due to a full twitter branch are due to a full twitter system — branch are due to a full twitter system. we are also aware of the activities — system. we are also aware of the activities of — system. we are also aware of the activities of a group called justice first sub—postmasters alliance. first sub— postmasters alliance. there — first sub—postmasters alliance. there has_ first sub—postmasters alliance. there has been no evidence to summit— there has been no evidence to support any of the allegations and we have _ support any of the allegations and we have no reason to doubt the integrity — we have no reason to doubt the integrity of the system which we remain— integrity of the system which we remain confident is robust and fit for purpose. she hopes that has clarified — for purpose. she hopes that has clarified the position. you describe this irr— clarified the position. you describe this in your— clarified the position. you describe this in your witness statement is being _ this in your witness statement is being given the brush off. yes. you sa in being given the brush off. yes. you say in your— being given the brush off. is; you say in your witness statement being given the brush off. 19:3 you say in your witness statement that the sub—postmasters that you had met seemed _ the sub—postmasters that you had met seemed to _ the sub—postmasters that you had met seemed to you to be transparently honest _ seemed to you to be transparently honest. . there was no suggestion the introduction of a new computerised accounting system had thereby

system. and therefore you are not satisfied _ system. and therefore you are not satisfied with being given the brush off by— satisfied with being given the brush off by paula venables. no,| satisfied with being given the brush off by paula venables. _by —— by paula vennells. -- by paula vennells. can return to... -- by paula vennells. can return tom you — -- by paula vennells. can return to... you will— -- by paula vennells. can return to... you will see _ -- by paula vennells. can return to... you will see he _ -- by paula vennells. can return to... you will see he was - -- by paula vennells. can return to... you will see he was the - to... you will see he was the parliamentary under secretary of state _ parliamentary under secretary of state in — parliamentary under secretary of state in business at that time and you say— state in business at that time and you say i— state in business at that time and you say i have been contacted by a number— you say i have been contacted by a

number of— you say i have been contacted by a number of constituents living in hampshire who are most upset that the tocat— hampshire who are most upset that the local post office has been closed — the local post office has been closed and a long—standing employee has been _ closed and a long—standing employee has been dismissed due to irregularities. i would has been dismissed due to irregularities. iwould be most grateful— irregularities. iwould be most grateful if you looked into these related — grateful if you looked into these related matters as a matter of urgency — related matters as a matter of urgency. we discussed the matter some _ urgency. we discussed the matter some months ago and i must concern the irregularities may be a continuation of the problem that post office employees have been having _ post office employees have been having with the software system that reconcile _ having with the software system that reconcile takings and i'm aware of 34 individual employees throughout the country feel they have been wrongly— the country feel they have been wrongly accused of fraud due to faults— wrongly accused of fraud due to faults in— wrongly accused of fraud due to faults in this particular system. you say— faults in this particular system. you say that it is a situation that has not — you say that it is a situation that has not been rectified, a situation which _ has not been rectified, a situation which does — has not been rectified, a situation which does not bring credit to the royal— which does not bring credit to the royal mail and you note that you are writing _ royal mail and you note that you are writing to _ royal mail and you note that you are writing to someone and you then take up writing to someone and you then take up a writing to someone and you then take up a point _ writing to someone and you then take up a point in — writing to someone and you then take up a point in the last paragraph about— up a point in the last paragraph about the — up a point in the last paragraph about the closure of the post office

irrespective of the other issues that you — irrespective of the other issues that you raised. in this letter, woutd — that you raised. in this letter, would you _ that you raised. in this letter, would you agree your drawing attention to the suggestion that horizon— attention to the suggestion that horizon is to blame for the losses that have — horizon is to blame for the losses that have been laid at the door of the sub—postmaster is. yes. that have been laid at the door of the sub-postmaster is.— the sub-postmaster is. yes. why ou're the sub-postmaster is. yes. why you're making — the sub-postmaster is. yes. why you're making it— the sub-postmaster is. yes. why you're making it clear _ the sub-postmaster is. yes. why you're making it clear this - the sub-postmaster is. yes. why you're making it clear this is - the sub-postmaster is. yes. why you're making it clear this is a . you're making it clear this is a countrywide issue. and you refer to your previous correspondence. did mr davey— your previous correspondence. did mr davev ever— your previous correspondence. did mr davey ever reply to you? | your previous correspondence. did mr davey ever reply to you?— davey ever reply to you? i don't think you _ davey ever reply to you? i don't think you did — davey ever reply to you? i don't think you did but _ davey ever reply to you? i don't think you did but i _ davey ever reply to you? i don't think you did but i preferred - davey ever reply to you? i don't think you did but i preferred in i think you did but i preferred in this letter not only to my previous correspondence but also to a face—to—face discussion at the top of the second paragraph that i had had some time before when i must have raised it with him but i do not

think he replied to me probably because he was told that paula venables was replying to me myself i'm going to skip over the early meeting — i'm going to skip over the early meeting. that can come down. between sub—postmaster is, solicitors and parliamentarians in portcullis house on the _ parliamentarians in portcullis house on the 27th — parliamentarians in portcullis house on the 27th of february 2012. that is addressed in paragraphs 37 and 38 of your— is addressed in paragraphs 37 and 38 of your witness statement and in detaited — of your witness statement and in detailed minutes of that medium, there _ detailed minutes of that medium, there is— detailed minutes of that medium, there is no— detailed minutes of that medium, there is no need to display this on smi 5— there is no need to display this on smi s 407 — there is no need to display this on smi s 407 on pages four to seven but in short— smi s 407 on pages four to seven but in short you _ smi s 407 on pages four to seven but in short you chaired the meeting. you told — in short you chaired the meeting. you told the sub—postmaster is that you did _

you told the sub—postmaster is that you did not — you told the sub—postmaster is that you did not believe that they were anything _ you did not believe that they were anything other than honest. yes. and the ost anything other than honest. 193 and the post office's line anything other than honest. i9s and the post office's line as you describe _ the post office's line as you describe it, there was nothing wrong with horizon was wholly implausible. is with horizon was wholly implausible. is that _ with horizon was wholly implausible. is that a _ with horizon was wholly implausible. is that a fair summary of the meeting? _ what was the meeting? you'll make one mp _ what was the meeting? you'll make one mp alone cannot achieve much one mp alone one mp alone cannot achieve much frru9 mp alone cannot achieve much but if there is a nationwide issue then getting more than one mp together makes a much greater effect, as we can see. . ~' makes a much greater effect, as we can see. , ~ :, :,

can see. this letter i think to a meetin: can see. this letter i think to a meeting very _ can see. this letter i think to a meeting very shortly _ can see. this letter i think to a meeting very shortly after - can see. this letter i think to a meeting very shortly after in l can see. this letter i think to a - meeting very shortly after in march 2012. _ meeting very shortly after in march 2012. is— meeting very shortly after in march 2012, is that right?— the context for the meeting was a written _ the context for the meeting was a written communication. if we can 'ust written communication. if we can just look— written communication. if we can just took at— written communication. if we can just look at that, please. and if we look at the very bottom of pa-e and if we look at the very bottom of page onem — and if we look at the very bottom of page one... you say on the 23rd of february. — page one... you say on the 23rd of february, due hours, you may remember— february, due hours, you may rememberthen we met february, due hours, you may remember then we met at edgeley parki _ remember then we met at edgeley park. the _ remember then we met at edgeley park, the conference i mentioned

earlier. _ park, the conference i mentioned earlier. i— park, the conference i mentioned earlier, i mentioned the issue of the horizon— earlier, i mentioned the issue of the horizon computer system in sub-post— the horizon computer system in sub—post offices and i'm aware of the sub—postmaster is in and around my constituency, then over the pagem — my constituency, then over the pagem you _ my constituency, then over the page... you have to skip, may i uteasem — page... you have to skip, may i pteasem i_ page... you have to skip, may i please... i know it is the position of the _ please... i know it is the position of the post— please... i know it is the position of the post office supported by the national— of the post office supported by the national federation of sub—postmaster is though not by the indication— sub—postmaster is though not by the indication workers union that there is nothing — indication workers union that there is nothing wrong with horizon, i'm deeply— is nothing wrong with horizon, i'm deeply sceptical about this and i hope _ deeply sceptical about this and i hope i_ deeply sceptical about this and i hope i can persuade you to look afresh _ hope i can persuade you to look afresh at — hope i can persuade you to look afresh at the matter rather than accepting — afresh at the matter rather than accepting should be a closing of ranks _ accepting should be a closing of ranks around the computer. you are in the _ ranks around the computer. you are in the saying — ranks around the computer. you are in the saying you're deeply sceptical about the post office's position. — sceptical about the post office's position, there is nothing wrong with horizon and the purpose of the meeting _ with horizon and the purpose of the meeting that you are seeking was to

persuade _ meeting that you are seeking was to persuade her to look afresh at the matter. _ persuade her to look afresh at the matter. is— persuade her to look afresh at the matter, is that right?— persuade her to look afresh at the matter, is that right? yes. you say rather than — matter, is that right? yes. you say rather than her _ matter, is that right? i9s you say rather than her accepting that there should _ rather than her accepting that there should be _ rather than her accepting that there should be a closing of ranks around the computer, is that what you had thought— the computer, is that what you had thought had happened already? that had thought had happened already? twat had happened, the system was robust, we were told. you had happened, the system was robust, we were told-— we were told. you make a point in our we were told. you make a point in your witness _ we were told. you make a point in your witness statement _ we were told. you make a point in your witness statement about - we were told. you make a point in your witness statement about the | your witness statement about the word _ your witness statement about the word robust. yes, there were lots of people _ word robust. yes, there were lots of people who — word robust. yes, there were lots of people who are told to use this word which _ people who are told to use this word which implied a sort of series of group _ which implied a sort of series of group thinking seminars which led to the use _ group thinking seminars which led to the use of— group thinking seminars which led to the use of language which is very important. — the use of language which is very important, that is what they chose. robust _ important, that is what they chose. robust. : , :, :. important, that is what they chose.

robust. :, robust. and you are concerned presumably — robust. and you are concerned presumably that _ robust. and you are concerned presumably that that _ robust. and you are concerned presumably that that is - robust. and you are concerned presumably that that is what i robust. and you are concerned - presumably that that is what would continue to happen in a closing of ranks around the computer if things were allowed to continue unabated. yes. :. were allowed to continue unabated. yes. . . were allowed to continue unabated. yes. :. . _, yes. can i turn with that context in mind to the _ yes. can i turn with that context in mind to the meeting itself. - it is the three of you. we can see from the top, you, alice perkins and owen lyons. paragraph one, you started the meeting by explaining why you are concerned about the horizon system and the support sub—postmaster is received from the business when they are faced with a discrepancy in the accounts. you told us about... the minutes say you told us about... the minutes say you told them about the recent meeting

with you and another eight mps, the portcullis house meeting that we mentioned. in which you had met some of the affected sub—postmaster is and there are legal representatives. if we just scan through paragraph two, paragraph three alice perkins inviting you to visit the model office to see how horizon works. during paragraph four making a counter proposal to come to old street, offering to come to old street, offering to come to old street but accompanied by a computer expert, possibly someone from computer weekly and you made the point that you put credence on their opinion because of the chinook helicopter crash inquiry. and that you told them that computer weekly had also been sceptical about

horizon. and in paragraph five is something ijust want horizon. and in paragraph five is something i just want to concentrate on, it says not make it records, and this is the post office was 's own note, alice perkins explained that the system had been independently reviewed by several people including the royal mail internal audit and deloittes who had no relationship with the business of fidget to. and you're recorded as saying you're not convinced this had been done by an it expert. for the minute i suspect you have no recollection of the meeting itself.— you have no recollection of the meetin: itself. :, �* . :, meeting itself. you're correct. you mi . ht ut meeting itself. you're correct. you might put for— meeting itself. you're correct. you might put for the _ meeting itself. you're correct. you might put for the minute _ meeting itself. you're correct. you might put for the minute do - meeting itself. you're correct. you might put for the minute do you i might put for the minute do you understand that you're being told that royal mail group internal audit was independent of the post office? yes, was independent of the post office? yes. i_ was independent of the post office? yes, i would was independent of the post office? yes, iwould have been was independent of the post office? yes, i would have been sceptical about that independence. and

about that independence. and secondly that _ about that independence. and secondly that there was a separate audit of— secondly that there was a separate audit of horizon by daylight. yellow might— audit of horizon by daylight. yellow might guess, because there was something inherently implausible about— something inherently implausible about a _ something inherently implausible about a new computer system being completely fault free. haste about a new computer system being completely fault free.— completely fault free. have you, to the date, completely fault free. have you, to the date. ever— completely fault free. have you, to the date, ever seen _ completely fault free. have you, to the date, ever seen such _ completely fault free. have you, to the date, ever seen such an - the date, ever seen such an independent audit of the horizon system completed by deloitte? before the 13th of march 2012? when this meeting took place? trio. we can see meeting took place? no. we can see what paragraph six says. alice perkins offered to consider a further review of the system by an it expert looking specifically at

the integrity of the data and this brecon make discrepancy of error is thrown up in sub—postmaster bouncers. you say the training was not adequate. bouncers. you say the training was rrot adequate-— not adequate. which is a different oint. not adequate. which is a different point. yes. _ not adequate. which is a different point- yes. you — not adequate. which is a different point. yes, you say _ not adequate. which is a different point. yes, you say the _ not adequate. which is a different point. yes, you say the contract l not adequate. which is a different| point. yes, you say the contract is over 100 pages — point. yes, you say the contract is over 100 pages long _ point. yes, you say the contract is over 100 pages long written - point. yes, you say the contract is over 100 pages long written in - point. yes, you say the contract is. over 100 pages long written in 1994 and horizon was not in place and do not explain the process for making good errors clearly enough, which is again a separate point. you suggest they did not get a copy of the contract, the supposed masters, until they had taken up which commitment they were making which is a fourth point i think. and then we can see what is discussed in paragraphs eight and nine and then

over the page in ten. in closing, you informed alice perkins that there had been discussion about an adjournment debate on the topic. what was the purpose of mentioning that kind of thing? goaljust to say that kind of thing? goaljust to say that if there were eight mps involved in the meeting with shoesmith san sub—postmaster is, then raising it in parliament would be a good way of bringing publicity and ministerial attention to an issue that was clearly important. wasn't an attempt to drive action at the post— wasn't an attempt to drive action at the post office? sat yes, wasn't an attempt to drive action at the post office? sa— the post office? sat yes, it must have been. _ the post office? sat yes, it must have been, not— the post office? sat yes, it must have been, not that _ the post office? sat yes, it must have been, not that i _ the post office? sat yes, it must have been, not that i had - the post office? sat yes, it must have been, not that i had ever. have been, not that i had ever done an adjournment debate by that stage but nevertheless i suppose that is what i was doing. fist but nevertheless i suppose that is what i was doing.— but nevertheless i suppose that is what i was doing. at this has to be taken seriously _ what i was doing. at this has to be taken seriously and _ what i was doing. at this has to be taken seriously and one _ what i was doing. at this has to be taken seriously and one of - what i was doing. at this has to be taken seriously and one of the - taken seriously and one of the consequences of not might be an

adjournment debate. precisely. can meet look adjournment debate. precisely. caw meet look please act matter and i'm dealing with this as part of the chronology because it might be important in due course, at a letter of the 4th of april and you are not copied into it but can we look please at paul 0010700. thank you. if we just look at the second page, please. we can see it as from paula vennells. back to the first page. it is a letter to oliver

letwin in 2012 and ijust want first page. it is a letter to oliver letwin in 2012 and i just want to see whether this is being said is reflective of the kind of thing that ms fennell is another seeker that makes senior executives are saying to you at this time in the spring of 2012. oliver letwin, just a context, was one of the mp5 who was amongst the group, seeking to pursue this matter in the same way as you. it is said that i understand you raised a query on the robustness of the system yesterday. i'm grateful for this being passed on to me and then paula vennells says the post office takes very seriously any perception that there is with the inaccuracy of the system, there is not. the system has been rigorously tested using

independent assessors and robust procedures. the independent assessors point, is that the kind of thing that was ever said to you? probably although i cannot remember the words _ probably although i cannot remember the words being used but if that is what _ the words being used but if that is what they— the words being used but if that is what they were saying... were they ever named? _ what they were saying... were they ever named? we _ what they were saying... were they ever named? we saw _ what they were saying... were they ever named? we saw there - what they were saying... were they ever named? we saw there was - what they were saying... were they ever named? we saw there was an | ever named? we saw there was an independent audit carried out and deloitte, these independent assessors, can you remember any other names? i assessors, can you remember any other nraffles?— other names? i cannot remember whether names — other names? i cannot remember whether names are _ other names? i cannot remember whether names are used. - other names? i cannot remember whether names are used. it - other names? i cannot remember whether names are used. it was l other names? i cannot remember. whether names are used. it was the independent i would have been interested in rather than the names.

we see _ interested in rather than the names. we see there is a very firm line taken in that first paragraph. yes. taken in that first paragraph. yes, seems odd- _ taken in that first paragraph. yes, seems odd. and _ taken in that first paragraph. yes, seems odd. and then _ taken in that first paragraph. yes, seems odd. and then paragraph l taken in that first paragraph. yes, - seems odd. and then paragraph three. therefore, when _ seems odd. and then paragraph three. therefore, when queries _ seems odd. and then paragraph three. therefore, when queries are _ seems odd. and then paragraph three. therefore, when queries are raised, i therefore, when queries are raised, we work with sub—postmaster to identify the problem. very often they are missing, and inverted commerce, funds are a keen or balancing error. the cheques and procedures resolve all faults essentially. in some cases, which fortunately are very few and far between, we had to prosecute

supposed masters for theft and false accounting and provide evidence which substantiates our legal position. in every instance, the courts have found in our favour. that is a false statement there that in every instance the courts are found in ourfavour, it isjust in every instance the courts are found in our favour, it is just not true. would you accept that? i found in our favour, it isjust not true. would you accept that? i would not. of true. would you accept that? i would not- of the — true. would you accept that? i would not. of the senior _ true. would you accept that? i would not. of the senior executive - true. would you accept that? i would not. of the senior executive of - not. of the senior executive of the ost not. of the senior executive of the post office — not. of the senior executive of the post office was _ not. of the senior executive of the post office was writing _ not. of the senior executive of the post office was writing to - not. of the senior executive of the post office was writing to you - not. of the senior executive of the post office was writing to you on i post office was writing to you on post office was writing to you on post office was writing to you on post office headed paper and formally as an mp and said, in every instance, the courts are found in our favour, instance, the courts are found in ourfavour, accept instance, the courts are found in our favour, accept at face value what they were saying?- our favour, accept at face value what they were saying? i would expect public officials, as

pauta _ i would expect public officials, as paula vennells was, to tell the truth — paula vennells was, to tell the truth but— paula vennells was, to tell the truth. but i would have had, at the back of— truth. but i would have had, at the back of my— truth. but i would have had, at the back of my mind, the knowledge that the post— back of my mind, the knowledge that the post office has been as a matter of almost _ the post office has been as a matter of almost routine and lots of supposed masters that they were the only ones _ supposed masters that they were the only ones. that would have been at the back— only ones. that would have been at the back of— only ones. that would have been at the back of my mind. i would have at some _ the back of my mind. i would have at some point— the back of my mind. i would have at some point questioned what they were saying _ some point questioned what they were sa inc. :. .. some point questioned what they were sa inc. . ~' ,, some point questioned what they were sa in. :. saying. thank you, i will skip over the meeting that _ saying. thank you, i will skip over the meeting that you _ saying. thank you, i will skip over the meeting that you and oliver. the meeting that you and oliver letwin had with alice perkins, chair of the post office. paula vennells, the then ceo of the post office, susan crichton, the legal and compliance director, the chief information officer, the head then of branch and accounting and the head of network on the 17th of may.

it is addressed in detail in your in a statement and in a comprehensive pack prepared for the meeting. the meeting is that the post office offered to give independent forensic accountants access to the system and for the post office to fund such an investigation.— for the post office to fund such an investigation. yes, it was the first time i had — investigation. yes, it was the first time i had heard _ investigation. yes, it was the first time i had heard the _ investigation. yes, it was the first time i had heard the phrase - investigation. yes, it was the first i time i had heard the phrase forensic accountant. i did not know what they were but it sounded good. and it turned out to be good. i think this had been something that had been suggested back in the portcullis house meeting of the 27th february 2012 and so think you are pleased. yes, very pleased, partly because the offer came from paula vennells

namely to have the forensic accountants. it was something that we wanted but when offered, we bit her hand off as it were. i just we wanted but when offered, we bit her hand off as it were.— her hand off as it were. i 'ust want to ask you — her hand off as it were. i 'ust want to ask you for some _ her hand off as it were. i just want to ask you for some details - her hand off as it were. i just want| to ask you for some details around what the post office said to senior representatives to see what we ended up representatives to see what we ended up with at the second sight of the investigation. can you look at the paul? —— mickey paul —— the poll. this is something i don't think you

would have seen. it is a post office pack containing the documents set out in the index there the agenda for the meeting, key messages that the post office wished to deliver. i think i saw this when i was asked to draft my witness statement. yes. you would not draft my witness statement. yes. you would rrot have _ draft my witness statement. yes. you would not have seen _ draft my witness statement. yes. you would not have seen at _ draft my witness statement. yes. you would not have seen at the _ draft my witness statement. yes. you would not have seen at the time. - draft my witness statement. yes. you would not have seen at the time. i - would not have seen at the time. i certainly did not yet at the time. the notes in large part for the meeting, can we turn to page three, please? we can see the key messages to be delivered by alice perkins under the who column under the introductions to the meeting. thank you for coming today, the people around the table are... we understand you have raised some concerns. we take this issue very

seriously. this impacts the lives of individuals. public money is at stake, so is our reputation. we are open to feedback, we will provide you the information you have available, ouraim is to be you the information you have available, our aim is to be open and transparent. we are hoping you'll find that we are handling issues openly and fairly and would like your advice as to how we best approach those that are sceptical. we are constantly looking at ways of improving our it systems and support we give and then this, it systems are routinely audited and are recruitment processes are independently reviewed so we can make improvements. and the it

systems and they are also considering an external audit of our end—to—end processes, systems and data. i will come back to you at the end of the meeting to get your views. is that the offer? we all come back in a moment, that you are pleased about, and external audit of our air and... pleased about, and external audit of ourairand... to the pleased about, and external audit of our air and... to the processes, systems and data. our air and. .. to the processes, systems and data.— our air and... to the processes, systems and data. no, i think that came later— systems and data. no, i think that came later in _ systems and data. no, i think that came later in the _ systems and data. no, i think that came later in the meeting. - systems and data. no, i think that came later in the meeting. this i systems and data. no, i think that. came later in the meeting. this was the untrue luxury spill and sol think the key messages involving the appointment of an independent forensic accountant came later. just

ski -|n~ forensic accountant came later. just skipping through, we will forensic accountant came later. just skipping through, we will get forensic accountant came later. just skipping through, we will get to the end and a moment. page five, please. and this is leslie soul speaking. third bullet point, although we recognise that a is not perfect, no computer system is, it has been audited by internal and external teams and has also been tested in the court and no evidence of problems found of the nature suggested and paula vennells was designed with integrity and mine from the very beginning and then if we go on, please, to page seven, i think this is where alice perkins wrapped up where she comes back as she promised to do, as we saw in

that first page, second bullet point in the bottom box, we are also considering commissioning an independent audit as an assurance measure. :. :. . independent audit as an assurance measure. . . , :, independent audit as an assurance measure-— part i independent audit as an assurance | measure._ part in measure. that was the one. part in the light of — measure. that was the one. part in the light of the _ measure. that was the one. part in the light of the fact _ measure. that was the one. part in the light of the fact that _ measure. that was the one. part in the light of the fact that there - measure. that was the one. part in the light of the fact that there is i the light of the fact that there is no evidence that there is a problem, we need to determine if this is a good use of public money, what are your thoughts, and presumably you bit the hand. your thoughts, and presumably you bit the hand-— your thoughts, and presumably you bit the hand. yes. what did you understand _ bit the hand. yes. what did you understand was _ bit the hand. i9s what did you understand was being offered? bit the hand. yes. what did you i understand was being offered? that there would understand was being offered? twat there would be an independent deep dive into what had gone wrong with these sub—postmaster is who had been prosecuted or made to pay money. and that was exactly what was suggested

and what we needed, that somebody other than the post office would be looking into the workings of horizon. ~ :, looking into the workings of horizon. 9 :, , , horizon. would this be right, lookin: horizon. would this be right, looking at — horizon. would this be right, looking at horizon _ horizon. would this be right, looking at horizon is - horizon. would this be right, looking at horizon is an i horizon. would this be right, l looking at horizon is an entire system, the end—to—end process involved? system, the end-to-end process involved? . system, the end-to-end process involved? , ~ , . , system, the end-to-end process involved? , ~ , :, involved? yes. as well as other post office accounting _ involved? yes. as well as other post office accounting procedures. i involved? yes. as well as other post office accounting procedures. one . involved? yes. as well as other post| office accounting procedures. one of the things i had raised and one of the things i had raised and one of the documents you have earlier shown me was the issue of the helpline, theissue me was the issue of the helpline, the issue of training, the issue of the issue of training, the issue of the contract and so, yes, to look into all of that. it the contract and so, yes, to look into all of that.— the contract and so, yes, to look into all of that. it seems there was an agreement _ into all of that. it seems there was an agreement to _ into all of that. it seems there was an agreement to have _ into all of that. it seems there was an agreement to have a _ into all of that. it seems there was an agreement to have a further i an agreement to have a further meeting with a wider group of parliamentarians and that was set for the 18th ofjune 2012, and this might be quite an important meeting

sale want to examine it and a bit more detail if we may. can we look, please atjarb 601? i think that these minutes were taken, is this right, byjanet walker, york then chief of staff? goal that is correct. might make and we will see there are six mps present including you and mr leighton plus representatives from three other mp5. might yes. white max 09 mp5 three other mp5. might yes. white max 09 mps in total. i'm post office people present. ms perkins, paula

vennells, vandenberg art and allianz. and screw —— scroll down please. the issue of problems reported with the system has given rise to controversy daytime back a number of years, any mp5, constituents have been —— but many mps mconstituents have been prosecuted for committing fraud with many protesting innocence. meeting convened in february at the house of commons, attended by mps and their constituents which this matter was discussed, that is a cross—reference to the 27th of february meeting at portcullis house. following this meeting, you had several private meetings with ms perkins and her colleagues to discuss how the issue might best be

introduced her colleagues. the post office limited is now a completely separate entity from the royal mail and she wrote in the organisation in 2011 and became of where the issue soon after starting. the business rest on its reputation and been trustworthy. she