live from london. this is bbc news. thousands ofjobs will go at tata steel — as the firm closes blast furnaces at britain's biggest steelworks in port talbot. we are absolutely committed to steel—making in the uk and that is why the government provide half £1 billion to support tata steel. we'll be live on both sides of this story with our correspondents in delhi and port talbot. criticism from the us, after israel's prime minister publicly rejects calls to establish a palestinian state once the war in gaza ends. translation: israel needs security control over all territory west - of the jordan river. and could it be the end of the large wine glass — we'll find out why pubs in the uk

could be removing them. hello, i'm ben thompson. welcome to the programme. within the last hour, indian company tata steel has confirmed plans to close blast furnaces at its plant in port talbot, south wales, with the loss of up to 2,800 jobs. tata said in a statement: "tata steel today announced it will commence statutory consultation as part of its plan to transform and restructure its uk business. "this plan is intended to reverse more than a decade of losses and transition from the legacy blast furnaces to a more sustainable, green steel business. following the confirmation, the general secretary of steelworkers' union community, says tata's announcement is "unacceptable" — and claims the uk's primary

but a uk government spokesperson has said they are determined to secure the future of the uk steel industry. uk prime minister rishi sunak has been asked about this — lets listen to what he had to say. well, i know first of all that it will be a worrying time for everyone affected. and because it is a commercially sensitive matter, i hope people will appreciate there is a limit to what i can say. but what i can tell you is we are absolutely committed to steel—making in the uk, and that is why the government provided half a billion pounds to support tata steel. the alternative, by the way, was that the entire plant would be closed and all 8000 jobs would be lost. but the government worked with the company, provided half £1 billion, the company is investing more money in order to safeguard thousands of jobs. and that is something the uk government has done — the welsh government did not participate in that. and that is because we cared about those jobs and the future of steel—making in wales and the uk. but as i said, there is an announcement coming later and it's important

that we wait for that. first — let's speak to our wales correspondent, hywel griffith, whojoins us from port talbot. we us from port talbot. knew this was coming. it has on we knew this was coming. it has been on the cards for quite awhile. we knew it was losing on its uk operations. none of that will be an consolation for the thousands of people and families affected today. absolutely and it is hard, really, to take on the scale of this announcement because while it is almost 3000 jobs for tata steel employees, the knock—on impact for the community of port talbot could be seismic. there are so many contractors, cafe is depend on money flowing out of the steelworks as well so it is a body blow, really, for the community here. the workers taking on the news from the past hour or so but they know now that those two coal—fired blast furnaces

which make liquid iron virgin and steel will be shutdown at the end of this year. all employment which results from that will go. and there are questions about how long it will bring into —— take to bring in the new furnace. they have said it will not be until 2027 but far fewer workers will be required and far less money flowing out of the steelworks into the local community. please explain to us because a lot of people will be confused. the government invested in this company last year. it was all designed to move to a greener future, these new furnaces. at the same time they require fewer workers and that is the bit that people will be confused by, the idea that this government supported this business but the

business then turns round and says it will lay off nearly 3000 staff. yes, absolutely. and when you heard rishi sunak there, he suggested the alternative to this plan would be total closure and many more thousands ofjobs being lost across the uk. so the plan that the government has backed with half £1 billion was for an electric arc furnace, which potentially uses renewable energy, so it is greener to begin with, and recycles old scrap metal so it takes its steel from existing steel. that means you don't have to make it from scratch, you don't need the ion or and the cold to be brought in here and far fewer workers needed. however, there is a question about what happens between the end of this year when the second of these blast furnaces is switched off and when the new furnace begins. steel will have to be imported in the meantime. potentially, that means importing emissions or carbon emissions being made elsewhere in the world in order to supply this place with steel so some people say that that nullifies the environmental argument.

certainly people here are not so synthetic to the idea that theirjob should be sacrificed for a greener, cleaner way of making steel, at least not this pace. they wanted a far longer transition. trade unions did put an alternative plan, rather than total closure, to tata. they said that they should keep one of these running while they set up their other furnace and we now know that tata rejected that and they want to plough ahead with their original plan that will bring all of thejob losses. let's original plan that will bring all of the job losses. let's talk to our correspondence from delhi. i am looking at the statement we have had from tata steel, from the chief executive, it says it is an ambitious plan, the largest expenditure in uk steel, guaranteeing long—term high quality steel production in the uk. they say that, but they will need many fewer workers to do so, and that is what

people will be confused by. fundamentally, this is an economic decision, it is a business decision, isn't it? absolutely, and in fact thatis isn't it? absolutely, and in fact that is exactly what the statement from the office came out to say. it is a very difficult decision but we believe it is the right decision to believe it is the right decision to be made and also in order to carry on in a sustainable manner and contribute to the uk steel industry, this is a way to go. the tata steel group have made it very clear that there are two major reasons for which they had to take this difficult decision, one of course was the losses that they had been suffering, just last year in the last quarter losses of $700 million. they aimed to offset that and also to cleaner energy solution in terms of how they went ahead. so that is the plan, but of course they have promised a complaints of support package for the workers at least for now. 0 very much forjoining us now. we will be back with you a little later. so let's look at the applications of all of this. a

business correspondent is here. it has applications for how the uk sees itself, manufacturing and this country and how the uk intends to transition to a greener future because this is a heavily polluted industry. that's right. steel was a big part of the economy back into thousand 824 natural crisis happened, about 40%. that is diminished in terms of its size so demand has weakened over the past decade and that is why tata has talked about these losses in the last decade, because prices are lower. so they are having to invest in a greener future and that is why they are replacing these blast furnaces with electric arc furnaces. now, i am not an expert in furnaces but apparently i know extraction is very carbon intensive so these new furnaces are more green friendly and they involve more automation and

thatis they involve more automation and that is why we are seeing this potential job that is why we are seeing this potentialjob losses. yes, and from a business point of view, as i touched upon, it is about money. they were using a lot of —— like losing a lot of money on the uk operations. it is about streamlining. the problem is that it affects many families. yes, million pounds a day that they were losing, tata. ujah brandon t, it, and still is a big, valuable part of it and so they had to do something about it. they were under pressure from shareholders and this is the decision they took. thank you. i know you will follow this, but thank you for now. the white house has insisted that the creation of a palestinian state is the only way to ensure israel's security, after its prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, publicly dismissed the idea. in a news conference, mr netanyahu said he had told the united states he opposes the establishment of a palestinian state, once the conflict in gaza comes to an end. he said israel must have security control of all territory west of the riverjordan, which would include the territory of any future palestinian state. the reponse from washington was critical — a us state department spokesman said

there was "no way" to ensure israels long—term security without a two—state solution. many nations, including the us, have long called for a "two—state solution", in which a future palestinian state would sit side—by—side with an israeli one. mr netanyahu, however, has spent much of his political career opposing palestinian statehood. let's have a listen to what he said. translation: in any arrangement in the foreseeable future, - with a settlement or without a settlement, israel needs security control over all territory west of the jordan river. this is a necessary condition and it clashes with the idea of palestinian sovereignty. what can you do? i tell this truth to our american friends and i also stopped the attempts to impose a reality on us that would harm israel's security. the prime minister needs to be capable of saying no to our friends, saying no when necessary and saying yes when possible. live now to our correspondent mark lowen, who's injerusalem for us.

these remarks will come as no surprise but i wonder where that leaves relations between the us, that has provided unconditional support in this conflict, where it leaves their relations with israel and the israeli prime minister right now. i think it shows a widening chasm between israel's government and its most important ally. there have been several times in this conflict since the 7th of october that the us has tried to influence israeli military policy, to try to get them to stop the blanket air strikes, to try to delay the ground invasion, to try to talk about a future palestinian state with a role for the palestinian authority, and the americans have been rebuffed, often publicly, on each occasion. that has contributed to the atmosphere in the us that is growing frustrated by president biden�*s continued support for

benjamin netanyahu and i think it shows that mr netanyahu, who is increasingly unpopular here in israel, is increasingly falling back on the far right members of his government, who say, continue this war, orwe government, who say, continue this war, or we will topple the government and that is what he's doing now, it is a fight for a little survival and he is staking his survival on the idea of opposing the palestinian state. yes, that is a point. 0ne the palestinian state. yes, that is a point. one wonders who this is really aimed at, whether this is about shoring up domestic support, as you say, playing to the hardliners within his own party, and securing his future in thatjob, whether this is the international community that has been putting increasing pressure on israel to cut the number of civilian casualties in this war and for this war to end. yes, and the civilian casualties now nearing 25,000 according to the hamas run agency. many have called for israel to change their tactics and for them to engage in meaningful

diplomacy no one talks about her future to state solution, even saudi arabia dangled that in front of israel recently, saying that they could normalise relations with israel if there is a solution for a palestinian state and the ceasefire, but benjamin netanyahu is standing firm, and that there is another person who this is playing out too, thatis person who this is playing out too, that is donald trump because he sees a possibility, as we all do, of potentially donald trump returning to the white house later this year. trump is notably parole benjamin netanyahu, pro—israel, and so these comments from benjamin netanyahu could be read meat relief art donald trump to rally his more pro—israel support base, so are these comments timed for the us election? i think you can bet your bottom dollar they are. really good to have you there with that assessment now. we will be back with your just a little with that assessment now. we will be back with yourjust a little later.

there is much more about this on the bbc website. around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news. let's look at some other stories making news. anti—government protesters in haiti have brought the capital, port—au—prince, to a standstill. they used vehicles, burning tyres and rocks to block the city's main roads. the unrest comes three weeks before the deadline for the haitian prime minister, ariel henry, to stand down or reach a new political agreement to remain in power. the british retail received falling results this year. they were also down in the run—up to christmas by 3.2%. data shows that people did their shopping earlier by taking advantage of so—called black friday

sales. the us congress has passed another temporary spending bill, averting a partial government shutdown which could have begun as soon as saturday. the republican speaker of the house of representatives, mikejohnson, relied heavily on the support of democrats to pass the measure. the bill maintains funding for government operations until early march. you're live with bbc news. the inquiry into the post office scandal — where hundreds of post—masters and mistresses were wrongly convicted of fraud or stealing charges — continues in central london today. facing a second grilling of the week today is paul patterson, european director of fujitsu, the technology giant behind the flawed horizon software. he used the start of the hearing to again apologise to the victims of the scandal. to the supposed masters and their families, we apologise, fujitsu apologises and is sorry for our part in this appalling miscarriage of justice. this inquiry is examining

those events forensically over many, many decades, which involve many parties, not least fujitsu and the post office, but other organisations and individuals. we are determined to continue to support this inquiry and get to the truth, wherever it lies, and at the conclusion of the inquiry and the guidance from this inquiry, engage with government on suitable contribution and redress to the supposed masters and their families. for more on this we go live now to our correspondent zoe conway, who's outside the inquiry in central london. a further apology from the boss at the tech firm at the centre of the scandal, but once again all of this changes very little for all of those postmasters and mistresses that were caught up in this, some of them with devastating consequences. exactly. it has been a really interesting

evidence session this morning, very revealing, actually. because fujitsu is at the heart of this post office scandal and the reason why i say thatis scandal and the reason why i say that is because for years fujitsu staff were giving evidence in court cases that led to sub—postmaster is being sent to prison, and they were signing witness statements saying that there were no problems with their horizon system, that software system being used in post office branches, and at the same time, behind the scenes, as we have been hearing at this inquiry, is that fujitsu staff were talking to each other about those concerns with errors, bugs and faults with the horizon system software. now, paul patterson was asked about that and he said something very striking. he told the inquiry that he thought it was shameful and appalling that no mention of the problems with the software system were made in the statements, and he said that all of

the evidence should have been put in front of the sub postmasters who were being prosecuted because, as you say, hundreds of people were convicted by the post office and it was based on this evidence. the other thing that we have been hearing, just in the last few minutes, is notjust that these statements were untrue, but we have also been hearing that the data that was being introduced into those court cases wasn't actually good enough, so it has been a very interesting, very revealing evidence session this morning. zoe, thank you for that update. i know you will keep us posted on any developments. zoe conway, live outside of that inquiry. a reminder that the bbc news website has a life page up and running looking at all of the testimony that comes out of that

inquiry and some of the insight into the implications it has for those who are caught up in the scandal. as you can see there, the boss of fujitsu saying it was well known that there were bugs, errors, defects. he says it was known to all parties and the problems existed for nearly two decades. full details on the bbc news website. well, let's come back to a little bit more on those proceedings. i am tanya beckett, this is bbc news. the inquiry is still under way and let's return to today's session in which paul patterson, european director of fujitsu, continues to give evidence. data extraction for an internal crime — data extraction for an internal crime manager in the 30 in relation to aro _ crime manager in the 30 in relation to arq request number eight. data was held _ to arq request number eight. data was held on four of the types, it appears — was held on four of the types, it appears. and then if we go over the page. _ appears. and then if we go over the page, please, 2—page 18, paragraph

85, page, please, 2—page 18, paragraph 85. you _ page, please, 2—page 18, paragraph 85. you are— page, please, 2—page 18, paragraph 85, you are quoting in part from the letten _ 85, you are quoting in part from the letten 0n— 85, you are quoting in part from the letter. 0n the 9th of may, the post office _ letter. 0n the 9th of may, the post office was — letter. 0n the 9th of may, the post office was notified that letter. on the 9th of may, the post office was notified that fujitsu was unable _ office was notified that fujitsu was unable to _ office was notified that fujitsu was unable to source the evidential data requested, and then in the u have 'ust requested, and then in the u have just referred to, fujitsu informed the post — just referred to, fujitsu informed the post office of the issue and explained that, quote, the break has arisen _ explained that, quote, the break has arisen due _ explained that, quote, the break has arisen due to a combination of events— arisen due to a combination of events outside fujitsu's immediate control, _ events outside fujitsu's immediate control, but it does mean we are not able to— control, but it does mean we are not able to retrieve records for that six-day— able to retrieve records for that six—day period. all other parts of the audit— six—day period. all other parts of the audit trail are complete. and then— the audit trail are complete. and then if— the audit trail are complete. and then if we — the audit trail are complete. and then if we go to page 24, please. in paragraphs— then if we go to page 24, please. in paragraphs 40 to 51, you have described _ paragraphs 40 to 51, you have described for as the attempts to recover— described for as the attempts to recover and rebuild that missing data, _ recover and rebuild that missing data. but— recover and rebuild that missing

data, but the essence of it is in this paragraph 49 year. by october, 2001, _ this paragraph 49 year. by october, 2001, the _ this paragraph 49 year. by october, 2001, the back—up tapes had also been _ 2001, the back—up tapes had also been recovered from the relevant data centre in order to reconstitute the audit— data centre in order to reconstitute the audit data from the back—up tapes, _ the audit data from the back—up tapes, a — the audit data from the back—up tapes, a pseudo— audit server was built, _ tapes, a pseudo— audit server was built, which— tapes, a pseudo— audit server was built, which the back—up tapes were loaded _ built, which the back—up tapes were loaded onto by december 2001 fujitsu had reportedly identified that about 66% of— had reportedly identified that about 66% of the missing data was available on the back—up tapes. the remaining _ available on the back—up tapes. the remaining 34% was not present and was deemed irretrievable. the gap in the audit— was deemed irretrievable. the gap in the audit trail was therefore said to have — the audit trail was therefore said to have been reduced from a period of six _ to have been reduced from a period of six days— to have been reduced from a period of six days to less than 24—hour is. correct _ of six days to less than 24—hour is. correct 50— of six days to less than 24-hour is. correct. , ., ., ., , ., correct. so is that an example of what ou correct. so is that an example of what you would _ correct. so is that an example of what you would describe - correct. so is that an example of what you would describe as - correct. so is that an example of what you would describe as a - what you would describe as a limitation in time of the effect that this — limitation in time of the effect that this issue had on the audit trail? _ that this issue had on the audit trail? , that this issue had on the audit trail?- and _ that this issue had on the audit trail?- and then _ that this issue had on the audit trail?- and then if - that this issue had on the audit trail? yes. and then if we go forward to — trail? yes. and then if we go forward to page _

trail? yes. and then if we go forward to page 27, - trail? yes and then if we go forward to page 27, please. you address— forward to page 27, please. you address steps taken to prevent this happening again. i will not go forward — happening again. i will not go forward to all of those but if we go forward _ forward to all of those but if we go forward to — forward to all of those but if we go forward to page 31, please. paragraphs 63. in the preceding paragraphs, you have dealt with essentially an escalation of correspondence between fujitsu and the post— correspondence between fujitsu and the post office, concerning allegations and threats by fujitsu and threats of litigation by the post _ and threats of litigation by the post office, and the outcome of this was that— post office, and the outcome of this was that post office and fujitsu agreed — was that post office and fujitsu agreed to settle any claims regarding possible breaches by fujitsu — regarding possible breaches by fujitsu of its contractual obligations in return for a payment of £150,000.— obligations in return for a payment of £150,000. yes. can to problem

number two. _ of £150,000. 19:3 can to problem numbertwo, please? omissions of £150,000. 193 can to problem numbertwo, please? omissions in of £150,000. 193 can to problem number two, please? omissions in arq data caused _ number two, please? omissions in arq data caused by operator error. we do that immediately underneath these paragraphs you. and describe nation progress _ paragraphs you. and describe nation progress 64. so we are moving forwards— progress 64. so we are moving forwards in— progress 64. so we are moving forwards in time here to 2003. data had been _ forwards in time here to 2003. data had been omitted. it was discovered in 2003 _ had been omitted. it was discovered in 2003 in _ had been omitted. it was discovered in 2003 in response to three requests _ in 2003 in response to three requests and you give the numbers reiated _ requests and you give the numbers related to — requests and you give the numbers related to forest gate and one request— related to forest gate and one request related to urmston and that was in _ request related to urmston and that was injuiy_ request related to urmston and that was injuly 2003. request related to urmston and that was in july 2003-— request related to urmston and that was injuly 2003. yes. and was in july 2003. yes. and essentially _ was in july 2003. yes. and essentially you _ was in july 2003. yes. and essentially you go - was in july 2003. yes. and essentially you go on - was in july 2003. yes. and essentially you go on to i was injuly 2003. 193 and essentially you go on to describe a series— essentially you go on to describe a series of— essentially you go on to describe a series of operator errors that occurred _ series of operator errors that occurred when the operator was seeking — occurred when the operator was seeking to recover data from those two branches in respect of those for aros _ two branches in respect of those for arqs. . two branches in respect of those for arqs. , if two branches in respect of those for aros-- if we — two branches in respect of those for arqs. yes. if we go forward to pages

34 and 35, in — arqs. 193 if we go forward to pages 34 and 35, in paragraph 72, you explain — 34 and 35, in paragraph 72, you explain the _ 34 and 35, in paragraph 72, you explain the explanation given to the post office at the time of the cause of the _ post office at the time of the cause of the omissions. yes?— post office at the time of the cause of the omissions. yes? yes. i should have said a — of the omissions. yes? yes. i should have said a moment _ of the omissions. yes? 193 i should have said a moment ago that these omissions — have said a moment ago that these omissions were picked up by a change in personnel, is that right? who is going _ in personnel, is that right? who is going to _ in personnel, is that right? who is going to attend court to the person who had _ going to attend court to the person who had originally convicted those for aros — who had originally convicted those for arqs couldn't attend court, a new fujitsu employee was brought in to attend _ new fujitsu employee was brought in to attend court, penny thomas, i think. _ to attend court, penny thomas, i think. and — to attend court, penny thomas, i think, and she reran...— to attend court, penny thomas, i think, and she reran... yes, that's riuht. think, and she reran... yes, that's right- the — think, and she reran... yes, that's right- the for _ think, and she reran... yes, that's right. the for arqs _ think, and she reran... yes, that's right. the for arqs and _ think, and she reran... yes, that's right. the for arqs and found - think, and she reran... yes, that's right. the for arqs and found that there was missing _ right. the for arqs and found that there was missing data. _ right. the for arqs and found that there was missing data. correct. l right. the for arqs and found that i there was missing data. correct. and so essentially —

there was missing data. correct. and so essentially that _ there was missing data. correct. and so essentially that was _ there was missing data. correct. and so essentially that was by _ there was missing data. correct. and so essentially that was by chance. i so essentially that was by chance. you'll _ so essentially that was by chance. you'll make yes. the original employee had been able to attend court. _ employee had been able to attend court. this— employee had been able to attend court, this wouldn't have been discovered. and then we go forward to the _ discovered. and then we go forward to the conclusion on page 35... paragraph— to the conclusion on page 35... paragraph 74. mr mitchell provided a witness _ paragraph 74. mr mitchell provided a witness statement in relation to the two branches and he concluded that the omissions made in the data provided — the omissions made in the data provided by the first person, the one who — provided by the first person, the one who could not turn up to court, had not _ one who could not turn up to court, had not been — one who could not turn up to court, had not been repeated in the data provided _ had not been repeated in the data provided by penny thomas, and that the latter— provided by penny thomas, and that the latter data was complete in accordance with the original arq. in that case, _ accordance with the original arq. in that case, it — accordance with the original arq. in that case, it was revealed in a witness — that case, it was revealed in a witness statement.—

that case, it was revealed in a witness statement.- in i that case, it was revealed in a witness statement. yes. in the third roblem witness statement. yes. in the third problem was — witness statement. yes. in the third problem was the _ witness statement. 193 in the third problem was the lock event of 2008. we describe this at the foot of page 75. we describe this at the foot of page 75 we _ we describe this at the foot of page 75 we are — we describe this at the foot of page 75. we are moving forwards now to december— 75. we are moving forwards now to december 2007. an incident was reported — december 2007. an incident was reported by a branch to the network business _ reported by a branch to the network business support centre. it was recorded — business support centre. it was recorded in a peak and referred to fujitsu _ recorded in a peak and referred to fujitsu the — recorded in a peak and referred to fujitsu. the information was that a stock _ fujitsu. the information was that a stock unit — fujitsu. the information was that a stock unit of— fujitsu. the information was that a stock unit of £465 73 which did not io stock unit of £465 73 which did not go to— stock unit of £465 73 which did not go to local— stock unit of £465 73 which did not go to local suspense. when the stock unit rolled _ go to local suspense. when the stock unit rolled over, the local suspense was cleared — unit rolled over, the local suspense was cleared and the game was not accounted — was cleared and the game was not accounted for. the value of the game was showing on the trading position as lying _ was showing on the trading position as lying on— was showing on the trading position as lying on the trading statement. the trading position line should always— the trading position line should always show zero. now, in the

following — always show zero. now, in the following paragraph, 76—109, you set out the _ following paragraph, 76—109, you set out the history of this lock event which _ out the history of this lock event which had — out the history of this lock event which had that effect there. and how it was— which had that effect there. and how it was first _ which had that effect there. and how it was first identified by fujitsu in 2007— it was first identified by fujitsu in 2007 and then extensively considered during 2008 during a series— considered during 2008 during a series of— considered during 2008 during a series of calls, e—mails and meetings, culminating in an internal e-mail_ meetings, culminating in an internal e-mail and — meetings, culminating in an internal e—mail and presentation to fujitsu employees on the 17th of december, 2008~ _ employees on the 17th of december, 2008~ so— employees on the 17th of december, 2008~ so if— employees on the 17th of december, 2008. so if we go forward to paragraph 110, please. which is at the foot— paragraph 110, please. which is at the foot of— paragraph 110, please. which is at the foot of page 49.

this is about when the post office were _ this is about when the post office were told. — this is about when the post office were told, on the 7th ofjanuary, 2009. _ were told, on the 7th ofjanuary, 2009. and — were told, on the 7th ofjanuary, 2009, and a fujitsu employee notified — 2009, and a fujitsu employee notified an employee of the post office _ notified an employee of the post office and david gray of the post office _ office and david gray of the post office about the 2008 arq issue via e-mail _ office about the 2008 arq issue via e-mail a_ office about the 2008 arq issue via e—mail. a summary was provided of the 2008 _ e—mail. a summary was provided of the 2008 arq issue and similar terms to that _ the 2008 arq issue and similar terms to that set _ the 2008 arq issue and similar terms to that set out in a proposed witness _ to that set out in a proposed witness statement, which you have previously — witness statement, which you have previously narrated. and the various steps _ previously narrated. and the various steps that _ previously narrated. and the various steps that should be taken by fujitsu — steps that should be taken by fujitsu and post office to address the issue — fujitsu and post office to address the issue including, and then you have _ the issue including, and then you have set— the issue including, and then you have set them out between e and e. yes. . :. . have set them out between e and e. yes. , ., , . ., have set them out between e and e.

yes. , .,, . ., :, , yes. given it was clear to fu'itsu in 2008, throughout * yes. given it was clear to fu'itsu in 2008, throughout the h yes. given it was clear to fujitsu in 2008, throughout the course | yes. given it was clear to fujitsu i in 2008, throughout the course of 2008. _ in 2008, throughout the course of 2008, remembering the incident that had first— 2008, remembering the incident that had first been notified in december, 2007. _ had first been notified in december, 2007, that — had first been notified in december, 2007, that the lock was an issue capable — 2007, that the lock was an issue capable of— 2007, that the lock was an issue capable of impacting on criminal and civil litigation for which arq data was being requested and provided, do the papers _ was being requested and provided, do the papers that you have read or debriefings that you have received reveal— debriefings that you have received reveal why fujitsu didn't alert post office _ reveal why fujitsu didn't alert post office to _ reveal why fujitsu didn't alert post office to the issue immediately? no. not seemly for _ office to the issue immediately? 119. not seemly for the first time until the 7th _ not seemly for the first time until the 7th of— not seemly for the first time until the 7th ofjanuary 2009. the elements of the evidence that we have got— elements of the evidence that we have got is that it was delayed and i have got is that it was delayed and i don't _ have got is that it was delayed and i don't know why. papers don't idon't know why. papers don't reveal— i don't know why. papers don't reveal why?— i don't know why. papers don't reveal why? no. would i don't know why. papers don't revealwhy? no. would you i don't know why. papers don't reveal why? no. would you agree that as reveal why? no would you agree that as the reveal why? would you agree that as the issue reveal why? 1117. would you agree that as the issue was one which was capable — as the issue was one which was capable of— as the issue was one which was capable of impacting on criminal and civil proceedings, as is later recognised, it ought to have been notified _ recognised, it ought to have been notified to — recognised, it ought to have been notified to the post office properly? element yes. --

notified to the post office properly? element yes. can properly? element yes. -- yes. can we 'ust properly? element yes. -- yes. can we just looked _ properly? element yes. -- yes. can we just looked pleased _ properly? element yes. -- yes. can we just looked pleased at _ properly? element yes. -- yes. can we just looked pleased at the - properly? element yes. -- yes. can| we just looked pleased at the e-mail we just looked pleased at the e—mail that you _ we just looked pleased at the e—mail that you refer to here in paragraph 110, that you refer to here in paragraph 1101 if— that you refer to here in paragraph 1101 if we — that you refer to here in paragraph 110, if we disco back? at the foot of the page you referto the e-mail— at the foot of the page you referto the e—mail on the 7th ofjanuary, to lowther— the e—mail on the 7th ofjanuary, to lowther was— the e—mail on the 7th ofjanuary, to lowther was notified via an e—mail. can we _ lowther was notified via an e—mail. can we look— lowther was notified via an e—mail. can we look at please f 00155 399? it is the wendy boreham e—mail at 10:46am —