all the really hard, bringing back all the memories, but it's a process we have to go through. we know it's difficult but we are fighting for justice and we have to go for it. seema misra, who was convicted in 2010. her conviction was quashed in 2021. that was during the tenure of david smith as post office mentoring director. he has apologised and she has rejected that apology. he was managing directorforfor several months in that time when she was convicted. we can go to our correspondent azadeh moshiri at the inquiry. we have been hearing this morning from alan cook. he was managing director between 2006 and 2010, this is a long running saga, it went on for in excess of 15 years, so there are many executives involved in one way or another. what was the most striking thing he said? whatjumped out to me was when he

suggested that he was not aware that the post office was able to prosecute subpostmasters, individuals that work for the organisation. that was the most striking moment because he was managing directorfor several years. because he was managing directorfor severalyears. during because he was managing directorfor several years. during that time, there were hundreds of prosecutions against sub—postmasters and after establishing at the beginning of his testimony how important that was, that he was running the business, he then said that he just didn't even know that these prosecutions were being brought forward by the post office, that there was no independent body, no review as to whether those decisions made sense and he realises that two thirds of those cases, those decisions, were being taken by the post office owe you wonder that how is it when you've seen these documents that are going to him, talking about these criminal cases, that he didn't

understand as the man in the top job that these prosecutions were the post office's own decisions. so he has given apology but it's a very different response to what you are hearing yesterday from his successor david smith. it is not that david smith was saying, you know what when i think about it in hindsight, they were inherent risks, with the words he used, with prosecutions taking place in house. that is not what alan cook are saying. he is saying he didn't even know about it. the cps which is _ he didn't even know about it. the cps which is run by the government effectively, is it able to make a decision, one might distance oneself from it and decision, one might distance oneself from itand might decision, one might distance oneself from it and might say the cps has made that decision but two thirds of them were from the post office and as you rightly say, 160 during his tenure. that is a lot of people,

sheer numbers which might have made him sit up and take note? that’s him sit up and take note? that's what legal _ him sit up and take note? that's what legal experts _ him sit up and take note? that's what legal experts are _ him sit up and take note? that's what legal experts are saying, i him sit up and take note? that's i what legal experts are saying, that there is a risk involved when the post office is acting not only is the victim bolster the but also the investigator and the prosecutor. alan cook says he had never encountered an organisation that had that power, that had that structure and so even if he was looking a document that was talking about literally an report, talking about these criminal court cases, he didn't understand that the post office had any strong involvement in office had any strong involvement in this and so, it does end up being a question in terms of how strong a leader he is. he kept saying he was

a visible leader with his arms around everything, so how could you miss an issue that was so important and affecting hundreds of lives? because remember over the course of this scandal, more than 900 sub—postmasters and mistresses were prosecuted wrongfully over this horizon system and that data. so it's shocking, to be honest. you hint at there _ it's shocking, to be honest. you hint at there were _ it's shocking, to be honest. you hint at there were many cases prior to his tenure. so again, if he was reviewing the business, you would think this would be something he'd noticed when he took over this particular role as being something quite unusual? it’s particular role as being something quite unusual?— particular role as being something uuite unusual? �* , ., _, ., quite unusual? it's a common theme because yesterday _ quite unusual? it's a common theme because yesterday david _ quite unusual? it's a common theme because yesterday david smith, - because yesterday david smith, remember he was managing director for 6—7 months in 2010 and that is

when mrs misra was convicted. he said he was trying to wrap his head around things and then horizon started to take on more of a priority for him. alan cook says it was only around the last three years of his time at the post office as managing director that he understood that these prosecutions were taking place. you have to wonder when it is something so important, something thatis something so important, something that is devastating people buzz lives, and is causing bankruptcy, several suicides are linked to this and mrs misra said that had she not been pregnant when sent to jail she would have killed herself. these are the mistakes we are talking about and for the people at the top do not have a better understanding of the impact of the post office was

something that i think victims who were here, listening, i don't have difficulty understanding. this afternoon we _ difficulty understanding. this afternoon we are _ difficulty understanding. this afternoon we are going to be hearing from a very experienced executive in business. he was the former ceo of the royal mail group and some of his tenure overlaps with that, with that of alan cook in 2006—2010. can you explain the relationship between royal mail and the post office and i suppose there will be an effort this afternoon to try and see if there's any consistency with the story? that's a crucial question because at the time when adam crozier was chief executive, royal mail and the post office where the same organisation office where the same organisation but there was a governance board that he did not sit on, and so you are right. at the beginning of his

testimony, he's likely to focus on the relationship between royal and the relationship between royal and the post office and therefore what adam crozier would have been aware of at the time. the issue is that there were hundreds of sub—postmasters who were prosecuted during his tenure and also there are sub—postmasters who say they've written to adam crozier during that period, one gave testimony to the inquiry in 2022, saying that he wrote to him, trying to explain what was happening and then received no response and then was told by a manager never to e—mail him again so they will be questions as to whether he saw those e—mails, whether he thought those issues were important in the first place. he is used to being under pressure because he held some topjobs. he being under pressure because he held some top jobs. he was at the helm of the football association, the advertising agency saatchi and saatchi and itv. and they were

nationwide postal strikes during his tenure so he is used to being under pressure but in terms of the inquiry, he's going to have two answer questions with the victim is right there listening to his answers. right there listening to his answers-_ right there listening to his answers. , ., answers. the point is that the post office was undergoing _ answers. the point is that the post office was undergoing at _ answers. the point is that the post office was undergoing at some - answers. the point is that the post i office was undergoing at some point a fairly fundamental reorganisation and there is a suggestion that it was distracted by the fact that, and i'm imagining at this time, people are writing more and more e—mails and sending fewer and fewer letters and sending fewer and fewer letters and that might have had some to do with it, but was there an element of this organisation with those at the helm saying we were distracted? absolutely. you heard that yesterday from david smith and sir michael hodgkinson. they said there was a situation where the post office was facing a catastrophic financial

issue. the former managing director said that a lot of the financial issues were taking up most of his time and when it came to e—mails that came to him, he talked about mrs misra's e—mail and he said, i used to receive hundreds of e—mails every day, this would have been an offhand response and the reason he greeted this conviction e—mail with well done, please pass this onto my team. he was thinking because the horizon system was proven to be robust during that trial but when it comes to accountability, the kind of responsibility this inquiry is trying to establish, it is a question, should you have been paying attention to these issues

more, why didn't you consider it more, why didn't you consider it more of a priority? even yesterday, the inquiry counsel shown internal documents about which issues were of which priority and he questioned why the horizon it system wasn't being considered higher priority saying that it was leading so many lives to be ruined by prosecution. some of the inquiry counsel have been trying to establish over the last few days is why did you not ask more questions? why did you not see it as important at the time, compared to what you mentioned, those financial priorities? what you mentioned, those financial riorities? �* , ., what you mentioned, those financial riorities? �*, ., ., ~ ., priorities? let's go to alan cook now. he priorities? let's go to alan cook nova he began _ priorities? let's go to alan cook now. he began by— priorities? let's go to alan cook now. he began by putting - priorities? let's go to alan cook now. he began by putting on . priorities? let's go to alan cook - now. he began by putting on record what he put on record as a personal apology for what they've been put through. let's take a listen. i

wonder if i could sayjust before we get started, i'd like to put on record most strongly my personal apology and sympathies with all sub—postmasters, theirfamilies apology and sympathies with all sub—postmasters, their families and those affected by this. as we get into the conversation, there will be an opportunity to elaborate but i think that's an important thing for me to say up front. i had assumed that the police and the dpp had been involved. i shouldn't have but i did presume. and that it had gone to court, was the expression they used. i had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own and i suppose i had too much assumed knowledge and when we see the words written, i can see why they still perpetuated in my

mind because it didn't overtly say we have taken the decision to prosecute. so it's one of my regret that i didn't pick up on that earlier. �* ., ., ., ~' that i didn't pick up on that earlier. �* ., ., ., ~ ., that i didn't pick up on that earlier. �* ., ., ., , earlier. alan cook, who was the former managing _ earlier. alan cook, who was the former managing director - earlier. alan cook, who was the former managing director of. earlier. alan cook, who was the| former managing director of the earlier. alan cook, who was the - former managing director of the post office between 2006—2010, 0ffice between 2006—2010, apologising for his oversights during that time regarding prosecutions of postmasters. plenty of apologies and admission of oversight. that's not really much solace to those who were convicted and this is the point that we are coming to, isn't it?— coming to, isn't it? absolutely. when... coming to, isn't it? absolutely. when--- i've — coming to, isn't it? absolutely. when... i've spoken _ coming to, isn't it? absolutely. when... i've spoken to - coming to, isn't it? absolutely. when... i've spoken to the - coming to, isn't it? absolutely. i when... i've spoken to the former sub—postmasters and i've asked them what the reaction has been to several executive's answers. and frankly, they don't really care. they don't believe the answers. they

say they are tired of hearing the i don't remember us and i don't knows. lots of them are talking aboutjail time. kevin hollen right spoke to the bbc at the town hall and told sub—postmasters in person that is evidence is established, they do believe that people responsible at the post office should face jail time. but for now, those questions are going to be asked by the inquiry counsel and i do believe that alan cook has resumed giving his evidence. let's take a listen. the seven should _ evidence. let's take a listen. the seven should have been too, my apologies — seven should have been too, my apologies. we go page six. mr cook, this is— apologies. we go page six. mr cook, this is a _ apologies. we go page six. mr cook, this is a letter dated the 3rd of

september 2008 to this is a letter dated the 3rd of september2008 to mr this is a letter dated the 3rd of september 2008 to mr savage. have you seen_ september 2008 to mr savage. have you seen this recently? five september 2008 to mr savage. have you seen this recently?— you seen this recently? five minutes auo, you seen this recently? five minutes ago. yeah- — you seen this recently? five minutes ago. yeah- if— you seen this recently? five minutes ago. yeah- if we _ you seen this recently? five minutes ago, yeah. if we could _ you seen this recently? five minutes ago, yeah. if we could go _ you seen this recently? five minutes ago, yeah. if we could go to - you seen this recently? five minutes ago, yeah. if we could go to the - you seen this recently? five minutes ago, yeah. if we could go to the end | ago, yeah. if we could go to the end ofthe ago, yeah. if we could go to the end of the letter — ago, yeah. if we could go to the end of the letter please, _ ago, yeah. if we could go to the end of the letter please, at _ ago, yeah. if we could go to the end of the letter please, at the - ago, yeah. if we could go to the end of the letter please, at the end - ago, yeah. if we could go to the end of the letter please, at the end of. of the letter please, at the end of the page — of the letter please, at the end of the page. it says yours sincerely and then— the page. it says yours sincerely and then we've redacted that but it said alan— and then we've redacted that but it said alan cooke. did you sign this letter? _ said alan cooke. did you sign this letter? |— said alan cooke. did you sign this letter? ., ., , , ,., said alan cooke. did you sign this letter? ., ., ,, , , letter? i would assume so, yes. could we _ letter? i would assume so, yes. could we go _ letter? i would assume so, yes. could we go to _ letter? i would assume so, yes. could we go to page _ letter? i would assume so, yes. could we go to page one... - letter? i would assume so, yes. l could we go to page one... sorry, it's page _ could we go to page one... sorry, it's page six. _ could we go to page one... sorry, it's page six, aiming page one of the letter~ — it's page six, aiming page one of the letter. could we go to the bottom, — the letter. could we go to the bottom, please? thank you. it's referring — bottom, please? thank you. it's referring to _ bottom, please? thank you. it's referring to previous correspondence

about _ referring to previous correspondence about accounting errors. it refers to audits — about accounting errors. it refers to audits and identified shortages totalling — to audits and identified shortages totalling £50,000, £50,61917p of outstanding recovery. the last paragraph says in terms of the issue of court _ paragraph says in terms of the issue of court proceedings, the investigations taken by the post office _ investigations taken by the post office are to decide whether there is a criminal case to answer. this is a criminal case to answer. this is independent from any action that may he _ is independent from any action that may be taken by the contractor team whose _ may be taken by the contractor team whose role _ may be taken by the contractor team whose role is to focus on contractual related issues only. i believe _ contractual related issues only. i believe that the contracts manager has made — believe that the contracts manager has made this differentiation quite clear during one of several conversations she's had with you over— conversations she's had with you over the — conversations she's had with you over the past few months. it gives me no— over the past few months. it gives me no pleasure to write you a letter such as _ me no pleasure to write you a letter such as this— me no pleasure to write you a letter such as this and i truly am sorry for any— such as this and i truly am sorry for any impact this may have on your family~ _ for any impact this may have on your family~ at— for any impact this may have on your family. at the same time, i'm

mindful— family. at the same time, i'm mindful of— family. at the same time, i'm mindful of the cash and stock we are accountable — mindful of the cash and stock we are accountable for public funds and the decision— accountable for public funds and the decision is— accountable for public funds and the decision is never taken lightly. the alleged _ decision is never taken lightly. the alleged offence of fraud against you are of— alleged offence of fraud against you are of sufficiently serious nature to support — are of sufficiently serious nature to support that this is a correct course — to support that this is a correct course of— to support that this is a correct course of action to take. a decision remains _ course of action to take. a decision remains unchanged. —— make our decision— remains unchanged. —— make our decision remains unchanged. this shows— decision remains unchanged. this shows that — decision remains unchanged. this shows that you were aware that it was the _ shows that you were aware that it was the post office security team but the _ was the post office security team but the ones responsible as to whether— but the ones responsible as to whether there was a case to answer. that is— whether there was a case to answer. that is not _ whether there was a case to answer. that is not howl whether there was a case to answer. that is not how i read it. clearly, we wouldn't have wanted anyone prosecuted where we didn't believe we wanted to prosecute. but i didn't believe we were the only party who made that possible. mr believe we were the only party who made that possible.— believe we were the only party who made that possible. mr cook, before ou sin made that possible. mr cook, before you sign letters. _ made that possible. mr cook, before you sign letters, you _ made that possible. mr cook, before you sign letters, you presumably - you sign letters, you presumably satisfy— you sign letters, you presumably satisfy yourself that they are accurate. �* , ., ., .,

accurate. it's howl read it at the time. accurate. it's howl read it at the time- let's _ accurate. it's howl read it at the time. let's bring _ accurate. it's howl read it at the time. let's bring you _ accurate. it's howl read it at the time. let's bring you some - accurate. it's how i read it at the - time. let's bring you some breaking news relating _ time. let's bring you some breaking news relating to _ time. let's bring you some breaking news relating to angela _ time. let's bring you some breaking news relating to angela rayner- time. let's bring you some breaking news relating to angela rayner who | news relating to angela rayner who is labour that's deputy leader. she's been investigated police that she may have broken electoral law. let's cross live to westminster. peter, can you explain what this is concerning? it peter, can you explain what this is concerning?— concerning? it goes back quite a lona concerning? it goes back quite a long time- _ concerning? it goes back quite a long time. the _ concerning? it goes back quite a long time. the sale _ concerning? it goes back quite a long time. the sale of _ concerning? it goes back quite a long time. the sale of angela i long time. the sale of angela rayner�*s counsel how she bought in stockport in 2007. she got married in 2010, sold it in 2015 and it follows some reports in a book by lord ashcroft that actually, she wasn't necessarily living at that address when she sold it. that was the allegation that she was living at her husband's address and because of that, she may have actually underpaid a little bit of tax. she

strongly denied all of that. she says she's had tax and legal advice to that effect. the other allegation is that she might have provided inaccurate information on documents at the time, relating to that council flat. at the time, relating to that councilflat. the police that at the time, relating to that council flat. the police that there were no grounds for investigation but then james daley who represents the constituency of greater manchester got involved and gmp have said in the last hour or so they are now looking at whether a crime, and events, might have been committed here, following that reassessment of that information provided byjames daley. angela rayner, has protested her innocence. she's faced lots and lots of questions about it. she says she is prepared to hand over that tax and legal advice to the authorities, should they require it. she says she will not put it into the public domain because it contains private personal information. it has become something

also that the labour party has had to answer lots of questions over in the last few weeks. both the deputy leader and the leader say they have full confidence in her. but confirmation this morning from gmp that they are investigating this. let's take a look out post office inquiry. we are hearing from the former managing director. fight! inquiry. we are hearing from the former managing director. and it -roduced former managing director. and it produced accurate _ former managing director. and it produced accurate accounts? - former managing director. and it. produced accurate accounts? yes, former managing director. fine it produced accurate accounts? yes, but accuracy was a much broader terms thanjust the accounts? accuracy was a much broader terms than just the accounts? it was obviously, did it perform correctly? if i'm doing a road tax disc, when i press this button, does it produce the right road tax disc width you go along to say availability seem to be good and i was assured at the time

there were no critical bugs or defects. ~ ., . , , there were no critical bugs or defects. ~ ., ., , , , ., there were no critical bugs or defects— i i there were no critical bugs or- defects._ i can't defects. who assured you? i can't name individuals _ defects. who assured you? i can't name individuals but _ defects. who assured you? i can't name individuals but when - defects. who assured you? i can't name individuals but when i - defects. who assured you? i can't name individuals but when i was l name individuals but when i was doing my rounds, i met with people in my area and got demonstrations certainly from one of the team at david smith's would have been one of the people i sat down with, the it guy, to talk me through the system, its history, its current level of performance. this was in an environment where the accuracy of the system was not really in question, but there were issues, as i say, it's overnight performance and its availability. flan i say, it's overnight performance and its availability.— and its availability. can we go to .ae. and its availability. can we go to -ae~ 15, and its availability. can we go to page 15. paragraph _ and its availability. can we go to page 15, paragraph 42. -

and its availability. can we go to page 15, paragraph 42. there i and its availability. can we go to| page 15, paragraph 42. there you and its availability. can we go to - page 15, paragraph 42. there you say i page 15, paragraph 42. there you say i was _ page 15, paragraph 42. there you say i was asked _ page 15, paragraph 42. there you say i was asked if i was ever told that there _ i was asked if i was ever told that there were — i was asked if i was ever told that there were no systemic issues or issues _ there were no systemic issues or issues with— there were no systemic issues or issues with integrity prior to 2009, i do issues with integrity prior to 2009, i do not _ issues with integrity prior to 2009, i do not recall being told at any time _ i do not recall being told at any time whilst as executive director that there — time whilst as executive director that there were or were not systemic issues _ that there were or were not systemic issues with— that there were or were not systemic issues with horizon of problems with integrity _ issues with horizon of problems with integrity. are you talking something different _ integrity. are you talking something different here when you are saying you are _ different here when you are saying you are assured of its accuracy? this_ you are assured of its accuracy? this is— you are assured of its accuracy? this is the — you are assured of its accuracy? this is the first 12 months was involved the post office and the level of briefing got as a non—exec was less than i received when i became managing director and i think this paragraph is talking about was i told whether or not they were systemic issues? it was a problem that did not come up in my briefing. so you were told it was accurate. i5

so you were told it was accurate. [55 that so you were told it was accurate. that right? so you were told it was accurate. is that right? what i was same day that accuracy was not flagged as an issue. —— but what i was saying there. so it was a non—issue? assumed to be ok, yes. that there. so it was a non-issue? assumed to be ok, yes. that document can come down — assumed to be ok, yes. that document can come down now, _ assumed to be ok, yes. that document can come down now, thank _ assumed to be ok, yes. that document can come down now, thank you. - assumed to be ok, yes. that document can come down now, thank you. can - assumed to be ok, yes. that document can come down now, thank you. can wej can come down now, thank you. can we bring _ can come down now, thank you. can we bring up _ can come down now, thank you. can we bring up to— can come down now, thank you. can we bring up to 1487. can we bring up 21487. this is a minute of the board meeting _ this is a minute of the board meeting of the post office limited on the _ meeting of the post office limited on the 23rd of february 2005 and that was— on the 23rd of february 2005 and that was your first board meeting you attended as nonexecutive director, _ you attended as nonexecutive director, wasn't it?—

you attended as nonexecutive director, wasn't it? yes, it must have been- _ director, wasn't it? yes, it must have been. looking _ director, wasn't it? yes, it must have been. looking at _ director, wasn't it? yes, it must have been. looking at the - director, wasn't it? yes, it must - have been. looking at the attendance list, who have been. looking at the attendance list. who then — have been. looking at the attendance list, who then was _ have been. looking at the attendance list, who then was responsible, - have been. looking at the attendance list, who then was responsible, had l list, who then was responsible, had expertise _ list, who then was responsible, had expertise in — list, who then was responsible, had expertise in it? list, who then was responsible, had expertise in w?— expertise in it? well, it would be rick francis. _ expertise in it? well, it would be rick francis. as _ expertise in it? well, it would be rick francis. as the _ expertise in it? well, it would be rick francis. as the operation - rick francis. so, david smith worked for rick francis. _ rick francis. so, david smith worked for rick francis. in _ rick francis. so, david smith worked for rick francis. in the _ rick francis. so, david smith worked for rick francis. in the meeting - for rick francis. in the meeting there was _ for rick francis. in the meeting there was david _ for rick francis. in the meeting there was david millar, - for rick francis. in the meeting there was david millar, what i for rick francis. in the meeting | there was david millar, what did for rick francis. in the meeting - there was david millar, what did you know— there was david millar, what did you know of— there was david millar, what did you know of his — there was david millar, what did you know of his background? i�*ve there was david millar, what did you know of his background?— know of his background? i've never met him before _ know of his background? i've never met him before i _ know of his background? i've never met him before ijoined _ know of his background? i've never met him before ijoined and - know of his background? i've never met him before ijoined and he'd i met him before ijoined and he'd been with the post office for many years and seem to be the fountain of all knowledge, a respected guy. when i arrived, this is when i'm in nonexecutive, he was the chief operating officer and by the time i

was approached tojoin, operating officer and by the time i was approached to join, he operating officer and by the time i was approached tojoin, he had indicated his decision to retire. so i didn't really work with him as an executive. he i didn't really work with him as an executive. , ., i didn't really work with him as an executive. ,. ., , ., executive. he said he was the font of all knowledge _ executive. he said he was the font of all knowledge and _ executive. he said he was the font of all knowledge and would - executive. he said he was the font of all knowledge and would that i of all knowledge and would that include — of all knowledge and would that include horizon? | of all knowledge and would that include horizon?— of all knowledge and would that include horizon? i don't think he was an it specialist _ include horizon? i don't think he was an it specialist but - include horizon? i don't think he was an it specialist but he - include horizon? i don't think he j was an it specialist but he would have had all the history. he was a knowledgeable guy.— have had all the history. he was a knowledgeable guy. were you aware he was heavily involved _ knowledgeable guy. were you aware he was heavily involved in _ knowledgeable guy. were you aware he was heavily involved in the _ knowledgeable guy. were you aware he was heavily involved in the pilot - knowledgeable guy. were you aware he was heavily involved in the pilot of- was heavily involved in the pilot of horizon? — was heavily involved in the pilot of horizon? |— was heavily involved in the pilot of horizon? ., , �* was heavily involved in the pilot of horizon? �* ,, . , was heavily involved in the pilot of horizon? ,, . , ., horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it wouldn't _ horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it wouldn't surprise _ horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it wouldn't surprise me _ horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it wouldn't surprise me but - horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it wouldn't surprise me but i - horizon? iwasn't specifically, no. it wouldn't surprise me but i did l it wouldn't surprise me but i did not know that. can it wouldn't surprise me but i did not know that.— it wouldn't surprise me but i did not know that. . , ., , ., not know that. can we turn please to .a i e not know that. can we turn please to -ae~ six? not know that. can we turn please to page six? and _ not know that. can we turn please to page six? and if _ not know that. can we turn please to page six? and if we _ not know that. can we turn please to page six? and if we could _ not know that. can we turn please to page six? and if we could go - not know that. can we turn please to page six? and if we could go down i page six? and if we could go down tom _ page six? and if we could go down tom ? _ page six? and if we could go down tom ? that's— page six? and if we could go down to... ? that's perfect, thank you. this— to... ? that's perfect, thank you. this is— to... ? that's perfect, thank you. this is a —

to... ? that's perfect, thank you. this is a document about horizon next _ this is a document about horizon next generation. i don't want to next generation. idon't want to cover— next generation. i don't want to cover horizon online now. but it says _ cover horizon online now. but it says when — cover horizon online now. but it says when this was provided to the board, _ says when this was provided to the board, they would be at least a similar— board, they would be at least a similar standard of capability. do you recall— similar standard of capability. do you recall there being any discussion on the adequacy of legacy horizon? _ discussion on the adequacy of legacy horizon? the mother of horizon that was running — horizon? the mother of horizon that was running at the time?— was running at the time? obviously, this was my — was running at the time? obviously, this was my first _ was running at the time? obviously, this was my first meeting _ was running at the time? obviously, this was my first meeting but - was running at the time? obviously, this was my first meeting but by i was running at the time? obviously, this was my first meeting but by my| this was my first meeting but by my impression, was it was a level of contentment with the functionality of the system. but not its running cost and occasionally its availability, so i believe this next—generation proposal is about making it cheaper and faster to run. when you make it faster, you make it cheaper. and so the guarantee that was being given is that it wouldn't

reduce the level of capability. there would be no point in making it run cheaper and faster if it meant being able to do less. mas run cheaper and faster if it meant being able to do less. was anyone on the board asking _ being able to do less. was anyone on the board asking questions _ being able to do less. was anyone on the board asking questions about i being able to do less. was anyone on the board asking questions about the i the board asking questions about the capability? my the board asking questions about the caabili ? g , ,, ., the board asking questions about the caabili ? g , ., capability? my impression, was that we were treading _ capability? my impression, was that we were treading ground _ capability? my impression, was that we were treading ground that - we were treading ground that everybody in the room had discussed apart from me. so i'm sure the management team would have debated it before it came in. if there was challenging within the management team i didn't see it. but does not mean it didn't happen. but the only people i suspect who are looking at this at that meeting for the first time would have been, i would assume mike hodgkinson, myself and brian

coder who would be the only people seeing it for the first time. mas coder who would be the only people seeing it for the first time.— seeing it for the first time. was it not our seeing it for the first time. was it not your role _ seeing it for the first time. was it not your role as _ seeing it for the first time. was it not your role as the _ seeing it for the first time. was it not your role as the executive i not your role as the executive director — not your role as the executive director to _ not your role as the executive director to challenge?- not your role as the executive director to challenge? yes. but it was my first _ director to challenge? yes. but it was my first meeting. _ director to challenge? yes. but it was my first meeting. i _ director to challenge? yes. but it was my first meeting. i can't i was my first meeting. i can't remember what i said. i commented on my witness statement that one of the things i would imagine i would have commented on is that if you are trying to make the system run faster and more slickly, it is quite dangerous to try and start changing the functionality at the same time. because the way you test it is to produce, does this run faster, cheaper and quicker to get the same answer? interpreting the test results becomes more difficult. it relies on the fact that you are comfortable with the functionality thatis comfortable with the functionality that is already in place. so any

council i would have offered would have been on the assumption that the system functionality was sufficient, and try not to change that functionality and focus on the real objective which was to get the thing to run faster and cheaper. flan objective which was to get the thing to run faster and cheaper.— to run faster and cheaper. can we turn to the _ to run faster and cheaper. can we turn to the 30-214 _ to run faster and cheaper. can we turn to the 30-214 zero, - to run faster and cheaper. can we turn to the 30-214 zero, it's - turn to the 30—214 zero, it's another risk and compliance meeting, 22nd of march, 2006. so you would have been managing director at that point. br; have been managing director at that oint. �* , ., have been managing director at that oint, �*y ., , have been managing director at that oint. �*, . , , point. by a few days, yes. the conversation _ point. by a few days, yes. the conversation about _ point. by a few days, yes. the conversation about me - point. by a few days, yes. the conversation about me being i point. by a few days, yes. the| conversation about me being a regular attender took place between this meeting in the next one and the next one and that's the one you've already showed us as being present. i was not present at this one. so ou i was not present at this one. so you were not present but again, you would have read the minutes? yes

because i would have read the minutes? yes because i was _ would have read the minutes? 1313 because i was imposed by would have read the minutes? 19:3 because i was imposed by then. would have read the minutes? yes i because i was imposed by then. could we turn to page _ because i was imposed by then. could we turn to page eight _ because i was imposed by then. could we turn to page eight please, page eight. there is an appendix to this concerning the impact programme and there is a significant amount of evidence and it says impact that the accounting system has moved on significantly. the system is not yet processing all transactions correctly the end state say which automatically infers to the main business account has not yet been achieved. do you recall reading that and can you tell us what your views on it were? i and can you tell us what your views on it were?— on it were? i don't remember specifically- _ on it were? i don't remember specifically. i— on it were? i don't remember specifically. i can't _ on it were? i don't remember specifically. i can't interpret l on it were? i don't remember i specifically. i can't interpret from thatis specifically. i can't interpret from that is that if something is in a testing phase or meant to be in

production... d0 testing phase or meant to be in production- - -— testing phase or meant to be in production... testing phase or meant to be in -roduction... ,, , ., production... do you remember what our views production... do you remember what your views are? _ production... do you remember what your views are? i'm _ production... do you remember what your views are? i'm saying _ production. .. do you remember what your views are? i'm saying i - production... do you remember what your views are? i'm saying i don't i your views are? i'm saying i don't remember _ your views are? i'm saying i don't remember what _ your views are? i'm saying i don't remember what i _ your views are? i'm saying i don't remember what i might _ your views are? i'm saying i don't remember what i might have i your views are? i'm saying i don't| remember what i might have said, well i didn't say anything because i was knocked at the meeting but my first question would be is this something as a result of testing or something? it implies is a test results but i don't know. so i would have needed to follow that up. we will move on to a different topic, please. page 13.