3
173/24 183/14
correction [2] 102/9
102/18
corrective [1] 70/5
correspondence [5]
77/13 77/17 77/18
77/21 78/7
cost [2] 81/19 186/8
costs [4] 40/25 45/14
46/10 125/6
could [93] 1/14 3/22
9/23 11/6 19/3 23/8
32/10 34/5 38/5 40/15
43/9 46/12 48/5 52/11
54/7 58/22 64/16
65/10 67/21 68/8 69/9
71/4 71/20 72/2 72/18
74/10 84/19 85/2 85/3,
97/14 99/1 99/1 99/13)
100/13 101/8 102/4
102/10 106/13 109/13
110/9 110/15 111/25
112/20 116/9 117/8
117/9 120/11 121/15
122/9 124/24 128/15
129/22 133/6 136/21
137/17 137/24 138/1
138/17 140/5 146/4
147/21 147/25 149/20}
151/5 152/2 153/24
155/5 155/13 157/13
158/7 159/3 159/13
161/2 162/16 162/17
163/7 164/2 167/16
167/17 167/18 168/11
168/12 168/23 169/17
171/18 174/7 174/22
175/2 175/18 178/24
179/11 182/7 187/3
couldn't [4] 80/15
87/10 100/12 128/6
Counsel [4] 59/12
60/16 72/17 77/2
countenanced [2]
86/3 86/11
counterparties [1]
135/6
couple [3] 66/19
117/14 174/1
course [25] 6/7 14/22)
39/11 63/11 87/2
89/18 90/17 104/18
105/12 109/7 117/5
121/3 127/6 139/14
146/5 149/2 150/13
161/25 166/18 167/1
168/2 170/16 183/18
183/21 185/25
courses [1] 163/18
court [2] 150/3
151/10
courts [1] 162/24
cove [1] 146/23
cover [4] 114/3 114/8I
118/10 151/3
covered [3] 33/25
66/8 123/17
covers [2] 124/13
146/21
covert [3] 180/24
181/24 182/6
covertly [1] 182/1
CPO [1] 65/6
crash [1] 121/6
Crass [1] 89/11
create [1] 37/20
created [1] 6/17
creating [1] 66/7
creation [2] 32/24
104/24
credibility [3] 113/13
142/15 142/18
criminal [6] 77/14
78/9 150/22 158/16
158/17 162/24
crises [1] 139/14
crisis [5] 108/18
108/19 113/16 113/16
139/9
critical [3] 97/6
148/15 148/17
criticism [4] 46/7
46/13 47/6 49/7
crop [1] 70/7
cross [1] 59/23
crossed [2] 55/18
59/24
crossing [1] 143/24
crossroads [1] 29/23
Crowe [1] 159/16
cultural [6] 41/3
42/11 42/16 68/4
70/14 72/9
culture [5] 6/18
20/23 47/2 96/17
148/11
cup [1] 169/13
curiosity [1] 164/4
curious [1] 163/24
current [8] 15/6
42/14 73/22 79/20
92/19 93/15 94/18
147/20
customer [4] 40/15
41/6 41/16 41/19
customers [3] 41/15
80/15 135/6
cut [2] 115/7 116/1
cuts [5] 115/6 115/9
147/16 148/6 175/12
cutting [1] 130/12
DO
danger [1] 96/9
Darren [1] 45/1
data [2] 80/16 166/8
date [3] 1/21 52/13
159/20
dated [4] 1/12 1/17
3/7 183/15
dates [3] 44/3 46/9
66/14
David [1] 11/21
David Bickerton [1]
11/21
Davies [6] 55/15
57/24 58/16 179/2
179/5 180/16
Davies' [1] 68/18
day [13] 11/16 70/20
(65) confidence... - day
D
day... [11] 74/13 94/5
125/13 125/13 138/14}
146/14 155/1 155/1
169/25 181/10 181/10
days [6] 3/14 3/18
3/19 4/4 66/19 146/13
DB [1] 11/21
DBT [1] 11/25
deal [15] 3/18 46/17
46/25 55/12 59/14
78/13 91/9 98/23
116/7 138/7 148/5
148/8 165/15 179/7
182/11
dealing [12] 16/20
56/10 108/12 113/15
132/8 136/13 145/20
147/6 147/11 148/7
151/25 176/6
dealings [1] 96/19
deals [2] 41/1 143/5
dealt [9] 4/10 44/25
55/9 55/10 55/13
61/23 80/9 109/9
177/14
debacle [1] 47/9
debate [3] 18/21 19/2
19/7
debated [1] 26/6
decades [1] 116/19
December [1] 172/10
December 2015 [1]
172/10
deceptions [1] 96/15
decide [4] 38/5 50/20
166/18 185/19
decided [3] 5/10 44/6
185/21
decides [1] 61/20
decision [12] 10/18
25/18 30/8 35/7 38/13,
38/16 38/17 46/10
50/1 65/1 136/7 174/4
decision-making [2]
30/8 50/1
decisions [20] 29/5
31/18 32/12 32/14
33/2 35/21 39/2 46/21
49/12 74/12 115/4
128/2 133/8 136/11
136/12 136/14 165/12)
175/2 180/12 181/3
deck [1] 182/24
deemed [1] 129/9
deep [1] 12/2
deep-rooted [1] 12/2
default [1] 129/16
defects [1] 45/8
defence [1] 150/4
defend [2] 65/18 66/3}
defensive [1] 141/4
deference [1] 163/24
deficient [1] 38/20
define [1] 130/24
definitely [16] 4/14
7/23 15/24 54/17
63/23 69/24 74/15
76/9 76/11 76/12 77/6
85/11 96/5 125/18
166/14 185/3
definition [1] 122/5
degradation [1] 84/7
degree [3] 65/14
116/10 120/13
delay [2] 60/9 81/19
delayed [1] 33/2
delegate [1] 106/1
delegated [1] 121/24
deliberate [4] 23/4
23/8 24/19 24/24
deliberately [1] 24/1
deliver [2] 7/22
170/13
delivered [1] 45/9
delivering [2] 113/20
131/1
delivery [3] 6/14
124/11 181/9
Deloitte [1] 166/1
deluded [1] 168/7
demonstrate [1] 6/17
department [97]
11/22 14/11 16/21
20/24 21/4 103/9
103/12 103/13 103/15)
103/16 103/19 103/21
104/6 104/8 104/19
104/20 104/24 104/24)
105/1 105/8 105/9
105/15 105/21 106/41
106/18 107/10 107/20)
108/13 108/15 109/18)
110/18 112/12 113/6
113/9 114/14 115/11
115/15 116/22 118/13)
119/21 119/25 120/2
120/6 120/16 122/12
122/16 123/20 125/15)
127/17 127/18 129/10)
130/24 131/5 132/19
133/4 133/13 133/16
134/2 135/15 135/20
136/22 139/4 139/8
139/18 140/20 141/18)
142/1 142/19 144/7
144/9 146/3 147/8
148/10 150/16 150/16)
155/5 161/11 164/2
164/19 165/5 165/16
166/13 167/10 167/12)
167/16 168/9 173/20
173/22 175/6 175/7
175/21 175/25 177/14)
178/8 180/20 183/1
184/16
Department's [5]
109/22 113/12 118/17I
142/15 181/21
departmental [9]
107/13 114/6 123/18
137/7 137/11 151/12
161/7 161/13 184/24
departments [4]
103/6 117/10 123/24
124/10
departure [1] 63/4
depend [1] 122/22
dependent [1] 184/7
depends [4] 15/13
15/19 74/18 185/13
depth [1] 55/9
derives [2] 120/5
125/6
descending [1] 90/18}
describe [3] 21/6
60/11 77/18
described [1] 59/24
describes [1] 75/13
describing [2]
109/15 157/24
description [1] 158/1
design [3] 26/4 32/21
32/24
designed [4] 5/15
37/13 90/13 148/23
desirable [2] 108/5
161/19
desire [1] 172/7
desk [2] 143/24
183/19
detail [20] 64/6 90/18
91/5 94/20 108/4
114/24 118/11 120/21
124/3 125/9 125/21
130/1 131/6 133/14
155/16 164/13 166/6
168/15 169/11 170/22
detailed [3] 26/18
101/23 114/23
details [4] 42/7 53/18
156/14 157/6
determination [1]
163/18
determine [5] 5/18
42/15 132/19 133/6
150/13
determined [1] 33/21
determining [2] 23/2
26/13
detriment [1] 44/15
developed [2] 52/15
81/12
developing [2] 2/19
132/6
development [3]
108/21 130/5 132/9
developments [2]
2/1 172/20
devised [1] 90/6
devising [2] 86/21
91/12
devolved [3] 114/16
175/24 176/1
devolving [1] 117/12
devote [1] 3/11
devoted [1] 87/22
DGs [1] 137/6
diary [2] 104/17
138/9
did [132] 2/18 9/5
12/14 13/8 13/16
17/24 17/25 18/3 18/7I
18/9 19/4 19/6 19/25
20/6 20/9 24/15 27/8
27/12 39/7 41/25 43/8)
43/12 47/12 48/22
49/11 50/13 51/18
51/20 51/24 52/9 58/1
58/3 59/13 59/23 60/1
67/4 69/2 69/25 70/2
74/5 75/19 76/2 77/18
79/17 85/15 86/15
87/3 87/12 87/13
87/18 88/10 88/13
95/14 99/11 100/20
100/22 100/24 104/10
104/12 105/7 109/7
110/4 111/12 111/22
112/4 112/4 112/18
114/8 114/18 115/9
116/3 116/4 116/17
117/10 117/19 119/1
120/15 120/17 120/22)
120/25 122/22 123/10}
124/5 124/5 134/3
135/13 135/14 135/23}
137/21 138/1 143/18
144/1 145/4 145/5
151/24 153/10 153/14}
153/15 154/1 154/8
155/3 155/7 155/9
156/17 156/19 162/7
162/10 162/15 162/15}
162/21 163/1 164/15
164/15 164/16 165/5
166/19 166/21 169/24,
170/23 171/5 171/9
171/11 171/15 171/16)
173/9 174/7 174/17
174/25 175/1 183/3
184/20 188/15
didn't [46] 8/13 8/17
11/4 17/21 20/13
23/10 23/11 23/19
32/5 32/17 41/20 59/2,
63/13 71/15 75/4 82/4)
87/19 88/15 95/20
99/19 100/21 106/10
111/11 116/15 131/12)
137/22 137/22 146/1
146/5 147/11 148/5
148/7 148/25 149/14
156/21 166/3 167/2
168/4 168/10 170/2
171/4 175/8 178/19
179/20 185/22 188/8
difference [6] 39/17
67/23 123/13 135/17
157/8 176/19
differences [2] 19/9
74/2
different [23] 9/21
35/13 37/5 39/16 45/2
48/24 74/7 74/19
75/23 105/14 107/6
110/11 117/8 122/25
123/1 124/11 124/18
126/4 161/17 161/18
165/14 166/19 176/6
differently [3] 9/18
23/24 167/17
difficult [31] 5/17
5/19 15/10 21/1 25/12I
31/9 41/17 45/20
46/11 46/20 56/24
61/5 62/10 69/8 74/11
89/22 95/4 106/6
110/19 114/12 115/21
142/4 145/18 147/19
147/23 154/19 164/6
164/10 164/23 180/25]
186/12
difficulties [4] 28/24
113/20 116/12 172/21
difficulty [3] 113/11
139/12 164/18
digital [1] 80/14
dignity [1] 84/15
diligence [1] 153/16
direct [5] 115/12
142/14 161/12 163/17)
179/15
directed [1] 49/7
direction [6] 15/2
15/8 81/13 83/13
153/7 177/25
directly [6] 44/23
46/13 46/20 108/9
120/24 162/8
director [34] 2/20 3/1
3/9 3/13 4/3 8/15
11/21 12/10 17/2 17/3)
20/11 40/9 45/19
47/16 58/7 58/13 62/1
62/11 70/22 71/1
96/10 102/14 110/5
411/14 111/16 112/15}
131/16 137/3 154/10
154/18 155/5 155/9
173/1 179/1
directors [17] 33/8
61/25 62/9 62/14
69/11 69/13 69/16
69/22 69/24 72/24
74/25 109/24 110/14
114/16 136/24 137/8
161/6
Directors’ [1] 39/12
(66) day... - Directors"
D
disappointed [2]
10/4 41/5
disappointing [3]
31/18 94/2 172/20
disaster [1] 45/2
discipline [1] 1341/2
dis ines [2] 128/5
128/8
disclose [1] 53/21
disclosed [1] 53/13
disclosure [4] 53/7
68/17 68/20 68/20
disclosures [1] 53/4
discourage [1] 68/24
discovered [2] 24/23
171/22
discrepancies [2]
93/1 93/6
discretion [3] 25/15
25/20 26/23
discrimination [1]
56/9
discuss [9] 41/8
65/20 129/2 153/10
154/8 159/23 160/10
162/7 183/1
discussed [14] 39/11
48/4 48/7 48/17 72/14
92/18 93/21 99/8
119/13 121/3 141/14
152/6 173/2 187/11
discussing [2] 40/12
66/22
discussion [15]
17/10 17/24 19/3
32/16 117/16 133/18
154/19 155/3 155/6
160/3 184/15 184/16
187/1 187/8 187/13
discussions [7] 9/4
13/4 16/15 60/12
71/10 72/6 90/15
dishonest [1] 168/7
dismissal [1] 55/7
disposal [1] 119/14
disputes [2] 8/25
9/16
disruption [1] 91/22
dissatisfaction [2]
94/11 95/15
distance [1] 121/20
distasteful [1]
178/17
distinction [1]
160/21
distracted [1] 71/16
distress [1] 27/12
distressed [1] 8/8
distribution [1] 2/23
diverse [1] 124/38
do [189] 3/16 3/19
4/1 4/11 4/12 4/18
4/21 7/15 8/12 8/20
9/20 11/15 11/16
12/16 13/21 13/24
14/5 14/10 15/11
15/21 16/3 16/10
16/13 17/15 18/16
20/12 20/18 20/23
22/11 23/6 23/20 24/7
27/11 27/18 27/20
28/23 30/7 31/10
31/15 34/13 35/3
35/12 36/19 37/1 37/9
37/10 37/12 38/8
38/21 38/22 39/16
40/3 41/19 42/10
42/12 43/6 43/14
43/18 44/9 44/15
45/22 49/4 52/2 52/3
52/12 53/20 54/14
54/18 54/20 56/8 56/9
56/10 56/20 58/12
59/17 61/8 61/8 61/11
61/19 63/19 66/24
67/19 67/23 67/25
68/2 68/5 68/12 68/23
70/9 71/13 73/1 73/14
74/13 75/1 77/3 78/1
81/18 82/15 82/21
83/1 83/4 86/1 87/19
88/9 89/20 90/24
93/18 94/1 96/1 96/1
96/5 96/11 96/20
96/21 96/22 97/5
101/25 101/25 105/19)
105/21 105/24 106/12)
106/12 106/13 110/10;
110/11 111/21 114/9
115/24 115/25 116/20}
116/24 116/24 117/3
120/20 120/21 122/15)
125/22 126/13 127/4
131/19 133/22 138/22)
139/18 140/20 143/12)
143/12 146/1 148/1
148/1 148/13 148/23
152/23 153/2 153/11
153/20 154/15 154/21
155/14 157/3 157/21
159/7 161/15 162/10
162/14 164/1 164/8
165/11 165/15 166/12)
168/9 169/17 170/22
1711/4 17116 174/5
175/17 175/19 176/7
176/11 176/16 176/22)
177/3 180/13 181/15
181/18 182/3 185/19
185/20
document [37] 6/4
29/4 44/1 45/12 52/23
52/23 64/16 81/6
121/16 121/18 123/5
123/23 123/25 126/17)
128/16 129/11 130/16)
130/25 131/13 132/13}
134/7 135/9 143/14
153/23 166/3 166/12
178/16 178/21 178/25)
179/3 180/14 181/1
182/23 183/5 183/11
185/17 186/25
documentary [1]
64/1
documentation [1]
23/18
documented [1]
64/14
documents [16] 11/5
23/15 32/7 39/1 53/21
64/7 89/4 131/4 132/4
138/13 138/22 143/17]
149/16 177/23 178/6
178/15
Doe [1] 44/18
does [33] 5/23 22/14
26/5 29/15 30/22
37/20 38/23 46/19
46/22 46/25 50/14
54/4 54/6 54/8 60/23
61/11 62/13 62/14
63/3 70/13 80/18
93/11 93/12 94/21
125/24 135/9 144/6
144/21 149/25 151/24
161/6 176/21 182/9
doesn't [6] 47/10
47/19 70/6 126/1
176/4 180/23
doing [20] 16/4 23/9
34/11 46/24 47/11
50/24 109/23 111/20
113/19 115/14 115/15}
121/2 130/5 135/21
149/1 152/13 161/22
173/17 182/1 188/13
don't [55] 9/19 16/3
18/2 29/12 31/22
37/21 44/23 61/14
66/23 73/7 73/13
TTT 79/7 81/7 83/8
84/1 86/6 88/5 88/6
88/13 90/10 91/4 91/6
91/19 92/5 92/23 95/4
96/14 97/22 98/6
100/25 104/4 109/2
113/2 116/25 117/15
120/24 122/23 125/9
132/3 133/7 133/25
143/3 143/15 143/20
153/5 153/6 154/19
154/23 165/21 176/2
176/22 177/19 180/15}
181/18
done [30] 27/20 28/5
35/1 37/22 43/7 43/11
51/6 52/1 54/17 60/6
67/14 76/8 76/15
82/23 83/20 90/20
91/17 96/18 96/22
133/25 136/2 150/25
151/11 152/25 153/6
153/18 162/13 164/2
167/15 187/18
Donnelly [5] 101/17
101/18 101/21 181/14}
190/12
dots [1] 167/12
double [2] 12/20 13/3
doubt [3] 98/7 185/10)
186/10
doubts [1] 187/9
down [54] 4/24 6/9
8/2 10/1 11/19 16/25
19/16 21/18 22/16
25/1 28/9 30/1 35/24
36/20 37/25 40/10
45/16 46/6 47/5 49/14)
64/16 70/20 94/15
97/1 102/17 109/16
114/19 116/2 116/23
118/21 123/6 127/13
128/2 129/5 130/6
130/16 131/12 131/21
131/21 136/3 138/20
140/18 143/14 150/12
156/18 158/13 159/13}
160/1 163/21 167/8
170/2 173/25 179/22
179/24
Downing [4] 112/2
113/14 148/19 149/6
Dr [1] 150/4
Dr Jennings [1]
150/1
draft [5] 10/10 17/46
56/2 78/19 78/20
drafted [4] 14/20
26/18 28/10 30/19
drafting [2] 25/10
52/22
drama [1] 8/18
dramatic [1] 174/15
draw [1] 166/17
drawing [1] 137/9
dress [1] 180/9
drilling [1] 114/19
drive [1] 90/14
drop [1] 50/22
DRR [2] 24/7 26/14
dual [1] 65/18
due [7] 6/7 14/22
26/14 65/7 104/18
150/13 153/16
during [12] 5/16 7/7
17/10 63/6 86/20
97/17 97/19 109/10
117/23 117/25 138/14}
153/10
duties [4] 3/12 150/3
150/9 151/10
dysfunctional [1]
152/4
E
each [9] 3/14 4/15
14/6 28/4 121/9
122/11 137/3 137/8
137/10
earlier [15] 5/11 25/5
35/25 47/16 63/21
64/11 95/14 133/25
142/11 147/16 162/4
164/11 171/22 172/21
177/12
early [3] 108/18
115/7 160/7
earth [2] 151/5
151/23
ease [1] 124/9
easier [1] 15/8
easily [1] 65/16
easy [2] 167/18
174/14
echoing [1] 47/15
economic [1] 105/4
economically [1]
125/7
edition [2] 126/14
127/7
educates [1] 189/6
education [4] 89/20
105/5 108/22 175/13
Edwards [1] 159/16
effect [3] 13/6 105/22
160/8
effective [7] 128/25
130/12 136/16 137/25]
143/10 148/12 176/8
effectively [8] 12/20
73/11 109/20 110/6
119/10 135/2 136/10
176/17
effectiveness [2]
37/7 113/13
efficacy [1] 87/16
efficient [1] 148/24
efficiently [1] 153/21
effort [1] 181/23
efforts [1] 28/17
eg [1] 31/19
either [11] 23/16
36/14 45/23 54/12
68/8 71/4 93/3 97/15
111/25 168/5 169/24
elaborate [1] 97/14
election [1] 169/14
element [5] 8/9 26/24
78/20 132/7 180/24
elements [1] 179/13
Elliot [1] 67/17
Ellison [1] 92/14
else [10] 24/20 51/25
65/25 76/5 76/12
81/25 98/8 149/7
160/10 166/24
elsewhere [1] 145/23
(57)
disappointed - elsewhere
E
email [39] 9/23 33/7
33/10 33/22 40/7 40/8
40/19 41/12 41/24
44/2 44/17 44/20
44/20 44/25 45/10
48/4 48/4 48/7 48/15
48/16 62/19 66/21
66/24 68/10 68/12
68/21 69/10 69/17
73/21 140/17 141/14
146/11 159/14 165/25
166/11 170/11 171/19}
172/11 172/12
email's [1] 170/23
emailed [2] 40/9
169/10
emailing [1] 140/24
emails [2] 73/24
171/25
embedded [1] 70/18
emblematic [1] 178/1
emergency [2] 17/7
148/18
emerging [1] 114/3
emphasis [2] 42/10
83/16
emphasised [1]
51/13
employed [2] 73/24
120/15
employee [3] 46/16
95/20 95/23
employees [6] 47/4
49/19 54/2 54/4 73/22
74/19
Employment [1] 66/6
empower [1] 136/14
enabled [1] 7/2
encounter [2] 87/12
87/13
Encourage [1] 53/10
end [8] 14/20 32/22
81/2 83/24 106/3
106/21 158/3 185/2
endorsed [2] 6/21
86/17
energy [2] 103/13
103/16
engage [5] 18/25
139/17 160/6 174/14
181/8
engaged [5] 7/21
114/24 160/14 173/3
173/15
engagement [7]
26/19 30/14 95/23
97/4 147/8 163/16
181/21
engagementilistenin
g/incentivisation [1]
30/14
engaging [1] 148/21
enhancement [2]
12/9 37/1
enormous [1] 87/22
enough [9] 4/16
15/22 15/22 27/20
142/10 148/8 163/24
165/21 188/14
enriched [1] 84/20
ensure [27] 6/19 7/20
12/13 17/19 28/17
31/14 38/25 44/11
49/25 54/2 85/1 91/17
96/18 108/2 109/19
110/8 115/16 129/20
134/25 135/11 136/8
136/9 147/25 148/11
169/17 172/7 181/2
ensuring [2] 6/16
110/13
entire [1] 23/18
entirely [11] 18/12
20/1 61/1 64/12 78/24
83/2 83/9 86/6 123/3
126/5 154/12
entities [1] 124/16
entitled [6] 14/4
44/20 48/12 56/22
69/14 97/24
environment [3] 31/6
31/11 34/18
environments [1]
180/5
equally [2] 67/17
156/23
equation [1] 89/19
equations [1] 87/21
equipped [1] 110/9
error [3] 87/24 107/8
121/3
errors [4] 88/19
89/11 89/12 117/16
escalated [4] 136/21
183/12 185/11 186/11
escalations [1] 44/24
especially [2] 47/9
121/19
essence [1] 25/20
essentially [8] 21/19
24/10 121/20 123/19
126/9 148/9 158/4
174/6
establish [2] 136/8
156/11
establishment [1]
73/11
et [14] 5/19 13/17
14/19 20/14 39/14
48/3 48/12 66/13
71/17 80/19 81/14
87/21 87/21 153/15
et cetera [14] 5/19
13/17 14/19 20/14
39/14 48/3 48/12
66/13 71/17 80/19
81/14 87/21 87/21
153/15
ethically [2] 111/22
176/17
Eugene [1] 101/21
evaluation [2] 27/24
28/5
even [11] 26/6 29/24
42/6 46/2 46/19 46/25
53/8 67/11 100/17
148/4 149/7
evening [1] 138/5
event [1] 25/22
events [3] 59/9 84/24
159/19
eventually [1] 41/18
ever [10] 84/19 85/3
89/22 90/14 129/1
160/9 160/15 162/7
167/2 184/11
every [7] 14/3 28/3
108/4 136/6 138/5
144/13 153/20
everybody [5] 13/10
18/22 19/6 115/1
183/5
everyone [7] 52/5
54/20 69/3 87/18
168/3 176/20 188/23
everything [7] 24/14
46/22 91/17 102/25
167/20 176/20 181/25
evidence [56] 6/25
7/9 8/14 10/21 13/5
25/4 33/3 36/23 38/10
42/20 47/15 63/21
64/2 76/23 77/14 78/4
79/22 79/24 91/18
92/14 94/6 95/19
101/6 101/23 104/2
104/19 110/20 118/1
123/7 123/10 124/17
125/16 126/12 127/8
136/5 139/22 143/11
144/18 148/3 148/9
149/12 149/22 150/3
153/4 162/4 163/23
165/24 166/3 166/20
167/9 174/2 175/3
175/6 175/7 186/17
187/9
evident [1] 173/5
evidential [1] 23/6
evolution [3] 120/11
131/8 132/9
evolved [2] 128/15
131/15
exact [1] 18/2
exactly [3] 14/20
45/24 47/12
examination [1]
84/21
examining [1] 84/12
example [28] 14/6
15/16 20/24 29/11
34/16 42/9 50/24
54/11 68/16 72/7 73/1
76/24 77/4 80/14
80/16 94/18 95/16
113/16 113/19 120/14}
127/17 129/1 131/19
148/5 148/17 157/13
174/8 176/13
examples [1] 32/4
except [2] 119/13
158/10
exception [1] 44/11
excessive [1] 110/17
excessively [1]
174/15
exchange [1] 41/12
excluded [1] 99/4
excluding [1] 102/3
excuse [1] 165/22
exec [3] 31/19
154/18 155/9
execs [1] 172/23
executive [99] 2/20
3/1 4/3 8/15 9/9 12/9
15/11 17/2 20/6 20/10}
30/13 30/18 31/25
33/8 40/9 46/15 47/16
57/4 58/13 62/13
69/11 69/13 69/16
69/22 69/23 72/24
74/25 76/20 92/22
94/25 95/1 95/11
95/21 96/3 96/10
96/16 96/18 96/23
105/16 110/1 110/2
111/15 112/11 112/16}
116/4 128/18 128/22
129/18 130/3 131/9
131/15 131/16 136/25}
137/5 137/13 140/2
140/20 141/3 142/3
143/2 145/3 145/22
146/12 151/13 152/23}
153/19 154/9 154/13
154/18 155/4 155/4
155/7 157/9 158/25
160/24 161/5 161/6
162/2 162/14 162/17
163/5 164/3 166/16
169/1 169/1 171/7
171/8 172/6 173/22
174/8 175/5 175/25
181/11 184/19 185/17]
186/13 186/15 188/5
188/10
Executive's [3] 49/12
157/15 170/20
executives [5] 9/1
16/3 87/6 94/10
161/20
exercise [2] 65/18
129/16
exercised [2] 25/20
1412/5
exercises [1] 26/23
exhibits [1] 102/3
exist [1] 124/11
existent [1] 170/15
existing [4] 94/18
126/21 180/2 180/7
exit [2] 31/19 32/15
exiting [1] 31/25
exonerate [1] 82/14
exonerated [2] 67/13
97/24
expand [1] 72/13
expect [14] 4/5 16/11
22/7 29/14 78/19
78/25 83/7 111/5
141/20 141/24 143/8
157/24 174/18 181/5
expectation [1] 69/4
expectations [2] 7/3
129/21
expected [23] 3/11
13/17 43/18 61/22
61/24 62/10 124/2
124/3 127/15 127/21
127/23 130/11 134/20)
142/2 143/6 150/17
150/20 153/18 155/10)
157/6 158/24 159/10
187/4
expecting [1] 81/2
expending [1] 134/11
expenditure [3]
118/17 121/8 127/16
experience [10] 2/12
20/22 40/16 45/21
80/5 132/4 169/22
174/17 174/25 176/4
experienced [7]
22/10 79/15 92/24
93/1 93/9 169/21
186/18
expert [7] 91/2
149/22 150/1 150/5
150/9 151/10 164/13
expertise [2] 152/21
152/23
explain [3] 70/23
87/17 87/23
explains [1] 17/6
explanation [3] 87/5
88/19 88/23
explicit [2] 174/25
176/14
express [4] 19/4
46/16 51/11 174/3
expressed [3] 10/4
50/3 67/10
extend [3] 54/5 54/6
81/9
extent [9] 8/17 37/12
45/7 104/13 105/20
105/21 111/16 115/9
152/18
(58) email - extent
E
external [6] 31/8
81/11 128/5 143/4
144/20 160/3
externally [1] 71/7
extra [4] 37/20 37/21
165/2 165/2
eyes [1] 91/12
F
face [1] 10/25
faced [1] 8/9
faces [1] 87/13
facility [1] 61/4
facing [3] 41/16
71/14 82/2
fact [33] 10/25 25/6
25/21 34/15 38/17
42/18 54/13 58/22
69/17 73/15 76/17
78/9 87/14 88/12
88/13 89/12 97/5 99/8
107/7 114/7 128/19
132/18 135/24 144/1
156/18 156/21 157/14)
166/1 173/14 180/15
186/1 186/22 188/4
fact-check [1] 88/13
fact-checked [1]
88/12
factor [2] 86/3 89/17
factored [1] 186/9
factors [1] 40/22
facts [4] 37/3 89/6
102/18 164/11
failed [4] 81/23
failing [3] 38/18
47/21 158/6
failings [2] 46/15
163/2
failure [2] 29/8 84/14
fair [13] 24/12 24/20
49/7 90/2 95/13
107/18 108/14 110/20
139/19 157/3 158/1
180/10 184/38
fairly [3] 53/5 135/7
135/12
fairness [1] 30/9
faith [4] 145/4 157/10
157/11 158/11
fall [5] 34/8 68/8
74/25 124/5 124/18
falling [1] 65/13
fallout [2] 3/25 29/17
false [1] 87/8
falsely [1] 89/24
familiar [5] 82/7
93/11 123/25 124/3
183/6
fantastic [1] 16/2
far [23] 22/1 23/8
23/22 33/4 51/22
51/23 55/25 60/12
77/ 82/20 82/21 86/3)
88/17 110/8 120/11
131/12 132/12 156/19)
169/22 180/3 182/7
186/14 187/24
fashion [1] 35/14
fashioned [1] 80/13
favourable [1] 56/13
February [3] 24/7
183/15 183/17
February 2014 [2]
183/15 183/17
February 2022 [1]
24/7
fed [4] 67/17
feed [1] 65/2
feedback [5] 42/11
93/19 112/14 112/15
169/3
feel [14] 4/11 4/12
40/3 41/20 43/18
44/13 63/13 65/3
69/25 75/4 95/20
133/7 156/13 156/21
feeling [1] 21/9
feels [1] 47/11
felt [12] 41/14 58/8
58/21 59/15 67/7
71/17 81/15 84/25
85/8 95/24 142/3
145/25
female [1] 47/3
few [8] 9/25 22/3
35/15 35/15 53/2
78/13 93/10 163/1
fielding [1] 189/2
fight [1] 72/1
figure [2] 177/19
177/21
figures [1] 147/22
filed [1] 119/6
filing [1] 142/12
fill [1] 133/21
filtered [3] 96/9
96/25 138/23
filtering [1] 138/15
final [9] 1/14 19/14
19/18 19/21 36/15
42/9 46/6 132/11
147/23
finalised [1] 78/18
finalising [2] 52/23
85/23
finally [4] 176/9
finance [5] 12/9
124/2 130/3 146/6
172/15,
finances [2] 157/19
181/21
financial [8] 5/18
5/20 12/23 32/23
107/11 119/24 121/6
123/20
financially [1] 90/3
find [14] 4/14 24/8
71/3 87/10 88/23
96/11 98/8 114/12
139/10 143/10 159/18}
164/6 179/20 186/12
finding [4] 21/19
23/19 25/22 36/18
findings [11] 21/17
23/16 35/12 35/16
35/25 36/2 36/21 37/3
38/1 38/2 166/7
finds [2] 24/10 173/7
fine [3] 20/21 98/7
101/10
fingertips [1] 47/25
finish [3] 7/3 36/5
78/14
firm [1] 59/12
first [38] 10/13 10/25
14/25 19/16 21/19
22/18 25/12 25/25
43/1 45/10 53/2 55/8
63/3 79/4 83/19 104/1
104/3 106/24 110/21
117/19 118/11 119/11
121/13 123/5 124/19
128/19 136/22 147/14
149/7 151/14 153/24
154/5 154/11 158/24
166/15 179/9 187/20
189/4
Firstly [1] 154/1
fit [2] 59/2 105/8
five [4] 91/2 108/15
108/17 144/11
fixed [1] 94/19
flag [3] 140/2 145/4
159/7
flexibility [1] 37/22
floor [1] 177/4
flotation [1] 183/21
flowing [1] 167/10
Foat [3] 48/16 48/19
67/18
focus [11] 28/16
30/13 37/21 50/11
59/1 59/4 79/5 87/19
111/14 138/1 138/17
focused [2] 37/7 85/1
focusing [2] 144/2
151/7
folders [1] 138/6
follow [13] 14/18
60/21 73/17 108/4
127/21 134/11 135/9
136/14 171/9 171/9
171/13 171/15 173/9
follow-up [1] 171/9
followed [8] 61/4
61/15 64/13 86/6
145/7 158/24 172/5
173/12
following [21] 3/15
8/5 17/24 18/4 19/19
22/22 34/2 40/11
40/22 55/20 61/9
83/12 95/12 140/14
144/20 145/11 151/17,
156/10 164/14 165/18}
179/11
follows [3] 44/22
88/18 110/21
food [1] 90/6
footfall [2] 40/16
40/25
footing [3] 22/20
36/3 86/13
Foreign [1] 103/7
forensic [2] 141/10
174/22
foreseen [1] 3/23
forgive [1] 86/8
form [2] 36/15 92/24
formal [4] 56/17
112/7 132/13 135/8
former [4] 31/24
156/3 156/12 157/22
forward [18] 5/4 5/6
5/7 15/6 16/7 39/24
50/20 51/18 51/21
62/3 67/13 68/24
TAIT 82/17 97/12
113/24 137/15 173/7
forwarded [2] 68/11
70/3
forwarding [1] 70/9
fostering [1] 105/5
found [5] 34/6 35/25
39/7 156/6 178/17
four [1] 91/2
framework [6] 32/24
121/21 129/11 130/25}
131/4 131/22
franchise [2] 83/6
83/15
frank [1] 179/19
frankly [2] 178/17
179/20
Fraser [1] 93/17
fraudulent [1] 84/8
free [1] 178/6
Freehills [1] 88/2
freezes [2] 80/19
93/5
Friday [1] 1/1
friendly [1] 80/15
front [2] 1/11 101/25
frustrated [1] 73/15
Fujitsu [3] 77/13
81/16 149/23
Fujitsu's [1] 166/7
fulfil [1] 126/1
fulfilled [1] 125/17
fulfilling [2] 104/10
152/10
full [8] 1/8 4/21 82/9
90/2 101/20 128/18
157/4 170/12
fully [4] 7/21 53/13
83/1 151/15
function [4] 112/12
118/2 128/7 130/3
functioning [3] 61/1
147/25 173/22
functions [2] 105/20
105/21
fund [2] 91/14 122/12!
fundamental [6]
23/18 39/17 68/4
81/14 131/25 132/15
fundamentally [1]
168/5
funding [11] 106/11
108/18 108/20 108/22)
109/5 109/7 110/12
113/10 115/17 120/2
175/13
funds [2] 121/4
123/19
further [19] 8/12
18/25 33/10 33/12
36/25 41/8 58/8 58/16)
81/16 81/16 84/1
97/22 108/22 115/2
122/4 160/1 166/15
171/4 172/12
future [7] 16/7 16/15
29/24 30/4 54/14 62/3
73/5
G
Gareth [2] 150/1
150/8
gathering [2] 65/18
66/3
gave [5] 25/4 92/14
94/6 97/10 118/16
Gavin [1] 92/14
gender [1] 58/14
General [15] 11/22
59/11 60/16 72/17
77/2 109/24 110/5
110/14 111/14 111/16)
112/16 114/16 136/24)
137/3 137/8
generally [5] 59/12
76/10 82/24 95/17
174/2
genuine [1] 53/7
genuinely [3] 63/17
63/19 73/13
get [34] 6/6 12/10
14/16 14/22 16/2
29/16 30/7 58/17
61/18 64/13 66/11
69/25 78/1 78/5 81/7
81/17 83/22 96/9 99/2I
100/14 110/16 116/3
116/25 136/16 137/21
138/5 147/20 151/14
164/10 167/2 167/6
(59) external - get
G
get... [3] 168/10
174/19 185/20
gets [2] 96/3 127/23
getting [8] 73/11 77/7)
99/19 107/3 115/3
117/6 160/7 164/24
GIB [2] 169/5 170/14
Gibson [1] 141/2
gifts [1] 127/18
gist [1] 150/18
give [16] 1/8 9/7
16/11 18/1 18/2 19/23}
28/1 43/19 101/5
101/22 116/17 130/11
138/4 148/12 170/12
182/8
given [28] 10/19
23/19 23/19 34/3 71/1
74/8 78/22 82/1 89/14
91/21 93/20 94/22
95/6 96/12 99/13
105/25 107/16 107/17
109/18 119/4 130/2
142/1 147/22 148/23
156/23 168/1 172/1
188/9
gives [1] 95/2
giving [1] 104/23
glance [1] 138/11
Global [1] 2/14
go [42] 14/5 14/8
24/15 30/9 30/11
35/15 37/17 47/13
56/5 57/24 61/7 70/13,
104/18 104/25 105/19)
109/16 109/16 111/7
121/11 126/12 128/9
129/5 130/17 135/13
140/18 145/18 147/25)
159/13 160/1 162/17
162/18 165/25 170/9
171/18 172/11 177/5
178/24 179/22 179/24}
180/16 182/7 182/22
goal [1] 183/23
goes [5] 125/9
125/25 150/7 156/14
178/12
going [69] 1/5 3/6 5/3
6/4 9/25 16/14 21/10
21/17 22/5 22/6 37/25)
46/1 47/11 49/12
49/18 50/4 50/23 55/7)
55/10 55/12 57/5
63/12 64/17 66/18
69/7 71/21 75/3 78/13,
79/5 82/18 83/13
83/18 94/1 97/16
102/24 109/16 110/17
112/21 114/24 115/5
116/1 117/5 128/1
128/9 132/4 133/22
136/16 137/23 139/9
139/10 140/13 143/9
146/1 149/7 151/23
155/12 158/22 159/6
165/6 169/12 170/5
172/18 177/21 178/2
179/7 181/21 182/2
185/1 185/5
gone [6] 32/16 33/15
85/9 93/17 94/5 97/15)
good [25] 1/3 1/4
4/25 15/21 15/22
25/17 29/4 31/15
32/18 42/6 60/25
92/12 97/3 98/11
101/15 115/18 132/14)
140/3 140/4 145/4
157/9 157/11 158/11
165/21 172/22
goods [1] 125/7
got [17] 29/3 29/6
33/11 42/18 73/15
78/10 99/17 114/25
148/22 149/11 153/7
165/4 166/20 167/4
167/5 167/25 168/8
govern [1] 131/4
governance [18]
11/11 33/20 33/25
35/20 36/22 36/24
37/8 37/13 38/18
45/17 49/24 61/19
78/16 79/11 129/9
134/18 135/3 173/14
government [24]
21/7 35/1 71/8 82/13
112/25 115/8 122/11
124/15 125/11 125/12)
125/24 127/9 128/11
129/20 129/24 131/22)
142/25 145/8 145/12
174/9 179/13 182/5
183/25 184/7
Government's [1]
126/2
Grant [7] 39/21 51/6
78/16 78/17 78/23
100/9 100/20
granular [1] 176/2
Granville [1] 140/24
grateful [2] 101/6
189/1
Gratton [9] 17/2
17/12 17/18 18/15
57/1 58/5 59/11 72/7
99/15
great [3] 3/18 59/14
167/21
greater [1] 28/16
green [1] 170/14
grievance [5] 67/5
67/22 67/24 67/25
68/6
grievances [2] 67/1
67/7
grip [2] 8/20 187/10
grips [1] 151/14
grossly [1] 86/18
group [13] 46/15
52/19 96/7 98/12
124/19 155/21 156/11
156/15 159/25 160/10}
160/18 169/13 177/7
grouping [2] 24/8
136/1
groups [3] 106/2
106/3 137/10
grow [1] 105/6
growth [1] 105/4
grumblings [2] 156/3
157/22
guess [4] 64/23
111/19 118/6 165/20
guessed [1] 186/20
guessing [1] 35/9
guidance [5] 111/6
123/24 124/11 124/12
126/22
guilty [4] 68/5
guise [3] 59/13 59/17
59/24
guises [1] 88/9
gulf [1] 73/2
H
had [222]
hadn't [7] 8/11 21/10
32/1 57/13 64/12
70/18 142/24
Hamilton [1] 182/20
hampered [1] 42/18
hand [7] 19/5 21/6
39/1 81/19 81/19 85/2
177/13
handed [1] 91/19
handing [1] 18/21
handled [7] 98/1
108/3 130/2 139/24
162/17 166/23 173/21
handling [1] 170/20
hands [2] 172/1
184/10
hands-on [1] 172/1
Hang [1] 188/16
happen [11] 8/13
34/4 43/18 50/13
86/15 87/7 111/11
111/12 135/23 151/24
172/8
happened [16] 3/21
21/3 29/22 33/13
42/24 45/25 79/1
84/24 111/10 145/8
151/6 165/22 165/23
168/21 172/7 174/9
happening [9] 8/7
9/6 35/10 43/3 149/9
158/2 173/13 173/19
173/19
happens [1] 14/2
happy [6] 65/20
112/21 149/9 154/13
154/15 159/6
hard [5] 17/12 33/19
107/10 115/12 140/23}
harder [2] 29/15
29/16
harm [1] 53/19
Harvey [1] 117/22
has [60] 2/6 8/6 10/6
10/7 18/14 19/17
19/21 24/14 31/17
33/2 37/5 42/24 44/12,
45/5 46/14 46/17
46/23 47/20 51/2
52/19 54/11 55/10
55/12 62/17 65/19
70/15 74/13 77/3 78/2
81/18 82/13 83/11
83/16 89/23 90/14
90/17 90/18 91/25
92/1 100/6 100/7
100/14 109/19 125/12)
134/11 141/3 149/12
150/3 156/10 156/12
159/6 165/24 168/21
170/1 174/2 175/3
180/3 182/24 183/17
186/25
have [405]
haven't [13] 33/24
42/18 75/1 79/24
82/17 82/19 82/25
93/17 95/16 97/12
98/16 166/5 168/8
having [28] 15/6 24/3
25/14 29/13 33/15
45/21 46/11 72/11
77/20 100/10 113/11
115/6 116/18 116/19
119/24 128/4 128/21
153/1 164/12 165/2
167/4 167/13 167/20
169/15 176/3 181/18
185/16 187/12
he [78] 8/16 10/4
10/6 11/13 12/21 13/8
17/9 40/18 42/7 46/17]
46/20 46/23 46/23
47/10 47/19 47/20
48/20 49/2 57/17 59/2)
59/10 59/13 59/15
59/20 60/8 60/9 60/11
60/19 60/21 61/14
62/20 63/2 63/17
63/19 63/23 67/15
69/11 69/12 69/19
70/2 70/3 70/17 70/18
71/1 71/11 71/14
72/16 73/5 73/9 73/14)
73/15 75/18 94/9
94/13 94/17 94/25
95/2 95/20 134/24
140/23 140/24 140/25)
141/7 163/23 163/23
165/25 165/25 170/1
170/9 171/14 171/15
179/25 180/9 180/19
180/23 181/8 181/9
181/16
he'd [1] 72/18
he's [4] 46/8 46/19
47/11 141/23
head [4] 31/4 48/15
104/6 171/7
headcount [1]
115/10
health [4] 5/18
hear [10] 1/5 13/5
46/22 92/9 101/15
123/10 140/11 170/2
171/10 171/16
heard [22] 8/14 42/20]
47/15 72/23 74/23
75/6 75/11 76/11
76/23 79/19 92/15
95/16 104/2 123/11
144/18 149/12 165/24)
167/13 167/14 174/2
175/3 189/4
hearing [2] 101/17
189/12
hearings [1] 123/8
heart [1] 178/12
held [6] 56/14 71/19
103/5 137/10 147/11
167/2
help [10] 32/2 32/24
50/23 56/14 80/13
88/1 104/14 110/15
124/10 148/18
helped [2] 131/19
176/12
helpful [13] 30/14
94/24 95/2 95/22
95/24 97/8 97/21
98/19 100/5 127/12
131/24 137/24 147/9
helping [1] 105/6
Henry [7] 12/24
57/11 63/4 84/2 84/5
91/7 190/6
her [14] 10/7 10/8
56/2 57/25 64/4 65/1
72/20 90/25 154/15
154/16 154/21 187/8
187/8 187/15
Herbert [1] 88/2
here [25] 12/2 13/18
14/8 16/13 21/18
39/17 39/23 47/13
95/17 126/8 130/22
132/21 135/17 140/2
140/23 142/6 150/24
151/16 151/21 159/5
160/13 167/25 168/8
(60) get... - here
H
179/9
herself [1] 155/9
hidden [1] 152/3
high [5] 83/19 107/11
117/12 120/13 135/2
high-level [1] 83/19
higher [2] 175/9
175/13
highest [1] 142/20
highlight [1] 21/22
highlighted [2] 61/16
161/1
highlighting [1]
138/21
highlights [1] 146/22
highly [3] 13/14 80/5
80/5
him [11] 46/16 59/5
59/21 60/3 64/17
163/25 171/9
himself [3] 49/8
70/16 76/25
hindsight [4] 7/23
23/1 36/17 86/9
his [29] 8/15 13/6
13/8 13/16 39/9 42/2
46/15 47/19 47/24
47/24 47/25 47/25
48/21 49/3 59/19
59/21 60/9 63/21
65/21 67/16 69/19
71/12 95/19 149/16
150/3 150/8 151/9
179/9 181/9
historic [2] 29/17
85/5
historical [1] 73/6
historically [1] 49/22
history [1] 84/10
HJA [1] 177/2
hold [4] 167/24
Hollinrake [7] 9/24
12/19 12/21 12/24
16/25 19/20 34/25
honest [6] 37/21 68/9)
95/4 95/8 96/8 154/17
honestly [5] 116/16
135/7 135/12 185/13
186/19
honesty [2] 165/18
182/7
Hooper [4] 159/23
159/24 160/4 160/11
hope [9] 16/9 16/14
27/6 34/11 76/20
82/24 83/12 91/9
166/16
hoped [1] 130/11
hopefully [2] 27/4
83/24
here... [2] 173/13
73/12 94/8 94/9 155/9
Horizon [35] 3/25
6/15 8/4 47/9 53/22
94/12 114/10 117/16
139/21 149/23 153/11
153/12 155/21 156/5
156/13 163/3 163/6
163/10 163/16 170/21
171/2 172/21 173/6
175/8 177/9 182/2
187/10
horrific [1] 47/8
horrified [1] 8/6
hours [1] 180/4
House [1] 119/7
how [89] 3/16 9/13
10/4 11/16 18/10
21/15 21/15 22/5
31/12 47/10 53/23
54/14 58/1 60/11
61/15 61/22 63/14
68/2 78/11 80/8 81/20
84/18 84/19 85/3
86/15 87/1 87/5 94/11
94/12 105/7 105/24
109/10 110/15 112/4
113/18 114/3 114/23
116/23 116/24 117/11
120/14 120/14 121/41
124/21 126/3 127/9
128/12 128/13 129/22)
131/8 131/12 131/22
132/19 133/6 133/14
133/22 138/23 138/23)
139/9 141/7 143/12
147/13 147/15 147/19)
148/22 151/5 151/17
151/23 154/1 158/21
162/16 164/24 165/15)
166/23 167/15 168/11
169/12 174/14 176/6
176/7 176/11 179/7
179/11 179/12 181/21
182/10 185/13 186/13)
186/14
Howard [1] 181/13
however [11] 22/18
25/9 25/14 31/17 37/2
49/10 49/17 53/17
71/23 119/1 135/19
HR [6] 31/4 31/9
31/16 32/2 67/5 68/1
HS [1] 10/3
Hudgells [1] 177/2
huge [8] 11/12 12/23
69/18 70/15 71/22
94/11 165/7 176/3
hugely [1] 82/7
human [3] 36/6 84/18}
151/2
hundred [1] 138/12
hypocritical [1]
73/23 80/2 80/20 81/6
81/9 92/25 93/9 93/16)
hospitality [1] 127/18
47/119
hypothetical [1]
151/21
hypothetically [1]
119/23
185/17
l actually [2] 11/4
31/22
89/25 100/5
lalso [4] 63/6 63/23
78/20 162/22
lam [11] 41/5 41/7
44/23 62/16 86/9
101/6 145/4 150/11
187/17 188/8 189/1
I appreciate [3]
15/10 40/19 183/4
lask [6] 1/14 68/10
89/18 97/23 102/4
102/8
l asked [1] 100/13
lassume [3] 32/18
119/5 158/10
l assumed [2] 170/3
171/17
I believe [3] 8/23
103/21 183/25
I believe -- you [1]
174/10
I built [1] 111/22
I came [1] 105/10
I can [18] 1/24 6/5
23/22 92/10 97/25
98/3 101/16 121/19
122/3 125/20 132/12
138/4 156/19 160/25
162/3 169/23 171/14
185/22
I can't [3] 12/17
19/11 119/25
I cannot [2] 115/24
170/22
I certainly [3] 12/8
84/11 172/5
I come [2] 144/15
165/15
I completely [1] 73/7
I consider [1] 25/18
I could [10] 23/8
32/10 71/20 110/15
111/25 120/11 128/15}
138/17 167/18 169/17
I couldn't [1] 87/10
I did [29] 2/18 9/5
17/25 18/9 41/25
51/20 52/9 79/17
87/18 99/11 104/12
111/22 112/18 116/3
120/25 134/3 135/13
135/14 137/21 144/1
l accepted [2] 131/14
l agree [4] 54/6 84/16
156/17 162/10 162/21
163/1 169/24 171/5
171/9 171/16 183/3
I didn't [11] 23/10
23/11 32/17 131/12
137/22 137/22 146/1
147/11 170/2 178/19
179/20
I directly [1] 120/24
Ido [17] 4/21 11/16
22/11 24/7 27/18
36/19 37/10 38/22
117/3 120/21 165/11
170/22 181/18
I don't [11] 44/23
61/14 90/10 97/22
100/25 109/2 133/7
154/19 154/23 165/21
181/18
I draw [1] 166/17
lentirely [1] 86/6
l expected [2] 153/18)
155/10
I find [3] 114/12
164/6 186/12
I found [1] 178/17
I genuinely [2] 63/19
73/13
I guess [2] 111/19
118/6
I had [18] 8/5 8/9 9/2
12/5 14/20 52/7 72/6
72/16 104/15 107/14
111/20 142/17 145/19
145/23 145/25 153/20}
162/9 173/12
I hadn't [2] 8/11
142/24
Ihand [1] 177/3
Ihave [31] 2/24
19/22 23/25 24/23
25/16 32/2 33/10
33/19 40/19 62/21
75/8 76/11 79/9 88/23
92/17 102/2 115/24
135/24 143/24 144/2
146/7 149/15 153/13
154/11 164/7 164/18
165/9 173/2 174/1
176/14 188/20
I haven't [1] 79/24
I heard [2] 75/11
123/11
I hope [4] 91/9
I hoped [1] 130/11
lin [1] 182/7
I joined [4] 9/3 28/5
102/13 133/13
I just [14] 11/5 17/23
29/5 34/4 37/20 41/25)
42/16 70/17 85/9 97/9)
98/15 98/21 135/18
184/22
43/6 87/19 96/21 97/5
I knew [5] 13/4 45/13
113/23 148/25 154/13)
I know [9] 23/11
69/23 76/9 84/1 87/11
132/13 139/1 155/6
178/21
I literally [4] 8/10
I looked [1] 64/6
I made [2] 18/5 170/1
I may [2] 150/23
172/3
I mean [7] 13/10
54/18 74/23 87/11
87/14 105/19 151/4
I mentioned [3]
79/10 164/11 181/19
I might [2] 13/17
139/2
I move [3] 78/14
116/18 117/13
I needed [2] 138/17
139/6
I now [1] 20/1
I obviously [1] 32/5
lonly [1] 154/16
I passed [1] 170/2
I possibly [1] 11/5
I presented [1] 17/16
I put [1] 176/13
I quite [1] 154/15
read [4] 117/21
156/21 178/15 180/14)
l received [1] 112/14
I reflected [2] 20/2
128/23
I relied [1] 108/6
I remember [1] 153/1
I represent [2] 98/12
182/17
l reviewed [1] 18/4
Iright [1] 48/6
I said [3] 17/20 71/25
171/15
I saw [2] 77/17 172/3
I say [26] 10/23 16/9
20/2 22/13 23/9 24/14
24/22 32/16 34/6 34/9I
34/17 35/8 37/17
43/12 60/8 70/15
73/13 85/7 92/17
115/12 118/11 158/10)
179/20 180/13 181/1
185/23
I see [3] 88/18 115/2
179/2
I should [1] 111/25
I sought [1] 115/15
I speak [1] 132/21
I spoke [1] 169/24
I struggle [1] 168/11
I suggest [2] 40/21
90/9
I suppose [1] 108/11
I suspect [1] 178/21
(61) here... - suspect
Itake [3] 88/10
122/15 169/3
Italked [1] 42/17
I think [135] 1/25
4/14 4/16 5/2 10/21
10/22 10/23 13/15
14/25 14/25 15/7
15/13 15/14 15/19
16/5 16/9 18/5 19/3
25/5 26/19 27/5 29/1
29/20 30/20 33/15
34/9 34/14 34/17
35/14 37/22 38/25
39/15 39/18 42/15
42/17 43/10 48/4
51/16 52/17 52/17
55/13 55/17 55/20
56/23 56/25 61/13
62/6 63/17 63/21
64/14 66/11 68/8
68/16 71/25 73/4
73/15 74/4 74/10
74/10 74/20 75/3
75/18 77/6 77/9 77/23,
77124 78/8 78/9 79/4
80/8 81/4 82/1 82/8
82/9 95/5 95/23 96/10
96/24 97/3 98/12
106/18 107/10 109/12)
110/7 114/12 115/15
115/22 116/5 116/23
117/21 121/23 123/16
124/17 127/11 127/22)
128/2 131/24 132/5
132/7 132/10 132/14
132/14 133/17 133/24
134/9 135/19 136/2
141/20 147/17 154/3
154/4 154/4 160/21
162/4 165/22 166/22
168/14 170/23 171/3
172/3 174/6 174/13
175/22 176/18 177/1
178/16 179/2 180/25
182/10 184/19 188/23)
I thought [7] 52/1
86/8 106/14 130/10
131/14 154/17 162/12)
I took [2] 35/24 41/21
I tried [1] 138/16
l understand [14]
7/19 7/20 27/7 65/9
69/25 84/25 97/15
102/10 102/15 123/12
126/9 136/5 141/1
141/3
I understand it [1]
85/16
l understood [3] 7/25
75/21 86/8
luse [1] 89/1
21/2 21/3 21/19 23/16
I very [1] 23/15
I want [17] 3/4 43/22
92/13 104/2 104/19
120/20 121/9 126/12
134/5 152/16 153/24
177/8 182/21 182/22
I wanted [3] 20/11
20/15 142/19
Iwas [44] 3/23 5/7
8/6 8/9 8/12 9/12
10/23 11/1 11/6 11/8
17/19 20/2 20/8 20/12
23/9 23/13 35/2 52/6
100/10 103/17 106/2
107/6 107/13 107/24
108/24 110/8 112/13
115/13 119/15 127/14)
129/1 130/7 131/11
134/4 139/17 142/16
145/21 150/11 154/12)
156/23 164/21 178/18)
180/14 185/1
wasn't [7] 7/19 13/3
35/7 130/1 131/13
133/13 164/22
I welcome [1] 40/11
I will [3] 26/22 106/16)
173/4
I wish [2] 136/2
167/18
I wonder [1] 140/5
I would [54] 4/5
13/12 13/13 16/9
16/14 17/20 22/7
34/11 52/1 61/24
76/20 83/12 85/21
89/3 101/24 106/6
109/11 111/5 111/24
112/9 117/7 120/2
121/7 124/2 124/3
127/17 138/5 138/25
141/20 142/2 143/5
145/19 146/1 148/21
150/20 151/1 151/12
151/19 158/1 158/23
159/10 161/19 161/24}
162/13 166/16 169/16)
171/6 181/5 182/9
183/25 185/15 185/22)
186/23 188/6
I wouldn't [1] 158/6
I'd [9] 17/11 31/2
72/3 73/19 114/12
115/22 130/17 143/8
168/14
Vl [9] 21/13 22/16
53/2 54/17 91/8 98/8
113/2 118/10 175/18
I'm [49] 9/25 12/15
12/17 15/5 19/25
21/17 35/7 35/9 37/25
44/10 51/23 55/7
78/13 78/21 79/24
157/10 162/16 168/22,
80/23 82/7 82/7 82/11
109/15 112/21 114/21
121/19 122/3 122/3
122/5 124/22 140/13
140/16 150/23 157/11
158/10 165/16 166/5
169/4 172/3 174/23
177/7 181/19 182/7
183/4
I've [10] 10/25 14/16
20/12 34/6 79/16
79/16 82/11 127/11
148/9 167/20
lan [1] 33/19
idea [6] 9/7 12/16
129/22 130/11 132/14
185/3
ideas [2] 30/4 96/22
identified [5] 38/20
80/1 93/17 175/21
176/5
identify [2] 82/16
164/4
identifying [4] 98/1
111/1 138/22 164/4
identity [1] 53/16
if [144] 3/7 3/24 4/5
6/5 6/9 10/1 10/9
11/19 12/24 13/19
14/9 15/15 15/18
16/25 19/16 21/18
22/16 24/25 25/1
25/24 26/11 28/9
28/15 30/1 35/16
35/24 36/20 37/22
37/25 40/2 40/10
40/17 41/8 44/15
44/18 45/9 45/16
45/17 46/6 47/5 47/9
47/12 49/1 49/14
50/22 51/7 52/13
52/18 53/8 54/8 57/18
58/19 61/21 63/12
65/20 66/10 68/14
70/20 72/2 76/1 76/14
78/22 80/5 82/19 86/8
86/25 94/9 94/9 97/25
98/3 100/17 102/10
109/16 112/5 114/20
116/25 117/9 119/9
119/23 120/1 120/22
125/20 125/25 126/4
126/6 128/10 129/5
129/13 129/17 132/2
134/6 134/14 134/19
135/8 135/13 136/19
137/1 137/20 137/25
138/4 139/3 140/5
140/18 141/4 143/3
143/3 143/8 145/20
147/14 147/22 148/4
149/6 149/19 149/20
82/23 86/6 88/5 88/17
91/4 91/4 98/6 102/24
149/24 151/7 151/11
152/18 153/4 155/22
158/14 159/2 159/13
160/1 162/17 163/7
164/8 164/12 164/25
166/11 167/15 170/9
171/18 172/11 175/9
179/24 180/23 183/8
185/2 185/9 187/14
ignore [1] 58/22
ignored [1] 45/5
ii [1] 161/10
image [1] 128/10
imagine [1] 120/1
immediately [2]
138/7 151/20
immensely [1] 68/22
impact [1] 163/19
imperfect [1] 176/21
implemented [3]
18/18 27/1 40/3
implementing [1]
176/10
implications [3]
149/5 151/2 151/16
implicit [1] 176/20
importance [3]
115/13 173/11 186/17}
important [31] 29/4
36/2 43/20 61/3 61/15
70/10 83/22 84/25
89/4 96/14 96/15
96/17 109/3 112/2
118/8 130/7 136/17
137/15 138/24 145/1
149/2 168/19 177/9
177/15 178/18 184/6
184/12 184/19 185/24}
187/23 188/9
importantly [1] 94/25)
imposed [1] 129/15
impossible [3] 38/15
70/8 174/11
impressed [1]
154/22
impression [1] 116/3
impressive [1]
179/21
imprisoned [1] 89/24
improve [2] 40/15
40/16
improvement [1]
28/22
improving [2] 6/18
7415
inaccurate [3] 23/1
46/9 86/18
inappropriate [7]
18/12 22/19 47/23
49/10 57/16 61/2 72/8
incapable [1] 46/10
incentive [12] 5/13
5/14 31/1 40/13 40/21
177/13 178/24 179/22}
41/10 41/14 42/4
85/23 86/21 88/3 90/5I
incentivisation [1]
30/14
incentivised [1] 36/9
incident [1] 61/11
include [5] 30/3
64/24 119/1 157/6
181/13
included [2] 99/7
99/21
includes [1] 2/14
including [14] 17/1
38/11 38/18 88/9
88/19 112/10 112/10
132/18 147/17 159/19}
182/20 186/17 187/9
187/12
inclusion [1] 39/13
income [1] 9/17
inconclusive [1]
38/14
inconsistent [1] 73/8
incorrect [2] 78/23
81/25
increase [4] 9/9
16/12 40/24 40/25
increasing [1] 45/15
increasingly [1]
106/8
incumbent [1]
171/12
indeed [6] 76/18
115/14 150/25 175/5
184/2 184/2
independence [2]
20/15 125/13
independent [24]
20/10 35/20 58/7
62/11 65/23 66/1 66/2I
69/13 70/21 70/25
99/14 99/16 131/20
141/5 141/9 141/15
142/7 143/4 143/10
156/5 156/11 167/5
170/8 173/1
indicative [1] 100/1
individual [10] 30/20
45/5 51/14 60/22
74/18 90/18 105/23
114/19 136/7 137/3
individuals [6] 23/12
31/24 60/13 61/8
67/15 68/11
induction [2] 3/15
8/11
Industrial [1] 103/14
industry [2] 22/6
148/17
inevitable [2] 114/15
116/7
inevitably [1] 138/15
infer [1] 139/19
inflicted [1] 84/19
(62) I take - inflicted
46/8 58/1 75/5 77/7
87/8 94/22 95/1 95/6
96/13 96/25 110/22
111/17 111/18 112/9
113/5 114/25 115/2
115/4 117/1 117/6
134/2 136/25 137/4
145/24 155/4 157/13
164/8 164/25 165/1
167/10 167/13 181/3
186/21
60/2 145/16 160/25
173/4
initial [4] 26/3 71/10
147/22 166/7
initially [1] 74/4
initiative [1] 113/15
injustice [1] 167/21
innovation [3]
103/10 104/20 105/6
input [8] 40/20 41/9
41/23 49/12 65/21
80/16 146/10 148/16
6/15 6/20 6/21 6/23
7/3 7/8 7/8 7/14 7/14
7/15 7/21 7/25 10/6
10/20 11/1 18/16
22/19 25/12 25/17
26/25 27/8 29/21
35/23 36/3 36/8 38/2
38/11 38/16 39/6
39/10 53/22 54/11
55/9 77/16 79/3 81/4
84/12 85/2 85/5 85/5
85/10 85/11 85/12
85/14 86/1 86/4 86/11
86/12 86/16 86/18
88/4 88/9 88/20 91/18
91/22 92/2 101/22
118/12 143/17 144/18}
149/12 149/17 150/13)
161/3 163/23 165/24
166/18 174/2 175/3
182/24
Inquiry's [4] 2/8
84/17 102/24 123/7
inserted [1] 21/16
inside [7] 24/3
164/18 165/5 165/6
167/3 168/9 175/24
insofar [5] 33/24
119/13 128/23 131/13)
171/14
inform [1] 111/24
information [53] 6/14
6/25 9/16 13/16 26/17
27/19 29/8 33/12 45/7
78/23 81/25 82/1 82/4
95/8 95/10 95/21 96/3
137/12 137/14 138/17)
informed [6] 9/3 58/2
inquiry [72] 3/24 5/25)
insourcing [1] 81/13
instance [7] 3/21
16/11 37/16 45/10
89/7 151/14 158/25
instances [1] 95/6
instead [2] 67/4
129/8
institutional [1]
125/14
instructed [2] 35/2
140/15
integrity [6] 135/7
135/12 149/22 156/5
163/10 165/18
intend [1] 39/7
intended [4] 39/6
58/17 71/1 126/21
intense [1] 62/24
intention [2] 23/4
23/9
interaction [1] 32/22
interest [7] 13/8
13/10 13/11 13/11
53/6 57/5 135/5
interested [3] 78/21
185/16 185/23
interested in [1]
78/21
interests [2] 48/12
51/12
interference [1]
116/11
interim [8] 34/17
65/6 143/15 143/20
143/22 144/5 144/21
146/13
interims [1] 34/16
internal [6] 31/8 71/5
159/15 177/23 178/5
181/1
internally [4] 39/7
71/18 160/13 182/3
International [2]
103/19 103/21
interplay [1] 30/15
interpret [2] 38/4
161/24
intervention [3]
109/21 110/17 155/41
interview [4] 60/9
64/4 64/6 64/17
interviewed [1] 64/19]
interviewing [1]
TANT
into [52] 4/7 5/1 7/17
10/23 11/17 12/1 17/9)
20/4 24/8 25/14 27/5
29/9 35/20 44/25
45/23 50/5 59/19 60/3
65/2 65/13 68/8 72/16
76/18 78/3 78/5 80/16)
81/11 81/17 84/21
85/5 87/15 90/18 91/2
106/1 114/19 115/1
118/25 119/17 122/4
126/18 127/18 138/3
141/16 144/1 148/25
150/15 161/12 168/3
169/19 176/10 178/5
186/9
intricacy [1] 87/20
introduce [1] 10/18
introduced [2] 180/3
180/6
introducing [1] 180/5I
introduction [2]
179/19 179/24
investigate [5] 10/14
53/12 58/8 65/4
153/16
investigated [2]
76/18 186/7
investigating [3]
8/21 13/21 50/17
investigation [24]
7/17 50/23 50/25 51/5)
56/18 57/18 59/8
59/13 59/16 59/19
59/21 60/3 60/7 60/19)
61/2 63/11 64/22
65/14 65/22 65/24
66/1 66/2 72/16 76/25
investigations [7]
44/9 48/16 76/18
76/22 76/23 77/1 77/9
investigators [2]
76/7 77/22
investment [2] 105/4
105/5
invited [1] 51/11
involve [4] 71/16
144/14 148/18 174/4
involved [44] 7/11
11/1 11/10 18/22
20/14 20/19 23/2
23/12 24/11 25/10
38/14 52/8 52/22 57/2
57/3 61/6 66/12 67/2
73/23 74/20 107/18
108/6 112/3 115/21
118/4 119/25 120/2
120/3 121/7 132/2
132/7 136/6 137/21
141/21 144/24 146/6
148/4 148/22 149/6
151/18 152/17 152/18
165/9 172/16
involvement [9]
16/21 20/5 21/7 72/25
106/19 106/23 108/10}
116/10 163/17
IPO [1] 152/20
irrespective [4] 7/15
25/21 61/10 85/13
is [390]
is your [1] 19/13
Ismail [12] 8/14 32/3
40/8 40/18 41/22 67/8
74/17 79/20 94/5
95/19 99/18 100/11
isn't [13] 13/1 68/20
95/9 127/7 148/6
153/5 159/9 164/24
179/23 188/2
issue [66] 4/11 7/5
7/7 743 7/16 10/5
27/21 29/7 30/16
34/13 60/22 61/17
64/9 68/4 70/6 70/14
70/20 70/24 92/25
95/12 98/21 105/23
106/20 107/23 108/5
111/5 113/11 113/17
119/23 124/6 125/24
126/7 138/8 141/24
143/1 143/5 143/7
145/3 157/16 159/5
159/11 160/6 169/16
171/21 172/2 172/16
173/3 174/23 175/16
178/7 178/18 182/21
183/19 184/12 186/7
186/9 187/10 187/19
188/9
issued [2] 27/16
65/19
issues [110] 3/25 8/4
8/8 8/21 9/5 9/7 12/2
13/18 13/21 13/23
16/17 16/21 21/5
21/22 21/25 22/9
27/15 29/19 29/25
32/8 36/12 37/15
47/22 48/23 50/17
52/8 54/12 66/5 66/21
67/25 68/16 71/14
72/14 78/16 79/14
80/1 80/2 80/4 80/6
80/8 80/10 80/18
81/14 81/24 82/2 93/9
95/11 95/15 95/17
100/11 107/17 107/25}
108/7 108/20 108/23
109/4 109/9 111/1
111/10 111/24 113/3
113/6 113/8 113/22
114/1 114/8 114/9
114/10 114/19 116/7
116/9 117/11 126/23
128/23 136/21 137/15)
139/3 139/7 139/11
139/16 139/20 141/20
142/4 144/15 147/7
147/15 148/4 148/16
148/20 148/25 155/8
156/7 157/20 164/3
164/5 165/19 167/25
168/6 169/22 170/21
1714/1 171/16 173/2
177/18 179/16 179/19)
11/23 14/24 17/4 17/9)
142/12 142/14 142/22)
173/6 174/15 174/20
174/21 175/8 178/10
181/4
it [601]
it'll [4] 15/8
it's [109] 4/7 4/7 4/22
6/6 6/8 7/4 13/24
14/15 15/21 16/24
27/13 28/3 29/3 29/23}
31/2 31/12 34/21 39/2I
40/8 41/8 42/14 43/20)
44/2 44/21 45/21 47/1
48/4 49/4 52/12 54/8
56/24 56/25 61/3 61/5I
66/16 70/8 72/3 73/11
74/24 76/9 77/6 80/12I
80/14 80/25 81/1
83/21 89/8 89/14
90/11 90/24 95/4 95/7I
98/21 98/24 100/15
109/14 112/6 115/12
121/11 121/16 125/24)
126/15 131/24 132/14)
134/10 136/5 136/11
136/11 136/17 139/19)
140/23 144/23 145/18)
146/11 146/14 149/21
149/21 152/12 153/3
153/3 155/14 155/17
158/5 158/21 159/9
159/15 164/23 165/12)
166/2 166/18 168/22
171/19 171/21 172/12)
172/14 173/5 173/20
174/14 176/18 176/22)
178/24 179/19 180/25)
182/10 184/22 185/5
185/23 186/6 188/13
it's -- it [1] 152/12
item [1] 48/11
items [5] 64/24 65/20
107/19 108/15 108/17)
iterative [1] 138/25
its [32] 26/23 29/24
30/4 36/15 38/13
84/13 84/13 87/6
91/22 96/19 105/3
105/22 108/14 112/11
114/6 117/20 118/1
120/14 125/6 125/15
126/1 128/10 132/9
133/15 135/6 135/11
143/3 162/22 166/4
175/2 186/6 188/13
itself [10] 2/3 24/13
28/4 61/11 104/19
120/9 144/6 160/17
167/12 178/20
ITV [2] 8/18 63/7
J
Jacobs [13] 41/22
67/8 73/21 74/17
76/24 79/20 84/2 92/7I
(63) inform - Jacobs
J
Jacobs... [5] 92/8
98/17 99/18 100/11
190/8
Jane [2] 1/10 55/15
January [6] 57/20
62/19 66/19 69/7
75/11 76/3
Javid's [1] 171/20
Jeff [1] 46/24
Jeff Smyth [1] 46/24
Jeffreys [1] 51/9
Jenkins [3] 150/1
150/9 151/9
Jennings [1] 150/1
Jo [5] 144/4 144/18
146/14 146/16 146/25)
job [21] 31/8 31/15
47/25 85/2 113/19
144/17 148/10 153/2
153/6 153/9 169/24
184/17 184/20 184/25)
185/18 185/24 186/15
186/17 187/3 188/13
188/17
jobs [5] 65/10 110/11
111/21 148/13 153/1
John [1] 44/18
John Doe [1] 44/18
join [1] 176/16
joined [10] 5/9 8/10
9/3 28/5 98/24 102/13,
103/2 103/17 106/8
133/13
joining [1] 156/2
Joint [1] 103/17
jointly [1] 98/2
Jonathan [1] 170/8
Jones [1] 45/1
judge [1] 110/9
judgment [16] 10/7
23/15 89/11 111/1
111/23 112/4 112/6
119/16 141/21 141/23}
145/20 185/25 186/1
186/10 186/18 186/20)
judgments [1] 44/7
juggle [1] 65/10
July [14] 25/3 27/25
33/10 48/6 48/11
51/16 102/13 103/14
121/17 143/23 144/5
146/12 149/13 156/6
July 2013 [4] 121/17
143/23 144/5 156/6
July 2015 [1] 149/13
July 2016 [1] 103/14
July 2019 [1] 102/13
July 2021 [1] 25/3
July 2023 [1] 48/6
jump [4] 148/24
June [3] 26/22 36/4
55/20
June 2021 [1] 36/4
June 2023 [1] 55/20
junior [11] 47/3
104/16 111/3 137/18
144/4 144/10 144/16
145/2 147/6 169/12
173/10
just [107] 3/4 6/5 8/5
8/10 9/25 10/21 11/5
13/18 16/2 17/11
17/18 17/23 21/17
22/16 22/23 23/13
26/16 27/12 29/2 29/5
29/21 29/23 32/7
32/15 33/22 34/2 34/4
34/18 37/20 37/25
39/18 41/25 42/14
42/16 44/1 44/3 44/4
49/4 52/5 52/24 53/2
54/4 57/15 60/19
60/22 61/6 63/3 66/22
70/17 70/17 71/22
76/13 77/24 78/9
78/10 78/13 79/4 83/7,
85/9 87/18 93/7 93/24
94/5 95/16 97/2 97/9
97/14 98/9 98/15
98/17 98/21 104/13
108/11 109/13 113/9
115/25 117/14 135/18)
136/11 138/10 140/18)
145/22 148/6 148/7
151/7 152/10 154/7
158/3 158/5 158/21
159/11 167/1 167/4
167/11 167/25 174/1
174/19 176/13 176/23)
177/10 178/15 179/22)
182/22 183/4 183/11
183/25 184/22
justice [5] 84/15
93/17 98/2 98/3
152/15
justifiable [2] 38/4
38/6
justified [1] 143/2
K
KC [1] 182/18
keen [4] 17/19 18/14
20/2 146/23
keep [4] 16/14 69/4
177/20 180/23
keeping [2] 116/14
139/16
Ken [2] 172/24
172/25
kept [6] 53/13 62/8
62/9 160/25 173/4
177/18
key [11] 80/10
118/23 134/1 138/22
148/15 161/8 161/12
161/19 172/8 181/4
181/12
kind [4] 18/2 70/6
100/1 100/21
kinds [3] 13/23 43/15
80/1
knew [9] 13/4 45/13
94/9 113/23 145/15
148/25 154/13 157/10
160/22
knock [1] 82/3
knock-on [1] 82/3
know [95] 8/7 9/16
11/16 13/14 17/22
19/5 23/11 28/23
31/22 32/5 33/19 41/8
43/19 44/13 52/13
54/18 57/19 66/15
68/10 69/23 71/13
74/19 76/9 82/15
83/13 84/1 87/11
87/19 88/5 88/6 90/11
91/4 91/21 92/1 92/22
95/4 95/5 98/6 98/12
110/14 111/10 112/18}
122/24 126/2 127/25
130/9 131/12 132/13
133/9 133/25 138/22
139/1 139/1 139/4
145/18 148/25 149/10
152/12 152/13 153/2
153/3 155/6 157/3
157/8 158/5 158/21
159/4 160/22 164/19
164/21 165/21 166/14
167/4 167/19 167/20
167/24 168/5 168/6
169/15 169/18 169/23}
170/16 174/10 174/10}
174/15 176/6 176/19
176/21 178/19 178/21
179/6 181/5 182/1
185/23 187/22
know' [1] 53/14
knowing [9] 84/17
145/18 157/3 157/8
157/9 166/14 167/19
181/25 188/7
knowledge [12] 1/22
2/4 8/10 8/13 9/5
20/14 53/11 54/12
65/1 102/9 102/20
117/14
known [10] 35/22
45/2 47/22 57/21 83/9
123/21 156/1 160/15
185/16 186/23
L
labours [1] 150/5
lack [114] 15/4 22/13
23/18 29/2 34/17
34/18 35/10 164/4
165/11 167/9 174/24
lacked [1] 33/16
language [5] 39/10
77/24 157/21 157/23
179/23
lapse [1] 69/20
large [10] 26/17
92/12 105/20 109/4
113/5 138/5 147/17
150/22 150/22 163/3
largely [1] 126/5
larger [1] 162/11
last [10] 17/7 31/2
41/2 43/6 47/7 92/25
127/2 168/22 172/11
188/16
lasted [1] 167/22
late [3] 133/13
142/12 168/22
later [10] 8/13 8/14
26/22 35/4 39/22 56/1
106/17 107/17 108/19)
130/6
latterly [1] 116/8
law [1] 36/10
lawyer [1] 150/23
lawyers [9] 88/7 88/8
88/9 88/13 144/20
146/5 151/12 151/13
151/15
layer [1] 165/2
layers [2] 152/1
164/8
lead [2] 15/22 116/16
leaders [2] 46/18
47/21
leadership [1]
110/13
leading [2] 48/1
138/18
leads [3] 29/19 40/25
143/15
learn [2] 33/21
162/21
learning [1] 11/2
least [9] 68/14 87/2
88/25 91/11 93/9
153/22 163/12 165/19)
178/7
leave [6] 65/1 65/7
71/2 122/14 168/19
180/8
leaving [1] 186/1
led [4] 72/20 118/23
162/23 163/15
left [6] 32/5 103/24
116/19 124/25 126/18}
171/13
legal [5] 18/23 53/20
89/4 146/4 151/19
legally [1] 88/16
legislation [1] 97/25
legitimate [2] 145/25
169/18
legitimately [1] 71/19
length [17] 120/12
1422/1 122/13 122/17
122/20 123/9 123/13
123/16 123/21 124/14)
124/18 135/1 135/8
135/16 161/17 168/17
174/4
less [9] 15/19 86/17
114/18 115/23 116/17)
116/17 127/23 137/25]
148/25
let [7] 84/3 91/9
147/14 153/3 177/5
182/12 185/1
let's [8] 109/12
111/14 122/8 123/4
133/2 136/4 158/21
166/2
letter [7] 3/7 3/10
24/6 45/18 56/2 68/14)
181/6
letters [1] 97/15
letting [1] 110/16
level [42] 20/5 26/19
26/20 30/17 43/15
61/23 80/3 83/19
90/15 94/14 106/18
107/11 114/11 115/16
117/12 122/22 123/1
126/4 127/15 130/12
130/14 133/14 135/18
136/12 137/7 144/21
147/24 147/24 148/6
155/6 155/10 155/11
162/7 164/13 165/13
173/15 174/16 175/4
175/9 175/15 175/24
187/20
levels [14] 45/3 89/9
114/22 114/23 115/23)
117/3 123/1 128/25
129/8 164/16 165/9
176/1 176/6 187/19
levers [1] 182/5
LG [1] 17/12
light [4] 25/19 43/7
159/21 178/9
like [22] 16/2 17/11
22/6 31/2 41/8 44/19
46/24 47/11 67/25
72/3 73/19 75/13
93/19 101/24 117/16
130/17 137/20 139/8
139/15 159/4 165/17
175/12
liked [2] 106/11
186/23
likely [5] 36/14
113/24 139/17 147/20)
172/15
limited [13] 37/14
41/6 65/15 112/17
116/15 118/10 132/18)
141/9 144/19 149/23
154/16 155/8 161/8
(64) Jacobs... - limited
L
line [15] 6/20 7/3
69/23 81/20 102/12
110/21 137/20 139/6
141/2 141/4 161/12
lines [5] 73/25
118/21 124/4 132/13
155/18
link [4] 1147/8
list [2] 25/24 102/3
listed [1] 2/23
listen [1] 158/4
listened [1] 123/7
listening [2] 27/14
30/14
literally [1] 8/10
little [8] 3/4 28/1
120/21 138/4
live [1] 157/20
lively [4] 18/21 19/2
19/7 19/9
lives [1] 110/18
living [1] 90/6
Loan [1] 108/1
loans [4] 113/19
local [1] 125/11
locked [1] 170/14
logical [3] 120/11
128/3 130/5
long [13] 15/3 22/12
40/21 41/14 42/5
65/21 79/4 167/22
168/20
long-term [6] 15/3
26/2 40/13 40/21
41/14 42/5
longer [5] 24/19 81/1
133/10 174/10 180/4
look [65] 1/14 12/1
15/15 16/5 16/22 18/1
28/7 28/15 32/3 32/6
33/11 42/16 43/8 44/1
55/10 77/23 78/3
79/16 79/18 83/19
93/25 98/21 104/19
109/12 109/13 111/10}
117/13 118/9 118/19
119/9 120/20 121/9
121/15 122/9 123/4
123/22 124/24 133/2
134/5 134/6 134/19
136/19 140/16 146/11
152/16 153/16 153/24}
155/7 155/13 159/13
161/2 162/16 163/7
168/22 168/23 168/23}
171/18 175/9 178/21
Limited's [1] 106/21
16/12 22/3 22/13 33/3}
42/18 43/8 74/4 93/22
113/21 139/14 175/14}
25/11 26/2 33/2 40/13
50/5 50/14 52/18 54/8
1814/7 186/13
looked [8] 25/6 29/7
32/7 32/12 64/6 95/14
177/12 182/22
looking [23] 3/6 9/12
9/15 13/18 15/5 15/13)
16/7 23/23 41/13 42/9)
62/3 63/3 74/13 76/22
90/23 110/12 110/13
114/10 141/23 168/3
177/24 181/25 182/24)
looks [8] 25/2 27/13
44/19 87/20 93/19
142/24 167/19 180/23)
Lorna [4] 17/2 17/12
57/1 66/11
lose [1] 126/3
loss [2] 90/14 93/5
lost [3] 21/4 29/3
47/20
lot [26] 5/17 14/17
29/13 29/20 32/4
47/18 47/21 63/9
63/10 69/19 74/10
83/16 109/6 112/11
114/2 114/4 114/15
116/6 117/2 132/8
133/18 145/8 148/2
152/5 169/21 181/22
lots [2] 66/7 80/17
loyally [1] 180/13
LTIP [1] 32/21
macro [1] 26/19
made [46] 11/24 12/4
13/20 17/17 18/5 18/5)
25/18 26/7 35/21 39/3
41/1 45/22 47/7 49/13
58/20 59/7 69/1 69/21
73/9 74/12 78/17 80/3
81/4 81/12 82/19
82/25 87/2 100/9
103/6 103/9 107/8
108/3 137/25 144/4
144/10 144/13 150/15)
156/7 157/25 160/15
163/9 166/7 167/11
170/1 172/6 178/6
Mail [20] 105/12
106/20 107/1 107/24
119/1 119/12 119/13
120/9 121/15 128/19
131/10 133/19 133/20)
139/12 144/15 152/17)
152/19 153/3 183/18
185/6
main [6] 17/9 19/17
118/25 124/12 136/20)
151/22
maintaining [3]
109/21 118/22 132/1
major [10] 107/23
136/11 138/8 139/3
mark [16] 161/2
157/16 158/6 183/22
majority [1] 90/1
make [42] 11/6 14/6
17/23 19/25 20/3 26/5}
27/3 29/15 31/8 37/16
38/7 46/20 50/6 50/21
51/13 52/25 54/20
66/7 69/6 70/6 70/11
91/17 96/24 102/10
110/18 112/6 114/13
115/12 116/16 116/20
116/21 117/9 119/10
121/11 142/19 144/21
151/14 163/11 164/10
176/19 185/1 186/18
make-up [1] 37/16
makes [7] 14/14
29/16 62/7 62/9 65/17
76/14 88/25
making [11] 14/23
30/8 38/17 46/10 50/1
57/15 140/3 162/24
165/12 174/4 177/24
manage [12] 4/17
21/5 46/25 47/19
109/20 116/8 117/11
139/9 148/15 164/24
165/6 176/22
managed [8] 65/16
109/8 111/4 113/15
124/21 128/17 160/23
171/17
management [13]
11/25 28/22 40/14
60/20 67/11 84/20
85/4 97/2 146/23
152/1 164/16 173/2
175/23
management's [1]
41/5
managing [14] 14/18
102/14 113/11 114/5
120/10 121/16 126/14
127/5 127/7 129/14
130/17 131/15 134/9
164/21
mandatory [1] 18/25
manipulative [1]
182/10
many [26] 11/5 11/8
11/13 22/2 22/4 24/4
25/10 25/13 56/23
71/14 83/4 84/14 89/9
90/7 91/13 97/16
106/11 114/23 116/23
120/14 120/15 151/17
158/2 165/8 166/24
168/20
Marianne [3] 64/3
65/3 65/17
Marianne Tutin [1]
64/3
139/10 144/15 156/17]
1741/7 171/14 173/3
173/12 173/15 179/2
179/5 181/13 185/10
185/13 188/7 188/11
marking [1] 168/16
Marriott [1] 33/12
Martin [16] 67/15
69/14 101/17 101/18
101/21 102/23 104/1
159/16 169/6 177/7
184/22 189/1 190/12
Marvellous [1]
170/12
massive [1] 181/20
massively [1] 152/4
material [8] 24/9
65/18 66/3 84/18
114/4 138/5 151/4
159/9
materials [2] 48/14
99/5
matter [22] 4/10
13/14 23/5 58/14
58/14 61/4 61/16
61/22 64/11 64/21
68/6 71/15 82/25
84/17 87/15 127/5
141/8 144/6 144/8
165/7 173/3 173/10
matters [18] 2/2 3/25
8/22 10/14 65/4 65/5
65/22 67/19 68/1
74/20 103/1 137/17
138/2 139/21 152/18
160/18 162/17 173/4
maximising [1] 37/7
may [38] 2/1 4/25
9/25 10/9 10/15 13/5
14/22 16/24 19/20
20/17 23/11 48/23
49/9 52/17 52/20
53/17 65/2 65/2 65/13
83/17 106/7 114/9
121/10 123/7 123/12
125/20 129/11 129/17,
150/23 152/15 154/23}
158/8 159/16 160/7
163/15 163/18 172/3
177/21
May 24 [4] 52/20
McCall [2] 172/24
172/25
McInnes [2] 49/22
146/12
me [55] 1/25 9/3
23/25 24/22 32/3
56/20 61/13 71/25
86/8 86/25 87/17 88/1
92/3 92/9 108/4 111/8
111/9 111/24 112/21
162/17 168/25 169/25)
market [2] 16/5 125/5I
181/14 182/17 183/24)
Masons [2] 57/8 58/2
114/5 115/23 116/5
120/16 133/21 137/25)
139/16 140/11 143/6
143/8 147/9 147/14
148/24 152/4 153/3
156/22 156/25 158/4
158/22 159/3 161/1
161/20 162/14 165/13)
166/22 167/19 169/11
169/15 169/22 171/5
180/25 182/21 183/16)
185/1 185/22 189/6
mean [17] 13/10 14/1
14/10 54/18 74/23
75/20 83/4 87/11
87/14 105/19 113/9
114/18 119/21 145/24)
149/25 151/4 180/6
meaning [2] 17/21
161/24
means [8] 27/13
31/16 38/14 55/1
124/8 149/25 179/25
180/2
meant [14] 29/3 66/5
70/18 99/4 99/15
99/17 99/18 117/12
126/5 128/22 147/21
163/19 173/17 188/5
measurable [1] 6/17
mechanism [2]
161/13 181/16
media [2] 63/9
179/14
mediation [3] 156/12
157/25 160/17
medical [1] 91/3
meet [1] 154/1
meeting [41] 9/2 9/24
16/24 17/4 17/7 17/10
17/16 43/11 48/5 48/6
48/8 49/25 51/16
51/19 57/24 75/11
92/18 93/22 93/23
100/16 136/1 146/20
146/24 147/1 147/5
154/6 154/12 154/20
155/17 156/18 158/4
158/19 158/20 158/23}
159/3 159/10 159/23
160/4 181/19 187/12
187/16
meetings [12] 33/11
112/19 136/23 137/2
137/11 147/10 153/25)
161/11 162/9 181/10
181/11 187/11
meets [1] 26/22
member [5] 8/5 44/8
57/15 100/17 141/14
members [15] 4/12
4/19 30/20 37/17
38/19 47/23 51/11
58/4 67/11 67/16
(65) Limited's - members
members... [5] 73/10
96/16 99/6 116/10
161/11
memory [11] 27/19
29/2 29/12 31/17
34/17 57/23 62/15
75/12 77/18 79/9
116/15
mention [2] 90/25
143/20
mentioned [12]
12/19 20/17 74/23
79/10 109/23 120/10
156/24 157/17 163/17)
164/11 171/2 181/19
mentioning [1] 158/3
merely [1] 164/9
merit [1] 30/25
merits [1] 143/3
message [1] 93/14
messed [1] 107/14
met [4] 25/21 129/21
154/8 162/4
metric [16] 6/2 6/8
6/23 9/13 18/12 21/16
35/22 41/21 85/7 85/9
86/2 86/10 86/16 87/3
88/22 92/1
metrics [12] 5/20
15/3 15/5 18/16 22/2
22/4 26/8 26/10 32/25
40/13 42/12 42/12
micromanagement
[1] 168/18
mid [1] 69/7
mid-January [1] 69/7
middle [2] 102/12
185/21
might [31] 11/7 13/17
15/25 16/10 16/16
23/14 54/22 58/15
58/24 64/23 66/10
68/20 68/24 69/5
72/20 73/9 74/21
100/3 114/22 132/11
138/10 139/2 139/7
141/22 146/7 148/17
155/8 159/23 164/23
179/13 184/25
Mike [2] 140/18
140/24
million [1] 177/17
mind [9] 11/6 59/23
59/25 60/25 62/23
69/19 71/12 113/23
158/22
mindful [1] 26/12
minds [2] 43/17
110/15
mine [1] 17/23
minimum [3] 3/14
3/19 116/2
minister [24] 9/24
12/19 12/21 16/25
19/20 19/25 20/6
34/25 35/19 134/23
137/18 140/1 144/4
145/2 147/6 148/14
149/4 161/9 169/16
169/21 171/10 173/10)
173/16 188/12
Minister Hollinrake
[3] 16/25 19/20
34/25
ministerial [1]
147/24
ministers [28]
112/25 113/13 123/8
137/25 139/1 144/11
144/16 148/20 152/7
154/14 160/25 163/9
163/15 165/3 169/12
17413 174/7 174/14
174/17 174/25 178/7
178/19 179/12 180/17)
180/20 181/2 181/24
182/9
ministers’ [2] 180/11
180/20
Ministry [2] 98/2 98/3
minor [2] 136/7
136/11
minute [2] 111/15
188/16
minutes [4] 26/16
29/4 29/5 38/20
mirroring [1] 129/19
miscarriages [1]
152/14
miscellaneous [2]
78/14 83/2
misconceived [1]
85/20
misery [1] 84/18
misfeasance [1] 85/6
mislead [1] 23/4
misleading [2] 24/1
46/9
mispronounced [1]
82/11
misrepresentation
[1] 88/20
misrepresentations
[2] 87/1 96/16
misrepresented [1]
89/6
missed [1] 87/17
missing [2] 15/1
31/17
mistake [1] 11/13
mistaken [1] 53/9
mistakes [8] 11/24
12/4 12/5 12/7 13/20
21/2 45/22 116/16
mistresses [2] 97/4
97/17
Mlandenov [1] 82/8
model [2] 117/7
132/11
models [3] 106/5
124/11 180/6
modern [2] 83/14
180/5
Moloney [1] 182/18
moment [5] 54/22
69/5 70/10 71/25
167/23
moments [1] 145/1
Monday [1] 92/15
money [25] 14/19
18/23 47/1 82/3 93/3
107/3 118/17 119/16
120/10 121/7 121/17
121/22 126/14 126/23
127/5 127/8 129/14
130/18 134/9 134/12
136/16 153/4 153/5
153/15 167/7
month [4] 5/11 93/9
93/10 172/10
months [4] 24/5 26/6
83/23 92/25
morale [1] 116/7
more [75] 3/18 5/19
12/1 13/15 14/14
14/14 15/15 15/17
16/1 16/16 17/13 19/3}
20/25 21/6 25/5 30/7
30/9 30/11 32/22
34/10 37/22 38/3
39/19 40/2 42/4 43/10
45/5 46/15 47/6 54/20
56/13 60/23 61/5 62/6
65/16 68/2 70/2 71/17
73/9 74/21 77/7 80/8
80/14 82/23 83/20
100/15 106/10 110/19}
111/3 111/4 111/7
112/7 112/24 114/20
115/18 115/19 125/6
134/5 138/13 142/3
145/9 157/13 162/11
164/10 164/12 164/12
166/16 168/15 170/3
171/10 171/16 174/13}
174/20 176/2 176/7
morning [9] 1/3 1/4
1/5 54/23 89/15 98/11
136/23 169/25 188/24)
most [24] 4/14 11/23
13/24 27/2 27/3 33/14
40/13 52/13 59/5 62/7
62/9 64/5 93/2 104/15
106/2 107/23 111/18
114/22 118/24 137/15]
137/21 151/1 162/10
166/23
motivate [1] 31/13
motivation [2] 63/22
110/10
motives [1] 63/16
mould [1] 59/2
move [14] 21/17
43/22 55/7 73/19
78/14 91/8 116/18
117/13 140/13 152/16}
178/2 178/4 179/6
181/25
moved [5] 22/20 36/3
82/13 133/19 133/20
movement [1]
168/17
moving [4] 33/6 40/6
79/13 80/14
MPs [1] 140/14
MR [130] 1/7 10/3
11/11 12/19 12/24
12/25 12/25 13/4 13/5}
13/6 13/16 17/6 18/22
18/25 19/4 20/18
20/20 32/3 40/8 40/18)
41/22 41/22 44/3
44/21 46/13 47/6
48/16 48/19 48/20
49/2 49/5 49/8 49/21
55/8 55/25 56/1 56/1
56/3 56/15 56/20
57/13 57/22 58/7 58/9)
58/16 58/25 59/1 59/2,
59/5 59/7 59/14 59/22
60/2 60/6 61/13 62/19
62/20 63/8 63/11
63/15 63/17 63/20
64/15 64/18 65/10
67/8 67/8 68/11 68/17
69/1 69/10 69/24
70/16 70/25 72/6 72/8
72/15 72/16 72/25
73/3 73/4 73/21 74/17,
TANT 75/7 75/12
75/14 75/16 75/17
75/18 76/3 76/24
77/13 77/18 79/20
79/20 84/2 84/2 84/5
89/15 91/7 92/7 92/8
93/17 95/19 97/10
98/17 99/12 99/13
99/18 99/18 100/11
100/11 101/2 101/19
140/21 150/8 151/9
151/9 162/7 162/20
163/22 180/16 182/18
182/20 189/9 190/4
190/6 190/8 190/14
Mr Bartlett [2] 48/20
76/3
MR BLAKE [5] 1/7
89/15 97/10 101/2
190/4
Mr Callard's [1]
163/22
Mr Clarke [1] 150/8
Mr Clarke's [1] 151/9
Mr Davies [1] 180/16
Mr Foat [2] 48/16
48/19
Mr Henry [4] 84/2
84/5 91/7 190/6
Mr Hollinrake [1]
12/24
Mr Ismail [10] 32/3
40/8 40/18 41/22 67/8
74/17 79/20 95/19
99/18 100/11
Mr Jacobs [13] 41/22)
67/8 73/21 74/17
76/24 79/20 84/2 92/7I
92/8 98/17 99/18
100/11 190/8
Mr Jenkins [1] 151/9
Mr Justice Fraser [1]
93/17
Mr Moloney [1]
182/18
Mr Read [32] 12/25
13/6 13/16 17/6 18/22)
19/4 46/13 47/6 49/2
49/5 49/8 49/21 56/3
59/5 59/14 59/22 63/8}
63/11 63/17 63/20
64/18 65/10 68/11
69/1 69/24 70/16
72/16 75/7 75/14
75/17 75/18 77/13
Mr Read's [2] 13/4
58/25
Mr Russell [2] 162/7
162/20
Mr Staunton [30]
10/3 12/19 12/25 13/5)
20/18 20/20 44/3
44/21 55/8 55/25 56/1
56/15 56/20 57/13
57/22 58/9 58/16 59/2I
59/7 60/2 60/6 62/20
69/10 72/15 73/3 73/4
75/12 75/16 99/12
99/13
Mr Staunton's [7]
11/11 59/1 61/13
63/15 68/17 72/8
72/25
MR STEVENS [3]
101/19 189/9 190/14
Mr Tidswell [5] 56/1
58/7 62/19 70/25 72/6
Mr Tidswell's [1]
64/15
Mr Trousdale [1]
182/20
Mr Whitehead [1]
140/21
Mr Woodley [1]
7718
Mrs [3] 34/16 182/20
183/1
Mrs Hamilton [1]
182/20
(66) members... - Mrs Hamilton
Mrs Vennells [1]
183/1
Mrs Williams [1]
34/16
Ms [41] 1/5 1/11
17/18 18/15 57/8
57/24 57/24 58/5
58/16 59/11 64/17
65/6 68/18 72/7 84/7
92/9 95/9 97/23 98/9
98/10 98/11 98/12
99/15 101/1 101/4
177/6 182/14 182/15
184/4 184/25 185/11
186/10 186/24 187/7
187/16 190/10 190/16
190/18
Ms Burton [8] 1/5
1/11 84/7 92/9 95/9
97/23 98/11 101/4
Ms Davies [2] 57/24
58/16
Ms Davies’ [1] 68/18
Ms Gratton [6] 17/18
18/15 58/5 59/11 72/7
99/15
MS PAGE [3] 177/6
182/14 190/16
Ms Patrick [7] 98/9
98/10 98/12 101/1
182/15 190/10 190/18
Ms Perkins [4]
186/24 187/7 187/11
187/15
Ms Tutin [3] 57/8
57/24 64/17
Ms Vennells [3]
184/4 184/25 185/11
Ms Vennells' [3]
186/10 187/10 187/16}
Ms Williams [1] 65/6
much [32] 1/8 3/16
11/1 15/8 23/15 30/25
33/3 42/15 47/10 55/2
66/17 68/21 81/1
100/15 101/4 101/11
106/10 116/1 122/4
125/20 126/3 131/24
138/16 147/15 147/19)
148/25 154/3 154/25
167/6 167/7 168/8
175/9
multiple [1] 76/17
multiplier [2] 64/6
64/10
multitude [1] 87/6
must [10] 6/21 26/10
31/6 87/11 96/14
96/16 96/24 122/13
134/17 158/11
mustn't [1] 96/25
187/10 187/11 187/15)
mutualisation [2]
157/18 183/23
my [82] 3/21 8/11
17/20 19/11 20/3
20/10 23/9 23/14
24/17 35/3 42/1 52/2
59/23 62/22 63/23
64/6 76/12 80/5 98/11
102/2 105/10 105/17
106/24 107/3 107/22
107/23 108/2 108/7
108/9 108/19 110/7
111/22 112/4 114/20
115/13 116/5 116/15
118/6 121/23 124/2
128/16 128/21 130/3
132/4 132/21 133/17
137/2 138/14 141/23
143/24 143/25 148/2
148/9 148/10 149/7
151/20 151/21 151/22)
152/21 152/25 153/9
155/10 161/21 165/10)
169/24 172/6 173/18
174/10 174/17 174/25)
175/6 176/4 180/11
181/1 181/22 182/13
182/17 183/14
myriad [1] 84/13
myself [7] 41/22
41/22 44/9 59/10 99/7
114/20 174/23
mystery [1] 24/22
N
name [10] 1/9 44/19
82/8 82/10 90/20
90/25 98/11 101/20
160/5 182/17
named [3] 57/13
68/12 181/8
names [5] 55/12
67/15 74/23 75/23
159/22
narrow [1] 64/16
nature [10] 16/18
48/25 56/6 58/10
60/14 61/6 80/7 90/19
129/12 133/7
NBIT [8] 45/2 45/6
45/11 45/17 46/10
79/13 80/22 82/2
NDPB [1] 122/12
near [2] 152/10
182/21
necessarily [9] 16/3
31/13 32/6 50/9 61/14
114/17 165/13 180/15)
185/4
necessary [8] 3/12
71/2 76/1 91/18
105/25 111/7 152/24
176/15
8/12 11/6 17/16 17/19)
NEDs [4] 4/20 97/6
98/18 99/14
need [42] 5/23 14/5
27/8 37/21 47/13
49/11 51/13 53/18
53/20 54/20 64/4
65/14 71/15 72/20
77/6 77/24 78/1 78/4
78/11 80/18 81/7
81/15 81/16 89/20
92/23 96/24 102/10
104/4 113/2 116/24
125/9 135/18 141/22
143/15 160/6 160/14
179/6 180/16
needed [20] 13/15
38/24 50/4 50/6 50/11
50/22 51/10 52/1
52/25 58/9 65/21
111/1 116/4 138/17
139/6 148/16 163/14
167/7 181/3 186/13
needs [9] 26/4 26/9
26/12 26/15 30/12
34/9 61/21 67/14
164/25
negative [2] 105/22
169/3
negotiation [2]
147/19 147/24
neither [3] 36/5
99/18 187/24
network [4] 177/15
177/25 178/5 180/2
never [7] 86/2 86/25
99/23 118/6 118/7
166/25 167/23
nevertheless [1] 4/1
Neville [9] 169/4
169/9 169/20 170/6
173/5 188/12
Neville-Rolfe [8]
169/4 169/9 169/20
170/6 170/19 172/18
173/5 188/12
Neville-Rolfe's [1]
172/13
new [25] 10/6 10/23
17/8 20/4 20/13 26/13
29/2 29/11 31/4 52/7
71/5 80/10 80/22
81/20 84/23 85/3
103/20 113/14 169/13
172/22 172/23 173/14
180/4 180/6 186/14
newly [1] 185/6
news [1] 172/22
next [12] 13/5 24/10
39/2 66/11 97/1 129/5
159/8 159/20 169/25
169/25 172/10 182/14
NHS [1] 122/12
14/21 26/2 26/19 27/2
170/19 172/13 172/18}
Nic [1] 33/12
Nick [20] 12/20 44/25
45/4 45/6 46/2 46/14
47/7 62/24 62/25 63/5
63/24 64/4 65/16
65/20 66/11 69/12
69/17 75/13 117/21
117/23
Nick Read's [1]
12/20
night [1] 17/7
no [100] 3/21 4/20
8/19 9/12 9/19 9/22
19/11 19/12 23/4 23/8}
23/10 24/5 24/18
24/22 38/12 44/15
46/17 50/19 50/19
50/19 51/3 57/15
58/19 59/4 61/4 63/19
63/19 65/22 66/1
73/13 74/10 76/21
79/9 79/24 83/12
83/24 83/24 85/16
86/17 87/4 87/5 87/5
87/15 87/17 88/17
88/18 88/23 89/20
90/16 92/5 94/20 98/7
99/25 100/10 118/6
120/10 121/8 121/19
122/18 122/19 131/6
133/10 136/18 141/13
142/1 143/24 143/24
144/2 147/3 147/8
147/14 149/15 149/15}
153/13 153/13 153/18
153/21 153/24 155/6
155/16 156/17 157/1
157/5 158/10 160/12
160/12 160/16 161/16}
162/9 162/14 164/25
170/18 175/9 177/5
181/18 183/4 183/13
188/1 188/15 188/18
nobody [6] 3/22
24/23 51/25 85/14
87/23 115/23
nodded [5] 68/19
94/7 99/22 119/18
179/18
nodding [3] 179/2
183/12 183/24
nods [1] 46/21
Nolan [3] 134/10
152/10 176/10
non [32] 2/20 3/1 4/3
8/15 10/20 17/2 20/6
20/10 33/8 40/9 47/16
58/13 62/13 69/11
69/13 69/16 69/22
72/24 74/25 85/13
96/10 121/2 123/18
124/15 131/16 154/9
154/18 155/4 155/9
161/6 170/15 172/23
non-cash [1] 121/2
non-classified [1]
124/15
non-departmental [1]
123/18
non-exec [2] 154/18
155/9
non-execs [1] 172/23
Non-Executive [20]
2/20 3/1 8/15 17/2
20/6 20/10 33/8 40/9
47/16 62/13 69/11
69/13 69/16 69/22
72/24 74/25 131/16
154/9 155/4 161/6
non-existent [1]
170/15
non-statutory [1]
10/20
none [2] 89/8 117/18
Nonetheless [1]
142/22
nor [5] 36/5 99/18
108/5 128/7 187/24
normal [12] 5/21
28/3 69/3 75/25
112/23 121/8 144/12
144/17 145/6 145/12
152/11 169/24
normally [9] 4/3 14/2
15/2 16/11 22/2 22/7
34/4 62/1 148/21
not [241]
note [9] 9/24 36/3
69/13 69/15 70/4
155/20 156/25 159/18)
187/14
noted [2] 49/17 119/2
notes [1] 173/16
nothing [5] 46/19
46/23 46/25 140/1
150/25
notice [1] 71/1
notifying [2] 98/1
98/4
noting [1] 48/19
November [2] 57/23
81/8
now [77] 9/15 9/16
12/6 16/23 18/11 20/1
21/3 23/23 33/6 34/20I
36/9 39/20 40/6 45/8
49/4 51/16 56/5 58/22)
66/19 71/4 74/16 77/8I
77/20 79/11 83/1 86/9I
86/15 87/11 88/1
88/18 88/25 89/18
92/9 100/1 100/6
100/15 101/9 101/24
102/8 115/18 116/18
116/19 120/21 121/9
121/19 122/2 123/12
133/9 140/13 140/16
142/20 145/18 146/4
(67) Mrs Vennells - now
N
now... [24] 146/17
148/3 150/10 150/11
157/3 157/9 160/22
162/16 163/11 165/21
166/4 166/14 167/19
168/23 173/13 173/17
182/22 183/11 183/17
184/4 184/15 186/3
186/24 187/2
NR [4] 17/6
nuanced [2] 25/5
174/13
nuclear [2] 151/5
177/13
number [31] 2/7 8/16
17/1 17/17 20/19 22/4}
27/2 36/15 45/3 60/8
63/25 65/12 65/15
71/21 73/24 77/9
92/12 94/19 94/19
97/3 103/5 132/3
139/1 143/17 150/22
156/3 157/22 160/5
180/4 182/18 182/25
Number 1 [1] 63/25
Number 10 [1] 139/1
Number 3 [1] 65/12
number 4 [1] 160/5
number 6 [1] 27/2
numerous [4] 24/3
79/11 83/8 89/15
oO.
objective [3] 105/3
118/23 153/7
objectives [1] 161/13
obligations [2] 68/13
126/1
observer [1] 100/18
obsessed [1] 13/6
obtained [1] 39/8
obvious [2] 24/18
64/5
obviously [30] 8/6
15/16 32/5 41/16
54/16 54/19 57/5
59/18 61/5 63/7 78/21
81/15 83/10 93/24
94/2 111/3 112/6
116/20 126/17 133/24
139/13 139/22 145/1
151/2 152/6 162/11
168/12 176/21 182/8
187/21
occasion [5] 61/11
76/4 144/13 154/5
169/20
occasionally [3]
111/12 144/14 174/9
occasions [4] 53/18
89/15 166/24 180/17
occurred [3] 87/24
93/7 139/15
occurring [1] 186/3
October [5] 81/5
102/14 102/15 103/10)
189/12
October 2010 [1]
103/10
October 2022 [2]
81/5 102/15
October 2023 [1]
102/14
October 2024 [1]
189/12
odd [3] 32/12 32/14
113/25
Odgers [1] 181/14
off [19] 5/15 15/25
16/10 21/20 24/13
24/14 24/16 32/9
33/14 33/17 87/3 93/7
103/16 109/14 115/1
128/1 135/13 135/14
146/23
offer [2] 83/17 88/18
offered [1] 55/21
offhand [1] 122/24
office [176] 3/1 4/14
7/19 8/11 10/3 10/24
11/24 12/4 12/22
15/11 16/2 16/15 17/6
21/5 24/4 26/15 27/13
29/20 34/25 35/9
35/11 36/6 37/4 38/10
39/5 44/6 44/24 53/4
53/11 53/21 53/23
54/1 55/22 57/7 60/24
71/2 71/15 71/22
72/10 77/22 81/5 81/8
82/16 84/19 88/2
90/13 94/9 94/13 98/3
103/7 104/10 104/13
105/8 105/11 105/15
106/20 107/7 107/14
107/19 108/8 109/9
112/17 112/20 115/10)
117/19 118/10 119/2
119/12 119/21 119/25)
120/8 121/15 123/9
123/23 125/16 128/20)
128/24 129/2 130/15
131/5 131/9 131/20
132/9 132/11 132/18
132/22 133/5 133/10
133/14 133/16 135/8
135/14 135/22 136/24)
138/14 138/19 138/21
139/20 140/15 140/25)
141/5 141/8 141/16
142/8 143/1 143/4
143/9 143/25 144/19
146/17 146/20 146/23)
146/24 154/25 155/12)
155/20 155/25 156/2
156/10 156/24 158/18)
159/1 159/5 159/16
160/10 160/14 160/24
161/8 161/9 162/8
162/11 162/21 162/23
163/5 163/13 163/25
164/5 164/17 165/7
165/17 167/1 167/10
168/9 168/16 169/5
170/14 170/25 171/20}
171/24 172/13 172/14
172/21 174/20 175/4
176/11 177/16 177/24
178/1 178/11 178/13
178/20 180/19 181/1
181/5 182/1 182/4
182/8 183/17 183/21
184/11 184/20 186/5
186/7 186/14 187/20
188/15
Office's [20] 7/2
13/23 35/21 36/21
36/24 37/8 84/9 84/13)
84/21 85/5 88/7 88/7
90/20 91/1 91/13
120/23 142/9 142/20
156/1 156/8
Officer [44] 2/15
12/12 33/13 45/7 46/8
55/16 59/11 60/17
72/19 106/25 107/4
112/1 117/14 118/9
118/13 118/20 118/22
119/11 119/20 120/3
120/6 120/8 120/23
120/24 121/14 121/14)
121/23 121/24 122/2
122/6 122/10 122/13
122/16 123/2 127/16
128/6 129/20 130/4
134/10 134/15 134/17
134/24 135/10 161/10
Officer's [2] 134/6
134/20
officers [6] 28/25
120/20 122/21 126/13
127/4 134/16
offices [3] 115/22
146/15 180/4
official [4] 108/25
135/20 147/24 150/16
officials [14] 110/23
111/4 111/4 111/7
111/8 116/24 141/21
149/8 161/24 162/1
169/1 169/15 181/12
186/2
officials’ [1] 110/25
often [3] 111/12
113/10 154/1
oh [4] 63/6 80/23
138/2 177/5
Okay [6] 126/11
185/5 185/14 185/25
186/24 187/7
old [1] 80/13
old-fashioned [1]
80/13
on [309]
once [17] 15/7 22/19
24/18 27/3 27/13 50/8
61/2 70/13 83/13 93/9)
112/19 114/25 115/7
123/19 154/4 162/4
176/5
one [96] 3/24 4/10
4/15 5/15 5/24 8/14
8/18 9/2 10/19 12/8
12/15 12/16 13/25
14/25 17/11 17/11
18/5 18/15 21/6 21/20)
23/16 24/5 25/25
25/25 27/2 28/19 38/3)
39/18 41/15 41/18
44/10 45/5 46/16 51/6)
56/5 56/5 57/12 61/16
62/12 69/25 80/12
80/25 81/19 82/8 83/2
83/7 87/17 89/17
90/24 91/1 92/5 94/5
97/9 98/15 98/21
102/9 102/18 105/12
105/15 107/4 107/14
107/19 109/9 110/1
110/7 111/10 111/19
112/15 114/13 119/19
133/11 134/5 135/25
137/2 137/2 137/6
138/6 138/8 139/13
144/16 147/14 157/13
158/20 164/14 164/19)
164/25 167/22 168/10
168/22 174/14 175/9
178/15 178/22 181/8
182/21 182/23
ones [5] 32/10 83/8
106/15 147/23 157/17,
ongoing [4] 8/25
80/1 132/24 157/20
only [11] 8/10 12/22
34/7 51/21 53/14
85/17 99/1 143/8
149/6 154/6 154/16
ONS [2] 126/2 126/6
onus [1] 7/9
onwards [2] 115/9
115/19
open [4] 41/25 46/8
72/18 132/1
open-plan [1] 72/18
opening [1] 180/4
openly [1] 46/14
operate [2] 14/4
184/11
operates [2] 14/17
135/1
operating [6] 2/14
13/13 31/7 34/19
125/13 182/4
operation [2] 30/4
30/5
operational [4]
130/14 141/8 155/1
158/23
operations [2]
132/17 133/4
opinion [1] 63/23
opinions [1] 19/10
opportunity [4] 13/17I
31/5 40/20 78/22
opposition [1] 87/13
options [1] 149/10
or [183] 5/1 6/21 7/24
9/17 10/14 10/16 12/6I
13/22 17/22 18/5 19/4I
19/10 20/18 20/19
20/24 22/23 23/17
23/24 26/1 29/17 30/2I
32/9 36/15 39/9 39/11
39/19 40/16 44/20
45/19 45/23 46/10
46/25 47/19 52/23
53/19 53/19 53/20
53/20 54/4 54/14
60/22 65/13 65/20
65/25 67/25 68/6 71/5
77/4 79/3 79/19 81/25I
84/8 85/3 85/13 86/5
86/13 86/21 86/22
87/13 89/24 92/15
93/3 94/9 95/22 96/1
97/15 98/2 98/3
104/10 104/14 105/15)
105/23 106/5 106/10
106/11 107/18 108/13)
111/6 111/8 111/10
4114/17 111/25 112/1
112/2 112/4 113/7
113/14 113/16 113/22)
113/24 114/3 114/9
415/10 117/14 117/4
119/12 119/24 120/3
120/8 120/16 121/6
122/12 122/17 122/24)
1425/7 125/12 126/1
127/9 127/13 127/18
134/24 136/8 136/16
136/21 137/18 138/18}
138/21 138/24 139/1
139/4 139/10 139/15
139/17 139/21 141/22)
142/7 143/10 143/10
144/24 147/9 148/7
148/25 149/3 149/4
149/5 150/4 150/9
150/18 152/21 153/10}
153/11 153/16 154/8
155/1 155/9 157/1
159/10 160/9 160/11
161/19 161/21 161/21
163/19 165/2 166/4
166/13 167/5 168/4
168/7 168/7 169/10
(68) now... - or
[e)
170/7 171/2 172/14
174/8 174/16 174/21
179/20 181/15 183/9
oral [2] 101/5 101/22
order [3] 11/6 48/23
1415/5
Ordinarily [1] 61/22
ordinary [1] 144/9
Ordnance [1] 108/1
4/8 5/18 14/17 15/23
20/13 29/21 29/24
70/14 70/15 76/11
76/14 89/16 96/8
109/4 116/7 122/11
122/23 129/4 134/21
134/25 138/9 147/7
151/4 151/25 152/5
152/9 152/14 162/12
165/17 167/3 168/20
175/2 184/5
organisational [3]
114/4 138/8 139/8
organisations [8]
13/24 52/9 105/13
114/1 116/8 135/25
174/19 184/21
original [1] 57/12
Orme [1] 181/13
other [54] 4/12 4/18
4/20 5/21 8/25 9/17
12/7 12/16 16/4 21/7
22/9 23/16 31/14 52/2
52/8 61/25 67/15 68/1
72/18 73/10 79/17
89/19 95/7 96/11 97/9
100/25 106/5 107/24
111/8 112/7 112/25
115/14 116/20 119/19)
121/25 122/1 122/24
124/14 125/12 128/5
128/8 146/6 157/17
169/1 170/3 171/15
172/8 174/21 175/25
179/13 180/18 181/4
184/20 185/2
others [15] 15/25
17/18 29/13 52/3
53/19 56/11 68/24
69/15 74/21 112/9
112/13 113/14 140/25}
163/6 175/22
otherwise [3] 50/7
136/15 145/12
ought [16] 37/3 41/15]
or... [22] 169/25
175/19 175/20 176/11
183/13 184/16 184/17)
184/24 185/10 185/20)
185/20 186/16 187/22)
organisation [42] 4/5
34/14 50/4 50/16 52/7
58/21 63/10 65/7 68/3
65/14 86/22 92/20
159/6 176/20 184/15
184/16 184/23 185/8
185/8 185/11 186/9
186/11 188/3
our [21] 4/15 35/13
36/2 37/6 54/22 58/23
69/4 69/16 78/10
145/8 146/4 147/21
151/12 154/14 159/7
168/10 172/5 185/18
ourselves [4] 16/18
43/13 96/6 96/12
out [68] 2/13 3/9 3/19
6/2 6/7 6/24 7/4 8/24
9/11 9/15 9/18 21/14
21/21 25/24 34/22
34/23 34/24 39/22
43/11 44/7 49/3 53/1
53/2 53/8 54/11 55/13)
55/24 57/7 63/2 65/18
65/24 66/2 67/16 69/2
79/6 81/20 82/18
93/25 94/10 97/15
97/16 98/8 111/11
114/24 115/5 121/6
121/21 124/12 126/8
131/10 133/5 133/19
134/8 138/23 143/10
144/1 144/9 145/6
148/9 164/22 168/10
170/7 175/16 177/12
179/11 180/16 181/24)
189/3
out-turn [1] 6/2
outcome [4] 7/4 11/8
129/17 176/8
outcomes [1] 136/16
outline [1] 166/5
outlook [1] 43/19
outrage [1] 85/18
outside [8] 24/4 35/8
53/16 112/12 112/22
123/20 127/20 142/25)
outsourcing [1]
81/13
outstanding [1]
159/5
outturn [1] 26/14
over [58] 3/8 5/10
21/15 22/1 24/4 24/25
25/11 25/24 35/16
35/17 39/1 40/2 41/1
41/2 41/6 45/17 46/12
49/1 49/15 51/7 52/18
59/10 66/17 84/14
91/19 104/15 106/9
108/17 108/18 108/19)
108/20 108/22 109/7
112/6 119/9 122/7
124/23 127/1 127/1
128/15 130/23 131/9
132/10 132/14 147/19}
107/12 113/19 135/25)
149/3 158/2 160/1
161/16 163/7 165/8
168/6 169/13 177/3
186/10
over-complicated [1]
22/1
overall [10] 3/13 6/18
16/12 18/7 70/13
114/18 136/1 142/15
168/14 177/22
overboarding [1]
4/11
overcome [1] 14/24
overhead [1] 40/25
overlooked [1] 152/3
overrun [1] 80/25
oversaw [1] 56/17
oversee [4] 105/22
115/10 132/20 133/6
overseeing [1] 58/6
overseen [1] 90/13
oversight [7] 76/25
77/3 105/7 118/25
131/22 136/4 164/2
overview [3] 49/25
104/23 109/21
overwhelmingly [1]
58/25
own [22] 11/6 23/9
23/14 47/19 47/24
59/19 60/9 78/10
80/16 84/21 95/15
102/2 106/4 112/10
117/20 122/20 133/10}
137/10 162/22 163/18
172/5 186/6
owned [1] 12/23
P
pack [1] 77/12
package [2] 15/25
177/22
packages [4] 28/18
31/20 32/15 34/7
page [63] 1/15 3/8
6/5 6/8 11/20 13/19
21/12 21/12 21/13
24/25 25/24 30/1
35/16 35/17 36/1 40/2
45/18 46/12 49/1
49/15 51/7 52/18
52/19 53/1 66/17
66/17 72/3 72/4 102/4
102/11 104/22 109/14
118/19 119/9 122/9
124/7 124/24 126/16
127/1 127/1 130/18
130/19 130/23 134/6
134/14 136/19 149/24
155/22 159/14 160/1
161/3 162/19 163/7
168/24 170/10 171/19}
172/11 177/6 178/25
177/17 181/12 185/10
180/16 181/7 182/14
190/16
page 1 [1] 172/11
page 12 [1] 136/19
149/24
page 14 [1] 118/19
page 19 [2] 122/9
134/14
page 2 [2] 66/17
170/10
page 208 [1] 126/16
page 210 [1] 127/1
page 29 [1] 124/24
page 3 [9] 3/8 6/5 6/8
53/1 102/11 104/22
page 33 [2] 102/4
178/25
page 37 [1] 180/16
page 39 [1] 181/7
page 4 [2] 36/1 124/7
page 5 [3] 30/1 51/7
109/14
Page 55 [2] 130/18
130/19
page 6 [2] 21/12
161/3
page 7 [2] 21/12
21/13
page 9 [1] 134/6
page 94 [1] 162/19
pages [3] 102/3
127/1 138/12
paid [2] 31/25 91/15
painful [2] 90/3
115/20
paint [1] 72/24
painted [2] 42/21
43/14
pandemic [1] 5/16
paper [3] 28/24 29/16
179/5
papers [12] 28/21
32/25 33/1 33/15
43/21 99/2 99/17
99/19 100/12 100/14
138/10 154/3
papers/presentation
s [1] 28/21
paragraph [42] 3/8
6/10 19/17 19/18
21/18 21/18 21/22
22/16 22/17 24/10
24/10 24/12 24/17
24/21 28/15 30/2 31/2
46/6 47/5 55/24 59/6
63/3 70/22 72/3 72/4
83/3 98/25 102/11
104/5 105/1 109/13
118/20 119/9 122/9
126/25 129/6 136/20
143/16 161/4 162/18
179/10 179/24
page 13 [3] 72/3 72/4
155/22 168/24 171/19)
paragraph 1 [1]
28/15
paragraph 1.4 [1]
6/10
paragraph 10 [2]
30/2 104/5
paragraph 15 [1]
109/13
paragraph 16 [1]
161/4
paragraph 19 [1]
55/24
Paragraph 2 [1]
21/22
paragraph 2.1 [1] 3/8)
paragraph 214 [1]
162/18
Paragraph 26 [1]
59/6
paragraph 3 [2]
22/16 22/17
paragraph 3.1.1 [1]
122/9
paragraph 30 [1]
136/20
paragraph 38 [1]
118/20
paragraph 39 [1]
119/9
paragraph 4 [1]
24/10
paragraph 44 [1]
70/22
paragraph 45 [2]
72/3 72/4
paragraph 5 [2]
24/17 24/21
paragraph 54 [1]
83/3
paragraph 59 [1]
98/25
paragraph 6 [1]
102/11
paragraph 7.3.13 [1]
126/25
paragraph 8 [1]
105/1
paragraph 84 [1]
143/16
paragraphs [1]
104/21
paragraphs 7 [1]
104/21
parallel [1] 109/2
parameters [1]
127/24
parent [1] 125/15
Parker [2] 170/7
172/23
Parliament [8] 68/17
141/15 142/16 142/18)
144/5 144/13 146/14
179/14
Parliamentarians [1]
(6:
9) or... - Parliamentarians
Pp
Parliamentarians...
[1] 186/4
Parliamentary [2]
55/11 124/15
part [27] 16/14 23/3
23/4 38/19 39/19 44/6
47/9 49/22 57/22 58/6)
91/16 95/19 98/15
100/8 103/16 135/25
144/12 144/16 149/16)
153/14 163/3 167/9
169/24 177/20 177/22)
185/9 189/5
Participants [3] 92/4
17712 17715
particular [29] 4/4
4/22 5/8 11/3 16/5
27/21 30/17 32/4 37/5
51/6 58/4 59/2 61/10
61/11 73/18 75/4 78/6
78/7 82/6 85/25 87/7
89/7 91/16 96/23 99/1
116/16 134/17 163/19}
176/3
particularly [11]
11/17 23/10 23/12
31/23 36/7 60/16
62/23 113/1 157/16
169/13 179/21
partly [4] 56/8 56/9
56/9 80/6
partner [6] 105/13
107/25 114/1 116/8
175/14 184/5
partners [3] 116/12
118/25 135/4
parts [7] 103/15
105/14 111/19 115/14}
136/22 159/1 175/25
party [1] 35/7
pass [4] 29/8 99/8
155/5 171/8
passages [1] 10/1
passed [2] 96/4
170/2
past [13] 9/4 21/3
29/22 33/21 45/25
47/13 73/19 74/2
97/10 115/19 144/20
144/22 157/7
paths [1] 55/18
Patrick [8] 98/9
98/10 98/12 101/1
182/15 182/17 190/10
190/18
Paula [7] 154/5 154/6
159/18 159/22 160/9
162/5 188/17
pause [3] 70/10
81/12 122/8
pausing [2] 10/21
49/4
pay [18] 9/9 12/21
13/3 13/4 13/6 13/8
13/10 13/16 14/6
15/11 16/4 26/1 26/4
31/14 33/20 34/1 34/7
37/21
payback [1] 41/2
paying [1] 86/20
payment [1] 10/5
peculiar [1] 133/9
people [96] 7/9 8/16
8/18 11/7 11/9 12/12
15/24 15/25 16/10
17/1 19/5 20/19 21/4
23/13 24/3 25/10
25/14 28/25 29/1 29/2
29/8 31/12 31/14 32/2
32/5 33/13 34/8 34/15)
43/16 43/18 44/13
45/3 45/23 45/25
46/21 46/23 47/8
47/12 47/18 50/8
50/21 55/16 59/11
60/8 60/17 60/20 61/5
68/2 70/10 71/16
72/15 72/19 74/7 75/3)
75/14 75/24 76/13
76/18 76/21 77/24
82/5 87/13 96/7 97/16
97/18 98/5 106/11
108/6 110/9 111/20
114/2 114/17 114/23
116/17 120/15 130/14)
132/2 136/14 142/10
148/12 149/1 159/22
165/9 165/12 167/23
168/5 168/12 168/15
172/5 176/18 181/8
182/12 185/19 186/6
186/19 187/2
per [10] 3/14 92/23
92/25 93/4 93/5 93/6
93/8 93/10 125/6
175/12
perceived [3] 113/18
170/15 170/17
percentage [1] 40/24
perception [1] 47/24
perfectly [2] 28/3
121/10
performance [5] 3/12!
7/2 7/16 36/8 56/10
performed [4] 133/15
155/24 168/12 168/13)
performing [2] 47/23
110/6
perhaps [19] 6/3
35/15 37/20 43/7 44/1
58/17 64/16 65/15
66/4 73/17 95/6
154/24 164/14 164/21
174/13 174/24 176/13)
176/18 178/1
period [18] 4/1 25/11
41/1 55/21 64/25 65/8
65/11 69/8 81/17
97/17 105/12 106/9
109/7 117/25 122/7
131/10 132/23 177/17I
Perkins [12] 153/25
154/1 154/7 154/8
158/15 158/19 158/20
162/10 186/24 187/7
187/11 187/15
perm [1] 146/16
permanent [41] 24/6
55/21 103/6 103/9
103/18 103/20 104/1
104/3 104/5 104/7
104/9 105/18 107/20
107/22 109/15 109/19}
110/4 112/25 117/17
117/25 118/12 118/14
121/25 124/1 127/10
127/14 129/25 130/8
136/6 139/23 141/19
150/17 151/11 154/2
160/20 161/10 161/21
161/25 171/11 189/5
189/7
persisted [1] 67/12
persistent [2] 156/3
157/22
person [11] 39/2
51/21 58/20 61/21
71/5 71/7 73/18
119/15 129/19 129/23
174/12
person's [1] 91/2
personal [8] 76/12
106/19 106/23 108/10
109/20 118/16 187/10}
187/15
personalities [1]
20/14
personally [8] 20/18
76/8 88/21 90/11
111/20 134/17 142/16
176/14
persons [1] 97/24
perspective [15]
15/13 15/14 18/24
23/14 41/4 49/3 91/11
107/22 108/7 128/17
128/21 130/4 160/7
162/3 173/20
perspective/understaI
nding [1] 160/7
perspectives [1]
117/11
persuade [1] 72/15
pertinent [1] 150/4
Peter [2] 155/14
155/15
phase [2] 3/15 123/8
Phase 5 [1] 123/8
phases [2] 4/10 29/7
Phoenix [2] 73/20
74/3
pick [3] 72/1 165/6
166/21
picked [6] 11/14
11/17 133/12 146/4
146/7 168/11
picture [4] 42/20
43/4 43/14 72/25
piece [1] 179/21
pieces [1] 166/19
Pineapple [4] 66/16
66/21 66/24 69/14
Pinsent [2] 57/8 58/2
place [28] 5/16 5/19
5/20 6/3 9/4 12/14
12/15 15/5 26/13 28/6
33/20 34/12 45/17
52/16 60/4 81/17
83/18 88/14 91/18
109/20 126/18 128/8
130/13 131/4 133/10
148/11 173/17 181/12)
placed [3] 22/19
83/16 110/25
plain [1] 64/7
plan [10] 6/17 7/7
18/6 40/21 41/10
72/18 133/3 159/7
180/3 181/9
planned [3] 81/5
93/23 180/5
plans [3] 6/21 31/1
54/14
plates [1] 116/14
play [1] 100/4
please [83] 1/9 1/15
3/6 3/8 9/23 11/19
16/22 16/22 16/25
19/13 21/12 24/25
27/23 27/23 30/1 30/3)
31/21 33/6 35/17 40/6
45/18 46/12 48/5 49/1
49/14 52/11 53/1
54/25 60/5 62/18
66/16 66/17 69/9
72/13 91/24 92/2
97/14 101/20 102/4
102/11 104/21 118/19}
119/9 121/15 122/9
123/4 123/22 124/7
124/24 125/22 126/15)
126/16 126/25 129/5
130/18 130/19 134/7
134/14 134/15 136/19}
140/17 140/19 146/11
146/21 153/24 155/13
155/22 159/13 159/14,
159/18 160/1 161/2
161/4 162/18 163/8
166/2 168/22 168/24
170/10 171/18 171/19}
172/11 178/24
pleased [1] 82/13
plenty [1] 175/23
plight [1] 90/1
pm [5] 101/12 101/14
140/8 140/10 189/11
PO [1] 169/5
point [47] 11/2 14/21
18/13 36/4 51/8 57/17)
58/3 65/17 70/16
74/11 80/17 92/3 97/9
103/24 106/16 112/20)
116/23 120/19 121/2
121/13 123/5 128/16
132/15 132/22 133/2
133/12 133/23 134/5
135/19 142/14 147/15)
155/18 156/17 158/14I
160/6 160/15 162/15
167/11 170/8 172/4
172/9 173/18 174/13
179/8 183/17 185/1
188/15
pointed [2] 177/12
189/3
points [16] 42/9 53/3
64/5 66/8 94/16 108/8I
113/20 113/23 114/13)
117/14 119/11 121/9
156/25 161/7 163/14
170/1
POL [1] 160/13
POL00006357 [1]
149/21
POL00027540 [1]
178/24
POL00028069 [1]
166/2
POL00116554 [1]
159/13
POL00363049 [1]
POL00363154 [2]
34/21
POL00438390 [1]
40/6
POL00447839 [1]
27/23
POL00447997 [1]
52/11
POL00448297 [1]
73/20
POL00448300 [1]
66/16
POL00448301 [1]
69/9
POL00448509 [1]
48/5
POL00448606 [1]
33/6
POL00448674 [1]
62/18
POL00448689 [1]
44/2
polarised [1] 43/10
police [2] 78/3 78/4
policies [6] 34/2
34/11 44/11 73/16
3/6
6/4
(70) Parliamentarians... - policies
P
policies... [2] 75/25
180/21
policy [26] 14/3 14/5
14/7 52/12 52/16
52/20 54/3 54/4 61/9
67/2 68/7 68/13
107/23 115/25 116/1
117/8 137/20 137/21
138/8 147/5 147/11
148/15 148/20 162/23
183/25 184/12
political [6] 108/24
113/7 113/18 139/11
185/7 185/8
politically [6] 112/2
139/13 174/21 178/19}
184/6 188/14
politics [1] 170/25
poor [4] 29/6 33/2
47/23 56/10
port [1] 149/7
portfolio [2] 2/19
116/21
portfolios [1] 4/15
position [10] 25/6
51/15 55/22 62/5 65/9
72/10 122/15 129/17
145/15 184/11
positions [3] 2/20
103/5 167/2
positive [3] 43/19
72/24 173/8
possible [8] 41/9
53/11 100/2 100/14
108/4 146/3 147/9
151/23
possibly [3] 11/5
138/7 138/8
post [180] 3/1 4/14
7/2 7/19 8/10 10/3
10/23 11/24 12/4
12/22 13/23 15/11
16/1 16/15 17/6 21/5
24/4 26/15 27/13
29/20 34/25 35/9
35/11 35/21 36/5
36/21 36/24 37/4 37/8)
38/10 39/5 44/6 44/24
53/4 53/11 53/21
53/23 54/1 55/22 57/7
60/23 71/2 71/15
71/22 72/10 77/21
81/5 81/8 82/16 84/9
84/12 84/18 84/21
85/5 88/1 88/6 88/7
90/13 90/20 91/1
91/13 94/9 94/13 98/2
103/12 105/7 105/11
105/15 106/20 107/7
107/14 107/19 108/8
109/9 112/17 112/19
115/10 117/19 118/10}
119/2 119/12 119/20
119/25 120/8 120/23
121/15 123/9 125/16
128/20 128/24 129/2
130/15 131/5 131/9
131/20 132/8 132/11
132/18 132/22 133/5
133/9 133/14 133/16
135/8 135/14 135/22
136/24 139/20 140/14)
140/24 141/8 142/9
142/20 143/4 143/9
144/19 146/20 146/22)
146/24 154/25 155/12)
155/25 156/1 156/2
156/8 156/10 158/18
159/1 159/5 159/15
160/10 160/13 160/23)
161/8 161/9 162/8
162/11 162/21 162/23}
163/4 163/13 163/25
164/5 164/17 165/6
165/17 167/1 167/10
168/9 168/16 169/5
170/14 170/25 172/21
174/20 175/4 176/11
177/16 177/24 178/1
178/11 178/12 178/20)
180/4 180/19 181/1
181/5 182/1 182/4
182/8 183/2 183/17
183/21 184/11 184/20)
186/5 186/7 186/13
187/20 188/15
postal [4] 105/7
105/23 107/18 108/14)
postmaster [13] 4/20
6/18 33/8 40/23 40/23
41/2 42/13 42/21 43/6
69/16 69/23 95/13
97/6
postmaster's [1]
15/14
postmasters [22]
6/19 8/8 8/15 27/19
41/6 43/10 54/6 54/9
54/18 67/12 73/5
73/10 73/14 82/14
82/25 83/6 89/19 96/6
97/4 97/17 97/19
157/19
postmasters' [2]
41/3 42/11
postmistresses [1]
8/9
potential [3] 29/8
56/8 58/14
potentially [7] 32/12
67/21 68/25 76/6 83/9)
85/20 150/22
power [3] 67/18
174/7 174124
powerful [1] 145/24
PowerPoint [1] 183/8I
powers [1] 174/3
PR [2] 178/16 181/41
practical [3] 80/17
122/1 161/18
practically [1] 38/15
practice [9] 3/16 28/3
37/2 72/12 97/3
103/15 123/3 127/9
129/24
practices [1] 35/20
pre [1] 44/3
pre-dates [1] 44/3
precarious [1] 90/3
precise [3] 122/5
133/7 177/19
precisely [2] 152/22
161/16
predecessors [1]
161/21
predicate [1] 86/15
prefer [1] 22/2
preparation [1] 77/12)
preparing [2] 39/11
77/16
present [1] 74/13
presentation [2]
32/25 183/8
presentations [1]
28/21
presented [7] 17/16
43/7 43/17 95/22
95/25 179/1 179/5
press [2] 70/11 186/4
pressed [1] 141/4
pressure [2] 106/9
140/14
pressures [5] 12/23
31/7 62/24 63/5 69/18
presumably [3]
65/19 151/13 171/25
presuming [1] 68/4
pretty [5] 35/2 62/16
120/13 154/3 187/17
prevent [2] 70/8
114/9
prevented [1] 114/9
previous [8] 4/10
13/19 29/7 32/23
55/16 76/6 135/13
170/22
previously [5] 12/20
55/18 67/11 70/23
158/15
prices [1] 125/8
primary [3] 108/2
126/8 161/7
Prime [1] 148/14
principal [2] 63/22
104/15
principally [1] 58/24
principles [7] 53/2
129/14 134/8 134/10
134/11 152/11 176/10
prior [6] 28/23 45/12
52/15 53/17 63/4
158/14
priorities [2] 49/20
50/9
prioritise [1] 113/6
prioritised [1] 108/13
priority [3] 47/25
74/8 148/6
private [19] 37/2 37/6
37/14 69/15 104/10
104/13 104/15 104/16)
126/5 126/7 138/14
138/19 138/21 146/15}
146/17 171/20 171/24}
172/13 172/14
privatisation [3]
107/24 133/20 139/12}
probably [9] 27/22
43/16 105/9 117/21
140/4 143/25 151/20
169/25 172/17
probationary [1]
55/21
probing [1] 174/18
probity [1] 135/2
problem [13] 14/13
24/23 32/22 37/19
108/21 114/25 165/1
165/15 170/13 170/15)
170/17 171/16 176/14}
problematic [1]
128/24
problems [4] 93/16
114/2 139/7 167/22
procedure [1] 54/3
procedures [1] 34/2
proceedings [1]
7715
process [42] 23/19
24/11 24/15 25/11
32/21 44/24 50/1 58/6
58/13 61/3 61/7 61/15
64/12 64/23 67/5 69/4,
73/6 75/4 78/25 82/15)
86/21 90/10 90/10
90/12 90/19 98/1 98/4
112/24 115/20 120/25}
124/9 138/15 138/25
145/6 156/12 160/23
178/3 178/3 178/9
180/12 180/18 185/8
processes [8] 6/19
34/10 44/12 73/17
75/25 77/11 81/3
156/9
produce [3] 120/17
139/7 176/7
produced [7] 10/7
27/24 28/2 107/12
119/3 165/14 182/25
produces [1] 142/9
production [2] 27/25
125/6
professional [6] 4/16
122/3 146/2 161/22
165/11 187/2
professionalism [1]
166/23
professionally [4]
53/5 110/9 111/21
180/13
profile [1] 51/14
profitability [2] 40/23
41/1
programme [8] 45/11
45/19 54/2 63/8
175/12 177/16 177/25)
178/5
programmes [1]
147/21
progress [4] 25/17
91/23 122/7 140/3
progressed [1] 21/15)
progressing [1]
173/4
Project [5] 56/22
66/15 66/21 66/24
69/14
projected [1] 115/21
projections [1] 81/21
projects [3] 50/15
56/24 74/9
promised [1] 62/21
promote [1] 53/23
promoting [2] 54/10
105/4
promotion [1] 105/5
prompted [2] 32/3
184/15
proof [1] 162/25
proper [4] 3/12 37/22
50/4 50/11
properly [10] 44/12
81/23 90/17 90/19
95/25 112/5 166/25
170/4 173/23 188/13
proposal [2] 26/3
74/16
proposals [7] 27/1
32/19 34/5 41/18 42/2
79/9 79/12
proposed [4] 28/7
32/16 49/16 160/17
propriety [2] 85/14
89/11
prosecuted [4] 82/17
97/12 118/5 186/6
prosecutes [1]
142/10
prosecution [4] 84/8
150/4 150/5 162/23
prosecutions [14]
117/20 118/4 132/19
132/20 132/22 132/24I
133/5 133/8 133/11
133/15 144/20 144/22)
157/7 162/22
prosecutorial [1]
a)
policies... - prosecutorial
Pp
118/1
prospectus [1]
152/19
protected [1] 53/8
protections [1] 53/6
proved [1] 41/17
provide [11] 7/9 19/1
40/20 54/1 78/4 82/4
156/14 161/11
provided [7] 14/7
48/19 81/24 150/2
151/8 157/14 163/5
provides [1] 31/4
providing [4] 111/17
131/17 134/1 189/3
provision [3] 77/14
165/1 184/14
public [82] 2/12 7/24
8/6 14/2 14/19 15/18
37/4 37/14 47/1 53/6
85/17 107/1 118/17
119/4 119/14 120/10
120/13 120/19 121/4
121/5 121/5 121/17
122/6 122/14 122/17
122/19 123/4 123/5
123/14 123/14 123/24}
124/5 124/8 124/12
124/16 124/25 125/2
125/12 125/17 125/25
126/12 126/14 126/23}
127/4 127/5 127/8
127/20 127/24 128/4
128/9 128/12 128/13
128/14 128/20 129/2
129/7 129/14 129/23
130/18 130/20 130/22
131/2 134/9 134/11
135/4 136/9 141/17
151/3 152/8 176/11
176/15 176/16 176/23
183/22 184/5 184/12
184/13 186/38
publication [2] 85/18
143/21
publicise [1] 53/23
pu ising [1] 54/10
publicity [1] 82/24
publicly [5] 2/22
12/22 55/13 178/8
180/22
published [6] 2/7
87/8 143/22 146/13
156/6 177/11
purely [2] 9/12
111/14
purpose [6] 2/25
15/17 16/1 28/7 66/7
91/16
prosecutorial... [1]
119/15 126/23 130/14}
69/1 69/6 73/16 85/10
purposes [2] 5/21
123/14
purse [2] 184/13
186/8
pursue [2] 163/18
185/21
push [1] 153/6
pushed [1] 17/12
put [37] 3/24 5/15
5/19 5/20 15/4 15/25
16/10 17/20 18/11
18/15 23/24 27/5
33/19 40/15 51/18
51/21 69/2 74/17
78/19 88/14 91/18
97/25 98/4 106/10
108/11 109/11 130/8
130/13 145/14 158/7
158/8 167/16 170/2
184/23
putting [4] 26/13
Q
QC [1] 170/8
qualified [2] 2/9
107/13
qualify [2] 67/3 67/19)
quality [5] 15/22
28/21 29/6 33/1
142/17
quantum [1] 9/1
quarter [1] 97/10
quashed [2] 98/14
182/19
quasi [1] 122/2
quasi-Accounting [1]
122/2
queried [1] 49/20
query [1] 175/2
question [30] 15/10
41/25 43/1 83/2 86/7
87/15 87/18 98/9
107/2 112/4 114/12
114/20 117/3 132/10
133/22 133/24 134/1
141/23 143/11 147/14)
149/3 153/22 164/6
166/17 167/19 184/23)
185/10 185/13 188/7
188/11
questioned [17] 1/7
24/5 25/13 84/5 85/14
92/8 98/10 101/19
177/16 182/15 190/4
190/6 190/8 190/10
190/14 190/16 190/18)
questions [21] 45/19
78/15 84/1 84/2 87/12
97/22 100/25 102/25
113/10 114/3 138/9
165/2 174/1 174/18
176/25 177/1 177/3
176/13 182/11 184/18)
131/16 137/14 137/15)
182/13 186/5 188/19
189/2
quick [3] 79/16 79/18
138/11
quicker [1] 74/10
quickly [2] 38/1
73/19
quiet [2] 45/23 85/9
quite [20] 20/8 21/1
29/13 38/1 43/10
60/14 62/10 69/7
75/22 81/14 83/16
109/6 114/2 114/4
120/1 122/24 132/7
154/15 174/6 179/15
quote [1] 141/6
quoting [1] 75/18
R
R2 [1] 45/8
racist [1] 58/14
radar [3] 184/18
184/23 188/3
rails [1] 128/1
raise [8] 46/21 53/24
108/7 143/6 153/10
154/8 157/1 171/6
raise or [1] 154/8
raised [40] 30/23
45/4 45/16 47/2 48/22
53/12 56/2 62/25 66/6
67/7 68/16 79/19
95/15 111/1 113/4
115/5 137/17 138/2
139/20 141/19 141/25]
142/4 142/11 142/13
160/19 166/12 166/13}
166/13 166/15 167/1
169/22 170/19 171/25]
173/10 174/21 187/4
187/8 187/15 187/25
188/11
raises [3] 45/10 67/1
143/7
raising [3] 53/7 73/21
168/5
ran [1] 133/10
range [18] 2/12 13/18
74/19 103/5 105/2
105/9 105/20 105/25
107/25 109/18 114/1
114/14 123/17 142/1
144/12 146/3 148/15
164/20
rapidly [2] 113/17
151/23
rather [12] 41/20
48/1 58/25 59/21 66/6
75/16 90/9 129/3
139/15 174/15 178/12
181/24
rationale [4] 7/20
25/2 38/13 71/20
raw [1] 84/18
reach [2] 23/7 23/21
reached [2] 86/25
87/15
read [58] 4/7 9/25
18/22 18/25 19/4
46/13 46/14 47/6 49/2
49/5 49/8 49/21 53/2
56/3 59/5 59/14 59/22,
63/5 63/8 63/11 63/17)
63/20 64/18 65/10
66/20 68/11 69/1
69/24 70/16 72/16
75/7 75/14 75/17
75/18 77/13 92/15
92/17 102/15 113/3
117/21 149/16 150/9
156/16 156/17 156/21
166/5 167/20 167/20
178/15 180/14
Read's [3] 12/20 13/4
58/25
reading [2] 26/16
163/11
real [2] 96/2 117/15
realisation [1] 85/19
realised [2] 86/23
100/12
realising [1] 70/17
realistic [1] 3/20
reality [1] 45/21
really [29] 8/11 8/13
8/17 11/4 15/5 37/24
41/23 46/1 61/3 62/7
70/17 77/10 77/10
78/11 80/18 83/21
97/6 97/6 123/16
128/6 136/17 139/6
139/16 165/20 166/20}
167/4 188/2 188/10
188/13
reason [10] 7/25
20/11 68/10 68/23
69/2 69/6 87/10 134/3I
153/20 153/21
reasonable [1]
106/15
reasons [8] 16/4
29/15 32/18 53/20
97/3 112/1 145/11
154/21
reassure [1] 69/3
reassured [1] 112/14
reassuring [1] 66/11
recall [25] 10/13 12/8
12/17 17/15 20/1
111/13 111/15 112/18}
117/15 140/20 141/13}
150/5 154/7 154/19
154/21 155/14 156/16}
160/12 169/9 169/23
170/22 171/14 177/19}
181/18 187/24
12/25 13/6 13/16 17/6)
22/16 43/8 44/25 45/4,
receive [5] 11/4
41/17 90/2 96/25
166/3
received [5] 25/16
40/19 112/14 165/3
165/25
receiving [2] 95/10
95/21
recent [3] 11/23
97/25 159/19
recently [5] 2/22 45/3
83/20 100/15 178/15
recognise [4] 91/10
98/25 100/20 181/15
recognised [2] 31/6
36/6
recollection [8]
19/11 143/24 144/3
149/15 153/13 154/11
154/23 183/14
recollections [1]
38/13
recommend [1]
14/24
recommendations
[19] 6/20 14/23 25/1
25/25 28/9 28/10
28/19 35/15 37/6
39/21 39/24 39/25
40/4 44/7 62/4 100/8
155/17 156/8 167/15
recommended [3]
28/16 60/21 100/23
recommending [2]
26/23 174/3
reconsider [1] 78/24
recorded [2] 38/18
155/25
records [1] 38/12
recovery [1] 77/4
recruitment [1] 58/12)
rectified [1] 38/25
recusing [1] 155/9
Red [1] 140/2
redactions [1]
140/24
redress [2] 82/12
151/19
reduce [1] 71/21
reduced [1] 183/23
reducing [1] 109/7
reduction [1] 40/24
reengage [1] 26/15
refer [12] 104/24
106/17 106/19 115/6
118/20 119/22 126/14)
136/20 138/19 138/21
143/17 175/8
reference [6] 2/7
13/20 76/3 76/4
102/22 124/10
referred [12] 10/5
57/15 64/11 75/22
111/13 113/4 123/9
7)
prosecutorial... - referred
R
referred... [5] 142/12
143/5 147/16 176/9
178/16
referring [7] 31/23
33/22 119/6 129/7
130/22 146/24 159/24}
reflect [4] 2/2 17/14
17/20 29/5
reflected [5] 20/2
128/23 157/15 158/11
164/7
reflection [6] 54/7
114/7 116/18 164/1
167/13 175/17
reflections [1] 174/2
reflects [3] 19/22
127/9 127/9
refuses [1] 46/20
regard [5] 20/9 52/10
54/15 74/14 129/21
regarding [12] 8/25
9/17 10/4 33/25 47/3
56/3 59/22 70/21
77/14 79/14 88/3
171/20
regardless [4] 7/24
47/13 86/4 86/12
regards [5] 40/20
54/10 63/15 73/2
80/10
regional [2] 108/21
116/1
register [3] 137/8
175/8 176/4
registers [4] 137/9
175/4 175/22 175/24
registrars [1] 127/19
regret [1] 165/8
regular [4] 16/12
77/8 137/2 181/10
regularly [1] 139/15
regulations [1] 14/18
regulatory [1] 53/20
reinforcing [1]
161/13
reiterate [1] 182/9
relate [1] 76/2
related [7] 5/25 11/24)
41/15 57/4 59/5 76/22
147/7
relates [2] 61/4 83/2
relating [5] 3/25
26/24 78/6 147/16
149/22
relation [21] 12/8
18/12 25/7 35/10
35/22 36/21 38/2 49/6
58/12 68/17 72/15
75/11 76/6 76/19
90/21 92/4 95/11
96/23 97/23 118/10
126/22
relationship [11]
21/1 31/5 130/25
131/5 131/15 132/1
132/6 132/16 133/16
133/19 178/10
relatively [3] 52/7
65/15 186/14
relevant [7] 2/25 9/10)
111/18 139/25 158/25)
173/21 174/19
reliance [1] 110/25
reliant [1] 110/22
relied [3] 23/15 108/6
168/8
rely [6] 19/4 29/13
111/24 117/6 127/2
165/19
relying [1] 97/2
remain [2] 20/11
26/10
remained [2] 103/12
105/17
remaining [1] 183/2
remains [1] 30/15
remarkable [1] 44/18
remarkably [1] 41/17
remarks [2] 58/12
59/19
RemCo [25] 10/7
17/8 24/7 25/15 25/16
26/10 26/12 26/16
26/21 26/23 31/9
31/19 33/1 33/11
33/14 34/6 34/7 36/5
36/12 38/5 38/11
38/19 39/11 39/12
87/7
RemCo's [2] 38/16
38/17
remedy [1] 100/23
remember [8] 56/24
87/14 153/1 156/19
171/1 177/21 183/8
187/14
remembered [1]
187/18
remind [1] 176/18
remit [1] 62/8
remorse [1] 17/13
remotely [1] 166/8
removal [1] 62/14
removals [1] 62/17
remove [2] 62/1
183/9
removed [1] 61/21
removing [1] 18/16
remuneration [35]
4/25 5/11 9/2 12/11
13/25 15/8 21/5 22/2
27/24 28/17 30/21
32/8 32/11 32/17
35/21 35/22 36/22
36/25 37/8 37/16
39/12 39/19 40/12
40/24 41/13 41/19
78/20 79/10 79/12
85/8 95/16 99/21
99/24 100/11 100/18
renew [1] 116/9
repeated [2] 59/7
163/4
repercussions [1]
46/2
replace [1] 161/7
replaced [1] 5/21
replacement [2] 71/3
71/4
replied [1] 48/20
report [61] 6/6 6/13
10/8 10/11 10/14
11/18 16/23 17/8
17/13 17/117 17/19
17/24 18/1 18/14
19/14 19/19 19/21
20/3 20/12 23/17
23/17 27/24 28/5
28/11 28/13 30/19
35/1 35/12 39/12
39/13 39/21 54/13
56/17 57/19 78/17
79/4 79/7 85/18 85/23
86/22 87/5 87/9 89/5
93/13 100/9 107/15
119/3 119/5 134/18
143/15 143/20 143/22)
144/5 144/21 146/13
156/5 156/10 166/1
175/10 175/11 177/11
reported [3] 93/1
172/18 175/21
Reporter [2] 53/17
53/19
Reporter's [1] 53/16
reporters [1] 53/7
reporting [9] 26/14
53/10 107/15 109/24
110/21 128/10 145/3
161/25 171/22
reports [3] 78/25
81/11 91/2
represent [3] 92/12
98/12 182/17
representative [1]
93/15
representatives [1]
99/23
reprisals [1] 53/8
reputational [2]
121/1 142/22
request [3] 12/24
13/3 34/24
requested [3] 12/12
19/21 159/18
requests [1] 9/8
require [2] 28/22
148/17
required [16] 6/14
6/25 7/22 30/17 53/21
85/1 110/12 110/12
110/13 110/16 111/6
131/18 134/2 143/11
145/10 186/17
requirement [2]
60/25 129/13
requirements [3]
6/16 37/5 125/17
requiring [2] 91/1
156/22
reset [1] 31/5
residual [1] 121/8
resign [1] 72/21
resigning [2] 114/2
174/16
resolution [2] 73/6
93/2
resolve [2] 46/23
93/4
resolved [1] 15/6
resource [8] 106/9
114/21 115/10 115/23}
115/24 117/3 164/12
164/13
resourced [1] 165/20
resources [6] 36/6
110/10 116/4 116/15
139/10 148/13
resourcing [2]
106/16 139/3
respect [12] 4/18
19/12 27/21 38/16
47/20 60/7 77/4 104/9I
118/17 120/23 153/17}
1841/5
respect of [1] 4/18
respected [2] 180/12
181/4
respond [1] 182/12
responded [3] 92/20
92/24 93/8
response [5] 40/17
113/3 156/2 157/21
170/11
responses [1]
174/19
responsibilities [16]
50/15 105/3 105/10
105/25 106/4 108/6
110/7 114/14 117/12
118/16 121/23 126/22)
134/8 134/16 144/17
164/20
responsibility [22]
49/21 81/18 81/22
106/25 107/9 110/4
112/16 114/15 120/22,
120/25 121/1 123/2
127/15 135/11 135/24}
136/7 151/21 152/9
152/22 168/18 176/1
176/23
responsible [8] 34/7
76/25 121/22 126/9
134/24 142/16 184/4
187/3
rest [1] 85/25
restart [1] 175/18
restatement [2]
171/21 172/4
restored [1] 170/4
restricted [1] 14/8
restrictive [1] 14/15
result [8] 5/9 22/12
33/1 57/24 100/8
159/2 163/2 165/14
results [8] 41/2 42/13)
42/21 43/9 43/12
79/13 94/2 95/13
resume [1] 189/8
retail [1] 41/18
retain [3] 20/15 183/9)
183/9
retained [1] 88/2
retired [1] 2/17
retiring [1] 81/5
retrospect [5] 115/3
117/7 145/1 145/14
188/7
retrospective [1]
34/3
return [1] 18/23
reveal [1] 53/15
review [54] 3/22 5/8
5/9 5/12 5/23 8/3 8/12
8/25 9/11 9/18 11/25
15/7 16/23 17/7 26/21
27/25 28/3 34/20
34/21 35/3 35/6 35/6
35/20 36/13 62/7
62/24 77/6 77/11
78/11 83/13 83/17
88/2 132/17 140/15
141/5 141/10 141/12
141/16 142/7 142/7
143/1 143/4 143/9
144/20 145/6 156/4
157/7 158/16 158/17
167/5 167/5 170/8
183/10 185/19
reviewed [10] 14/3
18/4 19/17 22/6 54/16)
88/11 88/15 131/21
133/4 144/23
reviewing [4] 6/2
113/5 170/9 185/3
reviews [2] 35/6
168/2
revised [1] 52/16
revisit [1] 83/14
revisited [1] 24/18
revisiting [1] 25/4
reward [3] 26/14 30/9
30/11
rewarded [1] 85/4
Richard [4] 67/10
165/24 166/11 170/10)
rid [3] 58/17 61/18
(73) referred... - rid
R
rid... [1] 73/11
right [53] 1/12 1/13
2/10 3/2 4/6 5/4 10/15
17/22 17/22 19/14
21/10 21/23 43/24
45/22 46/4 48/6 50/22)
51/14 54/9 54/24 56/3
56/19 73/18 82/1 84/3
85/3 86/15 88/1 88/24,
90/24 93/21 96/13
96/25 98/7 99/2 99/10
103/8 106/22 124/20
124/22 128/10 133/1
137/1 143/19 154/14
164/5 167/6 167/21
177/17 179/3 182/8
188/25 189/8
rightly [4] 152/7
rights [1] 129/16
ring [1] 152/13
e [1] 14/6
ising [1] 144/11
risk [13] 53/19
136/21 137/7 137/9
163/1 172/25 174/16
175/3 175/7 175/8
175/22 175/24 176/4
risks [6] 155/20
156/24 175/10 175/20
176/2 176/5
RLIT0000325 [1]
123/22
RLIT0000342 [1]
19/13
Roberts [1] 67/15
robust [1] 136/18
role [46] 3/17 4/2 4/4
5/3 23/5 44/9 46/24
49/23 50/13 50/18
50/20 51/12 51/24
52/2 52/4 52/15 56/21
73/18 97/7 100/3
104/2 104/5 104/9
104/10 107/3 109/12
109/15 110/6 117/13
118/9 118/20 120/5
121/8 122/10 123/4
129/19 134/6 134/14
135/10 145/25 152/25}
154/2 154/9 171/11
188/10 189/6
roles [6] 50/14 52/2
52/6 73/19 74/2
104/18
Rolfe [8] 169/4 169/9
169/20 170/6 170/19
172/18 173/5 188/12
Rolfe's [1] 172/13
rollout [1] 45/8
rooted [1] 12/2
Rose [4] 56/22 56/23
56/25 62/25
Rose 2 [1] 56/25
rosy [3] 42/20 43/4
43/14
rough [1] 24/12
roughly [1] 112/19
round [3] 93/7 111/9
186/13
Royal [20] 105/11
106/20 107/1 107/24
119/1 119/12 119/13
120/9 121/14 128/19
131/10 133/19 133/20)
139/12 144/15 152/17)
152/19 153/3 183/18
185/6
rules [2] 14/17
127/22
run [5] 13/24 44/12
121/6 136/9 186/14
running [7] 4/21
15/16 15/18 16/3
76/17 109/4 110/18
runs [1] 102/3
rushed [1] 29/6
Russell [6] 162/7
162/20 168/25 173/3
173/13 181/13
Russell's [2] 161/3
162/18
s
Saf [4] 8/14 67/10
67/17 94/5
safe [1] 184/10
said [62] 5/2 8/16
11/12 11/22 12/21
12/25 13/12 17/14
17/20 24/3 39/15
51/17 52/24 55/17
55/20 56/12 56/16
57/1 59/24 60/6 61/17
67/10 68/20 71/14
71/25 75/12 82/12
92/24 93/8 93/10
93/21 94/8 94/13
94/17 95/2 95/19
97/13 99/12 99/13
99/15 109/13 115/24
115/25 118/7 151/16
156/23 162/4 165/10
167/24 168/3 168/19
169/9 171/3 171/3
171/5 171/14 172/19
174/8 175/5 175/22
183/11 187/7
Sajid [1] 171/20
salaries [1] 120/14
salary [1] 16/12
sale [7] 106/19
119/14 125/7 152/17
152/20 153/10 153/17)
salient [1] 108/8
same [19] 16/20 21/8
24/6 39/18 61/7 62/13
66/5 66/8 66/15 69/2
70/20 73/25 115/2
127/15 128/7 128/8
134/7 153/6 165/3
sample [1] 93/15
sat [2] 99/16 131/20
satisfactory [2]
170/5 173/8
satisfied [2] 10/18
159/2
satisfy [1] 110/5
satisfying [1] 6/15
save [1] 183/5
saw [8] 24/4 32/10
57/13 77/17 78/20
137/15 172/3 172/11
say [109] 10/23
14/10 14/14 16/9
17/21 20/2 22/13 23/9
24/14 24/22 27/2
27/11 32/16 33/9
33/18 34/6 34/9 34/17,
35/8 36/1 37/17 40/10
43/12 46/1 48/7 54/8
57/11 59/6 59/17 60/8
60/23 67/21 70/15
72/5 73/13 80/4 83/3
85/7 86/9 89/14 91/24
92/11 92/17 92/22
93/6 93/16 94/25 96/2
98/24 104/4 105/1
105/19 106/6 106/6
107/18 108/14 108/15}
109/17 110/21 111/9
112/21 113/8 113/9
115/12 115/22 116/11
117/7 117/15 118/11
118/21 119/5 119/19
120/19 122/23 125/10
125/20 130/19 133/2
138/1 138/2 138/25
140/2 145/10 145/14
145/19 146/8 149/9
149/13 149/23 154/21
158/1 158/6 158/10
159/3 162/15 166/2
168/4 169/15 170/23
174/5 176/15 179/19
179/20 180/13 181/1
183/13 183/25 185/23
188/16
saying [10] 46/22
47/12 47/18 87/14
124/4 139/19 143/7
153/1 167/3 179/5
says [43] 3/10 6/23
10/2 11/20 19/17
22/17 24/2 30/6 32/20
40/18 44/21 45/18
48/13 49/15 53/3
62/20 66/9 67/9 69/11
102/12 122/10 124/7
125/1 125/4 126/20
127/2 129/7 130/23
140/25 141/7 146/19
155/19 155/23 159/17I
160/2 160/5 161/4
162/20 163/8 169/2
170/11 181/9 186/25
scales [1] 166/21
scandal [5] 8/17
29/17 73/23 152/8
17719
scared [1] 45/25
scheme [24] 3/22 5/8
5/13 5/14 5/15 5/22
5/23 7/12 21/20 22/1
40/14 41/14 42/4 42/6)
85/15 85/23 88/3
88/12 88/13 90/21
91/16 157/25 159/20
160/17
schemes [10] 26/1
26/4 26/5 26/13 26/18
27/6 42/5 42/14 90/5
90/12
scope [1] 65/15
screen [7] 3/5 72/2
73/20 80/19 81/7 93/5)
102/11
script [4] 179/11
179/25 180/18 181/15}
scroll [30] 3/8 6/9
10/1 10/9 11/19 13/19}
16/25 17/5 19/16
21/18 22/16 25/1
25/24 28/9 30/1 35/24)
36/20 37/25 40/2
40/10 40/17 45/16
45/17 46/6 46/12 47/5)
49/1 49/14 51/7 52/18
scrutinise [1] 81/24
scrutiny [2] 63/9 89/8)
sec [1] 146/17
second [13] 18/13
48/11 64/23 81/19
107/6 115/8 137/2
140/15 141/11 165/20}
177/10 182/2 186/20
second-guess [2]
64/23 165/20
second-guessed [1]
186/20
secondly [2] 110/25
111/23
secretariat [1]
137/11
secretaries [3]
104/16 113/1 121/25
secretary [52] 24/7
99/9 103/9 103/18
103/20 104/1 104/3
104/6 104/9 104/16
104/17 105/18 107/21
107/22 109/1 109/15
109/19 110/4 111/9
113/23 117/17 117/25}
118/12 118/14 124/1
127/10 127/14 129/25]
130/8 136/6 137/18
139/23 141/19 144/14)
146/15 146/25 147/2
147/6 147/10 148/14
150/17 151/11 154/2
160/20 161/10 161/21
161/25 171/11 171/19)
171/22 189/5 189/7
Secretary/Accountin
g [1] 161/10
section [4] 17/3
21/13 35/24 104/23
sector [9] 121/5
121/5 124/6 126/6
126/7 127/24 131/2
151/3 176/16
sector-controlled [1]
126/6
sectoral [1] 125/23
secure [1] 56/13
securing [1] 177/16
see [87] 6/3 6/9 7/15
10/1 10/9 11/5 11/19
12/18 14/13 16/25
18/11 19/16 22/8
26/17 29/14 30/1
32/10 34/13 35/16
35/17 39/16 39/23
40/2 40/10 40/17 42/6
43/9 43/12 45/21
47/10 48/10 49/9 51/7
62/2 67/23 68/12
70/12 72/18 76/15
82/19 88/18 91/19
97/1 100/12 100/13
101/15 102/1 104/23
109/14 112/5 115/2
120/11 124/7 126/19
130/4 130/20 135/3
139/5 140/11 140/19
140/19 141/14 145/5
146/16 146/21 149/14)
149/24 155/22 157/21
160/13 164/24 165/11
168/11 169/17 170/10)
171/12 171/24 172/13}
173/13 175/10 179/2
179/9 179/22 181/7
182/20 183/3 185/22
seeing [3] 29/14
45/12 99/4
seek [2] 53/15 173/9
seeking [2] 141/15
142/7
seeks [3] 179/11
180/19 181/8
seem [3] 47/10 60/1
63/3
seemed [8] 21/1 68/1
71/11 71/24 75/22
75/23 83/7 139/25
seems [5] 30/25
48/15 73/25 95/12
(74) rid... - seems
Ss
seems... [1] 133/21
seen [21] 13/19
22/23 25/13 36/23
40/7 49/6 69/10 73/21
77/12 77/20 78/7
79/13 79/19 125/14
129/3 142/24 159/15
172/15 182/23 185/16}
187/13
sees [1] 43/20
Select [1] 63/8
sell [8] 153/2 153/5
179/12 179/13 180/1
180/19 180/20 181/16
selling [1] 179/16
send [2] 70/11 70/18
senior [38] 9/1 11/25
31/19 33/20 34/1 34/7
46/18 46/23 47/7
47/21 58/7 58/20 61/5)
70/21 70/25 84/20
85/4 87/6 94/9 96/16
97/2 104/7 108/25
110/13 111/4 111/7
114/22 116/5 116/24
135/20 136/23 141/21
142/3 149/8 161/11
165/9 173/1 187/2
sense [7] 26/5 27/3
62/8 62/9 108/3
158/23 188/5
sensible [8] 15/9
16/16 41/17 49/17
62/22 130/10 132/5
133/24
sensibly [1] 50/7
sensitive [2] 13/14
174/21
sensitivities [1]
188/14
sent [8] 41/24 45/1
69/12 70/17 97/13
143/17 149/17 166/11
sentence [4] 19/18
127/2 127/2 127/7
separate [10] 103/18
106/3 112/18 117/10
119/2 119/5 125/14
129/3 133/3 142/21
separated [2] 183/18
185/6
separately [1] 106/7
separation [1]
132/25
September [7] 1/1
1/12 1/17 56/16 57/19}
94/3 103/22
September 2016 [1]
103/22
sequence [1] 59/9
series [3] 158/21
168/2 181/11
serious [8] 50/10
69/20 87/1 87/23
88/19 89/11 142/10
186/5
seriously [1] 53/12
seriousness [1] 8/22
servant [2] 104/7
105/11
servants [3] 123/9
130/8 176/15
served [1] 103/20
service [7] 103/3
103/24 104/6 114/11
116/19 126/18 184/14)
services [3] 125/7
149/23 176/24
serving [1] 108/25
session [1] 146/22
set [25] 2/13 3/19 7/4
7/20 13/25 15/9 21/21
25/24 49/2 55/13
55/24 57/7 85/7
114/13 121/21 131/10)
131/21 133/23 136/17)
148/9 152/23 156/12
165/2 175/16 179/11
sets [10] 3/8 6/7 6/24
15/2 21/14 53/1 63/2
124/11 134/8 180/16
setting [2] 15/3
103/18
settings [1] 110/11
settle [1] 90/14
seven [2] 130/5
144/11
several [6] 52/17
59/10 116/19 138/12
144/10 147/7
severely [1] 89/5
shall [2] 178/21
179/19
share [2] 11/15
119/14
shared [5] 48/21
53/18 56/1 56/13 63/6
shareholder [86] 9/8
11/10 12/14 14/9
14/10 16/19 17/3 20/6
20/24 21/7 21/9 24/11
24/13 24/15 24/16
25/3 26/16 27/5 30/15)
37/18 57/6 61/20
61/20 62/8 62/16
64/13 71/6 71/24 72/1
83/21 105/16 110/1
111/15 112/11 112/16)
116/3 128/10 128/18
129/16 129/21 130/2
131/8 131/14 136/25
137/4 137/12 140/2
140/20 141/2 142/3
143/2 145/3 145/22
146/12 151/13 152/22)
153/19 154/9 154/13
154/18 155/4 155/7
157/9 157/15 158/25
160/24 161/5 162/1
162/14 162/16 163/5
164/3 166/16 168/25
169/1 170/20 171/6
171/7 172/6 173/21
175/5 175/25 181/11
184/19 185/17 186/12)
Shareholder's [1]
83/22
shareholders [2]
14/4 14/5
she [33] 9/3 10/7
49/16 50/14 55/16
55/21 55/24 57/2 58/5
62/21 65/6 65/10
65/21 72/20 99/16
134/24 144/18 154/8
154/12 154/15 154/24)
159/23 170/13 170/23
171/1 171/5 173/7
173/7 184/17 186/25
187/1 187/9 187/18
she'd [1] 65/8
sheet [1] 126/3
ShEx [9] 115/14
169/4 183/1 184/16
184/24 187/2 187/24
188/4 188/13
shifted [2] 108/17
166/21
short [9] 22/3 26/1
41/9 42/3 42/5 55/4
101/13 140/9 149/25
short-term [4] 26/1
41/9 42/3 42/5
shortened [1] 26/5
shortfalls [2] 77/5
93/2
shorthand [1] 183/4
shortly [10] 2/8 5/8
9/3 18/1 35/2 102/24
108/10 122/8 132/25
156/2
should [63] 1/11
24/17 25/18 26/7
31/18 32/9 38/19
43/10 44/8 46/24
59/12 59/16 60/21
62/5 66/20 77/23 79/3
81/3 86/2 86/11 86/24
96/1 101/24 102/15
111/25 118/8 125/14
128/7 129/8 129/15
129/15 130/19 130/20}
130/24 132/17 133/4
133/12 133/19 134/25
135/21 136/8 141/18
142/25 144/24 145/16)
149/23 150/1 152/8
157/1 160/19 163/12
166/12 166/14 168/13
168/15 168/19 173/18}
174/3 174/17 176/22
177/14 186/16 188/4
shouldn't [3] 70/9
176/15 176/19
shouted [1] 72/17
show [3] 129/5 144/6
177/23
showed [2] 144/8
163/24
showing [2] 14/20
64/7
shows [2] 17/13
182/4
shrink [1] 116/6
sic [4] 117/22
side [4] 3/24 73/10
89/19 160/8
sides' [1] 169/18
sight [10] 10/8 22/3
22/13 140/15 141/12
143/18 144/24 161/12)
177/11 182/2
sign [7] 33/17 34/14
34/15 89/16 134/17
135/13 135/14
sign-off [1] 33/17
signature [5] 1/19
1/21 1/22 102/6
140/19
signed [7] 24/13
24/14 24/16 32/9
33/14 83/9 87/3
significance [7] 36/7
64/22 144/7 144/8
144/22 185/7 185/8
significant [15] 30/16
49/17 60/23 93/14
93/15 125/8 135/17
139/11 144/23 145/6
145/11 162/12 163/3
186/8 187/19
signing [1] 176/19
silos [1] 168/10
similar [6] 35/14 41/9
49/2 66/18 68/21
176/11
similarly [1] 121/25
Simmons [8] 6/6 6/6
23/17 23/17 34/20
34/20 35/8 35/8
Simon [2] 51/9
149/12
simple [4] 7/5 26/2
124/9 184/22
simplified [1] 28/18
simplify [2] 30/11
30/25
simply [5] 7/13 29/17
170/16 180/11 184/17}
since [5] 43/24 98/13
98/14 182/19 185/21
single [1] 108/4
singled [1] 67/16
sir [42] 1/3 6/1 6/16
7/1 7/11 11/12 23/2
23/5 39/9 45/1 54/22
55/6 84/1 84/6 88/21
91/8 97/22 98/6 98/9
101/3 101/8 101/15
101/17 101/18 102/23}
104/1 140/3 140/7
140/11 146/16 159/24)
160/11 177/1 177/7
182/16 182/17 183/24}
184/22 188/22 189/1
189/10 190/12
Sir Anthony [2]
159/24 160/11
Sir Martin [7] 102/23
104/1 177/7 182/17
183/24 184/22 189/1
Sir Vince [1] 146/16
Sir Wyn [6] 6/1 7/11
23/2 23/5 39/9 98/6
sit [4] 4/22 32/17
99/1 99/19
sitting [1] 144/14
situation [5] 47/14
62/13 72/18 170/9
176/12
six [4] 105/15 106/3
118/21 124/24
size [2] 13/23 116/21
SJ [2] 51/9 51/12
skewed [1] 43/8
skills [3] 103/10
104/21 105/4
skip [2] 21/13 37/25
le [1] 182/24
htest [1] 86/20
slightly [15] 10/9
10/22 19/16 21/19
25/5 39/16 42/20 66/4I
115/5 122/7 126/4
129/5 140/19 152/16
174/13
small [2] 78/13 156/3
Smith [1] 88/2
SMT [4] 18/25
Smyth [1] 46/24
so [224]
social [2] 15/17 16/1
socially [1] 184/6
software [4] 142/8
142/8 156/1 156/7
sold [1] 107/2
solely [1] 98/2
solicitor [1] 2/9
solicitors [2] 56/2
88/11
solution [1] 176/3
some [112] 2/1 2/2
3/21 5/24 9/4 9/5 9/5
9/7 12/5 15/24 16/17
19/20 19/25 21/2
27/18 28/13 29/6
29/25 30/22 31/18
32/3 32/11 32/15
(75) seems... - some
Ss
some... [89] 33/11
34/4 34/15 34/15
37/12 40/2 41/17 42/3
42/4 42/5 42/20 46/15
47/15 48/21 49/14
52/9 52/25 54/12
54/18 57/15 64/16
65/14 70/13 71/7
73/16 74/11 74/21
74/23 77/11 77/23
77/23 78/23 81/2
81/11 82/2 88/8 89/16
92/24 95/5 99/4 99/5
100/3 100/11 102/24
104/17 107/16 113/20}
115/15 115/21 115/25}
116/8 116/10 116/12
116/12 117/8 119/23
121/9 122/1 122/2
123/11 123/20 124/22)
126/1 126/23 128/2
132/10 132/22 133/12)
133/23 135/24 139/14}
144/6 144/8 144/25
145/23 146/21 147/21
149/3 153/25 154/24
156/18 159/21 160/6
160/15 162/22 169/3
170/25 187/11 187/13}
somebody [6] 15/21
44/17 61/2 71/18 76/5)
184/15
someone [11] 63/13
70/9 71/4 118/5 118/7,
131/11 142/3 142/24
145/10 160/10 184/24}
something [41] 5/12
13/2 14/9 14/15 21/20}
24/20 29/18 38/24
57/5 60/23 61/13
65/25 67/14 69/6 70/9
75/13 77/6 77/15 78/3,
80/2 81/25 91/9 96/18
138/1 138/7 139/3
141/18 145/16 146/5
146/7 146/9 147/1
149/7 159/4 166/1
166/24 168/7 169/23
172/4 186/22 188/2
sometime [1] 57/23
sometimes [8] 13/15
22/13 31/17 33/16
34/2 43/17 56/24
138/13
somewhat [1] 15/4
somewhere [1] 98/8
soon [3] 5/1 53/10
60/1
sorry [25] 12/17
19/25 42/25 56/23
80/20 80/23 82/7
82/11 86/6 86/7 88/5
91/4 98/14 117/23
117/24 121/14 122/18)
122/20 127/1 130/19
138/20 152/20 160/14)
165/16 175/18
sort [19] 16/17 68/1
70/13 71/7 76/10
77/10 78/25 80/15
94/21 97/1 111/11
113/17 157/23 158/6
159/9 159/10 175/10
181/15 181/24
sorts [4] 113/22
141/20 148/4 175/15
sought [4] 81/8
115/15 129/17 181/16)
sound [6] 23/11 25/2
25/6 93/11 109/2
182/10
sounded [1] 49/17
sounding [1] 160/3
sources [1] 112/15
speak [25] 23/20
43/23 43/23 44/3 44/4
44/8 44/13 44/14
44/15 46/1 48/13
52/12 52/16 52/20
53/4 53/15 54/3 54/19)
56/19 61/1 61/14
68/13 76/15 96/6
132/21
speak-up [11] 43/23
43/23 44/3 44/8 48/13
52/12 53/4 56/19 61/1
68/13 76/15
speak-ups [1] 61/14
speaking [1] 54/19
special [2] 116/11
134/16
specific [10] 39/8
86/3 94/15 94/20
105/2 106/25 107/4
128/16 147/7 147/12
specifically [2] 26/24
17111
spectacle [1] 89/1
spectrum [1] 114/8
speed [4] 14/16
32/23 82/14 116/9
speedy [1] 90/9
spelling [1] 82/9
spend [7] 3/13 3/16
4/4 31/2 116/6 144/2
167/7
spending [3] 118/23
128/1 147/20
spent [1] 147/15
spinning [1] 116/14
spirit [1] 181/6
spite [1] 162/23
split [2] 103/16
105/13
SPM [2] 99/23 100/3
spoke [4] 48/14 58/6
59/10 169/24
spoken [4] 18/22
36/16 61/3 62/21
sponsor [5] 122/17
122/20 129/10 130/24]
134/3
sponsored [1]
141/18
sponsoring [1]
184/21
sponsors [2] 135/1
135/1
spotted [1] 24/23
stability [1] 132/7
stable [3] 4/5 4/8
29/24
staff [8] 29/14 49/23
53/23 72/18 104/11
104/14 112/10 155/25
Staff's [3] 49/23
50/13 50/18
staffed [1] 50/7
staffing [1] 109/5
stage [13] 9/12 10/11
56/18 64/18 85/10
90/25 115/7 121/11
121/11 156/25 166/19}
167/3 173/9
stakeholders [2]
26/12 148/15
stance [1] 180/21
stand [4] 77/10 77/25
125/25 126/3
standard [3] 135/2
145/2 162/25
standards [7] 119/3
120/18 128/13 134/20
136/1 142/20 165/18
start [7] 103/2 105/12
109/14 115/20 152/13
179/15 185/1
started [1] 8/11
starting [1] 140/14
starts [1] 72/9
state [13] 101/20
109/1 111/9 137/18
144/15 146/15 146/25)
147/2 147/6 147/11
148/14 171/20 171/23}
State's [1] 113/23
stated [2] 6/13
102/18
statement [48] 1/12
2/3 2/3 2/6 2/14 5/2
55/14 55/18 56/12
57/1 57/7 59/6 61/16
70/23 72/2 82/12 83/3
98/16 98/23 98/25
101/5 101/24 102/19
102/23 104/4 104/22
105/19 106/19 109/14
113/2 115/6 115/13
117/15 118/19 134/19}
136/19 138/19 143/16}
144/4 146/14 148/10
149/13 161/3 162/18
165/10 176/9 189/3
189/6
statements [2]
144/10 144/12
status [8] 7/15 65/1
119/4 122/2 122/24
135/21 142/22 157/18
statutory [12] 7/8
7/14 7/25 10/20 22/20)
36/3 85/10 85/11
85/13 85/14 86/5
86/12
Staunton [32] 10/3
12/19 12/24 12/25
13/5 20/18 20/20 44/3}
44/21 55/8 55/25 56/1
56/15 56/20 57/11
57/13 57/22 58/9
58/16 59/2 59/7 60/2
60/6 62/20 69/10
72/15 73/3 73/4 75/12,
75/16 99/12 99/13
Staunton's [8] 11/11
59/1 61/13 63/4 63/15
68/17 72/8 72/25
stay [3] 31/14 65/7
138/16
staying [1] 45/23
steel [3] 108/19
113/16 139/9
steer [1] 71/23
Stent [2] 172/24
172/24
step [5] 60/5 60/5
66/11 130/7 168/4
steps [2] 82/15 82/21
STEVENS [3] 101/19
189/9 190/14
stick [1] 188/4
sticking [1] 167/1
still [18] 11/1 11/16
16/20 16/23 47/9
47/11 52/6 61/6 65/14)
67/12 73/22 73/24
79/14 85/22 95/10
100/12 162/17 173/5
STIP [2] 26/22 32/21
stood [1] 121/5
stop [8] 59/13 59/16
59/20 60/7 60/20 61/2
72/16 184/22
stopped [3] 59/8
132/22 132/24
straight [1] 5/1
straightforward [4]
124/6 139/25 147/5
182/12
strain [1] 4/22
strange [1] 23/11
strategic [4] 15/7
83/12 83/17 181/9
strategy [7] 15/1 15/2!
27/4 37/23 42/15
42/19 103/14
Street [4] 112/2
113/14 148/19 149/6
stress [9] 29/20
31/12 34/15 59/14
63/10 63/13 70/15
89/16 89/20
stressed [1] 70/16
strict [1] 162/24
strictly [1] 48/22
strike [1] 20/7
strong [3] 19/9 19/10
163/9
structure [4] 108/3
136/15 139/4 164/24
structures [8] 28/17
30/11 106/14 106/15
130/13 136/17 139/8
168/14
struggle [1] 168/11
struggled [1] 15/4
student [5] 108/1
108/18 113/19 139/13)
175/14
students [1] 113/21
study [1] 87/16
stuff [1] 152/14
subcommittee [1]
159/21
subject [11] 40/20
57/12 57/17 64/21
76/22 76/24 84/17
90/15 102/18 127/5
129/8
submerged [1]
164/21
submetric [6] 10/5
10/19 22/18 25/7
25/12 85/25
submetrics [3] 5/24
24/8 25/10
submissions [4] 81/4I
163/10 163/12 163/15)
submitted [1] 28/21
subpostmaster [7]
69/22 72/23 74/24
78/15 92/3 95/11
98/18
subpostmasters [38]
27/9 27/17 27/21 40/9I
47I17 54/5 68/5 73/1
79/15 84/8 84/14
89/20 90/1 90/6 90/14!
91/12 91/25 92/13
92/19 93/4 93/8 93/16
94/11 97/11 98/13
118/5 135/12 155/25
156/4 156/13 157/23
177/18 178/2 178/4
178/11 178/13 180/7
182/18
subsequent [1] 2/1
subsequently [3]
(76) some... - subsequently
Ss
subsequently... [3]
2/19 55/24 68/11
subset [1] 138/12
subsidy [4] 183/22
183/23 184/7 184/10
substance [4] 76/16
131/17 133/21 143/1
substantial [2]
125/13 184/7
substantially [1] 24/6
substantive [2] 1/14
143/25
substantively [1]
145/5
succeeded [1]
107/11
success [1] 115/16
successful [1]
118/24
successors [1]
161/21
such [18] 3/11 11/4
14/18 28/24 64/24
85/23 90/5 91/13
114/7 114/8 114/10
129/12 133/5 152/19
161/10 170/3 171/15
181/18
sudden [2] 113/16
141/10
suffered [1] 93/5
sufficient [18] 4/12
4/13 8/20 15/12 15/15)
15/18 15/19 15/21
16/8 23/6 23/20 42/10)
64/22 74/8 74/14 75/5
77/3 82/22
sufficiently [3] 40/3
64/2 143/10
suggest [8] 23/1
24/24 40/21 75/24
90/9 90/11 180/19
189/9
suggested [5] 41/18
58/15 58/24 152/3
159/22
suggesting [4] 18/23
46/8 142/25 179/16
suggestion [8] 7/11
41/5 50/12 62/22 73/9)
157/1 159/20 176/10
suggests [2] 19/9
23/25
suit [2] 84/9 131/1
suitably [1] 143/5
summarise [4]
104/13 110/20 121/18)
155/18
summarised [1] 17/9
summary [8] 24/12
24/17 24/20 24/21
35/25 39/23 92/23
120/21
summer [2] 147/17
177/10
supervised [2]
105/16 160/24
supervising [2]
120/3 188/10
supervision [1]
105/14
supplied [1] 6/25
support [16] 6/15
6/23 23/10 35/23 36/9)
38/2 38/12 38/16 39/6)
39/10 47/20 81/16
104/17 115/17 156/9
184/12
supported [1] 7/2
supporting [2] 25/17
32/25
supportive [2] 60/20
148/12
supports [1] 122/15
suppose [1] 108/11
supposed [1] 147/13
sure [30] 17/23 20/3
32/6 44/10 50/7 50/21
51/13 54/20 62/17
66/7 70/6 70/11 82/11
82/23 91/17 111/6
114/21 121/11 121/19)
122/3 131/13 140/16
142/19 145/4 151/15
157/11 158/10 172/3
174/23 182/7
surely [1] 91/10
surprised [3] 20/8
41/20 188/8
surprising [2] 63/12
156/22
survey [19] 41/2
42/13 42/21 43/6 43/9
54/11 54/16 79/14
92/14 92/15 93/20
93/24 94/2 94/8 94/10
94/15 95/12 95/13
108/1
surveys [3] 95/20
95/23 96/5
suspect [1] 178/21
suspected [1] 51/25
Suspend [1] 74/16
suspended [1] 75/2
suspension [1] 75/5
suspicion [1] 100/3
sweeping [1] 174/6
Swift [1] 170/8
swiftly [1] 74/1
Swinson [4] 144/4
144/18 146/16 146/25)
Swinson's [1] 146/14
sworn [4] 1/6 101/18
190/2 190/12
sympathetic [1]
27114
sympathy [1] 154/16
symptomatic [1]
22/9
system [36] 79/20
80/2 80/10 80/13
80/20 80/22 80/22
81/11 81/20 93/17
94/12 109/10 110/8
115/1 117/17 120/12
123/3 126/10 128/6
131/17 133/9 134/1
136/4 141/17 147/13
148/22 149/23 151/19}
153/12 156/5 156/13
163/3 163/6 169/17
172/22 173/16
systemic’ [1] 156/7
systems [6] 80/6
109/19 114/6 136/8
142/21 148/11
T
table [3] 6/7 6/9
14/20
take [30] 5/3 5/10 6/5
10/19 10/22 12/14
13/8 16/17 17/11
21/17 22/12 50/20
50/24 51/24 53/11
54/22 60/5 74/6 88/10
115/4 122/4 122/15
136/14 140/4 141/21
153/14 155/18 167/6
169/3 183/15
taken [23] 6/12 9/4
25/14 25/18 26/18
28/6 31/19 39/24
46/17 58/16 65/8 74/1
74/14 76/1 77/21 81/1
82/16 82/21 89/23
130/7 141/23 170/4
180/21
takes [2] 13/10
173/17
taking [10] 10/24
52/15 54/17 83/18
139/23 148/1 169/18
173/7 181/12 181/22
talk [6] 11/8 23/10
23/12 96/7 167/4
177/18
talked [2] 42/17
185/25
talking [6] 74/5 80/20
83/23 178/20 178/22
188/16
target [12] 6/24
35/23 36/9 36/14 38/2
38/4 38/12 38/17 39/6
39/8 39/10 40/15
targets [3] 15/9
41/14 175/13
taxpayer [3] 107/2
119/15 126/9
Taylor [1] 67/10
tea [1] 169/13
team [35] 7/1 7/21
31/9 31/16 31/25 39/9
41/18 45/6 46/15 47/7)
47/19 47/24 53/15
53/16 67/16 75/3
76/23 77/1 82/5 82/7
84/23 85/3 90/23 92/2
110/6 111/23 116/6
124/2 136/23 145/3
146/4 146/7 154/25
173/15 181/23
teams [3] 29/1 57/20
145/19
technical [2] 79/14
123/17
technically [1]
121/22
technocratic [1]
170/24
tell [8] 23/8 23/22
61/12 93/22 140/23
151/24 158/22 185/22}
telling [1] 163/25
tells [1] 61/13
tend [1] 165/19
tended [4] 108/23
112/24 113/22 123/21
tends [1] 94/17
tension [1] 37/11
term [15] 15/3 26/1
26/2 40/13 40/21 41/9)
41/14 42/3 42/5 42/5
75/6 75/9 75/16 78/8
123/17
terms [42] 7/5 18/7
22/5 26/21 27/7 29/23
32/14 56/6 56/14
58/10 62/3 62/14
66/14 78/1 80/12
80/22 82/1 92/5 92/17
94/18 96/17 105/14
106/14 106/18 108/5
108/11 108/12 110/20
117/4 124/21 127/25
127/25 133/15 135/18}
150/23 159/12 161/16
164/2 165/11 177/19
178/20 187/19
territory [1] 151/21
test [3] 42/1 112/4
150/5
tested [1] 111/16
than [23] 3/18 4/20
15/15 15/17 21/7 25/6}
38/3 45/5 46/16 48/1
58/16 59/1 59/21 66/6
73/10 75/17 81/1 90/9)
106/5 117/9 125/6
145/21 149/1
thank [76] 1/8 1/25
2/6 2/25 3/4 4/24 6/3
6/8 8/2 16/20 17/5
20/22 24/2 27/7 35/18
36/20 37/25 39/23
44/16 48/10 51/7
52/11 54/21 55/2 55/6
55/17 62/18 66/9
66/17 72/4 72/22
73/19 75/19 78/12
82/9 83/25 84/4 84/6
92/6 92/19 94/24 97/8
97/21 98/7 100/25
101/1 101/4 101/7
101/11 101/16 101/22)
101/23 102/17 102/22)
125/19 126/11 129/6
130/21 136/3 138/20
140/7 140/12 143/14
155/13 158/13 163/21
167/8 182/13 182/14
182/16 183/15 188/19}
188/21 188/22 189/5
189/10
Thanks [1] 20/21
that [1133]
that I [17] 5/10 10/24
17/21 20/10 32/10
64/11 100/13 106/8
112/6 112/18 138/18
141/13 145/24 146/9
154/6 157/1 160/12
that requirement [1]
129/13
that's [67] 1/13 5/5
6/11 10/3 11/21 17/20I
18/17 21/20 28/20
33/3 34/20 35/24
42/17 43/25 44/20
46/16 47/15 48/6 48/9)
51/9 55/19 55/23 56/4
56/20 57/10 61/19
62/1 73/13 76/14
77/24 87/10 91/6
94/24 97/3 97/8 97/21
99/3 99/7 99/20 102/8I
103/8 103/25 104/7
104/25 109/10 116/22)
119/19 124/13 128/10}
136/2 137/1 137/4
137/12 140/3 143/19
151/4 154/6 165/21
173/18 173/22 174/6
177/17 179/15 185/5
186/3 187/8 188/23
their [66] 13/10 19/6
23/14 25/20 29/1 35/3}
41/2 41/23 43/17
44/19 47/20 50/20
51/11 52/6 74/1 79/22
79/24 80/16 91/15
93/7 95/15 97/7 98/14
104/18 105/14 106/4
107/9 110/5 110/15
110/18 111/23 112/10)
113/20 119/4 120/25
121/8 122/20 126/7
(77) subsequently... - their
T
their... [28] 126/22
128/1 133/10 135/21
137/10 137/14 142/21
143/12 144/17 144/17
145/20 148/13 152/25)
153/19 155/1 155/8
158/12 163/16 163/17
163/18 173/2 178/4
179/1 182/8 182/19
184/20 186/20 187/3
them [49] 4/22 7/22
18/15 20/2 25/25
31/13 32/5 42/5 44/15)
45/24 53/12 63/1 63/2)
67/21 69/3 76/1 84/3
84/3 90/7 93/3 95/18
98/1 100/14 107/3
108/7 110/16 112/7
117/9 121/5 124/21
124/22 129/24 133/6
136/14 143/6 143/8
153/1 154/4 154/22
157/1 170/2 171/13
175/11 176/7 176/18
181/5 182/11 182/12
187/4
themes [1] 17/9
themselves [4] 33/1
44/17 93/4 174/4
then [63] 6/23 6/24
10/2 12/6 15/18 21/17)
23/14 24/2 24/17 27/5
35/6 36/12 45/9 46/22
47/2 48/4 49/1 50/23
62/11 65/2 66/9 66/14,
67/15 71/11 83/13
83/20 85/19 85/22
92/22 93/14 103/9
103/15 103/17 111/24}
115/8 117/1 117/5
120/2 122/16 128/20
132/3 136/4 137/14
143/11 144/4 145/15
145/19 149/7 150/11
151/22 153/5 155/22
156/14 159/2 163/7
166/16 167/25 168/2
170/9 171/8 171/19
179/24 181/3
theory [1] 68/14
there [255]
There'd [1] 81/11
there's [31] 21/13
43/4 46/3 46/6 46/12
47/2 47/5 50/12 61/17)
73/24 80/12 80/16
81/6 82/23 102/9
117/3 123/13 125/9
132/6 133/3 134/5
135/3 136/18 160/21
164/1 165/25 167/24
168/7 175/17 175/19
179/22
therefore [12] 5/19
29/12 37/5 37/7 38/6
59/15 82/3 84/12
96/11 108/24 133/12
162/13
these [60] 8/21 13/23
28/9 30/20 32/4 38/1
39/16 42/3 45/23
50/10 53/24 58/8 60/3)
65/4 67/7 74/20 78/25)
81/14 84/24 87/1
87/12 89/4 90/12 96/2
98/4 108/2 108/23
109/6 116/13 121/10
128/5 128/17 128/25
131/25 132/13 136/1
136/9 136/17 141/20
145/1 145/20 148/4
149/10 152/1 156/25
164/3 165/7 165/19
166/19 168/6 168/6
169/22 170/25 171/25)
172/20 173/1 174/20
186/1 187/4 187/25
they [140] 16/3 18/23
20/1 22/5 28/11 28/12
28/13 32/12 32/18
33/16 35/2 36/1 37/1
39/18 39/18 41/7
42/13 43/18 44/13
44/14 44/15 46/22
46/24 47/9 50/9 50/22
50/24 53/8 54/19
58/13 58/20 60/14
60/21 65/22 67/21
69/25 69/25 70/9
70/11 70/11 71/6
71/24 74/25 75/1 81/3)
81/24 83/1 84/25
85/15 86/24 87/17
87/18 88/6 88/15 89/5)
89/20 93/8 95/24
97/15 99/19 100/12
102/21 111/5 111/6
111/21 111/23 112/1
112/9 113/22 114/17
116/4 116/24 117/10
119/2 120/1 120/17
121/1 121/4 121/4
121/6 124/4 126/3
127/21 127/23 129/8
133/10 137/15 138/1
138/1 138/23 138/23
139/4 139/20 139/21
139/22 139/24 143/3
143/3 143/7 143/8
144/14 145/5 145/21
152/25 153/20 154/22)
157/11 157/17 159/2
159/3 162/15 162/15
163/13 164/3 167/2
167/25 170/24 170/24)
174/7 174/17 174/21
175/1 175/11 178/2
178/4 179/13 181/3
181/3 181/13 184/21
185/2 185/3 185/21
186/18 186/22 188/4
188/8
they'd [3] 32/5 92/24
188/7
they're [6] 4/21 16/4
77/25 94/12 117/2
185/19
they've [4] 180/21
thickness [1] 116/17
thing [7] 18/3 45/22
54/9 98/19 114/17
132/1 154/14
things [29] 3/21
10/24 15/1 21/9 21/15)
22/12 29/3 29/4 29/6
29/22 43/15 43/19
50/22 64/17 69/4 69/7
71/21 78/11 80/17
94/15 96/9 106/12
116/13 117/16 137/25]
167/16 169/12 170/5
175/11
think [211]
thinking [1] 64/15
third [8] 11/23 12/3
13/20 18/20 102/12
120/19 137/7 138/10
this [362]
Thornton [7] 39/21
51/6 78/16 78/17
78/24 100/9 100/20
thorough [1] 108/21
those [84] 2/13 8/18
9/7 12/6 17/11 21/25
27/1 29/19 31/10
36/16 37/3 37/6 38/14
39/2 39/24 40/3 42/9
43/11 43/15 45/11
47/12 49/6 58/10
58/15 58/19 60/12
63/13 63/14 65/5
67/12 67/19 68/23
73/7 74/9 80/8 81/20
81/24 82/16 82/19
92/5 92/24 93/1 93/2
99/1 100/14 106/22
107/16 107/16 107/17;
108/8 110/1 110/14
111/8 111/21 112/15
113/22 115/9 120/1
121/9 124/22 125/17
132/15 134/11 135/15}
135/16 144/16 151/15}
159/12 160/18 161/16
161/20 162/1 165/12
167/16 175/15 175/16
176/1 176/16 176/25
178/20 180/17 182/13
188/19 189/2
185/22 186/15 186/16
though [15] 18/7
73/25 82/24 114/18
121/21 127/8 140/4
142/24 174/24 175/1
185/22
thought [24] 34/5
49/16 52/1 59/23
131/14 143/8 149/10
162/12 164/12 183/2
184/24 185/2 185/18
187/3
thoughts [2] 30/3
42/1
three [11] 10/16 14/3
41/3 81/2 90/12 91/2
119/10 121/9 136/20
138/6 177/17
three years [2] 14/3
41/3
through [43] 11/13
15/6 21/13 24/15 27/6}
29/6 31/13 32/1 32/7
32/17 33/11 33/15
34/5 35/15 38/1 56/5
57/25 60/5 61/4 61/7
67/4 67/5 75/3 104/18
105/4 109/16 112/7
114/5 114/11 121/11
129/15 136/15 136/23}
137/2 137/7 137/17
138/3 141/1 141/3
157/25 164/15 164/16}
169/5
throughout [2] 11/10
105/17
Tidswell [5] 56/1
58/7 62/19 70/25 72/6
Tidswell's [1] 64/15
tied [1] 62/12
tier [4] 97/1 98/22
100/1 100/21
tightening [1] 34/10
Tim [4] 146/12 170/7
172/23 173/1
time [123] 3/9 3/11
3/16 3/23 4/2 4/6 4/12,
4/13 4/15 4/21 5/1
5/16 7/1 7/7 8/12 8/20
8/24 10/20 10/24
10/25 11/23 12/3
13/20 14/6 21/8 21/15)
22/12 25/11 26/18
28/23 29/3 31/3 32/18
44/3 52/5 55/8 58/3
63/7 65/8 66/15 66/18)
71/1 75/10 81/15 82/3
84/24 85/11 85/22
87/22 88/7 88/8 97/19)
101/9 104/15 105/10
105/17 106/2 106/8
27/13 42/6 46/25 63/4
78/22 81/13 85/3 86/8
106/14 127/11 130/10)
154/14 154/17 156/16}
106/14 107/12 107/23}
108/17 108/19 109/6
109/10 110/14 112/6
115/8 115/22 116/6
116/13 117/25 122/15}
123/6 124/23 128/2
128/9 128/15 129/25
130/10 131/3 132/8
132/14 137/22 139/23}
140/4 141/12 143/13
143/20 143/22 144/2
145/2 145/15 147/15
148/2 148/5 148/8
148/12 149/14 150/14)
151/8 157/10 157/12
158/12 159/15 160/22!
164/22 166/4 167/6
170/6 181/20 181/22
183/3 183/12 184/1
184/4 185/5 186/4
186/19 186/24 187/7
187/13 189/4
time-consuming [1]
415
timeline [4] 21/14
26/3 140/13 159/19
timelines [1] 22/20
times [5] 52/17 93/10
95/7 144/10 168/13
timescale [1] 91/21
timescales [1] 45/8
timetable [2] 30/7
45/14
timing [1] 66/21
TIS [4] 25/2 25/9
91/13 92/4
today [7] 10/8 10/21
25/5 77/12 83/16
96/18 101/22
today's [1] 2/25
together [4] 105/11
117/9 137/14 167/16
told [10] 1/25 12/5
45/5 45/6 72/17 94/17)
134/4 141/11 144/19
158/14
tomorrow [1] 146/20
tone [5] 17/13 17/22
18/7 178/17 179/20
Tony [2] 159/23
160/4
too [16] 11/8 22/1
22/4 25/9 33/2 45/25
79/4 83/4 109/2
125/20 154/25 163/15)
166/24 168/8 168/19
170/24
took [9] 12/14 35/24
41/21 60/3 107/23
109/6 128/2 162/22
181/3
tool [1] 175/23
top [15] 52/2 54/8
72/9 107/19 108/13
(78) their... - top
T
top... [10] 108/15
108/17 108/23 113/7
114/11 119/10 126/19}
137/7 172/20 186/15
top-level [1] 137/7
topic [5] 16/20 43/22
55/7 74/11 168/22
topics [2] 49/11
78/14
touch [4] 104/2
138/16 139/16 158/21
touched [1] 183/19
touching [1] 109/12
towards [11] 11/19
49/7 106/21 124/25
126/19 130/20 133/20}
134/15 168/17 178/2
178/13
toxic [1] 46/18
tracked [1] 39/20
tracker [1] 79/11
trade [4] 11/22
103/19 103/21 105/5
trading [2] 122/12
123/18
trail [4] 26/9 28/24
29/16 64/16
training [2] 54/1
156/8
transactions [2]
119/20 155/24
transcriber [1]
183/13
transformation [7]
5/13 5/14 88/3 177/16
177/25 178/5 180/3
transparency [6]
107/12 118/22 131/24}
132/2 132/16 155/11
transparent [2] 26/2
96/19
Treasury [9] 113/1
121/16 121/20 121/24}
128/19 129/11 130/2
147/19 148/18
treat [4] 53/4 67/4
84/14 135/6
treated [2] 94/13
135/11
treatment [1] 47/3
trial [2] 150/2 178/10
Tribunal [1] 66/6
tried [4] 60/9 107/10
138/16 148/9
troublemakers [1]
45/20
troubling [1] 89/9
Trousdale [1] 182/20
true [8] 1/22 2/3
102/8 102/19 116/5
122/23 145/22 145/23)
trust [6] 30/12 35/10
44/23 89/22 132/1
132/16
truth [1] 165/5
try [8] 37/12 65/10
82/19 111/11 147/25
148/24 179/12 181/16)
trying [10] 30/25 60/7I
71/20 72/15 77/25
116/6 121/20 145/14
148/23 177/20
Tuesday [6] 93/24
94/3 94/3 188/23
189/8 189/12
turn [29] 6/2 9/23
19/13 21/12 24/25
27/23 33/6 34/20
35/16 40/6 48/5 52/11
53/1 53/8 62/18 66/16
69/9 91/14 92/23
101/24 102/4 104/4
124/7 126/25 134/14
136/4 149/24 153/25
155/22
turning [1] 29/2
Turnover [1] 31/16
turpitude [1] 84/13
Tutin [4] 57/8 57/24
64/3 64/17
two [29] 12/7 18/5
35/5 37/11 39/17
39/19 40/9 42/9 64/5
64/25 65/10 66/7 74/7
81/1 90/12 91/1 98/22
100/1 100/21 104/16
106/22 107/17 108/8
111/10 111/19 114/13)
127/1 146/13 172/23
two pages [1] 127/1
two-tier [3] 98/22
100/1 100/21
type [5] 71/8 141/24
147/1 151/4 155/3
types [4] 74/7 113/3
157/24 161/17
U
UK [1] 102/13
UKGI [3] 17/2 24/13
163/5
UKGI00001424 [1]
140/17
UKGI00001834 [1]
146/11
UKGI00006045 [2]
121/16 130/19
UKGI00006366 [1]
171/18
UKGI00017443 [1]
168/23
UKG1I00043211 [1]
126/15
ultimate [2] 81/18
81/22
ultimately [2] 120/16
121/3
Um [1] 68/15
umbrella [1] 184/16
unacceptable [1]
47/22
unassisted [1] 87/11
uncomfortable [1]
163/11
uncommon [2] 13/22
13/24
uncontentious [1]
130/10
under [23] 12/23
19/17 29/20 31/8
31/12 34/14 59/13
63/11 63/13 65/22
67/2 69/18 70/15
89/16 97/24 106/9
132/21 135/3 149/11
150/5 156/11 184/15
184/24
underlying [2] 8/22
13/21
undermine [1] 45/24
underpin [1] 76/20
Undersecretary [1]
103/6
understand [32] 7/19
7/20 25/12 27/7 31/10
50/9 65/9 65/19 69/25
71/20 74/6 75/19
77/25 84/25 85/16
94/1 97/15 97/16
102/10 102/15 113/25
120/5 123/12 124/10
126/9 132/12 136/5
141/1 141/3 160/25
162/3 176/16
understandable [1]
29/15
understanding [12]
27/15 34/18 52/24
60/6 75/9 76/2 93/13
128/12 132/21 133/17
160/7 175/7
understands [1]
69/19
understatement [1]
89/1
understood [8] 7/25
65/21 75/21 78/8 81/4
86/8 124/4 151/16
undertake [3] 5/7
49/24 85/2
undertaken [1] 50/25
undertaking [3] 51/4
52/6 162/21
undignified [1] 89/1
undue [2] 59/1
163/24
unequivocal [1] 64/2
unexplained [1] 93/6
unfair [2] 59/15
74/21
unfairness [1] 91/11
unfortunate [3] 68/22!
72/10 91/11
unfortunately [4]
32/4 70/8 79/16 91/21
unhealthy [1] 76/14
unhelpful [2] 100/21
125/21
unimpressed [1]
180/14
Unique [1] 2/6
unit [2] 123/19
125/14
unless [3] 142/2
145/23 149/1
unlikely [2] 117/2
139/20
unnecessary [1]
27/12
unpleasantly [1]
182/10
unreasonable [1]
10/19
unsafe [2] 150/24
163/2
until [10] 8/13 8/18
45/9 69/5 85/17
102/14 103/12 133/10}
188/23 189/12
untouchable [2]
76/13 76/21
untouchables [2]
75/6 75/14
untruths [1] 45/6
unusual [7] 13/11
20/7 80/5 112/22
146/5 169/11 169/14
unusually [1] 14/14
up [112] 4/4 10/9
11/6 11/14 11/17
13/25 14/16 29/2
32/23 34/10 35/3
37/16 40/17 43/23
43/23 44/3 44/4 44/8
44/13 44/14 44/15
46/1 48/13 50/7 50/24)
51/24 52/12 52/13
52/15 52/16 52/20
53/4 53/15 54/3 54/17
54/19 54/19 56/19
61/1 61/3 67/17 68/13)
70/7 73/20 73/25
76/15 81/7 92/23
103/18 104/5 104/21
105/13 107/14 107/23}
109/6 109/6 113/2
114/5 114/14 115/2
117/8 126/15 131/10
133/12 133/23 136/17}
136/21 139/23 139/25]
143/16 145/4 145/7
146/4 146/7 148/1
149/19 151/3 152/23
153/13 155/10 156/12,
156/20 158/24 159/7
159/11 164/14 165/6
166/2 166/21 167/18
168/12 171/8 1741/9
171/9 171/13 171/15
172/5 172/12 173/9
173/12 176/19 178/9
180/9 181/22 183/5
183/12 184/17 184/25]
185/11 185/19 186/11
188/17
upcoming [1] 159/19
update [1] 19/1
updated [1] 137/10
updates [1] 77/8
uploaded [1] 102/23
upon [3] 41/22 72/13
137/9
ups [1] 61/14
upwards [1] 96/9
us [49] 5/13 9/7
10/10 14/1 18/1 18/2
19/24 20/23 21/21
28/1 31/21 33/24
34/22 35/5 41/11 44/4I
50/2 51/4 56/6 56/14
57/2 57/18 57/21 58/2
59/8 60/5 61/12 65/23}
66/14 68/1 70/23
77/10 80/13 81/9
81/12 81/17 91/9
93/22 100/16 101/15
116/16 116/17 121/12)
130/11 141/4 151/15
151/24 167/14 176/16
usability [4] 80/12
use [10] 89/1 93/3
111/23 149/21 150/23}
175/3 176/7 178/6
181/16 181/23
used [12] 21/8 75/6
75/10 76/10 77/24
114/21 114/22 121/18)
123/18 141/17 150/2
167/25
useful [2] 160/8
176/18
user [1] 80/15
user-friendly [1]
80/15
using [2] 121/4 182/5I
usual [1] 32/1
usually [3] 104/16
137/23 138/6
Vv
vague [1] 154/11
Vaguely [1] 140/22
valid [1] 26/11
validated [1] 39/6
valuable [1] 66/10
Valuation [2] 155/20
156/24
value [13] 10/25
(79) top... - value
Vv
value... [12] 107/3
111/25 116/24 117/2
119/16 136/16 138/18
139/17 147/12 153/4
153/5 153/15
valued [1] 41/23
values [2] 10/7
110/10
variable [2] 26/1 26/4
variety [1] 49/11
various [15] 9/16
52/6 55/12 72/6 72/19
77/13 80/25 88/9
106/2 136/21 157/18
164/15 167/2 168/13
168/14
vast [1] 90/1
Vennells [8] 154/5
154/6 160/9 162/5
183/1 184/4 184/25
185/11
Vennells' [3] 186/10
187/10 187/16
version [4] 10/10
52/12 52/13 130/17
versions [1] 83/4
very [95] 1/8 5/1 5/8
8/7 11/1 14/8 14/19
15/1 17/19 20/2 22/3
22/3 22/4 22/11 23/11
23/15 25/17 29/11
34/7 39/2 49/17 50/10
52/18 52/19 55/2
58/20 59/12 63/12
64/9 65/5 66/17 66/18
68/21 69/8 69/20
70/16 71/23 71/23
72/10 73/15 74/11
74/20 76/14 76/17
78/21 79/16 79/16
79/17 80/13 80/13
83/19 83/19 84/20
85/4 87/6 88/25 89/4
89/11 93/15 95/4 95/7
95/24 96/2 96/24
101/4 101/6 101/11
105/2 107/10 111/11
113/17 114/1 115/20
116/13 119/10 133/9
140/3 145/23 147/17
147/23 152/25 157/19}
161/17 163/11 164/23}
165/8 169/21 172/20
174/22 177/8 180/14
185/24 187/23 187/23
189/1
victim [1] 78/8
victims [1] 91/14
view [45] 4/7 8/16
9/10 10/22 11/11 13/7
16/7 42/2 48/21 49/2
56/12 56/14 58/18
59/3 59/20 61/13
62/25 66/20 71/9
71/19 71/19 73/12
74/1 74/8 74/16 74/24
75/16 76/12 77/20
80/18 81/23 85/22
94/21 98/18 143/13
150/8 151/9 157/15
160/14 163/14 173/18)
179/8 179/12 187/21
188/2
views [11] 19/10
21/14 40/11 43/9
49/14 67/10 73/2
158/12 163/13 163/13}
182/9
Vince [1] 146/16
vis [2] 20/23 20/23
visits [1] 96/5
voluntary [4] 18/24
178/3 178/9 180/18
volunteer [2] 51/25
52/3
Wo
Wallis [1] 117/23
want [36] 3/4 14/6
14/9 23/10 23/12
43/22 46/22 51/24
78/3 92/13 98/15
98/21 104/2 104/19
106/7 109/2 118/9
120/20 121/9 125/20
126/2 126/12 134/5
138/11 139/5 140/16
152/16 153/24 157/10)
162/16 168/22 176/17,
177/18 179/6 182/21
182/22
wanted [21] 17/23
20/11 20/15 42/1 57/3
69/24 71/6 71/24 73/4
73/5 73/14 79/5
130/15 137/25 142/19)
151/12 151/19 154/15)
162/14 171/23 180/23)
wanting [2] 45/22
64/23
wants [3] 170/14
179/25 180/9
warrant [2] 64/22
75/5
was [584]
wasn't [48] 7/19
10/19 13/3 17/21
24/19 25/21 32/6
33/16 35/7 42/7 50/17)
55/21 63/21 73/17
85/7 86/18 99/16
107/19 108/4 108/14
123/2 128/24 130/1
131/13 132/12 133/13)
133/25 138/24 143/12)
146/2 148/22 154/17
155/6 157/14 158/23
161/1 163/23 164/22
166/12 166/25 170/16
172/8 177/22 183/11
184/13 187/1 187/8
188/5
waste [1] 47/1
watch [1] 79/24
way [45] 2/9 13/25
14/16 16/6 20/7 22/9
23/2 30/22 32/15
35/13 37/23 38/3 44/1
48/1 51/12 95/7 95/22
97/1 97/25 98/4 109/8
111/8 126/1 128/3
128/7 128/11 132/5
137/17 138/2 139/25
143/25 144/25 150/15}
156/18 158/9 161/22
167/14 167/14 170/5
173/7 175/20 178/12
180/9 182/4 182/12
ways [6] 28/13 31/14
96/11 136/20 168/14
168/20
we [414]
we'd [4] 114/13
148/1 164/12 189/4
we'll [12] 6/6 18/1
35/15 44/10 103/2
104/18 107/16 108/10}
121/10 122/8 133/22
189/8
we're [26] 1/5 3/6
4/16 14/8 16/10 16/13
16/23 33/6 40/6 55/10
55/12 73/8 73/15
83/13 96/10 100/17
114/10 116/1 130/22
140/3 159/5 168/3
169/15 176/21 179/3
179/7
we've [20] 13/18 29/7I
40/7 42/17 42/20 49/6
54/16 66/22 69/10
73/21 74/23 76/23
83/19 104/1 119/13
166/20 167/4 167/5
187/10 187/13
website [3] 2/8 27/18
102/24
week [8] 8/14 13/5
47/7 47/16 72/23
7AI17 79/17 144/10
weekends [1] 147/18
weeks [3] 10/16
59/10 181/13
welcome [3] 40/11
48/11 97/6
well [83] 7/7 8/6
14/25 15/3 17/18
18/11 21/3 29/1 29/11
38/24 39/21 43/16
45/2 50/21 51/25
52/24 54/6 54/16 58/5
62/15 63/12 64/14
70/8 71/10 72/8 72/14,
75/21 76/17 79/21
80/12 81/22 85/13
86/8 88/6 89/18 91/21
95/3 95/23 97/2 97/5
101/4 104/20 108/17
111/19 115/25 119/17,
122/8 122/18 124/2
125/23 128/15 130/1
132/4 133/22 139/22
141/23 142/14 143/12)
151/12 152/7 152/14
153/24 160/21 166/14)
168/3 171/5 171/14
175/22 176/4 176/6
176/13 176/22 177/2
177/23 178/15 179/6
179/20 179/22 180/11
180/25 181/6 185/18
189/1
went [14] 11/13
11/17 28/23 67/4
94/25 121/22 123/1
126/6 138/23 167/21
167/23
were [268]
weren't [11] 80/6
85/24 111/6 115/3
118/1 139/22 139/22
151/15 154/22 170/24}
177/18
what [185] 5/14 7/5
7/22 8/7 12/6 12/16
14/1 14/2 14/21 14/21
16/10 17/15 18/2 19/2}
19/17 19/24 20/1
20/19 21/25 22/14
27/6 28/7 28/23 29/22,
31/10 31/22 32/14
33/25 34/13 35/10
39/16 40/12 42/17
43/17 43/17 44/4
45/25 46/24 47/12
49/19 50/2 50/9 52/24)
56/6 58/10 59/3 60/6
60/21 62/2 62/7 62/9
64/9 65/5 66/4 66/15
67/23 70/10 70/12
70/18 70/24 71/9
71/24 74/5 75/9 75/19)
75/22 77/20 77/25
78/6 78/24 80/10
80/24 81/10 82/15
83/4 83/9 83/13 83/14
83/17 85/1 90/20 94/1
94/17 95/1 95/4 96/1
96/1 96/22 98/3 99/17)
100/20 106/6 106/13
108/12 108/12 108/24}
109/12 110/4 110/15
111/16 113/9 114/24
115/9 116/5 117/5
119/21 120/1 120/22
121/18 122/24 124/4
124/5 125/24 126/8
130/5 131/3 131/17
131/22 132/11 133/8
133/18 134/4 137/23
138/22 138/23 138/24I
139/9 139/18 139/19
142/6 143/6 145/15
145/18 145/25 148/1
148/23 149/18 149/25)
151/10 151/16 151/24)
152/18 152/22 153/4
154/21 154/22 155/12)
156/16 156/23 157/3
157/8 157/9 158/1
159/6 159/7 160/13
160/21 160/22 163/24I
165/6 165/22 165/22
166/14 166/19 167/14I
167/19 169/9 169/17
170/13 171/5 171/5
171/22 172/7 172/18
173/13 173/13 173/16)
173/18 174/5 178/9
179/9 182/2 185/15
185/18 185/20
what's [14] 13/6 42/2
46/1 58/17 61/18
73/12 74/16 80/8
101/9 112/21 126/2
141/14 149/9 187/22
whatever [7] 68/23
135/21 152/3 168/4
174/16 180/3 182/5
when [73] 5/16 7/19
8/2 10/13 11/17 13/13}
14/10 26/8 26/13
26/13 26/14 26/22
31/25 33/13 39/1
42/15 43/6 43/8 45/20
45/25 46/19 46/21
47/19 49/6 53/18
57/18 57/21 61/5
62/10 63/7 64/11
66/18 69/5 76/4 83/17
84/17 85/7 88/13
89/22 94/5 98/24
108/8 113/8 117/19
117/21 119/5 119/14
119/21 123/25 127/13)
130/7 131/19 132/6
133/3 133/13 134/11
136/12 139/23 152/25)
154/8 156/16 157/13
162/21 167/23 170/6
173/10 180/14 180/17
181/7 181/20 185/6
186/4 188/11
whenever [1] 127/13
where [35] 16/17
17/16 19/22 32/6 40/8)
49/9 49/11 53/18
53/19 64/1 64/7 64/21
(80) value... - where
Ww
where... [23] 74/24
78/2 83/3 95/6 96/15
110/17 1141/5 111/7
111/24 121/22 123/8
125/3 127/22 139/17
142/11 144/22 144/23)
148/16 159/5 164/14
166/24 174/20 183/8
whereas [1] 43/8
whereby [2] 122/1
178/3
whether [44] 7/24
12/1 19/3 23/3 26/1
26/8 26/10 32/7 32/8
40/14 42/1 45/13
52/24 76/10 76/16
85/13 86/4 86/12
100/13 102/8 106/5
107/2 111/16 111/25
116/22 143/2 149/3
149/4 149/5 149/5
153/3 153/15 155/7
171/1 184/10 184/10
185/9 185/19 185/20
186/5 186/10 188/12
188/13 188/17
which [129] 2/1 5/25
10/5 10/8 11/12 11/25}
13/13 13/17 22/7
22/14 23/14 27/4 31/7
31/18 34/3 34/19
37/13 37/15 37/21
38/3 38/5 38/7 38/11
39/12 39/19 39/22
41/23 44/14 56/2
57/17 63/6 64/2 64/6
64/25 65/2 65/8 65/13
65/14 65/19 67/2 70/3
71/16 72/20 81/12
81/14 83/8 86/1 90/10
90/12 90/13 91/9
93/17 95/2 101/24
102/11 104/22 105/13}
105/16 106/22 107/1
107/1 107/6 108/3
108/23 111/1 111/24
113/11 113/12 113/15}
115/4 115/20 116/9
116/11 118/25 119/24}
120/15 121/3 124/6
124/8 126/25 128/3
130/14 135/9 135/18
135/25 136/20 138/11
139/11 140/16 142/4
142/9 142/16 145/24
147/16 147/21 148/20}
150/5 152/9 152/17
155/8 157/17 157/19
158/4 159/10 162/10
164/6 164/9 164/11
164/24 165/16 165/17)
165/19 166/1 166/22
17116 172/8 173/7
174/11 175/20 178/1
178/15 178/22 180/3
180/6 181/22 182/25
184/6 184/21 189/6
while [5] 42/14 74/6
91/13 109/21 131/1
whilst [7] 49/21 66/3
90/5 103/18 107/20
117/17 127/10
whistleblower [1]
48/21
whistleblowing [18]
43/22 44/20 44/21
44/24 48/23 49/10
50/6 51/10 51/17 52/8
54/13 56/17 57/19
66/25 67/3 67/19
67/24 68/7
white [1] 123/3
Whitehead [2]
140/18 140/21
who [66] 8/17 11/3
11/7 20/18 29/8 38/19)
43/16 44/8 45/19 47/8)
49/20 50/20 50/23
51/4 55/15 56/14
60/15 61/4 61/20
61/20 65/6 67/12
68/11 70/25 72/11
72/24 73/22 75/14
75/24 76/2 76/13
76/21 76/24 76/25
81/18 82/4 82/16
82/17 82/19 82/25
83/9 84/23 88/11
88/11 92/24 93/8
97/11 97/18 97/24
98/13 99/1 119/15
121/21 141/9 150/2
150/13 151/15 156/13}
165/12 169/20 173/3
176/16 180/7 182/18
186/24 187/2
who'd [1] 93/1
whole [13] 21/13
77IT 86/21 90/23
107/20 108/13 108/16)
110/19 113/6 113/8
131/21 137/16 144/12)
whom [4] 90/2 112/9
134/24 159/23
whose [1] 15/13
why [37] 5/6 5/23
17/20 24/23 25/12
27/11 28/1 34/23 35/5
39/2 41/23 43/14
51/24 52/3 57/2 59/17)
59/25 67/6 71/13 73/1
75/1 87/17 87/19
87/23 125/20 131/7
132/12 133/25 141/21
142/10 147/4 158/8
160/25 164/11 166/21
173/9 185/22
wide [4] 2/12 105/2
114/1 114/8
widely [3] 145/9
166/17 174/20
wider [14] 29/9 29/18
95/1 96/7 97/4 121/1
133/15 135/19 142/4
143/7 147/8 149/5
157/2 164/22
widest [1] 105/9
wielded [1] 67/18
will [44] 2/7 3/11 3/13)
12/1 14/22 18/24
18/25 26/21 26/22
27/4 27/5 34/8 42/15
44/14 45/1 53/4 53/8
53/11 53/13 53/15
53/23 54/1 67/25
83/14 83/20 91/9 92/5
92/11 100/18 102/23
106/16 113/25 122/14
125/2 141/1 141/2
141/3 146/23 150/13
160/6 172/24 173/4
180/6 180/6
Williams [9] 6/16 7/1
33/13 34/16 39/9 45/1
64/24 65/6 88/21
willing [2] 12/21 41/7
wish [2] 136/2
167/18
within [40] 14/4 14/7
21/5 22/10 29/19 45/3
50/15 58/21 62/8
63/10 70/5 70/14
74/25 105/3 105/8
106/1 107/9 108/3
109/10 111/3 112/24
115/11 124/5 124/19
127/17 127/24 128/17I
129/24 129/24 134/23}
135/16 140/19 143/21
160/13 162/1 166/13
166/15 167/11 173/20
175/21
without [14] 11/14
53/16 64/4 64/23
70/17 90/17 109/20
110/16 130/12 146/9
159/9 170/14 184/12
186/20
WITN00800100 [1]
161/2
WITN11250100 [1]
102/22
WITN11330100 [2]
2/7 72/3
witness [27] 1/11 2/3
2/6 2/13 5/2 55/14
55/17 59/6 68/19
70/23 72/2 77/14 94/7
98/16 98/23 99/22
101/5 101/23 102/19
119/18 150/2 150/2
161/3 175/6 179/18
189/3 189/6
witnessed [1] 46/20
witnesses [1] 182/25
won't [2] 56/5 90/25
wonder [1] 140/5
Woodley [1] 77/18
word [2] 76/10 178/6
wording [11] 5/24
6/1 6/12 11/12 11/16
18/11 22/18 22/22
24/4 24/5 66/4
words [5] 17/20
17/23 18/2 72/1
180/18
work [33] 3/14 3/24
3/24 9/15 27/3 37/20
49/24 50/5 50/24 66/7)
83/20 88/4 109/18
109/22 115/13 116/1
117/9 122/7 126/8
127/23 131/23 132/4
135/4 136/8 147/13
148/23 153/2 164/15
164/15 164/16 167/21
176/4 176/17
workable [1] 66/10
worked [9] 33/19
102/13 112/10 124/21
127/9 151/20 156/10
169/17 180/12
workforce [1] 16/13
working [21] 10/16
30/16 64/24 94/12
112/13 114/24 115/1
128/3 131/9 155/15
155/21 156/11 156/14)
158/11 159/25 160/10}
160/18 173/1 176/2
176/23 183/4
workload [1] 4/17
workloads [1] 50/8
world [2] 80/14
164/23
worried [1] 154/25
worse [1] 106/5
would [233]
wouldn't [14] 29/13
34/3 45/8 50/9 52/3
75/25 80/13 89/2
137/24 145/21 147/9
148/3 148/24 158/6
write [4] 10/13
127/13 128/2 175/11
writing [2] 44/23
157/11
written [5] 17/8 38/12!
130/6 131/12 172/3
wrong [8] 28/23 64/8
69/7 86/9 86/25 153/7,
163/10 166/20
wrongdoers [1] 75/1
wrongdoing [4] 7/18
78/2 84/13 84/22
wronged [1] 156/13
wrongful [1] 84/8
wrongly [3] 89/24
163/1 186/6
wrote [1] 55/25
Wyn [11] 6/1 6/16 7/1
7/11 11/12 23/2 23/5
39/9 45/1 88/21 98/6
Y
yeah [3] 50/21 50/21
178/23
year [21] 1/12 3/14
3/14 4/4 26/6 28/3
32/23 33/7 40/7 62/19I
75/12 83/24 95/14
107/15 112/19 154/4
17719 177/15 177/17
177/23 188/16
years [11] 14/3 41/3
83/23 84/14 121/19
130/6 158/2 165/8
168/6 186/6 187/17
yes [162] 1/16 1/18
2/11 3/3 5/5 6/11 8/5
8/23 10/12 10/17
10/23 11/3 11/16 12/5)
13/9 13/12 14/12 18/9)
18/19 19/25 20/8
20/20 20/20 20/21
21/24 24/13 25/7 25/8)
25/23 27/10 28/3
29/11 30/20 36/20
37/12 38/9 40/1 40/5
41/13 42/23 43/2 43/5
44/6 46/5 48/9 48/18
49/9 51/1 51/20 51/23
52/17 52/18 52/21
52/25 54/17 55/1
55/19 56/20 56/23
57/10 59/10 59/23
60/1 62/15 63/10
63/20 63/24 68/15
68/22 70/25 72/14
75/18 77/17 79/17
79/23 80/4 80/21
81/11 82/11 82/18
85/25 89/17 89/18
90/8 90/22 90/23
92/21 93/23 94/3 94/4
94/23 97/20 98/20
99/8 100/22 101/3
101/9 101/10 101/10
101/16 102/2 102/5
102/7 102/16 103/4
103/11 103/15 103/23)
104/12 106/24 108/7
109/25 110/3 110/24
111/3 117/24 118/15
118/18 119/8 119/23
120/4 120/7 122/25
123/11 123/16 124/21
127/11 132/14 134/13}
(81) where... - yes
Y
yes... [33] 135/19
136/11 137/1 137/6
137/14 137/20 138/4
139/24 140/6 140/12
146/18 148/2 149/20
150/11 150/21 158/7
162/6 166/10 169/8
170/12 172/3 177/2
177/19 179/4 180/15
183/7 183/13 183/20
184/3 184/9 184/14
185/2 187/6
yesterday [1] 141/6
yet [11] 25/13 71/15
72/7 82/17 82/25
83/12 86/25 87/23
90/2 97/12 152/2
you [694]
you'd [7] 4/3 78/19
99/8 126/18 147/14
148/4 158/14
you'll [3] 77/12 92/22
160/14
you're [27] 15/13
21/8 22/14 29/18
51/22 55/25 60/12
62/10 77/1 80/11
80/20 82/13 94/22
118/11 119/6 119/19
136/15 139/19 140/16}
148/6 165/20 172/13
178/22 179/2 181/7
183/12 183/24
you've [37] 1/25 2/13
5/2 21/20 22/10 39/15)
51/17 55/17 55/20
55/24 56/12 56/16
57/1 57/7 59/24 61/16
61/17 67/2 70/22 78/7
82/12 89/22 89/23
98/17 109/23 113/4
114/25 115/5 153/5
153/7 167/11 175/5
176/5 176/9 177/12
183/11 185/25
YouGov [4] 79/14
92/13 92/14 94/15
your [171] 1/8 1/19
1/22 2/2 2/4 2/13 3/5
3/6 3/12 4/7 5/1 5/2
8/3 9/10 9/18 9/20
10/21 13/7 14/2 16/7
16/23 16/23 19/13
21/14 25/22 27/25
28/10 28/13 28/19
28/23 30/19 33/3
33/10 35/6 39/15
40/11 40/19 42/2 44/3
50/2 55/14 55/17
55/18 56/12 57/1 57/7
58/17 59/3 59/6 59/20)
59/25 59/25 60/5
61/16 62/12 63/21
66/20 67/2 68/13
70/22 71/19 72/2
73/12 74/8 74/16 75/9)
75/16 76/2 77/12
77/20 78/6 81/6 81/23)
82/12 83/3 85/23 86/6
87/5 88/10 93/13
94/21 98/15 98/17
98/23 98/25 101/5
101/20 101/23 102/6
102/9 102/19 103/2
104/4 104/9 104/19
104/22 104/25 105/19)
106/18 108/10 109/12)
109/13 110/20 110/23}
110/25 111/14 113/2
113/4 115/6 117/14
117/15 117/23 117/25)
118/1 118/19 120/5
122/15 124/17 125/16)
126/12 127/8 135/9
135/13 136/5 136/7
136/19 136/22 138/19)
138/19 138/21 139/22)
139/23 141/17 143/16)
146/17 148/3 149/13
153/2 153/2 153/6
153/14 154/1 158/14
158/18 158/22 160/5
162/4 162/7 164/9
166/3 167/9 171/11
171/24 172/14 173/20)
174/1 175/6 175/7
176/9 177/13 178/8
181/23 181/24 183/19)
184/18 184/23 185/11
187/11 188/2 188/3
189/6
yourself [6] 33/8
49/15 51/18 51/21
110/5 145/14
YouTube [1] 94/14
Zz
Zdravko [1] 82/8
zero [1] 167/5
(82) yes... - zero