picked up that this oversight picked up that this prosecutorial activity was even going — prosecutorial activity was even going on— prosecutorial activity was even going on on your account? | prosecutorial activity was even going on on your account? i think it is a matter— going on on your account? i think it is a matter of— going on on your account? i think it is a matter of real _ going on on your account? i think it is a matter of real regret _ going on on your account? i think it is a matter of real regret that - going on on your account? i think it is a matter of real regret that all i is a matter of real regret that all of those checks and balances, the governance systems in both companies failed, as well as internal and external audit, all the checks and balances put in failed to surface this issue out of the post office to a wider set of people.— this issue out of the post office to a wider set of people. what was the level of your — a wider set of people. what was the level of your contact _ a wider set of people. what was the level of your contact with _ a wider set of people. what was the level of your contact with the - a wider set of people. what was the level of your contact with the royall level of your contact with the royal mail's _ level of your contact with the royal mail's general counsel?— mail's general counsel? mostly throu . h mail's general counsel? mostly through the — mail's general counsel? mostly through the company _ mail's general counsel? mostly through the company secretaryi mail's general counsel? mostly - through the company secretary but from time to time, separately. did ou ever from time to time, separately. did you ever explore with the general counsel— you ever explore with the general counsel how he or she, the extent to which _ counsel how he or she, the extent to which he _ counsel how he or she, the extent to which he or— counsel how he or she, the extent to which he or she had involvement in the prosecutorial activities of the post office?

i did not, no. did you ever explore with such general— did you ever explore with such general counsel how they ensured adequate — general counsel how they ensured adequate resources were available to ensure _ adequate resources were available to ensure effective oversight of the post office because my own legal and regulatory— post office because my own legal and regulatory obligations? it post office because my own legal and regulatory obligations?— regulatory obligations? it was quite a reuular regulatory obligations? it was quite a regular question _ regulatory obligations? it was quite a regular question at _ regulatory obligations? it was quite a regular question at most - regulatory obligations? it was quite a regular question at most audit - a regular question at most audit committees to the various teams, through john committees to the various teams, throuthohn in order, have you got enough people you need to do the job? that would be a regular question asked.— job? that would be a regular question asked. job? that would be a regular ruestion asked. ~ ., , , , ., , question asked. what steps if any did the royal _ question asked. what steps if any did the royal mail _ question asked. what steps if any did the royal mail board - question asked. what steps if any did the royal mail board or - question asked. what steps if any did the royal mail board or you i question asked. what steps if any i did the royal mail board or you take to ensure _ did the royal mail board or you take to ensure that the role of general counsel— to ensure that the role of general counsel was effectively discharged, so as_ counsel was effectively discharged, so as to _ counsel was effectively discharged, so as to ensure compliance by the post _ so as to ensure compliance by the post office — so as to ensure compliance by the post office with its legal obligations, so far as prosecutions are concerned?

i think that because he reported to the company secretary, i think his role would have been reviewed by the company secretary. in terms of performance. 50 the answer i think is for you so the answer i think is for you personally, none, but that's because it was— personally, none, but that's because it was mr_ personally, none, but that's because it was mr evans' responsibility? correct — it was mr evans' responsibility? correct. ., , , ., , , correct. you tell us in your witness statement — correct. you tell us in your witness statement in _ correct. you tell us in your witness statement in paragraph _ correct. you tell us in your witness statement in paragraph 43 - correct. you tell us in your witness statement in paragraph 43 that. correct. you tell us in your witness| statement in paragraph 43 that you trusted _ statement in paragraph 43 that you trusted the managing director stroke ceo of— trusted the managing director stroke ceo of the _ trusted the managing director stroke ceo of the post office and chair to raise _ ceo of the post office and chair to raise any— ceo of the post office and chair to raise any significant systemic or reputational issues relevant to the post office that would have had an impact _ post office that would have had an impact on — post office that would have had an impact on the group, either at the royal— impact on the group, either at the royal mail— impact on the group, either at the royal mail management board meetings or the main— royal mail management board meetings or the main board meetings, royal mail management board meetings orthe main board meetings, is royal mail management board meetings or the main board meetings, is that right? _ or the main board meetings, is that riuht? , or the main board meetings, is that right? yes. when you say you trusted, right? yes. when you say you trusted. do — right? yes. when you say you trusted, do you _ right? yes. when you say you trusted, do you mean - right? yes when you say you trusted, do you mean that you assumed — trusted, do you mean that you assumed that they would? not “ust

that. obviously, i assumed that they would? not “ust that. obviously, ii assumed that they would? not “ust that. obviously, i assumedfi assumed that they would? not “ust that. obviously, i assumed as h assumed that they would? not just | that. obviously, i assumed as good people are in senior positions, very qualified, that they would volunteer those issues. but as you can tell in many places in my statement, i made it very clear that our style of management from the board downwards to go looking for problems. we were fixing things across the business. i clearly wish we had known about this because i think when i look at collectively what we were tackling, i'm sure we would have done if we were aware of it. unfortunately, which is a huge regret, we were not. so your border management board you told us _ so your border management board you told us actively sought out problematic areas?- told us actively sought out problematic areas? yes. and not only was this one — problematic areas? yes. and not only was this one not _ problematic areas? iezs and not only was this one not found, those within post office _ was this one not found, those within post office did not escalate it to you or _ post office did not escalate it to you or your board?— post office did not escalate it to you or your board? how you or your board? they did not. how would ou you or your board? they did not. how would you define _ you or your board? they did not. how

would you define an _ you or your board? they did not. how would you define an issue _ you or your board? they did not. how would you define an issue that - you or your board? they did not. how would you define an issue that had i would you define an issue that had "systemic— would you define an issue that had "systemic or reputational issues" related _ "systemic or reputational issues" related to — "systemic or reputational issues" related to the post office, what was the threshold that needed to be crossed — the threshold that needed to be crossed in order for an issue to be escalated — crossed in order for an issue to be escalated to — crossed in order for an issue to be escalated to you? | crossed in order for an issue to be escalated to you?— crossed in order for an issue to be escalated to you? i think something that would generally _ escalated to you? i think something that would generally impact - escalated to you? i think something that would generally impact the i that would generally impact the performance of the company that would also have an impact on the group itself, whether that was financially or reputational way. how was that made clear or communicated to the post office executive — communicated to the post office executive team so that they would know _ executive team so that they would know for _ executive team so that they would know for example the issues with which _ know for example the issues with which we — know for example the issues with which we are dealing, whether they fell which we are dealing, whether they felt on _ which we are dealing, whether they felt on the — which we are dealing, whether they fell on the escalate or do not escalate _ fell on the escalate or do not escalate side of the line? | fell on the escalate or do not escalate side of the line? i don't think there _ escalate side of the line? i don't think there would _ escalate side of the line? i don't think there would have - escalate side of the line? i don't think there would have been i escalate side of the line? i don't l think there would have been many board meetings without the chairman and the nonexecutive directors and

executive in the space of myself saying we needed to try and get the bottom of all the issues. it all started with inheriting a company in severe trouble and we asked people at all times to be open, transparent and for bad news to travel very fast. we went looking for that, if i take an example in my statement, in the letters business. myself and the chairman would meet with front line delivery managers on a regular basis. we would get them to tell us everything they felt was wrong with the business, issues they needed fixing. we would go away and come back the next time and tell them what we had done in terms of fixing that and asked them what we needed to tackle next. all of those issues were about trying to make progress in a company that was starting from a very, very terrible position. we re were you relying on the judgment and

discretion— were you relying on the judgment and discretion of the ceo and chair within— discretion of the ceo and chair within the _ discretion of the ceo and chair within the post office to raise matters — within the post office to raise matters which they thought ought to be before _ matters which they thought ought to be before the board? yes. do you know what — be before the board? iezs do you know what steps they took to motivate or encourage their staff towards — motivate or encourage their staff towards openness and accountability and transparency in your period of office? _ office? i - office? i think mike office? — i think mike hodgkinson set up the risk committee and chaired it himself. i think he tried to install the right attitudes. obviously i was not in any of those meetings, other than on the two occasions i think we spoke about earlier. so i was never seeing that first hand. you have mentioned that there was a fundamental difference in culture between — fundamental difference in culture between royal mail and post office

and that _ between royal mail and post office and that related in particular to openness, is that right? i am _ openness, is that right? i am not _ openness, is that right? i am not sure, you openness, is that right? lam not sure, you might openness, is that right? i am not sure, you might correct me and say i used the word fundamental but i thought there was a real difference. ids, but i thought there was a real difference-— but i thought there was a real difference. �* ., ' . difference. a real difference, ok. and in what _ difference. a real difference, ok. and in what did _ difference. a real difference, ok. and in what did that _ difference. a real difference, ok. and in what did that have - difference. a real difference, ok. and in what did that have its i and in what did that have its origins? _ and in what did that have its oriains? , ., , , , and in what did that have its oriains? , ., _ , , and in what did that have its oriains? . ., _ , , origins? obviously, this is looking back with hindsight. _ origins? obviously, this is looking back with hindsight. my _ origins? obviously, this is looking back with hindsight. my next i back with hindsight. my next ruestion back with hindsight. my next question was _ back with hindsight. my next question was going - back with hindsight. my next question was going to i back with hindsight. my next question was going to be, i back with hindsight. my next i question was going to be, was it obvious— question was going to be, was it obvious at— question was going to be, was it obvious at the time? not question was going to be, was it obvious at the time? not obvious in that sense but _ obvious at the time? not obvious in that sense but i _ obvious at the time? not obvious in that sense but i think— obvious at the time? not obvious in that sense but i think the _ obvious at the time? not obvious in that sense but i think the post i that sense but i think the post office i think internally within the post office, they always thought of themselves as a different organisation, the public service, the face of government and felt that that was very different from this space that royal mail was increasingly inhabiting. sol space that royal mail was increasingly inhabiting. so i think there was a sort of difference in outlook, there was a difference in the objective of the two companies

and as i said earlier, i think all their separation things, which in many ways made sense, in terms of those different futures i think also probably exacerbated some of those feelings of, we are different. we have heard evidence in the inquiry from _ have heard evidence in the inquiry from more — have heard evidence in the inquiry from more than one person that they took decisions not to escalate concerns _ took decisions not to escalate concerns about horizon or the way cases— concerns about horizon or the way cases were — concerns about horizon or the way cases were prosecuted because the post office was a highly politicised organisation, it was very hierarchical, they would have been seeni _ hierarchical, they would have been seen. for— hierarchical, they would have been seen, for example, as stepping out of line _ seen, for example, as stepping out of line if— seen, for example, as stepping out of line if they had delivered such a message — of line if they had delivered such a message. that it would not have been -ood message. that it would not have been good for— message. that it would not have been good for their career and they chose unconsciously to protect themselves. was that _ unconsciously to protect themselves. was that a _ unconsciously to protect themselves. was that a culture of which you were aware _ was that a culture of which you were aware within the post office at the time? _ aware within the post office at the time? �* , ,., , aware within the post office at the time? �* , , ., ., ., time? i'm very sorry to hear that. i certainly encouraged _ time? i'm very sorry to hear that. i certainly encouraged the _ time? i'm very sorry to hear that. i certainly encouraged the complete| certainly encouraged the complete opposite. i wanted certainly encouraged the complete opposite. iwanted people certainly encouraged the complete opposite. i wanted people to be open, we encouraged people to be

open. it is actually partly why we created have your say and white was anonymous. i regret if that was the case with him the post office that there were other ways to get information to people if people were concerned. there was also whistle—blowing but i think have your say was another way of doing that. more than one route to do that. more than one route to do that. ., i. , ~ that. you said you trusted mr cook when he was _ that. you said you trusted mr cook when he was managing _ that. you said you trusted mr cook when he was managing director. that. you said you trusted mr cook when he was managing director to | when he was managing director to raise _ when he was managing director to raise systemic or reputational issues — raise systemic or reputational issues that had been devolved, such as concerning legal or it functions, to you _ as concerning legal or it functions, to you and — as concerning legal or it functions, to you and to the main board, is that— to you and to the main board, is that right? — to you and to the main board, is that right? i _ to you and to the main board, is that right?— that right? i did, yes. have you _ that right? i did, yes. have you had - that right? i did, yes. have you had any i that right? i did, yes. i have you had any reaction that right? i did, yes. - have you had any reaction or that right? i did, yes. _ have you had any reaction or how do you feel— have you had any reaction or how do you feel about mr cook's claim that in his— you feel about mr cook's claim that in his period of office, he did not

even _ in his period of office, he did not even know— in his period of office, he did not even know that the post office had a prosecutorial function until 2009? in other— prosecutorial function until 2009? in other words, until the computer weekly— in other words, until the computer weekly article, despite having been manager— weekly article, despite having been manager director of the post office since _ manager director of the post office since 2006 and a nonexecutive director— since 2006 and a nonexecutive director for years before then? i director for years before then? would find director for years before then? i would find that surprising. he has told the inquiry that although he had conversations with the head _ although he had conversations with the head of security about fraud, about _ the head of security about fraud, about liaison with the police, he remained — about liaison with the police, he remained in the dark about the prosecutorial function. at the time, did he _ prosecutorial function. at the time, did he strike you as a man who was so out _ did he strike you as a man who was so out of— did he strike you as a man who was so out of touch with the business that he _ so out of touch with the business that he was running that he wouldn't know— that he was running that he wouldn't know that _ that he was running that he wouldn't know that one of its functions was

to prosecute its own staff are resulting _ to prosecute its own staff are resulting in many of them being sent to prison? _ resulting in many of them being sent to prison? he resulting in many of them being sent to rison? . ., , ., , ., to prison? he certainly always gave the impression _ to prison? he certainly always gave the impression of _ to prison? he certainly always gave the impression of someone - to prison? he certainly always gave the impression of someone who i to prison? he certainly always gave| the impression of someone who was very much in control of his brief. his particular area of expertise was in financial services, including his previous role, and obviously that was, given the amount of government revenue that had been lost, both through the loss of benefits payments and the forthcoming loss of the poll card, financial services was one of the few ways that the post office could feel that revenue grab. he was brought in specifically with that skill. i do know that he spent, i remember him always saying how much time he spent with

sub—postmasters, with the nfs p and he never gave the impression to either myself or indeed the board, in fairness, of being anything but in fairness, of being anything but in control of that brief. you in fairness, of being anything but in control of that brief.— in control of that brief. you tell us in your— in control of that brief. you tell us in your witness _ in control of that brief. you tell us in your witness statement, i in control of that brief. you tell. us in your witness statement, as in control of that brief. you tell i us in your witness statement, as you have done _ us in your witness statement, as you have done today, that mrjonathan evansi _ have done today, that mrjonathan evansi the — have done today, that mrjonathan evans, the company secretary, sat on both boards, _ evans, the company secretary, sat on both boards, the main board and post office _ both boards, the main board and post office limited board, correct? he did, office limited board, correct? did, yes. office limited board, correct? he did, yes- was— office limited board, correct? he did, yes. was his _ office limited board, correct? he did, yes. was his role _ office limited board, correct? he did, yes. was his role by - office limited board, correct? he did, yes. was his role by sitting l office limited board, correct? hel did, yes. was his role by sitting on both of those _ did, yes. was his role by sitting on both of those boards _ did, yes. was his role by sitting on both of those boards expected i did, yes. was his role by sitting on both of those boards expected to l did, yes. was his role by sitting on. both of those boards expected to be one which— both of those boards expected to be one which exercised any particular function _ one which exercised any particular function across both businesses, in other— function across both businesses, in other words, function across both businesses, in otherwords, by function across both businesses, in other words, by reason of sitting on both boards? as other words, by reason of sitting on both boards?— both boards? as you know, the com an both boards? as you know, the company secretary _ both boards? as you know, the company secretary has - both boards? as you know, the company secretary has a i both boards? as you know, thel company secretary has a slightly different role, in the sense of not being part of a management team, if you like. effectively, they report to the board and the chairman in a

more independent way. jonathan also had a huge history with the company and so he played that sort of role of understanding the history, both sides of the business, and was trusted by everyone on the board. whether that was the holdings board or the post office board. mr; or the post office board. my ruestion or the post office board. my question more was was it by design, with a _ question more was was it by design, with a purpose, oran question more was was it by design, with a purpose, or an outcome in mind _ with a purpose, or an outcome in mind that — with a purpose, or an outcome in mind that he sat on both boards? | mind that he sat on both boards? i think mind that he sat on both boards? think it was mind that he sat on both boards? i think it was to ensure there was more gloom there across the team. again, that is something that had been decided quite a while before i arrive. —— the glue across the board. and it seemed to work very well. �* ., . board. and it seemed to work very well. �* ., , ., ., well. and he was the line manager, essentially. — well. and he was the line manager, essentially. of— well. and he was the line manager, essentially, of the _ well. and he was the line manager, essentially, of the legal _ well. and he was the line manager, essentially, of the legal services i essentially, of the legal services team _ essentially, of the legal services team within the royal mail holdings? yes, team within the royal mail holdings? yes. he _ team within the royal mail holdings? yes, he was. can

team within the royal mail holdings? yes. he was-— yes, he was. can you say whether or not that yes, he was. can you say whether or rrot that played _ yes, he was. can you say whether or rrot that played any _ yes, he was. can you say whether or not that played any part _ yes, he was. can you say whether or not that played any part in _ yes, he was. can you say whether or not that played any part in the i not that played any part in the decision— not that played any part in the decision that he should be company secretary— decision that he should be company secretary of both organisations and should _ secretary of both organisations and should sit— secretary of both organisations and should sit on both boards? | should sit on both boards? i genuinely don't know. partly because the decision had been made quite some time before i arrived, i am sorry. some time before i arrived, i am sor . ., ., , ., some time before i arrived, i am sor . ., ., ., ., sorry. can we turn to your knowledge of horizon. — sorry. can we turn to your knowledge of horizon. you _ sorry. can we turn to your knowledge of horizon, you tell _ sorry. can we turn to your knowledge of horizon, you tell us _ sorry. can we turn to your knowledge of horizon, you tell us in _ sorry. can we turn to your knowledge of horizon, you tell us in your- of horizon, you tell us in your witness — of horizon, you tell us in your witness statement that you recall that the _ witness statement that you recall that the system was first piloted in 1995 and _ that the system was first piloted in 1995 and rolled out in 2000, with further— 1995 and rolled out in 2000, with further development thereafter and was therefore relatively established when you _ was therefore relatively established when you were arrived in 2003? when i sa i when you were arrived in 2003? when i say i recall. — when you were arrived in 2003? when i say i recall. i — when you were arrived in 2003? when i say i recall, i now _ when you were arrived in 2003? when i say i recall, i now recall— when you were arrived in 2003? barren i say i recall, i now recall because i say i recall, i now recall because i have read all this stuff. when i arrived, it was just the system that the post office used.— the post office used. were you therefore not _ the post office used. were you therefore not aware _ the post office used. were you therefore not aware of - the post office used. were you therefore not aware of the i the post office used. were you i therefore not aware of the history of the _ therefore not aware of the history of the procurement for the contracting about and the

development of horizon? not contracting about and the development of horizon? not in the sli . htest, development of horizon? not in the slightest. no- _ development of horizon? not in the slightest. no. it— development of horizon? not in the slightest, no. it would _ development of horizon? not in the slightest, no. it would be _ development of horizon? not in the slightest, no. it would be quite i slightest, no. it would be quite unusualfor slightest, no. it would be quite unusual for people to be taken back eight years or five years or whatever. i eight years or five years or whatever-— eight years or five years or whatever. ., ., ., ., whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which _ whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any _ whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any of _ whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any of that i whatever. i want to ask about the extent to which any of that back | extent to which any of that back history— extent to which any of that back history was revealed to you. where you are _ history was revealed to you. where you are aware of the collapse of the contract _ you are aware of the collapse of the contract between the post office, icl, contract between the post office, ill. and _ contract between the post office, icl, and the benefits agency? no. that was a matter of quite some controversy in the late 90s, before you joined — controversy in the late 90s, before you joined at royal mail, that was something of which you were unaware? were you _ something of which you were unaware? were you aware of or told about on arrival _ were you aware of or told about on arrival the — were you aware of or told about on arrival the issue of the withdrawal of the _ arrival the issue of the withdrawal of the benefits card, benefits payment card, and therefore the benefits — payment card, and therefore the benefits agency from a joint programme with the post office,

which _ programme with the post office, which was — programme with the post office, which was seen as an existential