this is an e—mailfrom michael rudkin. do you remember michael rudkin? , , , a, rudkin? yes, i remember his name. i think he was — rudkin? yes, i remember his name. i think he was federation _ rudkin? yes, i remember his name. i think he was federation connected . rudkin? yes, i remember his name. i think he was federation connected in| think he was federation connected in some way. it think he was federation connected in somewa. ., some way. it says the attachment. i resume some way. it says the attachment. i presume you _ some way. it says the attachment. i presume you have _ some way. it says the attachment. i presume you have already - some way. it says the attachment. i presume you have already seen - some way. it says the attachment. i presume you have already seen it i some way. it says the attachment. i presume you have already seen it in convenience store magazine. there is a bullet point in the next paragraph goes on to say you should almost minimise adverse publicity to our industry which is already receiving

a lot of bad press at the moment, panorama and watchdog researchers are already digging the dirt here in leicestershire. if we can then go up to see the forwarding e—mail, please. i think it is on the beginning of the next page. thank you. sorry, that was my fault. there you. sorry, that was my fault. there you go, the other e—mail. thank you. this is the 15th of october, could you send an e—mail to mary fagan. do you send an e—mail to mary fagan. do you remember who mary fagan was? i do, definitely. she was the pr officerfor do, definitely. she was the pr officer for the royal do, definitely. she was the pr officerfor the royal mail do, definitely. she was the pr officer for the royal mail group. it officer for the royal mail group. it says in the second paragraph for some strange reason there is a

steadily building nervousness about the accuracy of the horizon system and the press are now on it as well. were you saying this is the significant and escalating issue? i was then, yes. as i then expressed in the next sentence, my confusion as to why but yes i accepted that we had an issue. what you connecting to various horizon challenges at that point, the computer weekly...? yes. horizon challenges at that point, the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this was around — the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this was around that _ the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this was around that time _ the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this was around that time that - the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this was around that time that it - the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this was around that time that it came | the computer weekly. . . ? yes, this i was around that time that it came to the fore for me, if you see what i mean. ., ., the fore for me, if you see what i mean, ., ., ., the fore for me, if you see what i mean. ., ., ., ., , , ., mean. you go on to say my instincts tell that in — mean. you go on to say my instincts tell that in a — mean. you go on to say my instincts tell that in a recession _ tell that in a recession sub—postmaster sweater hand in the tail of blame technology when they are found to be short of cash. why

was your instinct to think that sub—postmasters who allege that horizon caused shortfalls? that sub-postmasters who allege that horizon caused shortfalls? that is an exoression _ horizon caused shortfalls? that is an expression i _ horizon caused shortfalls? that is an expression i will— horizon caused shortfalls? that is an expression i will regret - horizon caused shortfalls? that is an expression i will regret for - horizon caused shortfalls? that is an expression i will regret for my| an expression i will regret for my life. there was an inappropriate thing to put in an e—mail, not in line with my view of sub—postmasters, but one of the often cited problems was, at this time, michael hodgkinson tore quite eloquently about the challenges that the post office had faced, financial challenges, and the danger is that we only think about the profit or not that post office limited were making. i hope we choose to say we don't have one bottom line here, we have 12,001 bottom lines and if the post office is working then it isn't working for sub—postmasters. they

have probably got a job with the sub—post office in it, that sub—post office needs to produce enough properfor them to make it viable for them to have won it all. getting the business profitable meant getting a profitable for sub—postmasters. we went through a few years when i joined sub—postmasters. we went through a few years when ijoined that i don't think the post office earnings for were part of the effort they have been putting —— have been putting in. i think a number of them were struggling. when we reckoned the branch closure programme it was a name to reduce the number of offices then the same traffic will go through a smaller number of post offices and they would be more profitable, which is of course what happened. former managing director at their alan cooke giving evidence in the post office inquiry. angela rayner,

the deputy leader of labour, is being investigated by police over claims that she might have broken electoral law. grant shapps keep his reaction to the news. the electoral law. grant shapps keep his reaction to the news.— reaction to the news. the double standards have _ reaction to the news. the double standards have been _ reaction to the news. the double i standards have been extraordinary. angela rayner has spent her political career calling people out for exactly the thing that she seems to be doing now. it is not acceptable to ignore it and it is not acceptable for sir keir starmer to not even read reports in trade. this is something that is a serious matter, it is important it is looking to properly and i welcome the idea the police are doing that. there has also been a response from the labour party. picture, as we know, the background to this is angela rayner�*s living arrangements between 2007—15, and attacks

associated with that. what is the labour party saying about this? we have labour party saying about this? , have had a statement in the last half an hour from the have had a statement in the last half an hourfrom the labour have had a statement in the last half an hour from the labour party that angela welcomes the chance to lay out the facts with the police. they said they are confident she has complied with the rules at all times. it is probably helpfuljust to talk you through the story. it goes back more than a decade. angela rayner porterformer goes back more than a decade. angela rayner porter former council house in stockport in 2007, she got married in 2010. she saw that council house in 2015. she made a bit of a profit on a petition pay capital gains because she declared it was her principal residence, but it was her principal residence, but it is alleged she had moved in with her husband at a separate address, so the allocation issue provided false information on official documents. she insists it is absolutely not the case and are strenuously denied this throughout. she says she has legal and tax advice that prove her innocence.

there have been lots of calls in recent days and weeks to make that advice public. she says she will not do that because it contains personal information. as for sir keir starmer, he heard matched jabs alluding to thin that bit there, he says his team has seen the legal advice but he hasn't. angela rayner will pass that information onto greater manchester police of they can say for themselves. what has changed here? we don't know exactly. greater manchester police had said there were no for an investigation but james daley, there were no for an investigation butjames daley, the conservative mp, has provided more information to greater manchester police and that is the reason they are given for reassessing whether or not an offence might have been committed here. is offence might have been committed here. , , ., ., , .,

offence might have been committed here. , ., , ., ., here. is this a tax question or electoral— here. is this a tax question or electoral law _ here. is this a tax question or electoral law question - here. is this a tax question or electoral law question or - here. is this a tax question or i electoral law question or both? given that it is the police are investigating, they are looking at a potential breach of electoral law. whether it was about whether or not she paid more tax it will be up to her majesty's revenue and customs. we don't have that much information, just a single line statement from manchester police. as for the politics, sir keir starmer wants to be talking about defence spending today. he says that the labour government will spend 2.5% of national income on defence and he is committed to renewing trident, trying to put clear water between himself and the previous labour leader, jeremy corbyn. this is a distraction he could do without, having to face more questions about his deputies�*s tax affairs in this house that she is still living. it house that she is still living. it does provides the tories with an

opportunity, doesn't it? it does provides the tories with an opportunity, doesn't it? it does, and ou opportunity, doesn't it? it does, and you heard — opportunity, doesn't it? it does, and you heard grant _ opportunity, doesn't it? it does, and you heard grant shapps - opportunity, doesn't it? it does, i and you heard grant shapps there. labour people are saying to set a distraction from some of the problems the conservatives are facing themselves. there are elections around the corner in three weeks. there will be mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. you have to think about all of this in the context of that. for now, we wait and see what greater manchester police does with this and whether there are any further updates. a confirmation this morning that they are now investigating angela rayner. thank ou. let's investigating angela rayner. thank you. let's return _ investigating angela rayner. thank you. let's return now _ investigating angela rayner. thank you. let's return now to _ investigating angela rayner. thank you. let's return now to the - investigating angela rayner. thank you. let's return now to the post i you. let's return now to the post office inquiry. alan cook, the managing director between 2006—2010 is giving evidence.

could you bring back up that document, please? thank you. that is an e—mail from dave post on the 20th of october 2009, so five days after your e—mail. you are not in copy. no. it refers to some conference calls. dave smith only last week, asked me a few questions and indicated that alan cook is asking for more robust defence of horizon. what are you asking for a defence of horizon rather than an investigation into its integrity?—

rather than an investigation into its integrity? definitely not. just lookinu its integrity? definitely not. just lookin: for its integrity? definitely not. just looking for answers. _ its integrity? definitely not. just looking for answers. one - its integrity? definitely not. just looking for answers. one of - its integrity? definitely not. just looking for answers. one of the | looking for answers. one of the perils of being the boss as people use your name to get things done. i would have responded to that if i have been copied. that is not what we were after. have been copied. that is not what we were after-— we were after. dave paul is not could have _ we were after. dave paul is not could have used _ we were after. dave paul is not could have used your— we were after. dave paul is not could have used your name - we were after. dave paul is notj could have used your name and we were after. dave paul is not - could have used your name and said alan cook is looking for an independent review of horizon, or for a review into its integrity. what was put was is alan cook is looking for a more robust defence of horizon. are you saying those words didn't come from you? i horizon. are you saying those words didn't come from you?— didn't come from you? i wouldn't have said that. _ didn't come from you? i wouldn't have said that. robust _ didn't come from you? i wouldn't have said that. robust was - didn't come from you? i wouldn't have said that. robust was a - didn't come from you? i wouldn't | have said that. robust was a word didn't come from you? i wouldn't i have said that. robust was a word i used, which i meant thorough and vigorous, but defence wouldn't have been a word i used. but vigorous, but defence wouldn't have been a word i used.— been a word i used. but you use robust dimming _ been a word i used. but you use robust dimming thorough? - been a word i used. but you use robust dimming thorough? butl been a word i used. but you use - robust dimming thorough? but defence is a different point. at this stage

there was the computer weekly article and a few complaints on specific cases and i was more than prepared to believe that the answer would be different to each of them. and that the answer wasn't that there is nothing wrong. but obviously that is the stance that the organisation took in the end. the manner of the investigation, or how you choose to respond to these allegations, was that influenced by your instinctive view which we went to earlier about the supposed masters? ., ., , �* to earlier about the supposed masters? ., �* ., , ~y masters? no, it wasn't, actually. my belief would — masters? no, it wasn't, actually. my belief would be _ masters? no, it wasn't, actually. my belief would be that _ masters? no, it wasn't, actually. my belief would be that we _ masters? no, it wasn't, actually. my belief would be that we could - masters? no, it wasn't, actually. my belief would be that we could find i belief would be that we could find things that were wrong. we would

find things that were not the fault of the people running those post office branches. it could have been the procedures they were required to follow, didn't necessarily have to be the technology, but it seemed to me unlikely, i know it wasn't loads, but that many cases, what was it, nine or ten cases, all coming to my attention at the same time sounded like there was a problem. so attention at the same time sounded like there was a problem.— like there was a problem. so what ha--ened like there was a problem. so what happened to _ like there was a problem. so what happened to the _ like there was a problem. so what happened to the review? - like there was a problem. so what happened to the review? i - like there was a problem. so what happened to the review? i have i happened to the review? i have difficulty in _ happened to the review? i have difficulty in remembering. - happened to the review? i have difficulty in remembering. i- happened to the review? i have l difficulty in remembering. i think it went on past my departure. can ou no it went on past my departure. can you go back _ it went on past my departure. can you go back then to pol 0015838?

i think it is page 22. sorry, the next page, my apologies. so, we have got the michael rudkin e—mail went to at the start, at the bottom there. then, if we go, if we can go up, please? that was the response, the end of the response that we referred to and you are affording it saying we should therefore be careful of approaching

him furtherfor more therefore be careful of approaching him further for more info for without talking to paula first. who are you referring to there? paula vennells. why did you need to talk to her first? vennells. why did you need to talk to herfirst? i vennells. why did you need to talk to her first?— to her first? i don't know, really. i to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously _ to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought _ to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it _ to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it was - to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it was a - to her first? i don't know, really. i obviously thought it was a good j i obviously thought it was a good idea to the time. this was a network issue and she was responsible for the network. there were two lines i could go down, i the operations director line responsible for the technology, or i could go down the network line, which was paula. we were focusing, i was focusing too much on the operations line and pollinated to be brought into the picture. pollinated to be brought into the icture. ., ., ., picture. could we go to the page before, please, _ picture. could we go to the page before, please, just _ picture. could we go to the page before, please, just to _ picture. could we go to the page before, please, just to see - picture. could we go to the page before, please, just to see the l before, please, just to see the e—mail chain? thank you. if you

carry