with two former workers presented with two former workers who had been prosecuted, both ladies in fact, who had spent time in prison, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted, and he apologised to both of them. to go he has been appearing in the horizon scandal inquiry. some of the main point is to come out of the evidence is that he didn't know the post office itself brought prosecutions. he said he was aware there were court cases but assumed there were court cases but assumed the police or public prosecutions were involved, it wasn't until more than three years into his job that he realised the post office could prosecute someone without any review or approval from another body and he admitted too much assumed knowledge and said there would have been a higher bar if a third party had brought prosecutions. he was

managing director between 2006—2010. evidence was produced that seem to contradict that he did not know what was going on. between 1999 and 2015 the bigger picture is that more than 900 sub—postmasters were prosecuted due to the faulty system. alan cooke began by putting on record what he described as a personal apology to sub—postmasters and supposed mistresses and their families for what they had been put through. 1 what they had been put through. i wonder if i could just what they had been put through. i wonder if i could just say before we get started, to put on record most strongly my personal apology and sympathies with also postmasters, their families and those affected by

this? as we get into the conversation there will be an opportunity for me to elaborate but it felt like an important thing for me to say up front. i had assumed that the police had been involved. i shouldn't have been presumed but i did presume, sadly. and that we... and that had then gone to court, was the expression used. i had not encountered an organisation that could make that decision on its own. i suppose i had too much assumed knowledge and when you see the words that were written i can see why that perpetuated in my mind, because it didn't overtly say we have taken the decision to prosecute. 0ne didn't overtly say we have taken the decision to prosecute. one of my regrets, that i didn't pick up on that earlier.— regrets, that i didn't pick up on that earlier. ~ ., , ., that earlier. alan cook explaining that earlier. alan cook explaining that he was _ that earlier. alan cook explaining that he was not _ that earlier. alan cook explaining that he was not aware _ that earlier. alan cook explaining

that he was not aware that - that earlier. alan cook explaining that he was not aware that the i that earlier. alan cook explaining l that he was not aware that the post office was taking the initiative to bring prosecutions. during his questioning this morning, alan cook was presented with a series of lectures, communications or printouts. what were they trying to show there? what sort of discrepancies were coming out? there was a lot of disbelief _ discrepancies were coming out? there was a lot of disbelief here _ discrepancies were coming out? ii” was a lot of disbelief here from sub—postmasters, also once you were watching at tone that i've been in touch with, because the idea that is managing director between 2006—2010 when a lot of these prosecutions were taking place, he had no knowledge of any of this when he was running the company is hard for them to understand. the point of those documents that were talking about prosecutions, talking about the post office's involvement in all this, using the word fraud, was then how

could you not know? you have been looking at these reports, these documents. the council kept trying to understand how he could not have any knowledge of it if those documents are right there. there was a common refrain that is not how he understood the e—mail at the time, he simply wasn't aware the prosecutions were taking place or that any organisation would have a structure that you can be the investigator, the prosecutor and the victim so he didn't even think to ask. . , , ., ., , ., , ask. there appeared to be monthly re orts. ask. there appeared to be monthly reports- he — ask. there appeared to be monthly reports. he said _ ask. there appeared to be monthly reports. he said he _ ask. there appeared to be monthly reports. he said he wasn't - ask. there appeared to be monthly reports. he said he wasn't really i reports. he said he wasn't really aware of it and this was a big organisation and so on and that he had visited 250 of the sub—postmasters and supposed mistresses during his tenure. he said that he wasn't aware, yet he was given monthly reports. yes. it

is interesting _ was given monthly reports. yes. it is interesting you _ was given monthly reports. yes. it is interesting you are _ was given monthly reports. yes. it is interesting you are talking - was given monthly reports. yes. it| is interesting you are talking about his relationship with sub—postmasters because he said that's relationship during his tenure was very important to him. that is why i was rather extraordinary line that came out in this session is hard to understand for a lot of these postmasters. in 2009 the computer weekly article came out, that first reported on the scandal. a pr officerfor the post office in 2009 wrote to alan cook expressing concern around the nervousness as they put it around the horizon system. that prompted this e—mail exchange that was read out, where alan cook said from his experience, subbies with their hands on the till tend to blame the technology when they are short of cash. forsomebody technology when they are short of cash. for somebody who claims to be

very concerned about his relationship with the sub—postmasters, they were very upset by this. he said that this is an expression that he profoundly regrets. he said he will regret for the rest of his life. it was an important thing to put in an e—mail, not in line with my view of sub—postmasters. speaking to one of the postmasters, he was only 18 or 20 took over the branch, he said a the system was being rolled out and he was using it more, he started experiencing problems from the very beginning. he said that listening to that was a complete disgrace and that was a complete disgrace and that he simply doesn't understand how you can put that in an e—mail when you want even asking questions as the man running the business. i thought another very interesting point was how these prosecutions were pursued, meaning that those who

were pursued, meaning that those who were accused were told either you admit liability here, you admit guilt, orwe admit liability here, you admit guilt, or we will pursue you. it clearly didn't occur to him that the post office is a large organisation and this was one individual, so he said if they pled guilty that would suggest that they were admitting guilt, it didn't occur to him that there was an asymmetry here in the situation. . , ., there was an asymmetry here in the situation. , , ., ., ., , situation. yes, you have to put ourself situation. yes, you have to put yourself in _ situation. yes, you have to put yourself in the _ situation. yes, you have to put yourself in the shoes _ situation. yes, you have to put yourself in the shoes of- situation. yes, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the - yourself in the shoes of the victims. they are being accused of something they did not do, over software that was not working properly and what alan bates for example said this week was that the problem he found with the horizon system, is he couldn't personally track those transactions and understand what the shortfalls were coming from. that is what the inquiry heard on tuesday. so if you can't prove that you haven't done

what you're being accused of, you are looking at shortfalls in the thousands, people have been bankrupt by this, so here several have told the bbc that they pled guilty because they took the advice of their counsel and it felt like they were being pushed into a corner. that is the gravity of what we are talking about and why it is so shocking that executives would say that they didn't know this was even taking place. that they didn't know this was even taking place-— taking place. where is all of this leadin: ? taking place. where is all of this leading? again, _ taking place. where is all of this leading? again, and _ taking place. where is all of this leading? again, and going - taking place. where is all of this leading? again, and going to . taking place. where is all of this | leading? again, and going to use taking place. where is all of this - leading? again, and going to use the word asymmetry between the likes of alan cook sang i'm really sorry and the outcomes for these people who served time in many cases in prison. tanya, that is the question that so many of these victims have been asking because they are not particularly interested in these answers. what they want to steer consequences and people held to account. what this public inquiry is doing is gathering evidence and it

is trying to understand how things went wrong and you knew what and when. the met police said it watching these proceedings and that will inform their decisions later on. the current post office minister has told the bbc that once that evidence has been gathered and established, people who would have been responsible at the post office and more broadly he feels she faced jail time. we and more broadly he feels she faced 'ailtime. ~ . ~ ., ., ., jail time. we have adam crozier, who will be giving — jail time. we have adam crozier, who will be giving evidence _ jail time. we have adam crozier, who will be giving evidence this _ will be giving evidence this afternoon. he is the former ceo of the royal mail group. it is worth explaining what the relationship between those two. he overlaps timewise with alan cook, doesn't he? he did. his testimony is likely to really focus on those questions. let me preface this with their electric want to talk about the relationship between royal mail and the post

office. they were the same organisation, it is important to remember that during his tenure. there was a different governance board. can we start pleased with your witness statement? he should have a hard copy in front of you. it is 3a pages long and is dated the 28th of february 202a. if you turn to page 34, february 202a. if you turn to page 3a, is that your signature? it is, yes. is the content true to the best of your belief? it yes. is the content true to the best of your belief?— yes. is the content true to the best of your belief? it is. can i start with your— of your belief? it is. can i start with your background, - of your belief? it 3 can i start with your background, please? between february 2003 and april 2010, so forjust over seven years

you were ad director and chief executive officer of the royal mail group. that is correct. and the director of royal mail holdings? the first director of royal mail holdings? iie: first being a limited director of royal mail holdings? i“ie: first being a limited company, director of royal mail holdings? iie: first being a limited company, the second a plc. first being a limited company, the second a ole-— first being a limited company, the second a plc— second a plc. before 'oining royal mail ou second a plc. before 'oining royal manyou new h second a plc. before 'oining royal mail you held senior_ second a plc. before joining royal mail you held senior roles - second a plc. before joining royal mail you held senior roles in - mail you held senior roles in saatchi and saatchi from 1988 to 1999, is that right?— saatchi and saatchi from 1988 to 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, — 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all— 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all the _ 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all the way - 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all the way through | there in 1988, all the way through to 1988. bill there in 1988, all the way through to 1988. �* ., , ., there in 1988, all the way through t01988. �* ., y ., , to 1988. but in the last four years as a 'oint t01988. but in the last four years as a joint chief— to 1988. but in the last four years as a joint chief executive? - to 1988. but in the last four years | as a joint chief executive? correct. then from 2003, sorry until 2003, immediately before joining the real bowl group, as the chief executive of the football association. correct. can i start pleased at

looking at the corporate structure of royal mail? i am going to try to summarise and see if you agree in the interests of time with the summary. first there was a parent company? yes. that was solely owned by the single shareholder, the government? correct. royal mail holdings plc had its own board and management board? correct. you attended all board meetings and you sat on the management board? that's correct. the chairman of royal mail holdings plc in your tenure was first adam leighton between 2002-2008, and first adam leighton between 2002—2008, and then donald brydon from 2009 onwards? yes. royal mail holdings plc, the main board, it had

its own audit and risk committee? upon which esat?— its own audit and risk committee? upon which esat? yes. attended, yes. were ou a upon which esat? yes. attended, yes. were you a member— upon which esat? yes. attended, yes. were you a member of— upon which esat? yes. attended, yes. were you a member of it _ upon which esat? yes. attended, yes. were you a member of it or— upon which esat? yes. attended, yes. were you a member of it or an - were you a member of it or an attendee? i were you a member of it or an attendee?— were you a member of it or an attendee? ~ ., , ., ., attendee? i think i was an attendee, actuall . attendee? i think i was an attendee, actually- for — attendee? i think i was an attendee, actually. for those _ attendee? i think i was an attendee, actually. for those not _ attendee? i think i was an attendee, actually. for those not steeped - attendee? i think i was an attendee, actually. for those not steeped in i actually. for those not steeped in cororate actually. for those not steeped in corporate governance, _ actually. for those not steeped in corporate governance, the - actually. for those not steeped in i corporate governance, the difference between being a member of a committee and an attendee is? the members committee and an attendee is? iie: members were all nonexecutive directors. . ., ., directors. can we move on in the summary. _ directors. can we move on in the summary. there _ directors. can we move on in the summary, there were _ directors. can we move on in the summary, there were a - directors. can we move on in the summary, there were a range i directors. can we move on in the summary, there were a range of| summary, there were a range of separate businesses within the royal mail and they were separated out in different ways. some of them being subsidiaries of the royal mail and others not, is that right? yes. post office limited was one of those 0ffice limited was one of those entities and that was a separate legal entity, is that right? that's

correct. . . . legal entity, is that right? that's correct. . ., , legal entity, is that right? that's correct. . , . correct. that was post office limited- _ correct. that was post office limited. yes. _ correct. that was post office limited. yes. post _ correct. that was post office limited. yes. post office i correct. that was post office i limited. yes. post office limited had its own _ limited. yes. post office limited had its own board, _ limited. yes. post office limited had its own board, its _ limited. yes. post office limited had its own board, its chairman l limited. yes. post office limited i had its own board, its chairman and in your tenure if they were sir michael hutchinson, from whom we heard yesterday, and then from 2009, donald brighton? that's right. i think that means that mr bryden was chairman of both royal mail holdings plc and post office limited? yes, he was. in your tenure david mills and then from 2006, alan cook from whom we have just heard? then from 2006, alan cook from whom we havejust heard? yes. that person, the md or ceo sat on both royal mail holdings plc and the mail management board? yes. the post office limited had its own risk and

compliance committee? that's right. i think in one way or another i have taken all of those points from your witness statements, you make all of those points in one way or another in your witness statement, taking all of those points together are you effectively saying in your witness statement that within the group of separate business units, the post office had a relatively high degree office had a relatively high degree office had a relatively high degree of autonomy from royal mail group? yes, under its delegated powers of authority. of the business units within the group did the post office enjoyed the greatest level of autonomy? yes, it did. it was the only one with the sony one with its own government set up. mint;

only one with the sony one with its own government set up.— only one with the sony one with its own government set up. why was it that it enioyed _ own government set up. why was it that it enjoyed the _ own government set up. why was it that it enjoyed the greatest - own government set up. why was it that it enjoyed the greatest level i that it enjoyed the greatest level of autonomy from the royal mail? i think it goes right back to the 2,000 acts where the government set “p 2,000 acts where the government set up the company and it had two very different objectives. for royal mail it was to be modernised and be a commercial company in a market that was to be opened up to competition and on the post office side it was to try and become a sustainable public service, so two very different objectives and that separate governance ran right through to them also having their own direct relationship with the shareholder and a different team within that. shareholder and a different team within that-— within that. thank you. was the result of that _ within that. thank you. was the

result of that that _ within that. thank you. was the result of that that you - within that. thank you. was the result of that that you as i within that. thank you. was the result of that that you as ceo i within that. thank you. was the j result of that that you as ceo of royal mail placed very substantial reliance on the post office board and the post office executive team in the running of post office limited? i in the running of post office limited? ., , limited? i did indeed and it is artl limited? i did indeed and it is partly why _ limited? i did indeed and it is partly why both _ limited? i did indeed and it is partly why both the _ limited? i did indeed and it is partly why both the chairman | limited? i did indeed and it is i partly why both the chairman and limited? i did indeed and it is - partly why both the chairman and the ceo of the post office also sat on the holdings board. the chairman of royal mail sat on the post office board a company secretary back —— sat on both. it meant that the post office largely was able to go about its business without reference to the royal bail —— at the royal mail. 0ne the royal bail —— at the royal mail. one was on funding, that was a difference. secondly, uncertain major multi—year contracts were a ticket beyond its delegated authority limits. the fidgety

contractor— authority limits. the fidgety contractor is _ authority limits. the fidgety contractor is one _ authority limits. the fidgety contractor is one of - authority limits. the fidgety contractor is one of those? | authority limits. the fidgety. contractor is one of those? it authority limits. the fidgety i contractor is one of those? it was indeed, contractor is one of those? it was indeed. yes- _ contractor is one of those? it was indeed, yes. looking _ contractor is one of those? it was indeed, yes. looking back- contractor is one of those? it was indeed, yes. looking back now i contractor is one of those? it was i indeed, yes. looking back now should there have been a third added to the list of things that the post office ought to come back to royal mail holdings more and more frequently or namely the contact of investigations and criminal prosecutions? not at the time. i thought all the correct checks and balances were in place. both in terms of internal and external audit. there was the pol committee, the pol board, the risk committee. no one in that chain at any stage expressed any concerns about the contacts of the area you

just mentioned. ii about the contacts of the area you just mentioned.— just mentioned. if royal mail and ou within just mentioned. if royal mail and you within it _ just mentioned. if royal mail and you within it was _ just mentioned. if royal mail and you within it was reliant - just mentioned. if royal mail and you within it was reliant on i just mentioned. if royal mail and you within it was reliant on the i you within it was reliant on the post office to represent post office matters whether in the management board or the main board of royal mail if they did not raise or mention any issues to you of concern or which are problematic. was there any mechanism by which you and royal mail could find out about such issues? chi mail could find out about such issues? . ., , ., , issues? of course, there was the structure are _ issues? of course, there was the structure are just _ issues? of course, there was the structure are just mentioned i issues? of course, there was the l structure are just mentioned above the checks and balances. at the checks and balances due mentioned were within the post office? i'm talking about the checks and balances and you learning about things that they didn't want to tell you about?

first of all, there are constant one—to—one meetings. does that place a high burden on the managing director or ceo of post office limited to be open and transparent with royal mail holdings and in particular with you? bath and in particular with you? both m self and in particular with you? both myself and _ and in particular with you? both myself and the _ and in particular with you? both myself and the board, - and in particular with you? ifizf7ii'i myself and the board, yes, absolutely. there was constant... because of what we inherited effectively on the royal mail site, a broken company that hadn't been invested in for a decade, it was the least modernised postal company in europe. what that meant was on the royal mail side there was no option other than being fundamentally transparent and the fact that most of what we inherited wasn't working and that encouraged a lot of transparency. we set up a properly

functioning internal audit unit, which was of course one of the ways we could also find out what was happening elsewhere in the group. we strengthen that. we created a whole risk agenda in the business where we got from the ground top people to let everyone know what the key risks wear. they looked at that risk register and it was debated... can ou recall register and it was debated... can you recall whether the conduct of prosecutions and the possibility of bringing sub—postmaster is to justice, including by imprisoning them, and the issues that arise when conducting prosecutions was on the royal mail holdings risk register? i don't believe so. i don't believe i recall seeing it on the post office register, no.

was that it failing? with the benefit of hindsight, yes. ie. benefit of hindsight, yes. ie, conducting — benefit of hindsight, yes. ie, conducting an activity which was unusualfor conducting an activity which was unusual for a conducting an activity which was unusualfor a company, would you agree? yes. an activity that of itself carries unusual risks. indeed. and would you agree that that unusual activity would require a different type of supervision and oversight because it brings the company into contact with the criminaljustice company into contact with the criminal justice system? company into contact with the criminaljustice system?- company into contact with the criminaljustice system? criminal 'ustice system? yes, and that is criminaljustice system? yes, and that is why _ criminaljustice system? yes, and that is why there _ criminaljustice system? yes, and that is why there were _ criminaljustice system? yes, and that is why there were lots - criminaljustice system? yes, and that is why there were lots of i that is why there were lots of checks and balances, internal and external legal advice. that checks and balances, internal and external legal advice.— external legal advice. that is why there were _ external legal advice. that is why there were lots _ external legal advice. that is why there were lots of _ external legal advice. that is why there were lots of checks - external legal advice. that is why there were lots of checks and i there were lots of checks and balances around the? internal and

external legal _ balances around the? internal and external legal advice. _ balances around the? internal and external legal advice. we - balances around the? internal and external legal advice. we had i balances around the? internal and external legal advice. we had lotsj external legal advice. we had lots of external lawyers involved with the company, we also had prosecutions on the royal mail site, as i'm sure you know. there they were multiple interactions, much more straightforward things with police and crown prosecution service is. ~ . police and crown prosecution service is. . . ., ., , , police and crown prosecution service is. . ., ._ police and crown prosecution service is. what external lawyers are you referrin: is. what external lawyers are you referring to _ is. what external lawyers are you referring to the _ is. what external lawyers are you referring to the gave _ is. what external lawyers are you referring to the gave comfort i is. what external lawyers are you referring to the gave comfort in l is. what external lawyers are you l referring to the gave comfort in the prosecution of supposed masters? i don't recall the ones the post office used at the time. did you think at the _ office used at the time. did you think at the time _ office used at the time. did you think at the time the _ office used at the time. did you i think at the time the prosecutions of supposed masters were conducted by external lawyers? i of supposed masters were conducted by external lawyers?— by external lawyers? i believe they had a big role _ by external lawyers? i believe they had a big role in _ by external lawyers? i believe they had a big role in that, _ by external lawyers? i believe they had a big role in that, yes. - by external lawyers? i believe they had a big role in that, yes. by i had a big role in that, yes. by conducted, do you mean the person standing up in court, either the barrister or solicitor, with rights of audience, or you barrister or solicitor, with rights of audience, oryou —— barrister or solicitor, with rights of audience, or you —— or do you

mean conducted the whole thing? i’m mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not mean conducted the whole thing? in not sure. mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not sure- was — mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not sure. was there _ mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not sure. was there a _ mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not sure. was there a way _ mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not sure. was there a way for - mean conducted the whole thing? i'm not sure. was there a way for people | not sure. was there a way for people within the post _ not sure. was there a way for people within the post office _ not sure. was there a way for people within the post office to _ not sure. was there a way for people within the post office to report i within the post office to report issues to you or to the royal mail board if the post office md or ceo was not inclined to do so? yes. board if the post office md or ceo was not inclined to do so? yes, we had a whistle-blowing _ was not inclined to do so? yes, we had a whistle-blowing in _ was not inclined to do so? yes, we| had a whistle-blowing in operation, had a whistle—blowing in operation, which we constantly updated and try to improve. we also had a cervical to improve. we also had a cervical to have your say which was entirely anonymous and allowed people to effectively give us whatever feedback they thought would be helpful. feedback they thought would be helful. ~ .,, . feedback they thought would be hel.fu[_ . . , . , . helpful. was that effectively a department — helpful. was that effectively a department or _ helpful. was that effectively a department or a _ helpful. was that effectively a department or a business i helpful. was that effectively a i department or a business function? helpful. was that effectively a - department or a business function? a department or a business function? team ran both of those things, yes. two different teams, actually. hagar

two different teams, actually. how were the complaints _ two different teams, actually. how were the complaints or issues raised from that fed through to you, if at all? ., , ., from that fed through to you, if at all? ., i. _ from that fed through to you, if at all? ., , , all? there have your say results were initially _ all? there have your say results were initially done _ all? there have your say results were initially done annually, i all? there have your say results. were initially done annually, then were initially done annually, then we did a section every month. those were reviewed by the business units, by the management team, by the audit committee and by the board. in by the management team, by the audit committee and by the board.— committee and by the board. in each of those three _ committee and by the board. in each of those three cases, _ committee and by the board. in each of those three cases, within - committee and by the board. in each of those three cases, within royal i of those three cases, within royal mail rather than post office doing it? i mail rather than post office doing it? “ , mail rather than post office doing it? ~ , ., it? i think they did their own when it? i think they did their own when it was reviewed _ it? i think they did their own when it was reviewed by _ it? i think they did their own when it was reviewed by their _ it? i think they did their own when it was reviewed by their business i it was reviewed by their business units, so i'm assuming they did that with theirs. i genuinely can't recall whether have your say for the post office covered all the people who work for the post office as personnel, that would include people in the wine offices. they often talked about doing a separate one

for the agents, or supposed masters, but i'm not sure if he ever did that or not. i but i'm not sure if he ever did that or not. . ~ but i'm not sure if he ever did that or not. . ,, ., i. but i'm not sure if he ever did that or not. . «i ., i. . or not. i take it from your evidence that that in — or not. i take it from your evidence that that in each _ or not. i take it from your evidence that that in each case _ or not. i take it from your evidence that that in each case was - or not. i take it from your evidence that that in each case was a - or not. i take it from your evidence that that in each case was a post i that that in each case was a post office run function? and the results office run function? and the results of it were looked at and analysed by the post office. of it were looked at and analysed by the post office-— the post office. that's correct, then onto _ the post office. that's correct, then onto the _ the post office. that's correct, then onto the board. - the post office. that's correct, then onto the board. i'm i the post office. that's correct, i then onto the board. i'm looking for somethin: then onto the board. i'm looking for something to _ then onto the board. i'm looking for something to jump _ then onto the board. i'm looking for something to jump from _ then onto the board. i'm looking for something to jump from the - then onto the board. i'm looking for| something to jump from the agents, the supposed masters, to you and your board. is there a facility to do that without going through either of these mechanisms, that the post office managed? i of these mechanisms, that the post office managed?— office managed? i don't believe there was. _ office managed? i don't believe there was, though. _ office managed? i don't believe there was, though. i— office managed? i don't believe there was, though. i think i office managed? i don't believe there was, though. i think it - office managed? i don't believe there was, though. i think it is| there was, though. i think it is riaht there was, though. i think it is right that _ there was, though. i think it is right that you _ there was, though. i think it is right that you made _ there was, though. i think it is right that you made limited i right that you made limited appearances at post office limited board meetings, is that right? i think it was two, which were built between david mills leaving at the end of 2005 and alan kirk arriving

in march or april 2006, and only because those two meetings were very strongly about the latest negotiations with government around the subsidy to ensure that we were able to sign the company offers a going concern. you able to sign the company offers a going concern-— going concern. you said and your statements _ going concern. you said and your statements that _ going concern. you said and your statements that you _ going concern. you said and your statements that you attended . going concern. you said and your i statements that you attended those meetings because they were in relation to matters of shared interest. so why was it that you attempted two board meetings of the post office board in your seven and a bit years as ceo? for post office board in your seven and a bit years as ceo?— post office board in your seven and a bit years as ceo? for a number of different reasons. _ a bit years as ceo? for a number of different reasons. number- a bit years as ceo? for a number of different reasons. number one, - a bit years as ceo? for a number of. different reasons. number one, when i arrived, the ceo of the post office was david mills, who reported directly to allan leighton, the chair of royal mail, sol directly to allan leighton, the chair of royal mail, so i was not involved in the running of the post

office, that was a direct line relationship. when it switched to alan cooke, alan had a slightly more normal drill reporting which was to the board of the post office. also to me with regards to how the post office interface with the royal mail group, for instance funding for the commercial relationship between the two companies. i was advised by the company secretary that it was both a shareholder and the board wanted the two things kept separate, therefore i should not be on that board. we have spoken about the responsibility on post office executive team and its board to refer things up to royal mail management board and the main board. were there any mechanisms for other main board

members or management board members to go down into the post office board to take a look at what was going on? board to take a look at what was auoin on? , board to take a look at what was uaoinon? , �* , going on? yes, there were. because what we were _ going on? yes, there were. because what we were trying _ going on? yes, there were. because what we were trying to _ going on? yes, there were. because what we were trying to do _ going on? yes, there were. because what we were trying to do was - going on? yes, there were. because what we were trying to do was a - going on? yes, there were. because| what we were trying to do was a very big people and cultural transformation, and certainly on the royal mail site a huge technology revolution in terms of putting in sorting machines and tracking and tracing for parcels and what i do, we had a group hr director on the board of the royal mail, and the technology director of the grip of the royal mail, and they also had tentacles into the post office in terms of people and technology. equally, adam leighton, the cheer of royal mail was also on the post office board and the company secretary, jonathan evans, was company secretary on the royal mail board and attended all the pol boards, as well.

page 20, please. can we rotate it, please? 90 degrees clockwise. we cannot, i am told.

i cannot date this, because it