1 Thursday, 26 September 2024 2 (10.00 am) 3 MS HODGE: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear me? 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: (Microphone muted) 5 MS HODGE: You appear to be muted, sir. Currently we can't 6 hear you. 7 We are just making some enquiries to see why it is 8 that we can't hear you, sir. 9 Sir, would you be able to speak so we can check 10 whether we can hear you now? Sir, we're going to take 11 a short break so we can establish the issue with your 12 connection. 13 (10.02 am) 14 (A short break) 15 (10.12 am) 16 MS HODGE: Hello again, sir. Can you see and hear me? 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I can. 18 MS HODGE: Good. I'm pleased to say we can see and hear you 19 again now. 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Good, thank you very much. Sorry to 21 everyone for the delay. 22 MS HODGE: Our witness today is Calum Greenhow. Please can 23 the witness be sworn. 24 CALUM BRIAN GREENHOW (sworn) 25 Questioned by MS HODGE 1 1 MS HODGE: Please give your full name. 2 A. Calum Brian Greenhow. 3 Q. You should have in front of you a copy of your witness 4 statement dated 4 September 2024? 5 A. I do. 6 Q. That statement runs to 133 pages; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Can I please ask you to turn to page 124 of your 9 statement? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you see your signature there before you -- 12 A. I do. 13 Q. Is the content of that statement true to the best of 14 your knowledge and belief? 15 A. It is. 16 Q. Mr Greenhow, my name is Ms Hodge and I'll be asking 17 questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Before I do so, 18 I believe there's a statement you would like to make; is 19 that correct? 20 A. If I can. Something rather odd happened yesterday. 21 When my Inquiry counsel and I were heading to 22 an accommodation last night, we came out of Holborn tube 23 station and I literally had to step out of the way of 24 Lord Justice Fraser. And the reason that I mention that 25 is I think it is important that I thank not only the 2 1 Inquiry but also Lord Justice Fraser for the work that 2 you've all done because, without your work, we would not 3 know what we know today. 4 I approach the Inquiry as a postmaster who has 5 served behind the counter and used Horizon since 1999 6 and still do today. I wanted to know the truth, the 7 whole truth and nothing but the truth, even if that 8 meant some uncomfortable truths were discovered about 9 the organisation that I lead today. 10 I'd like to thank those who you were involved, such 11 as Sir Alan Bates, Jo Hamilton, Lord Arbuthnot, 12 et cetera, because it's their tenacity, their dignity, 13 their courage and their determination that we're here 14 today. I'd like to offer them all my apologies as the 15 Chief Executive of the NFSP and ask for their 16 forgiveness for the part that the NFSP has played in 17 what they've experienced and what they've had to endure 18 over that period of time, and I hope that they will 19 accept my apologies in the manner that it is intended. 20 Thank you. 21 Q. Thank you, Mr Greenhow. You are currently employed as 22 the Chief Executive Officer of the National Federation 23 of SubPostmasters; is that correct? 24 A. I am. 25 Q. Before we examine the circumstances of your appointment 3 1 as CEO, I'd like to ask you some brief questions about 2 your background, please. You say that in August 1995 3 you and your wife purchased the Post Office branch in 4 West Linton, a village located in the Scottish Borders; 5 is that right? 6 A. We did. 7 Q. You were appointed the SPM of that branch, which you ran 8 with your wife until your appointment as CEO; is that 9 correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In 2001 you became a member of the NFSP, which at that 12 time was registered as a trade union; is that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You've explained in your statement that the NFSP is 15 currently divided into 53 separate branches and ten 16 separate regions; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Does that representation extend to the whole of the 19 United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland? 20 A. Yes, it does. 21 Q. Has the number of local branches and regions remained 22 consistent throughout the time covered by this Inquiry? 23 A. I don't think it has but I cannot confirm that. I am 24 giving it from its current basis. 25 Q. Before you were appointed the CEO of the NFSP, you held 4 1 various different roles within the organisation; is that 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. In 2010, you were elected the President of the South of 5 Scotland branch; is that right? 6 A. I was. 7 Q. Do you recall how many branches of the NFSP there were 8 in Scotland at that time, roughly? 9 A. Seven? 10 Q. Do you know how many Post Office branches were located 11 within the South of Scotland at that time? 12 A. I can't remember offhand. It would be 100/150, I think. 13 Q. What did your role as President of the South of Scotland 14 branch entail? 15 A. In essence, I was Chair of the region -- of the branch, 16 so if we had our branch meeting it would have been my 17 responsibility to chair the meeting and support the 18 branch secretary but it was the branch secretary who 19 really did most of the work. That would also involve 20 attending regional meetings, and then conference. 21 I attended the NFSP's annual conference for the first 22 time in 2010. 23 Q. In 2012 you were elected the branch secretary of the 24 South of Scotland branch; is that right? 25 A. I was. 5 1 Q. Please can you describe the role performed by the 2 secretary of the local branch? 3 A. In essence, it was to be there as the contact point for 4 members, to distribute information, if any postmaster 5 had a problem or an issue I would be the first port of 6 call. If there was an interview with the Post Office, 7 I may go along to that or it may have been left to 8 others. 9 Q. In 2013 you were elected as the representative for 10 Scotland on the NFSP's Standing Orders Committee; is 11 that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In your statement, you say that the committee was 14 responsible for dealing with the motions from branches 15 which would go to the annual conference. Can you please 16 explain what a motion is? 17 A. So a motion would be -- well, conference, in essence, 18 was a whole series of questions, thoughts, ideas, that 19 were being brought to the attention of the wider NFSP 20 membership, and a motion was an individual request that 21 may go to -- it would instruct the Executive Council to 22 do something, and then what would happen is that would 23 be debated at conference by all who attended conference. 24 It would be debated prior to that at a regional meeting, 25 for example, of members, and then a decision by the 6 1 membership would be taken whether to adopt or not that 2 particular motion. 3 Q. You say that the motion was a request, from whom? 4 A. From the members. 5 Q. What function was performed by the Committee in relation 6 to these motions? 7 A. So, in essence, we were looking at whether there was 8 motions that came in that had a similar vein to them or 9 similar thought, and we might amalgamate those together; 10 whether that motion had been asked within the last two 11 years and had been rejected, so it would have to carry 12 over for another year. In essence, that was really it. 13 Q. So the Committee was responsible for either permitting 14 motions to go to conference or rejecting them; is that 15 correct? 16 A. One of. I was -- ultimately the decision was of the 17 Executive Council, I believe but, certainly, we would 18 meet in the March of the calendar year to actually go 19 through those motions and, normally, the President of 20 the NFSP, along with the General Secretary of the NFSP 21 would be present and others, and they would be 22 discussed, and then we would try and put them into 23 themes, et cetera. But, yes, in essence, we were a form 24 of the ability to enable those motions to be brought to 25 conference. 7 1 Q. But also to filter them; would that be fair? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In 2016 you were elected to the Board of the NFSP as the 4 Scotland Regional Non-Executive Director; is that 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. By that stage, the organisation was no longer registered 8 as a trade union -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- having, in September 2015, established itself as 11 a private limited company; is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I'd like to ask you some questions about your decision 14 to seek appointment as the CEO of the NFSP. In your 15 statement, you say that you wished to make the 16 organisation more inclusive and representative of its 17 members; is that correct? 18 A. I think that was in relation to me being the Chief 19 Executive. 20 Q. Yes. Forgive me, this is -- sorry. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I'm asking you now about your appointment as Chief 23 Executive? 24 A. Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the Board. 25 Sorry. Apologies. 8 1 Q. So, concerning your motivation for seeking appointment 2 as the Chief Executive, one of the points you raise in 3 your statement is that you wished to make the 4 organisation more inclusive -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- and representative of its members; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You also describe in your statement that you considered 9 your predecessor's approach to leadership was 10 autocratic; is that correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Can you please explain why you characterised 13 Mr Thomson's leadership in that way? 14 A. Well, I think if anybody who's been to the Inquiry may 15 have seen just exactly how George acts. If you didn't 16 agree with him, he would let you know, and he was very 17 much about pushing forward his view, his thoughts, his 18 ideas. I felt that, as an ordinary member and even as 19 a Board member, there was a toxicity within the 20 membership of the NFSP towards him, there was a lot of 21 negative feeling against him, and I think a lot of 22 things that were going on -- that people didn't know 23 what was going on, there wasn't much communication, and 24 therefore I felt that that was not the right way. 25 I'm a completely different person. I'm not 9 1 an exclusive person; I'm an inclusive person and I've 2 got nothing to hide in any way, shape or form, so 3 I really want to get out there, engage with my fellow 4 postmaster members, seek their views. You know, their 5 experiences is vast, their knowledge is vast and it's 6 important to listen to different ideas. It doesn't 7 necessarily mean to say that, just because someone puts 8 forward a view, that that would be the view that's taken 9 forward. But it's important to listen to what people 10 have to say, take it on board, and then make a decision 11 and that's not what I saw with George. 12 Q. According to your statement, when you were first 13 appointed a member of the board in mid-June 2016, you 14 challenged the stance being taken by the Board and the 15 then CEO, in relation to the integrity of Horizon; is 16 that correct? 17 A. Yes, it is. 18 Q. You state that you recall telling the Board at a meeting 19 in mid-June 2016 that Horizon could not be correct 20 100 per cent of the time; is that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You also stated, you say, that even if there were no 23 systemic issues with the system, there might still be 24 local faults; is that correct? 25 A. Absolutely. 10 1 Q. The Inquiry has been shown the minutes of the meeting to 2 which you refer in your statement. For reference they 3 can be found at NFSP00000500. I think you accept, do 4 you not, that your comments are not recorded in those 5 minutes; is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Why is it, do you think, that your comments about the 8 integrity of Horizon were not recorded in the minutes of 9 the meeting? 10 A. I don't think there was any particular reason for it. 11 I think what was recorded was what Peter Montgomery was 12 saying and we were coming at the same sort of issue from 13 a slightly different angle. But so I think Peter's 14 comments were maybe more valid or more a summation of 15 the debate and the conversation that was going on, so 16 that was all recorded. I don't think there was any 17 specific reason why my comments were not recorded. 18 Q. There is a reference in the minutes of the meeting to 19 the principle of collective cabinet responsibility. 20 Please can we display the minutes to see that reference 21 in its context. It's the bottom of page 22 on to 22 page 23, please. 23 Thank you we see at the first bullet point your 24 colleague Peter Montgomery, who you reference raising 25 the issue of the Group Litigation, and if we go down to 11 1 the bottom, please, the final bullet point reads: 2 "The NFSP's policy has always been that it is 3 a robust system and we have fully confidence in it." 4 That being the Horizon system. 5 If we could scroll down, please: 6 "Do not believe the system is systematically faulty. 7 "Most people that blame Horizon for losses are 8 overinflating their cash declarations, false accounting. 9 "Subpostmasters take money sometimes and members of 10 staff also take money. 11 "Reminded that members of the Council should adhere 12 to collective cabinet responsibility." 13 Did you feel compelled by your membership of the 14 NFSP Board to toe the party line on the integrity of 15 Horizon? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You say in your statement that the purpose of raising 18 questions about Horizon's integrity in the first Board 19 meeting was to try to build some momentum that would be 20 capable of challenging the stance adopted by your 21 predecessor; is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What further steps did you take, either at Board level 24 or within the wider NFSP organisation, to build that 25 momentum to challenge his stance on Horizon? 12 1 A. Difficult to remember everything that took place so long 2 ago but, in essence, obviously you can see from Peter's 3 view, we would regularly go for walks, we would have 4 discussions, I would talk to other individuals, with 5 members within the Federation, other postmasters who had 6 a different view. I felt that it was important to 7 understand the Board, see where the Board were sitting, 8 see, you know, many of them I didn't necessarily know 9 personally at that point. Get to know them, get to sort 10 of understand them and get to see where they went. And 11 whenever any opportunities arose to actually maybe have 12 different view, I would take that forward. 13 Q. Now, we know that your appointment to the Board took 14 effect in or around June 2016; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Between that time and your appointment as CEO, did you 17 ever raise the issue of Horizon's integrity again with 18 the Board? 19 A. Sorry, say that again? 20 Q. So between your appointment to the Board as 21 a Non-Executive Director -- 22 A. Oh, sorry. 23 Q. -- in June 2016 and your appointment as CEO of the NFSP 24 in 2018, did you ever raise the issue of Horizon's 25 integrity again at the Board, so far as you recall? 13 1 A. I don't think I did. Certainly, from what I can see 2 from the minutes and emails, I don't think it actually 3 came up. 4 Q. I'd like to go back in time, please, to examine when you 5 first became aware of concerns about the integrity of 6 Horizon, in your statement you first date your awareness 7 of issues with Horizon's integrity to the summer of 8 2015; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. By that stage, you'd held the role of branch secretary 11 since 2012; is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And you'd been appointed the elected representative for 14 Scotland on the Standing Orders Committee? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You've explained in your statement and in your evidence 17 this morning that, if members of the NFSP had concerns 18 that they wished to raise, their first point of contact 19 would be the branch secretary; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Or one of there first points of contact? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Does it follow that during the time in which you served 24 as Branch Secretary for South of Scotland, that no 25 member ever raised any concerns with you about the 14 1 reliability of the Horizon system? 2 A. Correct, and can I just add to that, actually, as 3 someone who had used and was using Horizon, whilst there 4 may have been issues in relation to it freezing, or 5 problems as far as screen or a printer or a base unit 6 not working, that would be what maybe people would have 7 come to me about. But as far as ascribing losses to 8 Horizon, to my knowledge, no one came to me about that. 9 Q. Looking back, does it surprise you that the problems 10 with Horizon were not brought to your attention in your 11 capacity either as President or Branch Secretary of the 12 South of Scotland branch? 13 A. Not really, no. 14 Q. Why is it, do you think, that these problems weren't 15 reported to you? 16 A. I can't answer that specifically. All I can say is, 17 again, as someone who was using Horizon, I didn't see 18 Horizon as an issue. We were using it, it was 19 functioning; clearly, for some people, it wasn't. I can 20 only go on my own personal experience of having used 21 Horizon and, other than it freezing, a scanner not 22 working, I've not had any personal experience of faults 23 with the software that have caused -- that I believe 24 have caused losses in my own branch and, between 2012 25 and 2015, no one had raised that sort of issue with me, 15 1 and as I was going to regional meetings it wasn't really 2 being raised much there. 3 What was being raised was more about Network 4 Transformation and other sort of like issues. 5 Q. We know from documents which have been disclosed by the 6 NFSP that some local branches of the organisation were 7 seeking to raise concerns about Horizon -- 8 A. Absolutely. 9 Q. -- in the motions which they submitted for consideration 10 at the annual conference. Please can one of these 11 documents be shown on the screen, it bears the reference 12 NFSP00001037. Thank you. This document appears to 13 contain a list of motions submitted by the Midlands 14 region of the NFSP for consideration at the annual 15 conference held in 2010; is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. The third motion in the list reads as follows: 18 "This conference mandates the EC ..." 19 That's a reference to the Executive Council, is it? 20 A. Yes, the Executive Council, yes. 21 Q. "... not to accept any changes to the Horizon system 22 (either firmware or software) until fully validated as 23 'fit for purpose' by the Horizon steering group." 24 Can you help us, who sat on the Horizon steering 25 group? 16 1 A. This was obviously well before my time. I attended 2 a conference for the first time in 2010. I -- as I said 3 in my opening statement, I came in to try and find out, 4 this was something that I found out but, as far as who 5 that Horizon steering group is concerned, I've never 6 been able to find out exactly what that was. 7 Q. Please could be scroll down to the sixth motion, thank 8 you, in the list. That reads: 9 "That this conference mandate the EC to demand that 10 POL retain all historical Horizon data that relate to 11 Horizon failures both firmware & software for a minimum 12 of [12 months]." 13 A. Mm. 14 Q. From what you said just now, it appears to be that you 15 were not aware of these motions at the time when they 16 were submitted; is that correct? 17 A. No, I -- no. 18 Q. You have said, however, that you attended the annual 19 conference of the NFSP for the first time in that year 20 of 2010; is that right? 21 A. Yes, I did. 22 Q. Does it follow that these motions were not debated at 23 the annual conference which you attended? 24 A. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question, I don't -- 25 I can't remember. 17 1 Q. Who would have been responsible for determining whether 2 or not these particular motions were debated at the 3 annual conference? 4 A. I'd imagine -- so the Standing Orders Committee and the 5 Executive Council. 6 Q. To be fair to you, you weren't yet a member of the 7 Standing Orders Committee -- 8 A. No. 9 Q. -- at that time? 10 A. No. 11 Q. You took over in 2012 -- you joined in 2012? 12 A. No, I joined in 2013. 13 Q. Sorry, 2013. 14 Please could we look at another set of motions, they 15 bear the reference NFSP00001044. Do you know from which 16 region of the NFSP these orders were submitted? 17 A. Off the top of my head, no, I don't. 18 Q. Are you able to tell us to which annual conference they 19 related? 20 A. No, I can't. 21 Q. Could we turn, please, to page 5 of this document. It's 22 motion number 43. Thank you. It reads: 23 "That this Conference instructs the Executive 24 Council to negotiate with Post Office Limited that 25 computer generated discrepancies are not the 18 1 responsibility of the subpostmaster." 2 Then it in brackets it reads: 3 "Subpostmasters not to be responsible for computer 4 generated discrepancies on Horizon." 5 Under the heading "Status", it reads: 6 "Where evidence exists that the error is not as 7 a result of human input then a claim will not be 8 pursued." 9 Who would have been responsible for reporting on the 10 status of this motion? 11 A. I would imagine the Executive Council. 12 Q. This entry appears to accept the possibility that 13 discrepancies were generated by Horizon, does it not? 14 A. It certainly reads that way, yes. 15 Q. When did this document first come to your attention? 16 A. I think, as I -- as we were preparing documents for this 17 Inquiry. 18 Q. You mention in your statement that you watched the BBC 19 Panorama programme which was aired in August 2015; is 20 that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In your statement, you say this about the programme: 23 "When I watched the Panorama programme and saw 24 Hughie Thomas, Jo Hamilton and Seema Misra, I couldn't 25 see them as people who had stolen money." 19 1 Is that right? 2 A. Absolutely. 3 Q. Does it follow that after watching the Panorama 4 programme, you became concerned that the Post Office 5 might have wrongly prosecuted subpostmasters in reliance 6 on data generated by Horizon? 7 A. Yes, and, obviously, I've provided evidence, or there 8 has been evidence provided to the Inquiry, that shows 9 that. 10 Q. Shortly after watching the programme, you received and 11 read a branch circular from George Thomson, then CEO of 12 the NFSP; is that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Please can that document be shown on the screen. It 15 bears the reference WITN00370126. 16 Thank you. So this is the "Branch Secretaries' 17 Circular". Can you just briefly explain what the 18 purpose of a circular like this is and was? 19 A. Yes, so obviously this was before the mass usage of the 20 Internet, as we have, or the various social media 21 channels. So, at that time, providing information from 22 Shoreham to the members came via the Branch Secretary, 23 so we would receive these circulars and it was our duty 24 and our responsibility to distribute that information to 25 members within our particular branch or region. 20 1 Q. You said that it came from Shoreham? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. By that, you mean the central office of the National 4 Federation of SubPostmasters? 5 A. Yes, sorry, the NFSP headquarters in Shoreham, yes. 6 Q. So this circular is dated 18 August 2015. It's 7 volume 24, addressed to the Branch Secretary, and it 8 bears the heading "Post Office under the Spotlight". 9 Could we go scroll down to the third paragraph, which 10 addresses the Panorama programme. It reads, the second 11 sentence please: 12 "Last night's Panorama BBC1 documentary sought to 13 get underneath the bright shiny exterior of the Post 14 Office and reveal a less palatable side of the business: 15 the longstanding issue of prosecutions of subpostmasters 16 and the alleged [systemic] failings of Horizon looks set 17 to continue for some time yet. 18 "Over the past few years the NFSP has received 19 thousands of telephone calls from subpostmasters. The 20 majority relate to employment law, contract issues and 21 Network Transformation. The remainder cover ..." 22 ATMs, I assume that's meant to say. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. "... cash supply and just about every subject you care 25 to mention, including a handful every month on Horizon 21 1 connectivity and the problems of getting through to ATOS 2 and the Helpdesk. 3 "Put simply, the NFSP has not received calls from 4 subpostmasters querying Horizon and alleging [systemic] 5 failings. If there was a widespread problem, our 6 subpostmasters would have made us aware of it. As 7 a result, we have no choice but to conclude that Horizon 8 is a fundamentally sound and safe system." 9 In your statement you explain that you did not agree 10 with the message conveyed in this circular and that you 11 decided to raise your concerns with the CEO; is that 12 correct? 13 A. I think he was General Secretary at that point but yes, 14 yes. 15 Q. You wrote an email to Mr Thomson on 19 August 2015, in 16 which you invited him to consider the possibility that 17 those who were challenging the integrity of Horizon 18 might be correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You invited him to show his support for the SPMs whose 21 cases were being reviewed by Second Sight; is that 22 right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. For the benefit of the transcript, that email bears the 25 reference POL00162628. I don't propose to take you to 22 1 that document, it's already been shown in this Inquiry 2 but I'm happy to do so if there's any particular part of 3 it you wish to draw to the Chair's attention. 4 A. I just think, you know, obviously -- I mean, it was 5 difficult, so I think as a branch secretary at that 6 point, you know, I just considered myself an honorary 7 postmaster. I just, you know, having watched the 8 Panorama programme, it was really, in essence, me 9 starting to get, to understand, "Hang on a second, maybe 10 there's something more to this". Up to that point, you 11 know, we occasionally heard of people being convicted, 12 people admitting their guilt but we hadn't really heard 13 too much about the possibility that, actually, it could 14 be Horizon, and this was, in essence, me starting to get 15 to question that -- you know, a little question mark 16 going "Hang on, is there something more here?" 17 And I felt this statement was more saying, "There's 18 absolutely no possibility that there could be anything 19 wrong. You know, Horizon is absolutely sound", and 20 I just didn't -- I don't feel that a computer system, as 21 we have seen today, can be 100 per cent, 100 per cent of 22 the time. And, therefore, I felt that it was important 23 for myself to try and reach out to the General Secretary 24 and say, "Could you possibly look at this a different 25 way? Is there a possibility that there is something 23 1 different to this?" 2 Q. In addition to raising that concern with the General 3 Secretary, you also contacted Paul McBain who was then 4 the Scottish Non-Executive Director; is that right? 5 A. Actually, at that time, he was the Regional Secretary. 6 Q. Regional secretary. 7 A. He did eventually become Non-Executive Director but at 8 that time he was Regional Secretary. 9 Q. And Donald Ramsay, who was then the Scottish Executive 10 officer; is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You proposed to Mr McBain that the NFSP conduct its own 13 and fully and independent inquiry into Horizon's 14 integrity; is that right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You requested that the issue be placed on the agenda for 17 the forthcoming regional meeting? 18 A. HEXAM||Index2|*|{S.}{TR:5}{P}Yes. 19 Q. That meeting took place on the 2 October 2015; is that 20 correct? 21 A. It is. 22 Q. You've provided the minutes of that meeting, which bear 23 the reference WITN00370131. Please can that be shown on 24 the screen. 25 This bears the title "Minutes of meeting of Scotland 24 1 Regional Council Held Grampian Hotel, Perth on 2 October 2 2015." 3 To clarify, did you attend that meeting on 4 2 October? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. It lists certain apologies but are you able to confirm 7 who else was in attendance at that meeting? 8 A. Sorry, I'm just looking at the Vice President sort of 9 above -- so, obviously, Jamil Ahmed was there; the 10 National President, Jim Nott was there; and Laura 11 Hobbins who, from memory, was an employee of 12 Parcelforce; and there would have been other branch 13 secretaries, obviously the Executive Officer, Donald 14 Ramsay, and Paul McBain. 15 In fact, at that time there would have been two, so 16 there might have been Andrew Gilhooly as well; as I say, 17 other individuals. But beyond that, I can't remember, 18 specifically. 19 Q. You say Mr Jim Nott was the National President at that 20 time; is that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Please can we turn to page 2 of the minutes where we can 23 see some discussion in relation to Horizon. If we could 24 scroll down, please. In bold there is a heading 25 "BSC 24", is that a reference to the branch circular we 25 1 saw on screen a short time ago? 2 A. I believe it is. 3 Q. It reads: 4 "BSC 24 under the spotlight with regards to the 5 Horizon system and what it does or does not do. 6 National President agreed that the Post Office did a lot 7 wrong in the early years but there is no evidence that 8 the systems were at fault." 9 What did you understand the National President to 10 mean when he said that the Post Office did a lot wrong 11 in the early years? 12 A. I cannot say for definite what that means. It's not 13 something I can remember discussing with Jim. So 14 I can't say for definite, sorry. 15 Q. The minutes then say this: 16 "The National President also explained that the 17 system was checked annually for its robustness and no 18 issues were found by these outsourced companies of which 19 Pricewaterhouse was one." 20 Do you know from where the National President 21 obtained that information? 22 A. No, I don't. I can only -- if he's mentioned 23 Pricewaterhouse specifically, I can only assume that he 24 had received some information that had Pricewaterhouse 25 on it. 26 1 Q. Finally, the minutes record that: 2 "The agreement with the delegates was to accept the 3 response but believe that the issue would return due to 4 MPs signing an Early Day Motion." 5 Now, the reference to the response, shall we 6 understand that to mean the response of the National 7 President or the response of Mr Thomson in the branch 8 circular; are you able to assist? 9 A. I think it would have been what was said on the day by 10 the National President. 11 Q. By the National President. These minutes show, do they 12 not, that the delegates at this meeting, of which you 13 were one, agreed to accept the party line on Horizon? 14 A. Yeah, I suppose that's correct. 15 Q. Why did you accept the response of the National 16 President if you believed, by this stage, that the Post 17 Office had wrongly prosecuted subpostmasters? 18 A. I think at this stage I was beginning to question, 19 rather than be absolutely certain, that the Post Office 20 were wrongly convicting. I think, at this point, I was 21 starting to think differently but, as far as evidence is 22 concerned, I didn't have that at that time. I was, you 23 know, watching sort of, obviously, the Panorama 24 programme and thinking something's not right here. But 25 as far as having absolute evidence and proof, as we now 27 1 do, I did not have that at the time and neither did any 2 of the other individuals who were attending. 3 And, again, we were all postmasters, we are all 4 using the system. And whilst we may have had problems 5 with the -- as I say, with the screen or with the 6 hardware, as far as understanding that there was 7 potential problems with the software that may have been 8 making falls discrepancies, that the Post Office were 9 maliciously prosecuting those individuals as a result 10 of, I don't think any of us had that evidence at that 11 time. 12 But we were -- our feeling of the Post Office was 13 not one of -- yeah, they're -- well, put this way, sort 14 of I think even all -- even I have been stunned by 15 exactly what's gone on. I still struggle to understand 16 the scale of exactly what's gone on. As I've said 17 elsewhere in my statement, you know, Government, the 18 Civil Service, big business, in terms of Post Office, 19 Fujitsu, Royal Mail, even the legal industry, are 20 involved in this. 21 Collectively, we all got it wrong. You know, we 22 cannot ignore that there's 900 cases, that's 900 23 prosecutions, 900 defences, 900 judges that were all 24 involved in that. You know, our faith in the legal 25 industry is such that, well, we would hope and expect 28 1 the legal industry to have investigated this properly, 2 and, if they were convicting, then it must be -- there 3 must be something in it. You know, that's where we 4 were. And, therefore, we didn't have the evidence to 5 suggest that the scale of the cover-up and the scale of 6 what was going on and the scale of the victimisation was 7 actually present. 8 Q. In your statement you say that you don't recall taking 9 any further steps after this meeting in October to raise 10 your concerns, to escalate your concerns about Horizon; 11 is that correct? 12 A. It is. If I can just say, actually, I can't find any 13 evidence. I look back in my own personal emails at that 14 time to sort of see if I had done anything. I do 15 highlight that, obviously, I had to make a decision, my 16 wife and I were having to make a decision as far as our 17 own business in relation to Network Transformation and 18 we'd had to make the -- or were making the very 19 difficult decision to, in essence, exit the business and 20 what that implication was going to have on our future. 21 I mean, we live above the post office, our post office 22 is attached to the business. If we -- if we lost our 23 business, we were going to lose our home. We were going 24 to lose our ability to care for and provide our 25 daughters. 29 1 Those were big decisions and, you know, 2 understandably, that's where my focus was or was at the 3 time. I'd raised it, and other things came in that, you 4 know, demanded my time. 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Greenhow, what does the last part of 6 the last sentence mean, "believe that the issue would 7 return due to MPs signing an Early Day Motion"; can you 8 translate that for me please? 9 A. I can give you what I think it means. I can't 10 necessarily say that it's specific. Obviously, an Early 11 Day Motion, to my knowledge within the political field 12 is that an MP will bring a motion, which is called 13 an Early Day Motion -- 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right, sorry to stop you. So I wondered 15 whether this was something to do with a person MP within 16 the NFSP but it's not, it's about an MP raising it -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- in an Early Day Motion? 19 A. Yes, if I may explain, sir. The NFSP does not have any 20 political affiliations. We're apolitical on that basis. 21 We provide no funds to any political party. So, you 22 know, we do engage, obviously, and we lobby MPs on 23 behalf of postmasters to highlight exactly what's going 24 on in the network but this may have been done 25 independently of the NFSP or it may have been done as 30 1 a result of the NFSP lobbying. I don't know. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. Thank you. 3 MS HODGE: Thank you, Mr Greenhow, I'd like to ask you now 4 about your knowledge of a defect in Horizon Online, 5 known as the Dalmellington bug. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The existence of this bug was brought to your attention 8 by Tim McCormack, a subpostmaster who, at that time, was 9 a member of the Communication Workers Union; is that 10 right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you know why Mr McCormack came to you with his 13 concerns about this bug? 14 A. Tim and I sort of communicated backwards and forwards. 15 I can't remember the specifics of it. I can remember 16 obviously dealing with a particular case, and whether 17 I had read something or was aware of something or -- 18 I mean, obviously Tim has provided a lot of blogs. 19 Maybe I had read something that he had said in a blog, 20 and contacted him but he certainly wouldn't have known 21 that I was dealing with this. 22 So I may have contacted him just to say, you know, 23 "Have you heard of anything along these lines?", or 24 I may have read something in what he said, which 25 encouraged me to contact him to ask a little bit more 31 1 because the Dalmellington bug seemed to be similar to 2 what -- a situation that I was dealing with on behalf of 3 a colleague. 4 Q. You've produced a copy of the email which Mr McCormack 5 sent to you on 9 August 2016, please can that document 6 be shown on the screen. It bears the reference 7 WITN00370129. 8 Thank you. So halfway down the first page, we can 9 see the email from Mr McCormack to you on 9 August. It 10 reads: 11 "Hi Calum 12 "Just had a call from Mark Daniels." 13 Who was Mark Daniels, please? 14 A. Mark Daniels was a dual member of both the CWU and the 15 NFSP. 16 Q. "We really need to talk about this. You won't know half 17 of the story surrounding Dalmellington yet but one of 18 the most important points that has come out of it has 19 been [the Post Office's] refusal to inform the network 20 that this type of problem can occur. 21 "Seema Misra was sent to prison for falsifying 22 accounts and the Judge specifically noted that if the 23 computer caused the shortfall in the accounts then she 24 should have noticed. Pretty difficult when [Post 25 Office] know about these problems and don't tell you 32 1 what to look for. 2 "Please -- this is so important for all remaining 3 [SPMs] and new entrants." 4 He then gives his telephone number. 5 In this email, once again, we see, on this occasion, 6 Mr McCormack alerting you to the risk that 7 subpostmasters had been and were being wrongly held 8 accountable for bugs in Horizon, which the Post Office 9 knew about, but were not willing to disclose; is that 10 fair. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. We can see he asked you to contact him and, in the email 13 above, you say you will do. Did you, in fact, contact 14 Mr McCormack? 15 A. I think I did. 16 Q. Do you recall what he told you about the Dalmellington 17 bug? 18 A. He described what actually happened. Would you like me 19 to -- yes. 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. The Dalmellington bug to my understanding is where 22 a postmaster operates what's known as a core and 23 outreach. Now, the core is a full-time office and 24 an outreach would be a part-time office, where they 25 would go out to a small community, neighbouring 33 1 community, and they would set up a Post Office, 2 basically they would take the Horizon kit with him, and 3 they would set it all out and then the community could 4 come in and they would be able to serve them and provide 5 them with the services that they require. 6 What would happen is you would transfer cash and 7 stock from your core office into your outreach office, 8 and take it, obviously, to that location. You may also 9 at times -- and I've never operated one so I'm going 10 from my understanding -- you may want to transfer cash 11 and stock from the outreach back into the core. 12 My understanding is that you did that in exactly the 13 same way as if we were sending cash and stock back to 14 the Cash Centre, or receiving cash and stock into our 15 post office. 16 Q. Sorry, by Cash Centre you mean the Post Office? 17 A. The Post Office, sorry, yeah the Post Office Cash 18 Centre. And my understanding of the Dalmellington bug 19 is that that process could be faulty and could result in 20 double entering or triple entering and, I believe, in 21 Dalmellington, as the person was scanning it, it was 22 creating multiple entries, which was causing it to look 23 as if the -- her outreach or her core actually had more 24 cash and stock than it actually had. 25 Q. Having been told this, by Mr McCormack, did you take any 34 1 action to draw the existence of the bug to the attention 2 of the NFSP Board? 3 A. Unfortunately, I don't think did. 4 Q. Looking back did the existence of this bug not provide 5 you with the ammunition which you needed to challenge 6 the stance being adopted by the then CEO? 7 A. Well, it certainly gave me further evidence that maybe 8 something isn't quite right. But I think -- I don't 9 know if you'll want to come on to it -- obviously, when 10 we had the interview with the Post Office, I documented 11 that I did challenge the Post Office -- 12 Q. I'll come on to that. 13 A. Oh okay, sorry. 14 Q. But if we just take it in order -- 15 A. All right. 16 Q. So you've explained in your statement that you later 17 became involved in a case of a subpostmaster who 18 operated an outreach branch in Scotland; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. That postmaster had experienced a discrepancy of 22 £39,000 -- 23 A. From memory, yes. 24 Q. -- which related to the transfer of cash and stock 25 between their core and outreach branches? 35 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You believed, you said, based on the information which 3 you'd been told by Mr McCormack, that the discrepancy 4 might have been caused by the Dalmellington bug; is that 5 right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. When you accompanied the subpostmaster at his interview, 8 which was conducted by Brian Trotter -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- the Post Office Contracts Manager in Scotland, you 11 raised the existence of the bug with Mr Trotter; is that 12 correct? 13 A. I asked him about if it was possible that the 14 Dalmellington bug could be responsible for the situation 15 here because it had very similar hallmarks to it. 16 Q. How did Mr Trotter respond when you raised this -- 17 A. He simply said that it couldn't possibly be because that 18 had been dealt with prior to this happening. 19 Q. Were you satisfied by that explanation? 20 A. No. 21 Q. How did the meeting conclude? 22 A. As I put in my statement, I believe there was two action 23 points. The Post Office were going to go away and get 24 the evidence and, unfortunately, one of the aspects 25 that, as I was asking for evidence, the Post Office were 36 1 saying, "Well, that's not going to be easy, it's beyond 2 the six months that we keep, we're going to have to go 3 to Fujitsu". 4 Q. Sorry, just to stop you. Evidence of what, please? 5 A. Evidence of what the Post Office were presenting as 6 potentially the reason why the -- well, in fact, they 7 weren't providing any evidence, to be truthful. They 8 were -- the way that they did the interviews is they 9 asked the postmaster why it couldn't possibly be -- how 10 did this discrepancy take place? They weren't providing 11 any evidence. They weren't coming in and saying, "On 12 such-and-such a day you did this, this and this"; they 13 were just simply asking, "You've got a loss, explain to 14 us how that happened". So, in other words, it was up to 15 the postmaster to be able to prove how that happened. 16 So I was challenging the Post Office for the 17 evidence as to how that discrepancy could take place 18 because the postmaster couldn't possibly get it, because 19 it was beyond -- we any have access to three months' of 20 data within our office. We were talking over a year 21 here. So, therefore, I was asking the Post Office, "You 22 need to go away and provide that evidence and, until you 23 provide that evidence and prove it, we're not prepared 24 to sort of accept it". 25 Q. You were saying in relation to your request that they 37 1 supply that evidence? 2 A. Yes, I was asking for them to do that. 3 Q. What was their response? 4 A. They would go away and they would provide it and, sadly, 5 they never did. 6 Q. What, if any, steps did you take to follow up on that 7 request that the Post Office produce evidence of how the 8 discrepancy had occurred? 9 A. Well, I kept on asking for the evidence to be provided 10 because, again, as I say in my statement, I would be in 11 contact with the postmaster and they hadn't heard 12 anything. Getting any information out of the Post 13 Office was not easy, they were not great at responding 14 to either phone calls or to emails and, at one point, 15 I discovered that the case was being heard or was being 16 considered before the Senior Contracts Manager at the 17 time. 18 I had not been informed of that. The postmaster had 19 been. In fact, actually the Post Office didn't really 20 engage with us on it, which was really a concern to me 21 and it stuck with me ever since. In fact, I think, sort 22 of me bringing up the Dalmellington bug, I've always 23 wondered if that had an impact on how the Post Office 24 treated the postmaster, and it's always been a concern 25 to me if me bringing that up has actually, you know, 38 1 made things worse. But I never got any information from 2 them unfortunately. 3 Q. How did this particular case conclude? 4 A. I eventually contacted the postmaster, I think in 5 December, and he had been notified that his contract had 6 been terminated but I had -- as I say, no ever had been 7 provided to me, no further correspondence had taken 8 place with the Post Office, and I felt that that was, 9 you know -- was not right. 10 Q. Looking back, do you consider that you could or should 11 have done more to challenge the Post Office's refusal or 12 failure to provide documentary evidence to support -- 13 A. I mean, I think it's difficult, because when you're -- 14 and as I learned with the Post Office, you ask them 15 something they don't want to say, I call it they go into 16 their "black hole", and you just don't get any 17 correspondence from them. You can bang your head 18 against a brick wall until you've got a rather sore head 19 and it just doesn't happen. They just literally 20 withdraw, withdraw, withdraw. And, you know, to be 21 honest I didn't know what more I could do. 22 I just continued to believe in the postmaster, 23 support the postmaster and, obviously, when the GLO 24 concluded, I was straight on the phone to the 25 postmaster. When I heard there was the Historic 39 1 Shortfall Scheme, "You need to get yourself involved in 2 that, I think you've got a case", and it was then that 3 I discovered that he was thankfully part of the GLO. 4 But as we sit here today, five years after that, he 5 still has not received his redress, which I think is 6 shocking. 7 MS HODGE: Thank you, sir. That brings the end to that 8 particular topic I wish to discuss. It may be 9 a convenient time to take a 15-minute break. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means, Ms Hodge. 11 I've got it right, have I: the detail which 12 Mr Greenhow has been giving orally, essentially I can 13 find it at paragraphs 99 and 100 of his statement, yes? 14 MS HODGE: That's correct, sir. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thanks very much. Yes. 16 So we'll start again at 11.25, is it? 17 MS HODGE: Yes, sir. 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. 19 MS HODGE: Thank you. 20 (11.09 am) 21 (A short break) 22 (11.25 am) 23 MS HODGE: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear me? 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 25 MS HODGE: Thank you. 40 1 I'd like to move on, please, Mr Greenhow, to examine 2 your approach to the Group Litigation brought by 3 Sir Alan Bates and others against the Post Office. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You say in your statement that you did not share your 6 predecessor's dismissive attitude towards the Group 7 Litigation; is that correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And that, upon being appointed as the CFO of the NFSP, 10 you wished to demonstrate that your attitude to 11 litigation was different? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In your written evidence, you say that you attended the 14 first day of the Common Issues trial and that you had 15 hoped to shake hands with Sir Alan Bates but the 16 opportunity did not arise; is that correct? 17 A. Maybe just the way I've described it. I can't remember 18 exactly the reason why but, obviously, as you know, the 19 layout of this room, there's the anteroom, and I was 20 outside, I can't remember the reason why I was outside, 21 and, all of a sudden, Sir Alan came out of the room and 22 it was only myself and him in this foyer or wherever. 23 I was at one end and he was at the other end, and he 24 quickly disappeared. He may have been going to the 25 toilet or something like that, I honestly don't know. 41 1 But I didn't get the chance but it would have -- it 2 would have been lovely to be able to go across, shake 3 his hand and just thank him for what he's done. 4 Q. So that was an opportunity as you saw it, to express 5 your support privately, to Mr Bates -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- in respect of -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- the bringing of the litigation? 10 A. Absolutely. 11 Q. Now, please could we bring up paragraph 135 of your 12 statement, in which you address the approach which you 13 adopted publicly, to the Group Litigation. The 14 reference to the statement, please, WITN00370100, thank 15 you, and it's page 47. Thank you. If we scroll down, 16 please, paragraph 135, thank you very much. You say 17 here: 18 "The legal process was under way with court dates 19 set when I took on the Chief Executive role in June 20 2018, and the NFSP was not a party in the [Group 21 Litigation] case. Therefore, I determined it was right 22 to allow the due legal process to take place and allow 23 the courts to determine once and for all what the answer 24 to the Horizon issue was. Added, as someone not 25 experienced or practised in the legal process, I did not 42 1 think we could get involved at that stage. I certainly 2 had no idea that the NFSP would be a significant focus 3 of the GLO proceedings." 4 That can be brought down, thank you very much. 5 A short time ago, you told the Inquiry, that you 6 believed that Hughie Thomas, Jo Hamilton and Seema Misra 7 were not guilty of stealing from the Post Office. Why 8 then did you not speak out the publicly in support of 9 the Group Litigation? 10 A. Quite simply, I didn't think we could. It's as simple 11 as that. 12 Q. You were given the opportunity to comment and throw your 13 weight behind the litigation, were you not? 14 A. (No audible answer) 15 Q. Please can NFSP00000779 be shown on the screen? 16 THE STENOGRAPHER: Sorry, was there an answer to the last 17 question? 18 A. Sorry, apologies. I wasn't really giving an answer, 19 sorry. I wasn't sure. 20 MS HODGE: Do you recall whether you were given 21 an opportunity to comment? 22 A. Not to my knowledge. You may be about to remind me. 23 Q. Thank you. 24 This document contains an email from Nick Wallis to 25 the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Mr Wallis 43 1 reported extensively on the Group Litigation. 2 A. He has. 3 Q. If we scroll down to the middle of page 2, please, we 4 can see there, his email, addressed to Amanda Cox, who, 5 from the email, appears to have been the General 6 Official Supervisor and Receptionist; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. This email is dated 16 November 2018 and it reads as 9 follows: 10 "Hi 11 "I am a journalist covering the Bates v Post Office 12 High Court trial and yesterday, as you may know, the 13 NFSP's independence was queried in court. 14 "I have covered this as a reporter and published 15 a separate piece for my blog outlining the NFSP's 16 historic refusal to get behind claims that Horizon is 17 not fit for purpose. 18 "My separate piece is a piece of comment and I am 19 very hard on the NFSP -- focusing on its contractual 20 inability to criticise the Post Office on this issue and 21 the decision it appears to have taken as an organisation 22 that it is better to let its members hang out to dry if 23 they are having problems with Horizon, in order to 24 protect the integrity of the brand to clients and other 25 subpostmasters (as explained by George Thomson in his 44 1 evidence to Parliament on 3 February 2015)." 2 He goes on to say: 3 "It is both right and fair to offer you the 4 opportunity to have your position acknowledged and 5 incorporated into the piece. 6 "You could do this in one of two ways -- issue 7 a statement or have the right of reply." 8 He then goes on to suggest some topics that could be 9 covered if you were to issue a statement and he 10 expressly says, if we go down, please: 11 "If the CEO of the NFSP would prefer to write 12 a right of reply piece for publication on my blog, he 13 would be more than welcome." 14 If we scroll up to the bottom of the first page, 15 please, we can see that that email was forwarded by 16 Ms Cox to you and to Lynn Eccles. What was Ms Eccles' 17 role within the NFSP. 18 A. She was the Communication Director. 19 Q. Thank you. If we could scroll up then please to the top 20 of the first page, Ms Eccles writes to you, it appears, 21 later the same day. She says: 22 "Thanks Amanda, Calum the ongoing court case line 23 doesn't entirely stand up because not all of these 24 questions are linked directly to what's happening in 25 court. 45 1 "Still, I don't think we should provide a detailed 2 comment, it'll give the discussion around our 3 independence legs. I think there is also a risk if we 4 just step up and defend the NFSP it gives support to the 5 perception that we only really care about the Fed and 6 not the [subpostmasters] which are part of this class 7 action. 8 "Nick will criticise us for hiding court process but 9 given that we are no longer firmly coming down on one 10 side or the other I think that's the best we can do for 11 now. 12 "Suggest something like this: 13 "Thanks for sharing the blog and giving us the right 14 to reply. We welcome the opportunity for these matters 15 to be explored fully in court and respect the court's 16 process. We do not wish to contribute to a running 17 commentary on the case and won't be making any comment 18 until all matters have been aired in the court." 19 She then says: 20 "FYI -- he [that is Nick] will come back to us for 21 a comment when it is all done and dusted so you will 22 need to be ready for that." 23 Did you agree with the response that was proposed by 24 Ms Eccles? 25 A. Yes, I did. 46 1 Q. Was this not an excellent opportunity to set the record 2 straight and lend your support to the Group Litigation? 3 A. Well, as I've mentioned in my witness statement, I'm not 4 conversed as far as legal matters are concerned, and 5 I had faith and confidence -- well, I do have faith and 6 confidence in the legal process. I didn't think it was 7 right and appropriate for the NFSP to be making any 8 comment in relation to an ongoing case. I didn't think 9 that would be -- I didn't know if that could potentially 10 get us into trouble and I felt that the right thing to 11 do was to wait and allow Lord Justice Fraser and the due 12 judicial process to take place and therefore understand 13 exactly what is -- the powers of the justice system were 14 far greater than those of the NFSP. So as far as 15 understanding the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 16 the truth, I had confidence in that process. 17 So I didn't think we could. So we just sat back, 18 really, waiting for that process to take place. If -- 19 sorry, you know, yeah, if I'm wrong in that, you know, 20 I'll accept that but certainly that's our mindset at 21 that time. 22 Q. It might be thought that adopting a neutral stance was 23 quite a cynical decision to take, as it allowed the NFSP 24 to back the winning horse after the outcome the case had 25 been determined; is that fair? 47 1 A. I think that would be a cynical view. 2 Q. You had implored your predecessor, had you not, to 3 support the subpostmasters whose cases were being 4 reviewed by Second Sight before you became CEO of the 5 organisation? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Why, then, did you not, in your role as CEO, support the 8 claimants who were bringing their claims in court? 9 A. Because I didn't think we could. I, you know -- I -- 10 sorry if that's -- if that was wrong in that way but 11 I honestly didn't think it was our place. As Lord 12 Justice Fraser made it clear, we were not involved in 13 the court case, so I didn't think we could make comment. 14 I honestly thought that if we did, that might prejudice 15 it in some way, shape or form. I didn't want to do 16 that. 17 Q. So are you saying that, so far as you were concerned, 18 there was a fundamental difference between supporting 19 those cases that were being reviewed by Second Sight, 20 even though they might have resulted in a criminal 21 prosecution and therefore a legal process, and 22 supporting the Group Litigation, which was ongoing at 23 that time; is that your evidence? 24 A. Sorry, I'm not really understanding it. All I can say 25 is that I just didn't think that it was our place, we 48 1 could make comment on an ongoing case. I didn't think 2 we could, so we didn't. 3 Q. Please could NFSP00000710 be shown on the screen. This 4 is an external email chain between members of you team 5 discussing whether or not the NFSP should comment 6 publicly on the GLO proceedings. Please could we scroll 7 down to the bottom of page 4. We can see there an email 8 from Jon Follenfont, which has the title "Article for 9 the Magazine", it's dated 8 November 2018. It reads: 10 "Hi 11 "Two things: 12 "There is a Forum of [Post Office] people and 13 subpostmasters which meets to outline new proposals, new 14 kit, etc -- perhaps a report is needed in the magazine. 15 "I have been following the initial High Court case 16 about Horizon problems and the disciplinary action taken 17 by [Post Office] over the years -- quite interesting and 18 potentially a major issue for the [Post Office] in the 19 future. It must be costing [Post Office] and thus the 20 network a lot of money in legal fees. Whether we can be 21 that critical in a magazine funded by [Post Office] is 22 an interesting point." 23 "Regards. 24 "Jon." 25 He raises there a concern that because the 49 1 SubPostmaster Magazine is ultimately funded by the Post 2 Office, it wouldn't be appropriate for the NFSP to 3 comment; did you agree with that? 4 A. No. Can I just sort of add, I mean this was 5 obviously -- Jon is a lovely, lovely gentleman, who 6 cares passionately about the business. He was 7 a postmaster for a good number of years and, thankfully, 8 has only very recently been able to finally retire and, 9 you know, I don't think he, in any way shape or form, 10 would try to put across a view that would be detrimental 11 to postmasters. 12 Q. If we scroll up to the middle of the third page, please, 13 we can see your response. Thank you very much. So your 14 response of 8 November reads: 15 "Hi Jon 16 "My viewpoint is that as individuals with personal 17 interest in this case, we want to know the verdict of 18 the Judge but it would be unwise for us to make any 19 comment at this stage. 20 "I was present today. I would say that we are still 21 at the opening credits of the case so it is way too 22 early to ascertain which way it will go. 23 "As Lynn suggests acknowledging that the case is 24 being heard and we await the judgment with interest is 25 the best we should do via the SubPostmaster." 50 1 Now, what you appear to be saying here to your 2 colleagues is that you don't know which way the case is 3 going to be decided and so it would be in the best 4 interests of the NFSP to hedge their bets; is that fair? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Is there anything further you wish to say about this 7 email, before I move on? 8 A. Well, I think the very about is important as well. I'd 9 received an email, it's probably the vilest -- 10 I can't -- I tried to find where that email is. 11 I haven't been able to find it but it gives indication 12 to really some of the stuff that we receive from people, 13 whether they're postmasters or just interested 14 individuals from the general public. 15 It was a lot of pressure on us in one way, shape or 16 form. As I say, all we were trying to do is allow the 17 due legal process to take place and here, because we 18 didn't know, we simply didn't -- we didn't have the 19 evidence and we hoped that, through the GLO, the 20 evidence would come out and reveal exactly what had gone 21 on in the past. 22 So that was just our view. We felt that it wasn't 23 right for us to make comment. 24 Q. Please can NFSP00000707 be shown on the screen. This 25 document contains an email from you to an employee of 51 1 the Post Office named Rob Houghton. Can you please 2 explain his role and the nature of your relationship 3 with him? 4 A. So Rob Houghton was the Chief Information Officer at the 5 Post Office. He wasn't there long, maybe 2017 to 2019, 6 I don't think he was there that long, but anyway, that's 7 who he was. 8 Q. I'd like to ask you about some comments which you make 9 in the second paragraph of this email, thank you. It's 10 dated 24 April 2018 from you to Rob with the subject 11 "Branch Refresh". You say: 12 "There are a number of aspects that I feel I need to 13 highlight with you but most pressing is the growing loss 14 of confidence by colleagues in the system due to both 15 a mixture of hardware and software issues during and 16 after installation of the new system and/or router. Add 17 to this that there have now been 4 system faults over 18 the last month, which have caused nationwide access 19 problems thus I am concerned that we are handing Freeths 20 a stronger case to bring to court in November as 'the 21 present is a guide to the past' is a strong argument." 22 Now, one possible reading of this email is that you 23 were not as well disposed to the group litigants and 24 their litigation as you are now claiming to be and that 25 you were primarily concerned about maintaining 52 1 confidence in the Horizon system; would that be fair? 2 A. I think it would be fair to say that I was trying to 3 sort of ensure that there was confidence in the Horizon 4 system. I think that's important, as a postmaster, 5 someone who uses Horizon and, along with the rest of my 6 colleagues, I think it is vitally important that we have 7 confidence in it. But what I was trying to sort of do 8 here, and if I may, sort of, there was this branch 9 refresh that was going on at that time and postmasters 10 were coming to us and saying that they were having 11 problems. 12 Now, and where it says "It was literally good to 13 bump into you", that was a little description that 14 I happened to come out of a room within the Post Office, 15 turned a corner and I literally flattened him because 16 I bumped into him and he virtually ended up on the 17 floor. So hence the "it was literally good to bump into 18 you". But all I'm tying to do here is highlight that 19 there are problems with Horizon today and, if you don't 20 sort this out, then you're in essence giving -- making 21 it easy for -- you know, easier for Freeths as far as 22 their case is concerned. Do something about this. 23 But I'm not saying I disagree with what's going on. 24 I'm just trying to make sure that what was happening to 25 postmasters at that time in relation to the new system 53 1 was problems and eventually what came out of this 2 meeting was we ended up with different suppliers from 3 the Post Office all in a room there I was able to 4 explain to those individuals what postmasters were 5 experiencing because postmasters were not able to trade. 6 They were losing business. That's what I was trying to 7 sort of do. Not anything -- I appreciate how you can 8 read it but that's not what I was trying to say. 9 Q. I'd like to explore with you what, if any, role the 10 Grant Framework Agreement had in your decision not to 11 speak out in support of the Group Litigation. The 12 Inquiry has heard evidence from your predecessor about 13 the background to the Grant Framework Agreement. 14 I don't propose to go over the same ground with you, as 15 you were not directly involved in the negotiation which 16 led to it; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You are, however, familiar with its terms as it remained 19 in force when you took over as CEO in June 2018; is that 20 right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In your statement, you describe the Framework Agreement 23 in this way, you say: 24 "The Grant Framework Agreement is an agreement 25 between the NFSP and Post Office to provide funding from 54 1 the Post Office to enable the NFSP to offer support to 2 postmasters. It was designed so that this support was 3 free at the point of use to all postmasters." 4 Is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I think you accept that this apparent benevolence of the 7 Post Office came at a certain price; is that right? 8 A. Given the type of organisation that the Post Office is, 9 it is very difficult to deal with them in any way, shape 10 or form. I think, when -- you know, if you consider the 11 time period that the Inquiry looking at, the Grant 12 Framework Agreement is only in place to the very end of 13 it. That had nothing to do with the activities and 14 viewpoints of the NFSP prior to that. 15 As far as this situation is concerned, the Grant 16 Framework had nothing to do with the view that I was 17 taking. There was no influence from the Post Office in 18 any way, shape or form to pressurise the NFSP into 19 taking a view or a stance. 20 So it had nothing to do with it in that way. 21 Q. I'd like, if we can, please, to look at the terms of 22 that agreement. It bears the reference NFSP00001075. 23 Thank you. So the agreement is dated 21 July 2015. The 24 relevant clause can be found at page 10, please, under 25 the heading "General Conditions of the Grant". So 55 1 paragraph 5.3: 2 "The NFSP shall not engage in the following 3 activities or behaviours ..." 4 These being the conditions on which the grant 5 funding is made: 6 "The NFSP shall not [firstly]: 7 "[Undertake] any public activity which may prevent 8 [Post Office] from implementing any of its initiatives, 9 policies or strategies; 10 "[Secondly] undertaking or inducing a third party to 11 undertake media or political campaigns against [the Post 12 Office]; 13 "[Thirdly] organising or inducing a third party to 14 organise public demonstrations, protests or petitions 15 against [the Post Office]; 16 "[Fourthly] organising or inducing a third party to 17 organise boycotts of [Post Office] business; 18 "[Fifthly] funding or inducing any third party 19 litigation against [Post Office]; and 20 "[Finally, broad catch-all] other activities or 21 behaviour the effect of which may be materially 22 detrimental to [the Post Office]." 23 So those are some of the conditions of the Grant. 24 Can we please scroll to page 16 of the document. We see 25 there another related clause, which bears the heading, 56 1 "Withholding, Suspending and Repayment of Grant", this 2 is clause number 17. It reads: 3 "[The Post Office's] intention is that the Grant 4 will be paid to the NFSP in full. However, without 5 prejudice to [the Post Office's] other rights and 6 remedies, [it] may at its discretion withhold or suspend 7 payment of the Annual Grant Payment and/or an Individual 8 Grant and/or require repayment of all or part of the 9 Annual Grant ... and/or an Individual Grant if there is 10 an Event of Clawback." 11 The term "Event of Clawback" is defined on the 12 following page under clause 17.2, and the first such 13 event or circumstance is where: 14 "... the NFSP commits a breach of any of its 15 obligations under clause 5 ... and/or clause 1 ..." 16 Now, you say that you said in your statement and you 17 claim in your evidence today that these clauses had no 18 bearing upon the actions of the NFSP in relation to 19 Horizon; is that your evidence? 20 A. No, I don't think that's what I'd said. In relation to 21 the GLO, because that's the question you were asking me, 22 it had no bearing on that and I don't think that, given 23 the fact that the GFA only came into place in 2016, when 24 all of the criminal prosecutions had stopped by then, 25 had really much to do, because it didn't really cover 57 1 the time period, and -- when most of the time period 2 that the Inquiry and the GLO was covering, the NFSP was 3 a trade union funded by its members. So, therefore, it 4 couldn't have anything -- really, it didn't have 5 anything to do with it. 6 Q. Now, you've made the point in your statement and this 7 morning that, so far as the period prior to the Grant 8 Framework Agreement is concerned, that could not have 9 been influenced by these provisions because they didn't 10 come into force until 2015. As you rightly say, I'm 11 asking you about the period after they came into force 12 and your conduct in relation to the Group Litigation. 13 Now, you've explained that you felt sympathy for the 14 group litigants and, indeed, you wished to convey that 15 and to show your support privately to Mr Bates, but you 16 weren't prepared to do so publicly. Is it your evidence 17 that that decision was not in any way influenced by 18 those provisions? 19 A. Absolutely. 20 Q. You were aware though, were you not, that there was 21 a risk that the Post Office might seek to clawback the 22 funding provided to the NFSP if you incited other 23 subpostmasters to bring claims against it? 24 A. It's sort there sort of within the clause, clause 5.3. 25 Q. Let's take a look, please, at some minutes of the Board 58 1 at NFSP00000534. This a meeting of the Board in June 2 2017. By this stage you were a member of the Board of 3 the NFSP. If we could turn please to page 12, we see 4 there recorded a discussion about the Group Litigation, 5 it's under the heading "Communications". The third 6 bullet point reads: 7 "Against express instructions, in the last issue of 8 The SubPostmaster, LBM had taken an advert from 9 Freeths/Justice for Subpostmasters." 10 LBM were who, please? 11 A. Lewis Business Media, who publish The SubPostmaster 12 magazine. 13 Q. "[Post Office] understandably went ballistic. Emergency 14 meeting held with LBM with [Post Office] in attendance. 15 It was made crystal clear that their actions were 16 totally unacceptable. It made it look like the NFSP 17 were inciting subpostmasters to take the company to 18 court. May need to beef up resources and bring the 19 magazine in-house in the future. That mistake could 20 have cost the NFSP payments from [Post Office] and 21 ultimately finish the organisation. It was really very 22 serious. 23 Now, we see Ms Eccles mentioned at the top there, 24 was that an update, was that an update from her in her 25 capacity as Director of Communications? 59 1 A. No, I don't think she had even started at that point. 2 It was more just informing the point that Lynn would be 3 starting. 4 Q. These minutes show, do they not, that the Board of the 5 NFSP at that time was fearful that it would lose its 6 funding from the Post Office, if it were to lend its 7 support to the Group Litigation? 8 A. I think at that point it was being -- this discussion 9 was being led by George, rather than the Board and 10 George was putting forward his view. I think George's 11 view on Horizon is pretty clear but that doesn't 12 necessarily mean to say that that was the view of the 13 whole Board and, anyway, that was George's view, 14 George's opinion. But I wasn't aware -- I wasn't party 15 to the discussion that took place. I don't know if the 16 Post Office did go ballistic or whether that was 17 George's interpretation of it. I've no idea. 18 Q. These minutes suggest, do they not, that the loss of 19 grant funding would have brought an end to the National 20 Federation of SubPostmasters? 21 A. Well, I think so. You know, any business exists on its 22 ability to fund its outgoings. If it's not able to do 23 that, then it will no longer exist. It's as simple as 24 that. 25 Q. Having been appointed the new leader of the NFSP, was 60 1 your primary concern to ensure the survival of the 2 organisation, rather than to obtain justice for 3 subpostmasters who'd been wrongly convicted? 4 A. No. I think, you know, we've got a -- postmasters need 5 a body that represents them. It needs a body that can 6 do that but I think sort of what we really need to take 7 into account here is the culture within the Post Office. 8 I don't -- personally I don't think the GFA is 9 necessarily the issue. I think the culture within the 10 Post Office is. If the culture within the Post Office 11 is that they act in an honourable manner, then the GFA 12 works. But if you've got an organisation that is 13 incapable of doing it that and is going to use every 14 trick in the book and everything that it can to push 15 forward its view and defend its position, then it 16 doesn't matter what kind of -- it doesn't really matter. 17 It's not going to work. 18 The culture in the Post Office is the problem. Sort 19 the culture in the Post Office and we don't have 20 a problem. What we've seen over the last couple of days 21 in relation to the Postmaster Non-Executive Directors is 22 exactly how the Post Office works today. That's the 23 problem, not the GFA, in my view. 24 You know, we need something to be able to hold the 25 Post Office to account, and the fact of the matter is, 61 1 over this period, the Post Office has not been held to 2 account, by -- not been able to be held to account by 3 anyone, and it has done everything it possibly can to 4 obfuscate and to push through so it gets its views. 5 So, obviously, I'm sure you're wanting to come on to 6 it, is the new GFA and, you can see, sort of straight 7 away, so, like, I'm looking to remove these clauses. 8 Why these clauses were originally in the GFA, I don't 9 know, I can't say because I wasn't sort of party to it. 10 Do I agree with them? No. Should they be removed? 11 Absolutely. And, thankfully, they now have. 12 Q. If, as you say the problem resides not in the GFA but in 13 the culture of the Post Office, why have you, in your 14 words, worked so hard to remove them from the agreement? 15 A. Well, is the culture in the Post Office today where it 16 needs to be? No, it's not. You know, we can see that. 17 This business is in absolute meltdown from the top. 18 It's Board, it's senior management, they're just 19 incapable of working in the right way. What Justice 20 Fraser has pointed to these as clauses that are -- were 21 problematic to him, we've followed the guidance from 22 Justice Fraser to have those removed. But I still 23 think, if we have the right culture within the business, 24 then we can move forward. 25 I mean, from what I want, is I want Government, the 62 1 Civil Service, the Post Office, postmasters, working 2 together in unity and harmony for the good of this 3 business, not a business working for its own benefit. 4 And that's exactly what the Post Office has been doing, 5 and that's the problem. And if they were prepared to 6 behave in the right moral manner, we don't have 7 a problem. 8 The fact of the matter is, Lord Justice Fraser and 9 this Inquiry have demonstrated, time after time after 10 time, that this business is incapable of acting in the 11 right manner. How difficult has the Inquiry felt, with 12 all the power, authority and influence you have, in 13 getting this business to provide you with the 14 information to engage with this Inquiry in the right 15 manner? You've found it virtually impossible. The 16 frustration -- I've sat here in this room, time after 17 time, experiencing the frustration that the Inquiry has, 18 because the culture in the Post Office simply isn't 19 there. Get that sorted and I think we have a chance; if 20 the Post Office continues on its current trajectory, in 21 the manner it is, we don't, and postmasters will suffer 22 as a result, and we've got to get it right. 23 Q. It might be suggested, Mr Greenhow, that, in your 24 evidence to this Inquiry, you are seeking to shift the 25 blame away from your organisation's focus on its own 63 1 financial interests and are laying blame squarely on the 2 Post Office; would that be fair? 3 A. I think that's taking it a little bit sort of far. 4 I am -- you know, the reality is the NFSP, I think, 5 quite in essence, was on the wrong side of right, here. 6 We cannot escape that, and we -- I have been open from 7 when I came in, I have offered my apologies, I have been 8 open and straight with people that the NFSP got it 9 wrong. My predecessors put their faith in the Post 10 Office rather than actually in postmasters. They 11 believed the Post Office, rather than believing their 12 own fellow colleagues. The simple reality is they got 13 it wrong. 14 So I'm not trying to shift responsible at all but 15 I am trying to sort of highlight that the culture within 16 the Post Office is the fundamental problem. They misled 17 everybody. 18 Q. But do you accept that you and your colleagues put the 19 financial interests of your organisation above the 20 interests of its members? 21 A. When? 22 Q. In its decision to refuse to support the Group 23 Litigation? 24 A. I -- no, I don't think they did but I do think that 25 George's view of the past was fundamentally wrong and 64 1 I don't think -- I mean, obviously you've had the 2 opportunity to ask George that and, unfortunately, you 3 didn't get the opportunity to get that out of him, but 4 certainly from -- I can't answer for the past on that 5 basis but I can talk about, from my own part, and I've 6 certainly put the financial position of the NFSP before 7 members. In fact, I think the evidence demonstrates 8 that. 9 Q. You've explained in your statement that you had not 10 anticipated the NFSP would become a focus of criticism 11 in the litigation? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. One of the criminals which was made by Mr Justice 14 Fraser, as he then was, in his Common Issues judgment 15 concerned the NFSP's publication of the Grant Framework 16 Agreement on its website. In summary, the criticism 17 which was made of the NFSP was that, during the Common 18 Issues trial, it had made changes to its website to add 19 a link to the Framework Agreement in circumstances which 20 were highly suspicious. Do you agree that's a fair 21 characterisation of the criticism that was made -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- by Mr Justice Fraser. The reasons why these changes 24 to the website appeared suspicious to him at the time 25 were that, firstly, the link to the Framework Agreement 65 1 had not been present at the start of the Common Issues 2 trial, and the link had been added during the trial in 3 a manner which appeared to support the Post Office's 4 case. Again, is that a fair summary of what the 5 judge -- 6 A. That's what Lord Justice Fraser -- however, I think as 7 you know I can -- 8 Q. Yes, we'll come on to your explanation but just -- 9 A. Yes, yeah -- 10 Q. -- to place it in context -- 11 A. -- that's exactly what he said. 12 Q. -- that was the nature of the criticism? 13 I'd like to ask you, please, first, to clarify when 14 it was that the framework agreement was first published 15 on the NFSP's website. 16 A. I can't answer that. That was before my time. 17 Q. Please can NFSP00000728 be shown on the screen. Thank 18 you. So this is an email chain, an internal email 19 chain -- 20 A. Sorry, before you go on, can I highlight, so this is 21 just at the top, just for everybody's benefit, you can 22 see that's an email Calum Greenhow, 21 September 2023 to 23 Calum Greenhow, that was me in relation to a Rule 9 24 Request, that was me going through, as information that 25 could -- that complied with the Rule 9 Request, and 66 1 I couldn't print it off so I was having to email it to 2 myself so that could print it off. So that's -- if you 3 see that, that's the reason for it. 4 Q. We can see the date there is, of course, September 2023. 5 A. Yes, but it's -- you could look at that and go "Oh, its 6 Calum Greenhow at the top, so therefore he must have 7 known about it" but, actually, that's what I was doing. 8 Q. That, of course, significantly post-dates the actual 9 email? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So the chain we have there is dated December 2016. It 12 concerned the publication of the GLO. If we could go to 13 the bottom of page 1, please. Thank you. There's 14 an email from Nick Beal to George Thomson and copied to 15 Jenna Khalfan. Please could you explain Nick Beal's 16 role there, please? We can see there, at the bottom of 17 the page, he was Head of Agents' Development and 18 Remuneration? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. So his email reads, subject "Grant Agreement": 21 "Dear George 22 "Further to the discussions we have had between us 23 since the inception of the Grant Agreement in 2013, 24 I can confirm that we are now in a position to agree 25 publication of the agreement (and associated Novation 67 1 Agreement)." 2 Are you able to confirm: what was the purpose of the 3 novation agreement, do you recall? 4 A. Well, it was before my time. It may be in the bundle 5 but I can't remember offhand. 6 Q. "We have decided previously that this would be via NFSP 7 publishing via your website -- please proceed with this 8 as soon as possible. I have attached a PDF version of 9 each document -- please can you ensure for the GA [Grant 10 Agreement] it was clear that this was the version that 11 was entered into and the date of the agreement 12 (21/7/15). 13 "Please advise when this has been placed on your 14 website and a copy of the link." 15 If we scroll up, please, we can see an email from 16 Jenna Khalfan to George Thomson, so this now 17 19 December: 18 "George, 19 "I'm going to publish the attached grant agreement 20 on the 'about us' page on our website. Do I need to 21 publish the deed of novation too?" 22 So far as you're aware, is this the best evidence 23 which the NFSP has as to the date on which the Framework 24 Agreement was first published on the website? 25 A. To my knowledge, yes. 68 1 Q. We know that by early October 2018, the GFA had been 2 removed from the website. 3 A. That was during the GLO, yeah. 4 Q. Exactly. In your statement you say that the GFA was 5 removed as part some improvements that were being made 6 by the Communications Director; is that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. At that stage that would have been Ms Eccles? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. When were these improvements made which resulted in the 11 removal of the GFA? 12 A. They were ongoing at that period of time, so late 2018. 13 Q. So after your appointment as CEO? 14 A. Yeah, yeah. 15 Q. So they coincided with the Common Issues trial; is that 16 essentially what you're saying? 17 A. They did, yes. 18 Q. But the agreement was removed before the trial 19 commenced? 20 A. I don't know if it was removed before the trial 21 commenced but I'm aware that it obviously was removed, 22 and then subsequently put back up. 23 Q. Why was there any need to remove the agreement from the 24 website? 25 A. So Lynn -- I mean, in essence, one of the -- you know, 69 1 through conversation that Lynn and I had been having, we 2 just felt that, in essence, I was a different person, 3 I have a different character, I have a different 4 outlook, that there were many aspects of the Federation 5 that were kind of oldie, and we wanted to really give 6 the whole outlook and business a freshen-up, in essence. 7 So we introduced you to our mission vision in 8 values, we were changing our colour schemes, the logo, 9 our tone of voice. We were doing -- going through doing 10 a new website, and Lyn felt that the "About Us" was not 11 the right place for it to be. She was going to put it 12 into a different part of the new website that she was 13 working on, and she had taken it off as she was working 14 on that particular page. That's certainly what she had 15 told me at the time. 16 Q. Could the GFA, could the agreement, not have remained on 17 the website pending its relocation? 18 A. It could have. 19 Q. You go on to explain in your statement that Ms Eccles 20 decided to place the GFA back on to the website but when 21 she discovered that its publication had become the 22 subject of discussion in the Common Issues trial; is 23 that right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you discuss this decision with her at the time? 70 1 A. Not until afterwards, actually. It wasn't a case of -- 2 she was following Nick Wallis' live blog, which was very 3 helpful, I was busy dealing with other things and, 4 obviously, she realised that it was there and, as I've 5 explained in my statement, she felt that people might go 6 and have a look for it. So she decided to put it back 7 on. 8 Q. It is an odd coincidence that these changes coincided 9 with the Common Issues trial? 10 A. Call it a coincidence; these do happen. 11 Q. But you can understand, can you, why the judge at least 12 appeared to think that was something that was quite 13 suspicious? 14 A. Yeah, I can understand, given sort of everything that he 15 was hearing, of course, I wasn't aware of exactly 16 everything he was hearing. I wasn't aware of all the 17 bundles all the evidence that he was getting but, yes, 18 I could understand it. But, from my perspective, as 19 I was looking at it, I know that there was nothing 20 suspicious about it, there was nothing going on, and we 21 were certainly not trying to bolster the position of the 22 Post Office. I know that for a fact. 23 Q. Was Ms Eccles concerned, based on your discussions with 24 her, to answer the criticisms that were being made in 25 the proceedings about the lack of transparency that the 71 1 NFSP and the Post Office were showing in relation to the 2 terms of the agreement? 3 A. No, I think it was more -- it's being discussed, people 4 might go and look for it, we'd better make sure that 5 it's there. I don't think there was anything of any 6 transparent concerns that were going on. 7 Q. I'd like to move on to a new topic, please. This 8 concerns the outcome of the Group Litigation and how the 9 NFSP has responded to the issues raised in the judgment 10 of Mr Justice Fraser. How would you characterise your 11 initial reaction to the Common Issues judgment? 12 A. Well, I think there was an email where I -- I think 13 I sent to the Board, where I outline that the Common 14 Issues ruling has been handed down, that we need to read 15 it, we need to understand it. It was a long, obviously, 16 ruling, and, again, not I'm not a lawyer, it's going to 17 be take me a little bit time to actually understand the 18 nuance of it. Obviously, there's a lot of legal speak, 19 sort of in it which, I -- to someone who is not trained 20 might be difficult to understand. So let's take time to 21 actually fully understand exactly what's going on. 22 At the same time, across social media, there were 23 those who have an anti-NFSP feeling, who were using that 24 to challenge the NFSP, undermine the NFSP, criticise the 25 NFSP in front of our peers, and that caused us to have 72 1 to, in essence, do a bit of a knee-jerk response without 2 really fully understanding exactly what Justice Fraser 3 had said. But, given the fact that they were focusing 4 on those specific aspects of, was it -- well, it was 5 clause 574 onwards, and (f), within his ruling, that 6 covered the NFSP. We had to respond to that. 7 But I think, as -- yeah, it's not what I wanted to 8 do, but I felt I had to say something, and I very 9 quickly -- once that was dealt with, very quickly was 10 able to focus on exactly what it was that Justice Fraser 11 said, and I think so that the evidence is there, that we 12 really start to really, you know -- the full reality of 13 exactly what the Post Office had done, and the exposure 14 to risk that postmasters, all postmasters and all 15 employees of the Post Office, in essence, anyone who 16 worked behind the counter of a Post Office, was faced. 17 And we really, you know, with -- we really couldn't 18 believe that the most trusted brand in the Post Office, 19 a government-owned department, could behave in the way 20 they actually did and you can see that sort of from the 21 statements that we were putting out at that time, that 22 there was one statement that we put out that has a bit 23 of a knee-jerk, but the rest of it was very much 24 critical of the Post Office and supportive of the 25 victims of this miscarriage of justice. 73 1 Q. It might be suggested, Mr Greenhow, that in the 2 explanation you've just given, you're somewhat 3 downplaying the sense of anger and frustration which you 4 expressed at the time, at the judgment of Mr Justice 5 Fraser in the Common Issues trial; is that fair? 6 A. Sorry, could you explain just what you're meaning by 7 that? 8 Q. I'm suggesting that you are downplaying the anger and 9 frustration that you felt at the time about what was 10 said about the NFSP in the Common Issues judgment; is 11 that fair? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Please can we look at NFSP00000558. These are the 14 minutes of a Board meeting held in March 2019 at which 15 you gave a presentation to the Board about the Common 16 Issues judgment; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. We can see a description of your initial reaction at the 19 top of page 6, please. The third paragraph reads: 20 "General outrage that the judge should see fit to 21 cast aspersions about the NFSP who played no part in the 22 trial, gave no evidence, were not asked for 23 documentation, or given the right to defend ourselves." 24 Does that accurately summarise how you felt about 25 the judgment when it was first handed down? 74 1 A. I think we were surprised, as the -- is the reality of 2 it. We -- you know, we just felt that in essence, 3 bemused, and again, I appreciate, as a lawyer who is 4 experienced in these things, but to people who are not, 5 we just couldn't sort of -- we didn't realise that we 6 would be focused -- be such a focus and, obviously, 7 there were things that were being said about the NFSP at 8 the time by others that were really making it difficult 9 for us -- making it difficult for the NFSP. 10 You know, the reality sort of was that we were also 11 aware that there were things that he said, ie "highly 12 suspicious", we knew that wasn't correct, we had 13 "bolstered the position of the Post Office", we knew 14 that wasn't correct and, you know, we were stunned, in 15 one sense. 16 Q. It appears that your initial focus was upon the 17 reputation of the organisation; is that fair? 18 A. The immediate sort of aspect, the reputation of the 19 NFSP, yes, of course. The reality is that, you know, as 20 an organisation, you know, we wanted to help 21 postmasters. We wanted to sort of make sure. We are 22 postmasters. You know, at this moment in time, I still 23 own a post office. I want to make sure that this 24 network not just survives but it thrives. I want to 25 make sure that sort of postmasters are able to continue 75 1 to provide services in their community, and there were 2 those who were really trying to make it difficult for 3 the NFSP and they were using the judgment as a weapon to 4 criticise us. So that's, in essence, what we were 5 feeling. It wasn't just about what Lord Justice Fraser 6 had said it was about, sort of, actually, the level of 7 stuff that was being mentioned across social media. 8 Q. Would I be right to say that your initial feelings of 9 anger gave way to a period of reflection and have 10 resulted in changes being made to the organisation -- 11 A. Oh, absolutely. 12 Q. -- and structure of the NFSP -- 13 A. Absolutely, absolutely. I think, if I may, you can sort 14 of see the before the judgment that has come out, that 15 I was trying to make those and, in essence, I could see 16 this -- and this might sound wrong, so please forgive 17 me -- a little bit of a distraction, and where I felt 18 that I needed to take the business and where the Board 19 needed to take the NFSP, for the good of postmasters, 20 for the benefit of postmasters, that this was going to 21 make it difficult, this was making the journey or the 22 hill steeper and, as I say, there were those who were 23 trying to really weaponise the judgment against the NFSP 24 and, you know, this was kind of taking us back a step or 25 two. 76 1 Whether that was going to make it more difficult for 2 us to make the changes within the NFSP that we needed to 3 and, in essence, this has haunted me all of the way 4 through sort of the time I've been the Chief Executive 5 of the NFSP. 6 I know what I need to do in this business. My board 7 knows what we need to do in this business to really take 8 this organisation forward for the good and benefit of 9 postmasters and, you know, people try to weaponise this 10 and it makes the harder. I keep on having to come back 11 to this, and deal with it, rather than being able to do 12 what I need to do, what we need to do to move the NFSP 13 forward for the good of postmasters. 14 Q. The first initiative which I'd like to examine with you 15 relates to the recording and monitoring of members' 16 concerns. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Prior to the GLO, is it right that there was no system 19 in place which required local representatives whether 20 Branch Secretaries or Regional Secretaries -- 21 A. No. 22 Q. -- to report to central office the issues which were 23 being communicated by their members? 24 A. No. 25 Q. There was also no system in place to enable the central 77 1 recording and monitoring of such issues; is that right? 2 A. I would say to my knowledge, no. 3 Q. Please can you describe the action which you have taken 4 to address this problem? 5 A. So one of the things that sort to we've tried to put in 6 a place or have put into place is the collation -- 7 there's a spreadsheet that we deal with on a weekly 8 basis. If any branch secretary has received a call from 9 a member, that they fill in a form. They do it on 10 a weekly basis. That sort of automatically comes into 11 the central -- into the central NFSP and that is 12 collated onto a central record and then myself and two 13 employees of the NFSP on a monthly basis go through that 14 to ascertain whether there's any anomalies or any issues 15 that we really need to highlight. 16 That is then put into data that is provided to the 17 board. We put it into The SubPostmaster so that members 18 are aware of exactly what's going on. 19 Q. So, in your statement, you've mentioned that the 20 spreadsheet is collated and it culminates in a quarterly 21 report to the Board. You've explained that the most 22 common issues raised, I think in at least the last year, 23 relate to the Historic Shortfall Scheme -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- is that correct? 78 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Please can you describe the nature of the concerns that 3 are still being raised by your members in relation to 4 the scheme? 5 A. I -- well, lately, what people have -- they've been 6 receiving the letters in relation to the 75,000, and 7 they've thought it was a scam. So they've been calling 8 us to say, "Is this right?" We've been able to 9 obviously assure them that it is. Others, you know, 10 "Just how long -- you know, how long is it taking? How 11 do I fill out the form? Where can I get the form? Can 12 I still apply?" All things like that. 13 Q. It sounds from your description that those are more 14 queries than complaints; is that fair? 15 A. Yeah, I would say so, yeah. 16 Q. Now, another method I think you've mentioned in your 17 statement for canvassing views of the membership is the 18 use of surveys; is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. How frequently are they undertaken? 21 A. On a monthly basis. We have done two large case member 22 surveys, 2019 and 2021, and on both of those occasions 23 I think we had about 1,000 postmasters that were 24 involved in that, and that was done to quite a -- I'm 25 not a statistician or -- I don't know what the term is 79 1 but anyway -- a researcher. So -- but they're done to 2 industry standards and, you know, the information that 3 came back. 4 So we made sure there was a certain number of local 5 post offices, mains post offices, different contracts, 6 traditional contracts and also spread around the country 7 as well. So there we really got a very broad 8 cross-section, so we had an understanding of exactly 9 what it is the postmasters think. 10 The monthly ones are just put out and it's for any 11 postmaster to respond. So it's not done to the gold 12 standard. It's just literally a survey that goes out 13 and people respond. 14 Q. Now, I think it's your evidence that, during the period 15 covered by this Inquiry, there was no formal 16 whistleblowing policy or complaints procedure in place 17 within the NFSP; is that correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. What action have you taken to address that gap in the 20 procedures? 21 A. Well, we've done that now and we've obviously supplied 22 those to the Inquiry, they're on our website now and, 23 with the help of our Legal Team, we've drafted them, and 24 they are now available. 25 Q. And -- 80 1 A. So that's a whistleblowing, a complaints and also 2 an equality and diversity policy. 3 Q. They're now all publicly available on your website? 4 A. They're available to the members on our member -- so 5 there's two sides to our website; there's the members 6 side and then the public side, so they're available on 7 the members side. 8 Q. Why are they not available on the public side? 9 A. It's for members, so that's why we've put it on that 10 side. 11 Q. The second initiative which I would like to examine with 12 you concerns the provision of training given to those 13 responsible for representing subpostmasters in disputes 14 with the Post Office. You've explained in your 15 statement that, when you were appointed a branch 16 secretary in 2012, there was no formal training on the 17 conduct of interviews; is that correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. You say that you believe this resulted in a lack of 20 consistency in the support which was provided to 21 subpostmasters in the period covered by this Inquiry; is 22 that right? 23 A. Would agree with that. 24 Q. You have launched an initiative which you describe as 25 the advocacy representative project? 81 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Can you please describe that project which you've 3 established to address this issue? 4 A. So, again, sort of listening to the GLO and listening 5 to -- and taking my own experience into account, I felt 6 that, you know, dealing with the Post Office is not 7 an easy -- not an easy thing. As far as any policies, 8 procedures, the way the Post Office go about things, 9 they can change and, therefore, I felt that it was right 10 and appropriate that we had properly trained 11 individuals, a small team, that if there was 12 a contractual issue that may result in a suspension or 13 termination, that it wasn't just anybody who would deal 14 with thats. We would have a small team that could work 15 together, pool their resources together, pool their 16 experience together and, you know, make sure that, if 17 a colleague was in that situation again, as we've heard 18 just over the last couple of days just how harrowing 19 that can be, that the NFSP is there to challenge the 20 Post Office appropriately and to make sure that 21 everything is being done to investigate exactly why 22 a discrepancy has taken place, and that it's not simply, 23 "You're short, you owe us the money, if you don't give 24 us the money we're going to terminate your contract". 25 Q. You said in your statement you now have six dedicated 82 1 representatives who are trained in the Post Office's 2 contracts to represent subpostmasters -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- interview. Who provided or who provides the training 5 to those representatives? 6 A. So it was in-house that we did that. However, we did 7 seek the support and help of our employment 8 professionals, HR:4UK, and they gave us guidance on how 9 to do that. We have continued to reflect and continued 10 to look at that, and we are now engaging with ACAS 11 because they have a mediation service and we're looking 12 to sort of see if that could be something that would 13 actually sit better for us, so that it would be not only 14 an external, but it would be an accredited 15 qualification. So we're in the process of looking at 16 that and seeing if that would work and sit with us. 17 Q. How is the performance of these new representatives 18 monitored by the NFSP; do you have any systems in place 19 for that purpose? 20 A. Good question. We don't have any KPIs if that's what 21 you're referring to, but I do meet with the two 22 individuals who are responsible for overlooking -- for 23 overlooking this and, in essence, you know, going 24 through and ascertaining whether the right decision has 25 been reached. I've not, as I've looked at things, had 83 1 any issues or any worries as far as outcomes are 2 concerned. However, I do -- we do feel that it would be 3 better for us to have an external accredited 4 qualification to give our members greater confidence in 5 relation to the quality of knowledge and understanding 6 that we have in that area. 7 Q. Thank you. In your statement, you've described the 8 current approach that's adopted by the NFSP when 9 supporting subpostmasters in disputes with the Post 10 Office. That's at paragraph 273 of your statement, 11 please, at WITN00370100. Thank you. The paragraph can 12 be found at page 94 going onto page 95. Thank you very 13 much. If we scroll down, please, thank you. So that 14 reads: 15 "Where the NFSP is asked for help, our goal is to 16 ensure that Post Office is respectful, helpful in terms 17 of providing access to any information, carries out 18 a full and thorough investigation and is understanding 19 in terms of any conclusion. In terms of 20 an investigation, Post Office must answer the three 21 questions of 22 "(a) Is it computer error? 23 "(b) Has someone made a mistake and why? 24 "(c) Have the funds of the Post Office been used in 25 the manner they are not intended and by whom?" 84 1 You go on to say: 2 "If Post Office cannot answer these questions 3 factually, then the postmaster should not be held to 4 account. Some of these cases are very complex and are 5 being dealt with by the relevant police authorities." 6 Now, earlier in your evidence we examined a case in 7 which the Post Office did not provide the information 8 which you had requested on behalf of a member. What is 9 your organisation doing now to ensure that full 10 disclosure is being provided to subpostmasters as you've 11 outlined here? 12 A. Well, when it comes to -- there are certain -- there are 13 certain reports that the Post Office does, and that is 14 the first thing that we sort of ask for and, if we don't 15 get those, we don't move forward. It's as simple as 16 that. But I have to sort of say, Post Office -- 17 certainly my understanding is -- are far more 18 transparent than they have been in the past, and 19 certainly going back to 2016, if we asked for 20 information, they will usually provide it. There's 21 not -- it's not been reported to me any concerns and any 22 issues on that. 23 Q. So is it your evidence that these questions that you've 24 outlined here, they are now being answered, to your 25 knowledge, satisfactorily by the Post Office in cases in 85 1 which your members are concerned? 2 A. To my knowledge, yes. 3 Q. I'd like to examine with you now the efforts you've made 4 to bring about cultural change within the NFSP. You 5 identify in your statement a number of initiatives, 6 which you have adopted to improve the culture of the 7 NFSP and the wellbeing of its members. One of those 8 initiatives is the establishment of a Culture Committee. 9 Can you please explain the background to that? 10 A. So we haven't -- that's not established yet. We're in 11 the process of doing that. As I highlighted, we had 12 Darren Burns from the Timpson Group come along to the 13 NFSP conference this year. In preparation for Darren 14 coming, I read Sir John Timpson's book, Upside Down 15 Management, and I came across this within his book and 16 he explained it beautifully, and I thought, "This is 17 exactly what we need. We need to do this". 18 As I've highlighted sort of before, I'm an inclusive 19 person rather than exclusive person. I want to 20 encourage people, I want to lift people up, I want to 21 encourage them on. I enjoy hearing and listening to 22 different voices, different viewpoints. But I do think 23 that, culturally, as I've already highlighted, the Post 24 Office has clearly not moved forward in any way, shape 25 or form since the GLO. I also think that there's 86 1 a level of toxicity in the network, as a result of that. 2 Postmasters are understandably very, very worried 3 about their future and the viability of their business 4 and I think that is -- that pressure is causing some to 5 maybe act in a manner that maybe doesn't quite sort of 6 reach the standards that postmasters should maintain 7 and, therefore, on that basis, I think it's important 8 that we have postmasters themselves helping us to 9 establish what it is that that standard should be. What 10 is it -- you know, we can all sit here and say that 11 subpostmasters are good, honest, decent people, fine, 12 upstanding pillars of the community, which 13 I fundamentally believe that they are, but what's wrong 14 within the network? And I do believe that it's very 15 important that we all take a good look at ourselves in 16 the mirror, everyone who has been involved in this, and 17 go, "Where did we get this wrong? How can -- you know, 18 where's our culture part of the problem?" And it's very 19 easy for us to point the finger of blame at sort of like 20 other people but we've got to sort of first and foremost 21 look at ourselves. 22 And, therefore, what I'm looking for is I'm looking 23 for postmasters to help us make sure that the culture 24 within the network is right, so that we can help take 25 this business forward and make sure that postmasters' 87 1 businesses are as viable as they possibly can. 2 So I don't want to be prescriptive as to what that 3 is, but I'm looking for ten people across the country, 4 one per region -- if there's more than one person comes 5 forward, they will have a democratic vote on that within 6 the region -- but I will be looking, and then, once that 7 Culture Committee has been established, we will sit down 8 and we will look at what is it that the focus of that 9 committee is going to be, what is it that's going to be 10 the priorities and how are we going to bring that about? 11 Q. Mr Greenhow, in answer to my question about the NFSP's 12 culture, you said that you don't believe that the 13 culture of the Post Office has moved on. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. We'll come on a little later to the culture of the Post 16 Office but I want to test with you whether that's a fair 17 statement in light of the evidence that you've just 18 given about the approach that the Post Office is taking 19 to its investigation as to contractual shortfalls and 20 the disclosure that it's providing. You've just told 21 the Inquiry that, so far as you are aware, proper and 22 adequate disclosure is being provided now by the Post 23 Office in the context of those investigations. So does 24 that not reflect some change of culture and attitude 25 within the organisation? 88 1 A. I would accept that and, actually, I have to sort of say 2 that -- and again, I say it in my statement, that, 3 actually, within the branch assurance team, I think 4 there are real major changes there and real efforts to 5 be far more open and transparent as -- than what 6 I experienced in the past. Sorry, I was, in essence, 7 highlighting at a senior level that the -- you know, and 8 what we've heard and what we've listened to, certainly 9 in relation to the two Postmaster Non-Executive 10 Directors and what they've experienced. 11 Clearly there are still a long way still to go, but 12 yes, there is -- I would say there are some lovely, 13 lovely people within the Post Office who really want to 14 engage in work and have the right attitude. I'm not 15 saying all is bad. There are some aspects that are 16 positive, and I think that comes down to the 17 individuals, and we have to encourage them and support 18 them as they move forward in that, and really try to 19 make that cultural change that is required. 20 Q. Before we move off this topic, please, I'd like to ask 21 you about a recent decision of the NFSP to refuse the 22 application of an individual who wished to be admitted 23 as a member. 24 So far as the rules governing membership of the NFSP 25 are concerned, you've explained in your statement, 89 1 firstly, that anyone who holds a contract to operate as 2 a subpostmaster may be admitted to the organisation; is 3 that correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. That, secondly, the Board of the NFSP has the right, in 6 its reasonable discretion, to refuse to admit 7 an applicant and not to provide its reasons for doing 8 so; is that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And that there is no right of appeal in respect of that 11 decision? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. That's all provided for in the NFSP's Articles of 14 Association? 15 A. Which were obviously laid down in 2015 when we became 16 a company limited by guarantee. 17 Q. Now I wonder if we could turn, please, to -- 18 A. Can I just come back to that, if I may. I'd love to 19 change the Articles of Association because I feel 20 there's a lot in there that we need to shift forward on. 21 It's a huge piece of work and I've tried to do some 22 things, particularly around the branch and regional 23 secretaries, just to give them far greater prominence 24 and position within the NFSP, but there's a lot that 25 I would like to -- but if I may, I haven't actually sat 90 1 down with someone who is legally -- who would have 2 a legal understanding and gone through it line by line 3 and said, "Yeah, you need to change this, this would be 4 a good idea", and I do think that allowing an appeal 5 process would be a good thing to introduce. 6 And it's something I would like to do in -- maybe 7 when this Inquiry is all over. But it's consumed my 8 life for the last four years, as I'm sure it has yours, 9 and, you know, I feel that I need to deal with this now 10 and then I'll deal with that then. But there's a lot in 11 those Articles of Association that I think I would like 12 to change. 13 But when that happens, it will be done with the help 14 and support of postmasters, the membership of the NFSP. 15 Q. Thank you. Please could we bring up your statement at 16 page 106, please, where we can the explanation that 17 you've given and the reasons you've given as to why the 18 Board refused that application. Paragraph 299, please. 19 Thank you. You say there: 20 "In this calendar year, one application was refused. 21 This is the only application I am aware of being refused 22 since I came into post as Chief Executive. This 23 application came from someone who had previously been 24 a member of the NFSP. I have highlighted above the 25 behaviour of some on social media, whether by members or 91 1 former members, and the mental health impact of that on 2 our employees and [postmasters]." 3 Just pausing there, please, we haven't gone to that. 4 Can you describe what you're referring there, the 5 behaviour on social media and the impact that this had 6 on your employees? 7 A. Yeah, so the individual -- I'm not sure if I'm 8 allowed -- I don't know if I can talk about the 9 specifics or the generality but let me be general and, 10 if you feel you want me to be specific, I'm more than 11 happy to be. 12 But there are some within the network who use social 13 media to -- and that causes postmaster colleagues and 14 NFSP employees quite considerable mental stress. To 15 give an example, there was -- just about ten days ago 16 there was, on a social media site, an encouragement to 17 postmasters to single out and target a member of -- 18 an employee of the NFSP, to harass them for a bit of 19 fun. 20 Obviously, on Monday, Tuesday, the Inquiry heard 21 about, you know, playground, schoolboy antics. I don't 22 consider that to necessarily fall into that level. To 23 specifically target an individual, to harass them, 24 I again, I don't think meets the standards of how 25 postmasters should behave. On groups, to encourage 92 1 people to behave in that way, to me, is not acceptable. 2 And, therefore, if we are aware of that going on, 3 you know, it's not how we want -- it's part of the 4 reason why we want to set up the Culture Committee. 5 It's part of the reason why we want to do that. So that 6 postmasters, whilst we understand people's frustration, 7 there's a limit to sort of where that should go and 8 a limit to how that should -- you know, there's below 9 the line and there's above the line. There's acceptable 10 and unacceptable. And we just felt that, in this case, 11 the individual had displayed some of that in the past 12 and had caused employees distress and that, by admitting 13 the individual back into the NFSP, that was only 14 inviting or allowing that to happen again. 15 Therefore, on that basis, we have a duty of care 16 towards not only our postmaster members but our NFSP 17 employees and, therefore, reluctantly -- and we 18 deliberated at great length -- we decided that, you 19 know, to protect our members, that was the right 20 decision. 21 It's not what we want to do but, you know, some 22 people -- it doesn't matter what you say, they're not 23 prepared to -- they think they can do what they want, 24 when they want, how they want and, if you disagree with 25 them, they will use any avenue that they possibly can to 93 1 call you for whatever. Well, that's not acceptable. 2 That's -- I personally don't think that that's the 3 standard that postmasters should behave in. 4 Q. I just wanted to clarify with you, to make sure I've 5 fully understood the reasons. What I understand you to 6 be saying is that this individual applicant had been 7 responsible in the recent past for posting social media 8 posts which were abusive in their content? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is that what you're saying? 11 A. And they had specifically hounded an NFSP employee and 12 caused them quite considerable distress. 13 Q. Again, sorry, it was this particular applicant who had 14 targeted -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- you say, one of your employees -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- on social media -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- in a manner that you've described as harassment, 21 harassing -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- is that correct? It was based on the content of the 24 abusive messages and the distress which it caused at 25 least one of your employees that the Board decided not 94 1 to admit this individual -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- into the NFSP, is that your evidence? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now -- 6 A. Can I also clarify that they didn't actually apply in 7 their name, they applied in a pseudonym. So -- again, 8 so we felt that that wasn't -- that that was 9 disingenuous, that if you're not willing to be open and 10 transparent with us as to who you are, that doesn't 11 really show respect towards the NFSP and, therefore, 12 again, that was also part of the reasons why we declined 13 their membership. 14 Q. Please can WITN00370127 be shown on the screen. Thank 15 you. If we scroll down, please -- sorry, if we could go 16 down a little bit further, thank you -- this appears to 17 be a draft of the letter which was sent to the applicant 18 refusing his application for membership; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So it's dated 13 March 2024 and reads: 22 "Dear Mr Jay 23 "Thank you for your email and completed NFSP 24 application form dated 6 February 2024. 25 "I am writing to inform you that a decision has been 95 1 made by the NFSP's Board members to decline your 2 application for NFSP membership. The decision will also 3 become applicable if you or any other member applies to 4 nominate you as an Organisational Representative and 5 I refer you to Section 9, Item 9.3 of our Articles of 6 Association [which provide] 'The council may in its 7 reasonable discretion decline to accept any person as 8 a Member and need not provide its reasons for so 9 doing'." 10 Now, in your statement and in your evidence today 11 you've given a detailed reason as to why the application 12 was refused. Why did this letter provide no reason to 13 the applicant explaining the grounds for the refusal of 14 his application? 15 A. We just thought it was -- that's the decision we had 16 made. We didn't have to, as per 9.3, provide a specific 17 reason for doing so. We just felt that that was 18 probably the simplest and easiest way to sort of deal 19 with it. I don't think they, you know, I -- knowing the 20 individual, it wouldn't matter what we put down, I don't 21 think it would have been accepted. It didn't matter 22 what we said. It would be used in a manner to undermine 23 the NFSP, you know, because that's the behaviour -- that 24 was the behaviour of the individual, and it's sad that 25 that's the case. 96 1 I would rather have -- as I say, I'm an inclusive 2 person. This is not something that sits easily with me, 3 it's not something that sits comfortably with me but 4 sometimes I have to make difficult decisions, and this 5 was one of them. 6 Q. The fact that you don't have a duty to give a reason, of 7 course, doesn't preclude you from giving a reason to the 8 applicant, does it? 9 A. Yeah, but, as I've already said, I don't think any 10 answer that we would have given would have -- there's -- 11 I don't think there was any way that the individual 12 would go "Yeah, fair enough. That's fair enough. 13 That's a fair point". This is not an individual sort of 14 who, you know, has -- any conversation, any discourse 15 that we've had with him over the period, has ever 16 accepted anything that we've said, you know, and as I've 17 said, has gone to quite significant lengths, and has 18 caused our employees -- some really, really good 19 people -- distress. 20 And despite trying to say, "Look, you know, just 21 tone it down and maybe there's a different way we can do 22 this, it's not going to happen", so, you know, as I say, 23 knowing the individual, it didn't matter what we said, 24 it was never going to be accepted, so just quote the 25 rules and move on. 97 1 Q. If you are concerned about the culture on social 2 media -- 3 A. Very concerned about the culture on social media. 4 Q. -- why, then, not explain to the applicant the reasons 5 why you considered their conduct to be unacceptable? 6 A. Because I think that's only just going to invite more, 7 and more, and more, and more. You know, the reality is, 8 this is, as I've tried to sort of say, this is not 9 someone who will take -- this is someone who believes 10 they can do what they want, when they want, how they 11 want and, if you happen to disagree with them, they will 12 go to extreme lengths to get their way, even if it's 13 causing people mental distress. That's of no concern. 14 So, you know, I don't think that there's any -- 15 sometimes you've really just got to go, "Sorry, no, move 16 on". 17 Q. Do you not think it would help, Mr Greenhow, to be more 18 transparent about your decision making in order to avoid 19 possible misunderstandings or suspicion about the 20 motives of the Board in turning down an application like 21 this? 22 A. If you're dealing with an individual who would be 23 willing to be reasonable on that matter, then, yes, 24 I would agree with you but, as I've tried to explain, it 25 doesn't matter what we said to this individual, they 98 1 would never take anything that we said as, "All right, 2 okay, fair enough. I've overstepped the line. Maybe 3 the language that I've used or maybe the things that 4 I've done, I've gone too far". He demonstrated that 5 time after time. So, as I say, it was simply, to 6 protect our employees from further potential harassment, 7 we felt that this was the right course of action. 8 MS HODGE: Thank you, sir, that brings us to the end of that 9 topic. I'm mindful it's 12.55. It may be sensible to 10 break now. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. 12 MS HODGE: Shall we return, then, at -- we can make it 2.00. 13 I don't think we're going to take up the whole of the 14 afternoon. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, that's fine. 16 MS HODGE: Thank you. 17 (12.57 pm) 18 (The Short Adjournment) 19 (2.00 pm) 20 MS HODGE: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us? 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 22 MS HODGE: Thank you. 23 Mr Greenhow, before I move on, is there anything 24 further you wish to say about the matters we were 25 discussing shortly before the lunch break? 99 1 A. No, that's okay. Thank you. 2 Q. My next topic is the extent of change which has been 3 brought about within the Post Office. 4 A. Sorry, the? 5 Q. Within the Post Office? 6 A. No, but change? 7 Q. The extent of change which has been bought about within 8 the Post Office? 9 A. Oh, sorry. Thank you. 10 Q. In your statement and in your evidence to the Inquiry 11 this morning, you've expressed concern that the culture 12 of the Post Office has not changed; is that correct? 13 A. Certainly, at a Board and senior executive level, yes. 14 Q. In your statement, you cite as an example the time which 15 it has taken to negotiate changes to the Grant Framework 16 Agreement -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- to remove the clauses which restricted the activities 19 of the NFSP -- 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. -- is that correct? 22 You describe those negotiations as protracted and 23 difficult; is that fair? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You suggest that, so far as you are concerned, they are 100 1 evidence of the fact that the leopard has not changed 2 its spots? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Please can we bring up your statement at paragraph 317, 5 page 113. You say there that: 6 "Post Office provided the NFSP with a note of 7 novation." 8 When was that, please; do you recall? 9 A. Yeah, it would be some point in 2019. The exact month 10 I can't remember but it would be in 2019. 11 Q. You say: 12 "The legal advice we received said this did not 13 address the specific clauses which were raised by Lord 14 Justice Fraser at paragraphs 590 and 596 of the Common 15 Issues Judgment [those being those] related to clauses 16 5, 17 and 26." 17 You say: 18 "The advice we received is that the [Grant Framework 19 Agreement] would require significant alteration to 20 comply with the Common Issues judgment." 21 You go on to say that an amended note of novation 22 was prepared by your solicitors and presented to the 23 Board of the NFSP in October 2019 and approved prior 24 being sent to Post Office for consideration. You then 25 say this: 101 1 "It has taken the best part of five years to get the 2 Post Office to the point of agreeing some of the changes 3 we were proposing." 4 Now, I think it's right to say that you attribute 5 that significant period of delay to the Post Office; is 6 that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. One of the issues you say that acted as a stumbling 9 block was their refusal to acknowledge that they had 10 a duty to act in good faith towards their members; is 11 that correct? 12 A. Well, acted -- one of the aspects that Lord Justice 13 Fraser talks about is that the Post Office had a duty to 14 act in good faith in relation to postmasters and he 15 makes such a -- that is really a central tenet of his 16 ruling, that we felt that it was important that, if that 17 is how the Post Office are supposed to behave towards 18 postmasters, that given the fact that the NFSP is 19 postmasters, then that's how they should act towards the 20 NFSP as well. 21 Q. If we could look, please, at paragraph 319, onto the 22 next page, please. So you explain there what you've 23 just said: that so far as you were concerned, this issue 24 of good faith was a central tenet of the judgment. You 25 say this: 102 1 "We proposed that the term 'good faith' be placed in 2 the recitals section, but this was ... rejected by Post 3 Office. The reality of the Post Office refusing all 4 attempts to include this tenet in the [Grant Framework 5 Agreement] gives voice to concerns that, culturally, 6 Post Office has not changed and that there is 7 an unwillingness by the Post Office to act in good faith 8 towards the NFSP and therefore our Postmaster members." 9 Now, a new Grant Framework Agreement has now been 10 signed by both the NFSP and the Post Office; is that 11 correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. For the benefit of the transcript, that document bears 14 the reference WITN00370137. Please could that be shown 15 on the screen. 16 Thank you. If we scroll over the page, please. 17 Thank you and, again, then down to page 1, please. Yes, 18 thank you, the first page of the agreement. So it's 19 dated 16 September 2024, so very recent. 20 A. It is. 21 Q. -- since the time that you produced your statement. By 22 way of background, it states this: 23 "[The Post Office] and NFSP are parties to a Grant 24 Framework Agreement originally entering into between 25 [the Post Office] and the unincorporated association 103 1 known as the National Federation of SubPostmasters dated 2 21 July 2015 and novated to the NFSP by a Deed of 3 Novation dated 5 November 2016 ..." 4 You may recall I asked you about the deed of 5 novation. Does that help you as to why there was a deed 6 of novation? 7 A. Yeah, but I'll be honest with you, I can't explain what 8 the deed of novation was about. Why there was 9 an update, I don't know. 10 Q. There seems to be a distinction being drawn here 11 between -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- the NFSP as a unincorporated association and its 14 subsequent incarnation as a private limited company. 15 A. So that may be the reason why, then because, certainly 16 when the Certification Officer ruled that we weren't 17 a trade union, we were unincorporated for a period of 18 time and then -- until we actually got ourselves 19 incorporated. 20 Q. It goes on to say this at B: 21 "Following Alan Bates and Others v Post Office 22 Limited (the Common Issues judgment), the parties have 23 agreed to amend the Original Grant Framework Agreement 24 to address those matters raised in the Common Issues 25 Judgment relating to the original Grant Framework 104 1 Agreement. 2 "The parties have therefore agreed to amend and 3 restate the original Grant Framework Agreement as set 4 out in this deed." 5 We can see it's at page 14, please, there's a new 6 clause 5. This reads "General conditions of the Grant": 7 "Both parties shall use reasonable endeavours to 8 identify any issues which will or may create tension 9 between the interests of [the Post Office] and those of 10 Postmasters and use reasonable endeavours to resolve any 11 such issues. 12 "For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby 13 acknowledged that the NFSP may: 14 "[Firstly] represent individual Postmasters; 15 "[Secondly] discuss and comment on [the Post 16 Office's] initiatives, policies or strategies with its 17 membership; 18 "[Thirdly] publicly comment on the same; 19 "[Fourthly] state and plea ins its opinions on the 20 same, even if not in support of [Post Office]; and 21 "[Finally] lobby relevant stakeholders such as BEIS 22 and Royal Mail Group Limited on behalf of its members." 23 So quite a significant change then, relative to the 24 provisions that we looked at this morning? 25 A. Yes, I mean, that's obviously in line with Lord Justice 105 1 Fraser's ruling and why did it take five years to do 2 that? I have no idea. 3 Q. I'd like to must move on, please, if I may to the 4 subject of audits and investigations. You've said 5 earlier in your evidence that I think you accept that 6 there has been a change of culture within the Post 7 Office, so far as their conduct of audits and 8 investigations is concerned; is that correct? 9 A. Yes, there has and I think that's down to the 10 individuals involved and I think they have to be 11 congratulated on that. However, that's not to sort of 12 say that we're kind of where we need to be. Not -- I do 13 feel that we need to do more and I still think the Post 14 Office is acting as judge, jury and executioner in 15 certain aspects, and we need to have something in place 16 that will enable the Post Office to bring its evidence, 17 particularly where there's a disagreement with the 18 postmaster, and the postmaster can bring their evidences 19 as well, and that can be deliberate on and discussed in 20 a far more open and transparent way rather than, as we 21 have seen, in relation to what took place with one of 22 the Postmaster Non-Executive Directors. 23 Q. Can you please clarify what you mean when you say that, 24 in certain respects, the Post Office is still acting as 25 judge, jury and executioner? 106 1 A. Well, they determine sort of whether there is 2 a shortfall. They'll obviously -- you know, as I've 3 said earlier on, there's the three questions: is it 4 Horizon; is it a mistake and by whom; or has the assets 5 been used in the manner that was not intended? 6 Postmasters are still explaining that they are 7 experiencing losses. They then receive a letter, which 8 isn't a demand for money but is, "You've got a debt", 9 and, you know, we need to be in a situation where the 10 Post Office are able to bring that to an open and 11 transparent conclusion, rather than it just going on and 12 going on. Some of these cases have been outstanding for 13 years because they can't be brought to a conclusion. 14 And I do think we need to be in a situation where we 15 have complete confidence in Horizon as a system. As 16 I've highlighted, postmasters are still experiencing 17 shortfalls. We've asked the Government for a full, 18 in-depth look at the hardware, the software, the 19 telecommunications, the processes, practices within 20 Fujitsu and also within the Post Office, but there's 21 a reluctance to do that. 22 I still think that there's a belief within the Post 23 Office that Horizon is robust. I had a conversation 24 with officials in the Department of Business and Trade 25 not that long ago where I asked the question, and I was 107 1 told the Post Office are telling them that the system is 2 robust. However, postmasters are experiencing 3 shortfalls. 4 So I think we need to -- there needs to be something 5 else there that enables both the Post Office and 6 postmasters to come together so that it's -- certainly 7 I can't remember if it was Saf or -- Mr Ismail or 8 Mr Jacobs who were talking about these being done 9 externally. I don't disagree with that to a point but 10 what we have been saying for a long period of time is 11 that there needs to be another process where the Post 12 Office can bring to an independent body and the 13 postmaster can bring to an independent body if they have 14 concerns about what the conclusion that the Post Office 15 draw. 16 Q. You've explained in your statement that the NFSP is 17 aware of four cases in which a subpostmaster has 18 requested support in their defence either of a criminal 19 prosecution -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- or a civil claim -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- and that, in one of those cases, the subpostmaster 24 has been exonerated; is that correct? 25 A. It was, yes. If I may sort of -- this wasn't something 108 1 that was done by Post Office. It was actually -- it was 2 the police who bought this. I don't think I should go 3 into maybe the specifics of the case, only on the basis 4 I'm not sure if I can, you know, within this framework 5 or not, but -- 6 Q. Well, let me ask you this: in relation to the 7 exoneration, you said that a criminal prosecution was 8 brought? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. At what stage was the subpostmaster exonerated? 11 A. I think it went to court and it was thrown out. 12 Q. Okay, so it will be a matter of public record. Did you 13 or any of your colleagues have any concerns about the 14 manner in which that case was investigated or the way in 15 which the prosecution was conducted? 16 A. Yes, but, as say it wasn't done by the police -- sorry, 17 it wasn't done by the Post Office; it was done by the 18 police, and I was concerned as to the way the police 19 were going about it. They seemed to just look at the 20 postmaster as guilty until proven otherwise. Hence, the 21 reason when they came to us, I know we need to get some 22 legal advice here, and I was directed to a solicitor who 23 would be able to help because it was down south and, 24 obviously, my connections are north of the border and 25 obviously a different jurisdiction, and I have to sort 109 1 of say I was delighted in the way that the solicitor 2 approached it, how they engaged with the NFSP, how they 3 sought the NFSP's help and guidance in relation to 4 things, and just how they approached the postmaster with 5 the greatest of respect and support right the way 6 through. 7 And the stress that that postmaster was under was 8 colossal but thankfully, ultimately, the right decision 9 was made. 10 Q. But to be clear, in this particular case, your concerns 11 related to the conduct of the police force -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- the officers investigating -- 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- rather than the Post Office? 16 A. Yes, the Post Office really didn't have anything to do 17 with it, as far as an investigation is concerned. 18 Q. You say in your statement that your relationship, the 19 relationship of the NFSP, with the leadership of the 20 Post Office is very strained? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You suggest there remains a lack of trust in the senior 23 management and Board of the Post Office -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and you cite as an example what you say was a failure 110 1 by the Post Office to be open and honest with the NFSP 2 about the extent of the problems that were being 3 encountered in the project to replace Horizon; is that 4 correct? 5 A. Not just the NFSP but other postmasters who were 6 present. 7 Q. Can you expand, please, on that? 8 A. Well, there was another group of postmasters who were 9 present. So there was myself and my Chair, Tim 10 Boothman, who were present at that, and there were other 11 postmasters who were present. 12 Q. At that meeting you were told what? 13 A. That there had been problems with the New Business IT, 14 but these had been overcome and that we were on track 15 and we've got a strategy ahead. 16 Q. Why do you characterise that as displaying a lack of 17 transparency? 18 A. Well, given the fact that the very following day 19 Computer Weekly gave a completely different story, the 20 accurate story, that there are serious, serious concerns 21 within Government in relation to how the programme is 22 being developed, the cost of the programme, not only is 23 it behind schedule it's being taken in-house, I can't 24 remember exactly what the department within Government 25 it's being looked at but it's all to do with -- I do 111 1 mention it in my statement -- but it's the part of 2 Government that looks after all the major 3 infrastructures like HS2, et cetera, that's looking 4 after it. 5 I think there was a Government Audit Team that had 6 looked at it and highlighted grave concerns so there was 7 nothing along those lines. 8 Kind of ironically, my wife and I had been given 9 tickets to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and we were sitting 10 in the theatre and on the break, and I looked at my 11 phone and up came the report from Computer Weekly. 12 I read it, I immediately emailed Nick Read and said, 13 "What the heck's going on here? This is not what you 14 told us yesterday". That resulted in a conversation on 15 the Friday with the Head of IT Services within the Post 16 Office and I simply said, "Listen, if I was the new 17 Chair and you had told me what you told me on Wednesday 18 and, on Thursday, I've learned what I've learned, what 19 do you think the conversation would be today?" 20 That's it. I mean, you had the most senior 21 individuals within the Post Office, from an executive 22 point of view in that meeting, bar obviously Al Cameron, 23 who was the Chief Financial Officer, and basically what 24 the NFSP and other postmasters were told was not 25 accurate. 112 1 Q. In your statement, you say that you believe the problem 2 lies in the governance of the Post Office? 3 A. Oh, without question, yes. 4 Q. But you don't believe that the creation of the 5 Subpostmaster Non-Executive Director is the answer to 6 that problem; is that right? 7 A. I think it brings a conflict on the basis that they have 8 their own businesses, potentially directors within their 9 own businesses and, therefore, they have to act in the 10 interests of the business of which they are a director. 11 It is possible, you know, they can't vote on a number of 12 things, particularly in relation to remuneration? So 13 I don't think it necessarily is the answer, no, and 14 unfortunately, you know, you have to listen with great 15 empathy and sympathy as to what both those two 16 Postmaster Non-Executive Directors have gone through. 17 They have tried everything they possibly can to try 18 to help this business turn around but this business is 19 not prepared to listen and it'll do anything and 20 everything to undermine anybody who threatens its 21 position of power, authority and influence. 22 Q. Your proposed solution to the problem is the 23 establishment of an oversight committee; is that 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. 113 1 Q. Can you please explain briefly what your proposal is in 2 that respect? 3 A. So it's actually quite common on the continent and I -- 4 you know, back in 2022, I was sitting thinking, what can 5 we do? I was understanding that the governance was the 6 problem and I really felt that the relationship between 7 Government and Civil Service and Post Office was the 8 fundamental problem that had resulted in this scandal 9 happening and everything was being done just to push it 10 down the line, push it down the line, push it down the 11 line. 12 So we needed to have a situation where we could have 13 a body that would sit alongside. It's not to replace, 14 it's not to slow things down or obfuscate things but 15 actually to sit alongside and hold the Post Office to 16 account. 17 Because the reality is, in my view, as I look back 18 on it, unfortunately, I don't think Government have 19 actually held Post Office to account and let me explain 20 why. 21 Back in 2018 the Post Office Board set a strategy 22 and that strategy was to ensure -- to defend the 23 indefensible and ensure that the victims remained guilty 24 and they knew that there was a problem but they still 25 went ahead with it. And that would have been done with 114 1 the knowledge, in my view, of Government, because 2 there's a Government representative on the Board. 3 After everything had taken place, not one Director 4 of the Board was asked to step down or looked at 5 themselves in the mirror and went, "Yeah, we got this 6 wrong". They all carried on. Indeed, the Chief 7 Executive, whilst she left the business, left with 8 a golden goodbye, a CBE and a job in the Cabinet Office. 9 That's hardly an indication of the owner of the 10 shareholder thinking that the Board had made the wrong 11 decision and given what came out right across the two -- 12 the Common Issues and the Horizon Issues judgments, 13 never mind the recusal. 14 So I felt that the relationship between Post Office, 15 the Civil Service and Government was where the problem 16 was. And I also think that, as a postmaster, as an -- 17 I am an investor -- well, I'm not a postmaster now, so 18 apologies, but I am -- my postmaster colleagues are 19 investors in this business and, over the last 30 years, 20 I've seen decision, after decision, after decision that 21 has resulted in the security in the viability of their 22 businesses being undermined and reduced. Postmasters' 23 income has declined from -- in '21 it's gone from 24 48 pence in the -- 25 Q. Mr -- 115 1 A. Sorry. So put all of that together, put all that 2 together, I just feel we need to have another body that 3 can actually hold the Post Office to account and can 4 work alongside it. And it's quite common, as I say, on 5 the continent. So that's what we came up with. 6 Q. Okay, so that's the background. What is your proposal 7 in relation to the composition of this committee? 8 A. So Government need to be on there, obviously they're the 9 shareholder. Obviously those who are the 10 representatives, so Unite, who represent the management 11 of the Post Office; the CWU, who represent the employees 12 of the Post Office; the NFSP who represents postmasters. 13 But I do think it's also really important we bring on 14 consumer champions because it's about -- you know, the 15 Post Office has a social purpose. So what is it that 16 society needs? What is it that the community needs from 17 the Post Office? 18 The Government are making decisions that are having 19 a detrimental impact; post offices are closing right 20 around the country; postmasters are no longer able to 21 afford to run their businesses; communities are being 22 left without post offices; services are being taken 23 away; and we need to bring those community champions or 24 those consumer champions on so that Government, when 25 it's making decisions, actually understand what 116 1 consumers need, rather than, in essence, decisions being 2 made that actually have a detrimental impact on 3 communities the length and breadth of the country. 4 Q. What I'd like to fix on, Mr Greenhow, is how to you 5 envisage this proposal for an oversight committee 6 bringing about change in the culture of the Post Office, 7 that being your primary concern, underlying a lot of the 8 other matters that you -- 9 A. Yeah, well, given the fact that Government will be on 10 that committee, then you're basically saying to the 11 Government, "You're the shareholder, you own this is 12 business. Here's the evidence that things are not 13 right. We've got to put that right". 14 If I go to -- 15 Q. Can I just pause you there. What you've just said, 16 essentially, is that you would like to have direct 17 access to the Government to be able to communicate the 18 concerns of the organisation and the concerns of your 19 members to ministers; is that the essence of it? 20 A. Well, yes, I think what we need to sort of be able to 21 sort of do is there is -- to our knowledge, there is no 22 strategy for the Post Office going forward. There isn't 23 one. And, to our knowledge, there really hasn't been 24 one for a significant period of time. Now, Post Office 25 might say something different. Just saying that's our 117 1 view. And, therefore, I think those who represent the 2 employees and the postmasters, but also consumers, need 3 to be able to work with Government, the shareholder, to 4 ensure that there is a strategy in place for the good of 5 this business. Well, where things are being done wrong, 6 there is a body there that can actually highlight this, 7 and actually bring this to the surface and hold Post 8 Office to account. That was the problem in the past. 9 All of this was getting done -- we talked earlier on 10 about transparency -- this was all getting done behind 11 the scenes, between the Government the Civil Service and 12 the Post Office and, as a result of that, this was 13 kicked down the -- sorry, the can was kicked down the 14 road. There wasn't sort of the ability for it to really 15 be brought to the surface. It was suppressed, 16 suppressed, suppressed. 17 And I think, with an oversight committee, we've got 18 the opportunity to -- if there is anything like this 19 happens again, it's going to be brought to the surface, 20 and Government won't be able to obfuscate it. They 21 won't be able to just brush it under the carpet. 22 Q. You've mentioned in your statement that you've 23 contributed to a tripartite working group comprising of 24 the Postal Affairs Minister and his Department, the Post 25 Office and the NFSP; is that correct? 118 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does your proposal for an oversight committee reflect 3 a concern that that Working Group is not providing 4 adequate governance of the Post Office or contributing 5 to adequate governance of the Post Office at present? 6 A. Well, I mean, we talked just briefly about NBIT. I have 7 been trying to get the Head of IT to come along to that 8 tripartite working group so that they are -- he is 9 providing an update within that forum as to how this is 10 progressing. He's never appeared. He's never sort of 11 come to it, and I don't know why. Every single time 12 I ask for NBIT to be on the agenda, but it's not. I'm 13 asking about what we can do to improve remuneration for 14 postmasters and not seeing anything. 15 I'm not seeing anything that is giving me confidence 16 that the Government and the Post Office after working 17 for the benefit of postmasters. It's just -- it's as 18 if -- it's a talking group, it's a talking shop. 19 There's nothing there that's giving me confidence that 20 we are actually working together for the good of the 21 future of this business. And that, I feel, sort of, is 22 indicative of how things have been. 23 I do believe that, behind the scenes, Government and 24 Post Office are talking and are working and -- but 25 I don't know what it is, I don't know what they're 119 1 doing, I don't know what plan they have, and I'm worried 2 about it and so are my colleagues. 3 Q. I think you've explained in your statement that you 4 brought your proposal for an oversight committee to the 5 Working Group -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- is that correct? What is the current status of that 8 proposal? 9 A. Again, I describe in my statement that the Minister 10 asked us in January to -- for the Post Office and the 11 NFSP, to work together and bring it back to him. The 12 very first meeting that I had, I was told by the then 13 Chief Retail Officer that the Post Office has no desire 14 to change its governance whatsoever. Well, that kind of 15 tells you a story. I had to really sort of push back to 16 that individual and I don't think he'd ever been spoken 17 to in that manner by anyone before, not that I was 18 disrespectful but it was just the fact that I was going, 19 you know, "You're an employee of this organisation and 20 if the Minister tells you to do something, you've got 21 a duty to do that, and going against the wishes of the 22 Minister is not something that a senior employee of the 23 Post Office should be doing". 24 Where we are at this moment in time, yes, there are 25 discussions as far as potential governance proposals. 120 1 Obviously, I wasn't aware that the Post Office had 2 commissioned Grant Thornton to look into governance of 3 the Post Office. That's obviously come out now via the 4 Inquiry, and all of this was going on before. So I've 5 been trying to push for a change in the governance of 6 the Post Office at least for two years now and it's good 7 to see that we are starting to make some progress. 8 If I may, I'm not saying that it's -- the oversight 9 committee is the only way. I'm not saying that if it's 10 not my way, I'm not playing. But I do think we need to 11 seriously look at the governance of the Post Office 12 because I think that is where it's fundamentally broken 13 down for -- over such a long period of time that has 14 resulted in so many people having their lives ruined. 15 Q. Thank you. My final topic, Mr Greenhow, is the current 16 policies, that is to say the written policies of the 17 Post Office, in relation to audits, investigations, 18 suspensions and other decisions. Now, you say in your 19 statement that the NFSP was invited by the Post Office 20 to comment on drafts of the whole suite of policies 21 governing this whole area, that is to say the conduct of 22 audits -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- investigations and decision making in relation to the 25 suspension and termination of the subpostmaster's 121 1 contract. In your statement you say that you're -- and 2 forgive me, that's something which you are now doing on 3 an annual basis -- is that correct -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- viewing and providing comments -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- upon the policies. You -- 8 A. I have -- if I may, although I was personally dealing 9 with it, along with another colleague, obviously the 10 work that I'm doing as far as the Inquiry has taken up 11 so much of my time, I've had to step back from that at 12 this moment in time and delegate it to other individuals 13 within the NFSP. 14 Q. You identify in your statement two areas of concern that 15 you have in relation to the existing policies. One 16 relates to what is known as the audit reporting script; 17 is that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. That's a script, is this right, to be used by the Post 20 Office auditor -- 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- to address their first interactions -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- with the subpostmaster or his staff -- 25 A. Yes. 122 1 Q. -- at the point at which they come to the -- 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. -- branch to carry out an audit? 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. Can we look, please, at your statement at paragraph 326, 6 page 117. Thank you. You say there: 7 "... we have raised concerns about the Audit 8 Reporting Script, we did suggest an alternative script 9 which the postmaster or OIC ..." 10 Can you explain that reference, please? 11 A. Officer in charge. 12 Q. Thank you: 13 "... would be required to sign with a copy retained 14 by the postmaster. Part of the opening script informed 15 the postmaster or [Officer in Charge] that the NFSP was 16 available for help and support. Additionally, we 17 suggested a checklist for the postmaster and [the 18 officer in charge] to follow given the potential 19 stressful situation that may be dealt with. This would 20 enable notes to be taken for reflection afterwards." 21 You say: 22 "Sadly, this was rejected by the Post Office on 23 a number of occasions." 24 Were you given reasons as to why your proposals were 25 rejected? 123 1 A. It's not what they wanted to do. 2 Q. Secondly, in the following paragraph, you mention some 3 reservations you have about the role of the Decision 4 Review Panel; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. If we could turn, please, to the Decision Review Policy, 7 that's contained at POL00088892. Thank you. This is 8 version 2.3. At page 3, please, paragraph 1.3, under 9 the heading "Core Principles" it states: 10 "A challenge will be heard by a review panel who 11 will have no prior it in the circumstances which led to 12 the termination and the challenge being raised." 13 So this a proposal, effectively, for a level of 14 independent review of the decision to terminate the 15 subpostmaster's contract; is that correct? 16 A. My understanding, yes. 17 Q. On page 7, please, at paragraph 2.4. Under the heading 18 "Roles & Responsibilities", it provides this in relation 19 to the review panel, it will be a panel of: 20 "... external members, who are responsible for 21 deploying the procedures set out in this policy and for 22 making a final decision on the review requested by the 23 postmaster. The Review Panel will be supported by the 24 Contract Investigation & Resolution manager to: 25 "[Firstly] apply Post Office's underpinning 124 1 behaviours of fairness, transparency and 2 professionalism; 3 "[Secondly] be fully conversant with this policy and 4 linked policies; 5 "[Thirdly] gather as much information as possible 6 relating to the background behind the termination; 7 "[Fourthly] complete a Termination Decision Review 8 Rationale Document before making a decision in 9 consequence of a challenge. The rationale document is 10 a report which includes facts and findings of the 11 investigation, and the rationale used to determine the 12 outcome; 13 "[Fifthly] to ensure any decision arising from 14 a challenge is made in line with all other Post Office 15 policies ... 16 "[Finally] ensure this policy is adhered to and the 17 postmaster is treated with fairness, transparency and 18 professionalism throughout the process ..." 19 If we could go, please, to page 12, under 20 paragraph 3.2, we see there an explanation of the role 21 of the review panel. It provides: 22 "It is the role of the Review Panel to ascertain 23 whether the decision to terminate was taken in 24 compliance with the relevant contract and requirement 25 set out in section 3.1. 125 1 "Any investigation must be a fair and unbiased 2 method of investigating the issues raised in the 3 challenge. The process of investigation allows the 4 Review Panel to establish facts relating to the issues 5 raised and gives the postmaster the opportunity to 6 identify and answer any points or queries raised by the 7 Review Panel. The Review Panel may have to undertake 8 further enquiries as a result of any new and/or 9 additional information provided as part of the decision 10 review process." 11 Just pausing there, the nature of your concern, as 12 I understand it, relates primarily to the composition of 13 that panel; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, I don't believe we see the composition of the panel 16 defined in this policy document. Why are you concerned 17 about Post Office's proposals in relation to who will 18 sit on this review panel and make a determination? 19 A. Yes, well, my understanding is it would consist of two 20 senior Post Office employees, a non-voting chair and 21 a postmaster, and we felt -- and we see this in a lot of 22 the processes that the Post Office are putting in place, 23 they're bringing postmasters into, in essence, 24 a decision-making place, and we feel that that's placing 25 those postmasters in a potential position of harm, on 126 1 the basis of, if something did go wrong, the Post Office 2 is then able to turn round and go "Well, we had 3 postmasters there, they said it was okay". 4 I don't think that's fair, for postmasters who may 5 be entering into these situations in good faith, and 6 I don't think it's -- you know, the Post Office have 7 still got too much control over it and hence the reason 8 we would prefer to see a proper mediation to the process 9 with CEDR or ACAS, so that, if it gets to that 10 situation, it's taken out of the Post Office's hands, in 11 essence, and it's someone else who is making the 12 decision, just as the Postmaster Non-Executive Directors 13 discussed earlier on this week. 14 Q. So your proposal is for some form of formal mediation -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- is that correct? Who in your view should be 17 responsible for funding that process? 18 A. Well, the Post Office. 19 MS HODGE: Thank you. I've no further questions for you, 20 Mr Greenhow. If you could remain there -- 21 A. Thank you. 22 MS HODGE: -- the Chair may have some questions for you and 23 I believe there are some questions from some of the Core 24 Participants. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, let's have the Core Participants, 127 1 please. 2 Questioned by MS PATRICK 3 MS PATRICK: Good afternoon, Mr Greenhow. My name is 4 Ms Patrick and, together with Mr Moloney, we ask 5 questions on behalf of number of postmasters who were 6 convicted and have since had their convictions quashed. 7 You'll be happy to know I only want to ask you about two 8 documents and two issues. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The first issue, is about the pre-GFA relationship 11 between the Post Office and the NFSP? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I want to look at one document, it's POL00021485. Now, 14 just before it comes up I'll tell you what it is. It's 15 not a document we would have expected you to see at the 16 time. 17 A. Oh. 18 Q. It's a Board minute from the Post Office from 2004. 19 A. Ah. 20 Q. So before your time. I just want us to have a look at 21 it together. You see on the first page, just to 22 confirm, there's meetings of the Board, 13 October 2004. 23 The section I want to look at is on page 13, so if we 24 could scroll to page 13 I'd be very grateful. 25 It's the section at the bottom half, so if we can go 128 1 to the bottom half of the page and stop there. If we 2 can scroll a little bit back up, I'd be grateful, thank 3 you. Now can you see that section there headed 4 "Subpostmaster exhibition"? 5 A. Absolutely. 6 Q. It says, "David Mills reported", and there's a little 7 bit of a conversation there about a subsidiary of Hayes 8 Travel being offered a stand at a subpostmaster 9 exhibition to promote a Bureau de Change product. 10 There's a little bit about a conflict of interest 11 potentially, and it says: 12 "The Board agreed that: 13 "It was both damaging and inappropriate for a direct 14 competitor of Post Office to be accommodated at the 15 exhibition in this way." 16 The second bullet point: 17 "Post Office Limited would reconsider the subsidy 18 provided to the NFSP if they continued to undermine the 19 position of Post Office Limited", and then they go on 20 with a few other things, the next steps they're going to 21 take, having suggested their concern. 22 Now, this suggests that, even in 2004, there were 23 some subsidies being paid by the Post Office to the 24 NFSP, doesn't it? 25 A. It does. 129 1 Q. As far as the Post Office at least was concerned from 2 this, one of the potential levers the business held was 3 in the manipulation or the use of the subsidies, wasn't 4 it? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Now, you've said today that the problem lies in the 7 controlling culture of the Post Office and how that's 8 reflected in its relationship with subpostmasters and 9 with the Federation? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is that kind of attitude, that problematic culture, 12 reflected in this minute? 13 A. I would say so. 14 Q. Yeah. Is it indicative of that kind of historic problem 15 in the relationship that you've told the Inquiry about 16 today? 17 A. Well, obviously back in 2004, I was just an honorary 18 member. So I wasn't really involved in the NFSP in any 19 way, shape or form at that point. However, I would 20 suggest, as I did read this, prior, that this gives 21 an indication of how long the manipulative behaviour of 22 the Post Office has existed. 23 Q. If we can be really frank, this is a relationship 24 between the NFSP and the business, the Post Office? 25 A. Yes. 130 1 Q. That relationship was always going to be one where the 2 interests of the Federation as a whole would be at the 3 forefront of the organisation and perhaps something that 4 would be difficult to put before the interests of 5 a small group of subpostmasters, no matter how 6 catastrophic the damage to that small group might be. 7 A. Well, I think if you -- and I don't know where it is 8 actually in my written statement but, when you not -- 9 long after this in 2006, there is the evidence in 10 relation to the Green Giros and, at that point, the NFSP 11 threatening to take legal action against the Post Office 12 for its actions against postmasters. 13 So no, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you but 14 what I can't turn round and say at this point in time 15 is, as I've indicated before, the simple reality is the 16 NFSP of the past believed the Post Office and put their 17 faith in the Post Office, rather than believing and 18 putting their faith in postmasters. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. It's particularly in relation to this case, and it is -- 21 and, again, I put it in my witness statement -- that 22 it's sad in one sense that, despite the fact that 23 through the branch and regional network, the information 24 came to the Executive of the Post Office who acted upon 25 it, but it doesn't appear that when it comes to this 131 1 situation, that that unfortunately happened. 2 So again, you know, I offer my apologies to those 3 victims. 4 Q. Okay. If we can move on to the second issue, thank you. 5 It's a point about the position of the NFSP during the 6 GLO, litigation? 7 A. Thank you. 8 Q. You've gone over the information with the Counsel to the 9 Inquiry at some length; I only want to look at one 10 point. If we can go back, this morning you described 11 attending the first day of trial -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- and not being able to afford private support to 14 Mr Bates having missed him in the corridor during 15 a break? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You said your colleagues at the NFSP were following the 18 trial, including daily updates being put online by 19 Mr Wallis on his blog -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- and, of course, it was important that the 22 organisation was following what was going on, wasn't it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Might you have dipped into the blog yourself? 25 A. I did on occasions, yes. 132 1 Q. Now, I'm just going to have a quick look at the Common 2 Issues judgment for the one point that I want to ask you 3 about it, and it's POL00112043. If that could be 4 brought up, I'd be grateful, if it can't, you can trust 5 me that I'm reading from it. 6 A. Which paragraph is it within there? 7 Q. It might help you, Mr Greenhow, we're going to look at 8 the two paragraphs you said that initially you paid 9 particular attention to this morning, paragraph 574 10 which is on page 185, and I'll start reading and it may 11 appear, because I think this paragraph and the paragraph 12 after may be very familiar to you. I can see you've got 13 the hard copy, which is very helpful. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. It's under the heading, "The Post Office's relationship 16 with the NFSP". 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It says, "subject relevant for the following reasons", 19 and it's the first part of 574 I want us to look at: 20 "The Post Office relied in numerous places, both in 21 its evidence and in its submissions, upon the fact that 22 the NFSP does not support the litigation." 23 A. Mm-hm. 24 Q. It gives an example: 25 "As an example, in its written opening it is 133 1 submitted, 'It should be noted that the National 2 Federation of SubPostmasters, the NFSP, which is the 3 organisation which represents subpostmasters and their 4 interests Nationwide, does not ['not' underlined] 5 support this action and does not endorse the factual 6 premises of the claims." 7 If we can skip down to the next paragraph, down to 8 575, it goes on again: 9 "Public support for a cause or a lack of NFSP 10 support for the claimants does not cut much ice in 11 court." 12 A. Mm-hm. 13 Q. "It plays no part whatsoever in the outcome. I have 14 already referred to public and press interest in this 15 litigation for the reasons explained, and that plays no 16 part either. I'm entirely disinterested in whether the 17 NFSP does or does not support the proceedings. However, 18 for the two reasons identified, and because some of the 19 Post Office witnesses, for example Mr Beal, dealt with 20 NFSP involvement, and it was relied upon by the Post 21 Office, it was of sufficient relevance to permit 22 Mr Green some limited cross-examination on this subject. 23 "It should also be noted that Mrs van den Bogerd 24 also gave ever that the NFSP has publicly supported the 25 Post Office's view that Horizon is robust. The Post 134 1 Office therefore relies upon this support by the NFSP to 2 support its stance in this litigation." 3 Now, I just have a few questions for you, having 4 read it, and I'm sorry that it's not come up on screen 5 for everyone. Did the NFSP have any discussion 6 internally during the trial when it became clear that 7 the Post Office was relying on their lack of support for 8 the GLO claimants? 9 A. I don't think so I think the first time that I became 10 aware of this was when I read it. However, I was 11 present in court when Mr Beal said what he said, and 12 I thought, "Well, that's strange. Where's he got that 13 from?" Obviously I've learned now, this side of the 14 GLO, exactly where it came from and, obviously, my 15 predecessor was very much supportive of the Post 16 Office's position but I don't think that was necessarily 17 indicative of everyone within the NFSP, but certainly 18 was indicative of his viewpoint. 19 Q. You can see there, and you've said again, your view 20 points weren't necessarily indicative of your 21 predecessor. But you were in charge by this time, and 22 here was -- perhaps not unsurprisingly -- the Post 23 Office relying expressly in the litigation on the 24 publicly repeatedly-expressed position of the NFSP that 25 Horizon was considered to be robust. 135 1 When that became clear, did it become clear to you 2 during the trial? 3 A. I don't think it did, no. 4 Q. So had the NFSP taken a position that it was going to be 5 studiously and positively neutral, without a clear 6 appreciation of the case that the business was going to 7 run against its former members? 8 A. You know, as I've already sort of explained, we just 9 felt -- you know, I was new to the role, and we were -- 10 we were not involved in the case. We didn't know what 11 was being said, really, so we didn't know the inner 12 workings of it. We could sort of see what was being 13 said. 14 Q. Can I just stop you there, Mr Greenhow. The NFSP 15 position really wasn't really truly neutral was it? You 16 were really just letting the Post Office do what it 17 wished with your name, holding your peace and waiting to 18 see where the chips fell? 19 A. Sorry, I don't agree with that. 20 Q. In the circumstances of what happened, where the Post 21 Office was actively reliant on the lack of support from 22 the NFSP, where your colleagues were monitoring the 23 proceedings in the trial from the blog covering the 24 daily events, where you turned up to court on the first 25 day without expressing any support for those 555 GLO 136 1 claimants, where you couldn't manage to reach out to 2 Mr Bates on the day, despite seeing him across the room, 3 can you appreciate that your position was seen by them 4 as very far, far away from neutral? 5 A. Yes, I can see that but that honestly wasn't sort of the 6 case, and I think the evidence that's been presented, to 7 the kind of viewpoint that I was taken to before, gave 8 an indication that my viewpoint was different to that of 9 my predecessor. But that's as much as I can say. 10 Q. Did you ever say that on the record, before the judgment 11 was handed down? 12 A. I don't think I did, no. 13 MS PATRICK: Thank you. No more questions, Mr Greenhow. 14 Questioned by MR STEIN 15 MR STEIN: Mr Greenhow, my name is Sam Stein. I represent 16 a large group of subpostmasters who have been affected 17 by the Post Office scandal. 18 Now, during the evidence this week, we heard the 19 questioning of Mr Ismail, Saf Ismail. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. During the course of that, there was discussion 22 regarding a letter written on 17 May this year from 23 Mr Patterson of Fujitsu. Now, that letter -- and I'll 24 quote it from the evidence -- states that: 25 "To be clear, Fujitsu (FSL) will not support the 137 1 Post Office to act against subpostmasters. We will not 2 provide support for any enforcement actions taken by the 3 Post Office against postmasters, whether civil or 4 criminal, for alleged shortfalls, fraud or false 5 accounting." 6 The letter goes on to say: 7 "It seems that the Post Office may be continuing to 8 pursue permits for shortfalls in their accounts using 9 Horizon data. We would have expected that the Post 10 Office has changed its behaviour in light of the 11 criticisms and is appropriately circumspect with respect 12 to any enforcement actions." 13 Then, lastly, Mr Patterson of Fujitsu says this: 14 "It should not be relying on Horizon data as the 15 basis for such shortfall enforcement." 16 I'll repeat that last bit. So Mr Patterson, middle 17 of May 2024, is saying the Post Office should not be 18 relying on Horizon data as the basis for such shortfall 19 enforcement. 20 The date of that letter is 17 May 2024. Was the 21 NFSP told about the content of that letter from Fujitsu? 22 A. The first time I became aware of it was as it was read 23 out in court and I immediately contacted some colleagues 24 and said "Horizon is no longer reliable, what does that 25 mean in relation to what we do as far as any shortages?" 138 1 And my -- it really concerns me because it shouldn't be 2 a case that any postmaster, whether it's 20 quid, when 3 they do their trading period, that they put that 20 quid 4 in. That is a huge question. 5 Q. It goes to two issues, doesn't it: the one you've just 6 been speaking about that affects postmasters in their 7 branches -- 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. -- where there is a shortfall -- 10 A. Yeah. 11 Q. -- and, as we know from the YouGov report, people are 12 still paying up for shortfalls? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So where there are shortfalls, it should have been made 15 clear, do you agree, immediately -- 16 A. Absolutely. 17 Q. -- that the data from Horizon was unreliable and 18 unreliable for the pursuit of shortfalls? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. The second part that that particular information in May 21 of this year affects is the question of ongoing 22 investigations into postmasters -- 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. -- for the obvious reason that, if the police are 25 carrying out, at this moment in time, an investigation 139 1 into any subpostmaster, they should have been informed 2 immediately in May 2024 that the Horizon system was, as 3 ever, unreliable for the purposes of providing data to 4 support investigations; do you agree? 5 A. Yes, I do, and if I may to go back to what said earlier 6 on, I've tried to get the Government to do a full review 7 of Horizon. But there is a refusal to do that because 8 Post Office are telling Government that Horizon is 9 robust. 10 Q. During this Inquiry we've considered what's happened 11 when investigations into individuals, subpostmasters, 12 have been the result of a failure of disclosure. We've 13 seen what's happened. 14 In May this year, the Post Office was told that 15 Fujitsu's Horizon system should not be used as the basis 16 for investigations, considerations for shortfalls, yet 17 nobody is told about it; is it same old, same old for 18 the Post Office. 19 A. It would appear so in that case, yes. 20 Q. Now, I'll turn to a different point, if I may. You make 21 a point in your statement regarding the question of 22 Network Transformation -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- and its impact upon subpostmasters, branches and, 25 indeed, I think your own branch right? 140 1 A. Yes, we will be losing our branch on 11 October. 2 Q. Help us understand a little bit more how that's 3 connected to Network Transformation because, if we go 4 back in time, Network Transformation is a while ago. 5 Why is that still having an impact; why is that having 6 an impact on your branch and others in terms of closing 7 them? 8 A. So Network Transformation was a programme that was -- 9 a Government programme that started in 2012 and it ran 10 to 2018. In 2018, when the programme finished, there 11 was about 700 postmasters who were classified as Hard to 12 Place and my own office was one of them, the reason 13 being is that no one was wanting -- there was no 14 potential new postmaster who was coming forward to take 15 on the business. As I've already explained in 2015, my 16 wife and I had to make the very difficult decision not 17 to sort of carry on -- or not convert to the local 18 model, because we felt -- sorry, I might be speaking too 19 quickly here -- we felt that it was -- it would not make 20 financial sense to do that. 21 Sadly, in 2023, in February 2023, the Post Office 22 came along and they presented good news to me that they 23 were going to shut all of the remaining Hard to Place 24 and at that time there was about 130 of them, and the 25 reason that I was given that was because of the NBIT 141 1 coming in by March 2025. They did not wish to put that 2 group of postmasters through the training and also the 3 investment, as far as the equipment is concerned. So 4 they were going to be closing those offices, leaving 5 those offices without potential provision. 6 But they also stated that they were going to change 7 the exit compensation that postmasters would receive 8 from 26 months down to 12 months, which would result in 9 those postmasters losing, on average, £43,000, which is 10 obviously a significant amount of money, depending on 11 the stage of life that you happen to be. 12 Many of those colleagues were well beyond state 13 retirement age and had underlying health issues that 14 meant that they shouldn't be working and -- but yet the 15 Post Office's attitude was, "We've made our Board 16 decision, that's what's happening, and we're not 17 prepared to shift in any way, shape or form". 18 The only concession that we could get was that, at 19 the start of this year, they would put boots on the 20 ground, as they said, and they would go round the 21 remaining offices to see if someone would be willing to 22 take on the office within the community. Unfortunately, 23 I've said in my statement there was 30. That is now 40 24 postmasters who are going to be in a situation, ten have 25 already closed, 30 are in the process of closing, and as 142 1 I've said, my office will close on 11 October. 2 May I just sort of say this point -- and it's 3 important -- because I think it's important to not just 4 hear but to colleagues who may be listening to this: 5 it's been said on some social media groups that I may 6 have accepted a deal from the Post Office and I want to 7 make it clear that in no way shape or form have 8 I accepted any financial agreement from the Post Office, 9 that benefits me to the detriment of my fellow 10 colleagues. I would never do that. 11 Q. Did Network Transformation, and the issues you've 12 discussed, did that have an unfair or unequal impact 13 upon smaller branches, family branches, in rural areas 14 or areas of lower population? 15 A. I wouldn't go as far as to say that but what I would say 16 is that the way that business is being run today, 17 I would say that the new services that are coming on 18 tend to be going to the larger offices. So, for 19 example, Evri that's coming on, Amazon, DPD, a lot of 20 the banking is actually done within the larger offices 21 and that's meaning that more rural, urban, post offices 22 are not getting those services. They are losing income. 23 So we are seeing a disproportionate -- those who are 24 doing quite well versus those who are struggling. 25 Q. Now, the Post Office has a social aspect, in terms of 143 1 social provision of services within the community. 2 A. Absolutely. 3 Q. Within the Government funding requirements, there are 4 requirements to ensure that there are certain numbers of 5 branches within given areas and head of population? 6 A. Access criteria, yeah. 7 Q. Repeat that, please? 8 A. Access criteria. 9 Q. Now, in terms of the access criteria, where you are 10 looking at a branch in an area perhaps of low population 11 density, which would tend to mean lower footfall within 12 the Post Office branch, is that reflected, that lower 13 income into the branch, is that reflected in the income 14 from the Post Office to the subpostmaster? 15 A. Well, yes. What we've got is a situation that, if we 16 were to go back to 2013, the average income to 17 a postmaster was about £42,000. It's now down to about 18 35,000. That's the average income to a postmaster. If 19 you take inflation into account, obviously that's going 20 to be significantly lower. 21 Q. But just make sure we understand, and perhaps I missed 22 it because I was being given a piece of information, but 23 in the smaller branches, is there a funding, if you 24 like, bias towards those branches? 25 A. Yes. 144 1 Q. Right. 2 A. Now, some of them will be, for example, my own office, 3 still receive what's known as -- well, it was known as 4 core tier payment, but it's now called an assigned 5 office payment, which is, in essence, a basic flat 6 remuneration, and then we get paid a commission on each 7 transaction that we do. 8 Q. Right. When was that last reviewed? 9 A. It's that -- the review for the assigned office payment 10 is usually done on an annual basis and that is usually 11 linked to inflation, and that is something that the NFSP 12 have negotiated with the Post Office and got in place. 13 Q. Okay, and can you just confirm that the DBT are 14 reviewing the National Transformation Scheme? 15 A. No, they're not, and I think they should. As you know, 16 we have launched a campaign, as far as Network 17 Transformation is concerned, because having -- you know, 18 having been part of this Inquiry for so long and 19 listening to what is being said, I came to realise, in 20 one sense, two things: that the organisation back in 21 2012/2015, that was doing everything it possibly could 22 in relation to the Complaints and Mediation Scheme was 23 exactly the same organisation that was implementing 24 Network Transformation. 25 Too often, I was hearing from colleagues that they 145 1 felt as if they were being cajoled or forced or bullied 2 into converting to one of the models, and that has led 3 to their financial detriment. 4 Now, I've described in my statement that I am 5 a qualified mortgage adviser, not practising any longer, 6 so I can't use the -- I'm not qualified -- I'm not 7 authorised, as you'd say, but I am qualified. And 8 I know under that that you have to be qualified and 9 authorised to give financial advice. Well, did that 10 constitute financial advice? When the Post Office came 11 in and said, "Right, okay, we think's a good idea for 12 you to move or convert" or whatever, was that 13 constituting financial advice? 14 So I think the Government should really do a full 15 review, how that review is done, whether that's 16 a judicial review or legal review, or whatever it is, 17 but do think Government has to look into that and 18 investigate whether the activities and the actions and 19 the culture of the Post Office has led to the detriment 20 of postmasters under the Network Transformation 21 programme. 22 Q. Okay. Last topic, should be quite short. Throughout 23 the Inquiry we've been pursuing the question of the 24 helplines. 25 A. The helplines? 146 1 Q. The helplines, the Post Office helpline and then the 2 Fujitsu helpline. The questions that we've been 3 pursuing, as you're well aware is whether those 4 helplines have actually provided any help at all or are 5 they, in fact, the unhelpful lines, okay? Now, we know 6 through the YouGov report that people are still having 7 difficulties with the Horizon system; people are still 8 experiencing shortfalls; they are still paying off 9 shortfalls, okay? Does the NFSP receive information 10 regarding the helplines, the calls that are being made, 11 the way that they are dealt with and trends being 12 expressed within those helplines? 13 A. Not that I'm aware of. 14 Q. Why not? 15 A. Good question. That's -- 16 Q. Have you asked for that? 17 A. I'm not aware if we have, actually, to be honest. 18 Q. Well, that sounds like a no. 19 A. No, okay. 20 Q. Do you agree it will be helpful if the NFSP and any 21 other organisation had access to the data and is being 22 provided across the helplines, the scripts, the 23 complaints, the concerns being expressed to those 24 helplines, as far as it is possible to get them cleaned 25 of any confidential information? 147 1 A. Absolutely. 2 Q. Is that a matter that you're going to undertake to take 3 up with the Post Office? 4 A. Leave that with me. You can be assured that that will 5 be done. 6 MR STEIN: One minute. 7 Thank you. 8 Questioned by MS ALLAN 9 MS ALLAN: Good afternoon, Mr Greenhow. My name is Christie 10 Allan and, as you're aware, I represent Core Participant 11 Susan Sinclair, who was the first subpostmaster to 12 successfully appeal her conviction in Scotland. 13 I just have a few questions for you today. At 14 paragraph 174 of your first witness statement, you state 15 that: 16 "On the back of the mass exoneration legislation 17 proposed by the UK Government earlier this year, the 18 NFSP made several attempts to initiate a meeting with 19 the Scottish Justice Minister and the Lord Advocate but 20 to no avail." 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. Can you please elaborate on your attempts to meet with 23 these individuals: when did you first contact them, 24 what; was the format of your communication; and have you 25 been successful in receiving any kind of response? 148 1 A. Well, we've received a response, which I think is within 2 the core bundle and I can't remember the very specific 3 details of it, but I think you'll have been able to read 4 that. But as far as, you know, trying to get to the 5 Lord Advocate and the Justice Minister of Scotland has 6 proved difficult. I think they've obfuscated that down 7 the line. 8 I have to say, in contrast, we sent the same 9 correspondence at the same time to the counterparts 10 within Northern Ireland, who very graciously invited us 11 to meet with them and they were very clear about their 12 desire to be included within the new legislation that 13 the Government introduced. But we've heard nothing from 14 the Scottish Government or the Lord Advocate on that 15 basis. 16 Q. So there's no proposed meeting at the moment with the 17 Lord Advocate? 18 A. No. 19 Q. In recent months, the Lord Advocate in Scotland has 20 publicly confirmed that she and the Crown Office in 21 Scotland is committed to addressing all miscarriages of 22 justice and that she to achieving justice for those 23 impacted and that she is committed to reflecting on 24 whether anything could have been done definitely by 25 prosecutors in Scotland? 149 1 Is this reflective of the NFSP's experience of the 2 personal commitment by the Lord Advocate to get to the 3 bottom of the events which gave rise to this scandal in 4 Scotland? 5 A. As you know, obviously the process in Scotland is 6 different than it is down here, and it's something that 7 has kind of perplexed me, I have to sort of say, and 8 again, I'm talking about someone who is non-legal. But 9 much has been made about the fact that the Post Office 10 can do private prosecutions. But coming from Scotland, 11 I'm aware that obviously that can't be done and, when 12 you look at the proportion of people who have been 13 convicted in Scotland, in comparison to the rest of the 14 country, it's not disproportionate. 15 So you kind of have to question what has gone on 16 within Scotland that's different to down here. Because 17 you would -- I would have hoped that, actually, given 18 the fact that the Procurator Fiscal has to take it -- 19 and I hope right in saying that -- so the evidence is 20 presented to the Procurator Fiscal, who then sort of 21 looks at it and determines whether a case will still be 22 brought, rather than the Post Office being able to 23 obfuscate all of that and bring it. There would have 24 been less people in Scotland, but it doesn't seem to be 25 the case, and I think that's a fundamental question that 150 1 the Lord Advocate needs to sort of like answer, as to 2 why there is as many people within Scotland who have 3 been victimised on a proportional basis as there has 4 been sort of down here. 5 But I do think it's really important that, when it 6 comes to exonerating these people and making sure that 7 they get their redress that they deserve, that happens 8 as quickly as possible, and it's really important that 9 the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate get that 10 sorted. 11 Q. That brings me on to my final question: according to 12 information provided by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, 13 Angela Constance, earlier this month, only two out of 14 a possible 141 affected subpostmasters have thus far 15 been written to in accordance with the terms of the mass 16 exoneration legislation in Scotland and, indeed, that 17 the Scottish Government is apparently still in the 18 process of assessing the 141 possible cases. In your 19 view, what more should be done in Scotland at this time 20 and by whom? 21 A. Ooh, that's a good question. I don't know the answer to 22 that one, to be honest. I'm sorry. But I think the 23 Lord Advocate -- you know, at the end of the day, the 24 Lord Advocate is the most senior person within the legal 25 industry within Scotland, so you'd have to sort of say 151 1 the responsibility lies with her. I think it's a her. 2 So, on that basis, I think that's where it should start. 3 I think what is worrying is my understanding is 4 that, when it comes to the number of people -- the 5 people who have been convicted, actually they're not 6 necessarily aware of who the people are. There's a lot 7 of people that they just don't know who -- they know 8 there's been convictions but they don't know who they 9 are or where they are. And that's really worrying 10 because there could be people sitting at home -- and 11 I think this is maybe something -- and I hope I'm not 12 talking out of turn here -- I am not sure whether we can 13 just exonerate someone, give them some money, "Job's 14 done, see you later, on you go". 15 I don't think that's enough because I do think that 16 there are people out there who are broken: emotionally, 17 physically. As a result of that, they have absolutely 18 no trust within the authorities of this country. It has 19 left them broken, and I do think that there has been 20 an attempt -- maybe attempt is the wrong word -- but 21 there has been, well, a kind of thought process, "Well, 22 if we'd just say sorry, we exonerate them, give them 23 some money, everything is fine. Everything in the 24 garden is rosy", and I don't think that's going to be 25 the case. 152 1 I think this is going to live with people for the 2 rest of their lives, irrespective of whether they are 3 exonerated and get compensation. 4 You know, one of the other things that is going on 5 at this moment in time or has just completed is the 6 infected blood scandal. Okay, so we say sorry, we give 7 them the compensation. You can't cure hepatitis on that 8 basis. These people unfortunately -- and I know people 9 who have sadly -- whose families have been impacted by 10 that. You can't just get away from that. 11 Q. So, in short, more work needs to be done in Scotland? 12 A. Oh, absolutely without question. Sorry. 13 MS ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Greenhow. 14 Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Greenhow, in respect either of 16 Scotland -- just Scotland -- or in relation to all parts 17 of the United Kingdom, do you think that the NFSP has 18 a role to play in speeding up the exoneration process? 19 I'm not asking you that just in the abstract but, in 20 particular, in relation to providing any information 21 that you may hold about former members who were 22 convicted. 23 A. Listen, if there's anything that we can do to help, we 24 will. I think we've shown through this Inquiry just 25 exactly how much time and effort that we have given to 153 1 this Inquiry. If you've asked for any information, 2 we've given you the information. We've volunteered 3 information, even that we haven't been asked for. If 4 there's anything we can do, we will do it. We just -- 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, I think this wouldn't be the 6 Inquiry seeking information from you; this would be if 7 it's practical. I'm asking you an open-ended question: 8 if it's practical for the NFSP to search its records for 9 former members who were convicted and provide those 10 names to whichever authority it is, in whichever country 11 of the United Kingdom. 12 A. I don't think we know, actually, that's the problem. 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: You don't know either? 14 A. We don't know either, that's the problem. I mean, one 15 of the aspects and one of the things that sort of 16 concerns me about all of this is, when it came to 17 a conviction, the NFSP were not involved. That's not -- 18 that's beyond our remit. That's within, dare I say it, 19 Sir Wyn, within your remit. That's within the legal 20 industry. That, you know, so -- 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, hang on a second -- 22 A. We didn't get involved. We didn't get involved. 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Hang on a sec. I would have expected, 24 I should say, not imagined, that if a member of the 25 Federation had, in fact, been convicted of an offence 154 1 related to their work as a subpostmaster, the 2 consequence would be that they'd cease to be 3 a subpostmaster but also cease to be a member of the 4 Federation, and I just wondered whether you'd have any 5 records of that kind? 6 A. No, I think we certainly weren't told the reason why 7 they were no longer a postmaster. So we -- I don't 8 think we know and, certainly to my knowledge, there 9 hasn't been any correlation work done, at the time, to 10 why someone stopped being a postmaster and whether there 11 was actually a court case was the reason behind it. So, 12 unfortunately, I don't think we know. 13 If there's anything we can do then -- 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's fine. Yeah, fine. 15 Any other questions? 16 MS HODGE: Sir, I think that concludes -- 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, then thank you very much, 18 Mr Greenhow, for your participation to date, which I'm 19 sure will continue. I think I'm right in saying that 20 you have been seeking to assist the Inquiry throughout 21 all its phases, including the non-statutory phase of it, 22 so I'm very grateful to you for that and, obviously, I'm 23 very grateful for your detailed witness statement and 24 your oral evidence today. 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 155 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So Ms Hodge we start again at 10.00 2 tomorrow morning? 3 MS HODGE: I believe so, sir, yes. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. All right, thanks very much. 5 MS HODGE: Thank you. 6 (3.20 pm) 7 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am the following day) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 I N D E X CALUM BRIAN GREENHOW (sworn) ..................1 Questioned by MS HODGE ........................1 Questioned by MS PATRICK ....................128 Questioned by MR STEIN ......................137 Questioned by MS ALLAN ......................148 Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS ..............153 157