bureau to change bug logins, or the bureau to change bug because _ logins, or the bureau to change bug because nobody had told you about them, _ because nobody had told you about them, correct? because nobody had told you about them. correct?— because nobody had told you about them, correct?- paragraph| them, correct? correct. paragraph 133 on page _ them, correct? correct. paragraph 133 on page 52. — them, correct? correct. paragraph 133 on page 52. you _ them, correct? correct. paragraph 133 on page 52, you were - them, correct? correct. paragraph 133 on page 52, you were not - them, correct? correct. paragraph| 133 on page 52, you were not made aware — 133 on page 52, you were not made aware of— 133 on page 52, you were not made aware of the receipts and payments mismatch _ aware of the receipts and payments mismatch bug when it was discovered in september or october 2010, the first that _ in september or october 2010, the first that you knew about it was in may 2013? — first that you knew about it was in ma 2013? ., . first that you knew about it was in may 2013?- paragraph - first that you knew about it was in may 2013?- paragraph 154i first that you knew about it was in i may 2013?- paragraph 154 on may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on .ae. may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on -ae~ 61, may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on page 61, you — may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on page 61, you were — may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on page 61, you were not _ may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on page 61, you were not told _ may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on page 61, you were not told of - may 2013? correct. paragraph 154 on page 61, you were not told of the - page 61, you were not told of the running _ page 61, you were not told of the running in — page 61, you were not told of the running in bug, the local suspense account— running in bug, the local suspense account bug, the recovery bug, the withdrawal— account bug, the recovery bug, the withdrawal discrepancies bug or the top up _ withdrawal discrepancies bug or the top up bug when you became managing director— top up bug when you became managing director in _ top up bug when you became managing director in october 2010 because nobody— director in october 2010 because nobody told you about them? correct. paraa-rahs nobody told you about them? correct. paragraphs 180 _ nobody told you about them? correct. paragraphs 180 and _ nobody told you about them? correct. paragraphs 180 and 181 _ nobody told you about them? correct. paragraphs 180 and 181 on _ nobody told you about them? correct. paragraphs 180 and 181 on page - nobody told you about them? correct. paragraphs 180 and 181 on page 75, i paragraphs 180 and 181 on page 75, you had _ paragraphs 180 and 181 on page 75, you had no— paragraphs 180 and 181 on page 75, you had no understanding of how suspense — you had no understanding of how suspense accounts operated during your time _ suspense accounts operated during your time as network director or managing — your time as network director or managing director, and if there were issues _ managing director, and if there were issues with— managing director, and if there were

issues with suspense accounts, you are not— issues with suspense accounts, you are not made aware of them, correct? correct _ are not made aware of them, correct? correct. paragraph 309 43, you not made _ correct. paragraph 309 43, you not made aware _ correct. paragraph 309 43, you not made aware of richard morgan casey's advised _ made aware of richard morgan casey's advised that if an independent expert— advised that if an independent expert exam at horizon and found fautts— expert exam at horizon and found fautts with — expert exam at horizon and found faults with it than that would open the floodgates to damages, claims by a convicted _ the floodgates to damages, claims by a convicted subpostmasters? correct. paragraph— a convicted subpostmasters? correct. paragraph 388 on page 193, your understanding until may 2013 was that no— understanding until may 2013 was that no bugs had been found in horizon— that no bugs had been found in horizon because that is what you had been told _ horizon because that is what you had been told by a series of senior it managers — been told by a series of senior it managers over the years? correct. paragraph_ managers over the years? correct. paragraph 502 on page 246, your incorrect _ paragraph 502 on page 246, your incorrect understanding of the operation of the central centrelink function, — operation of the central centrelink function, in particular that it operated _ function, in particular that it operated like a suspense account aiiowing — operated like a suspense account allowing time for disputes to be resolved — allowing time for disputes to be resolved came from reliance on incorrect — resolved came from reliance on incorrect information that you had

been _ incorrect information that you had been given— incorrect information that you had been given from others in the post office? _ been given from others in the post office? , been given from others in the post office? yes. paragraph 563 on page 271. you office? yes. paragraph 563 on page 271- you did — office? yes. paragraph 563 on page 271. you did not _ office? is; paragraph 563 on page 271. you did not see simon office? 123 paragraph 563 on page 271. you did not see simon clarke's advice _ 271. you did not see simon clarke's advice on _ 271. you did not see simon clarke's advice on the — 271. you did not see simon clarke's advice on the 15th ofjuly 2013 untit— advice on the 15th ofjuly 2013 until after you left the post office, _ until after you left the post office, indeed not until it was made public— office, indeed not until it was made public untit— office, indeed not until it was made public until 2021?— office, indeed not until it was made public until 2021? yes. paragraph public unti12021? yes. paragraph 564 on page _ public until2021? 123 paragraph 564 on page 271. you did not see simon _ 564 on page 271. you did not see simon clarke's advice of the 2nd of august— simon clarke's advice of the 2nd of august 2013 about the head of security's instructions to shred documents relevant to horizon bugs until after— documents relevant to horizon bugs until after you had left the post office? — until after you had left the post office? indeed, not until it was made _ office? indeed, not until it was made public in 2021. that's right. paragraph— made public in 2021. that's right. paragraph 568 page 273... we arejust pausing we are just pausing that because the inquiry itself had paused and that

was due to a testing of a fire alarm. they arejust was due to a testing of a fire alarm. they are just pausing was due to a testing of a fire alarm. they arejust pausing briefly for a few moments but as you have been seen, this is a really important day in terms of the post office inquiry and the horizon it scandal. this is the day, the start of three days of evidence from that former chief executive paula vennells who was in the job from 2012 to 2019. we heard the a lot of interest as she arrived earlier this morning and what we are just witnessing it at the going through of elements of her witness statement. going through that, more than 700, witness statements from paula vennells and that last moment we heard that she had said in a witness statement that she hadn't seen evidence about the shredding of documents until she had left the post office. but she started giving

her testimony and evidence by saying how sorry she was for all sub—postmasters and their families had suffered and she also said that when she had read, all of the victims impact statement, the one that resonated with her was one who wanted someone to accompany him and stand outside his post office and explain what happened and she said she was willing to do that. mar explain what happened and she said she was willing to do that. nor were ou briefed she was willing to do that. nor were you briefed about _ she was willing to do that. nor were you briefed about brian _ she was willing to do that. nor were you briefed about brian altman - she was willing to do that. nor were you briefed about brian altman kc's| you briefed about brian altman kc's advice? _ you briefed about brian altman kc's advice? correct. paragraph 686 on pa-e advice? correct. paragraph 686 on page three — advice? correct. paragraph 686 on page three june 21, you did not read the general— page three june 21, you did not read the general review of the 15th of october— the general review of the 15th of october 2013 until you are provided with a _ october 2013 until you are provided with a copy— october 2013 until you are provided with a copy of it in the course of this inquiry— with a copy of it in the course of this inquiry by the inquiry? that is right _

this inquiry by the inquiry? that is right. paragraph 842, page three injured _ right. paragraph 842, page three injured and 76, you were involved only to _ injured and 76, you were involved only to a — injured and 76, you were involved only to a limited extent in commissioning and reviewing advice from solicitors?— from solicitors? sorry, could you sa that from solicitors? sorry, could you say that again? _ from solicitors? sorry, could you say that again? you _ from solicitors? sorry, could you say that again? you were - from solicitors? sorry, could you. say that again? you were involved onl to a say that again? you were involved only to a limited _ say that again? you were involved only to a limited extent _ say that again? you were involved only to a limited extent in - only to a limited extent in commissioning and reviewing advice from linklater solicitors? | commissioning and reviewing advice from linklater solicitors?— from linklater solicitors? i think that depends — from linklater solicitors? i think that depends on _ from linklater solicitors? i think that depends on which - from linklater solicitors? i think that depends on which you - from linklater solicitors? i think that depends on which you are l that depends on which you are referring to. there was a report produced by linklaters which came to the board which was discussed and in the board which was discussed and in the preparation for that i worked with a small group of colleagues from there and chase down a list of questions from the board but my involvement in the formulation of the instructions, i had no involvement in the final formulation of the instructions.— of the instructions. thank you. our 896, -ae~ of the instructions. thank you. our 896. page 400. — of the instructions. thank you. our 896. page 400. you _ of the instructions. thank you. our 896, page 400, you say _ of the instructions. thank you. our 896, page 400, you say althoughl of the instructions. thank you. our i 896, page 400, you say although the failure _ 896, page 400, you say although the failure to— 896, page 400, you say although the failure to discuss the impact of

delight— failure to discuss the impact of delight 2014 report seems surprising now, delight 2014 report seems surprising now. you _ delight 2014 report seems surprising now, you trusted linklaters to advise — now, you trusted linklaters to advise you _ now, you trusted linklaters to advise you about the impact on criminal— advise you about the impact on criminal convictions and they did not _ criminal convictions and they did not i_ criminal convictions and they did not i am — criminal convictions and they did not. iam i'm criminal convictions and they did not. i am i'm sorry, criminal convictions and they did not. iam i'm sorry, could criminal convictions and they did not. i am i'm sorry, could you say that— not. i am i'm sorry, could you say that again? — not. i am i'm sorry, could you say that again? you say that although the failure — that again? you say that although the failure to discuss the impact of the failure to discuss the impact of the 2014— the failure to discuss the impact of the 2014 report on criminal conviction seems surprising to you, you trusted — conviction seems surprising to you, you trusted rod williams and linklaters to have advised you about this, that _ linklaters to have advised you about this, that it— linklaters to have advised you about this, that it was necessary. and they— this, that it was necessary. and they did — this, that it was necessary. and they did not do so? yes. paragraph 1155. _ they did not do so? yes. paragraph "55. you _ they did not do so? yes. paragraph "55. you say— they did not do so? yes. paragraph 1155, you say you did not see the kc's _ 1155, you say you did not see the kc's advice — 1155, you say you did not see the kc's advice of the 8th of march 2015? —

kc's advice of the 8th of march 2015? |— kc's advice of the 8th of march 2015? �* , ., , kc's advice of the 8th of march 2015? m ., ., kc's advice of the 8th of march 2015? �* , ., . 2015? i didn't see any advices so i assume that _ 2015? i didn't see any advices so i assume that is _ 2015? i didn't see any advices so i assume that is correct. _ 2015? i didn't see any advices so i assume that is correct. i - 2015? i didn't see any advices so i assume that is correct. i can't - assume that is correct. i can't remember that one specifically. paragraph 1251, page 533, you did not see _ paragraph 1251, page 533, you did not see jonathan swift two review of the 8th _ not see jonathan swift two review of the 8th of— not see jonathan swift two review of the 8th of february 2016. correct. paragraph— the 8th of february 2016. correct. paragraph 1000 341 page 579, you were not— paragraph 1000 341 page 579, you were not on the steering group for the group — were not on the steering group for the group litigation and jane mcleod was instead responsible for breaching the board? that is correct _ breaching the board? that is correct i_ breaching the board? that is correct. ., , ., correct. i was on the board subcommittee. _ correct. i was on the board subcommittee. if- correct. i was on the board subcommittee. if all- correct. i was on the board subcommittee. if all of - correct. i was on the board subcommittee. if all of the correct. i was on the board - subcommittee. if all of the fact of the matters _ subcommittee. if all of the fact of the matters i've _ subcommittee. if all of the fact of the matters i've just _ subcommittee. if all of the fact of the matters i've just described - subcommittee. if all of the fact of| the matters i've just described are true, _ the matters i've just described are true, and — the matters i've just described are true, and if— the matters i've just described are true, and if what you say is reliable. _ true, and if what you say is reliable, was there a conspiracy at the post— reliable, was there a conspiracy at the post office which lasted nearly 12 years. — the post office which lasted nearly 12 years, involving a wide range of people. _ 12 years, involving a wide range of people, differing over time to deny

you information and deny you document and to falsely give you reassurance?— reassurance? no, i don't believe that was the _ reassurance? no, i don't believe that was the case. _ reassurance? no, i don't believe that was the case. you _ reassurance? no, i don't believe that was the case. you have - reassurance? no, i don't believe - that was the case. you have covered a range of different issues. i have been disappointed particularly more recently listening to evidence at the inquiry where i think i have learned that people knew more than perhaps either they remembered at the time or i knew of at the time. i have no scent there was any conspiracy at all. my deep sorrow in this is that i think that individuals, myself included, made mistakes, didn't see or hear things and i may be wrong but that wasn't the impression i had at the time. i have more questions now but conspiracy feels too far—fetched.

there wouldn't be a motive for such people _ there wouldn't be a motive for such people to _ there wouldn't be a motive for such people to deny you information, deny you document and falsely to give you the assurance where it wasn't warranted, would there? i the assurance where it wasn't warranted, would there? i think you conflate to many _ warranted, would there? i think you conflate to many different _ warranted, would there? i think you conflate to many different things, . conflate to many different things, if i may, because you have covered bugs in it, you have covered legal advice, the chairman's report by jonathan swift. i can't see that over that period of time that individuals working on all of those documents could have conspired or had a reason to withhold them. the inquiry heard from susan crichton, and this is a serious governance lesson, that it was not their practice and the post office and the legal team and the group previously to share legal advices. they may have had very good reasons for that, some of which would have a

privilege, but they were not shared, the outcomes were discussed. as we go through some documents which we may do, i'm sure i will recognise some of the recommendations. i have to say, having read some of them, particularly one of the advices where as he was reviewing prosecution policy he was hugely critical of prior to 2012, 2013, the documentation, the policies in place, the approach, that advice was never shared with me, with the board. had we seen it, we may well have asked very different questions. what was shared with the outcome of that advice and different policies and procedures were put in place but i think there is too much reliance, or there was too much reliance on the lead general counsel in the case, and i'm not making a point about general counsel to particular, but to take the decision of what was shared from those reports because

what happened is they were reproduced into board documents which were shared but the original advice would have been so much more useful and one of the biggest lessons for me in this case advice, that boards, executives should know when advices are commission, when they are received because somewhere we see that when a commission and they should receive them. you focused on _ they should receive them. you focused on legal _ they should receive them. you focused on legal advice, i have asked — focused on legal advice, i have asked you _ focused on legal advice, i have asked you about a range of things, including _ asked you about a range of things, including the contract with fujitsu, the information about bugs, errors and defects. if there isn't a conspiracy operative to deny you this information, what is the reason that so— this information, what is the reason that so much of it didn't reach you? the contract — that so much of it didn't reach you? the contract with fujitsu would not have been... the contract with fujitsu, let me start again, existed

over a long period of time. i was involved with reviewing the strategy and some of the content of the contract with fujitsu as we prepared to tender the horizon system up and during 2015. the original contract with fujitsu would not have crossed my desk as network director or managing director. what should have happened is the service level agreements within the contract should have been reported differently than they were and that also might point to some of your point about bugs, errors and defects because if i turn to those, the reporting that the group executive, chief executive and board received and the inquiry heard this earlier, was different levels so i think we

had a level zero and level one that came to my level to the board. issues cropped up below that were not reported. one of the biggest challenges as i have been going through all of the documentation is realising how much went on at an individual post level. so when a bug affected large numbers of post offices or there was an outage which affected large numbers of post offices or a network failure, they were raised, but if a single sub—postmaster made a call x number of times to a service centre, it wouldn't have been picked up and i think from a governance point of view there is very important lesson around the issue of the institution and the individual. how does someone as a chief executive of an institution that is lodging complex

have sight of an individual if they are affected by a bug? it oughta be possible to data which reports the number of times a postmaster complaint, the number of disputes have not been resolved, age disputes, dispute is where postmasters have challenged them. isn't all this really obvious? it is isn't all this really obvious? it is and it wasn't — isn't all this really obvious? it is and it wasn't in _ isn't all this really obvious? it is and it wasn't in place _ isn't all this really obvious? it 3 and it wasn't in place and it should have been. if it and it wasn't in place and it should have been-— and it wasn't in place and it should have been. if it was really obvious, why wasn't — have been. if it was really obvious, why wasn't it _ have been. if it was really obvious, why wasn't it in _ have been. if it was really obvious, why wasn't it in place? _ have been. if it was really obvious, why wasn't it in place? i _ have been. if it was really obvious, why wasn't it in place? i think- why wasn't it in place? i think because of— why wasn't it in place? i think because of the _ why wasn't it in place? i think because of the way _ why wasn't it in place? i think because of the way that - why wasn't it in place? i think because of the way that their| because of the way that their reporting had been planned, management information across many areas of the business tends to be written in layers of escalation in the layers of escalation that were selected around it and fujitsu was suchit selected around it and fujitsu was such it didn't, and i think this probably happened to many other large institutions, too. it didn't give you a line of sight happened to an individual. and we are seeing the

terrible impact of that today. it’s terrible impact of that today. it's a overall answer to my question that you don't— a overall answer to my question that you don't believe there was a conspiracy to deny you information and documents the recent such information and documents didn't reach _ information and documents didn't reach you — information and documents didn't reach you but the way the company was organised and structured? | was organised and structured? [ think was organised and structured? think in was organised and structured? i think in the majority of the cases, yes, that is true. he think in the majority of the cases, yes, that is true.— yes, that is true. he was responsible _ yes, that is true. he was responsible for - yes, that is true. he was l responsible for organising yes, that is true. he was - responsible for organising and restructuring the company? ifi responsible for organising and restructuring the company? if i may 'ust sa , restructuring the company? if i may just say. the — restructuring the company? if i may just say, the other _ restructuring the company? if i may just say, the other point _ restructuring the company? if i may just say, the other point is - restructuring the company? if i may just say, the other point is i - restructuring the company? if i may just say, the other point is i have i just say, the other point is i have seen documents and heard evidence where i think colleagues did no more information than were shared and in those cases either mistakes were made of they decided it wasn't appropriate to do so. to your first point, in terms of... could you say that again? if point, in terms of. .. could you say that again?— that again? if it was the organisation _ that again? if it was the organisation and - that again? if it was the i organisation and structure that again? if it was the - organisation and structure of the company— organisation and structure of the company that prevented the

information and documents from reaching — information and documents from reaching you, who was responsible for organising and restructuring the company— for organising and restructuring the company -- — for organising and restructuring the company —— structuring the company after you _ company —— structuring the company after you became ceo? i company -- structuring the company after you became ceo?— after you became ceo? i was responsible _ after you became ceo? i was responsible for... _ after you became ceo? i was responsible for... as - after you became ceo? i was responsible for... as ceo, i after you became ceo? i was. responsible for... as ceo, you after you became ceo? i was - responsible for... as ceo, you are responsible for... as ceo, you are responsible for... as ceo, you are responsible for everything, you have experts at the of a decision on what would have been reported on it, for instance, would have been decided by the it director. when i was chief executive, in an attempt to get more on top of some of the issues that were reported, i asked alistair cameron to put in place and operations but very it began to review some of those things that were raised, but in terms of what you put in a report, the it report were not that different from other in big corporate companies. the difference for the post office as a result of what we are discussing

here today is it, at the time, did not see what was happening in an energy pool post office, if that was —— an individual post office. that was wrong and there needs to be a different sort of reporting that would reflect that. in a different sort of reporting that would reflect that.— different sort of reporting that would reflect that. in a note that alice perkins _ would reflect that. in a note that alice perkins wrote _ would reflect that. in a note that alice perkins wrote before - would reflect that. in a note that alice perkins wrote before the i alice perkins wrote before the departure of susan crichton to you, she said. _ departure of susan crichton to you, she said, quote, it is the fact that she, _ she said, quote, it is the fact that she, susan. — she said, quote, it is the fact that she, susan, she is so much is beyond her control— she, susan, she is so much is beyond her control that is a problem. it is her control that is a problem. it is her aiibi — her control that is a problem. it is heraiibi do— her control that is a problem. it is her alibi. do you think the same could _ her alibi. do you think the same could be — her alibi. do you think the same could be said for you? no, definitely _ could be said for you? no, definitely not. _ could be said for you? no, definitely not. i— could be said for you? no, definitely not. i asked - could be said for you? iirr, definitely not. i asked questions, i oversaw the strategy which would have introduced changes where we felt it was appropriate to the organisation, i probed, iworked in

a structured way and an informal way. i would walk around the desks and talk to people to find out what was going on. i was sometimes criticised in team development events for being too curious and stepping too much into people's territory. i don't think that's a criticism that could have been levelled at me.— criticism that could have been levelled at me. ., , ., , ., levelled at me. you tell us that you alwa s levelled at me. you tell us that you always enjoyed _ levelled at me. you tell us that you always enjoyed a — levelled at me. you tell us that you always enjoyed a good _ levelled at me. you tell us that you always enjoyed a good relationship| always enjoyed a good relationship with the _ always enjoyed a good relationship with the chief executive of royal mail group in your witness statement.— mail group in your witness statement. , ., ., statement. yes, we had a good workin: statement. yes, we had a good working relationship. _ statement. yes, we had a good working relationship. you - statement. yes, we had a good working relationship. you say, | statement. yes, we had a good - working relationship. you say, page 114, i ot working relationship. you say, page 114. i got on — working relationship. you say, page 114. i got on very — working relationship. you say, page 114, i got on very well— working relationship. you say, page 114, i got on very well with - working relationship. you say, page 114, i got on very well with her. - working relationship. you say, page 114, i got on very well with her. i. 114, i got on very well with her. i -ot 114, i got on very well with her. got on very 114, i got on very well with her. i got on very well with most of the people i worked with, yes. she overlapped _ people i worked with, yes. she overlapped very extensively as chief executive _ overlapped very extensively as chief executive of royal mail group with your holding the most senior positions _ your holding the most senior

positions in the post office, yes? yes _ positions in the post office, yes? yes she — positions in the post office, yes? yes. she became ceo of royal mail group _ yes. she became ceo of royal mail group in _ yes. she became ceo of royal mail group injuly 2010, you became md of the post— group injuly 2010, you became md of the post office in october 2010. cheat _ the post office in october 2010. cheat left in 2018, and you left in early _ cheat left in 2018, and you left in early 2019. yes. a substantial period — early 2019. yes. a substantial period of— early 2019. yes. a substantial period of overlap. —— she left in 2018~ _ period of overlap. —— she left in 2018~ this— period of overlap. —— she left in 2018~ this is— period of overlap. —— she left in 2018. this is a new document for the inquiry. _ 2018. this is a new document for the inquiry, having been properly disclosed by you recently. it is an eye message exchange and i think you will be _ eye message exchange and i think you will be familiar with it. what eye message exchange and i think you will be familiar with it.— will be familiar with it. what was a reference again? _ will be familiar with it. what was a reference again? can _ will be familiar with it. what was a reference again? can you - will be familiar with it. what was a reference again? can you help - will be familiar with it. what was a reference again? can you help us. will be familiar with it. what was a l reference again? can you help us to date it?

i think it is january this year. the wa ou i think it is january this year. the way you have _ i think it isjanuary this year. the way you have green shuttered it, it doesn't _ way you have green shuttered it, it doesn't literally mean yesterday on the day— doesn't literally mean yesterday on the day you disclose it to us... | the day you disclose it to us... think moya the day you disclose it to us... i think moya greene had been away, she had come back to the uk. i have a sense this is around january, the time of the itv drama. that would make sense _ time of the itv drama. that would make sense because _ time of the itv drama. that would make sense because in _ time of the itv drama. that would make sense because in the - time of the itv drama. that would make sense because in the third l make sense because in the third paragraph — make sense because in the third paragraph it says nick was a poor witness, — paragraph it says nick was a poor witness, chairman gone. a reference to mr staunton. _ witness, chairman gone. a reference to mr staunton. i _ witness, chairman gone. a reference to mr staunton. ithink— witness, chairman gone. a reference to mr staunton. i think so. _ witness, chairman gone. a reference to mr staunton. i think so. he - witness, chairman gone. a reference to mr staunton. i think so. he was i to mr staunton. i think so. he was reruired to mr staunton. i think so. he was required to — to mr staunton. i think so. he was required to resign _ to mr staunton. i think so. he was required to resign on _ to mr staunton. i think so. he was required to resign on the - to mr staunton. i think so. he was required to resign on the 27th - to mr staunton. i think so. he was required to resign on the 27th of l required to resign on the 27th of january— required to resign on the 27th of january 2024. let's read through it. paul, _ january 2024. let's read through it. paul. back— january 2024. let's read through it. paul. back in — january 2024. let's read through it. paul, back in the uk, what i have learned _ paul, back in the uk, what i have learned from the inquiry and parliamentary committee were

questions are very damaging. nick reed _ questions are very damaging. nick reed nick— questions are very damaging. nick reed. nick reed was a poor witness, chairman. _ reed. nick reed was a poor witness, chairman. as— reed. nick reed was a poor witness, chairman, as we have established, has gone — chairman, as we have established, has gone. he will be next. when it was clear— has gone. he will be next. when it was clear the system was at fault, the post— was clear the system was at fault, the post office should have raised a red flag, _ the post office should have raised a red flag, stopped all proceedings, giving _ red flag, stopped all proceedings, giving people back their money and then try— giving people back their money and then try to— giving people back their money and then try to compensate them from the ribbon— then try to compensate them from the ribbon this _ then try to compensate them from the ribbon this caused in their lives. if ribbon this caused in their lives. if we _ ribbon this caused in their lives. if we go— ribbon this caused in their lives. if we go down, please, the next page _ if we go down, please, the next page. keep going. you say in reply, yes, i_ page. keep going. you say in reply, yes1iagree1— page. keep going. you say in reply, yes, iagree, this page. keep going. you say in reply, yes, i agree, this has and is taking too long _ yes, i agree, this has and is taking too long moya greene, the toll on everyone — too long moya greene, the toll on everyone is— too long moya greene, the toll on everyone is dreadful. best wishes. moya _ everyone is dreadful. best wishes. moya greene. i don't know what to say, moya greene. i don't know what to say. i— moya greene. idon't know what to say, ithink— moya greene. i don't know what to

say, i think you knew. you moya greene. i don't know what to say, ithink you knew. you reply, no, that— say, ithink you knew. you reply, no, that isn't— say, ithink you knew. you reply, no, that isn't the case. she replies. _ no, that isn't the case. she replies. i— no, that isn't the case. she replies, i want to believe you, i asked _ replies, i want to believe you, i asked you — replies, i want to believe you, i asked you twice. i suggested you get an independent review reporting to you. an independent review reporting to you i_ an independent review reporting to you i was — an independent review reporting to you. i was afraid you are being lied to. you. i was afraid you are being lied to you _ you. i was afraid you are being lied to you said — you. i was afraid you are being lied to. you said the system had already been _ to. you said the system had already been reviewed multiple times. how could _ been reviewed multiple times. how could you _ been reviewed multiple times. how could you not have known? over the page _ could you not have known? over the page scroii— could you not have known? over the page. scroll down. moya, the mechanism for getting the bottom of this is— mechanism for getting the bottom of this is inquiry. i've made it my priority— this is inquiry. i've made it my priority to _ this is inquiry. i've made it my priority to the body fully. moya greene. — priority to the body fully. moya greene, the post office did not, they— greene, the post office did not, they drag — greene, the post office did not, they drag their heels. they did not deliver— they drag their heels. they did not deliver documents, they did not compensate people. paula, you appeal the judges _ compensate people. paula, you appeal the judges decision. i am sorry, i can't _ the judges decision. i am sorry, i can't now— the judges decision. i am sorry, i can't now support you. i have supported — can't now support you. i have supported you all these years to my own detriment. i can't have what you

know _ own detriment. i can't have what you know after— own detriment. i can't have what you know after what i have learnt, t3 —— moya _ know after what i have learnt, t3 —— moya you _ know after what i have learnt, t3 —— moya. you see in the course of this exchange _ moya. you see in the course of this exchange moya greene accuses you of knowing _ exchange moya greene accuses you of knowing. yes. did you understand that to _ knowing. yes. did you understand that to be — knowing. yes. did you understand that to be an accusation that you knew— that to be an accusation that you knew about bugs, errors and defects in horizon? _ knew about bugs, errors and defects in horizon? no, knew about bugs, errors and defects in horizon? ., , , ., in horizon? no, i understood this to be mo a. in horizon? no, i understood this to be moya- there _ in horizon? no, i understood this to be moya. there is _ in horizon? no, i understood this to be moya. there is a _ in horizon? no, i understood this to be moya. there is a further- be moya. there is a further series of exchanges and text where moya stepped back a little bit from the challenges that she is putting here. i understood that moya had returned to the country earlier this year, that she had been listening to all of the information in the inquiry and she was trying to square her memory with what she was hearing. {30

memory with what she was hearing. go up memory with what she was hearing. go up the page, please. she says in the second _ up the page, please. she says in the second text — up the page, please. she says in the second text down there, i think you knew— second text down there, i think you knew and _ second text down there, i think you knew and you say, that isn't the case _ knew and you say, that isn't the case what— knew and you say, that isn't the case. what did you think you were denying? — case. what did you think you were denying? |— case. what did you think you were den in: ? 1' case. what did you think you were den inc? ~ case. what did you think you were den in? ~ _ denying? i think moya was possibly su: arestin denying? i think moya was possibly suggesting there — denying? i think moya was possibly suggesting there there _ denying? i think moya was possibly suggesting there there was - denying? i think moya was possibly suggesting there there was some l suggesting there there was some conspiracy, as you mentioned earlier, and as i said, i didn't believe that was the case. she may have been saying that i... no, i think it is the same thing, a cover—up, the same thing. abet think it is the same thing, a cover-up, the same thing. at the text at the _ cover-up, the same thing. at the text at the foot _ cover-up, the same thing. at the text at the foot of _ cover-up, the same thing. at the text at the foot of the _ cover-up, the same thing. at the text at the foot of the page - cover-up, the same thing. at the text at the foot of the page he i cover-up, the same thing. at the l text at the foot of the page he asks you the _ text at the foot of the page he asks you the question, how can you not have _ you the question, how can you not have known? and your reply, if we scroll _ have known? and your reply, if we scroll down, — have known? and your reply, if we scroll down, you don't answer that question. — scroll down, you don't answer that question, do you? no,

scroll down, you don't answer that question, do you?— question, do you? no, and i didn't not answer— question, do you? no, and i didn't not answer that _ question, do you? no, and i didn't not answer that question, - question, do you? no, and i didn't not answer that question, i - question, do you? no, and i didn't not answer that question, i was i question, do you? no, and i didn't. not answer that question, i was very concerned because i was aware that it is not good practice to be exchanging text in the middle of an inquiry and sol exchanging text in the middle of an inquiry and so i simply wanted to say to her that the place for resolving all of this was the inquiry, it wasn't that i shouldn't or should have answered a question. we have a lot of your text messages and you _ we have a lot of your text messages and you have been exchanging text messages — and you have been exchanging text messages with a lot of people, including — messages with a lot of people, including in the currency of this inquiry. — including in the currency of this inquiry, haven't you? not including in the currency of this inquiry, haven't you?— including in the currency of this inquiry, haven't you? not since the inrui inquiry, haven't you? not since the inquiry became _ inquiry, haven't you? not since the inquiry became a — inquiry, haven't you? not since the inquiry became a public— inquiry, haven't you? not since the inquiry became a public inquiry. i i inquiry became a public inquiry. i exchanged text in relation to the select committee in 2020 and... the settin: select committee in 2020 and. .. the settin: u- select committee in 2020 and. .. the setting up of— select committee in 2020 and... the setting up of the inquiry? and i select committee in 2020 and... the setting up of the inquiry? and when l setting up of the inquiry? and when the inrui setting up of the inquiry? and when the inquiry was _ setting up of the inquiry? and when the inquiry was non-statutory. i setting up of the inquiry? and when the inquiry was non-statutory. and | the inquiry was non—statutory. and then i understood... the reason i exchange those techs was to try to help to give good information to the select committee and to the inquiry.

the intention of all of those texts exchange was entirely positive. you don't answer _ exchange was entirely positive. you don't answer the question, how could you not— don't answer the question, how could you not have — don't answer the question, how could you not have known? what is the answer— you not have known? what is the answer to— you not have known? what is the answer to the question? that the chief— answer to the question? that the chief executive of royal mail group is asking _ chief executive of royal mail group is asking you. how could you not have _ is asking you. how could you not have known?— is asking you. how could you not have known? , , ., , ., ., ., have known? this is a situation that is so complex. _ have known? this is a situation that is so complex, it _ have known? this is a situation that is so complex, it is _ have known? this is a situation that is so complex, it is a _ have known? this is a situation that is so complex, it is a question i i is so complex, it is a question i have asked myself as well. i have learned some things that i didn't know as a result of the inquiry. and i imagine we will go into some of the detail of that. i wished i had known. . . the detail of that. i wished i had known. . , ., ,, known. that is not the issue, the . uestion known. that is not the issue, the question is. _ known. that is not the issue, the question is, how _ known. that is not the issue, the question is, how come _ known. that is not the issue, the question is, how come you i known. that is not the issue, the l question is, how come you didn't? known. that is not the issue, the i question is, how come you didn't? i think question is, how come you didn't? think the question is, how come you didn't? i think the question then is, which question am i trying to answer, that

the inquiry... there were two trials, the common issues trial under horizon issues trial. if i take that common issues trial, i did know a number of this spectre came up know a number of this spectre came up during that trial and where george fraser found the post office needed to change its practices and its contract —— mikejudge fraser. in terms of the contract, i was in the bod meeting by the board reviewed that contract two board meeting. we were given very straightforward advice that the contract was an acceptable contract. one of my regret, and it is in my

statement, during that meeting relational contract was mentioned and i remember thinking, relational contract was mentioned and i rememberthinking, that relational contract was mentioned and i remember thinking, that is the nature of the way i would like the post office to work with its sub—postmaster is. and i believed that was what we were doing and therefore the legal advice of continuing with the agency contract could be followed. in terms of the it side, that i think it's much more difficult. i wish i had no more on that. i did not know until 2018 when the evidence was submitted on the number of bugs in the system, serious numbers of bugs, and the interventions going on, and i should have known about that. but interventions going on, and i should have known about that.— have known about that. but why didn't you? _ have known about that. but why didn't you? not _ have known about that. but why didn't you? not whether - have known about that. but why didn't you? not whether you i have known about that. but why. didn't you? not whether you wish have known about that. but why i didn't you? not whether you wish you had known _

didn't you? not whether you wish you had known. it is, why didn't you? that— had known. it is, why didn't you? that goes— had known. it is, why didn't you? that goes back to my earlier point. i believe, around management information, around possibly fujitsu not sharing as much as it could or should have done. around possibly people knowing that the system itself lacks integrity, around corporate memory, one of the biggest lessons for governance in this was when ijoined the post office in 2007. there was absolutely no corporate memory alive at least of the inception of the horizon system. i had no idea that it was a system that had been designed for a complete different purpose and the post office had to struggle to take it on... ., post office had to struggle to take iton... ., ., , it on... how can we have been able to find it out. _ it on... how can we have been able to find it out, just _ it on... how can we have been able to find it out, just by _ it on... how can we have been able to find it out, just by asking - it on... how can we have been able to find it out, just by asking for- to find it out, just by asking for the documents? thousands of documents about the birth of horizon. _

documents about the birth of horizon, the involvement of the dwp and the _ horizon, the involvement of the dwp and the benefits agency, the splitting of the contract, the acceptance incident. you shake the corporate _ acceptance incident. you shake the corporate memory didn't exist. all of the _ corporate memory didn't exist. all of the documents weather, we have -ot of the documents weather, we have got them. _ of the documents weather, we have got them, we looked at them, we spent _ got them, we looked at them, we spent five — got them, we looked at them, we spent five months looking at them. you're right, and i didn't. there is an issue of unknown unknowns. if you do not know something exists, it is difficult to ask questions about it. that is why the importance of governance around corporate memories on bad things, there was plenty of good corporate memory in the post office, is important to have. i simply did not have that information.— simply did not have that information. ., , information. cutting through this, this exchange _ information. cutting through this, this exchange reveals _ information. cutting through this, this exchange reveals that - information. cutting through this, this exchange reveals that even . information. cutting through this, i this exchange reveals that even the chief executive of the royal mail group _ chief executive of the royal mail group who supported you over all of those _ group who supported you over all of those years — group who supported you over all of those years doesn't believe you, does _ those years doesn't believe you, does she? — those years doesn't believe you, does she? . those years doesn't believe you, does she?— does she? that is what this particular — does she? that is what this particular text _ does she? that is what this particular text says. i