BC: Bundle. In Oct 2018, EM emails you after discussion taking place about MF's tweets and says 'give MP a heads-up about MF. Active effort by complainant 3 to find funding at DfID.' You had had a discussion with EM hadn't you?
MA: I don't recall a specific conversation. I think I had had a conversation with MP and that might have fed back to EM but I don't remember exactly.
BC: Suggest EM is referring to removing the claimant's funding and remove her from Gates grant as pretext for ending relationship?
MA: N
BC Bundle - email between EM pressing to take claimant off Gates grant?
MA: Y
BC Reflects what you discussed with her?
MA: N. I said to her I was surprised this other person was to be considered for Senior Fellow post and I thought he was being hired as consultant. I wanted to see if I could find some funding for someone else. Subsequent email exchange. Sentence saying if we take MF off grant can we redirect - I think this reflects EM's consistent effort to take MF off grant but I did not discuss this with her.
BC: p(): Email from LE on 31 Oct - Masood leaning towards not renewing. You had been discussing with him?
MA: He came to my office about expiration. He said what shall we do. I said I am not ready to renew because we were in the middle of discussing, put it on hold. Wasn't going to be rushed.
BC: Bundle. MP email after talk with you, in which you had told him you didn't wish to push for funding for claimant because work wasn't central to development?
MA: N. MP and I had a conversation and I said to him he needed to put a pause on DfID because until we sort this out, why aggravate the issue if we decide we don't want a relationship? He said okay, I'll message this to the team, don't want to bring more people into discussion. Had had a conversation in context of development programme separately that I didn't see a long term role for her.
BC: We heard his account when he gave his evidence. Let me put it to you, he was being truthful, and actually at the time, you were feeding a line to MP which wasn't real reason. Real reason was expression of beliefs and you gave him an untrue line, didn't you?
MA: I disagree. My recollection is also of subsequently... (lost track of exactly what he said - long). But denies this.
BC: Bundle. Exchange between you and MP. You try to get Gates Foundation to give you a pretext so you have a message for your internal purposes. Actual way round this goes: you're not saying 'I want to reposition (CGD activities) and discuss with Gates.' You want to get rid of MF so you reposition. Yes?
MA: N. Inconsistent with subsequent actions in Nov when I confirmed and responded to EM that I was happy for her to stay on as VF for a third year.
BC: You couldn't proceed with that because, as MP reflects on p(), possibility of redirecting the money hadn't happened. You were left with MF in a grant doing work. What we see you trying to do was take her off the grant. No?
MA: If that had been my intention we would have redirected the funding. I was happy for her to carry on for another year as VF. Conversation you refer to earlier did not have that intention.
BC: Reality is that because of MF's expressions of her belief and reaction of EM and others, you had sought with them to redirect funding and take her off the grant?
MA: N
BC: You well knew that expectation she had been given was that she would be brought on, and you supported fundraising for that until this point?
MA: I did not know the extent of that conversation between her and OB. I was not aware of those exchanges and I was supportive of effort to raise funding for work on tax. It was coming to end of its cycle.
BC: Decision to reposition and no longer employ MF was because of expressions of her belief?
MA: Not at all.
BC: Bundle. We see email from EM, you are not copied in but will be in a moment, in which she suggests 17th Dec terminating the claimant's email and VF status until issue is resolved.
MA: Y
BC: Bundle - we see you saying, after being copied in by MP, 'Whilst issue is addressed we should not do this.'
MA: Exactly.
BC: You therefore well understood that there had been this expressed decision not to terminate VF pending decision?
MA: Exactly. View all along.
BC: Bundle. In grounds of resistance you approved, from 1 Jan claimant had no contract or affiliation. Another example of you approving spin, and at worst, flatly untrue, because you think it will help you?
MA: It's entirely accurate that in a formal sense the contract had expired, it was just that I did not want to take action that would make it hard to resume the relationship, or to terminate it. I think this is entirely accurate.
BC: Last question. Final chance to come clean. I suggest that was disingenuous in a formal sense. Reflect on pleading that claimant... had no affiliation, and agree with me that she did? Pursuant to your decision, she continued to have VF affiliation and display that on her comms, to work with fundraising teams, have email, be on website. Just not true, is it?
MA: It is accurate. No formal affiliation. Also accurate that we allowed her to continue to have some privileges.
BC: All done