.your self reflection and check your e-mails? _ self reflection and check your e—mails? | self reflection and check your emails?— self reflection and check your e-mails? , l, , �* e-mails? i wish i had, but i didn't. so ou e-mails? i wish i had, but i didn't. so you maintained _ e-mails? i wish i had, but i didn't. so you maintained that _ e-mails? i wish i had, but i didn't. so you maintained that the - e-mails? i wish i had, but i didn't. | so you maintained that the e-mails so you maintained that the e—mails we have _ so you maintained that the e—mails we have looked at of december 2010 and january 2011 were not either showing — and january 2011 were not either showing to you by solicitors preparing your witness statement or found _ preparing your witness statement or found by— preparing your witness statement or found by you as part of an evidence readying _ found by you as part of an evidence readying session?— readying session? yes, i don't remember- — readying session? yes, i don't remember. it _ readying session? yes, i don't remember. it was _ readying session? yes, i don't remember. it was only - readying session? yes, i don't| remember. it was only coming readying session? yes, i don't - remember. it was only coming into this exercise that i remembered the ferndown being involved at all. did you conduct any exercise on self reflection. _ did you conduct any exercise on self reflection, searching your own diaries— reflection, searching your own diaries or— reflection, searching your own diaries or e—mail inboxes and sent items, _ diaries or e—mail inboxes and sent items, looking for any notes you may have made? — items, looking for any notes you may have made? for items, looking for any notes you may have made?— have made? for the horizon trial?

yes. the have made? for the horizon trial? yes- the most _ have made? for the horizon trial? yes. the most content _ have made? for the horizon trial? yes. the most content for - have made? for the horizon trial? yes. the most content for the - yes. the most content for the horizon trial— yes. the most content for the horizon trial i _ yes. the most content for the horizon trial i pulled - yes. the most content for the horizon trial i pulled from - yes. the most content for the horizon trial i pulled from the | horizon trial i pulled from the investigations that my team had done investigations that my team had done in the cases. again, i didn't do any searches on my laptop, and in terms of my diary, not that i can recall. and why not? i of my diary, not that i can recall. and why not?— of my diary, not that i can recall. and why not? of my diary, not that i can recall. andwh not? ~ ., �* , and why not? i don't know. because i didn't think — and why not? i don't know. because i didn't think it — and why not? i don't know. because i didn't think it was _ and why not? i don't know. because i didn't think it was relevant _ and why not? i don't know. because i didn't think it was relevant in - didn't think it was relevant in terms of what information i was giving. ijust didn't give it a thought. nobody suggested or told me that was something i should be doing. that was something i should be doinr. ~ . that was something i should be doina.~ . ., doing. when giving evidence today in re aration doing. when giving evidence today in preparation you _ doing. when giving evidence today in preparation you seem _ doing. when giving evidence today in preparation you seem to _ doing. when giving evidence today in preparation you seem to have - preparation you seem to have research _ preparation you seem to have research for the 5th of december was a sunday— research for the 5th of december was a sunday are not.— research for the 5th of december was a sunday are not. yes. why didn't ou rive a sunday are not. yes. why didn't you give that _ a sunday are not. yes. why didn't you give that care _ a sunday are not. jazz why didn't you give that care and attention a sunday are not. 19:3 why didn't you give that care and attention to previous—

you give that care and attention to previous occasions when you gave evidence? — previous occasions when you gave evidence? i — previous occasions when you gave evidence? ~ ' : :, evidence? i think the difference of this inquiry — evidence? i think the difference of this inquiry approaches... - evidence? i think the difference of this inquiry approaches... i - evidence? i think the difference of this inquiry approaches... i had i evidence? i think the difference of this inquiry approaches... i had a l this inquiry approaches... i had a list of documents to review, a list of questions to consider, and i did research that really well, as far as i could. that was a very different approach to when i gave evidence in the two trials. i think looking back and coming into this, i have come into this knowing what more to expect, and i have made sure that i familiarised myself with everything i have been provided with and requested more information when i think there was more. i didn't have that same approach going into the two trials. flan that same approach going into the two trials. :, :, : ,, two trials. can we go back, then, in time, two trials. can we go back, then, in time. still— two trials. can we go back, then, in time, still looking _ two trials. can we go back, then, in time, still looking at _ two trials. can we go back, then, in time, still looking at remote - two trials. can we go back, then, in time, still looking at remote accessl time, still looking at remote access

and looh— time, still looking at remote access and look at — time, still looking at remote access and look at pol 00115919? this is a briefing note, as we can see, _ this is a briefing note, as we can see, prepared for a this is a briefing note, as we can see, prepared fora paula this is a briefing note, as we can see, prepared for a paula vennells in relation — see, prepared for a paula vennells in relation to the second site review— in relation to the second site review into horizon and in particular their report. it is dated the 2nd _ particular their report. it is dated the 2nd of— particular their report. it is dated the 2nd ofjuly at 2013. if you look at the _ the 2nd ofjuly at 2013. if you look at the foot— the 2nd ofjuly at 2013. if you look at the foot of page two for some context. — at the foot of page two for some context, please. ishould at the foot of page two for some context, please. i should say that this is— context, please. i should say that this is all— context, please. i should say that this is all part of the background

being _ this is all part of the background being briefed to miss paula vennells, and this paragraph records that you _ vennells, and this paragraph records that you and others met second sight on the _ that you and others met second sight on the 1st— that you and others met second sight on the 1st ofjuly at 3pm to obtain a clearer— on the 1st ofjuly at 3pm to obtain a clearer picture of second sight's interinr _ a clearer picture of second sight's interim findings on the timing for delivery — interim findings on the timing for delivery. so you had seen second sight _ delivery. so you had seen second sight the — delivery. so you had seen second sight the day before this document. 0k. sight the day before this document. ok but _ sight the day before this document. ok. but like to work out what they would find in their interim findings? —— would find in their interim findings? -- to would find in their interim findings? "— would find in their interim findinrs? -- .. ., ~ ., . , findings? -- to work out what they would find in _ findings? -- to work out what they would find in their— findings? -- to work out what they would find in their interim - would find in their interim findings. would find in their interim findinrs. would find in their interim findings. gk. and if we go to page findings. 0k. and if we go to page four, findings. and if we go to page four, under findings. off; and if we go to page four, underthe heading of findings. off; and if we go to page four, under the heading of the two anonraties, — four, under the heading of the two anomalies, says we understand second sight's _ anomalies, says we understand second sight's interim report will discuss

two anomalies in horizon's operation, they were found by post office _ operation, they were found by post office limited and voluntarily communicated to second sight, in other— communicated to second sight, in other words neither was found by second _ other words neither was found by second sight in part of the review. the first— second sight in part of the review. the first is— second sight in part of the review. the first is badged up as the 62 ttranch— the first is badged up as the 62 branch anomaly. this is the receipt and payments mismatch bug, if you renrenrber, — and payments mismatch bug, if you remember, the thing that was discussed at that meeting in the autumn— discussed at that meeting in the autumn of 2010, which had become apparent _ autumn of 2010, which had become apparent to six post office people, including _ apparent to six post office people, including messieurs marwood, tumble and win _ including messieurs marwood, tumble and win. that remote access was possible. — and win. that remote access was possible, and allowed the tampering without _ possible, and allowed the tampering without the knowledge of the sub—postmasters. it is set out that it affects _ sub—postmasters. it is set out that it affects 62 branches, concerns the receipts _ it affects 62 branches, concerns the receipts and payments mismatch in

legacy— receipts and payments mismatch in legacy horizon, sorry, in horizon ontine, _ legacy horizon, sorry, in horizon online, when discrepancies were nroved _ online, when discrepancies were moved into the local expense account~ _ moved into the local expense account. it appeared first in march 2010. _ account. it appeared first in march 2010, and — account. it appeared first in march 2010, and the majority of incidents occurred _ 2010, and the majority of incidents occurred between august and october 2010. _ occurred between august and october 2010, and _ occurred between august and october 2010, and the losses ranged from those _ 2010, and the losses ranged from those amounts identified by horizon's built and and could have been _ horizon's built and and could have been identified if the sub—postmaster had carefully scrutinised their final balance report~ — scrutinised their final balance report 17 _ scrutinised their final balance report. 17 branches were adversely affected _ report. 17 branches were adversely affected. sub—postmasters were affected. sub— postmasters were notified — affected. sub—postmasters were notified in march 2011, and were appropriately reimbursed. they were not asked _ appropriately reimbursed. they were not asked to refund this stop predates separation and would have been dealt with by royal mail legal. event _ been dealt with by royal mail legal. event sets out the reason for delaying _ event sets out the reason for delaying notification to sub—postmasters. and then over

them _ sub—postmasters. and then over them then _ sub—postmasters. and then over the... then it continues on the 14 ttranch— the... then it continues on the 14 branch anomaly, something else. yes? yes. ~ .. branch anomaly, something else. yes? yes. ., ,, branch anomaly, something else. yes? yes. ., ., yes. who was responsible for the summary of _ yes. who was responsible for the summary of the _ yes. who was responsible for the summary of the 62 _ yes. who was responsible for the summary of the 62 branch - yes. who was responsible for the i summary of the 62 branch anomaly? yes. who was responsible for the - summary of the 62 branch anomaly? i summary of the 62 branch anomaly? i think summary of the 62 branch anomaly? think it was summary of the 62 branch anomaly? i think it was simon baker that put that together. did think it was simon baker that put that together.— that together. did you contribute towards this? _ that together. did you contribute towards this? no. _ that together. did you contribute towards this? no. did _ that together. did you contribute towards this? no. did you - that together. did you contribute towards this? no. did you read l that together. did you contributej towards this? no. did you read it before it towards this? did you read it before it was towards this? tip. did you read it before it was submitted to paula vennells? | before it was submitted to paula vennells? .. �* before it was submitted to paula vennells? ., �* ., �* vennells? i don't recall, i don't remember— vennells? i don't recall, i don't remember seeing _ vennells? i don't recall, i don't remember seeing that - vennells? i don't recall, i don't remember seeing that before. | vennells? i don't recall, i don't| remember seeing that before. i vennells? i don't recall, i don't- remember seeing that before. i can't be sure. d0 remember seeing that before. i can't be sure. ,, remember seeing that before. i can't be sure. ~ .. , remember seeing that before. i can't be sure. ~ ., , ., , �* be sure. do you know why it doesn't ick u - , be sure. do you know why it doesn't pick up. in — be sure. do you know why it doesn't pick up. in this _ be sure. do you know why it doesn't pick up, in this context, _ be sure. do you know why it doesn't pick up, in this context, the - be sure. do you know why it doesn't pick up, in this context, the remote| pick up, in this context, the remote access— pick up, in this context, the remote access issue?— pick up, in this context, the remote access issue? no. do you know why it access issue? no do you know why it doesn't access issue? fin. do you know why it doesn't reference what you knew was

a result _ doesn't reference what you knew was a result of— doesn't reference what you knew was a result of the december 2010 e-nrait. — a result of the december 2010 e—mail, and the january 2011e—mail? as i said. _ e—mail, and the january 2011e—mail? as i said. i_ e—mail, and the january 2011e—mail? as i said, i don't remember the december 2010 anyway, but... as i said, i don't remember the december2010 anyway, but... no. i just don't remember. i don't remember this at all. simon was pulling this together, if i remember this correctly. simon was part of the it and change space, and simon would have been best placed to have that information. i'm sorry, i can't answer anything further than that. can we move on then to 2014, and look can we move on then to 2014, and took at _ can we move on then to 2014, and took at pol— can we move on then to 2014, and look at pol 0039 4439?

—— pol -- pol 0030 4439. and start by —— pol 0030 4439. and start by looking _ —— pol 0030 4439. and start by looking at_ -- pol 0030 4439. and start by looking at page three. there is an e-nrait_ looking at page three. there is an e-nrait from — looking at page three. there is an e—mail from the 10th of april 2014 from _ e—mail from the 10th of april 2014 from you — e—mail from the 10th of april 2014 from you to andrew gwynne and alan moshe _ from you to andrew gwynne and alan moshe by _ from you to andrew gwynne and alan moshe. by this time you head of partnerships, is that right? yes. we can see that — partnerships, is that right? yes. we can see that in _ partnerships, is that right? 193 we can see that in the future. second sight _ can see that in the future. second sight has — can see that in the future. second sight has produced its report, the remediation is up and running, and you say— remediation is up and running, and you say to — remediation is up and running, and you say to alan and andy as part of a mediation — you say to alan and andy as part of a mediation scheme case submission, the applicant is referring to an e-nrait. — the applicant is referring to an e-nrait. a _ the applicant is referring to an e—mail, a copy of which i'm trying to track— e—mail, a copy of which i'm trying to track down. you have been mentioned in respect of this e—mail,

guote, _ mentioned in respect of this e—mail, quote, with— mentioned in respect of this e—mail, quote, with the andy and alan e—mail in the _ quote, with the andy and alan e—mail in the case _ quote, with the andy and alan e—mail in the case of— quote, with the andy and alan e—mail in the case of ward, which explicitly states that fujitsu can expressly change things without the sub—postmaster cosmic authority. you asked _ sub—postmaster cosmic authority. you asked them _ sub—postmaster cosmic authority. you asked them as a matter of urgency to send you _ asked them as a matter of urgency to send you a _ asked them as a matter of urgency to send you a copy of that e—mail, associated _ send you a copy of that e—mail, associated e—mails, and any other associated — associated e—mails, and any other associated information. you are asking — associated information. you are asking them for a copy of those e-nraits. — asking them for a copy of those e—mails, correct? mac yes. can we look— e—mails, correct? mac yes. can we lookat— e—mails, correct? mac yes. can we tookat the — e—mails, correct? mac yes. can we look at the e—mail. pol 0010 7650. pol 00117650.

fruit of the page, please. foot of the page, please. quote, i spoke to you about a suspension, got a good understanding of the _ suspension, got a good understanding of the problem, mrward, the sub—postmaster raised one that on a number— sub—postmaster raised one that on a number of— sub—postmaster raised one that on a number of occasions figures have appeared — number of occasions figures have appeared in the czech line of his account — appeared in the czech line of his account. he suspected those had been input into— account. he suspected those had been input into his account electronically without his knowledge or consent. he is certain he has run checks— or consent. he is certain he has run checks in— or consent. he is certain he has run checks in the — or consent. he is certain he has run checks in the correct way, he tells me they— checks in the correct way, he tells me they must be properly cleared on the system _ me they must be properly cleared on the system to progress to a new account. _ the system to progress to a new account. he has made good about £10,000, — account. he has made good about £10,000, and has not made good at about—

£10,000, and has not made good at about £11,000 of the shortages. he claims _ about £11,000 of the shortages. he claims that because of the abnormal nature _ claims that because of the abnormal nature of— claims that because of the abnormal nature of these entries, the shortages have just not rolled over from one _ shortages have just not rolled over from one branch trading statement to another _ from one branch trading statement to another. sub—postmastera's from one branch trading statement to another. sub—postmaster a's contract remain— another. sub—postmaster a's contract remain suspended, and then the reply on page _ remain suspended, and then the reply on page one, please? screw up, please _ on page one, please? screw up, please -- — scroll —— up, please. these have to be accepted by the branch _ these have to be accepted by the branch in— these have to be accepted by the branch in the same way that admittance my senses are. if we have to do— admittance my senses are. if we have to do this, _ admittance my senses are. if we have to do this, the integrity of the system — to do this, the integrity of the system will be followed. fujitsu have _ system will be followed. fujitsu have the — system will be followed. fujitsu have the ability to adjust... but there _ have the ability to adjust... but there are — have the ability to adjust... but there are actually rigorous procedures in place. the

sub—postmaster makes a casual accusation— sub—postmaster makes a casual accusation that is extremely serious to the _ accusation that is extremely serious to the business. as usual, he should be able _ to the business. as usual, he should be able to— to the business. as usual, he should be able to produce the evidence for this, or— be able to produce the evidence for this, orwithdraw be able to produce the evidence for this, or withdraw the accusation. so, this, or withdraw the accusation. so. that— this, or withdraw the accusation. so. that is— this, or withdraw the accusation. so, that is the e—mail that you are after. _ so, that is the e—mail that you are after. yes? — so, that is the e-mail that you are after. yes?— so, that is the e-mail that you are after. yes?- carr _ so, that is the e-mail that you are after, yes?- can we - so, that is the e-mail that you are after, yes?- can we go - back to pol 0030 4439? if we scroll down to page two, please — if we scroll down to page two, please. bottom of the page. angela, please _ please. bottom of the page. angela, please find attached an e—mail, which _ please find attached an e—mail, which may— please find attached an e—mail, which may be the one referred to. i believe _ which may be the one referred to. i believe it's— which may be the one referred to. i believe it's the one we have referred _ believe it's the one we have referred to. i have records of a significant _ referred to. i have records of a significant number of documents,

etc. significant number of documents, etc would — significant number of documents, etc. would you like me to send everything to you? top of the page. thank— everything to you? top of the page. thank you _ everything to you? top of the page. thank you for sending this e—mail through. — thank you for sending this e—mail through, very help. —— helpful. in 2014. _ through, very help. —— helpful. in 2014. you're _ through, very help. —— helpful. in 2014, you're being told as well that remote _ 2014, you're being told as well that remote access by fujitsu was possible _ remote access by fu'itsu was ossible. .. : f, remote access by fu'itsu was ossible. ., ~ ., i, remote access by fu'itsu was ossible. ., ~ ., em possible. from andy's note, yes. did ou reveal possible. from andy's note, yes. did you reveal that _ possible. from andy's note, yes. did you reveal that to _ possible. from andy's note, yes. did you reveal that to the _ possible. from andy's note, yes. did you reveal that to the high _ possible. from andy's note, yes. did you reveal that to the high court - you reveal that to the high court when _ you reveal that to the high court when you — you reveal that to the high court when you give evidence? i you reveal that to the high court when you give evidence?- when you give evidence? i don't believe i did. _ when you give evidence? i don't believe i did. did _ when you give evidence? i don't believe i did. did you _ when you give evidence? i don't believe i did. did you forget - when you give evidence? i don't l believe i did. did you forget about this e-mail. _ believe i did. did you forget about this e-mail, too? _ believe i did. did you forget about this e-mail, too? i _ believe i did. did you forget about this e-mail, too? ithink- believe i did. did you forget about this e-mail, too? i think i - believe i did. did you forget about this e-mail, too? i think i have i this e-mail, too? i thinki have raised that _ this e-mail, too? i thinki have raised that internally _ this e-mail, too? i thinki have raised that internally to - this e-mail, too? i thinki have raised that internally to get - this e-mail, too? i thinki have raised that internally to get to | this e-mail, too? i think i have i raised that internally to get to the bottom of it, but i can't recall... you told the high court that she only learned about the facility to insert _ only learned about the facility to insert transactions about a year before — insert transactions about a year before giving evidence. so far, we have _ before giving evidence. so far, we have looked at the december 2010,

the january 2011, and april 2014 series— the january 2011, and april 2014 series of— the january 2011, and april 2014 series of e—mails that are telling you about — series of e—mails that are telling you about that facility. agreed? as i have you about that facility. agreed? i have said, you about that facility. agreed? 9.3 i have said, the balance of transaction was the first formal notification that i recall being made aware of. before that, there are a number of, and you are quite right, e—mails will stop with andy's i could did something, i can't read that the court, in terms of getting skin of that. —— i can't remember what, in terms of getting under the skin of that. there were things that just weren't being evidence, and it was the balance of the transaction for me, that was the first time it was proof that it did exist, and it had actually been used. i'm not sure exactly, when i gave my evidence of

the trials, it was on the basis of what i understood to be true at the time. there will be, like december 2010, i didn't remember that thing, i will have forgotten about, but there will be things that are moved on from the information being shown, ijust on from the information being shown, i just can't on from the information being shown, ijust can't remember on from the information being shown, i just can't remember exactly what the outcome of that was. truth? i just can't remember exactly what the outcome of that was. why don't we take our— the outcome of that was. why don't we take our second _ the outcome of that was. why don't we take our second morning - the outcome of that was. why don't we take our second morning breakl we take our second morning break they please. we take our second morning break they please-— we take our second morning break they please. yes. can i check the time precisely — they please. yes. can i check the time precisely cosmic can we reconvene at 25 past. studio:... examining angela van den bogerd, a senior director in the post office working with sub—postmasters and puts mistresses, and the focus this morning has been on remote access, that fujitsu could have to the faulty horizon software. she was asked about an e—mail in 2010 that revealed that fujitsu you

tamper with accounts remotely without the post office branches knowing about it. she claims that she did not know about that e—mail, or certainly doesn't remember seeing it. they will restart at around 12:25pm. in the meantime, some breaking news for you and the scotland story today. we understand that the scottish conservatives are to launch a motion for a vote of no confidence in scotland's first minister, humza yousaf. that is according to the party's leader, douglas ross. this after the governing snp ended their power—sharing agreement with the scottish greens, and is to lead a minority government at holyrood. this follows the decision to scrap the 2030 climate target and the weight responded to a review of gender services. weight responded to a review of genderservices. is weight responded to a review of gender services.— gender services. is the coalition over? these _ gender services. is the coalition over? these are _ gender services. is the coalition over? these are pictures - gender services. is the coalition over? these are pictures of- gender services. is the coalition over? these are pictures of the| over? these are pictures of the scottish green _ over? these are pictures of the scottish green party _ over? these are pictures of the scottish green party co-leader| over? these are pictures of the i

scottish green party co-leader is scottish green party co—leader is leaving taos in edinburgh ahead of the cabinet meeting. patrick harvie said this is a total u—turn from recent days. in the last couple of hours, the scottish first minister made the announcement to confirm that the power—sharing deal were scrapped. let's have a listen. you, i believe that going forward it is in the best interests of scotland to in the best interests of scotland tr: pursue a different arrangement. that is why, following a discussion from my cabinet this morning, i have formally notified patrick harvie and lorna slater that i'm terminating the bute house agreement with immediate effect. white like he was the reaction from green co—leader patrick harvie. latte the reaction from green co-leader patrick harvie.— the reaction from green co-leader patrick harvie. ~ ., . patrick harvie. we went to a meeting with the first — patrick harvie. we went to a meeting with the first minister— patrick harvie. we went to a meeting with the first minister at _ patrick harvie. we went to a meeting with the first minister at bute - with the first minister at bute house, — with the first minister at bute house, where he informed us of his decision— house, where he informed us of his decision to — house, where he informed us of his decision to end the cooperation agreement between the scottish government and the scottish greens. this is—

government and the scottish greens. this is a _ government and the scottish greens. this is a total u—turn on his position— this is a total u—turn on his position from recent weeks and even days. _ position from recent weeks and even days, where — position from recent weeks and even days, where he reasserted his government's commitment to the progressive policies that are parties _ progressive policies that are parties had jointly agreed on, and the need — parties had jointly agreed on, and the need to ramp up climate action in the _ the need to ramp up climate action in the face — the need to ramp up climate action in the face of decades of political inaction, — in the face of decades of political inaction, including from the snp government. fire inaction, including from the snp government-— government. are scotland correspondent _ government. are scotland correspondent lorna - government. are scotland l correspondent lorna gordon government. are scotland - correspondent lorna gordon is following the story from edinburgh. some of the languages this morning has been quite acrimonious from people who have been parties in government for three years. humza yousaf saying the benefits outweigh the compromise, that it is being terminated with immediate effect. lorna slater and patrick harvie talking about this being an act of political paradise to appease the most reactionary forces in the country. ——

political cowardice. humza yousaf saying he's ending the agreement. the snp now does not have a majority in the scottish government. they now have 63 msps, two short of a majority, and the greens have seven, which gave them a majority. they have lost that with this termination of the bute house agreement with immediate effect. however, the parliament that is designed to be consensual. it is designed for a minority government, indeed the snp in the first administration under alex salmond governed as a minority government, but what it means is that they will have to reach out for other parties to get backing for their losses. there will have to be more compromises going forward with other parties. 50. more compromises going forward with other parties-— other parties. so, how did the power-sharing _ other parties. so, how did the power-sharing agreement - other parties. so, how did the power-sharing agreement in l other parties. so, how did the - power-sharing agreement in scotland, power—sharing agreement in scotland, without? what led to its collapse?

sophia explains. the power-sharing deal between _ sophia explains. the power-sharing deal between the _ sophia explains. the power-sharing deal between the snp _ sophia explains. the power-sharing deal between the snp and - sophia explains. the power-sharing deal between the snp and the - sophia explains. the power-sharing l deal between the snp and the greens in scotland has collapsed, so how do we get here? the arrangement was established in 2021, when nicola sturgeon was first minister. it meant that the two leaders of the green party, and you can see them here, became members of the government. in 2023, humza yousaf took over as leader of the snp, but since then there have been several issues. they have caused a lot of division within the scottish government. the most divisive, climate policy. last week, on the 18th of april, the scottish government announced that it would scrap its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030. this is a significant u—turn for the snp, because when these

targets were first announced in 2019, nicola sturgeon, the first minister at the time, said that these were the most stretching targets in the world, and she said that hers was the first government on the planet to declare a climate emergency. but, climate experts say that the emergency response never came, and for the greens, cutting emissions is one of the key objectives, a key policy area, so this is seen as a huge earlier for them. today, the co—leader of the greens, lorna slater, accused the snp of selling out future generations. she also said that humza yousaf can no longer be trusted. it appears that it had become impossible for the two parties to continue working together. 50, what happens next?

well, the snp will now form i'm minority government until the next scottish parliament elections in 2026. ~ ., , scottish parliament elections in 2026. ~ .. . , ., 2026. within the last few minutes, a reminder that _ 2026. within the last few minutes, a reminder that we _ 2026. within the last few minutes, a reminder that we have _ 2026. within the last few minutes, a reminder that we have heard - 2026. within the last few minutes, a reminder that we have heard from i 2026. within the last few minutes, a l reminder that we have heard from the scottish conservatives that they are planning to lodge a motion for a vote of no confidence in scotland's first minister, humza yousaf, as a result of the collapse of the power—sharing agreement. we will keep you posted on what that means shortly. that came from the party leader douglas ross. now, labour says it expects to renationalise most passenger rail services within five years if it is elected. rail services in the uk have come into criticism for rising fares, cancellations and strikes, all affecting customer satisfaction. here is labour�*s louise haigh talking about the plans. here is labour's louise haigh talking about the plans. labour will brina talking about the plans. labour will bring private _ talking about the plans. labour will bring private operators _ talking about the plans. labour will bring private operators into - talking about the plans. labour will bring private operators into public i bring private operators into public ownership as their contracts expire. we will establish great british

railways, a single directing mind to control our railways. yes, we are keeping the name, i'm afraid i was overruled and calling it rail britannia. we will set the strategy and objectives are great british railways, and hold it to account on behalf of passengers anywhere. unlike current ministers, i will trust the experts— experts that don'tjust come from the rail sector, as we know it can sometimes be a little... but external experts in providing excellent customer service. we will provide a best fair guarantee across the network, as tree mine has already managed to achieve, and we will all wedge the roll out the innovations your child here. —— trainline. we will create a tough new passenger watchdog that

will hold great british railways to account by having the passenger, lawful performance and on the quality of the service they provide, because we believe the customer experience matters, and it matters to growing our railways. i will experience matters, and it matters to growing our railways.— to growing our railways. i will show some pictures _ to growing our railways. i will show some pictures that _ to growing our railways. i will show some pictures that came _ to growing our railways. i will show some pictures that came in - to growing our railways. i will show some pictures that came in earlier| some pictures that came in earlier when former president trump was heading his court case in manhattan, which is where he is on trial over a hush money case and a conspiracy to cover up a sex scandal ahead of the 2016 presidential elections. let's listen in to the supporters who made him —— met him outside. quite epic reception forformer him —— met him outside. quite epic reception for former president trump, who in recent days had not many supporters outside the court. interesting that a few of them have turned up now. now, let's return to the inquiry into the post of scandal and speak to our correspondent, who is following the inquiry in central london. a lot of the focus this morning seems to be on the remote

access that fujitsu was able to have to the horizon system, and how much this key person in the inquiry knew about it? ~ ,,., , this key person in the inquiry knew aboutit? , ,, about it? absolutely, because remember _ about it? absolutely, because remember former _ about it? absolutely, because - remember former sub-postmasters remember former sub—postmasters accused the post office of a cover—up, something that the post office and former executives strongly deny. as they came out of that inquiry room during the break, it is the loudest i have heard them in this phase of the inquiry in the past few weeks. sub—postmasters, many of them have been waiting for this moment, for angela van den bogerd, someone whose career at the post office has spanned decades, to give evidence. she personally handled many of their complaints about the horizon it system, and so they would think that she would have a lot to say about what she knew. what the inquiry counsel has been trying to piece together here, as you mentioned, is when she knew that

information. she insists that when she received an e—mail 2010, remember a key year, one of the sub—postmistresses was sent to prison when she was pregnant, her case and conviction was in 2010. angela van den bogerd said she missed that e—mail. angela van den bogerd also is gave evidence to a trial, that famous trial when alan bates took on the post office and one, and during that trial thejudge said that she had misled the court when she was giving her evidence. she was pressed about what she knew, when, and whether the statement she gave to mp5 during briefing notes or during her witness testimony during trials at the high court, whether that evidence and those witness statements were true. a lot of the answers that we have been hearing this morning, that the inquiry has been hearing, as i believe it was true at the time, i didn't recall

that e—mail, that was not part of my knowledge at that point, and it's really up to the chair to determine whether those qualifications are good enough. find whether those qualifications are good enough-— whether those qualifications are tood enouah. : . , . good enough. and we are expecting that intui good enough. and we are expecting that inquiry to _ good enough. and we are expecting that inquiry to start _ good enough. and we are expecting that inquiry to start up _ good enough. and we are expecting that inquiry to start up soon. - good enough. and we are expecting that inquiry to start up soon. it - that inquiry to start up soon. it was interesting that at one point, angela van den bogerd was saying that the messaging and remote access kept changing from the post office, and there was a degree of frustration from the council saying that he is interested only in the facts. he pushed back quite hard? you did, it was a long back and forth when he was trying to get a response from her, there are so many qualifications in her answer is that, to your point, the inquiry counsel seemed quite frustrated. that point about the language and the messaging is is particularly important. i believe the inquiry has just started, so we can take a listen. and, if we look at the first page, you can — and, if we look at the first page, you can see _ and, if we look at the first page, you can see we are now on the 9th of may. _ you can see we are now on the 9th of may, and _ you can see we are now on the 9th of may, and there is a whole chain sent

to you _ may, and there is a whole chain sent to you by— may, and there is a whole chain sent to you by andrew parsons, yes? if we can look— to you by andrew parsons, yes? if we can look at— to you by andrew parsons, yes? if we can look at the chain to see what it contains— can look at the chain to see what it contains and — can look at the chain to see what it contains and start on page six, please — and if we scroll to the bottom, please. you will see an e—mail from roderick— please. you will see an e—mail from roderick williams of the 14th of april— roderick williams of the 14th of april to — roderick williams of the 14th of april to james davidson of fujitsu, yes? _ april to james davidson of fu'itsu, es? , april to james davidson of fu'itsu, test-james. fl april to james davidson of fujitsu, yes? yes. james, could fujitsu yes? yes. james, could fu'itsu lease yes? yes. james, could fu'itsu please answer i yes? yes. james, could fu'itsu please answer the i yes? 193 james, could fujitsu please answer the questions below so that we _ please answer the questions below so that we can _ please answer the questions below so that we can respond to a specific challenge — that we can respond to a specific challenge put to us by second sight in connection with the mediation complaint — in connection with the mediation complaint. the e—mail expressly states— complaint. the e—mail expressly states that fujitsu can remotely change — states that fujitsu can remotely change the figures in the branches,

without— change the figures in the branches, without the knowledge of sub—postmasters or the authority. he attached _ sub—postmasters or the authority. he attached the e—mail. the part of the e-mail_ attached the e—mail. the part of the e-mail in— attached the e—mail. the part of the e—mail in question is of the page, fuiitsu _ e—mail in question is of the page, fuiitsu have — e—mail in question is of the page, fujitsu have the ability to impact branch _ fujitsu have the ability to impact branch records via the message storet _ branch records via the message store. but— branch records via the message store, but i'm extremely rigorous procedures— store, but i'm extremely rigorous procedures in place to prevent adjustments being made without prior authorisation. these controls form the core _ authorisation. these controls form the core of— authorisation. these controls form the core of our defence if we get to that stage — the core of our defence if we get to that stage. mr williams then sets out a _ that stage. mr williams then sets out a series of questions, can the post _ out a series of questions, can the post office — out a series of questions, can the post office change transaction data without _ post office change transaction data without sub—postmaster being aware of the _ without sub—postmaster being aware of the change? can fujitsu do so? if not, of the change? can fujitsu do so? if not1where's — of the change? can fujitsu do so? if not, where's the for this conclusion? if so, how does it happen? _ conclusion? if so, how does it happen? why was this functionality built in? _ happen? why was this functionality built in? why would fujitsu need to use this _ built in? why would fujitsu need to use this functionality? what controls _ use this functionality? what controls are in place to prevent unauthorised use of this method of access? _ unauthorised use of this method of access? when is branch data been impacted — access? when is branch data been impacted in this way? in relation to the previous e—mail, can it be used to change _ the previous e—mail, can it be used to change ranch counts? what is the

impact _ to change ranch counts? what is the impact of— to change ranch counts? what is the impact of this change on branch counts? — impact of this change on branch counts? will