yes, that royal mail holdinus office board? yes, that royal mail holdings board _ office board? il holdings board to _ office board? yes, that royal mail holdings board to receive - office board? yes, that royal mail holdings board to receive minutes| holdings board to receive minutes from each of the operating companies, were included in that board pack. you said royal mail holdings received them, did you personally received them, did you personally receive the minutes of the post office board? yes. did you receive the minutes of post office limited committees? ida. post office limited committees? no, i do not post office limited committees? no, i do not think— post office limited committees? my i do not think we did. thinking in particular of audit and risk committee. audit risk committee, if there was a pure audit that went to the royal mail auditing committee meeting for further looking and work, i am not sure if they always receive the minutes of the risk committee. you ersonall minutes of the risk committee. you personally did _ minutes of the risk committee. you personally

royal mail group. that is correct. and the director of royal mail holdings? the first director of royal mail holdings? oyal mail holdings? i“ie: first being a limited company, director of royal mail holdings? iie: first being a limited company, the second a plc. first being a limited company, the second a ole-— first being a limited company, the second a plc— second a plc. before 'oining royal mail ou second a plc. before 'oining royal manyou new h second a plc. before 'oining royal mail you held senior_ second a plc. before joining royal mail you held senior roles - second a plc. before joining royal mail you held senior roles in - mail you held senior roles in saatchi and saatchi from 1988 to 1999, is that right?— saatchi and saatchi from 1988 to 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, — 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all— 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all the _ 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all the way - 1999, is that right? 1995. i started there in 1988, all the way through | there in 1988, all the way through to 1988. bil

and any line back| to royal mail holdings? dotted for skilled advice, _ to royal mail holdings? o royal mail holdings? dotted for skilled advice, for want of a better| skilled advice, for want of a better phrase, to the group technology director. they reported to the chief executive. 50 director. they reported to the chief executive. ,, ., director. they reported to the chief executive. . ., , executive. so the function stayed within the post _ executive. so the function stayed within the post office? _ executive. so the function stayed within the post office? which - executive. so the function stayed l within the post office? which parts of the _ within the post office? which parts of the business had responsibility and oversight for certain activities, conduct or functions? rather— activities, conduct or functions? rather than looking at the people involved — rather than looking at the people involved. can we turn up page ia of your witness — involved. can we turn up page ia of your witness statement, please, paragraph ai.i? you say oversight brought by the post office would ha

yes, team within the royal mail holdings? yes. he _ team within the royal mail holdings? 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

i prosecutions was on the royal mail holdings risk register?— holdings risk register? believe s0- — holdings risk register? i don't believe so. and _ holdings risk register? i don't believe so. and i _ holdings risk register? i don't believe so. and i don't - holdings risk register? i don't| believe so. and i don't believe holdings risk register? i don't l believe so. and i don't believe i recall seeing it on the post office register. is recall seeing it on the post office reuister. , ., ., recall seeing it on the post office reuister. , . ., ., recall seeing it on the post office register._ with l register. is that a failing? with the benefit _ register. is that a failing? with the benefit of _ register. is that a failing? with the benefit of hindsight, - register. is that a failing? with the benefit of hindsight, yes. | register. is that a failing? with l the benefit of hindsight, yes. as register. is that a failing? with - the benefit of hindsight, yes. as in conductinu the benefit of hindsight, yes. as in conducting an _ the benefit of hindsight, yes. as in conduct

this is the royal mail management board, which sat essentially underneath the royal mail holdings plcat right? that mail holdings plc main board, as i call it, is that right?— call it, is that right? that is correct. _ call it, is that right? that is correct. yes- _ call it, is that right? that is correct, yes. it _ call it, is that right? that is correct, yes. it is _ call it, is that right? that is correct, yes. it is for - call it, is that right? that is i correct, yes. it is for tuesday call it, is that right? that is - correct, yes. it is for tuesday 24th of january. — correct, yes. it is for tuesday 24th ofjanuary. 2004. _ correct, yes. it is for tuesday 24th of january, 2004, the _ correct, yes. it is for tuesday 24th ofjanuary, 2004, the minute, - correct, yes. it is for tuesday 24th j ofjanuary, 2004, the minute, and you are _ ofjanuary, 2004, the minute, and you are present and shown as a person— you are present and shown as a person present because you are a member— person present because you are a member of— person present because you are a member of this board.— person pr

of royal mail holdings and post office limited _ separation of royal mail holdings and post office limitedfice limited in 2012, would you be _ and post office limited in 2012, would you be able _ and post office limited in 2012, would you be able to _ and post office limited in 2012, would you be able to disagree? | and post office limited in 2012,| would you be able to disagree? i don't would you be able to disagree? don't recall, i am not sure i would you be able to disagree?“ don't recall, i am not sure i would be able to disagree, no. so don't recall, i am not sure i would be able to disagree, no.— be able to disagree, no. so you don't know _ be able to disagree, no. so you don't know who _ be able to disagree, no. so you don't know who was _ be able to disagree, no. so you i don't know who was responsible, be able to disagree, no. so you - don't know who was responsible, you are not— don't know who was responsible, you are not sure — don't know who was responsible, you are not sure who— don't know who was responsible, you are not sure who was _ don't know who was responsible, you are

non—executives on post office limited board, and we did have the group it director sitting in the royal mail holdinggoing up to royal mail holdings board, and there was more challenge available there, a group legal director, a group it director, and whilst they were employees, they were not planned and just post office, so there was a level of independence in the interrogation. and i don't think, i have to say i didn't ask, but i didn't ask as i didn't ask, but i didn't ask as i didn't expect the organisation would want me to be looking for independent and non—execs to go on the post office limited board. let as stand back a bit. horizon records transactions for the post office business? see that again. horizon records transactions for post office business? yes. it for post office business? yes. it provided — for post office business? yes. it provided the _ for post office business? yes. it provided the data _ for post office business? yes. it provided the data from - for post office business? yes it provided the data from which the statutory and management accounts would be compiled? yes. as a dire

that arise when conducting prosecutions was on the royal— conducting prosecutions was on the royal mail holdingshe post office reuister. . . . recall seeing it on the post office reuister. , . ., ., register. is that a failing? with the benefit _ register. is that a failing? with the benefit of _ register. is that a failing? with the benefit of hindsight, i register. is that a failing? with the benefit of hindsight, yes. | the benefit of hindsight, yes. conducting an activity which is unusual— conducting an activity which is unusual for a company? would you agree? _ unusual for a company? would you auree? . so unusual for a company? would you agree? yes. so there are two bits of the evidence — agree? yes. so there are two bits of the evidence we _ agree? fies so there are two bits of the evidence we heard there from adam crozier, among other things thatis adam crozier, among other things that is stark, some of the questioning about the lines of communication that existed in royal mail and post office around the time that all those prosecutions were taking place. to discuss this in a bit more deta

adam crozier, the former ceo of royal mail group limited, former director of royal mail holdings.he inquiry a little later. we will, as ben says, bring you the latest here on gb news. >> all right. still to come, prince harry and meghan markle. they've netflix they've had two new netflix shows you shows commissioned. can you guess what they're about? one, is about sports and the other is about something meghan likes to get up to in her spare time. can you guess? this is britain's newsroom stay with . us. >> hello. welcome back. it is 1023. you're with britain's newsroom on gb news. with ben leo and pip tomson. >> welcome. we're joined now by political commentator emma webb and author and broadcaster amy nicole the studio. nicole turner. in the studio. we're going to get stuck into some newspapers and some of the day's newspapers and top shall we start with top stories. shall we start with amy, harry and meghan's new lifestyle and polo shows announced by netflix. what can you tell us? >> well, we have all been waiting with bated breath, haven't we, to see what will they do next? ye

was a subsidiary to the holdings board, when yes indeed the independent members were in the majority so i think technically, if you looked at it, it was ok because the royal mail business whilst a non—executive director? trier? the royal mail business whilst a non-executive director? very little, reall . as non-executive director? very little, really- as part _ non-executive director? very little, really- as part of — non-executive director? very little, really. as part of my _ non-executive director? very little, really. as part of my induction - non-executive director? very little, really. as part of my induction i - really. as part of my induction i might have gone to some of the functions that sat in royal mail working for the post office, for example but in terms of the business activities of royal mail, then i did not get very involved in that at all. ., ., ~ not get very involved in that at all. ., ., 4' , not get very involved in that at all. , ,, , all. looking up responsibilities, would you _ all. looking up responsibilities, would you agree _ all. looking up responsibilities, would you agree post _ all. looking up responsibilities, would you agree p