hamas has said israel's threat to attack the city of rafah in southern gaza raises questions about the purpose of any further talks on a ceasefire in exchange for the release of israeli hostages. a hamas spokesman says, the group was reviewing new proposals presented by mediators in egypt. the us hasjoined international calls against any such offensive. yesterday, benjamin netanyhu said a date had been set for the military operation in rafah, although he didn't make that public. the convoy of eight trucks is the most to reach gaza in one day since october. the commissioner general talked about the devastation.

we have people can't assess whether they can go back to khan younis. they could be thousands of exported ordinances. it would be happy dangerous for the children. do you have the resources, _ dangerous for the children. do you have the resources, the _ dangerous for the children. do you have the resources, the capacity . dangerous for the children. do you | have the resources, the capacity to help them resettle, even if in a tent? ~ ., , ., help them resettle, even if in a tent? ~ . , ., , tent? we are trying to reverse the famine in the _ tent? we are trying to reverse the famine in the gaza _ tent? we are trying to reverse the famine in the gaza strip, - tent? we are trying to reverse the famine in the gaza strip, we - tent? we are trying to reverse the famine in the gaza strip, we don'ti famine in the gaza strip, we don't have enough response is to help of people go back to khan younis. we have dick take into consideration that hundreds of thousands of people might be forced to be moved. —— we have to take into consideration. some are saying the pull—out was to prepare for an operation in rafah,

thatis prepare for an operation in rafah, that is your a top, what are your plans? that is your a top, what are your lans? ,, . ., y , ., ., plans? such an offensive would have disastrous human _ plans? such an offensive would have disastrous human consequences - plans? such an offensive would have disastrous human consequences and i disastrous human consequences and this would be on the top of six months of war where basically it has already been superlative of all the possible tragedy. if already been superlative of all the possible tragedy.— possible tragedy. if reviewers makin: possible tragedy. if reviewers making military _ possible tragedy. if reviewers making military preparations, possible tragedy. if reviewers - making military preparations, dojo have to make eight preparations? the un will have to make eight preparations? tue: un will not have to make eight preparations? tte: un will not be part of any forced movement of the population. t5 un will not be part of any forced movement of the population. is there are some rare — movement of the population. is there are some rare good _ movement of the population. is there are some rare good news _ movement of the population. is there are some rare good news today, - are some rare good news today, israel says the largest number of humanitarian aid trucks have crossed into the gaza strip since the start of this war today. is the ada situation starting to change? what situation starting to change? what we have seen _ situation starting to change? what we have seen over _ situation starting to change? what we have seen over the _ situation starting to change? �*w�*tat we have seen over the last few situation starting to change? wtegt we have seen over the last few weeks there is still an average of 150, 180 trucks entering gaza, far below

what is really required, what we need is to flood the gaza strip with food, basic items, more crossings. if food, basic items, more crossings. hindeed food, basic items, more crossings. if indeed this 400 plus trucks are confirmed and if this is becoming the new norm, it would be important but this still needs to be... than the new norm, it would be important but this still needs to be. . ._ but this still needs to be... than i would understand _ but this still needs to be... than i would understand this _ but this still needs to be... than i would understand this chain? - but this still needs to be... than i l would understand this chain? many would understand this chain? many would say it was because of more significant american pressure and israel. t significant american pressure and israel. ., , ., ., , israel. i hope the main reason is that nobody _ israel. i hope the main reason is that nobody wants _ israel. i hope the main reason is that nobody wants to _ israel. i hope the main reason is that nobody wants to live - israel. i hope the main reason is that nobody wants to live with i israel. i hope the main reason is. that nobody wants to live with the responsibility of the impact of man—made famine, it can be reversed and really help the government of israel understands the hunger situation, the severity in the gaza strip. if nothing is being done now, the impact will be... tt

strip. if nothing is being done now, the impact will be. . ._ the impact will be... if you have block convoys _ the impact will be... if you have block convoys going _ the impact will be... if you have block convoys going into - the impact will be... if you have l block convoys going into northern gaza, where the famine already exists, is a ready sign you will be able to bring that aid in? this exists, is a ready sign you will be able to bring that aid in?- exists, is a ready sign you will be able to bring that aid in? this is a total rh. where _ able to bring that aid in? this is a total rh. where the _ able to bring that aid in? this is a total rh. where the main - total rh. where the main organisation at present into the gaza strip including the north, i really hope the increased number of trucks coming into the gaza strip, this will be a sign that the operation environment will improve, i believe it would be a terrible stain in our humanity to see this looming and to see kids starting today dehydrated and with a food while we were warning for months that this can be reversed. phillip that this can be reversed. philip liza renee- _

the post office inquiry, you have been speaking to people directly affected? the been speaking to people directly affected? , ., , , affected? the inquiry has been heafina affected? the inquiry has been hearing from — affected? the inquiry has been hearing from sub-postmasterl affected? the inquiry has been - hearing from sub-postmaster alan hearing from sub—postmaster alan bates, flagging up issues with horizon it and the inquiry said he fact up those issues for the first time in 2000 and the post office then spent more than 20 years trying to silence him, the post office for their part have said they are sorry for the impact this scandal has had on victims�* lives. the victims i have spoken to have travelled from far, work rebel earlier secure bates see their piece. one it was

refreshing to hear what happened rather than hearing executives think they cannot remember correspondences, instances. alan bates has been showing the letters he repeatedly wrote flagging up the issues, and later he was not alone in experiencing these problems and describe the attitude of the post office as one essentially of we are always right and you are always wrong and constantly repeating that the horizon it system is robust. the inquiry started by jason, the horizon it system is robust. the inquiry started byjason, inquiry counsel raising concerns about disclosure, making sure all the witness statements are delayed, instead of coming in late, the post of said it regrets it has not been able to deliver all documents in a

way that satisfies all parties. this is resuming now. tt way that satisfies all parties. this is resuming now.— is resuming now. it says it was never agreed _ is resuming now. it says it was never agreed that _ is resuming now. it says it was never agreed that the - is resuming now. it says it was never agreed that the working | is resuming now. it says it was - never agreed that the working group would _ never agreed that the working group would discuss individual cases, can you briefly— would discuss individual cases, can you briefly explain what the working group _ you briefly explain what the working group was _ you briefly explain what the working group was in the context of the mediation scheme? the group was in the context of the mediation scheme? ., ~ ., , mediation scheme? the working group was a combination _ mediation scheme? the working group was a combination of— mediation scheme? the working group was a combination of the _ mediation scheme? the working group was a combination of the jfsa - mediation scheme? the working group was a combination of the jfsa and - was a combination of thejfsa and post office and we had an independent chair, sir anthony hooper. and then second sight were employed to work for the working group to do the investigation and report back to the group accordingly and produced the report. he report back to the group accordingly and produced the report.— and produced the report. he said it was never agreed _ and produced the report. he said it was never agreed the _ and produced the report. he said it was never agreed the working - and produced the report. he said it| was never agreed the working group woods to discuss individual cases and make decisions on whether to second sight to decide this send the

mediation scheme would undertake the process of mediating between post office and sub—postmasters. however agreeing a format... briefly, who would make decisions on whether to mediate and whether that was down to second sight. new i think wrote an e—mail about this to sir anthony hooper, can we see? that has a letter rather than an e—mail but you can see this is dated

tenth november 2014 to sir anthony. and you say in the second paragraph, say, is now of the opinion the scheme has strayed so far from the original purpose which it was intended that if you applicants who have reached a mediation meeting, explain what cedar was, a professional centre for dispute resolution, have expressed such the spurn of the scheme that at least one applicant has withdrawn and in paragraph one you ask it is noted as has been stated on many occasions, it is jfsa has been stated on many occasions, it isjfsa devil may view it is not the role of the working group to approve which cases go to mediation for the following reasons which are contained within the main document, that each of the applicants the

scheme received, within it they were promised and you set out extracts from it. was that your view it wasn�*t the role of the working group to decide or approve which cases should go to mediation? £3th to decide or approve which cases should go to mediation?- should go to mediation? only in secific should go to mediation? only in specific instances, _ should go to mediation? only in specific instances, for _ should go to mediation? only in specific instances, for example l should go to mediation? only in| specific instances, for example if not enough information had been supplied by an applicant to fully understand or investigate the case, it wouldn�*t go for them. other perhaps variations on that theme but the main bulk of them should go through on their own. depending on second sight�*s recommendation. itraihile second sight's recommendation. while we are on a. — second sight's recommendation. while we are on a. page _ second sight's recommendation. while we are on a, page four— second sight's recommendation. while we are on a, page four of— second sight's recommendation. wt ie: we are on a, page four of the letter, please. in the top paragraph, second line, you any further the scheme progresses the

more entrenched and defensive post office has become and the original concept of seeking the truth has long since been abandoned, replaced by denial and a culture of claiming the applicant time after time, the underlying fact that it was the failure of post office to correct shortcomings about horizon system and associated issues is ignored by post office again and again. that is plainly how you felt at the time. what material or evidence was that you based upon? tithe what material or evidence was that you based noon?— what material or evidence was that you based upon? one of the key ones, i su ose i you based upon? one of the key ones, i suopose i favour— you based upon? one of the key ones, i suppose i favour one _ you based upon? one of the key ones, i suppose i favour one of _ you based upon? one of the key ones, i suppose i favour one of the _ i suppose i favour one of the hearing, he is the failure of disclosure. it was holding up cases time and again. it was also the amount of time post office, the way the scheme worked was someone applied to go into the scheme, if it was shown, poster was quickly looked at their application to ensure they were a sub—postmaster and were there during that period, at that point

they would be accepted into the mediation scheme. then they would have the option of having an independent expert work in their case, either a forensic accountant or solicitor, at a set fee. they would produce a report about this person�*s caves. at the same time post office would be providing their own report on that person for case. both of these reports would then get to second sight which would investigate together, make air investigation to the workgroup, recommendation, based on its findings. once these cases were being investigated in theory by post office they were asking for more and more time, there was meant to be a 4-6 more time, there was meant to be a 4—6 week turnaround period for them

to undertake an investigation but they were asking for extension after extension to investigate each of these cases. in some cases, they were going on for six or seven months asking for extensions whilst they are investigating. it dragged on and on and on and on and that was one of the big frustrations, we had very little control of the flow at that point. fin very little control of the flow at that point-— very little control of the flow at that oint. , , ., ., ., that point. on the issue of who made a recommendation _ that point. on the issue of who made a recommendation and _ that point. on the issue of who made a recommendation and who - that point. on the issue of who made a recommendation and who made - that point. on the issue of who made a recommendation and who made a l a recommendation and who made a decision on whether a case was suitable for mediation, can we go back and look at one of the founding documents of the scheme, poll... this is an overview of the complaint review and mediation scheme. and is

one of the originating documents published by post office at the time of the initiation of the scheme. if we look, please, at page two. three paragraphs from the bottom. it says as a result of this investigation, second sight will produce a case review summarising its findings and the recommendation along with whether the case is suitable for mediation. a copy of the case review will be provided to you, the working group will take the fun decision on any cases which may not be suitable for mediation. what would you say to the suggestion that this makes it clear it was the working group that took final decisions on which cases should and should not proceed to mediation? t should and should not proceed to mediation?— mediation? i think what you're missin: mediation? i think what you're missing here _ mediation? i think what you're missing here is _ mediation? i think what you're missing here is document, - mediation? i think what you're missing here is document, is l mediation? i think what you're| missing here is document, is it mediation? i think what you're i missing here is document, is it q and a or something like that, that

went with it, the key points, one of the questions in it says will this go to mediation? i think the answer to that is, it says on the majority of cases they will go to mediation. i think where takes the final decision on any cases, that is those controversial cases where there wasn�*t enough information at all that had been supplied as part of the application. i think maybe you are referring to page five of the document. are they the pick of the asked questions you are talking about? the one you are thinking about, on page eight. will my case definitely be referred to mediation? is that the one? that is

the one. the second paragraph down. that second sentence of the paragraph, second sentence of the paragraph, second gives us an example, the ability of the working group to decide that the case is not one which requires resolution. yes, exactly. didn�*t that give the working group the ultimate power of veto? th working group the ultimate power of veto? .,, working group the ultimate power of veto? u ., veto? in those circumstances. if there is insufficient _ veto? in those circumstances. if there is insufficient information | there is insufficient information about the case, we may decide then that it wasn�*t worth it going to mediation. but as it says, in most cases if you provide detailed and accurate information, it is likely

most instances. that is where we were relying on second sight to... in the course of the work of the mediation you wrote a lot of letters to then ministerjoe swinton —— jo swinson. you will see it is dated 17th april. i�*m not going to read the first page, if we can skip to the second page, if we can skip to the second page, please. last paragraph of page two, onto page three. there is no doubt the failures identified so far

have been brought to post office�*s attention through the regular meetings with second sight and this alone raises the question as to whether post office is continuing with the prosecutions of sub—postmasters when it is now so much more obvious that they are standing on very shaky legal ground. as i have mentioned before the systemic failure is a proven fact that the root of many of the sub—postmaster cases. to the point where only a few of them may be featured on their force, report. it is evident to us...

educate any reassurance back from the minister? t do educate any reassurance back from the minister?— educate any reassurance back from the minister?_ can l the minister? i do not recall. can we move on. _ the minister? i do not recall. can we move on, then, _ the minister? i do not recall. can we move on, then, please? - look at page three, please. the foot ofthe look at page three, please. the foot of the page. — look at page three, please. the foot of the page. we _ look at page three, please. the foot of the page, we are _ look at page three, please. the foot of the page, we are now— look at page three, please. the foot of the page, we are now on - look at page three, please. the foot of the page, we are now on 18th - of the page, we are now on 18th july, another communication from you to the minister, you refer to a reply of 11th july where you confirm further cases can be put forward to review. you say you recently wrote to mps who raised questions. about

47 cases that ever seemed to be commented on and he referring the report, you say the 47 cases referred to in the report comprises of, and then you give a breakdown. if we scroll up a bit further. do you see your e—mail to the minister�*s correspondence address has found its way to the shareholder executive within the department for business, innovation and skills? this is as the e—mail has been produced to us, we cannot see how it got there. addressed to martin edwards and susan crichton and two

other members... mr whitehead says martin, susan, the e—mail letter below from alan bates said jo swinson raises a number of issues helpful for us to discuss, a meeting might be the best way forward given the complexity. did you know or appreciate at the time that notwithstanding what had been said by government ministers about operating an arm�*s—length relationship with the post office, there was nonetheless a back channel of communications between the government and the post office?

white might know. i can say was aware of that, no. with your correspondence being copied from the government to the post office. t can government to the post office. i can understand them _ government to the post office. i can understand them having some concern because i was in regular contact with many of the mps there. but, no, i can say was aware of it. tt with many of the mps there. but, no, i can say was aware of it.— i can say was aware of it. if we go to -a~e i can say was aware of it. if we go to page one. _ i can say was aware of it. if we go to page one, please. _ i can say was aware of it. if we go to page one, please. we - i can say was aware of it. if we go to page one, please. we can - i can say was aware of it. if we go to page one, please. we can see | i can say was aware of it. if we go i to page one, please. we can see on this page e—mails within the post office starting in the middle of the page... susan crichton says when discussing what reply to give, the problem is, the problem we have is that he doesn�*t know if we have seen the

letter that has you, the minister is not seen to be aligning with those... the problem we have is that he, that is you, doesn�*t know we have seen the letter, your letter, we need to be careful that the minister is not seen to be aligning with us, that is the post office, by asking us to help her respond. they are discussing essentially how to play it with you without revealing that the government has sent on your letter to the post office, correct? it seems to be that way, yes. you sa in it seems to be that way, yes. you say in your— it seems to be that way, yes. you say in your witness _ it seems to be that way, yes. ym. say in your witness statement there were no changes as a result of your letter. the one we have just looked at. did jo swinson in fact respond to you? white like i do not recall, i can remember. can we turn to another letter you wrote to jo swinson a year later on 16th april

2014 when she was still minister for postal affairs. we can see the date and to whom it is addressed, for some context, by that date, was it right that no post office investigation had been completed to a sufficient state for second sight to complete its own reports? second sight to complete its own re orts? , second sight to complete its own reports?- he _ second sight to complete its own reports? yes. he set out how the scheme was _ reports? yes. he set out how the scheme was meant _ reports? yes. he set out how the scheme was meant to work, if we scroll down. i will keep scrolling. keep scrolling. keep scrolling. you say that the above structure was agreed and published, the scheme

launched, the documentation still available for downloading, essentially what i showed you earlier. unfortunately the reality of where the scheme is actually at is very different. as at the date of writing, this is mid—april 2014, during the time the scheme was open for applications, 150 cases were accepted, although it should be noted is the same scheme has closed, there have been others who would have applied if they had been aware of its existence. of the 150, the earliest the poll became aware of the individuals, identities of... once the criteria to enter the scheme had met and the working group approved initial application, the person, the co are... approved initial application, the person, the c0 are... that approved initial application, the person, the co are. . ._ approved initial application, the person, the co are... that was the initial report _ person, the co are... that was the initial report set _ person, the co are... that was the initial report set out _ person, the co are... that was the initial report set out to _ person, the co are... that was the initial report set out to the - initial report set out to the relevant applicant for completion

with the assistance. 50 relevant applicant for completion with the assistance.— with the assistance. so far the completed _ with the assistance. so far the completed cqrs _ with the assistance. so far the completed cqrs are _ with the assistance. so far the completed cqrs are as - with the assistance. so far the i completed cqrs are as followed. with the assistance. so far the - completed cqrs are as followed. yet no finalised his report to the point it is ready for the working group to consider its suitability for mediation, that can still be a reasonable time off. if we scroll down further and keep going. and keep going. stop there. third paragraph, you save regardless of what it says publicly, it now seems to be prepared to invoke the protection of the public purse is the last line ofjustification, not

righting the wrongs conflicted on so many. it appears whatever can be blocked, it will, the post office seems to be the only one cannot recognise what everyone else can see so clearly. you seem to be the only way we�*re going to resolve this through the media and the court. so what was a principal concern by the time you were writing this letter? t time you were writing this letter? i think this is a time when post office had changed their general counsel. i think where chris had come along... september 2013 from memory. when he turned up, i think he had a very clear remit, set, to get rid of the mediation scheme or to change it or to pin it or whatever because he was also part of

the project sparrow which, as we later found out, the project sparrow which, as we laterfound out, monitoring what the project sparrow which, as we later found out, monitoring what was going on in that scheme and how it was going ahead. i had a big discussion with chris aujard over the interpretation of the aims and objectives of the scheme. that was earlier on in the year, that year. i remember i had to detail to him the whole scheme, how it is to work. i also copied in sir anthony on that correspondence as well. but basically it seemed they were trying to twist it the whole time to take away its effectiveness. itjust was not, it did not show wholesome any more. it did not feel like we were after the truth any more. it felt like we were to defend post office�*s

position on all of this. you tell us in your witness statement, paragraph 145, that as a result of writing this letter there was no change as a result. ts result of writing this letter there was no change as a result. is that riuht? was no change as a result. is that right? that _ was no change as a result. is that right? that is _ was no change as a result. is that right? that is correct. _ was no change as a result. is that right? that is correct. i— was no change as a result. is that right? that is correct. i think - was no change as a result. is that right? that is correct. i think you| right? that is correct. i think you not a right? that is correct. i think you got a letter _ right? that is correct. i think you got a letter back _ right? that is correct. i think you got a letter back from _ right? that is correct. i think you got a letter back from paula - got a letter back from paula vennells. i think this is a draft but it is in the terms that were sent, although no doubt we can chase that down if thatis no doubt we can chase that down if that is wrong. this is your letter to the minister, it has been passed to the minister, it has been passed to me from reply, it says, since the publication of the second site

report, the post office has worked collaboratively? is that true? to a very small — collaboratively? is that true? to a very small degree. _ collaboratively? is that true? to a very small degree. and _ collaboratively? is that true? to a very small degree. and designed l collaboratively? is that true? to a i very small degree. and designed the initial mediation _ very small degree. and designed the initial mediation scheme _ very small degree. and designed the initial mediation scheme and - very small degree. and designed the initial mediation scheme and it - very small degree. and designed the initial mediation scheme and it was l initial mediation scheme and it was agreed with you and put on your website, that is correct? yes. the post office _ website, that is correct? yes. the post office remained _ website, that is correct? yes. the post office remained true to the aims of the scheme, is that correct? to a degree. aims of the scheme, is that correct? to a degree-— to a degree. committed substantial resource to — to a degree. committed substantial resource to make _ to a degree. committed substantial resource to make sure _ to a degree. committed substantial resource to make sure of _ to a degree. committed substantial resource to make sure of its - to a degree. committed substantial| resource to make sure of its success and respect of the confidentiality of the working group? and then there is about sharing a platform on the 24th of march. and then the letter sent to the minister has come as a shock and disappointment, it says, to her, ifind two things shock and disappointment, it says, to her, i find two things troubling, the latter appears to breach the confidentiality of the working group —— the latter. and it paints a

picture which is inconsistent of the position as i understood it to