the from carl cresswell from the department for business and trade who, with advice from lawyers, is responsible for deciding on the level of compensation for sub postmasters. he was asked how many claims had so far been settled. we published data at the end of january, at that .58 full claims had been received, 52 had been issued, 41 had been accepted on 28 paid. this was via memorandum that we sent your committee today. as of the end of last week, my team gave me the data last night, we have received 156 full claims, we had made 104 offers... . .,, 156 full claims, we had made 104 offers... . ., ., ~ offers... that was him talking earlier. offers... that was him talking earlier- i _ offers... that was him talking earlier. iwill_ offers... that was him talking earlier. i will take _ offers... that was him talking earlier. i will take you - offers... that was him talking earlier. i will take you back. offers... that was him talking earlier. i will take you back to westminster, henry strong, the former chair of the post office, has just been sworn in at that session at westminster, let's listening and hear what the mps ask him.- hear what the mps ask him. thank ou, mr hear what the mps ask him. thank you, mr staunton. _ hear what the mps ask him. thank you, mr staunton. i— hear what the mps ask him. thank you, mr staunton. iwill_ hear what the mps ask him. thank you, mr staunton. i will come - you, mr staunton. iwill come straight to the heart of the

questions, which is, where you told by anybody serving in his majesty's government that you should in any way, shape orform government that you should in any way, shape or form slow down or minimise payments or redress to subpostmasters? let minimise payments or redress to subpostmasters?_ minimise payments or redress to subpostmasters? let me 'ust answer that question — subpostmasters? let me 'ust answer that question by. h subpostmasters? let me 'ust answer that question by, it subpostmasters? let me 'ust answer that question by, i think_ subpostmasters? let me just answer that question by, i think you - subpostmasters? let me just answer that question by, i think you used . that question by, i think you used the phrase, — that question by, i think you used the phrase, not underwing, let me say exactly— the phrase, not underwing, let me say exactly what took place. —— the phrase _ say exactly what took place. —— the phrase node — say exactly what took place. —— the phrase node and the wing. i met for an instructor— phrase node and the wing. i met for an instructor meeting injanuary last year. — an instructor meeting injanuary last year. i_ an instructor meeting injanuary last year, i went through the many challenges — last year, i went through the many challenges we faced, the central governance, and reliable systems, inadequate controls —— dysfunctional governance. — inadequate controls —— dysfunctional governance, a hugely loss—making business. — governance, a hugely loss—making business, all the issues around remediation, and a poor culture. and i said _ remediation, and a poor culture. and i said this _ remediation, and a poor culture. and i said this is — remediation, and a poor culture. and i said this is a — remediation, and a poor culture. and i said this is a three to five year turnaround _ i said this is a three to five year turnaround situation at the post office, — turnaround situation at the post office, and i had in mind that it was probably the latter rather than the former. she said, in response to

that, _ the former. she said, in response to that, this _ the former. she said, in response to that, this is — the former. she said, in response to that, this is no time for long—term ptanning~ — that, this is no time for long—term planning. she said, money is tight at the _ planning. she said, money is tight at the treasury and you need to realty _ at the treasury and you need to really understand that. i said, welt, — really understand that. i said, welt, in — really understand that. i said, well, in terms of trying to hold back, — well, in terms of trying to hold back, there are only three leavers of big _ back, there are only three leavers of big cash— back, there are only three leavers of big cash outflows we can pull, one is— of big cash outflows we can pull, one is the — of big cash outflows we can pull, one is the inquiry costs which are significant. — one is the inquiry costs which are significant, one is compensation, and one — significant, one is compensation, and one is— significant, one is compensation, and one is the replacement to horizon. — and one is the replacement to horizon, which is the biggest lever, and i_ horizon, which is the biggest lever, and i said. — horizon, which is the biggest lever, and i said, that's... and i said, actually, — and i said, that's... and i said, actually, in— and i said, that's... and i said, actually, in detail, i said, the inquiry, — actually, in detail, i said, the inquiry, the cost will have to be what _ inquiry, the cost will have to be what they— inquiry, the cost will have to be what they have to be, surely. in respect — what they have to be, surely. in respect of — what they have to be, surely. in respect of compensation, we need to hem _ respect of compensation, we need to hem to _ respect of compensation, we need to hem to do _ respect of compensation, we need to be... to do the right thing by postmasters in taking this money. and we _ postmasters in taking this money. and we are — postmasters in taking this money. and we are in dire need of a new

system, — and we are in dire need of a new system, and she said, again, repeated _ system, and she said, again, repeated again, money is very tight, this is— repeated again, money is very tight, this is no— repeated again, money is very tight, this is no time to rip off the band—aid, and i was left in no doubt that _ band—aid, and i was left in no doubt that i_ band—aid, and i was left in no doubt that... i would band—aid, and i was left in no doubt that... iwould have band—aid, and i was left in no doubt that... i would have to look at those — that... i would have to look at those three levers. and i went back to, it _ those three levers. and i went back to, it was _ those three levers. and i went back to, it was such an unusual conversation, i made a full note of it, actually, — conversation, i made a full note of it, actually, you put in quotation marks— it, actually, you put in quotation marks what— it, actually, you put in quotation marks what i was told. and of course i marks what i was told. and of course i was _ marks what i was told. and of course i was accused of being a lawyer until, _ i was accused of being a lawyer until, thankfully, ifound i was accused of being a lawyer until, thankfully, i found this note 'ust until, thankfully, i found this note just a _ until, thankfully, i found this note just a few— until, thankfully, i found this note just a few days ago —— i was accused of being _ just a few days ago —— i was accused of being a _ just a few days ago —— i was accused of being a liar. since then i think the focus — of being a liar. since then i think the focus has changed from, nobody said that, _ the focus has changed from, nobody said that, so what did it mean? i have _ said that, so what did it mean? i have just — said that, so what did it mean? i have just explained what it meant. i went to _ have just explained what it meant. i went to see — have just explained what it meant. i went to see nick reeve and i said, what _ went to see nick reeve and i said, what you _ went to see nick reeve and i said, what you make of this? and he said, they live _ what you make of this? and he said,

they live in _ what you make of this? and he said, they live in a — what you make of this? and he said, they live in a different world. and he said _ they live in a different world. and he said to — they live in a different world. and he said to me, what do you want to do about— he said to me, what do you want to do about this? and i said, well, i think— do about this? and i said, well, i think there's nothing we can do about— think there's nothing we can do about the — think there's nothing we can do about the inquiry, the costs will have _ about the inquiry, the costs will have to — about the inquiry, the costs will have to be _ about the inquiry, the costs will have to be what they have to be, or we should _ have to be what they have to be, or we should just look at legal costs, they are _ we should just look at legal costs, they are clearly of control, we should — they are clearly of control, we should do, and compensation, actually, — should do, and compensation, actually, we should accelerate. this isiust_ actually, we should accelerate. this isiust the _ actually, we should accelerate. this isjust the morally actually, we should accelerate. this is just the morally right thing to do, is just the morally right thing to do. we — is just the morally right thing to do, we should accelerate on compensation. the biggest element, which _ compensation. the biggest element, which was _ compensation. the biggest element, which was the horizon system i said, we've _ which was the horizon system i said, we've been— which was the horizon system i said, we've been put on notice, money is very tight, — we've been put on notice, money is very tight, there is no room for a begging — very tight, there is no room for a begging bowl, there is no room for mistakes, — begging bowl, there is no room for mistakes, we need to be absolutely sure underspend. sol mistakes, we need to be absolutely sure underspend. so i didn't say slow— sure underspend. so i didn't say slow down— sure underspend. so i didn't say slow down to meet the treasury, i 'ust slow down to meet the treasury, i just said. — slow down to meet the treasury, i just said. i— slow down to meet the treasury, i just said, i like to do a double take _ just said, i like to do a double take myself on what this is all about— take myself on what this is all about in— take myself on what this is all about in terms of how we perceive, because _ about in terms of how we perceive, because there is no begging bowl, we've _ because there is no begging bowl, we've only— because there is no begging bowl, we've only really got one chance of investing _ we've only really got one chance of investing in — we've only really got one chance of investing in a horizon replacement

system _ investing in a horizon replacement system and getting it right. so that is the _ system and getting it right. so that is the full— system and getting it right. so that is the full story of what took place — is the full story of what took place so _ is the full story of what took place. so i think... your nod and a wink— place. so i think... your nod and a wink phrase, — place. so i think... your nod and a wink phrase, i_ place. so i think... your nod and a wink phrase, i think about sums it up. wink phrase, i think about sums it up so_ wink phrase, i think about sums it up. so you came away from that meetint up. so you came away from that meeting fairly — up. so you came away from that meeting fairly clear _ up. so you came away from that meeting fairly clear that - up. so you came away from that meeting fairly clear that you - up. so you came away from thatj meeting fairly clear that you had been asked to minimise costs including the cost of compensation? yes, those were the three levers, of which _ yes, those were the three levers, of which compensation was one. the secretary— which compensation was one. the secretary of state, in her letter to me last _ secretary of state, in her letter to me last ._ secretary of state, in her letter to me [as , secretary of state, in her letter to melas , , me last friday, says these claims are completely — me last friday, says these claims are completely fictitious - me last friday, says these claims are completely fictitious that - me last friday, says these claims are completely fictitious that you | are completely fictitious that you have changed your story. is that true? i have changed your story. is that true? ., ., ., ., ~ ., true? i have not at all. i think of course, at _ true? i have not at all. i think of course, at the _ true? i have not at all. i think of course, at the time, _ true? i have not at all. i think of course, at the time, she - true? i have not at all. i think of course, at the time, she said i true? i have not at all. i think of. course, at the time, she said they were _ course, at the time, she said they were relies— course, at the time, she said they were relies because i couldn't find the file _ were relies because i couldn't find the file notes and she said it was a lie and _ the file notes and she said it was a lie and couldn't have been set. since _ lie and couldn't have been set. since then— lie and couldn't have been set. since then the tone of what she is said about — since then the tone of what she is said about me has changed because of course _ said about me has changed because of course i_ said about me has changed because of course i found the file notes,

thankfully. so i can only stand by the file _ thankfully. so i can only stand by the file notes and story ever told you, _ the file notes and story ever told you. which — the file notes and story ever told you, which is the best recollection. she also— you, which is the best recollection. she also said that your notes dated january 2023 does not mention specifically compensation, and she is citing that as evidence in her accusations against you. i is citing that as evidence in her accusations against you. i think it is important _ accusations against you. i think it is important that _ accusations against you. i think it is important that file _ accusations against you. i think it is important that file note - accusations against you. i think it is important that file note was . accusations against you. i think it | is important that file note was not a verbatim — is important that file note was not a verbatim comment of everything that took— a verbatim comment of everything that took place. i mean, i wasjust dots like _ that took place. i mean, i wasjust dots like it — that took place. i mean, i wasjust dots like it was the particular phrase — dots like it was the particular phrase that she used which i thought set the _ phrase that she used which i thought set the tone of what i was being asked — set the tone of what i was being asked if— set the tone of what i was being asked if it _ set the tone of what i was being asked. if it was a verbatim file note _ asked. if it was a verbatim file note of— asked. if it was a verbatim file note of all things talked about it would _ note of all things talked about it would have been three pages, but that's— would have been three pages, but that's not— would have been three pages, but that's not what i said to do. i set out to— that's not what i said to do. i set out tqust — that's not what i said to do. i set out tojust say that's not what i said to do. i set out to just say that this is the thrust— out to just say that this is the thrust of— out to just say that this is the thrust of the conversation and that's— thrust of the conversation and that's what i went through afterwards. so that's what i went through afterwards.— that's what i went through afterwards. ,, . ., , ., afterwards. so the secretary of state and sarah _ afterwards. so the secretary of state and sarah munby - afterwards. so the secretary of state and sarah munby have i afterwards. so the secretary of| state and sarah munby have set afterwards. so the secretary of - state and sarah munby have set out in subsequent correspondence that

the budget for compensation is ring fenced and provided by the government. actually, mr reid said to us earlier that there is a post office contribution to the compensation fund but you're right, it is mainly ring fenced and held within the treasury. —— mr read. if the provision, say there is an exoneration and much more money is paid out, the amount you have ring fenced becomes larger. presumably if we went... if we were tough on compensation and it became smaller, that would release the money that we ring fenced. so that's how ring fencing works. and in respect of ring fencing, it's really important if you read the post office accounts, you will see on page 65, they talk about a going concern, etc. in particular, when we said, is very specific, there is no financial

guarantee, they're specifically says there is no financial guarantee, so clearly, from the point of fact that it is ring fenced, it sounds done and dusted but actually, it's not hard ring fence. it specifically saysin hard ring fence. it specifically says in the accounts this is not a guarantee. says in the accounts this is not a guarantee-— guarantee. that's interesting because the _ guarantee. that's interesting because the secretary - guarantee. that's interesting because the secretary of - guarantee. that's interesting. because the secretary of state points — because the secretary of state points out the government has got no incentive _ points out the government has got no incentive to _ points out the government has got no incentive to delay because there is a ring _ incentive to delay because there is a ring fenced compensation fund. do you allow— a ring fenced compensation fund. do you allow that argument? the answer is, the only route, _ you allow that argument? the answer is, the only route, the _ you allow that argument? the answer is, the only route, the big _ you allow that argument? the answer is, the only route, the big numbers i is, the only route, the big numbers are in respect of overturned convictions, and i think some said 4% has been paid out. so the fact is it was going nowhere in terms of the exoneration costs. in the whole thing opened up subsequent to the tv programme, untilthat thing opened up subsequent to the tv programme, until that point, thing opened up subsequent to the tv programme, untilthat point, no headway was being made. so i think

that's worth understanding. in her that's worth understanding. in her letter, that's worth understanding. in her letter. and — that's worth understanding. in her letter, and file _ that's worth understanding. in her letter, and file notes, _ that's worth understanding. in her letter, and file notes, sarah - that's worth understanding. in herl letter, and file notes, sarah munby says this, _ letter, and file notes, sarah munby says this, this is dated 21st february _ says this, this is dated 21st february. she said, we discuss the post office — february. she said, we discuss the post office operational funding, not compensation funding. she goes on to say, i— compensation funding. she goes on to say, i am _ compensation funding. she goes on to say, i am able to give you, the secretary— say, i am able to give you, the secretary of state, the strongest reassurance that i did not at any point _ reassurance that i did not at any point suggest to mr staunton or to imply— point suggest to mr staunton or to imply to — point suggest to mr staunton or to imply to him in any way whatsoever that there _ imply to him in any way whatsoever that there should be delayed compensation payments for postmasters. i do not believe they should _ postmasters. i do not believe they should be — postmasters. i do not believe they should be delayed and no minister has ever— should be delayed and no minister has ever asked me to make delays. does _ has ever asked me to make delays. does that— has ever asked me to make delays. does that assertion by a sarah munby undermine _ does that assertion by a sarah munby undermine your assertions? well, it does, if undermine your assertions? well, it does. if her — undermine your assertions? well, it does, if her file _ undermine your assertions? well, it does, if her file note _ undermine your assertions? well, it does, if her file note is _ undermine your assertions? well, it does, if her file note is written - undermine your assertions? well, it does, if her file note is written a - does, if her file note is written a year and month after my file note, so is not contemporary file not by

any means, is written with the purpose of answering this point. so i'm not casting any aspersions on her but that's worth fully understanding. d0 her but that's worth fully understanding.— her but that's worth fully understanding. her but that's worth fully understandint. , ., ,, ., understanding. do you think sarah munby may _ understanding. do you think sarah munby may have _ understanding. do you think sarah | munby may have misremembered? understanding. do you think sarah - munby may have misremembered? there are a lot of issues _ munby may have misremembered? there are a lot of issues going _ munby may have misremembered? ii—ii” are a lot of issues going around about miss remembering, lying, etc, and that's not what i want to get into, i'mjust explaining and that's not what i want to get into, i'm just explaining what i know. i am into, i'm just explaining what i know. iam not into, i'm just explaining what i know. i am not here to guess... but on the face — know. i am not here to guess... but on the face of _ know. i am not here to guess... but on the face of it, then, it appears that sarah— on the face of it, then, it appears that sarah munby may have walked away from — that sarah munby may have walked away from your conversation with a different _ away from your conversation with a different interpretation to you. i�*m different interpretation to you. i'm talkint different interpretation to you. i�*rn talking about different interpretation to you. i“n talking about levers, this is not a phd in accounting, this simple issues we are talking about, i don't think there's much room for misinterpretation. but think there's much room for misinterpretation.— misinterpretation. but third makdessi — misinterpretation. but third makdessi in _ misinterpretation. but third makdessi in her _ misinterpretation. but third makdessi in her file - misinterpretation. but third makdessi in her file note i misinterpretation. but third i makdessi in her file note that misinterpretation. but third - makdessi in her file note that there is, quote, — makdessi in her file note that there is, quote, complete firewall between the two _ is, quote, complete firewall between the two budgets for composition and operation _ the two budgets for composition and operation —— sarah munby says in her file mode~ _

operation —— sarah munby says in her file mode. but you're saying it's not as— file mode. but you're saying it's not as simple as that. it�*s file mode. but you're saying it's not as simple as that.— not as simple as that. it's not, i mean, not as simple as that. it's not, i mean. as _ not as simple as that. it's not, i mean. as l _ not as simple as that. it's not, i mean. as i say. _ not as simple as that. it's not, i mean, as i say, if— not as simple as that. it's not, i mean, as i say, if no, _ not as simple as that. it's not, i mean, as i say, if no, these - not as simple as that. it's not, i i mean, as i say, if no, these issues on exoneration, the fact is the money held in treasury within this parable ought to have been increased significantly because of the eggnog exoneration payments —— this firewall. because of the exoneration payments. the firewall. because of the exoneration ta ments. ,, . ., , ., ,, ., payments. the secretary of state toes on payments. the secretary of state goes on to _ payments. the secretary of state goes on to say. — payments. the secretary of state goes on to say, she _ payments. the secretary of state goes on to say, she goes - payments. the secretary of state goes on to say, she goes on i payments. the secretary of state goes on to say, she goes on to i goes on to say, she goes on to present— goes on to say, she goes on to present her appointment letter or her priorities letter to you, dated 29thjune — her priorities letter to you, dated 29thjune last year, that says you're — 29thjune last year, that says you're to _ 29thjune last year, that says you're to provide fair compensation to those _ you're to provide fair compensation to those affected by the historic failure — to those affected by the historic failure is — to those affected by the historic failure is and in particular to inject — failure is and in particular to inject pace into the delivery compensation for those with overturned convictions. that instruction sounds like it's at odds with the _ instruction sounds like it's at odds with the impression you walked away with the impression you walked away with from _ with the impression you walked away with from the conversation with sarah _ with from the conversation with sarah munby. with from the conversation with

sarah munby-— with from the conversation with i sarah munby._ because sarah munby. absolutely. because sarah munby. absolutely. because sarah munby _ sarah munby. absolutely. because sarah munby was _ sarah munby. absolutely. because sarah munby was talking _ sarah munby. absolutely. because sarah munby was talking about i sarah munby. absolutely. becausej sarah munby was talking about the sarah munby was talking abou financing sarah munby was talking about true: financing issues within treasury, and i got the very clear message that... well, ithink and i got the very clear message that... well, i think i put it in the notes, money is tight. all i was doing was representing what i was told. i thought i'd just on this file note and it would never see the light of day, other than talking to nick about it, and i said, we are going to proceed with compensation and i will take the consequences. so this is... what other reason would i have done it? it's not done for trying to have a discussion in a year per cycle time with the secretary of state it was just done as a matter of, because the words are so odd. —— in a year's time. so are so odd. -- in a year's time. so the are so odd. —— in a year's time. so the words that you received were different — the words that you received were different to the letter of what the secretary of state laid out? correct _ secretary of state laid out? correct. ., , ., ., , correct. so there was an ambiguity? yes, i think— correct. so there was an ambiguity? yes. i think as _ correct. so there was an ambiguity? yes, i think as you _ correct. so there was an ambiguity? yes, i think as you said, _

correct. so there was an ambiguity? yes, i think as you said, used i correct. so there was an ambiguity? yes, i think as you said, used the i yes, i think as you said, used the phrase nod and a wink, i was left with the impression that if i could pull any levers i should, and it was not an unreasonable lever to pull with respect of the horizon replacement but i was not going to go anywhere near the morally wrong decision not to pay our postmasters or to affect the statutory inquiry. nick read said, i have never been instructed — nick read said, i have never been instructed to delay compensation, nor have _ instructed to delay compensation, nor have any of my leadership team quoted _ nor have any of my leadership team quoted the — nor have any of my leadership team quoted the best of my knowledge, it seems _ quoted the best of my knowledge, it seems like _ quoted the best of my knowledge, it seems like he can write but because of your— seems like he can write but because of your conversation with sarah munby — of your conversation with sarah munby. he of your conversation with sarah munb . .., of your conversation with sarah munb . , , of your conversation with sarah munb. _ ., , munby. he can buy that because i said we are _ munby. he can buy that because i said we are not _ munby. he can buy that because i said we are not going _ munby. he can buy that because i said we are not going to - munby. he can buy that because i said we are not going to do i munby. he can buy that because i i said we are not going to do anything thatis said we are not going to do anything that is not the morally right decision, we will continue to pay compensation. and i did say to him, if anything, we should accelerate it. 50 if anything, we should accelerate it. , ., if anything, we should accelerate i it._ absolutely. it. so you stand by... ? absolutely. what ou it. so you stand by... ? absolutely. what you said _ it. so you stand by... ? absolutely. what you said in _ it. so you stand by... ? absolutely. what you said in public _ it. so you stand by... ? absolutely. what you said in public about i it. so you stand by... ? absolutely. what you said in public about the i what you said in public about the message — what you said in public about the message you receive from us eu civil servant _ message you receive from us eu civil servant that — message you receive from us eu civil servant that position payments should —

servant that position payments should be slowed down to minimise liability— should be slowed down to minimise liability -- — should be slowed down to minimise liability —— from a senior civil servant _ liability -- from a senior civil servant. , ., liability -- from a senior civil servant._ you i liability -- from a senior civil. servant._ you previous liability -- from a senior civil- servant._ you previous the servant. yes, i do. you previous the chairman of— servant. yes, i do. you previous the chairman of wh _ servant. yes, i do. you previous the chairman of wh smith, _ servant. yes, i do. you previous the chairman of wh smith, vice - servant. yes, i do. you previous the l chairman of wh smith, vice chairman of legal— chairman of wh smith, vice chairman of legal and _ chairman of wh smith, vice chairman of legal and general, _ chairman of wh smith, vice chairman of legal and general, and _ chairman of wh smith, vice chairman of legal and general, and also - of legal and general, and also served — of legal and general, and also served on— of legal and general, and also served on the _ of legal and general, and also served on the boards - of legal and general, and also served on the boards of- of legal and general, and also - served on the boards of ladbrokes... and others — served on the boards of ladbrokes... and others how— served on the boards of ladbrokes... and others. how do _ served on the boards of ladbrokes... and others. how do you _ served on the boards of ladbrokes... and others. how do you feel - served on the boards of ladbrokes... and others. how do you feel about i and others. how do you feel about the attack— and others. how do you feel about the attack on — and others. how do you feel about the attack on your— the attack on your honesty, character, _ the attack on your honesty, character, credibility? i the attack on your honesty, | character, credibility? given the attack on your honesty, i character, credibility? given in this session. _ character, credibility? given in this session, we _ character, credibility? given in this session, we had _ character, credibility? given in this session, we had today, i character, credibility? given in i this session, we had today, you've been _ this session, we had today, you've been classified _ this session, we had today, you've been classified unequivocally i this session, we had today, you've been classified unequivocally as i this session, we had today, you've been classified unequivocally as a i been classified unequivocally as a liar, been classified unequivocally as a liar. how— been classified unequivocally as a liar. how do — been classified unequivocally as a liar. how do you _ been classified unequivocally as a liar, how do you feel _ been classified unequivocally as a liar, how do you feel about - been classified unequivocally as a liar, how do you feel about that? | been classified unequivocally as a i liar, how do you feel about that? i liar, how do you feel about that? think... i don't want to blow my liar, how do you feel about that?" think... i don't want to blow my own trumpet but i've been the chairman of four big public companies, the deputy chairman of legal and general, which is the biggest insurance company in the uk. i've been an executive director of both

granada and itv. so i do have... and i was a partner at price waterhouse before i did thosejobs, so in terms of governance, i have had experience going back to the age of 32, in terms of what was the right thing to do in governance, so i feel as if i have some experience in this whole area. and i wouldn't have been considered a successful chairman if i had not come i would not have been appointed to... hope i had not come i would not have been appointed to- - -_ appointed to... how do you feel about these _ appointed to... how do you feel about these accusations - appointed to... how do you feel about these accusations from i appointed to... how do you feel- about these accusations from senior politicians _ about these accusations from senior politicians and — about these accusations from senior politicians and senior— about these accusations from senior politicians and senior executives i about these accusations from senior politicians and senior executives in i politicians and senior executives in the post _ politicians and senior executives in the post office? _ politicians and senior executives in the post office? it's _ politicians and senior executives in the post office?— the post office? it's not good. i mean, the post office? it's not good. i mean. what _ the post office? it's not good. i mean. what i — the post office? it's not good. i mean, what i have _ the post office? it's not good. i mean, what i have done - the post office? it's not good. i mean, what i have done is i the post office? it's not good. i | mean, what i have done is stand the post office? it's not good. i i mean, what i have done is stand up for the postmasters, in fact, if you don't mind, the post office have had the chance to make a number of representations to you, which i hadn't realised i had the opportunity to do, so i hadn't made a representation, so i wouldn't mind

reading out for a minute my view to make representation to you, compared to representations the post office have made, if you don't mind. my statement is, what happened to these poor postmasters and their families is a tragedy and scandal. they have been failed time and time again by a host of british institutions who were supposed to be there to protect the citizen and ensure fair play. we all know there was in action all round by thejudicial all know there was in action all round by the judicial system, all know there was in action all round by thejudicial system, the government, whitehall and particularly inside the post office, until the itv drama, mr bates versus the post office mammal, and there was a rocket then put under things. —— and there was a rocket then put under things. the secretary of state and senior officials ask us to

believe everything was going swimmingly all along when it damn well wasn't. we all know, we all know that things were moving far too slowly, and you have heard from postmasters today who said it even more eloquently than i could. and what i said in the sunday times about final someone was being honest about final someone was being honest about how deep—seated the problems were and still nothing was being done, i still think more could be done, i still think more could be done, at least make compensation generous and the process of getting less bureaucratic. but i will at least have achieved something if that so might a disinfectant which has been promised lives up to its promise. what the public wants to know is, why was everything so slow? and why does everything remained so slow? i have spoken up on matters of

genuine public concern, have been fired and no subject to a smear campaign, so you're quite right, i havejust given you campaign, so you're quite right, i have just given you the background... mrchairman. mr chairman. mr staunton, can you characterise — mr chairman. mr staunton, can you characterise the _ mr chairman. mr staunton, can you characterise the oversight - mr chairman. mr staunton, can you characterise the oversight of... i characterise the oversight of... sorry, — characterise the oversight of... sorry, bracken writes. the department's oversight with the post office _ department's oversight with the post office when it comes to the redress scheme, _ office when it comes to the redress scheme, how much...?— scheme, how much...? terribly sorry---? _ scheme, how much...? terribly sorry---? was _ scheme, how much...? terribly sorry. . . ? was the _ scheme, how much...? terribly sorry. . . ? was the department i sorry...? was the department hands-on. — sorry...? was the department hands-on. or— sorry...? was the department hands-on, or was _ sorry...? was the department hands-on, or was it _ sorry...? was the department hands-on, or was it seen i sorry...? was the department hands-on, or was it seen as i sorry. . . ? was the department i hands-on, or was it seen as being at hands—on, or was it seen as being at a distance? — hands—on, or was it seen as being at a distance? i�*m hands-on, or was it seen as being at a distance?— a distance? i'm terribly sorry, the post office _ a distance? i'm terribly sorry, the post office being _ a distance? i'm terribly sorry, the post office being hands-on - a distance? i'm terribly sorry, the post office being hands-on in - a distance? i'm terribly sorry, the l post office being hands-on in which post office being hands—on in which respect? in post office being hands-on in which resect? , i, s, respect? in terms of that relationship _ respect? in terms of that relationship between - respect? in terms of that relationship between the | respect? in terms of that _ relationship between the department and the _ relationship between the department and the post office, did you feel they were — and the post office, did you feel they were hands—on in terms of that discussion_ they were hands—on in terms of that discussion that you might have had out with— discussion that you might have had out with some of the...? fire discussion that you might have had out with some of the. . . ?_ out with some of the. . . ? are you

talkin: out with some of the. . . ? are you talking about _ out with some of the. . . ? are you talking about composition - out with some of the. . . ? are you talking about composition in - talking about composition in particular?— talking about composition in particular?- the - talking about composition in particular? yes. the truth is that i said to nick _ particular? yes. the truth is that i said to nick reed _ particular? yes. the truth is that i said to nick reed we were going to carry on and take the consequences of, we continued with that —— nick read. we talked about the processes and i don't dispute anything he said in terms of how all that was managed. in terms of how all that was managed-— in terms of how all that was mana . ed. �* ., . managed. but did that include discussions _ managed. but did that include discussions with _ managed. but did that include discussions with the _ managed. but did that include discussions with the secretary| managed. but did that include i discussions with the secretary of state _ discussions with the secretary of state and — discussions with the secretary of state and with ministers? how did all that— state and with ministers? how did all that happen... state and with ministers? how did allthat happen... ? state and with ministers? how did all that happen... ? to state and with ministers? how did all that happen... ?_ all that happen... ? to be fairi think all that — all that happen... ? to be fairi think all that was _ all that happen... ? to be fairi think all that was done - all that happen... ? to be fairi think all that was done at - all that happen... ? to be fairi think all that was done at a - all that happen... ? to be fair i l think all that was done at a lower level, in terms of the manager of the competition. i never talked to the competition. i never talked to the minister at all about having any concerns at that operating type of level. —— the minutiae of the compensation. my main concern, there are two schemes, there are three issues, we will come to the last one which is current postmasters and how they are viewed within the

organisation, which you have a very good area of my file notes, but the first two schemes were laid firstly to overturned convictions, and the issue there is that it was going terribly slowly, exoneration was not on the agenda, despite the fact that neither we was this going to be dealt with, because all of the file notes i saw was that they were all these comments about postmasters being guilty as charged, whether it was richard taylor or nick read in his letter to the lord chancellor or even the postmasters saying it, that guilty as charged, ijust don't accept because the file notes i see is that the vast majority of postmasters who have not come forward to this issue is because they do not want to be tried all over again. theyjust don't trust the system. and that's the first issue. the second issue is, i think

the minister did a terrific thing to put the £600,000 offered in september in terms of overturned conviction, but actually there was a very low take—up and i had said that nick read, we must get the message across, it's got to be seen to be generous, ie 1000000 pounds, and i know that seems a lot of money but i said i wasn't sure the british public would have such an issue with those, they would far prefer generosity then tightfisted and anxious. in the second issue was related to another post master, we mustn't forget that overturned conviction, the progress has been lamentable, but in terms of the other claims, postmasters have got problems, i think you've touched on them, actually, which is... it's impossible to understand, i am an accountant and i struggle with it without legal advice, and all the

information that you need, if you read the file notes, the attitude of the legal people talking to our postmasters, aggressive, hostile questioning, it's been a massive issue. and is largely behind us but as a result of that, one can see from one of the comments that actually, many postmasters, because of that hostile attitude, have settled for far less than they think is reasonable. mr bates was a perfect example. he is obviously not one to be adversely cowed by hostility and he stuck it out but the offer, as he said, was a fraction of what heating is reasonable. so whether it's the overturned convictions, which we can all focus on going forwards, there has to be a massive problem that i think what we need to do is not only to have speeding up of overturned convictions and a bigger number than

600,000, i think someone touched on from the committee, we should reopen all these issues when the other postmasters schemes because postmasters schemes because postmasters have settled for far less than they think is reasonable for all the issues, i think i've been repeating, if i...- been repeating, if i... you mentioned _ been repeating, if i... you mentioned the _ been repeating, if i... you mentioned the pace - been repeating, if i... you mentioned the pace of- been repeating, if i... you mentioned the pace of the payments, compensation payments and so on, but you chairman — compensation payments and so on, but you chairman. i'mjust compensation payments and so on, but you chairman. i'm just in terms of that, _ you chairman. i'm just in terms of that. we _ you chairman. i'm just in terms of that, we heard your cv in terms of the amount— that, we heard your cv in terms of the amount of experience you had in various— the amount of experience you had in various other companies. surely it looks_ various other companies. surely it looks like — various other companies. surely it looks like in— various other companies. surely it looks like in the post office, it was hitting the fan, and your bird 'ust was hitting the fan, and your bird just allow— was hitting the fan, and your bird just allow things to happen... how important — just allow things to happen... how important this was in terms of the board _ important this was in terms of the board meetings... important this was in terms of the board meetings. . .— board meetings... absolutely, i don't sit on _

board meetings... absolutely, i don't sit on the _ board meetings... absolutely, i don't sit on the compensation l don't sit on the compensation committee, but after about two or three, i went to nick, and said this situation seems bureaucratic and most of all and is a pathetic and we've got to do something about it. he said, look, that's a management issue, you should leave that with me. so the answer is, i didn'tjust ignore it, i had a conversation with the chief executive and said this needs to be dealt with. i have been a chairman of many companies and the answers, it's not as a popularity contest, you have to say things if you're not happy and ask for things to be changed, and i said that the chief executive. let to be changed, and i said that the chief executive.— chief executive. let me 'ust, one final question, h chief executive. let me 'ust, one final question, just _ chief executive. let me 'ust, one final question, just on _ chief executive. let me just, one final question, just on the - chief executive. let me just, one | final question, just on the position of the _ final question, just on the position of the post — final question, just on the position of the post office as a whole, do you think— of the post office as a whole, do you think they should have been and should _ you think they should have been and should stitt— you think they should have been and should still be part of the process, or should — should still be part of the process, or should they be withdrawn and removed — or should they be withdrawn and removed from that completely? they should be removed _ removed from that completely? he: should be removed completely, removed from that completely? iie: should be removed completely, it's pretty obvious. i think people talked about the culture, use all the notes from the postmaster

directors —— you so the notes. i think it was set i somehow invented it. they mentioned it to me about six weeks before, they were clearly highly disturbed on the matter, and i said, look, highly disturbed on the matter, and isaid, look, the highly disturbed on the matter, and i said, look, the problem highly disturbed on the matter, and isaid, look, the problem is highly disturbed on the matter, and i said, look, the problem is you are both being investigated by the post office. if you come up now it's going to look as if you're conflicted. so should we just not get this behind us before we really picked up? and in mid they'd had enough, so they phoned me on a sunday and said this has got to be tackled. —— in mid—january. isaid, what i will do as i will prepare a file note of all your comments tonight, send it to you, i want you tonight, send it to you, i want you to agree every single word in this file note before i send it off, and they both came back and unfortunately it's on the post office e—mail account but if you ask, you would see that correspondence took place. so this is not something that anyone can say

i invented and that it was not agreed. i am a stickler in that regard. so they agreed, every single word on that. i sent it through to nick read and said i want to discuss this at the next board meeting. on the problem was that nick read sent a copy of it, i don't know if you've seen the correspondence, sent a copy of it to the legal director particularly, who had way too much power and was using it as an instrument... i can't remember what the phrase was, instrument of terror, but an instrument in some way of control. so... it was an appalling thing to do and of course the two postmaster directors were absolutely appalled in terms of governance that that was sent to the people they were being critical of. and that's why one of the postmasters sent that absently sticking note nick read. if you thought my note of they said to me

was harsh, all the phrases that were made over the notes to, from elliott to nick read was an absolute singer. so it was bad governance and really bad we let on the postmaster directors, and i would say, actually, they've been very brave, these postmaster directors, coming up these postmaster directors, coming up to see what they did, because actually, i did say to them, this could impact your business, people will... could... you could lose post offices. they felt they were to represent the views of the postmasters in the organisation and they were prepared to do that, and i thought that was pretty brave. and i thought that was pretty brave. and i thought therefore, for me to talk and is not to take on their cause would have been characters when they've taken such a brave decision —— for me to duck. and i knew, i guess it might end up almost certain with me being fired, but i thought

the important thing to do was to do the important thing to do was to do the right thing, and that's why i did it, because i didn't feel i could act in a different way, show less bravery, than the two man involved. i have to say, they were still brave, they could lose money or business, which obviously doesn't apply to me. or business, which obviously doesn't apply to me— apply to me. thank you, chair. it was touched _ apply to me. thank you, chair. it was touched on _ apply to me. thank you, chair. it was touched on earlier, - apply to me. thank you, chair. it was touched on earlier, is - apply to me. thank you, chair. it was touched on earlier, is a - apply to me. thank you, chair. it was touched on earlier, is a very| was touched on earlier, is a very serious — was touched on earlier, is a very serious allegations were made by mr trevor— serious allegations were made by mr trevor creswell and mr tips well related — trevor creswell and mr tips well related to your conduct that is currently _ related to your conduct that is currently under way, of which you were _ currently under way, of which you were informed in november. can i check— were informed in november. can i check first— were informed in november. can i check first of all that you share the recollection that in november you're _ the recollection that in november you're informed you are being investigated for your behavioural conduct? — investigated for your behavioural conduct? . . investigated for your behavioural conduct? , , ., conduct? yes, there is an investigation. _ conduct? yes, there is an investigation. what - conduct? yes, there is an investigation. what there | conduct? yes, there is an i investigation. what there is, actually, is... mr read fell out with his hr director and she

produced a speak up document which was 80 pages thick. and within that was 80 pages thick. and within that was one paragraph there about comments that i allegedly made. so this was an investigation, not into me, this was an investigation made into the chief executive, nick read. it's that one paragraph, actually, you could say was about politically incorrect comments that are attributed to me, which i strenuously deny. this was not an investigation into me, this was an investigation into me, this was an investigation based on the 80 page document prepared by the hr director. , ., �* director. so, ok, so you're obviously _ director. so, ok, so you're obviously accepting... - director. so, ok, so you're l obviously accepting... sorry, obviously accepting. .. sorry, obviously— obviously accepting... sorry, obviously you have made it clear that you — obviously you have made it clear that you disagree with the allegations and you are currently doing _ allegations and you are currently doing to — allegations and you are currently going to investigation of course we will not _ going to investigation of course we will not expect you to comment on a life investigation into yourself, can i_ life investigation into yourself, cah liust — life investigation into yourself, can ijust ask, have you been interviewed at the stage? i have, es. last interviewed at the stage? i have, yes- last week— interviewed at the stage? i have, yes. last week i _ interviewed at the stage? i have, yes. last week i wrote _ interviewed at the stage? i have, yes. last week i wrote to - interviewed at the stage? i have, yes. last week i wrote to the - yes. last week i wrote to the barrister giving her further

comments. so the fact that somehow i had not co—operated with this investigation is totally wrong. the point of the call with the sid was that this 80 page document was actually taking a terrible toll on nick read he said he not been supported by the board and this is bad news for him and his family, and he is going to resign tomorrow, has had enough. i he is going to resign tomorrow, has had enough-— he is going to resign tomorrow, has had enough. i was about to say, the chair did ask — had enough. i was about to say, the chair did ask the _ had enough. i was about to say, the chair did ask the question _ had enough. i was about to say, the chair did ask the question earlier, . chair did ask the question earlier, had he _ chair did ask the question earlier, had he ever— chair did ask the question earlier, had he ever considered resigning, mr read said _ had he ever considered resigning, mr read said no, you're saying in a conversation, verbal conversation, he had _ conversation, verbal conversation, he had got — conversation, verbal conversation, he had got a — conversation, verbal conversation, he had got a point where he felt mayhe _ he had got a point where he felt mayhe he — he had got a point where he felt maybe he was going to resign? the 80 .ae. maybe he was going to resign? the 80 page report. — maybe he was going to resign? the 80 page report. of— maybe he was going to resign? the 80 page report, of course, _ maybe he was going to resign? the 80 page report, of course, alleges - maybe he was going to resign? the 80 page report, of course, alleges from . page report, of course, alleges from the hr director, not my words, that nick was going to resign because he was unhappy with his pay, she has put that in his document. the concern here is that we