you and even a couple of days ago you were _ and even a couple of days ago you were hoping — and even a couple of days ago you were hoping that _ and even a couple of days ago you were hoping that it— and even a couple of days ago you were hoping that it continued. - and even a couple of days ago you l were hoping that it continued. that now after— were hoping that it continued. that now after discussions— were hoping that it continued. that now after discussions with - now after discussions with colleagues _ now after discussions with colleagues you've - now after discussions with colleagues you've decided i now after discussions with . colleagues you've decided to now after discussions with _ colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it _ colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it clear— colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it clear that _ colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it clear that you _ colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it clear that you are _ colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it clear that you are a _ colleagues you've decided to u—turn. isn't it clear that you are a lame - isn't it clear that you are a lame duck_ isn't it clear that you are a lame duck leader— isn't it clear that you are a lame duck leader who _ isn't it clear that you are a lame duck leader who is _ isn't it clear that you are a lame duck leader who is basically- isn't it clear that you are a lame - duck leader who is basically heading for the _ duck leader who is basically heading for the exit — duck leader who is basically heading for the exit door? _ duck leader who is basically heading for the exit door? holl— duck leader who is basically heading for the exit door?— for the exit door? not at all. this is leadership- _ for the exit door? not at all. this is leadership. this _ for the exit door? not at all. this is leadership. this is _ for the exit door? not at all. this is leadership. this is the - for the exit door? not at all. this is leadership. this is the ability i is leadership. this is the ability to say we are taking control is a party under the government. on our priority terms, our policy terms, and that is clearly going to be demonstrated and i think it has been demonstrated and i think it has been demonstrated over the course of the years of the bute house agreement with the greens, and will continue to be demonstrated over the coming days, weeks and months. for me it's really important as leader of the snp to make sure i put this party's interests at the forefront of my mind. when it comes to refocusing our priorities, they continue to be aligned with the priorities of the

people of scotland. i aligned with the priorities of the people of scotland.— people of scotland. i think your riori people of scotland. i think your priority coming _ people of scotland. i think your priority coming in _ people of scotland. i think your priority coming in was - people of scotland. i think your priority coming in was stability, taking — priority coming in was stability, taking over— priority coming in was stability, taking over from _ priority coming in was stability, taking over from nicola - priority coming in was stability, i taking over from nicola sturgeon priority coming in was stability, - taking over from nicola sturgeon at the end _ taking over from nicola sturgeon at the end of— taking over from nicola sturgeon at the end of the — taking over from nicola sturgeon at the end of the last _ taking over from nicola sturgeon at the end of the last parliament. - taking over from nicola sturgeon at the end of the last parliament. are| the end of the last parliament. are you worried — the end of the last parliament. are you worried that _ the end of the last parliament. are you worried that now _ the end of the last parliament. are you worried that now you - the end of the last parliament. are you worried that now you are - the end of the last parliament. are you worried that now you are a - you worried that now you are a minority— you worried that now you are a minority government? - you worried that now you are a minority government?- you worried that now you are a minority government? again, if the o- osition minority government? again, if the opposition want _ minority government? again, if the opposition want to _ minority government? again, if the opposition want to play _ minority government? again, if the opposition want to play political - opposition want to play political games, that's for them to determine. we will get on with the job of governing in the best interests of people of scotland. the holyrood elections in 2026, we don't fear those elections. we are confident in our record. we are a fantastic team with a vision to drive this country forward, so there's no fear from with a vision to drive this country forward, so there's no fearfrom us whatsoever. every single poll bar

none shows that we continue to be the largest party in holyrood. we were served powerful parliamentary term and that is what we are focused on until 2026. we look forward over the coming months, weeks and years to working with every political party. members of the public will also be watching the opposition to see how they can play their constructive part, or will theyjust try to throw obstacles in the way of the government? it will be a test as much for the opposition as for the government. the daily mail? flani government. the daily mail? can i ask what will— government. the daily mail? can i ask what will happen _ government. the daily mail? can i ask what will happen to _ government. the daily mail? can i ask what will happen to the - ask what will happen to the ministerial— ask what will happen to the ministerial responsibilitiesl ask what will happen to the i ministerial responsibilities of ask what will happen to the - ministerial responsibilities of the greens? — ministerial responsibilities of the greens? , . ministerial responsibilities of the greens? , , . , , _ greens? they will be absorbed by the cabinet secretaries _ greens? they will be absorbed by the cabinet secretaries currently - greens? they will be absorbed by the cabinet secretaries currently and - greens? they will be absorbed by the cabinet secretaries currently and we i cabinet secretaries currently and we will give consideration to how they are appropriately divvied up in the future. let me once again thank patrick harvie and lorna slater for the incredible work they have done as ministers. andy? itruiith

the incredible work they have done as ministers. andy?— the incredible work they have done as ministers. andy? with the greens now out, as ministers. andy? with the greens now out. are — as ministers. andy? with the greens now out. are you _ as ministers. andy? with the greens now out, are you able _ as ministers. andy? with the greens now out, are you able to _ as ministers. andy? with the greens now out, are you able to put - as ministers. andy? with the greens now out, are you able to put on - as ministers. andy? with the greens now out, are you able to put on with| now out, are you able to put on with projects _ now out, are you able to put on with projects that — now out, are you able to put on with projects that were _ now out, are you able to put on with projects that were held _ now out, are you able to put on with projects that were held up, - projects that were held up, specifically— projects that were held up, specifically projects - projects that were held up, specifically projects like - projects that were held up, | specifically projects like the projects that were held up, - specifically projects like the a96 in inverrress— specifically projects like the a96 in inverness that _ specifically projects like the a96 in inverness that were _ specifically projects like the a96 in inverness that were held - specifically projects like the a96 in inverness that were held up l in inverness that were held up because — in inverness that were held up because of— in inverness that were held up because of green _ in inverness that were held up because of green pressure? . in inverness that were held up l because of green pressure? the in inverness that were held up because of green pressure? the a96 is auoin because of green pressure? the a96 is going through _ because of green pressure? the a96 is going through a — because of green pressure? the a96 is going through a review. _ because of green pressure? the a96 is going through a review. let - because of green pressure? the a96 is going through a review. let me - because of green pressure? the a96 is going through a review. let me be| is going through a review. let me be clear that our commitment to tackling the climate crisis has not diminished a bit. we continue to want to show leadership where we can in tackling the climate crisis and moving away from the 2030 target was not something we took lightly. we want to demonstrate action in tackling the climate crisis. we are not diminishing our ambition to tackle the climate crisis. in terms

of the refocus of priorities, you can imagine that that work is under way and we will be examining what we can take forward with pace. bute house agreement or not, we still have an exceptionally difficult budget challenge, not helped by westminster cutting our capital budget by £i.3 westminster cutting our capital budget by £1.3 billion over the coming years. but watch this space when it comes to review the refocusing of priorities. a, when it comes to review the refocusing of priorities. a leader who can secure _ refocusing of priorities. a leader who can secure a _ refocusing of priorities. a leader who can secure a majority - refocusing of priorities. a leader i who can secure a majority support doesn't _ who can secure a majority support doesn't show— who can secure a majority support doesn't show leadership. - who can secure a majority support doesn't show leadership. a - who can secure a majority support doesn't show leadership. a leader who is— doesn't show leadership. a leader who is forced _ doesn't show leadership. a leader who is forced to _ doesn't show leadership. a leader who is forced to ditch _ doesn't show leadership. a leader who is forced to ditch a _ doesn't show leadership. a leader. who is forced to ditch a cooperation agreement— who is forced to ditch a cooperation agreement isn't— who is forced to ditch a cooperation agreement isn't strong, _ who is forced to ditch a cooperation agreement isn't strong, that - who is forced to ditch a cooperation agreement isn't strong, that is - who is forced to ditch a cooperation agreement isn't strong, that is a i agreement isn't strong, that is a weak— agreement isn't strong, that is a weak leader _ agreement isn't strong, that is a weak leader. you _ agreement isn't strong, that is a weak leader. you have _ agreement isn't strong, that is a weak leader. you have done - agreement isn't strong, that is a i weak leader. you have done almost everything — weak leader. you have done almost everything kate _ weak leader. you have done almost everything kate forbes— weak leader. you have done almost everything kate forbes said - weak leader. you have done almost everything kate forbes said she - everything kate forbes said she would _ everything kate forbes said she would do — everything kate forbes said she would do as— everything kate forbes said she would do as leader— everything kate forbes said she would do as leader when - everything kate forbes said she would do as leader when she i everything kate forbes said shel would do as leader when she ran against _ would do as leader when she ran against you _ would do as leader when she ran against yon-— would do as leader when she ran auainst ou. ., , , . , , against you. no, this is leadership. this is demonstrating _ against you. no, this is leadership.

this is demonstrating what - against you. no, this is leadership. this is demonstrating what is - against you. no, this is leadership. this is demonstrating what is in - against you. no, this is leadership. | this is demonstrating what is in the best interests of this government moving forward, what is in the interests of the party. i will continue to talk to colleagues across my party, whether they are msps, mps, councillors, and take the party forward together. i'm proud of the progress we have made as a party in my first year of leadership. i don't withdraw one iota away from the equality progress we have made as a political party too. we are rooted in socialjustice. we are a party of the centre—left. we will continue to be a party of the centre—left. we will continue to stand up for equality and social justice and we will continue to be a party that is pro—independence, of course, but a party that also tackles the twin crisis of climate and nature. we won't withdraw from

those positions one iota. lucy? what those positions one iota. lucy? what is the impact — those positions one iota. lucy? what is the impact of _ those positions one iota. lucy? what is the impact of losing _ those positions one iota. lucy? what is the impact of losing a _ is the impact of losing a pro—independence - is the impact of losing a i pro—independence majority is the impact of losing a - pro—independence majority on is the impact of losing a _ pro—independence majority on the independent — pro—independence majority on the independent schools? _ pro—independence majority on the independent schools? the - pro-independence ma'ority on the independent schools? the parliament still has a pro-independence - still has a pro—independence majority and we will continue to work with political parties like the greens that believe, as we do, that this country's best future is served as an independent nation in the european union. i look forward to sharing platforms with the greens, continuing our drive towards an independent nation. i would say to independence supporters, the snp government will continue to focus on ensuring the people of scotland get a say over their future. the challenge will be to westminster parties to stop denying the people of scotland choice their future.

aren't the real reasons why you are in this— aren't the real reasons why you are in this position _ aren't the real reasons why you are in this position because _ aren't the real reasons why you are in this position because you - aren't the real reasons why you are in this position because you failed i in this position because you failed to deliver— in this position because you failed to deliver on _ in this position because you failed to deliver on some _ in this position because you failed to deliver on some of— in this position because you failed to deliver on some of the - in this position because you failed to deliver on some of the policies| to deliver on some of the policies of the _ to deliver on some of the policies of the agreement _ to deliver on some of the policies of the agreement and _ to deliver on some of the policies of the agreement and you - to deliver on some of the policies of the agreement and you are - of the agreement and you are terrified — of the agreement and you are terrified of— of the agreement and you are terrified of losing _ of the agreement and you are terrified of losing seats - of the agreement and you are terrified of losing seats at - of the agreement and you arej terrified of losing seats at the general — terrified of losing seats at the general election— terrified of losing seats at the general election and - terrified of losing seats at the general election and this - terrified of losing seats at the general election and this is i terrified of losing seats at the . general election and this is about saving _ general election and this is about saving your— general election and this is about saving your position _ general election and this is about saving your position and - general election and this is about saving your position and not - general election and this is abouti saving your position and not about what _ saving your position and not about what is _ saving your position and not about what is best — saving your position and not about what is best for— saving your position and not about what is best for the _ saving your position and not about what is best for the country- saving your position and not about what is best for the country or- saving your position and not about what is best for the country or the| what is best for the country or the deal is _ what is best for the country or the deal is struck _ what is best for the country or the deal is struck with _ what is best for the country or the deal is struck with the _ what is best for the country or the deal is struck with the greens? i what is best for the country or the i deal is struck with the greens? ho, deal is struck with the greens? no, i believe deal is struck with the greens? i believe stability is deal is struck with the greens? iii, i believe stability is important deal is struck with the greens? i believe stability is important for governing and for the people of scotland. recent weeks have shown that that stability is not there. i believe that doing as we have done, in the best traditions of this party, that minority government is the best place for us to be. of course, we have to be wise around the battles we choose to fight and we will be focused on the people of scotland's priorities. i have to go. studio: that was humza yousaf,

scotland's first minister, giving a news conference after the collapse of the power—sharing deal between the snp and the greens. he said it had been his decision to terminate the agreement with immediate effect. he said in the past, the agreement had benefits that outweighed the compromises, but the balance had shifted and served its purpose. he admitted that minority government will be tough, but he said he would reporting scotland's interests first and carrying on. —— he would be putting scotland's interests first. the greens have put a statement out accusing him of political cowardice, saying they are selling out future generations to appease the most reactionary forces in the country. let's bring in our scotland correspondent lorna gordon, who has been watching. lorna he is describing it as a decision to terminate the agreement, but he admitted that it will be tough in a minority government. how tough will it be? , . , .,

minority government. how tough will itbe? , .,, minority government. how tough will itbe? , ., , . minority government. how tough will itbe? , ., , it be? this has not been a pleasant artin: of it be? this has not been a pleasant parting of the _ it be? this has not been a pleasant parting of the ways. _ it be? this has not been a pleasant parting of the ways. some - it be? this has not been a pleasant parting of the ways. some of- it be? this has not been a pleasant parting of the ways. some of the i parting of the ways. some of the language used this morning has been acrimonious for parties that have been partners in government for three years. as you said, humza yousaf said the benefits outweigh the compromise that has been terminated with immediate effect. lorna slater and patrick harvie talked about this being an act of political cowardice to appease the most reactionary forces in the country, that humza yousaf can no longer be trusted, that he is ending the agreement in a weak way. the snp does not have a majority now in the scottish parliament. they have 63 msps. they are two short of a majority, along with the greens, who have seven msps, that gave them a majority. they have lost that with this termination of the bute house

agreement with immediate effect. however, this is a parliament that is designed to be consensual. it is designed for a minority government. indeed, the snp, in theirfirst administration and alex salmond, governed as a minority government. but it means they will now have to reach out to other parties to get backing for their policies. there will have to be more compromises going forward with other parties such as the conservatives or labour or indeed the greens. they of course are united with the snp in their belief that scotland should be an independent country. but this will be a more challenging time for the snp and their leader and humza yousaf. ~ . ., , ., snp and their leader and humza yousaf. ~ . ., yousaf. what would you say the advantages _ yousaf. what would you say the advantages are _ yousaf. what would you say the advantages are for _ yousaf. what would you say the advantages are for him - yousaf. what would you say the advantages are for him in - yousaf. what would you say the i advantages are for him in getting out of the agreement, versus those risks you are talking about? ltrul’eii.

risks you are talking about? well, he would say _ risks you are talking about? well, he would say it — risks you are talking about? well, he would say it leaves _ risks you are talking about? well, he would say it leaves the - risks you are talking about? well, he would say it leaves the snp . risks you are talking about? it he would say it leaves the snp free to pursue their own policies going forward. there has been a perception among political commentators and among political commentators and among party members in the snp that for some time now, the scottish greens, the smaller party, has been the tail wagging the dog, that they have had an undue influence on policies in scotland. there have been niche issues that have taken up a lot of political time, airspace and political oxygen, things like the gender recognition reform act. a lot of time was spent defending the act, which in the end was blocked by the uk government and binned. it was a key policy for both parties, but perhaps more for the greens than the

snp. forsome perhaps more for the greens than the snp. for some time now, there has been a feeling that perhaps this undue influence that the greens have had, a disproportionate influence the greens have had an snp policy has not been working to the snp's benefit. humza yousaf was saying it is going to be tough going forward, but the bute house agreement has served its purpose. it has reached a natural conclusion and it is now terminated. natural conclusion and it is now terminated-— natural conclusion and it is now terminated. ., . ., . ,, natural conclusion and it is now terminated. ., . ., . terminated. lorna gordon, thank you. let's return — terminated. lorna gordon, thank you. let's return to — terminated. lorna gordon, thank you. let's return to the _ terminated. lorna gordon, thank you. let's return to the other— terminated. lorna gordon, thank you. let's return to the other story - terminated. lorna gordon, thank you. let's return to the other story we - let's return to the other story we have been keeping across this morning, the test of his inquiry, where a former post office executive who is described as knowing more about the faulty horizon it system than anyone else, is giving evidence. angela van den bogerd was the company? most important executive and was heavily criticised by the judge in the previous case for misleading the court in her

evidence. in her opening statement this morning, she offered an apology to the wrongly convicted sub—postmasters, saying, i'm truly sorry for the devastation caused to you, yourfamily and sorry for the devastation caused to you, your family and friends. let's return and listen in. ”i you, your family and friends. let's return and listen in.— return and listen in. "i found out this week _ return and listen in. "i found out this week that _ return and listen in. "i found out this week that fujitsu _ return and listen in. "i found out this week that fujitsu can - return and listen in. "i found out this week that fujitsu can put. return and listen in. "i found out this week that fujitsu can put an entry into a branch account remotely. came up when we were exploring solutions around a problem generated by the system following migration to horizon online is that this issue was quickly identified and a fix put in place, but it impacted 60 branches and meant a loss or gain incurred in a particular week in effect disappeared from the system. one solution quickly discounted because of the implications around integrity was for fujitsu to remotely enter a value into a branch account to reintroduce the missing loss or gain. so the post office can't do this, but fujitsu can". i think you

would agree that is significant information.— would agree that is significant information. , �* ., , information. yes. but prior to this, i would information. yes. but prior to this, i would have _ information. yes. but prior to this, i would have had _ information. yes. but prior to this, i would have had no _ information. yes. but prior to this, i would have had no awareness - information. yes. but prior to this, i would have had no awareness of. information. yes. but prior to this, i i would have had no awareness of any of this _ i would have had no awareness of any of this. ~ . . ,, , ., of this. which makes it even more significant. _ of this. which makes it even more significant, no? _ of this. which makes it even more significant, no? inasmuch - of this. which makes it even more significant, no? inasmuch as- of this. which makes it even more significant, no? inasmuch as this| significant, no? inasmuch as this was something — significant, no? inasmuch as this was something i _ significant, no? inasmuch as this was something i was _ significant, no? inasmuch as this was something i was not - significant, no? inasmuch as this was something i was not aware l significant, no? inasmuch as this| was something i was not aware of significant, no? inasmuch as this - was something i was not aware of and i was something i was not aware of and i don't _ was something i was not aware of and idon't recall— was something i was not aware of and i don't recall seeing this. looking at lynn's — i don't recall seeing this. looking at lynn's note, which is a strange note, _ at lynn's note, which is a strange note, there — at lynn's note, which is a strange note, there were she dropped this into an _ note, there were she dropped this into an e—mail... it is note, there were she dropped this into an e-mail. . ._ into an e-mail. .. it is strange for us too, because _ into an e-mail. .. it is strange for us too, because we _ into an e-mail. .. it is strange for us too, because we can - into an e-mail. .. it is strange for us too, because we can find - into an e-mail. .. it is strange for us too, because we can find no i us too, because we can find no record of anywhere else. i us too, because we can find no record of anywhere else. i have never seen _ record of anywhere else. i have never seen an _ record of anywhere else. i have never seen an e-mail _ record of anywhere else. i have never seen an e-mail like - record of anywhere else. i have never seen an e-mail like this i record of anywhere else. i have - never seen an e-mail like this where never seen an e—mail like this where something _ never seen an e—mail like this where something is— never seen an e—mail like this where something isjust cut in. you would normally— something isjust cut in. you would normally forward an e—mail or attach it, normally forward an e—mail or attach it. so— normally forward an e—mail or attach it. so i_ normally forward an e—mail or attach it. so i find _ normally forward an e—mail or attach it, so i find this really strange. but at — it, so i find this really strange. but at this— it, so i find this really strange. but at this point, lynn left the organisation shortly after. i think this was— organisation shortly after. i think this was lynn passing over tojohn things— this was lynn passing over tojohn things before she left. john was

coming — things before she left. john was coming into my team taking a step back from — coming into my team taking a step back from this, this is an e—mail chain— back from this, this is an e—mail chain forwarding to you a previous report _ chain forwarding to you a previous report ht— chain forwarding to you a previous re ort. �* chain forwarding to you a previous re ort. . , report. at the same time, it is forwarding _ report. at the same time, it is forwarding you _ report. at the same time, it is forwarding you they _ report. at the same time, it is forwarding you they report, i report. at the same time, it is forwarding you they report, it| report. at the same time, it is i forwarding you they report, it is telling you something about remote access. and the beginning and end part of this bit that is cut in is about the remote access, and the bit in the middle is about the context in the middle is about the context in which remote access has arisen. yes. 50 in which remote access has arisen. yes. in which remote access has arisen. yes, , in which remote access has arisen. yes. _ . , in which remote access has arisen. yes. . , . yes. so it saying that there is a facili to yes. so it saying that there is a facility to put — yes. so it saying that there is a facility to put entries _ yes. so it saying that there is a facility to put entries into - yes. so it saying that there is a facility to put entries into bank| facility to put entries into bank accounts remotely —— into branch accounts. it provides the context in which that had arisen, 60 branches, and a fix, how we correct the error that has occurred. shall use this? no, let's not use this remote access, because that has issues of integrity about it. but in any

event, fujitsu can do this, that's what it is telling you.— event, fujitsu can do this, that's what it is telling you. yes. can we no back what it is telling you. yes. can we go back to — what it is telling you. yes. can we go back to paragraph 16 of your witness statement, please? it's on page nine. scroll down, please. you say whilst i cannot recall receiving the report, i would have been reassured by its content at the time. but you then say some stuff about knowing what you know now. yes. ., , . , yes. you sit in the last three lines, notably, _ yes. you sit in the last three lines, notably, the _ yes. you sit in the last three lines, notably, the report. yes. you sit in the last three i lines, notably, the report says there is an absence of back doors.

and then you set out some information that you now know. so you're saying you would have been reassured by the contents of the ismay report, yes?— reassured by the contents of the ismay report, yes? yes, but i don't remember— ismay report, yes? yes, but i don't remember seeing _ ismay report, yes? yes, but i don't remember seeing that _ ismay report, yes? yes, but i don't remember seeing that in _ ismay report, yes? yes, but i don't| remember seeing that in december. ismay report, yes? yes, but i don't i remember seeing that in december. i definitely— remember seeing that in december. i definitely saw the ismay report. i'm not sure _ definitely saw the ismay report. i'm not sure whether i thought it was at a later— not sure whether i thought it was at a later date — not sure whether i thought it was at a later date than that. we not sure whether i thought it was at a later date than that.— a later date than that. we know you not it on a later date than that. we know you got it on the — a later date than that. we know you got it on the 5th _ a later date than that. we know you got it on the 5th of— a later date than that. we know you got it on the 5th of december - a later date than that. we know you got it on the 5th of december 2010. but i don't remember it from that point _ but i don't remember it from that point i_ but i don't remember it from that point i do— but i don't remember it from that point. i do remember reading the report— point. i do remember reading the report and — point. i do remember reading the report and i— point. i do remember reading the report and i thought i had it separately, but not at the time that rod put— separately, but not at the time that rod put that together, which i think was august. you rod put that together, which i think was august-— rod put that together, which i think was au~ust. ., i. ., . was august. you say you would have been reassured, _ was august. you say you would have been reassured, seemingly- was august. you say you would have been reassured, seemingly because| been reassured, seemingly because the report says there was an absence of back doors. but they're very e—mail chain that brought this report to your attention said something very different, didn't it?

i'm not sure that that registered for me _ i'm not sure that that registered for me as — i'm not sure that that registered for me as different.— i'm not sure that that registered for me as different. let's look at what your _ for me as different. let's look at what your reaction _ for me as different. let's look at what your reaction was - for me as different. let's look at what your reaction was as - for me as different. let's look at what your reaction was as a - for me as different. let's look at - what your reaction was as a separate question to what the facts are. you would agree that the very e—mail chain that brought the rod ismay report to your attention said something very different about the absence of back doors, didn't it? it absence of back doors, didn't it? it didn't mention back doors. it said i didn't mention back doors. it said fu'itsu didn't mention back doors. it said fur'itsu could _ didn't mention back doors. it said fujitsu could remotely _ didn't mention back doors. it said fujitsu could remotely access, . fujitsu could remotely access, inject transactions. the fujitsu could remotely access, inject transactions.— fujitsu could remotely access, inject transactions. the back door bit is quite _ inject transactions. the back door bit is quite different, _ inject transactions. the back door bit is quite different, i _ inject transactions. the back door bit is quite different, i think. - inject transactions. the back door bit is quite different, i think. so i bit is quite different, i think. so for me. — bit is quite different, i think. so for me. the _ bit is quite different, i think. so for me, the absence of back doors feels _ for me, the absence of back doors feels like — for me, the absence of back doors feels like that is done in an uncontrolled way, whereas if they could _ uncontrolled way, whereas if they could inject, which i later learned about— could inject, which i later learned about balancing transaction, which is that— about balancing transaction, which is that scenario. so for me, the two

are the _ is that scenario. so for me, the two are the same — is that scenario. so for me, the two are the same-— are the same. what is the difference? _ are the same. what is the difference? as _ are the same. what is the difference? as i _ are the same. what is the difference? as i say, - are the same. what is the difference? as i say, i - are the same. what is the i difference? as i say, i think are the same. what is the - difference? as i say, i think the back door _ difference? as i say, i think the back door is _ difference? as i say, i think the back door is more _ difference? as i say, i think the| back door is more uncontrolled. whereas— back door is more uncontrolled. whereas the injecting is done in a controlled — whereas the injecting is done in a controlled way. so whereas the injecting is done in a controlled way.— whereas the injecting is done in a controlled way. so do you think that ou made controlled way. so do you think that you made that _ controlled way. so do you think that you made that distinction _ controlled way. so do you think that you made that distinction at - controlled way. so do you think that you made that distinction at the - you made that distinction at the time? ., , , ., you made that distinction at the time?_ this - you made that distinction at the time?_ this is - you made that distinction at the time?_ this is you | time? probably not. this is you rationalising _ time? probably not. this is you rationalising it _ time? probably not. this is you rationalising it now? _ time? probably not. this is you rationalising it now? because i| time? probably not. this is you - rationalising it now? because i know more now than _ rationalising it now? because i know more now than i _ rationalising it now? because i know more now than i knew _ rationalising it now? because i know more now than i knew then. - rationalising it now? because i know more now than i knew then. at - rationalising it now? because i know more now than i knew then. at the i more now than i knew then. at the time, _ more now than i knew then. at the time, i_ more now than i knew then. at the time, idon't— more now than i knew then. at the time, i don't remember getting the e-mail_ time, i don't remember getting the e—mail from john, time, i don't remember getting the e—mailfromjohn, so time, i don't remember getting the e—mail from john, so that didn't register— e—mail from john, so that didn't register with me. and the fact that lynn. _ register with me. and the fact that lynn. who— register with me. and the fact that lynn, who was more senior, to put it into context. — lynn, who was more senior, to put it into context. i— lynn, who was more senior, to put it into context, i reported to sue at the time — into context, i reported to sue at the time. sue and lynn were peers. lynn _ the time. sue and lynn were peers. lynn was _ the time. sue and lynn were peers. lynn was senior to me. the fact that she mentioned that she had raised it

with andy— she mentioned that she had raised it with andy mclean, who was also at that level _ with andy mclean, who was also at that level but in it, and mark, the project _ that level but in it, and mark, the project manager, was in that space as well _ project manager, was in that space as well the — project manager, was in that space as well. the fact that she had raised — as well. the fact that she had raised it— as well. the fact that she had raised it and they were looking at it, raised it and they were looking at it. she _ raised it and they were looking at it, she didn't have an update. there wasn't _ it, she didn't have an update. there wasn't a _ it, she didn't have an update. there wasn't a sense of urgency about that that i_ wasn't a sense of urgency about that that i would — wasn't a sense of urgency about that that i would have expected, had she been really— that i would have expected, had she been really concerned about what she had learned. that been really concerned about what she had learned-— had learned. that can come down, thank you- — had learned. that can come down, thank you- the _ had learned. that can come down, thank you. the importance - had learned. that can come down, thank you. the importance of - had learned. that can come down, thank you. the importance of mr i thank you. the importance of mr ismay saying there were no back doors into horizon was that it meant that all data entry or acceptance was at branch level.— that all data entry or acceptance was at branch level. yes. and was tau red was at branch level. yes. and was tagged against — was at branch level. yes. and was tagged against the logon id of the user. . the tagged against the logon id of the user. yes. the significance of that was that the _ user. yes. the significance of that was that the ownership of all accounting was truly at branch

level, correct?— accounting was truly at branch | level, correct?_ the accounting was truly at branch - level, correct?_ the e-mail level, correct? mm-hmm. the e-mail that we looked — level, correct? mm-hmm. the e-mail that we looked at _ level, correct? mm-hmm. the e-mail that we looked at was _ level, correct? mm-hmm. the e-mail that we looked at was saying - level, correct? mm-hmm. the e-mail that we looked at was saying that - that we looked at was saying that ownership of accounting was not at branch level, wasn't it? it was saying that fujitsu can remotely alter transactions.— saying that fujitsu can remotely altertransactions. yes. did saying that fujitsu can remotely alter transactions. yes. did that not undermine, _ alter transactions. yes. did that not undermine, in _ alter transactions. yes. did that not undermine, in your mind, what mr ismay had said? this not undermine, in your mind, what mr lsmay had said?— ismay had said? this is an important bit for me- — ismay had said? this is an important bit for me. the _ ismay had said? this is an important bit for me. the difference _ ismay had said? this is an important bit for me. the difference was, - ismay had said? this is an important bit for me. the difference was, if. bit for me. the difference was, if something — bit for me. the difference was, if something were to be injected into branch— something were to be injected into branch accounts, was it with the knowledge of the postmaster whose accounts _ knowledge of the postmaster whose accounts they were? that is an important _ accounts they were? that is an important aspect of it. the e-mail didn't say anything _ important aspect of it. the e-mail didn't say anything about - didn't say anything about acknowledging the postmaster. it acknowledging the postmaster. it didn't say either way whether they

were aware or not. it didn't say either way whether they were aware or not.— were aware or not. it was saying that if we — were aware or not. it was saying that if we did — were aware or not. it was saying that if we did do _ were aware or not. it was saying that if we did do it, _ were aware or not. it was saying that if we did do it, there - were aware or not. it was saying that if we did do it, there would | were aware or not. it was saying i that if we did do it, there would be issues about integrity. yes. do you think that was _ issues about integrity. yes. do you think that was hinting or suggesting that this was all being done above board with the knowledge of sub—postmasters? i board with the knowledge of sub-postmasters?_ board with the knowledge of sub-postmasters? i didn't think about it at _ sub-postmasters? i didn't think about it at the _ sub-postmasters? i didn't think about it at the time. _ sub-postmasters? i didn't think about it at the time. can - sub-postmasters? i didn't think about it at the time. can we - sub-postmasters? i didn't think about it at the time. can we go | sub-postmasters? i didn't think - about it at the time. can we go back to the e-mail. _ about it at the time. can we go back to the e-mail, please? _ about it at the time. can we go back to the e-mail, please? pol - about it at the time. can we go back to the e-mail, please? pol 308. i about it at the time. can we go back. to the e-mail, please? pol 308. this to the e—mail, please? pol 308. this is the chain that forwards use the ismay report. in december 2010, how well did you know rod ismay? itlat well did you know rod ismay? not ve well well did you know rod ismay? not very well at _ well did you know rod ismay? not very well at that point. we were part of— very well at that point. we were part of the — very well at that point. we were part of the senior leadership team and we _ part of the senior leadership team and we periodically get together for

conferences. and we periodically get together for conferences-— and we periodically get together for conferences. ~ ., , ., ., . conferences. would you meet him on a monthly basis? — conferences. would you meet him on a monthly basis? no. _ conferences. would you meet him on a monthly basis? no. african _ conferences. would you meet him on a monthly basis? no. african was - conferences. would you meet him on a monthly basis? no. african was your i monthly basis? no. african was your contact? i wouldn't _ monthly basis? no. african was your contact? i wouldn't have _ monthly basis? no. african was your contact? i wouldn't have met - monthly basis? no. african was your contact? i wouldn't have met him i monthly basis? no. african was your contact? i wouldn't have met him in| contact? i wouldn't have met him in m role contact? i wouldn't have met him in my role prior _ contact? i wouldn't have met him in my role prior to _ contact? i wouldn't have met him in my role prior to this. _ contact? i wouldn't have met him in my role prior to this. stepping - contact? i wouldn't have met him in my role prior to this. stepping intoi my role prior to this. stepping into this role _ my role prior to this. stepping into this role was the first time i started _ this role was the first time i started to work with chesterfield, which _ started to work with chesterfield, which was — started to work with chesterfield, which was where rudd was in charge. prior to— which was where rudd was in charge. prior to that. — which was where rudd was in charge. prior to that, i wouldn't have had much _ prior to that, i wouldn't have had much involvement with him. he was head of— much involvement with him. he was head of product at the time. that later— head of product at the time. that later became finance service centre, but yeah _ later became finance service centre, but yeah |f— later became finance service centre, but eah. ., ., ., but yeah. if we go to page two, lease. but yeah. if we go to page two, please- we _ but yeah. if we go to page two, please. we can _ but yeah. if we go to page two, please. we can see _ but yeah. if we go to page two, please. we can see that - but yeah. if we go to page two, please. we can see that lynn i but yeah. if we go to page two, - please. we can see that lynn hobbs' e—mail went to rod ismay originally. because it is addressed to mike and rod and she has written into her own e—mail, " my reply to mike and rod".

you think this is a strange way of writing e—mails. you think this is a strange way of writing e-mails._ you think this is a strange way of writing e—mails. yes. cutting and writing e-mails. yes. cutting and astin: writing e—mails. yes. cutting and pasting something into your own e—mail, ratherthan pasting something into your own e—mail, rather than either attaching the e—mailforwarding it. yes. there the e-mailforwarding it. yes. there is no trace — the e—mail forwarding it. yes. there is no trace whatsoever of the e—mail in mr ismay�*s inbox. are you saying that at the time, you would have regarded it as suspicious that this had happened?— had happened? yes. as i said, i don't recall— had happened? yes. as i said, i don't recall seeing _ had happened? yes. as i said, i don't recall seeing this, - had happened? yes. as i said, i don't recall seeing this, and - had happened? yes. as i said, i| don't recall seeing this, and that would _ don't recall seeing this, and that would have struck me as being strange~ — would have struck me as being strange i_ would have struck me as being strange. ijust find it strange way to do— strange. ijust find it strange way to do something. as i saw things during _ to do something. as i saw things during my— to do something. as i saw things during my time at the post office, you either— during my time at the post office, you either had the e—mail forwarded, or it was _ you either had the e—mail forwarded, or it was as— you either had the e—mail forwarded, or it was as an attachment. so you

had the _ or it was as an attachment. so you had the complete chain of communication regarding whatever topic it _ communication regarding whatever topic it was. had i seen this, this would _ topic it was. had i seen this, this would have — topic it was. had i seen this, this would have struck me as being odd, which _ would have struck me as being odd, which is _ would have struck me as being odd, which is why— would have struck me as being odd, which is why i think i didn't see it. ., ., , . . which is why i think i didn't see it. you did not see an e-mail that was sent to _ it. you did not see an e-mail that was sent to you? _ it. you did not see an e-mail that was sent to you? i _ it. you did not see an e-mail that was sent to you? i don't - it. you did not see an e-mail that was sent to you? i don't recall. i was sent to you? i don't recall. that's a different _ was sent to you? i don't recall. that's a different issue. - was sent to you? i don't recall. that's a different issue. if- was sent to you? i don't recall. that's a different issue. if we i was sent to you? i don't recall. i that's a different issue. if we go back to page one, weather, 14 years on, you can now remember receiving an e—mail, is one issue. you were suggesting a moment ago that you did not see this e—mail. yes. how are not see this e-mail. yes. how are ou able not see this e-mail. yes. how are you able to _ not see this e-mail. yes. how are you able to say — not see this e-mail. yes. how are you able to say now— not see this e—mail. yes. how are you able to say now positively that you able to say now positively that you did not see this e—mail? i’m you did not see this e-mail? i'm sa in: i you did not see this e-mail? i'm saying i don't— you did not see this e—mail? i'm saying i don't remember seeing it. and the _ saying i don't remember seeing it. and the fact that the way it is constructed is strange, i would have remembered that at the time. did you read our remembered that at the time. did you

read your e-mails? _ remembered that at the time. did you read your e-mails? yeah, _ remembered that at the time. did you read your e-mails? yeah, normally. i read your e-mails? yeah, normally. would there — read your e-mails? yeah, normally. would there be _ read your e-mails? yeah, normally. would there be any _ read your e-mails? yeah, normally. would there be any reason - read your e-mails? yeah, normally. would there be any reason not - read your e-mails? yeah, normally. would there be any reason not to i would there be any reason not to read an e—mail? would there be any reason not to read an e-mail?_ would there be any reason not to read an e-mail? would there be any reason not to - read an e-mail?_ what read an e-mail? volume of work. what about one that — read an e-mail? volume of work. what about one that is _ read an e-mail? volume of work. what about one that is about _ read an e-mail? volume of work. what about one that is about briefing - read an e-mail? volume of work. what about one that is about briefing the - about one that is about briefing the department of business, innovation and skills? figs department of business, innovation and skills? ~ , department of business, innovation and skills? . , , department of business, innovation and skills? a , department of business, innovation and skills? . , , ., and skills? as i say, this was a new work area for _ and skills? as i say, this was a new work area for me. _ and skills? as i say, this was a new work area for me. i _ and skills? as i say, this was a new work area for me. i hadn't - and skills? as i say, this was a new work area for me. i hadn't been - work area for me. i hadn't been involved — work area for me. i hadn't been involved in— work area for me. i hadn't been involved in this type of work before _ involved in this type of work before. the 5th of december was a sunday. _ before. the 5th of december was a sunday, because i have looked to see why i sunday, because i have looked to see why i did _ sunday, because i have looked to see why i did not — sunday, because i have looked to see why i did not pick this up. but i tended — why i did not pick this up. but i tended to — why i did not pick this up. but i tended to read all my e—mails. but i also tended — tended to read all my e—mails. but i also tended to respond to them. this is what _ also tended to respond to them. this is what strikes me as odd, because i didn't— is what strikes me as odd, because i didn't have _ is what strikes me as odd, because i didn't have a — is what strikes me as odd, because i didn't have a response to this one. in didn't have a response to this one. in any— didn't have a response to this one. in any event. — didn't have a response to this one. in any event, the ismay report was brought to your attention in the context of a discussion about what

had been said to the department of business, innovation and skills earlier in 2010. . looking back, do you think those e—mails did not make it clear whether the department had been told about fujitsu's ability to tamper with branch accounts? yes. would that not _ tamper with branch accounts? yes. would that not have _ tamper with branch accounts? yes. would that not have been an important issue for you to have got to the bottom of? that important issue for you to have got to the bottom of?— important issue for you to have got to the bottom of? at the time, this was a new area _ to the bottom of? at the time, this was a new area for me. _ to the bottom of? at the time, this was a new area for me. and - to the bottom of? at the time, this was a new area for me. and i - was a new area for me. and i wouldn't _ was a new area for me. and i wouldn't have given it much attention. the people who would have been involved in that would be mike granville _ been involved in that would be mike granville and sue huggins, who was my boss _ granville and sue huggins, who was my boss. that was her area, so it wouldn't — my boss. that was her area, so it wouldn't have registered with me at the time _ wouldn't have registered with me at the time. but wouldn't have registered with me at the time. �* . the time. but there was a possibility _ the time. but there was a possibility the _ the time. but there was a possibility the single - the time. but there was a - possibility the single shareholder had been told that the post office

had been told that the post office had an issue on its hands, namely that it's a player could tamper with branch accounts.— that it's a player could tamper with branch accounts. yes. wouldn't that be something _ branch accounts. yes. wouldn't that be something you would want to get to the bottom of? that be something you would want to get to the bottom of?— to the bottom of? at the time, this didn't register. _ to the bottom of? at the time, this didn't register. i— to the bottom of? at the time, this didn't register. i don't _ to the bottom of? at the time, this didn't register. i don't believe - to the bottom of? at the time, this didn't register. i don't believe i - didn't register. i don't believe i saw it. — didn't register. i don't believe i saw it. but— didn't register. i don't believe i saw it, but it didn't register because _ saw it, but it didn't register because prior to this, this is the first— because prior to this, this is the first time — because prior to this, this is the first time of me getting involved in anything _ first time of me getting involved in anything to do with horizon integrity. anything to do with horizon inteuri . ., ., . integrity. prior to that... the oint integrity. prior to that... the point l'm _ integrity. prior to that... the point i'm making _ integrity. prior to that... the point i'm making is - integrity. prior to that... the point i'm making is that - integrity. prior to that... the point i'm making is that it's i integrity. prior to that... the | point i'm making is that it's in integrity. prior to that... the - point i'm making is that it's in the context of the single shareholder, the government, being briefed and therefore, it is important to find out what has been said to government and what the true position is. from what you have told us, there might be good reasons why there is no follow—up to this on paper, because

lynn hobbs left the organisation shortly afterwards.— lynn hobbs left the organisation shortly afterwards. yes, or that it had been dealt _ shortly afterwards. yes, or that it had been dealt with. _ shortly afterwards. yes, or that it had been dealt with. i _ shortly afterwards. yes, or that it had been dealt with. i saw - shortly afterwards. yes, or that it | had been dealt with. i saw nothing coming _ had been dealt with. i saw nothing coming out — had been dealt with. i saw nothing coming out after this to tell me what _ coming out after this to tell me what had — coming out after this to tell me what had happened to it or that it wasn't _ what had happened to it or that it wasn't a — what had happened to it or that it wasn't a problem. was what had happened to it or that it wasn't a problem.— wasn't a problem. was this dealt with off-line? _ wasn't a problem. was this dealt with off-line? i _ wasn't a problem. was this dealt with off-line? i so _ wasn't a problem. was this dealt with off-line? i so as _ wasn't a problem. was this dealt with off-line? i so as not - wasn't a problem. was this dealt with off-line? i so as not to - wasn't a problem. was this dealt | with off-line? i so as not to leave with off—line? i so as not to leave a paper trail? with off-line? i so as not to leave a papertrail?_ with off-line? i so as not to leave a papertrail?— with off-line? i so as not to leave a paper trail? not that i'm aware of . was it a paper trail? not that i'm aware of - was it dealt _ a paper trail? not that i'm aware of . was it dealt with _ a paper trail? not that i'm aware of . was it dealt with by _ a paper trail? not that i'm aware of . was it dealt with by verbal - . was it dealt with by verbal discussions _ . was it dealt with by verbal discussions only? _ . was it dealt with by verbal discussions only? not - . was it dealt with by verbal discussions only? not that i j . was it dealt with by verbal - discussions only? not that i was aware of- _ discussions only? not that i was aware of. whether _ discussions only? not that i was aware of. whether those - aware of. whether those conversations happened at... i would have expected the follow—up to have happened _ have expected the follow—up to have happened with lynn, andy mclean, mark granville and mark burley. i'm not aware _ mark granville and mark burley. i'm not aware of anything as a result of this e-mail — not aware of anything as a result of this e-mail-— this e-mail. thank you, that can come down- _

this e-mail. thank you, that can come down. the _ this e-mail. thank you, that can come down. the e-mail - this e-mail. thank you, that can j come down. the e-mail referred this e-mail. thank you, that can i come down. the e-mail referred to come down. the e—mail referred to the context in which the discovery of remote access had been made, the incident that had been discussed in a meeting involving 60 branches back in october 2010. can we look at that, pol 302 8838. this is the only record, i think, that we have of either what happened or what was to happen at that meeting in october 2010. if we look at the attendee list, i think we can see that there are six members of the post office present, and they

are the first six