Ghost Storey

Usually when thinking about how to write a summary of the day’s evidence, there are one or two moments or lines which have made an impression. I’m struggling to think of anything Susannah Storey said during today’s session worth reporting.

I realise I’m not exactly selling what you’re about to read, but it did feel like a fitting anticlimax to fifteen long weeks of evidence.

Storey is a high-flying civil servant – currently Permanent Secretary at DCMS. She was the first shareholder NED (non-executive director) on the Post Office board, serving from March 2012 to April 2014. At the Inquiry today Storey came across as confident, serious and posh with a knack of sounding like she is giving a convincing answer whilst actually saying nothing of substance at all.

In 2011 Storey was made Director of the Business Department’s Royal Mail and Postal Services team within the Shareholder Executive (ShEx). As she told the Inquiry:

“once the government decided it wanted to have a shareholder representative on the board of the Post Office… it was the working assumption I think that as the [RMG and Postal Services] Director, that would be me.”

It was. Storey was not interviewed for the NED job – her first appointment to a company board – nor was she given any training when she got it, nor was she paid for doing the job beyond her civil service salary. To further complicate matters, on joining the Post Office board, Storey left the shareholder team at the Business Department – who took away her computer, email address and access. She spent the first year as a Post Office NED on maternity leave. Storey still attended board meetings, but seems to have spent most of the early part of her tenure being treated with suspicion by the rest of the board, who didn’t like having someone representing their owner spying on them. Storey told the Inquiry it was difficult:

“I was trying to do was kind of get my foot in the door, start this process, but also critically… build trust with that board of directors. So they were all… relatively new, at the non-executive level. I didn’t know any of them. I felt they didn’t trust me.”

Storey warned the inquiry it was likely to have seen a number of business emails sent to and from her personal address, but by lunchtime, after nearly three hours of evidence, we had yet to see a single missive sent by Storey to anyone – neither her fellow board members nor the Post Office execs she was meant to be scrutinising.

The only pro-active thing Storey appears to have done in her first year as a NED is confirm to that she would not share her board papers with her erstwhile colleagues at ShEx. Julian Blake, who was asking the questions for the Inquiry today, wondered whose decision this was. Storey replied:

“The documents unfortunately don’t really help me with exactly when this was discussed and how it was decided, but my sort of reflection now I guess is that given the nervousness of the chairman [Alice Perkins] about having a shareholder representative at all… I would have been mindful of that, and I think I was, and again I’m overlaying this now, I can’t recall exactly how it happened, but I think I would have been very keen to ensure that it was done [so] that we didn’t end up with a sort of two-tier board. My worry was that because they were so nervous about documents and interfaces with the shareholder, the worst of all worlds for this new April 2012 moment would have been if the board had sort of had two rooms, one where they discussed all the contentious things and then a very vanilla board that I was in, such that they felt the papers could be shared. So I think it must have been an agreement between Alice and I that I wouldn’t share and I guess I was also mindful of the fact in practical terms I wasn’t quite sure how I would share those hard copy papers at that time.”

The scandal itself seems to have passed Storey by entirely – she was regularly having conversations with the ShEx team about this that and the other, and whilst briefings about the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, Alan Bates and James Arbuthnot were pinged into her email inbox, Storey didn’t really register how important it all was, even whilst she sat on the Post Office’s Audit and Risk Committee.

At one point, Blake took Storey to board papers from October 2012, which for the first time split its litigation risk report into civil and criminal matters. The latter section gave the board a deeper level of detail about some of the Subpostmasters who had been prosecuted and the crimes they had allegedly committed. Storey told Blake it wasn’t discussed. Blake wondered if it was odd that the board, at the same meeting, could find time to discuss “the British Postal Museum and archive funding” and not Post Office’s activities whilst prosecuting Subpostmasters.

“Of course,” replied Storey “I think it would be impossible not to take that view now looking at this.”
By way of excusing herself for responsibility, Storey told Blake “the agendas, the rhythm of meetings would be set by the chairman and we as the non-executive directors would follow that.”

Sir Wyn Williams – the inquiry chair – wanted another look at the litigation report.

“I understand that this paper was for noting”, he said, “but for the first time, as I understand it, the board is being given information about completed and ongoing criminal cases, and just glancing at them, some of them are very significant. Someone has pleaded guilty to stealing over £100,000 on the page we’re looking at. Two brothers are accused of fraudulently obtaining or stealing over £200,000. Forgive me if I’m a little surprised that nobody thought to discuss these things, but that appears to be the case.”
“I agree with you and when you look at this page now, absolutely. I can’t recall the discussion…” started Storey, but the Chair interrupted her.
“I’m not for a minute suggesting you should remember the words spoken,” he said, “but the impression I get from you, so now’s your chance to correct it, that because this paper was to be noted, there was literally no discussion of it, and… I’m not hiding it, I’m expressing my surprise that a board for the first time confronted with this sort of detail doesn’t discuss it at all.”
“I agree with you and I don’t recall a discussion”, replied Storey, “I also don’t recall anybody highlighting it to us either, but I totally take your point.”

Storey was back from maternity leave by the time of the Second Sight Interim Report, but the only concern she seemed to express was the way the board was “blindsided” by its arrival and “bounced” into action. The action the board took has been well-documented (Mediation Scheme, Linklaters report, CK Sift Review and the appointment of Brian Altman QC). Storey doesn’t seem to have suggested, directed or influenced any of it.

End of Storey

After lunch we saw what I think was the only email from Storey presented during the entire hearing. She was part of a chain discussing the three options presented to the Audit and Risk Committee concerning a decision the board was being asked to take about the continuing prosecution of Subpostmasters.

The options can be summarised thus:

a) keep prosecuting
b) prosecute in certain circumstances only
c) let CPS decide

Storey preferred option c), telling Blake that since she learned about the Post Office’s prosecution function, she “felt instinctively uncomfortable” about it.

In her email Storey wrote: “given I’m not on the audit and risk committee I’m just passing my thoughts for information. But my read of the paper was similar to Alice [Perkins]. It doesn’t seem we had sufficient reasons to discard option c) and I think it would be interesting to explore further.”

Option b) won the day at the next board meeting.

“Do you recall speaking up in favour of your preferred option, option c)?” asked Blake.
“I’d already expressed my views in the email chain… I can’t remember if I said anything in particular” replied Storey.

By the autumn of 2013, Storey had a new job at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which soon became demanding, to the extent that she resigned from the Audit and Risk Committee, didn’t turn up to one board meeting and had to leave another early to attend to her DECC duties. It was for this reason Storey sought to stand down from the Post Office board a year early, which she did in 2014, flitting off into the ether after apparently having made no impact on the business whatsoever.

NB: I did wonder if I was perhaps being unfair to Storey, by basing my judgment about her work solely on her oral evidence today, so I took the opportunity to have a (quick) read of her Witness Statement. I know she was treated with suspicion by the Post Office, cut off from the Business Department/ShEx, had to deal with being a new mum and then took a big job at DECC, but Storey really does not appear to have proactively achieved anything at the Post Office on her own initiative at all. Given she was a director during a key part of the scandal, that remains, as so many witnesses have said this year, a matter of regret.

Masochists wishing to read a blow-by-blow account of Storey’s evidence can click here – it does include some useful stats at the very end about the documents and witnesses the Inquiry has seen to date.

Oh alright, I’ll tell you here. We were informed that, to date, the inquiry has dealt with 267 oral witnesses, 496 witness statements and it has shared 250,000 documents with core participants, coming in at 2,000,000 pages. The Chair also told today’s hearing that the next phase of the Inquiry is 95% likely to begin week commencing 23 September and will go on into November. Phase 7 will be looking at compensation and the Post Office’s current practice, including the performance of senior people within the organisation and government.

I am not intending to cover Phase 7 in anything like the detail I have covered the Inquiry to date, but I’m sure I’ll drag myself along for at least one hearing every couple of weeks.

Have a good summer!


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

57 responses to “Ghost Storey”

  1. “confident, serious and posh with a knack of sounding like she is giving a convincing answer whilst actually saying nothing of substance at all.” So many of the posh, public school educated holders of very important positions in the PO are exactly like that. Charlatans. Let’s hope the Chairman and his team see through it (I’m sure they will).
    But thank you, Nick, for your commitment and for always putting your finger right on those spots that give away the weak, cowardly, underhand behaviour of the culprits.

  2. Addendum to earlier note: It does though appear RC’s testimony is still available on YouTube.

  3. Many thanks for your stupendous efforts Nick.

    I was just wondering why Richard Callard’s testimony has been wiped from your blog? Also, it seems the media articles pertaining to his appointment to Cobra have disappeared.

  4. Margaret Leonard avatar
    Margaret Leonard

    Storey .. career civil servant useless

  5. Dear Nick,

    Many thanks indeed from my wife and myself for all you amazing work over many years to publicize the dreadful miscarriage of justice of the SPMs. You gave the oxygen of publicity to this scandal whenever it looked like it was about to be silenced, or forgotten about by uncaring politicians.

    Thanks also for helping to highlight, against massive forces, myriad corporate and personal failings, and especially to shine the spotlight, in your blogs and elsewhere, on some of the individuals who carry the most responsibility.

    Your blogs, as others have mentioned, have proved invaluable in helping us all to follow the inquiry proceedings without watching the whole thing; they are always spot on in their judgement and in the summary of the guilt or otherwise of the witness under scrutiny. Your last blog post (above) is an exemplar …. a perfect summary of an over-promoted aparatchik, who god-forbid, would ever actually wish to do anything that may be seen as stepping off the fence. In fact, the vast majority of the civil servants contributing to the inquiry proved to be incurious and accepting of the POL narrative at best, and downright contemptuous of the SPMs, and MPs and ministers supporting them, at worst.

    But surely the Inquiry has shown us that the most malign forces at work in POL (and in the firms assisting them with the prosecutions) were the legal people! Weak leadership by the executive, an inept self-important and incurious Board, and a technical team at POL and Fujitsu who were sheepish and defensive about the myriad issues as well as being pliable and heartless, allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum! A dreadful indictment of the legal profession and their norms and standards, from the bottom to the top! It is one thing to defend a client irrespective of whether one believes they are guilty or not, but it is quite another to orchestrate the offensive actions of POL over many years in order to avoid the truth emerging that there had been a huge miscarriage of justice!

    Keep up your excellent work Nick!

    1. well said!

  6. Nick, absolutely outstanding journalism. Your book and this blog have been utterly shocking and amazing in equal measures. Thank you for contributing to expose this scandal with such determination. You deserve so much credit and a place on the honours list. Enjoy your summer; to say it is well earned, is an undstatement. Best wishes.

  7. I can’t help thinking that one reason all these NEDs, whether paid or not, didn’t take their roles too seriously or read and question the information put in front of them, was that by doing so conscientiously they would simply have created more (sometimes unpaid) work for themselves. My impression is that the various ‘observers’ didn’t feel very strongly (whatever their job description said) that their role was to hold the executive or board to account if that meant engaging in awkward, perhaps ill-tempered argument. That must have been even more true if the NEDs felt, often with some justification, that the executive were anxious to paint a ‘nothing to see here’ picture. Far easier to accept that the professional managers were correct and truthful and, unless there was incontrovertible and unavoidable evidence of wrongdoing, keep one’s mouth shut. After all, it wasn’t their day job, was it?

  8. Nick, you’ve done a brilliant service for people from all walks of business by capturing the essence of a system occupied by incompetents, protected by lawyers, ignored by its owners and about which no-one can remember anything that wasn’t actually captured in a record (which was always interpreted differently). Well done sir!

  9. As many have already said thanks for all your work. It really is much appreciated. Have a great break

  10. Steve Elliott avatar

    Hilarious post Nick, thanks. I’m sure Storey’s uselessness will resonate with most of us, whatever type of organisation we work in —sent as our “Department’s rep” to some Committee that is outside our subject area, whose purpose is obscure, and which is dominated by a couple of loud mouths who pretend to know what they’re doing, while everyone else just nods and prays for the purgatory to end. Coming back to your desk with low self esteem because you couldn’t think of anything to say, and thinking ” I really hate this job”. Storey was merely a more (allegedly) high powered version of that

  11. Nick – Many thanks for your tireless reporting and thoughtful analysis throughout the inquiry so far. It’s been Invaluable.

  12. Christopher Whitmey avatar
    Christopher Whitmey

    Many, many thanks Nick for your excellent coverage of the Inquiry. It was/is the only way I can follow it. Concening Storey, and the other Govt. appointees, none seemed to have had a clear briefing of what was expected of their role. Enjoy your well earned break !

  13. Peter Bradshaw avatar
    Peter Bradshaw

    All this goes to show is that this type of organisation is stuffed full of managers, lawyers and directors who serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The only effective people were the so-called investigators unfortunately.
    All a complete waste of time and money if the result will be that ‘lessons are learned’ and no-one serves time for this disgrace.

  14. I only came across your site comparatively late on, but found it immensely useful and informative. Thany you for producing it.

    One obvious conclusion is that this tragic mass amnesia plague which struck those at all levels of involvement in POL, management, Board, Government, Civil Service, & others, must be investigated as a matter of urgency or it may spread into society at large, which would mean that, er…………………

    Sorry, I have lost my thread. I cannot recall. Who am I again, and what is the Post Office…………….?

  15. Thanks for everything Nick, you are a credit to investigative journalism, an unfortunately dying profession it seems. You must be looking forward to not having to travel to listen to any more witnesses! We have watched most of them live via You Tube here in Oz and whilst some have been very interesting and many have been riveting because of their sheer hideousness (Singh, Davies, Grabiner, Parsons, Bradshaw, Thompson and many, many others far too numerous to mention) a lot have been very tedious and necessitated constant top-ups of the wine glasses. Storey was yet another do nothing person who was a complete waste of space. However the system that lets these people sit on boards without any training and any formal lines of reporting is more at fault. I have every faith that Sir Wyn will pick-up on these issues as his questions are very perceptive. Anyway, bye for now Nick Have a great break.

  16. Gosh Nick, definitely time to take a break !!! So appreciate your work on this epic story. But it’s time for enjoying the summer now. Put that laptop away !!

  17. This reminds me of “Yes Minister”. Sir Humphrey talks to the minister for some time, at the end of which the Minister says “Humphrey, I didn’t understand a word of that!”
    Sir Humphrey replies: “Oh, thank you Minister!”

  18. It is astonishing that none of these NEDs, SIDs appear to have the common decency, intelligence or common sense to maybe speak to the SPMs who were declaring there was something wrong with the Horizon computer system. A complete failure to do any investigation into the SPM’s claims has & will cost the tax payers millions. There has to be an investigation into the PO accounts to determine if the SPM’s shortfall were declared as losses. The money stolen from the SPMs held in suspense accounts then transferred to the PO accounts as profit is false accounting. Who ever authorized the accuracy of those accounts should be in jail. If SS used the term no systemic problems with Horizon then the question has to be why? as certain SPMs were having problems with the system. What investigation was carried out to determine what was peculiar the the SPMs having problems & those that were not. It also has been very quiet on the Fujitsu front regarding the amount of money they have agreed to pay towards the SPM;s compensation.

  19. Angela Teasdale avatar
    Angela Teasdale

    Nick – enjoy a very well earned break and thank you for all your hard work in producing such interesting & informative blog posts. Even on the days when I have been able to watch the Inquiry, your reports have been invaluable.

  20. Thanks so much for your hard work in reporting this enquiry to the public through your blog. You may well have opened the flood gates and not just to the SPM scandal! At some point (‘when’ would be a good question 🤷‍♀️) politicians and maybe the concept of politics itself, will come under far more scrutiny than what is currently in place. Over the last few months of this enquiry it hasn’t been hard to see that most of those in ‘authority’ questioned so far are either in denial, turned a blind eye, blamed others or simply ‘lost’ their’ memory .. all at the cost of the SPM’s. Truly hope the wheels of justice will start turning at pace following this enquiry!

  21. Nick, you have not been unfair to Susannah Storey at all. Anyone working at a high level has many time pressures. But the hard truth is that she was a NED of an important UK company. NEDs are supposed to provide independent oversight and challenge to the Board. There is no sign from her written witness statement to the Inquiry (an extraordinarily unimpressive document) or from her oral evidence today that she provided any challenge at all. It is doubtful that she even satisfied the core responsibilities of any Company Director to exercise independent judgement and reasonable care, skill and diligence. She was supine.

    Sir Wyn hit the nail on the head when he queried why no NEDs questioned POL data that showed SPMRs were being prosecuted for stealing amounts of over £100k and even £200k. The first question anyone with even five minutes’ business experience would ask is surely ‘how big is the annual turnover of the sub-branch?’ These are the sorts of amounts that might be stolen by armed robbers from the major city branch of a retail bank, not from a small suburban post office.

    Surprisingly, given her poor showing today, Susannah Storey was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) for ‘public service’ in the New Years Honours 2020; ex-Chair Alice Perkins received the same award in 2002. Vennells was recently stripped of her CBE for ‘bringing the honours system into disrepute’ (though many might argue that this is no longer possible when a serial incompetent like Chris Grayling is ‘elevated’ to the peerage). Nonetheless, it’s surely time that Perkins and Storey handed their awards back.

  22. william Holmes avatar
    william Holmes

    This is very important work, and I feel you deserve full credit for undertaking it. The coverage in the mainstream media has slipped away as they have lost interest in it as it no longer has the sexiness of the ITV drama.

    But while it may not be as sexy, the failures of governance are all the more shocking so thank goodness you are there to make it available to the general public. And it’s written so brilliantly!

  23. I might get some flak for saying this but there do seem to have been a lot of diversity hires at the top of the Civil Service in recent years: Lin Homer, Helen Ghose, Helen Macnamara, Susannah Storey.
    Not to mention all the women at the top of the Post Office.

    1. Sorry but I can’t let you get away with that ridiculous comment. Why are women in senior jobs ‘diversity hires’? They have to have the same qualifications as men, often more so, and have to deal with domestic duties of which men still do a minute proportion. I admit some women didn’t do their jobs properly but that applies to almost everyone in this terrible saga. In the list of incompetent, criminal and absolutely loathsome witnesses at this Inquiry the majority are men: Bradshaw, George Thompson, Mark Davies, Grabiner, Callard, Singh, Parsons, Aujard, Longman, Rodric Williams, Dunks, Ismay etc. Were they ‘diversity hires’? Most of them didn’t even have the relevant qualifications to do the job, as Nick put it they were “lifers, plodders and gormless apparatchiks inexplicably promoted into positions way beyond their ability”. Even the lawyers tried to get out of responsibility by saying they weren’t ‘criminal lawyers”. Gender has nothing to do with this disaster but everything to do with incompetence and criminality.

      1. Absolutely. People see what they want to see….

      2. Agreed. This should not go uncommented.

    2. That women were in those positions is no surprise.
      We do not live in the 18th Century.
      That said, women are just as capable of being duplicitous, self-regarding, crooked, and venal (sorry, Vennells) as men. During my lecturing career I worked under women who made Atilla the Hun look like Mother Theresa. I suppose we could say that ‘equality’ has finally been achieved.

      P.S. Thanks Nick for all the work and for making this labyrinthine disgrace easier to navigate. Maybe (fingers and toes crossed) our new dad, Starmer, will see to it that those treated with such cruelty will have the redress they deserve.

    3. Don’t apologise. Vennels and Lyons et al were obsessed with gender and identity politics. If they’d spent more time being curious about what was behind this scandal maybe hundreds of people would have avoided unsafe prosecutions, and lives would not have been lost.

    4. Deadlier than the male.

    5. By diversity hire, you mean women. In other eyes, that would appear a good thing.
      What we can learn from this scandal, however, is that the men involved, have on the whole been as bloody useless as the women. So let that be a comfort to you.
      I do hope you can recognise incompetence when it has a penis. If not, please try harder.

    6. Regardless of gender most of the top bods have been deeply unimpressive.

  24. Thank you so much for all the time you have put into this. I greatly appreciate it.
    Enjoy your holiday! :-))

  25. Peter Harland avatar

    Hello Nick, enjoy all your blog posts, have the book, no T Shirt yet – is there one? However I would be intrigued to hear your thoughts in a blog on the new Governments proposed settlement options for the Post Masters & Mistresses so badly wronged by this whole affair. And you have a great summer holiday too!!

  26. Thanks so much for all the detailed information you’ve provided!

    1. An excellent summary as usual Nick and some pertinent replies to consider.
      What have these people actually ever achieved in their careers apart from becoming a UK civil servant ticking boxes and arranging their job shares.
      Clearly qualifies from a decent school and top University and straight onto the civil list…
      An appalling, weak individual like so many others in it for only themselves..
      The spm’s had no chance.

  27. The statistics at the end of your report about witnesses and documents are truly staggering. I have followed as much of the inquiry as time allowed but your detailed reports have been most helpful in trying to comprehend all that happened (and even some of the excuses and outright denials!) Thanks so much, Nick, both for the original exposure in your book and your commitment in attending and reporting all through the inquiry. Have a great and well-deserved summer break.

  28. Thanks Nick. I noticed from the PowerPoint slides Jason Beer showed at the end that Steven Bradshaw has submitted a third witness statement. Last ditch attempt to save his bacon maybe!

    1. He’s actually trying to claim he put Rita T into a suitable lift – and submitted photos. What an idiot. He’s also trying to claim he acted professionally at all times.

  29. totally agree with you about today. just as well she didn’t get paid as like you said she didn’t appear to do anything!

  30. Another example of a civil servant, well paid and in receipt of a handsome pension, who clearly failed to honour the Code of Ethics we heard so much about.

  31. Alan Cornforth avatar
    Alan Cornforth

    It certainly has been an anti-climactic end to the inquiry session but then it was never meant to be an entertainment – or was it?! 😉 Like everybody else, I am greatly indebted to you Nick for the consistent high quality of your blogs and for hosting a platform on which interested observers can exchange views. Enjoy a hiatus from this scandal and I hope you benefit from the break.

  32. Thank you. I have really enjoyed reading your comments. Each day of the inquiry I say to myself ‘I wonder what Nick will have to say about this evidence’. Have a good summer too.

    1. Gillian L Noero avatar
      Gillian L Noero

      Heartily seconded, word-for-word.

  33. Steven Ksiezak avatar
    Steven Ksiezak

    Thanks for all your work Nick. I have really found your summaries very informative and even if I have watched the proceedings your distillation of it has been great. enjoy your summer.

  34. Ghislaine Bowden avatar
    Ghislaine Bowden

    Have a well deserved break. I will miss reading your blog. You really are a star.

  35. Gabrielle Rose avatar
    Gabrielle Rose

    Thanks Nick, my goodness you certainly deserve a good break. You have worked tirelessly throughout this very lengthy process.

  36. Looking at the evidence of all of the NEDS, it’s easy to see how the post office was able to mislead them. They are the proverbial three wise monkeys! I appreciate that the horizon issues were not the only serious issue at the time. However, they cannot all have missed the Computer Weekly, Private Eye, C4, Insight TV, MP’s concerns etc without smelling a rat and asking some searching questions. Scandals like this don’t just happen. Nobody with oversight did their job and should be held to account. I doubt they will be. Beggars belief.

    1. Lindsay Scott avatar

      A bit of an anticlimax to the end of this phase of the inquiry. Please continue with your coverage when you can. Your dissemination of the evidence is refreshing and accurate. Have enjoyed your comments and hope for more when the inquiry resumes.
      Thanks from New Zealand

  37. It’s surely worth noting that for the final session Jason Beer seemed to be ‘on the documents’.

    Thanks for all your work.

  38. Peter Burfitt avatar

    Bugger. What am I going to do all day now !

    1. Andy Richardson avatar
      Andy Richardson

      Me too……🤷🏻‍♂️

  39. Thank you Nick, you are a star. Enjoy a break.

    1. David Lovelock avatar
      David Lovelock

      Totally agree

  40. Thanks Nick for your hard work, your outstanding journalism, your reporting here, on X and elsewhere – sterling work. Let’s wait for Phase 7 with baited breath!

    1. Thankyou for your exemplary reporting Nick.enjoy your well earned break!

    2. David Lovelock avatar
      David Lovelock

      Totally agree with your comments – outstanding journalism (and perseverance!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Tags

Alan Bates alice perkins Alwen Lyons Andrew Winn Andy Dunks Andy Parsons Bates v Post Office BBC Bonusgate CCRC Chris Aujard Clarke Advice False Accounts Fujitsu Gareth Jenkins Grabiner HCAB Horizon Hugh Flemington Ian Henderson Inquiry Interim Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh Lee Castleton Lord Arbuthnot Mark Davies Neuberger Nicki Arch Nick Read Noel Thomas Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Rob Wilson Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra ShEx Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Tracy Felstead UKGI

Categories