appfied applied to ten that much but i've applied to ten and he _ that much but i've applied to ten and he has — that much but i've applied to ten and he has said this in his statement, his e—mails became more extreme _ statement, his e—mails became more extreme in_ statement, his e—mails became more extreme in that tone to me. exasperated._ extreme in that tone to me. exaserated. , a, , r, exasperated. yes, and i understand wh that is exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the _ exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. _ exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. but _ exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. but the - exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. but the tone l why that is the case. but the tone of the _ why that is the case. but the tone of the e—mails became difficult to deal with. — of the e—mails became difficult to deal with, and i was advised that the ttest— deal with, and i was advised that the best way of responding to this was tom — the best way of responding to this was tom 50 — the best way of responding to this was to... so in every case, as far as i_ was to... so in every case, as far as i recall. — was to... so in every case, as far as i recall. we _ was to... so in every case, as far as i recall, we picked up the issues mr maccormack raised. and properly investi . ated mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? _ mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the _ mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the one - mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the one i - mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the one i can - investigated them? the one i can remember _ investigated them? the one i can remember clearly _ investigated them? the one i can remember clearly was _ investigated them? the one i can remember clearly was around - investigated them? the one i can. remember clearly was around 2016 where _ remember clearly was around 2016 where a _ remember clearly was around 2016 where a full investigation was put in place _ where a full investigation was put in place and what i was told back was we _ in place and what i was told back was we had found the explanation for the issue _ was we had found the explanation for the issue he was raising. i cannot remember— the issue he was raising. i cannot remember in this particular case. do ou remember in this particular case. you know in remember in this particular case. dr? you know in this incident whether

you know in this incident whether you caused to be reviewed the catalogue of systemic errors he is racing with you? i catalogue of systemic errors he is racing with you?— catalogue of systemic errors he is racing with you? i cannot remember, no. racing with you? i cannot remember, n0- generally — racing with you? i cannot remember, n0- generally i _ racing with you? i cannot remember, no. generally i followed _ racing with you? i cannot remember, no. generally i followed things - no. generally i followed things through — no. generally i followed things through. but clearly if i had, not sufficiently. through. but clearly ifi had, not sufficiently-— sufficiently. can we move on to 550178? if we just look at page two, there is a e—mail. i am not going to beat it out now, i want to see what you did with it on page one. and scroll up did with it on page one. and scroll up please to the top. your e—mail,

summarising what miss o'brien said. she said there was a shortfall of £33,000 at the griffithstown sub post office, being attributed to her. and you e—mailed mr gilland saying this may be more complex than it sounds, i know angela bulloch into properly. i want to be sure it notjust into properly. i want to be sure it not just on the into properly. i want to be sure it notjust on the individual case, but on the issues identified around the full process around this, i would like you to sponsor a review of this case and see if it raises any wider issues. you need to bring in other slt colleagues. i am only flagged it to chris at this stage in case you do uncover more than meets the eye. and then skipping a paragraph, hopefully this is a one off. it

sounds unusual but we have said that before! and hopefully, with the emphasis on risk, rod's team is completely up—to—date. and then in the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, i know! the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, i know i don't need to point out the sensitivity of this as we face yet more difficult times over at sparrow. what were the more difficult times over a sparrow that you were referring to? this is december 2014.— you were referring to? this is december 2014. . ,, , ., . . december 2014. thank you. we were a ear into december 2014. thank you. we were a year into the — december 2014. thank you. we were a year into the investigation _ december 2014. thank you. we were a year into the investigation scheme. - year into the investigation scheme. i am not _ year into the investigation scheme. i am not sure what i meant by more difficult _ i am not sure what i meant by more difficult times over sparrow, but we were clearly dealing with sensitive issues _ were clearly dealing with sensitive issues in _ were clearly dealing with sensitive issues in sparrow and we were looking — issues in sparrow and we were looking into it, sparrow being the name _ looking into it, sparrow being the name of— looking into it, sparrow being the name of the project for the complaints and mediation scheme. and what i _ complaints and mediation scheme. and what i am _ complaints and mediation scheme. and what i am flagging here is to make

sure that _ what i am flagging here is to make sure that we follow this through, it may be _ sure that we follow this through, it may be something that needs to be brought— may be something that needs to be brought into the sparrow scheme and that i am _ brought into the sparrow scheme and that i am trying to, i imagine, keep a sense— that i am trying to, i imagine, keep a sense of— that i am trying to, i imagine, keep a sense of proportionality around this, _ a sense of proportionality around this, trut— a sense of proportionality around this, but i— a sense of proportionality around this, but i think it is also important to draw attention to the paragraph — important to draw attention to the paragraph you didn't read out, where i asked _ paragraph you didn't read out, where i asked tots— paragraph you didn't read out, where i asked lots of questions about it. so why— i asked lots of questions about it. so why didn't security get in touch? how do _ so why didn't security get in touch? how do we — so why didn't security get in touch? how do we monitor situations like this? _ how do we monitor situations like this? how— how do we monitor situations like this? how many branches are in the situation? _ this? how many branches are in the situation? is— this? how many branches are in the situation? is it monitored and controlled, what is the regular review— controlled, what is the regular review in— controlled, what is the regular review in place? i am doing what i said before, — review in place? i am doing what i said before, i stepped into asking for detait— said before, i stepped into asking for detail and asking for something to be _ for detail and asking for something to be looked at properly. why for detail and asking for something to be looked at properly.— for detail and asking for something to be looked at properly. why was it sent to mr gilland? _ to be looked at properly. why was it sent to mr gilland? because - to be looked at properly. why was it sent to mr gilland? because he - to be looked at properly. why was it sent to mr gilland? because he was| sent to mr gilland? because he was the network — sent to mr gilland? because he was the network director _ sent to mr gilland? because he was the network director and _ sent to mr gilland? because he was | the network director and responsible for branches at the time. was the network director and responsible for branches at the time.— for branches at the time. was there an established _ for branches at the time. was there an established procedure _ for branches at the time. was there an established procedure for- for branches at the time. was there | an established procedure for dealing with correspondence that raised complaints about horizon? br;

with correspondence that raised complaints about horizon? by this stare, complaints about horizon? by this stage. there _ complaints about horizon? by this stage, there was _ complaints about horizon? by this stage, there was the _ complaints about horizon? by this stage, there was the hub - complaints about horizon? by this stage, there was the hub meeting j stage, there was the hub meeting which _ stage, there was the hub meeting which collated issues relating to horizon. — which collated issues relating to horizon, and within the organisation, angela van den boogaard was heading up the review and complaints went into her. and the executive correspondence team. but this— the executive correspondence team. but this has come through me, would have picked _ but this has come through me, would have picked it up as well. so but this has come through me, would have picked it up as well.— have picked it up as well. so far we have picked it up as well. so far we have seen you _ have picked it up as well. so far we have seen you reply _ have picked it up as well. so far we have seen you reply to _ have picked it up as well. so far we have seen you reply to some - have picked it up as well. so far we l have seen you reply to some direct, some not seemingly pass in front of you and go to the executive correspondence team. and then some dealt with on an ad hoc basis like this one being sent to a collection of people. this one being sent to a collection of --eole. . , this one being sent to a collection of n-eole. ., , this one being sent to a collection of eole. . , ., of people. that sounds as though the are of people. that sounds as though they are different _ of people. that sounds as though they are different and _ of people. that sounds as though they are different and they - of people. that sounds as though they are different and they are i of people. that sounds as though | they are different and they are not because _ they are different and they are not because the end person in all of this, _ because the end person in all of this, for— because the end person in all of this, for instance, would have been kevin _ this, for instance, would have been kevin gilland and angela van den boogaard. when mr blake spoke to alistair _ boogaard. when mr blake spoke to alistair cameron last week, that

was me. alistair cameron last week, that was me- i — alistair cameron last week, that was me- i am _ alistair cameron last week, that was me- i am so — alistair cameron last week, that was me. i am so sorry! _ alistair cameron last week, that was me. i am so sorry! alistair - was me. i am so sorry! alistair mentioned _ was me. i am so sorry! alistair mentioned he _ was me. i am so sorry! alistair mentioned he wasn't _ was me. i am so sorry! alistair mentioned he wasn't sure - was me. i am so sorry! alistair mentioned he wasn't sure why| was me. i am so sorry! alistair - mentioned he wasn't sure why things went to _ mentioned he wasn't sure why things went to angela, they went to angela because _ went to angela, they went to angela because it _ went to angela, they went to angela because it was herjob, that is why she is— because it was herjob, that is why she is copied in this. complaints and issues — she is copied in this. complaints and issues were raised in a number of different — and issues were raised in a number of different places across the organisation. what was important as in resolving — organisation. what was important as in resolving them they were back to the technical teams. and this would have gone _ the technical teams. and this would have gone to it, to kevin around the operational— have gone to it, to kevin around the operational procedures and angela. he said _ operational procedures and angela. he said the sounds unusual but we have said that before!, what were you referring to there? i don't know that it is anything more — i don't know that it is anything more complicated than what i am saying. _ more complicated than what i am saying, which is i presumably have raised _ saying, which is i presumably have raised issues previously, which have

been _ raised issues previously, which have been new— raised issues previously, which have been new news to me and then found out that— been new news to me and then found out that necessarily it wasn't. i don't _ out that necessarily it wasn't. i don't think— out that necessarily it wasn't. i don't think i am making any deeper observation than that. was don't think i am making any deeper observation than that.— don't think i am making any deeper observation than that. was there any s stem in observation than that. was there any system in place _ observation than that. was there any system in place to — observation than that. was there any system in place to collect _ observation than that. was there any system in place to collect together . system in place to collect together correspondence of this kind, so far we have seen quite a few letters coming to you, raising issues with horizon? to see whether there were trends or any links between the complaints? l trends or any links between the complaints?— trends or any links between the comlaints? ., �* ~ . , complaints? i don't think there was a aood complaints? i don't think there was a good enough _ complaints? i don't think there was a good enough system _ complaints? i don't think there was a good enough system in _ complaints? i don't think there was a good enough system in place, - complaints? i don't think there was a good enough system in place, if i j a good enough system in place, if i am honest~ — a good enough system in place, if i am honest-— a good enough system in place, if i am honest. ~ . , am honest. was there any system in lace? am honest. was there any system in place? there — am honest. was there any system in place? there were _ am honest. was there any system in place? there were two _ am honest. was there any system in place? there were two systems - am honest. was there any system in place? there were two systems in i place? there were two systems in lace, place? there were two systems in place. when _ place? there were two systems in place. when was _ place? there were two systems in place, when was the _ place? there were two systems in place, when was the process - place? there were two systems in i place, when was the process through the executive correspondence team which _ the executive correspondence team which would have had a fact file and they would — which would have had a fact file and they would have gone to the expert in the _ they would have gone to the expert in the organisation as part of that process — in the organisation as part of that process in— in the organisation as part of that process. in terms of horizon, they would _ process. in terms of horizon, they would have — process. in terms of horizon, they would have gone to lindsay at this time, _ would have gone to lindsay at this time, and — would have gone to lindsay at this time, and the other was the hub which _ time, and the other was the hub which was —

time, and the other was the hub which was set up, i didn't realise as a _ which was set up, i didn't realise as a result — which was set up, i didn't realise as a result of, but as a result of the advice — as a result of, but as a result of the advice from simon clarke in 2015 _ the advice from simon clarke in 2015 so — the advice from simon clarke in 2013. , , ., ., ., the advice from simon clarke in 2013. ,, ., ., ., , 2013. so this should have got sent to the hub? _ 2013. so this should have got sent to the hub? yes. _ 2013. so this should have got sent to the hub? yes. is _ 2013. so this should have got sent to the hub? yes. is there - 2013. so this should have got sent to the hub? yes. is there anything from mid july _ to the hub? yes. is there anything from mid july or— to the hub? yes. is there anything from mid july orjuly onward, and it should have been logged with the hub? it should have been logged with the hub? , a should have been logged with the hub? , ., . , ., hub? it should have, she went to anaela, hub? it should have, she went to angela. who _ hub? it should have, she went to angela, who had _ hub? it should have, she went to angela, who had a _ hub? it should have, she went to angela, who had a colleague - hub? it should have, she went to j angela, who had a colleague who hub? it should have, she went to - angela, who had a colleague who sat on that— angela, who had a colleague who sat on that group. if in angela, who had a colleague who sat on that group-— on that group. if in the inquiry we have seen — on that group. if in the inquiry we have seen a _ on that group. if in the inquiry we have seen a series _ on that group. if in the inquiry we have seen a series of _ on that group. if in the inquiry we have seen a series of individual . have seen a series of individual responses passed through the executive team, quite often with mark davis's input, which says horizon conduct so many transactions a week and processes, and millions of pounds a year, there isn't a problem with the system, would that be the right process that has been undertaken?— be the right process that has been undertaken? mark would have only added, as undertaken? mark would have only added. as he _ undertaken? mark would have only added, as he said _ undertaken? mark would have only added, as he said last _ undertaken? mark would have only added, as he said last week, - undertaken? mark would have only added, as he said last week, the l added, as he said last week, the communications all relate to that. i wouldn't _ communications all relate to that. i wouldn't have expected mark to get involved _ wouldn't have expected mark to get involved in — wouldn't have expected mark to get involved in the investigation of

what _ involved in the investigation of what had — involved in the investigation of what had gone wrong. that was angela's — what had gone wrong. that was angela'sjob. can what had gone wrong. that was angela'sjob— what had gone wrong. that was antela's'ob. . ., ., , angela's “ob. can we move on please to ull angela's job. can we move on please to pull 0015. — angela's job. can we move on please to pull 0015. 082. — at the foot of this page please, it is the same chain of correspondence involving the cliff astounds a post office, and by now kevin gilland has responded to you and you say, thank you, just watch angela doesn'tjump to any defence or even worse, since she knows the answer. she did say to meet the woman because my daughter had caused a problem, if we had been negligent in following through, we should think about how we manage it. it also begs the question of how the business is now being run. why did you ask mr gilland to watch that miss van den boogaard doesn'tjump to a defence? it

miss van den boogaard doesn't “ump to a defence?— to a defence? it was the right ruestion to a defence? it was the right question to — to a defence? it was the right question to ask— to a defence? it was the right question to ask if— to a defence? it was the right question to ask if i _ to a defence? it was the right question to ask if i had - to a defence? it was the right question to ask if i had a - to a defence? it was the right i question to ask if i had a concern about— question to ask if i had a concern about it — question to ask if i had a concern about it. , , ., . question to ask if i had a concern about it. , . . . about it. did you have a concern about it. did you have a concern about it? _ about it. did you have a concern about it? angela _ about it. did you have a concern about it? angela had _ about it. did you have a concern about it? angela had worked i about it. did you have a concern j about it? angela had worked for about it. did you have a concern i about it? angela had worked for the organisation — about it? angela had worked for the organisation a _ about it? angela had worked for the organisation a long _ about it? angela had worked for the organisation a long time, _ about it? angela had worked for the organisation a long time, she i about it? angela had worked for the organisation a long time, she had i about it? angela had worked for the organisation a long time, she had a | organisation a long time, she had a very deep— organisation a long time, she had a very deep understanding and had come across— very deep understanding and had come across most— very deep understanding and had come across most things, there is a danger— across most things, there is a danger and risk with that, which is peopte _ danger and risk with that, which is people become too close to something, whether at the time i sent this — something, whether at the time i sent this e—mail, i had been alerted to that _ sent this e—mail, i had been alerted to that in _ sent this e—mail, i had been alerted to that in something else she had responded to, but myjob is to call this out— responded to, but myjob is to call this out and — responded to, but myjob is to call this out and make sure people do not -et this out and make sure people do not get drawn— this out and make sure people do not get drawn into... i hesitate to use the word — get drawn into... i hesitate to use the word pattern or complacency, but that is— the word pattern or complacency, but that is always a risk with people who have — that is always a risk with people who have worked in an organisation for a _ who have worked in an organisation for a long _ who have worked in an organisation for a long time. they have a huge added _ for a long time. they have a huge added benefit because of their experience and expertise, but they don't _

experience and expertise, but they don't necessarily see things fresh. wasn't _ don't necessarily see things fresh. wasn't simply that she had worked for the organisation for a very time, that caused you to write this? or was there anything more specific? which lead you to think she may be by default a horizon defender? l by default a horizon defender? i don't believe so. so _ by default a horizon defender? i don't believe so. so you - by default a horizon defender? i don't believe so. so you would l by default a horizon defender? i j don't believe so. so you would a minister this _ don't believe so. so you would a minister this morning _ don't believe so. so you would a minister this morning for - don't believe so. so you would a l minister this morning for anybody that i worked for the company for a long time? that i worked for the company for a lona time? ., ., _ that i worked for the company for a lona time? ., �* long time? no, as i say, i can't lace long time? no, as i say, i can't place the _ long time? no, as i say, i can't place the same _ long time? no, as i say, i can't place the same time _ long time? no, as i say, i can't place the same time and i long time? no, as i say, i can't place the same time and there| long time? no, as i say, i can't. place the same time and there are many— place the same time and there are many other— place the same time and there are many other things going on at the same _ many other things going on at the same time, whether i had bumped up a-ain same time, whether i had bumped up again something where angela had been particular defensive on something, and i mentioned here she did say— something, and i mentioned here she did say to _ something, and i mentioned here she did say to meet the woman because my daughter— did say to meet the woman because my daughter had caused the problem. we shouldn't— daughter had caused the problem. we shouldn't be just making assumptions. we should be looking into things — assumptions. we should be looking into things in detail, but i cannot remember— into things in detail, but i cannot remember the detail, whether there was something that prompted the

comment, but i think it is a valid challenge — comment, but i think it is a valid challenge. it would be worse if i had said — challenge. it would be worse if i had said nothing. can challenge. it would be worse if i had said nothing.— challenge. it would be worse if i had said nothing. can we move on lease? had said nothing. can we move on please? this _ had said nothing. can we move on please? this is _ had said nothing. can we move on please? this is a _ had said nothing. can we move on please? this is a letter— had said nothing. can we move on please? this is a letter to - had said nothing. can we move on please? this is a letter to you i had said nothing. can we move on | please? this is a letter to you from toby perkins mp, the memberfor chesterfield. of the 16th of december 2014, about a constituent. you will see in my first paragraph, he said he has been contacted regarding his conviction of theft, in the second paragraph, it says that following an audience he was arrested and convicted of ten counts of theft through false accounting, totalling over £200,000. he has always denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to all charges, he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. this forced him

into bankruptcy and having his reputation ruined. and then mr butoy asserts, like the many other sub—postmaster is wrongly convicted of theft, it was an error is called by horizon transaction processing system that created the financial discrepancies that led to his conviction. would you have seen this as a different angle, namely a subtle mass master —— sub—postmaster constituency mp making the suggestion on the behalf of his constituent, that the horizon system was responsible for losses that have led to a manwrongful conviction. l led to a manwrongful conviction. i am not sure i understand the question _ am not sure i understand the question. would i see it as a different— question. would i see it as a different angle? to question. would i see it as a different angle?— question. would i see it as a different angle? question. would i see it as a different anale? ., . . different angle? to the e-mail and letter complaints _ different angle? to the e-mail and letter complaints that _ different angle? to the e-mail and letter complaints that had - different angle? to the e-mail and letter complaints that had come i letter complaints that had come directly from sub—postmasters. versus a complaint on behalf of an individual by an mp. hat

versus a complaint on behalf of an individual by an mp. not personally, i don't believe. _ individual by an mp. not personally, i don't believe. and _ individual by an mp. not personally, i don't believe. and so _ individual by an mp. not personally, i don't believe. and so would - individual by an mp. not personally, i don't believe. and so would this i i don't believe. and so would this have _ idon't believe. and so would this have been— i don't believe. and so would this have been administered in the usual way to— have been administered in the usual way to the _ have been administered in the usual way to the executive correspondence team? _ way to the executive correspondence team? yes. — way to the executive correspondence team? yes, i believe, but i cannot recall— team? yes, i believe, but i cannot recall now— team? yes, i believe, but i cannot recall now there was... no, i think it would _ recall now there was... no, i think it would have _ recall now there was... no, i think it would have been the same, actually _ it would have been the same, actually. there was a flag process for mps. — actually. there was a flag process for mps, because i think the post office _ for mps, because i think the post office had — for mps, because i think the post office had a commitment to copy it to bring _ office had a commitment to copy it to bring other people entered the leap but — to bring other people entered the leap but from a personal point of view, _ leap but from a personal point of view, i_ leap but from a personal point of view, i would leap but from a personal point of view, iwould not leap but from a personal point of view, i would not have seen this is any different. view, i would not have seen this is any different-— view, i would not have seen this is any different. would you have even seen this? i— any different. would you have even seen this? i don't _ any different. would you have even seen this? i don't know. _ any different. would you have even seen this? i don't know. from i seen this? i don't know. from memory. _ seen this? i don't know. from memory. it — seen this? i don't know. from memory, it wouldn't - seen this? i don't know. from memory, it wouldn't have i seen this? i don't know. from i memory, it wouldn't have made a difference — memory, it wouldn't have made a difference that it was from an mp or a sub—postmaster, i worked very long

days and _ a sub—postmaster, i worked very long days and very often my days were back—to—back meetings. sometimes i would _ back—to—back meetings. sometimes i would see _ back—to—back meetings. sometimes i would see letters as they came in, sometimes — would see letters as they came in, sometimes i would see something on my pa's _ sometimes i would see something on my pa's desk and asked to look at it. my pa's desk and asked to look at it other— my pa's desk and asked to look at it. othertimes my pa's desk and asked to look at it. other times i wouldn't get it until— it. other times i wouldn't get it until it — it. other times i wouldn't get it until it came back from the executive correspondence team. it would _ executive correspondence team. it would depend on the day and diary. was there _ would depend on the day and diary. was there a — would depend on the day and diary. was there a way of keeping you informed of the temperature of the business in relation to this issue? how many complaints from sub—postmaster you are getting about horizon? or did it depend on you spotting something? this horizon? or did it depend on you spotting something?— horizon? or did it depend on you spotting something? this could have been done much _ spotting something? this could have been done much better. _ spotting something? this could have been done much better. there i spotting something? this could have | been done much better. there wasn't a regular— been done much better. there wasn't a regular report on it, but as you were _ a regular report on it, but as you were shown. _ a regular report on it, but as you were shown, this is over such a long period _ were shown, this is over such a long period of— were shown, this is over such a long period of time, that the challenges the organisation didn't keep a good enough _ the organisation didn't keep a good enough record on this type of matter~ — enough record on this type of matter. they were dealt with, they

were _ matter. they were dealt with, they were followed through, i believe,