page and go over the page. if we look, you say at the top of the page i'd like to raise two matters and these are things that may need a conversation between you and me before the meeting. in my discussions, i gather that questions have been raised that the absolute integrity of horizon there without there being so fundamental as to say that the system is not fit for purpose. since it is a system that remains in current use, there is a risk that existing some postmasters and mistresses may find themselves in exactly the same position as those whose cases are being investigated. i no definitive results are not yet available but i hope post office will be available to address this issue. had you by

that stage received information from second site that the absolute integrity of horizon was being raised by them second site. yes. -- second sight- _ raised by them second site. yes. -- second sight. not _ raised by them second site. yes. -- second sight. not necessarily - raised by them second site. yes. -- second sight. not necessarily by - second sight. not necessarily by them but questions were being raised at least in the presence of second sight, by second sight or possibly both. i understand, you say in the last paragraph you are impressed beyond expectations is not only how the case proceeded. nor one well the end result has been so consistently supported by all parties involved.

over how the post office... and you believe, this is my summary, not yours, that the post office was entering into the enterprise in good faith. es. did entering into the enterprise in good faith. es. , ., ., , ., faith. es. did that remain your belief? by _ faith. es. did that remain your belief? by this _ faith. es. did that remain your belief? by this stage, - faith. es. did that remain your belief? by this stage, yes, - faith. es. did that remain your belief? by this stage, yes, i i belief? by this stage, yes, i certainly — belief? by this stage, yes, i certainly did _ belief? by this stage, yes, i certainly did believe - belief? by this stage, yes, i certainly did believe that. i belief? by this stage, yes, i l certainly did believe that. we belief? by this stage, yes, i - certainly did believe that. we will come later— certainly did believe that. we will come later to _ certainly did believe that. we will come later to when _ certainly did believe that. we will come later to when seeds - certainly did believe that. we will come later to when seeds of- certainly did believe that. we will. come later to when seeds of doubt started to be sewn. but can you identify in summary what those seeds where and when they occurred? the summary of — where and when they occurred? iie: summary of the seeds where and when they occurred? ii2 summary of the seeds of doubt arose through my initial fears about the post office's approach to the truth

in terms of telling people likejoe hamilton that you're the only person that was involved. but let's ride over that. there was a degree of legal battlefield that arose. there was a degree of delay in providing second site with information, there is a degree of delay in providing the documents that the post office had promised to give to second sight being absolutely open and transparent and yet they were not. there was a slowness, a secrecy, a general slowing everything down that worried me. i general slowing everything down that worried me. ~ . .,

worried me. i think it is right to sa that worried me. i think it is right to say that the _ worried me. i think it is right to say that the post _ worried me. i think it is right to say that the post office - worried me. i think it is right to say that the post office did - worried me. i think it is right to say that the post office did not | say that the post office did not react well to this letter that you wrote. i react well to this letter that you wrote. .. . react well to this letter that you wrote. ~ , ., ,._ wrote. i think it is right to say that. wrote. i think it is right to say that- and _ wrote. i think it is right to say that. and we _ wrote. i think it is right to say that. and we look _ wrote. i think it is right to say that. and we look at - wrote. i think it is right to say that. and we look at what - wrote. i think it is right to sayi that. and we look at what you wrote. i think it is right to say - that. and we look at what you say about that — that. and we look at what you say about that in _ that. and we look at what you say about that in your _ that. and we look at what you say about that in your witness - about that in your witness statement, please come on page a2? —— can we look at what you say about that in your witness statement, please, page a2? page a2. page 42. foot of the page. you say, m letter page 42. foot of the page. you say, my letter caused — page 42. foot of the page. you say, my letter caused strong _ page 42. foot of the page. you say, my letter caused strong pushback i my letter caused strong pushback from the post office. and on the 19th of march there was a meeting between myself and alice perkins and it appears that the chief of staff

wrote for me for a telephone call that at the meeting of the 19th of march over the page alice perkins said among other things at the post office did not believe anything was wrong with horizon. they were very concerned that any opinion being formed by second back —— second sight should... not least because the post office did not have a right of reply. it continued funding investigations and it seemed there would be some sort of deadline for cases by the end of february. and at the post office would not attend a meeting of the 2ath of march. but there would be an open letter from there would be an open letter from the post office available for distribution at that meeting and that the post office would be expecting to be ready to attend a meeting with mps in perhaps

expecting to be ready to attend a meeting with mps in perhaszune. can you help me? i thought the post office and said they wanted their systems processes and data independently assessed. yes, without 0 enness independently assessed. yes, without openness and — independently assessed. yes, without openness and transparency. _ independently assessed. yes, without openness and transparency. i - independently assessed. yes, without openness and transparency. i did - independently assessed. yes, without openness and transparency. i did notl openness and transparency. i did not understand that either. i was a bit surprised because i thought my letter to the post office of the 7th of march had been rather a nice one. they said they were invested in securing the truth and that they wish to be open and transparent, with some postmasters and the public. and yet he was the chairman saying to you that the independent investigators should not communicate their opinions, that theirfunding their opinions, that their funding may their opinions, that theirfunding may be withdrawn, and they were pulling out of a meeting. yes. may be withdrawn, and they were pulling out of a meeting. yes, which did not sit well— pulling out of a meeting. yes, which did not sit well with _ pulling out of a meeting. yes, which did not sit well with the _ pulling out of a meeting. yes, which did not sit well with the way - pulling out of a meeting. yes, which did not sit well with the way that. did not sit well with the way that second sight had been appointed, which was almost a joint exercise

between the post office and the mps, and the jf between the post office and the mps, and thejf essay and it between the post office and the mps, and the jf essay and it seems between the post office and the mps, and thejf essay and it seems that the post office were saying that second site were not to talk to us. —— mike andyjfsa. which seems to us to be awed and wrong. -- mike andy jfsa. which seems to us to be awed and wrong.— to be awed and wrong. so the meeting went ahead with _ to be awed and wrong. so the meeting went ahead with you _ to be awed and wrong. so the meeting went ahead with you with _ to be awed and wrong. so the meeting went ahead with you with other - to be awed and wrong. so the meeting went ahead with you with other mps i went ahead with you with other mps where the jfsa went ahead with you with other mps where thejfsa and second sight but without the post office? yes. we have our without the post office? i2; we have your speaking notes without the post office? i23 we have your speaking notes that meeting, your chief of staff's minutes of that meeting and second sight�*s speaking notes. ijust want to look at the last of those. which is jarb 00000a7. these are the

second site —— second sight notes for the meeting for the 25th of march 2013. there is a summary in the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs and then scroll down, please. and that the foot of the page, they recall that the fast track review process had identified the following seven issues as being a significant feature in one or more of the cases submitted. transaction anomalies following communications or powerfailures, rogue anomalies following communications or power failures, rogue transaction not entered by some postmasters or their staff. missing or duplicated

transactions associated with postage labels, phone cards, gyro payments, atms or checks, training and support issues, loss of transaction audit trails being available to some postmasters. accounting issues at the end of the trading period and the end of the trading period and the contract between the post office and sub—postmasters. and then if we go over the page, please. they said the investigation is progressing well. a number of difficult issues have been satisfactorily resolved and an excellent working relationship has been continued between both the post office and

jfsa and they are grateful for the support being provided by the post office. it says it is complex and is looking at events every long period of time, in some cases seven years. we are still at the evidence gathering stage particular for cases omitted the last few weeks, too early for us to reach preliminary inclusions. this is a fact —based investigation involving complex technology and it is difficult to have all parties submitting matters under review. the seven features that we saw on page one. is that to be qualified by waters in this penultimate paragraph here? i thought that they were things that required further work. it thought that they were things that required further work.—

thought that they were things that required further work. it seems that in turn, required further work. it seems that in turn. what _ required further work. it seems that in turn, what was _ required further work. it seems that in turn, what was said _ required further work. it seems that in turn, what was said at _ required further work. it seems that in turn, what was said at the - in turn, what was said at the meeting caused concern withjfsa and can we look, please, at the letter from mr bates, jarb 00000a9. this is a letter to you from mr bates. he says, having had the opportunity to reflect on the meeting at portcullis house, the one you're talking about, i thought it important to convey to you the concerns that both kay linnell and i took from the second sight report and the second document they produced for the meeting, the one who just looked at. whilst every individual�*s case is extremely important to that individual it is also doubly so any weight that it

adds to the systemic failures with the post office and their horizon system. these are issues which we are at first i have been raising for years and having cosy work to second sight of the past few months we can see that they, too, have independently arrived at the same conclusions through their analysis of the cases. we can neither understand why second sight are so reluctant... you have been watching the post office horizon it inquiry. this is our bbc news coverage. you've been listening to lord james arbuthnot. he is a tory peer but he was a conservative mp and has been campaigning alongside the victims for more than 1a years. he has been detailing his correspondence with the government, the post office and the government, the post office and the royal mail because those conversations are crucial to understanding how what is widely seen as one of the biggest miscarriages ofjustice in the uk could have possibly happened and who knew what and when. it is worth

picking out some of these key moments and he has talked about the former chief executive of the royal mail paula vennells. loss of sound. the office they have a problem with the sound from that inquiry. as you can see, you've been in getting audio of evidence from lord arbuthnot. all you have to do is scan a qr code you can see on the screen at the moment for more on this on the bbc iplayer and you can pick up all of the latest from the inquiry and indeed we also have a special bbc news life page up and running which you will find both —— you will find our correspondence giving more on that. you will find

that information at dibassy dot co .uk slash news or if you have it, the bbc news app on your mobile phone device. —— bbc.com/news.

live from london. this is bbc news kazakhstan and russia's worst flooding in almost a century forces tens of thousands of people from their homes. spain's prime minister pedro sanchez says recognising a palestinian state is in europe's best interests. a review finds children have been let down by "weak" evidence about gender treatment. england joins a list of european nations limiting medical intervention. arizona's supreme court rules that the us state can enforce a near—total abortion ban, that dates back 160 years. ending ramadan in the ruins of rafah. people in gaza celebrate eid surrounded by the rubble of their mosque.

hello, i'm lucy hockings, welcome to bbc news now,