the right advice from the getting the right advice from the people you have surrounded yourself with. his e—mail gets forwarded to the people you have surrounded yourself with. can you see a problem? i yourself with. can you see a problem?— yourself with. can you see a problem?_ can i yourself with. can you see a| problem?_ can we yourself with. can you see a - problem?_ can we move yourself with. can you see a _ problem?_ can we move on, problem? i can, yes. can we move on, lease? i problem? i can, yes. can we move on, please? i should _ problem? i can, yes. can we move on, please? i should have _ problem? i can, yes. can we move on, please? i should have said _ problem? i can, yes. can we move on, please? i should have said the - problem? i can, yes. can we move on, please? i should have said the top - please? i should have said the top page one. mark davies. the pr guy. he says, wise advice with which i agree. can we move forwards, please, to 0011? sorry, for 029. and look at page two, please at the top. this is made 2016 from mr maccormack directly to you. he says a typical

head in the sand reply from the team you have placed too much trust in. let me be clear, once the police investigation is completed, its highly likely that members of your staff will be sent to prison, a custodial sentence is mandatory for this offence. your role in this will not escape attention. call her and apologise and ensure suffering is ended as soon as possible. i wonder what kind of god you worship. what happened as a result of this being sent to you? i happened as a result of this being sent to you?— sent to you? i believe this is the one i referred _ sent to you? i believe this is the one i referred to _ sent to you? i believe this is the one i referred to earlier - sent to you? i believe this is the one i referred to earlier where i | one i referred to earlier where i ask, _ one i referred to earlier where i ask, i_ one i referred to earlier where i ask, i forwarded one i referred to earlier where i ask, iforwarded it one i referred to earlier where i ask, i forwarded it to tom and asked him to— ask, i forwarded it to tom and asked him to suspend any preconceptions he may have _ him to suspend any preconceptions he may have as_ him to suspend any preconceptions he may have as a result of some of the work_ may have as a result of some of the work that— may have as a result of some of the work that had been done, meaning although— work that had been done, meaning although we have said we have not found _ although we have said we have not found any— although we have said we have not found any issues, we should look

again. _ found any issues, we should look again. and — found any issues, we should look again. and i— found any issues, we should look again, and i cannot rememberwhat happened. — again, and i cannot rememberwhat happened, but i'm reasonably sure that the _ happened, but i'm reasonably sure that the case by this case had gone to the _ that the case by this case had gone to the ccr — that the case by this case had gone to the ccr c. can that the case by this case had gone to the ccr c— to the (cr c. can we look, please, at -a~e to the ccr c. can we look, please, at page one? _ to the ccr c. can we look, please, at page one? scroll _ to the ccr c. can we look, please, at page one? scroll down. - to the ccr c. can we look, please, i at page one? scroll down. follow-up at page one? scroll down. follow—up e—mailfrom mr at page one? scroll down. follow—up e—mail from mr maccormack. at page one? scroll down. follow—up e—mailfrom mr maccormack. what i have heard today is totally unbelievable. i know you should have acquainted yourself with the consequences and should note that fujitsu said they would fix this earlier this year and i say today would be highly unlikely they would do this as they don't know what caused the error in the first place. you know because i am about to tell you, the same error has occurred in other branch in far more severe circumstances. i will be glad to help one to call and put her out of

her misery. you are a bunch of idiots playing havoc with the lives of people, you have little interest in. did you refuse to engage with mr maccormack after this time? i in. did you refuse to engage with mr maccormack after this time?- maccormack after this time? i don't believe so. — maccormack after this time? i don't believe so, but _ maccormack after this time? i don't believe so, but i _ maccormack after this time? i don't believe so, but i think— maccormack after this time? i don't believe so, but i think by _ maccormack after this time? i don't believe so, but i think by this - believe so, but i think by this stagem _ believe so, but i think by this stagem i_ believe so, but i think by this stage... i cannot remember. i think roderick— stage... i cannot remember. i think roderick williams had taken on the responses — roderick williams had taken on the responses which i'm very sorry about on behalf— responses which i'm very sorry about on behalf of— responses which i'm very sorry about on behalf of the post office. it honestly, _ on behalf of the post office. it honestly, i cannot remember. this may have — honestly, i cannot remember. this may have been the one where angela went to _ may have been the one where angela went to look into the details of the bu-. went to look into the details of the bu. . ~ went to look into the details of the bu i _ ., ~' ., went to look into the details of the bu . ., ~' ., , , went to look into the details of the bug. taking a step back, would you acce -t that bug. taking a step back, would you accept that you _ bug. taking a step back, would you accept that you routinely _ bug. taking a step back, would you accept that you routinely received l accept that you routinely received respondents from sub—postmasters and people speaking on behalf of them raising complaints or concerns regarding the operation of horizon at their branch?—

regarding the operation of horizon at their branch?_ did | at their branch? yes, i would. did ou see at their branch? yes, i would. did you see a — at their branch? yes, i would. did you see a pattern _ at their branch? yes, i would. did you see a pattern between - at their branch? yes, i would. did you see a pattern between them? at their branch? yes, i would. did l you see a pattern between them? i saw the theme of horizon coming up, yes. saw the theme of horizon coming up, es. ~ . , saw the theme of horizon coming up, es. . ., , ., , ., saw the theme of horizon coming up, yes. was anything done by you to 'oin the yes. was anything done by you to join the dots _ yes. was anything done by you to join the dots between _ yes. was anything done by you to join the dots between them? - yes. was anything done by you to join the dots between them? the| join the dots between them? the dots, i believed, were beingjoined through— dots, i believed, were beingjoined through the investigation work in the complaints remediation scheme and in _ the complaints remediation scheme and in every case, i believed we had looked _ and in every case, i believed we had looked at _ and in every case, i believed we had looked at it— and in every case, i believed we had looked at it in some detail. and i regret— looked at it in some detail. and i regret today that clearly neither of those _ regret today that clearly neither of those exposed the issues we came to find out _ those exposed the issues we came to find out about through the common, horizon— find out about through the common, horizon issuesjudgment. | find out about through the common, horizon issuesjudgment. i will find out about through the common, horizon issuesjudgment._ horizon issues “udgment. i will turn to my next — horizon issuesjudgment. i will turn to my next topic. — horizon issuesjudgment. i will turn to my next topic, your _ horizon issuesjudgment. i will turn to my next topic, your knowledge l horizon issuesjudgment. i will turn| to my next topic, your knowledge of the facility for remote access. you

described, there is no need to turn them up in your witness statement, it is paragraph 1000 262—1307, the state of your knowledge across time from 2007 onwards as to remote access. however defined. you referred to documents provided to you by the inquiry which showed that the post office and new that form of remote access was possible from october 2008. remote access was possible from 0ctober2008. i remote access was possible from october 2008. i want to explore some of that material so far as it came to your attention. can we start, please, with the ernst & young audit and the issue of 2011. can we look at w itn 0074 0126?

if we look at the foot of the page, please. there is an e—mailfrom donald brydon in september 2011. can you remind inquiry the function that he performed at that time? shat you remind inquiry the function that he performed at that time?- he performed at that time? at this time, he he performed at that time? at this time. he was _ he performed at that time? at this time, he was group _ he performed at that time? at this time, he was group chairman - he performed at that time? at this time, he was group chairman of. he performed at that time? at this i time, he was group chairman of royal mail, _ time, he was group chairman of royal mail. which _ time, he was group chairman of royal mail, which included post office. he was mail, which included post office. was chair mail, which included post office. he: was chair rmg. if you read, he says, i was a bit surprised to see the article in private either this week about a class action by sub—postmasters. it may be a bit after the horse has bolted, but may be appropriate to have an explicit litigation — legal report in the board papers for the future,

obviously alice's call. shamans others is copied into this e—mail. the article raises some questions about horizon. i suspect the audit and risk committee ought to take an interest. have we ever had an independent audit of horizon? if we scroll up, please? you say in reply, you remember, this has reared its head before, iwill get you remember, this has reared its head before, i will get a brief circulated for new board members. in summary, each time any cases had gone to coat, the post office's position has been upheld. and in at least two cases, ruud gullit was proven. stopping there, this is obviously before the 2012 board meeting —— guilt was proven. where were you getting your information at this time that each time a case has

gone to court, the post office's position has been upheld? i can only imaaine it position has been upheld? i can only imagine it would _ position has been upheld? i can only imagine it would have _ position has been upheld? i can only imagine it would have been - position has been upheld? i can only imagine it would have been susie . imagine it would have been susie crichton, — imagine it would have been susie crichton, eitherthe imagine it would have been susie crichton, either the head of legal or at— crichton, either the head of legal or at this — crichton, either the head of legal or at this time she was head of legat — or at this time she was head of legat it— or at this time she was head of legal. it may have been claire ward all, legal. it may have been claire ward all. i'm _ legal. it may have been claire ward all. i'm not— legal. it may have been claire ward all, i'm not sure. it is not something i would have known without either— something i would have known without either having heard or spoken to somebody who headed up legal for the post office. i�*m somebody who headed up legal for the ost office. �* ., , post office. i'm not sure i caught the surname _ post office. i'm not sure i caught the surname of _ post office. i'm not sure i caught the surname of the _ post office. i'm not sure i caught the surname of the other- post office. i'm not sure i caught| the surname of the other person. wardelt — the surname of the other person. wardelt was _ the surname of the other person. wardell. was this _ the surname of the other person. wardell. was this kind _ the surname of the other person. wardell. was this kind of- the surname of the other person. wardell. was this kind of thing i the surname of the other person. l wardell. was this kind of thing said in conversation? we have always have won? ., �* . in conversation? we have always have won? ., �*, ., _ in conversation? we have always have won? ., ., ., won? no. it's obviously a fact that i had either _ won? no. it's obviously a fact that i had either in _ won? no. it's obviously a fact that i had either in my _ won? no. it's obviously a fact that i had either in my head _ won? no. it's obviously a fact that i had either in my head because i won? no. it's obviously a fact that i had either in my head because it| i had either in my head because it had been — i had either in my head because it had been discussed presumably in a

meeting _ had been discussed presumably in a meeting somewhere or i had gone to somehodym — meeting somewhere or i had gone to somebody... just looking at the time _ somebody... just looking at the time yes. _ somebody... just looking at the time. yes, it's possible i spoke to somebody— time. yes, it's possible i spoke to somebody before i replied, i don't know _ somebody before i replied, i don't know. , . , , somebody before i replied, i don't know. , ., , , ., know. there is a series of statements _ know. there is a series of statements or _ know. there is a series of statements or facts i know. there is a series of statements or facts or i know. there is a series of i statements or facts or pieces of folklore that seemed to have circulated within the post office. including every time we go to court, we won. horizon has no faults in it, every time it has been investigated, no faults have been found. the contract with sub—postmasters said they are responsible for all losses. no remote access is possible for even the post office or fujitsu. each of which things turn out to be

false. how is it that on all of these critical issues so many false statements were circulating within the post office? shat statements were circulating within the post office?— the post office? at the time, they were not considered _ the post office? at the time, they were not considered to _ the post office? at the time, they were not considered to be - the post office? at the time, they were not considered to be false i were not considered to be false statements. and the source of those statements... it's unfair to say because — statements... it's unfair to say because i— statements... it's unfair to say because i cannot recall clearly, but on something like this, the only possible — on something like this, the only possible source of this statement would _ possible source of this statement would have been through the post office _ would have been through the post office legal team. so the answer for all of— office legal team. so the answer for all of them — office legal team. so the answer for all of them would be to look for where _ all of them would be to look for where the — all of them would be to look for where the expertise sat within the organisation as to the genesis of what _ organisation as to the genesis of what we — organisation as to the genesis of what we now know where false statements.— what we now know where false statements. ~ ., , ., ., �* , ., statements. would you agree it's a serious issue _ statements. would you agree it's a serious issue on _ statements. would you agree it's a serious issue on those _ statements. would you agree it's a serious issue on those four - statements. would you agree it's a serious issue on those four points. serious issue on those four points that i have mentioned? what the contract said, whether we win in

court every time, whether fujitsu has remote access, and whether investigations into horizon had turned up false, it's a serious issueif turned up false, it's a serious issue if folklore develops, which in fact has no foundation in fact. i agree. doesn't _ fact has no foundation in fact. i agree. doesn't say _ fact has no foundation in fact. i agree. doesn't say something l fact has no foundation in fact. i i agree. doesn't say something about the culture of— agree. doesn't say something about the culture of the _ agree. doesn't say something about the culture of the organisation i agree. doesn't say something about the culture of the organisation if- the culture of the organisation if such folklore developed and was perpetuated? nobody texts the real facts. —— checks the realfacts. that's a difficult question to answer— that's a difficult question to answer because in hindsight, it is completely valid. at the time, certainly— completely valid. at the time, certainly where i was concerned, i believed _ certainly where i was concerned, i believed i— certainly where i was concerned, i believed i was getting information from the — believed i was getting information from the people who were employed to -ive from the people who were employed to give me _ from the people who were employed to give me the _ from the people who were employed to give me the best advice because of their expertise. i didn't believe

that their expertise. ididn't believe that any— their expertise. i didn't believe that any of those statements were folklore _ that any of those statements were folklore at all.— folklore at all. you say in the last paragraph. _ folklore at all. you say in the last paragraph. to _ folklore at all. you say in the last paragraph, to avoid _ folklore at all. you say in the last paragraph, to avoid future - folklore at all. you say in the last. paragraph, to avoid future doubts, the post office took a decision several months ago to have horizon and the newer horizon online independently verified by an extent experiment ——... is that a reference to work recommended by ernst & young in their 2011 audit letter? i recommended by ernst & young in their 2011 audit letter?— their 2011 audit letter? i cannot remember- _ their 2011 audit letter? i cannot remember- i— their 2011 audit letter? i cannot remember. i have _ their 2011 audit letter? i cannot remember. i have seen - their 2011 audit letter? i cannot remember. i have seen this i their 2011 audit letter? i cannot remember. i have seen this inl their 2011 audit letter? i cannot i remember. i have seen this in the bundle _ remember. i have seen this in the bundle and — remember. i have seen this in the bundle and cannot remember what it's a reference _ bundle and cannot remember what it's a reference to. in bundle and cannot remember what it's a reference to-— a reference to. in your witness statement. — a reference to. in your witness statement, it _ a reference to. in your witness statement, it is _ a reference to. in your witness statement, it is paragraph i a reference to. in your witness i statement, it is paragraph 1276,... i did see another document in the bundle _ i did see another document in the bundle which refers to a piece of... i bundle which refers to a piece of... | -o bundle which refers to a piece of... too back— bundle which refers to a piece of... too back to —

bundle which refers to a piece of... i go back to mike young and leslie and ask— i go back to mike young and leslie and ask why a particular piece of work— and ask why a particular piece of work is — and ask why a particular piece of work is late and i think i mentioned kpmg~ _ work is late and i think i mentioned kpmg~ i_ work is late and i think i mentioned kpmg. i don't know if this refers to that kpmg. idon't know if this refers to that or— kpmg. i don't know if this refers to that or a _ kpmg. i don't know if this refers to that or a piece of work by ernst & young~ _ that or a piece of work by ernst & youna. . that or a piece of work by ernst & youn. _ ., ., ., “ that or a piece of work by ernst & youna. . ., ., ,, ., i. that or a piece of work by ernst & youna. . . ,, young. can we look at your witness statements. _ young. can we look at your witness statements, page _ young. can we look at your witness statements, page 546, _ young. can we look at your witness statements, page 546, paragraph | statements, page 546, paragraph 1276? you say, ernst and young's management letter for the 2011 audit stated that they had reviewed privileged access to it functions and that there were inappropriate system privileges assigned to the 3pp system privileges assigned to the app role and system underscore management role. supporting horizon

online. the risk identified by ernst & young was that unrestricted access to privileged it functions increased the risk of unauthorised or inappropriate access which could lead to processing of unauthorised or erroneous transactions. and then you go forward to look at the 2012 audit. do you accept that what you were told in the 2011 ernst & young audit was that fujitsu had an ability to remotely access and make changes to the horizon online live estate?

i don't believe that i took it, that i don't believe that i took it, that i understood that degree of detail. what _ i understood that degree of detail. what i _ i understood that degree of detail. what i heard in my witness statement -- what _ what i heard in my witness statement -- what i _ what i heard in my witness statement -- what i did — what i heard in my witness statement —— what i did hear in my witness statement — —— what i did hear in my witness statement was to look at the document because i could not remember it from the time. at the time. _ remember it from the time. at the time. i_ remember it from the time. at the time. i had — remember it from the time. at the time, i had been promoted to managing directorjust a few months previously— managing directorjust a few months previously and that this was the first time — previously and that this was the first time i had come across an it part and — first time i had come across an it part and this was the time, i think, where _ part and this was the time, i think, where i_ part and this was the time, i think, where i asked for a briefing document to explain to me the issues being _ document to explain to me the issues being raised _ document to explain to me the issues being raised in the audit. i accept fully that — being raised in the audit. i accept fully that this is what the document said _ fully that this is what the document said how— fully that this is what the document said. how much of that i really understood at the time, i'm not sure _ understood at the time, i'm not sure what _ understood at the time, i'm not sure. what i did do was to make sure that mike _ sure. what i did do was to make sure that mike young and lesley saul picked _ that mike young and lesley saul picked up the issues identified and in my— picked up the issues identified and in my statement i go on to talk

about— in my statement i go on to talk about that. in my statement i go on to talk about that-— in my statement i go on to talk about that. r' , about that. the risk identified by ernst & young — about that. the risk identified by ernst & young was _ about that. the risk identified by ernst & young was that - about that. the risk identified by i ernst & young was that unrestricted access to privileged it functions increased the risk of unauthorised or inappropriate access which could lead to processing of unauthorised or erroneous transactions. it's implicit in that that a form of remote access by fujitsu is possible, isn't it? remote access by fu'itsu is possible, isn't mi remote access by fu'itsu is possible, isn't it? reading that today with _ possible, isn't it? reading that today with everything - possible, isn't it? reading that today with everything we i possible, isn't it? reading that| today with everything we know, possible, isn't it? reading that i today with everything we know, yes, absolutely. — today with everything we know, yes, absolutely, i'm not sure at the time that i_ absolutely, i'm not sure at the time that i would — absolutely, i'm not sure at the time that i would have understood that. at the _ that i would have understood that. at the very — that i would have understood that. at the very least, you accept that you read — at the very least, you accept that you read this ernst & young letter. you were _ you read this ernst & young letter. you were aware that unauthorised or erroneous— you were aware that unauthorised or erroneous transactions could be processed — erroneous transactions could be processed on horizon that were not carried _ processed on horizon that were not carried out— processed on horizon that were not carried out or approved by the

sub—postmaster. i don't want to challenge — sub—postmaster. i don't want to challenge because i don't want to be seen to— challenge because i don't want to be seen to be _ challenge because i don't want to be seen to be being defensive in anyway about— seen to be being defensive in anyway about this _ seen to be being defensive in anyway about this. this is my first auditi was involved in any kind. of an it system. — was involved in any kind. of an it system. and— was involved in any kind. of an it system, andl was involved in any kind. of an it system, and i fully accept what the document— system, and i fully accept what the document said. at the time, the focus _ document said. at the time, the focus was — document said. at the time, the focus was on the fact that the audit was late _ focus was on the fact that the audit was late and had run dramatically over budget and the cio mike young was very— over budget and the cio mike young was very frustrated about the challenge he had from the board because — challenge he had from the board because of those things because it happened — because of those things because it happened during the year he had just completed the horizon online. i'm pretty— completed the horizon online. i'm pretty sure... it says this, i absolutely— pretty sure... it says this, i absolutely would not challenge that at all~ _ absolutely would not challenge that at all~ i_ absolutely would not challenge that at all. i did not pick this up at the time. _ at all. i did not pick this up at the time. i_ at all. i did not pick this up at the time, i did not pick it up as something _ the time, i did not pick it up as something i was unduly concerned

about _ something i was unduly concerned about it _ something i was unduly concerned about. it talks about a risk and the role of— about. it talks about a risk and the role of business is to manage risk. i asked _ role of business is to manage risk. i asked for— role of business is to manage risk. i asked for a — role of business is to manage risk. i asked for a briefing document to help understand the technicalities, but i accept the proposition you're putting _ but i accept the proposition you're putting to — but i accept the proposition you're putting to me. that but i accept the proposition you're putting to me— putting to me. that there was a facility for _ putting to me. that there was a facility for unauthorised - putting to me. that there was a facility for unauthorised access | putting to me. that there was a i facility for unauthorised access and therefore the facility to carry out unauthorised or erroneous transactions.— unauthorised or erroneous transactions. . . �*, ., transactions. yes, that's what it sa s. it transactions. yes, that's what it says. it cannot _ transactions. yes, that's what it says. it cannot be _ transactions. yes, that's what it says. it cannot be read - transactions. yes, that's what it says. it cannot be read in i transactions. yes, that's what it says. it cannot be read in any i transactions. yes, that's what it i says. it cannot be read in any other wa , can says. it cannot be read in any other way. can it? _ says. it cannot be read in any other way. can it? no- — says. it cannot be read in any other way, can it? no. so— says. it cannot be read in any other way, can it? no. so that— says. it cannot be read in any other way, can it? no. so that i - way, can it? no. so that| understand, _ way, can it? no. so that| understand, can - way, can it? no. so that| understand, can i - way, can it? no. so that i understand, can i summarise it in this way? — understand, can i summarise it in this way? anyone _ understand, can i summarise it in this way? anyone with _ understand, can i summarise it in this way? anyone with the - understand, can i summarise it in. this way? anyone with the relevant knowledge — this way? anyone with the relevant knowledge and _ this way? anyone with the relevant knowledge and or— this way? anyone with the relevant knowledge and or expertise - this way? anyone with the relevant knowledge and or expertise in - this way? anyone with the relevant knowledge and or expertise in post office _ knowledge and or expertise in post office reading _ knowledge and or expertise in post office reading that _ knowledge and or expertise in post office reading that ernst _ knowledge and or expertise in post office reading that ernst & - knowledge and or expertise in post office reading that ernst & young l office reading that ernst & young report _ office reading that ernst & young report would _ office reading that ernst & young report would have _ office reading that ernst & young report would have understood i office reading that ernst & young report would have understood it. office reading that ernst & young. report would have understood it as

he describes? _ report would have understood it as he describes?— report would have understood it as he describes? yes. you _ report would have understood it as he describes? yes. you are - he describes? yes. you are introducing _ he describes? yes. you are introducing for _ he describes? yes. you are introducing for your - he describes?“ you are i introducing for your personal he describes?“ you are - introducing for your personal point of view— introducing for your personal point of view in — introducing for your personal point of view in effect _ introducing for your personal point of view in effect a _ introducing for your personal point of view in effect a caveat - introducing for your personal point of view in effect a caveat as - introducing for your personal point of view in effect a caveat as to i of view in effect a caveat as to whether — of view in effect a caveat as to whether you _ of view in effect a caveat as to whether you understood - of view in effect a caveat as to whether you understood it- of view in effect a caveat as to whether you understood it at i of view in effect a caveat as to i whether you understood it at that time _ whether you understood it at that time t— whether you understood it at that time. . . whether you understood it at that time. ., , ., ., ., whether you understood it at that time. .,, ., ., ., , whether you understood it at that time. ., ., ., , ., time. i was not meaning to put a closs on time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it- _ time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it- it — time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it. it is _ time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it. it is the _ time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it. it is the regret i time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it. it is the regret that l time. i was not meaning to put a gloss on it. it is the regret that i | gloss on it. it is the regret that i didn't understand it at the time, yes. that is what i will call remote access one, the ernst & young management letter. can return to deloitte projects libra —— project zebra 2014? can return to paragraph 883 of your witness statement on page 395? 883, he refers us there to a board briefing prepared by lloyd in draft, yes? a board briefing prepared by lloyd in draft. yes?— a board briefing prepared by lloyd in draft, yes? yes. by way of background. _ in draft, yes? yes. by way of background, if _ in draft, yes? yes. by way of background, if i _

in draft, yes? yes. by way of background, if i can - in draft, yes? yes. by way of background, if i can summarise what has happened before, 88's —— delete's report was a response to a request by the board to determine if horizon was robust, fit for purpose and operated in a appropriate control framework. agreed? that is the genesis — control framework. agreed? that is the genesis of— control framework. agreed? that is the genesis of the _ control framework. agreed? that is the genesis of the report. _ control framework. agreed? that is the genesis of the report. yes, i control framework. agreed? that is the genesis of the report. yes, a i the genesis of the report. yes, a desktop exercise _ the genesis of the report. yes, a desktop exercise to _ the genesis of the report. yes, a desktop exercise to look - the genesis of the report. yes, a desktop exercise to look at i desktop exercise to look at documentation and assurance route material. therefore an important piece of work because the board wanted to know whether horizon was robust, fit for purpose and operated within a appropriate control framework?— within a appropriate control framework? , . ., ., framework? yes. but it was not a fresh piece _ framework? yes. but it was not a fresh piece of _ framework? yes. but it was not a fresh piece of work, _ framework? yes. but it was not a fresh piece of work, it _ framework? yes. but it was not a fresh piece of work, it was - framework? yes. but it was not a fresh piece of work, it was not i fresh piece of work, it was not asking — fresh piece of work, it was not asking deloitte to give their view on those — asking deloitte to give their view on those matters, it was asking them

to review— on those matters, it was asking them to review existing documentation like the _ to review existing documentation like the ernst & young audit material, two or three other independent auditss plus internal documentation.— independent auditss plus internal documentation. , . ., ., documentation. yes, we will come to see the complaints _ documentation. yes, we will come to see the complaints that _ documentation. yes, we will come to see the complaints that deloitte i see the complaints that deloitte made about the limitations of the exercise they were asked to perform in a moment. in addition to its main report, 88 were asked to draft a board briefing, wednesday? and report, 88 were asked to draft a board briefing, wednesday? and ux es -- board briefing, wednesday? and ux yes -- yes- — board briefing, wednesday? and ux yes -- yes- and _ board briefing, wednesday? and ux yes -- yes- and you _ board briefing, wednesday? and ux yes -- yes. and you accept - board briefing, wednesday? and ux yes -- yes. and you accept that i board briefing, wednesday? and ux yes -- yes. and you accept that you| yes -- yes. and you accept that you read the draft _ yes -- yes. and you accept that you read the draft board _ yes -- yes. and you accept that you read the draft board briefing - yes -- yes. and you accept that you read the draft board briefing of i yes -- yes. and you accept that you read the draft board briefing of the | read the draft board briefing of the 4th ofjune 2014? read the draft board briefing of the 4th of june 2014?— read the draft board briefing of the 4th ofjune 2014? yes. and then in -araara-h 4th ofjune 2014? yes. and then in paragraph 84. _ 4th ofjune 2014? yes. and then in paragraph 84. he _ 4th ofjune 2014? yes. and then in paragraph 84, he saved my first impression was that this was a critical report at raised serious concerns, yes? critical report at raised serious concerns. yes?— critical report at raised serious concerns, yes?- i- critical report at raised serious concerns, yes? yes. i need to

understand — concerns, yes? yes. i need to understand whether _ concerns, yes? yes. i need to understand whether the caveats in that report could be addressed, if they couldn't, it could have serious implications with whether we continue to use the system. that is the horizon system?— continue to use the system. that is the horizon system? yes. while i recounise the horizon system? yes. while i recognise the _ the horizon system? yes. while i recognise the limitations in that thinking now, ifelt at recognise the limitations in that thinking now, i felt at the time i had contextual reassurance that the system was working from the number of transactions that were successfully completed each day but it was clear we needed to understand the gaps and caveats and whether they could be addressed. and then you say, there were also part of the report i did not understand, like the reference to the exceptional balancing transaction incident in 2010. and then in paragraph 885, you say, i spoke to lesley saul, which is what follows here, this is one of those things that is not document, this is from your recollection ten

years on. my recollection is that she assured me that the post office had more background documents not taken into account which provided assurance with respect to the caveats on the balancing transaction incident, i was told it was an emergency measure that had only been used once, it was not about remote access and the post office had documents showing the sub—postmaster —— sub—postmaster was aware of the incident. i trusted what i was told and felt able to put that issue aside. given you had received a board briefing which you say was so serious that it caused you to think whether you could continue to use horizon, you then say, but i was told this by lesley. was this not documented in anyway? fiestas told this by lesley. was this not documented in anyway? was what not documented? — documented in anyway? was what not documented? what _ documented in anyway? was what not documented? what we _ documented in anyway? was what not documented? what we see _ documented in anyway? was what not documented? what we see in - documented in anyway? was what not l documented? what we see in paragraph

885. what is really _ documented? what we see in paragraph 885. what is really curious _ documented? what we see in paragraph 885. what is really curious about - 885. what is really curious about this is i recall _ 885. what is really curious about this is i recall that _ 885. what is really curious about this is i recall that i _ 885. what is really curious about this is i recall that i seem - 885. what is really curious about this is i recall that i seem to i this is i recall that i seem to be... — this is i recall that i seem to be... i— this is i recall that i seem to be... i can _ this is i recall that i seem to be... i can recall being concerned about— be... i can recall being concerned about this — be... i can recall being concerned about this report, it was a very difficult — about this report, it was a very difficult report to read, full of caveats — difficult report to read, full of caveats and you have to work quite hard to _ caveats and you have to work quite hard to find — caveats and you have to work quite hard to find what conclusions there were within it. i am not an it expert... _ were within it. i am not an it expert- - -_ were within it. i am not an it exert... �* ., expert... i'm not asking you about the main report — expert. .. i'm not asking you about the main report but— expert... i'm not asking you about the main report butjust _ expert... i'm not asking you about the main report butjust a - expert... i'm not asking you about the main report butjust a short i expert... i'm not asking you about| the main report butjust a short ten page board briefing. this the main report but “ust a short ten page board briefing.— page board briefing. this was not about the main _ page board briefing. this was not about the main report, _ page board briefing. this was not about the main report, the i page board briefing. this was not about the main report, the main| about the main report, the main report— about the main report, the main report i— about the main report, the main report i looked at after i saw the board _ report i looked at after i saw the board briefing and that was 70 art pages. _ board briefing and that was 70 art pages, much more technical than this. _ pages, much more technical than this. i_ pages, much more technical than this. i was — pages, much more technical than this. i was concerned, and others seemed _ this. i was concerned, and others seemed to — this. i was concerned, and others seemed to be less concerned, there was reassurance taken that if you

could _ was reassurance taken that if you could find — was reassurance taken that if you could find your way through the paragraphs in this report, it said, or perhaps — paragraphs in this report, it said, or perhaps was in recovery e—mail, that doublet — or perhaps was in recovery e—mail, that doublet had not found anything -- that— that doublet had not found anything —— that deloitte was not —— has not found _ —— that deloitte was not —— has not found anything to suggest horizon is not working as it should but flagged a couple _ not working as it should but flagged a couple of issues that needed to be looked _ a couple of issues that needed to be looked at _ a couple of issues that needed to be looked at and the balancing transaction was one i had looked at and i_ transaction was one i had looked at and i spoke — transaction was one i had looked at and i spoke to lesley about. the reason _ and i spoke to lesley about. the reason i — and i spoke to lesley about. the reason i remember this clearly is because — reason i remember this clearly is because i— reason i remember this clearly is because i had to go back to her twice — because i had to go back to her twice i— because i had to go back to her twice i can— because i had to go back to her twice. i can talk to you about that if that's— twice. i can talk to you about that if that's helpful, but to your question— if that's helpful, but to your question about why there was nothing documented on this, there isn't and i find _ documented on this, there isn't and i find it— documented on this, there isn't and i find it puzzling because it was discussed — i find it puzzling because it was discussed at a board meeting very briefly— discussed at a board meeting very briefly and — discussed at a board meeting very briefly and i can remember that the

board _ briefly and i can remember that the board essentially were disappointed that this _ board essentially were disappointed that this report could not be used in the _ that this report could not be used in the way— that this report could not be used in the way that they had hoped it would. _ in the way that they had hoped it would, which was alongside the other report. _ would, which was alongside the other report. and _ would, which was alongside the other report, and so the business was asked _ report, and so the business was asked to — report, and so the business was asked to pick up the details in this and progressed it, which became the project _ and progressed it, which became the project zebra action report. i'm not sure i_ project zebra action report. i'm not sure i would — project zebra action report. i'm not sure i would have documented my conversation with lesley saul, because — conversation with lesley saul, because by the time i had spoken to her twice _ because by the time i had spoken to her twice on— because by the time i had spoken to her twice on the balancing transaction, i came away quite reassured _ transaction, i came away quite reassured as to what it was. this is one of the — reassured as to what it was. this is one of the incidents _ reassured as to what it was. this is one of the incidents i _ reassured as to what it was. this is one of the incidents i referred i reassured as to what it was. this is one of the incidents i referred to i one of the incidents i referred to earlier as patriot evidence for you, you receive something in writing that was very serious and warrants attention, you said you spoke to somebody that reassured and can't view, there is no record of —— and calm it you. view, there is no record of -- and calm it you-—

calm it you. i'm not sure i would have ut calm it you. i'm not sure i would have put it _ calm it you. i'm not sure i would have put it to — calm it you. i'm not sure i would have put it to a _ calm it you. i'm not sure i would have put it to a conversation... l calm it you. i'm not sure i would i have put it to a conversation... to your— have put it to a conversation... to your challenge earlier about me remembering elements that might assist _ remembering elements that might assist what i might like to say, the reason _ assist what i might like to say, the reason i _ assist what i might like to say, the reason i can— assist what i might like to say, the reason i can recall this is because i had _ reason i can recall this is because i had to— reason i can recall this is because i had to go— reason i can recall this is because i had to go back twice, and the first— i had to go back twice, and the first time — i had to go back twice, and the first time lesley explained it to me. _ first time lesley explained it to me. which— first time lesley explained it to me, which was that it was similar to a transaction — me, which was that it was similar to a transaction correction. i understood transaction corrections were about remote access but they had to _ were about remote access but they had to be _ were about remote access but they had to be accepted by the branch. this one _ had to be accepted by the branch. this one i— had to be accepted by the branch. this one i did not understand the technicality of how it happened, but it was— technicality of how it happened, but it was a _ technicality of how it happened, but it was a similar process, but for whatever— it was a similar process, but for whatever reason, the single incident. _ whatever reason, the single incident, permission was still sort from _ incident, permission was still sort from the — incident, permission was still sort from the sub—postmaster because for whatever— from the sub—postmaster because for whatever reason it did not happen through— whatever reason it did not happen through the normal process of automatic acknowledgement in branch. itook— automatic acknowledgement in branch. i took that— automatic acknowledgement in branch. i took that information, went away and thought, i want to know that

what _ and thought, i want to know that what she — and thought, i want to know that what she has said is right, sol went— what she has said is right, sol went back— what she has said is right, sol went back to lesley and asked her to check— went back to lesley and asked her to check that— went back to lesley and asked her to check that this documentation was right. _ check that this documentation was right. but— check that this documentation was right, but we had got it documented and the _ right, but we had got it documented and the inquiry has that document in its enclosure that shows the sub-pass _ its enclosure that shows the sub—pass muster —— sub—postmaster had approved — sub—pass muster —— sub—postmaster had approved it and it happened. it is because — had approved it and it happened. it is because i— had approved it and it happened. it is because i went back twice that i had quite — is because i went back twice that i had quite clear recall in this example. had quite clear recall in this example-— had quite clear recall in this examle. ~ ., ., ,. ., example. we will look at the briefin: example. we will look at the briefing itself _ example. we will look at the briefing itself after _ example. we will look at the briefing itself after because l example. we will look at the briefing itself after because i wonder if we can break until 15:40pm. studio: well, they havejust studio: well, they have just taken a break in the post office inquiry. we have just been told they are going to break for about ten minutes or

so, but we have been hearing from paula vennells, very key testimony which is expected to last for the next few days and we will return to that in ten minutes, when it resumes. let's go to another big story in the uk, which is the growing speculation over whether there might be a general election called later today. the prime minister has reiterated there will be a general election in the second half of this year but speculation is mounting by the minute about when he might announce a date. the rumours have been strengthened by the news two ministers have changed their travel plans. for more on this, we can go live to downing street and join our correspondence hannah miller. election speculations are often at fever pitch but this feels like it is of the dial. what is the latest you are hearing? it is is of the dial. what is the latest you are hearing?— is of the dial. what is the latest you are hearing? it is of the dial compared _ you are hearing? it is of the dial compared to _ you are hearing? it is of the dial compared to what _ you are hearing? it is of the dial compared to what we _ you are hearing? it is of the dial compared to what we have i

you are hearing? it is of the dial| compared to what we have heard throughout this year. we've been talking for a while but the question of when the general election will be, the speculation is now at a level it has not been at any point this year. there is a cabinet meeting due to begin here in downing street and less than an hour, and two ministers have changed their travel plans in order to be here. the foreign secretary has cut short a trip to albania to attend a meeting in london, and grant shapps the defence secretary was due to travel out of the uk this afternoon and we understand he has postponed the trip, although we were told he intends to travel at some point. there are rumours that some ministerial diaries are being cleared, which is further adding to the speculation, but we do not have anything concrete about what the prime minister might say, or even if the prime minister is going to say anything at all. just rows of cameras lined up your in downing street expecting something with very little concrete information. in

terms of