in which the discovery 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 on the list. yes. did ou are the first six on the list. yes. did you have — are the first six on the list. yes. did you have responsibility - are the first six on the list. yes. did you have responsibility for l are the first six on the list. yes. did you have responsibility for any of those? ., did you have responsibility for any of those? lilo. can we did you have responsibility for any of those? ilo. can we turn to page of those? no. can we turn to page three? sorry. _ of those? no. can we turn to page three? sorry, not _ of those? no. can we turn to page three? sorry, not at _ of those? no. can we turn to page three? sorry, not at the _ of those? no. can we turn to page three? sorry, not at the time, - of those? no. can we turn to page three? sorry, not at the time, i i three? sorry, not at the time, i didn't. three? sorry, not at the time, i didn't- nor _ three? sorry, not at the time, i didn't. nor in _ three? sorry, not at the time, i didn't. nor in december- three? sorry, not at the time, i didn't. nor in december 2010 i three? sorry, not at the time, i | didn't. nor in december 2010 or janua didn't. nor in december 2010 or january 2011? — didn't. nor in december 2010 or january 2011? can _ didn't. nor in december 2010 or january 2011? can we _ didn't. nor in december 2010 or january 2011? can we go - didn't. nor in december 2010 or january 2011? can we go to - didn't. nor in december 2010 or| january 2011? can we go to page january 2011? can we go to page three, please, and scroll down. can you see the proposals for how the bug was to be addressed in relation to the affected branches? and can you see under solution one, the proposed solution one was to alter the branch figure at the counter to show the discrepancy fujitsu would have to manually write an entry value to the local branch. the impact would be when the branch comes to complete the next training period they would have a discrepancy they have to take into account. the

risk was this has significant data integrity concerns, and could lead to questions of tampering with the brand system, and could generate questions around how the discrepancy was caused. the solution could have moral implications of the post office changing branch data without informing the branch. would you agree that this record, even though that solution was not adopted, makes it clear firstly that fujitsu could continue —— could tamper with branch accounts remotely. continue -- could tamper with branch accounts remotely.— continue —— could tamper with branch accounts remotely. yes. and secondly that they could _ accounts remotely. yes. and secondly that they could do so without the branch being able to see it or know about it? . branch being able to see it or know about it? yes. did you speak to any ofthe about it? yes. did you speak to any of the six pupils _ about it? yes. did you speak to any of the six pupils on the attendee list after receiving the lynn hobbs e—mail? list after receiving the lynn hobbs e-mail? ., list after receiving the lynn hobbs e—mail? ilo. did any of those people e-mail? no. did any of those people draw e—mail? no. did any of those people draw subsequently those two material

facts, fujitsu can tamper with branch accounts remotely and they can do so without the branch being able to see it or know about it, to your attention? able to see it or know about it, to yourattention? ilo. would you able to see it or know about it, to your attention? ilo. would you agree your attention? no. would you agree that those two facts, if they were to have emerged, would have significantly undermined the reputation and integrity of horizon? yes. fist reputation and integrity of horizon? yes. �* . reputation and integrity of horizon? yes. �* , . ., , reputation and integrity of horizon? yes. �* , . ::':: reputation and integrity of horizon? yes. �* , . ff: ., yes. at this time, october 2010 and january 2011. _ yes. at this time, october 2010 and january 2011. the — yes. at this time, october 2010 and january 2011, the post _ yes. at this time, october 2010 and january 2011, the post office - yes. at this time, october 2010 and january 2011, the post office was . january 2011, the post office was wedded into maintaining the reputation of horizon, wasn't it? not to my knowledge. i wasn't aware of this_ not to my knowledge. i wasn't aware of this document until much later in the dlo _ of this document until much later in the dlo -- — of this document until much later in the dlo -- glo. of this document until much later in the dlo -- gl0-_ of this document until much later in the dlo -- glo. how is it happened that this record, _ the dlo -- glo. how is it happened that this record, in _ the dlo -- glo. how is it happened that this record, in addition - the dlo -- glo. how is it happened that this record, in addition to - the dlo -- glo. how is it happened that this record, in addition to the i that this record, in addition to the 2010 e—mail chain, hasn't found its way to you? what's gone wrong? l

way to you? what's gone wrong? i think back in 2010, i wasn't involved _ think back in 2010, i wasn't involved in anything to do with fujitsu — involved in anything to do with fujitsu or— involved in anything to do with fujitsu or horizon issues. i only started — fujitsu or horizon issues. i only started to — fujitsu or horizon issues. i only started to get involved in... so, there _ started to get involved in... so, there was— started to get involved in... so, there was the tracey marshall e—mail that was— there was the tracey marshall e—mail that was in_ there was the tracey marshall e—mail that was in advance of the meeting i attended. _ that was in advance of the meeting i attended, and again that was just that was in advance of the meeting i attended, and again that wasjust me coming _ attended, and again that wasjust me coming into— attended, and again that wasjust me coming into that because my boss at the time _ coming into that because my boss at the time was out on holiday. then we came _ the time was out on holiday. then we came into _ the time was out on holiday. then we came into the shoesmith's letters about— came into the shoesmith's letters about the — came into the shoesmith's letters about the individual branches. this wasn't _ about the individual branches. this wasn't my— about the individual branches. this wasn't my domain at all. but about the individual branches. this wasn't my domain at all.— about the individual branches. this wasn't my domain at all. but you are bearinnin wasn't my domain at all. but you are beginning to — wasn't my domain at all. but you are beginning to look _ wasn't my domain at all. but you are beginning to look into _ wasn't my domain at all. but you are beginning to look into horizon - beginning to look into horizon integrity at the end of 2010, beginning of 2011, weren't you? ilo. beginning of 2011, weren't you? no, i wasn't really- _ beginning of 2011, weren't you? no, i wasn't really. it _ beginning of 2011, weren't you? no, i wasn't really. it was really only when _ i wasn't really. it was really only when second site came into the business. — when second site came into the business, when i started working with them — business, when i started working

with them around the spot reviews. that is— with them around the spot reviews. that is where i would say i stepped into looking at this type of issue. prior— into looking at this type of issue. prior to— into looking at this type of issue. prior to that, i wasn't. gr into looking at this type of issue. prior to that, i wasn't.— prior to that, i wasn't. or was it that ou prior to that, i wasn't. or was it that you and — prior to that, i wasn't. or was it that you and others _ prior to that, i wasn't. or was it that you and others in - prior to that, i wasn't. or was it that you and others in the - prior to that, i wasn't. or was it that you and others in the post| that you and others in the post office studiously avoided lifting the lid of what happened in october 2010, when the payments bug was not only discovered but was also revealed, fujitsu's ability to tamper with accounts. l revealed, fujitsu's ability to tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and — tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and i— tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and i wish _ tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and i wish i _ tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and i wish i had _ tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and i wish i had been - tamper with accounts. i wasn't aware of this, and i wish i had been at - of this, and i wish i had been at the time, — of this, and i wish i had been at the time, because that fundamentally changes— the time, because that fundamentally changes what my understanding was to do with— changes what my understanding was to do with the _ changes what my understanding was to do with the horizon system, and even 'ust do with the horizon system, and even just the _ do with the horizon system, and even just the language used in here, clearly, — just the language used in here, clearly, clearly it was known. and the fact, — clearly, clearly it was known. and the fact, you can get away from the sun this _ the fact, you can get away from the sun this document, that they were consciousty — sun this document, that they were consciously deciding what to do and what not _

consciously deciding what to do and what not to — consciously deciding what to do and what not to do, and what not to share — what not to do, and what not to share that _ what not to do, and what not to share. that is usually alarming. —— hugety— share. that is usually alarming. —— hugely alarming. share. that is usually alarming. -- hugely alarming-— hugely alarming. that might be an a- --roriate hugely alarming. that might be an appropriate moment _ hugely alarming. that might be an appropriate moment for _ hugely alarming. that might be an appropriate moment for a - hugely alarming. that might be an appropriate moment for a new - hugely alarming. that might be an - appropriate moment for a new system of ten minute breaks, to take the first of them. studio: you have been watching the post office inquiry. angela van den bogerd, a key executive in the horizon scandal, saying that she was asked there about an e—mail where it was made clear that fujitsu could tamper with accounts remotely, and could do so without the post office branches knowing about it. she was asked, did you do anything about it? she said no. she said she didn't knowingly do anything wrong and wouldn't knowingly do anything wrong. quite a few denials from won when she was quizzed at the inquiry.

in the meantime, another big story is happening in scotland. the governing snp has ended its power sharing agreement with the scottish greens and will lead a minority government at holyrood. it's understood the greens withdrew its support, following the scottish government's decision to scrap its 2030 climate target and the way it responded to a review of gender services. the snp has previously indicated it would form a minority administration if the coalition collapsed. is the coalition over? is the agreement of the snp over? these are pictures of the scottish green party co—leaders patrick harvie and lorna slater leaving bute house in edinburgh ahead of that cabinet meeting. mr harvie told journalists the decision was a "total "u—turn from recent days". in the last hour, the scottish first minister announced the end to the power sharing deal at his bute house residence. i believe that going forward it is in the best interests of the people of scotland to pursue a different arrangement.

that is why, following a discussion with my cabinet this morning, i have formally notified patrick harvie and lorna slater that i am terminating the agreement with immediate effect. let's speak to our scotland correspondent lorna gordon. humza yousaf has been saying that has been terminated with immediate effect. lorna slater and patrick harvie talked about this is that act of political karius 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 week away. —— an act of political cowardice. the snp

does not have a majority now in the scottish parliament. they have 63 msps. they are to match short of a majority, along with the greens who had seven msps, but gave them a majority, they have lost that with the 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 under alex salmond governed as a minority government, but at what it means is that 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 are united with the snp that scotland should be an independent

country, but make no mistake, this will be a challenging time for the snp, for their leader, will be a challenging time for the snp, fortheir leader, humza will be a challenging time for the snp, for their leader, humza yousaf, going forward. snp, for their leader, humza yousaf, going forward-— going forward. here is the reaction from the green _ going forward. here is the reaction from the green co-leader, - going forward. here is the reaction from the green co-leader, patrick| from the green co—leader, patrick harvie. humza yousaf informed us of his desire _ humza yousaf informed us of his desire to — humza yousaf informed us of his desire to end the cooperation between _ desire to end the cooperation between his government and the scottish— between his government and the scottish greens. this is a total u-turn— scottish greens. this is a total u-turn in_ scottish greens. this is a total u—turn in recent days, where he reassured — u—turn in recent days, where he reassured us of his commitment to working _ reassured us of his commitment to working on— reassured us of his commitment to working on the policies are parties agreed _ working on the policies are parties agreed on. — working on the policies are parties agreed on, and to act on climate action— agreed on, and to act on climate action after— agreed on, and to act on climate action after decades of inaction. he has decided to capitulate to the most _ has decided to capitulate to the most reactionary, backward —looking forces _ most reactionary, backward —looking forces in _ most reactionary, backward —looking forces in the — most reactionary, backward —looking forces in the snp, and it is the

opposite — forces in the snp, and it is the opposite of what is in scotland's best interests. humza yousaf became first minister last year when his members — first minister last year when his members rejected the idea of an snp lurch to— members rejected the idea of an snp lurch to the _ members rejected the idea of an snp lurch to the right. he now looks set to give _ lurch to the right. he now looks set to give his — lurch to the right. he now looks set to give his party what they rejected. he will be shoring up support— rejected. he will be shoring up support from his conservative wing, and ditching the progressive policy platform _ and ditching the progressive policy platform he was elected on, which you continue to endorse just days ago _ you continue to endorse just days ago we — you continue to endorse just days ago. we now expect to see a raft of progressive — ago. we now expect to see a raft of progressive policies watered down, delayed _ progressive policies watered down, delayed or ditched altogether, from rent controls to nature restoration, from _ rent controls to nature restoration, from new _ rent controls to nature restoration, from new sustainable transport policies — from new sustainable transport policies to scotland's leading approach on decarbonising homes. but, to— approach on decarbonising homes. but, to those in the snp who do still believe in a progressive and fair scotland, our door is open. some _ fair scotland, our door is open. some breaking news for you from the national crime agency. they say they

have made a further arrest after tuesday's channel crossing that led to the death of five people on a beach. a 19—year—old from sudan, who was initially detained on tuesday evening, has been released without charge, and another is being questioned. two other men, from south sudan, who were arrested on wednesday, are still in custody, and the national crime agency says that the national crime agency says that the process of interviewing those on the process of interviewing those on the boat and made it to the uk will likely take several days. a reminder, a book set off on tuesday and resulted on the death of five people, horribly overcrowded on board, a further arrest on that story. let's return to the post office scandal and what has been called one of the biggest miscarriages ofjustices in british legal history. it is a big day in the inquiry as to why postmasters

were convicted because of a faulty system. angela van den bogerd is giving evidence, and she was the company's most important witness in the legal action taken by sub—postmaster alan bates, and was heavily criticised by the judge in that case for misleading the court in her evidence. angela van den bogerd today apologised to those affected, said she was not aware of any wrongdoing. l affected, said she was not aware of any wrongdoing-— affected, said she was not aware of any wrongdoing. i think you make no concessions — any wrongdoing. i think you make no concessions or _ any wrongdoing. i think you make no concessions or admissions _ concessions or admissions that you did anything wrong, correct? l did anything wrong, correct? i didn't knowingly do anything wrong. i would _ didn't knowingly do anything wrong. i would never knowingly do anything wrong _ i would never knowingly do anything wronu. ., ., �* i would never knowingly do anything wronu. ., .,�* ., ., , ., i would never knowingly do anything wronu. ., ., , ., wrong. you don't apologise for your role in any — wrong. you don't apologise for your role in any of _ wrong. you don't apologise for your role in any of the _ wrong. you don't apologise for your role in any of the events _ wrong. you don't apologise for your role in any of the events being - role in any of the events being examined by the inquiry, do you? l examined by the inquiry, do you? i reflected on this quite a bit, and the disclosure that i have seen through— the disclosure that i have seen through this process, there are things— through this process, there are things that, documents that i've seen, _ things that, documents that i've seen. that— things that, documents that i've seen, that i don't remember some of them _ seen, that i don't remember some of them from _ seen, that i don't remember some of them from the time. clearly, knowing what i _ them from the time. clearly, knowing what i know _ them from the time. clearly, knowing what i know now, i would give further — what i know now, i would give

further weight to some of those documents than i did at the time. they— documents than i did at the time. they would — documents than i did at the time. they would have more significance. things— they would have more significance. things that — they would have more significance. things that i might have missed at the time, — things that i might have missed at the time, i— things that i might have missed at the time, i really regret that and i wish i'd _ the time, i really regret that and i wish i'd been able to see that back then _ wish i'd been able to see that back then. �* ,, . .. wish i'd been able to see that back then. �* ,, ., ~ ., ., wish i'd been able to see that back then. �* ,, ., ., then. but speak to our correspondent who is following _ then. but speak to our correspondent who is following the _ then. but speak to our correspondent who is following the inquiry _ then. but speak to our correspondent who is following the inquiry in - who is following the inquiry in central london. talk us through the key moments in her evidence today. well, many sub—postmasters have said this is a moment they have been waiting for. several of them are here, and were in the room wide angela van den bogerd delivered that apology you heard. what she did start by saying she is truly sorry to the victims, that apology became very conditional, and she said that she would never knowingly do anything wrong. now, some of those big moments are to do with what she knew and when, because remember, she had a career spanning decades at the post office, and so many of the

complaints that the sub—postmasters made about the horizon it system. what she knew and when it is very important when you have sub—postmaster to accusing the. as of a cover—up. she was pressed on when she became aware of fujitsu having the ability to tamper with branch accounts. it is that issue of remote access that sub postmasters who were convicted did not have any knowledge of during the cases, she said that she missed an e—mail about it in 2010, and that generally over that period she didn't have any understanding of the implications, but did not register with her. she was also questioned by the inquiry counsel about the language that was used by the post office during that period, and whether it was used to control and cloak the communications of the post office. one lawyer said the language they used was simply orwellian. that is something that

angela van den bogerd tonight, and she said that when they use the word anomaly instead of bugs when it came to the horizon it system, she didn't use it because it was less emotive, something the inquiry heard yesterday. this is only day one of her evidence. there will be two days because of the fact she has had this career that has lasted so long, and because she is someone who was intimately aware of the complaints during her time at the post office. a brobbey seems to amount to i know more now than i did then, how's that going down with the people who are watching it? it is going down with the people who are watchin: it? , ,., ., watching it? it is something we have heard from several— watching it? it is something we have heard from several witnesses - watching it? it is something we have heard from several witnesses who i heard from several witnesses who have been evidence. a lot of the words we have been hearing our i know this now, in hindsight, looking back, and it is all about intent as well. for sub—postmasters, back, and it is all about intent as well. forsub—postmasters, i've well. for sub—postmasters, i've spoken well. forsub—postmasters, i've spoken to several of them in the

last few weeks, and they say they are tired of hearing the words, i don't remember, i don't recall. it doesn't sit very well with them. to be honest, several sub—postmasters i've spoken to say they are not really looking to attach too much importance to answers from witnesses here. they are glad that there are these moments that executives have to be questioned and they have to answer to a statutory public inquiry, but what they are really looking for is accountability. they want financial redress, and they want financial redress, and they want people who are responsible for the scandal to go to jail. this is something that the current post office minister says he believes should happen once evidence has been established. talk should happen once evidence has been established. . .. . should happen once evidence has been established. ., ~ , ., established. talk us through the mechanics of — established. talk us through the mechanics of this. _ established. talk us through the mechanics of this. what - established. talk us through the mechanics of this. what more i established. talk us through the | mechanics of this. what more do established. talk us through the - mechanics of this. what more do we expect her to be quizzed about, and where does the inquiry go after this? �* ., , ., ., , ., this? again, these are two days that she will be testifying. _ this? again, these are two days that she will be testifying. several - she will be testifying. several reports were commissioned during her

time at the post office, trying to evaluate essentially the integrity of the horizon it system. in the very beginning when she was sworn in, the inquiry counsel made sure to confirm that she oversaw two of those reports. those reports flagged up those reports. those reports flagged up issues to do with the horizon it system that sub—postmasters argued should have been made public, and certainly should have been passed on to forensic investigators who were evaluating the way sub—postmasters had been treated. she is likely to be questioned about her knowledge of that, whether the post office should have discussed these issues further, and of course angela van den bogerd is also someone who submitted briefing notes to mp5, who gave evidence to mp5, and inquiry counsel warm to question whether those statements were all truthful. thank ou ve statements were all truthful. thank you very much _ statements were all truthful. thank you very much indeed. _ statements were all truthful. thank you very much indeed. the - statements were all truthful. thank you very much indeed. the inquiry. you very much indeed. the inquiry hasjust finished a you very much indeed. the inquiry has just finished a short break. let's go back and listen in.

received from tracy marshall dated the 5th _ received from tracy marshall dated the 5th of _ received from tracy marshall dated the 5th ofjanuary. can become a too _ the 5th ofjanuary. can become a too -- _ the 5th ofjanuary. can become a too -- can — the 5th ofjanuary. can become a top. —— can we turn that up please? —— can we turn that up, please? can you see at the top it is an e-mail— can you see at the top it is an e—mail dated the 5th ofjanuary to you and _ e—mail dated the 5th ofjanuary to you and others from tracey marshall? yes. �* ., , ~ , yes. and her title was agents development _ yes. and her title was agents development manager. - yes. and her title was agents development manager. can l yes. and her title was agents l development manager. can you yes. and her title was agents - development manager. can you it's fine what _ development manager. can you it's fine what that was? i development manager. can you it's fine what that was?— fine what that was? i don't actually remember what _ fine what that was? i don't actually remember what she _ fine what that was? i don't actually remember what she was _ fine what that was? i don't actually remember what she was doing - fine what that was? i don't actually remember what she was doing at l fine what that was? i don't actually l remember what she was doing at the time. ~ . remember what she was doing at the time. . ., ., ., remember what she was doing at the time. ~ ., ., ., , ., ., time. what relation did she have to ou in time. what relation did she have to you in your — time. what relation did she have to you in your work? _ time. what relation did she have to you in your work? not _ time. what relation did she have to you in your work? not an _ time. what relation did she have to you in your work? not an off - time. what relation did she have to you in your work? not an off a - time. what relation did she have to you in your work? not an off a lot l you in your work? not an off a lot at that time- _

you in your work? not an off a lot at that time. why _ you in your work? not an off a lot at that time. why was _ you in your work? not an off a lot at that time. why was she - you in your work? not an off a lot at that time. why was she writing you in your work? not an off a lot i at that time. why was she writing to ou? it at that time. why was she writing to you? it was — at that time. why was she writing to you? it was to _ at that time. why was she writing to you? it was to kevin, _ at that time. why was she writing to you? it was to kevin, really. - at that time. why was she writing to you? it was to kevin, really. i- you? it was to kevin, really. i think— you? it was to kevin, really. i think she _ you? it was to kevin, really. i think she was part of kevin's team, i think kevin _ think she was part of kevin's team, i think kevin had _ think she was part of kevin's team, i think kevin had asked _ think she was part of kevin's team, i think kevin had asked to - think she was part of kevin's team, i think kevin had asked to do - i think kevin had asked to do something, i don't remember having any conversation with tracy about this until i got the e—mails. to this until i got the e-mails. to know this until i got the e—mails. to know what the context was for kevin asking? _ know what the context was for kevin asking? it _ know what the context was for kevin askin: ? . . know what the context was for kevin askin: ? ., , ., asking? it was the ferndown meeting. i've been asked _ asking? it was the ferndown meeting. i've been asked to _ asking? it was the ferndown meeting. i've been asked to attend _ asking? it was the ferndown meeting. i've been asked to attend this. - asking? it was the ferndown meeting. i've been asked to attend this. it - i've been asked to attend this. it wasn't something that i would normally do, but sue huggins, who was my line manager at the time, who reported to kevin, was on holiday. she had asked me to step in. the sub'ect is she had asked me to step in. the subject is horizon system issues, and item — subject is horizon system issues, and item to do reads, two, post office _ and item to do reads, two, post office are — and item to do reads, two, post office are fujitsu having remote access— office are fujitsu having remote access to — office are fujitsu having remote access to horizon systems, and the first paragraph is that the post

office — first paragraph is that the post office cannot remotely access it, fujitsu _ office cannot remotely access it, fujitsu can — office cannot remotely access it, fujitsu can remotely access systems, and they— fujitsu can remotely access systems, and they do— fujitsu can remotely access systems, and they do so on a network—wide basis _ and they do so on a network—wide basis in _ and they do so on a network—wide basis in order to remedy glitches in the system — basis in order to remedy glitches in the system created as a result of new software upgrades. technically, fujitsu _ new software upgrades. technically, fujitsu could access a branch remotely, and move money around, however— remotely, and move money around, however this— remotely, and move money around, however this has never happened yet. the authority process and the audit process— the authority process and the audit process are — the authority process and the audit process are robust enough to prevent this activity— process are robust enough to prevent this activity from being undertaken fraudulently stop the authority process — fraudulently stop the authority process itself would take several days and — process itself would take several days and would require a number of representatives from the business to provide _ representatives from the business to provide concurrence to the activity, including _ provide concurrence to the activity, including head of network services. if a change — including head of network services. if a change were made remotely to an individual— if a change were made remotely to an individual branch count, i would be flagged _ individual branch count, i would be flagged on— individual branch count, i would be flagged on the business's register. fbna _ flagged on the business's register. ebna would then investigate to determine whether the mismatch was authorised _ determine whether the mismatch was authorised internally or not. so, although— authorised internally or not. so, although changes can be made

externally, they would be spotted and the _ externally, they would be spotted and the person would be identified? now, _ and the person would be identified? now. the _ and the person would be identified? now, the inquiry has heard evidence that the _ now, the inquiry has heard evidence that the claim that fujitsu had never — that the claim that fujitsu had never used its capability to access individual— never used its capability to access individual branches and move money around _ individual branches and move money around is _ individual branches and move money around is incorrect stop by the time you received this e—mail, did you know— you received this e—mail, did you know that? — you received this e-mail, did you know that?— you received this e—mail, did you know that? no. the inquiry has received know that? fly. the inquiry has received evidence that the authority process _ received evidence that the authority brocess or— received evidence that the authority process or audit process to prevent the activity — process or audit process to prevent the activity from occurring was knocked — the activity from occurring was knocked robust —— knocked robust, and there _ knocked robust —— knocked robust, and there wasn't significant reassurance that it was being used fraudulently. at that time, did you receive _ fraudulently. at that time, did you receive evidence to that effect? no.

the inquiry — receive evidence to that effect? jjfm the inquiry has heard evidence receive evidence to that effect? jjfu the inquiry has heard evidence that fujitsu _ the inquiry has heard evidence that fujitsu would sometimes use a sub—postmaster's user id to inject transactions into branch accounts so that the _ transactions into branch accounts so that the standard irq data produced subsequently could not distinguish between _ subsequently could not distinguish between inject transactions and those _ between inject transactions and those in — between inject transactions and those in the branch. did you know that at— those in the branch. did you know that at the — those in the branch. did you know that at the point of receiving this e-mail? — that at the point of receiving this e-mail? ., , that at the point of receiving this e-mail?_ has - that at the point of receiving this - e-mail?_ has received e-mail? no. the inquiry has received evidence that — e-mail? no. the inquiry has received evidence that there _ e-mail? no. the inquiry has received evidence that there was _ e-mail? no. the inquiry has received j evidence that there was unauthorised and an— evidence that there was unauthorised and an auditable privileged user access— and an auditable privileged user access -- — and an auditable privileged user access —— unauditable. did you know about— access —— unauditable. did you know about that? — access —— unauditable. did you know about that? no. and evidence in

fu'itsu about that? and evidence in fujitsu that about that? fly. and evidence in fujitsu that there had been in regulated user access? pit i had no of that _ regulated user access? pit i had no of that l— regulated user access? pit i had no of that. ., ., regulated user access? pit i had no ofthat. ., ., ~ ., ., regulated user access? pit i had no of that. ., ., ~ ., ., ., , of that. i have no knowledge of any of that. i have no knowledge of any of that- i am _ of that. i have no knowledge of any of that. i am told _ of that. i have no knowledge of any of that. i am told that _ of that. i have no knowledge of any of that. i am told that you - of that. i have no knowledge of any of that. i am told that you need - of that. i have no knowledge of any of that. i am told that you need to l of that. i am told that you need to seak u- of that. i am told that you need to speak up significantly. _ speak up significantly. significantly.— speak up significantly. significantly. speak up significantly. siunificantl . ~ ., ., significantly. within the month that ou receive significantly. within the month that you receive this _ significantly. within the month that you receive this e-mail, _ significantly. within the month that you receive this e-mail, i _ significantly. within the month that you receive this e-mail, i think- significantly. within the month that you receive this e-mail, i think it i you receive this e—mail, i think it is the _ you receive this e—mail, i think it is the next — you receive this e—mail, i think it is the next day, you interviewed a woman— is the next day, you interviewed a woman in— is the next day, you interviewed a woman in old street, london, correct? — woman in old street, london, correct? this is the ferndown ranch in dorset, _ correct? this is the ferndown ranch in dorset, is — correct? this is the ferndown ranch in dorset, is that right? yes. and she was the _ in dorset, is that right? yes. and she was the sub _ in dorset, is that right? jes and she was the sub postmaster of in dorset, is that right? 1e3 and she was the sub postmaster of that branch? _ she was the sub postmaster of that branch? b. — she was the sub postmaster of that branch? b, yes. but what can you summarise — branch? b, yes. but what can you summarise what happened to her? i summarise what happened to her? wasn't summarise what happened to her? i wasn't involved in what happened. from memory, there had been an issue on audit, and she had been suspended. the first i became aware

of it, and i put this in my statement, as when lynn hobbs contacted me, because my role at the time was providing, as i said, network services, branches opening and re—closing, but also providing mobile post office services as well. she asked me, would i be able to provide mobile post office outside this branch or close to the branch if you to, and that's the first time i became aware of... i can't remember when, i became aware of... i can't rememberwhen, i i became aware of... i can't remember when, i would i became aware of... i can't remember when, iwould have i became aware of... i can't remember when, i would have been a few months leading into this, because i don't remember when the audit and the suspension actually took place, but that was the context, that is what i was aware. i knew it was high—profile. lynn had told me, and i believe dave smith was the md at this point. he had got involved. apollo would have been the network director at this point, i think. ., ..,

network director at this point, i think. ., _, ., network director at this point, i think. ., ., ., ~ think. that can come down, thank ou. the think. that can come down, thank you- the issue _ think. that can come down, thank you. the issue it _ think. that can come down, thank you. the issue it ferndown - think. that can come down, thank you. the issue it ferndown had i you. the issue it ferndown had involved — you. the issue it ferndown had involved an _ you. the issue it ferndown had involved an unexplained loss shown on adornments document —— a dormant stock— on adornments document —— a dormant stock unit. _ on adornments document —— a dormant stock unit. do— on adornments document —— a dormant stock unit, do you remember? b, yes. but like _ stock unit, do you remember? b, yes. but like you _ stock unit, do you remember? b, yes. but like you attended this interview, can we look at the transcript _ interview, can we look at the transcript of that? pol 0029 473. what was the purpose of the interview?— what was the purpose of the interview? ., , , .,

interview? from my understanding, i was to re-establish _ interview? from my understanding, i was to re-establish the _ was to re—establish the relationship, because i think as a result of the suspension and some of theissues result of the suspension and some of the issues around that, there was a breakdown in the relationship. that is what i thought the purpose of the meeting was. to is what i thought the purpose of the meeting was-— meeting was. to re-establish the relationship _ meeting was. to re-establish the relationship between _ meeting was. to re-establish the relationship between the - meeting was. to re-establish the relationship between the post - meeting was. to re-establish the i relationship between the post office on the _ relationship between the post office on the one hand... and relationship between the post office on the one hand...— on the one hand... and the sub-postmistress. - on the one hand... and the sub-postmistress. it - on the one hand... and the sub-postmistress. it was i on the one hand... and the - sub-postmistress. it was actually sub—postmistress. it was actually her husband who was the most vocal in the meeting. she was the sub—postmistress. i was understanding that val had been talking to the press, and things like that, but mrs atwell had been reinstated, and at this point, it was really about re—establishing that relationship, which is what kevin was looking to do. ll that relationship, which is what kevin was looking to do.- kevin was looking to do. if the questions _ kevin was looking to do. if the questions -- _ kevin was looking to do. if the questions -- if _ kevin was looking to do. if the questions -- if the _ kevin was looking to do. if the questions -- if the purpose i kevin was looking to do. if the l questions -- if the purpose was kevin was looking to do. if the i questions -- if the purpose was to questions —— if the purpose was to re-establish — questions —— if the purpose was to re—establish the relationship, why was the _

re—establish the relationship, why was the meeting recorded? | re-establish the relationship, why was the meeting recorded? i don't know, was the meeting recorded? i don't know. actually- — was the meeting recorded? i don't know, actually. it _ was the meeting recorded? i don't know, actually. it wasn't _ was the meeting recorded? i don't know, actually. it wasn't typical. know, actually. it wasn't typical that we would have recorded these types of meetings. i don't know. but it was. that would have been probably at kevin's. .. it was. that would have been probably at kevin's... i'm not sure, i don't really question it. ll probably at kevin's. .. i'm not sure, i don't really question it.— i don't really question it. if we look, i don't really question it. if we look. we _ i don't really question it. if we look. we can _ i don't really question it. if we look, we can see _ i don't really question it. if we look, we can see the - i don't really question it. if we i look, we can see the expedition given— look, we can see the expedition given by— look, we can see the expedition given by mr gillibrand. thank you. just for— given by mr gillibrand. thank you. just for the — given by mr gillibrand. thank you. just for the record, the purpose of recording — just for the record, the purpose of recording the interview is to make sure we _ recording the interview is to make sure we have a factual record of the meeting. _ sure we have a factual record of the meeting, we have agreed the content of this— meeting, we have agreed the content of this meeting will remain confidential. the information discussed as not to be shared with other— discussed as not to be shared with other parties unless the express permission of all attendees around this room — permission of all attendees around this room is given. mr atwell says i have _ this room is given. mr atwell says i have a _ this room is given. mr atwell says i have a problem with that. yes. can ou hel have a problem with that. yes. can you help us? _ have a problem with that. yes. can you help us? if— have a problem with that. 1e3 can you help us? if you're have a problem with that. 13:3 can you help us? if you're trying to re—establish the relationship between a husband and wife postmaster and was mistress team,

why do— postmaster and was mistress team, why do you — postmaster and was mistress team, why do you take them? asl postmaster and was mistress team, why do you take them?— postmaster and was mistress team, why do you take them? as i say, that wasn't my decision _ why do you take them? as i say, that wasn't my decision and _ why do you take them? as i say, that wasn't my decision and it _ why do you take them? as i say, that wasn't my decision and it wasn't i wasn't my decision and it wasn't something that we normally did. the only time we would have recorded interviews is where it is one person from a post office perspective having a meeting with somebody else, is what we would normally do. otherwise we would take notes. so, i don't know. i don't recall having any kind of pre—meet with kevin on this. as i say, stepped in to this because my boss wasn't available. i can't add anything further to that, i'm afraid. llthl’e can't add anything further to that, i'm afraid. ~ .., , can't add anything further to that, i'm afraid. ~ .. , ,. ., can't add anything further to that, i'm afraid. ~ , ,. ., , i'm afraid. we can 'ust scroll up and see i'm afraid. we can 'ust scroll up and who h i'm afraid. we can 'ust scroll up and see who is i i'm afraid. we can just scroll up and see who is present. - i'm afraid. we can just scroll up and see who is present. mr- and see who is present. mr gillibrand and you, and helen rose. why was— gillibrand and you, and helen rose. why was helen rose there? she was art of the why was helen rose there? she was part of the security _ why was helen rose there? she was part of the security team, _ why was helen rose there? she was part of the security team, and i i part of the security team, and i think she was an analyst. i'm not sure, i'm not sure whether i asked her or lynn had asked her to look at

the information so that we could establish what had happened in the branch. that was helen's. about! establish what had happened in the branch. that was helen's.— establish what had happened in the branch. that was helen's. and mr and mrs atwell and _ branch. that was helen's. and mr and mrs atwell and mark _ branch. that was helen's. and mr and mrs atwell and mark baker _ branch. that was helen's. and mr and mrs atwell and mark baker from i branch. that was helen's. and mr and mrs atwell and mark baker from the l mrs atwell and mark baker from the federation, can we go forward to page _ federation, can we go forward to page three, please? the top of the page. this is mr baker— the top of the page. this is mr baker speaking. so we have moved forward _ baker speaking. so we have moved forward from where we left with added _ forward from where we left with added bayfield when he did the appeal. — added bayfield when he did the appeal, and he accepted that the stock— appeal, and he accepted that the stock unit— appeal, and he accepted that the stock unit that had been some months prior to _ stock unit that had been some months prior to that. _ stock unit that had been some months prior to that, came back into life with— prior to that, came back into life with money into it. he said there could _ with money into it. he said there could only— with money into it. he said there could only be caused by one of two ways. _ could only be caused by one of two ways. that — could only be caused by one of two ways, that was either by human physically— ways, that was either by human physically doing it within that branch— physically doing it within that branch or it has been generated by the computer itself for one reason or another. — the computer itself for one reason oranother. he the computer itself for one reason or another. he was going away to get

to the _ or another. he was going away to get to the bottom of that. as far as i'm