Davey is now being shown a letter from Priti Patel MP about one of her constituents, who was facing issues with the Horizon IT system.

The letter, dated one day before Alan Bates's letter, asks for a meeting with him. Davey says the letter was not brought to his attention, but it probably should have been.

"I wasn't aware she was seeking a meeting," Davey adds.

He's then shown a series of letters from other MPs highlighting issues their respective constituents had experienced with the Post Office's IT system as sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses.

Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, is reading out some lines from Davey's witness statement.

In it, Davey says that "with the benefit of hindsight" he is sorry he followed officials' advice and "did not question it".

Beer clarifies that this "hindsight" was essentially that what Bates was complaining about - the Horizon issues - was correct.

Davey says that "clearly" turned out to be the case.

Beer confirms there was "no inflexible rule" that prevented him from becoming involved. Davey agrees but points out he met Bates after his second letter and further refers to advice he was given that it was "not a matter for a minister".

Staying on that letter from Bates to Davey - which outlined complaints about the Horizon system.

Davey suggests he may have never seen the original letter from Bates. He doesn’t recall it, but thinks he would have done, given what was written.

“We’re talking about a long time ago” and “I was signing a huge number of letters”, he adds.

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

Those listening here in the room - where some former sub-postmasters and postmistresses are gathered - are reacting quite strongly to some of Davey's responses.

The lawyer asks Davey about the letter he wrote back to Alan Bates, refusing to meet him. Don't you agree it was a terse reply, the lawyer says - and there's some mild laughter.

Those here clearly think it was terse - and Davey himself agrees.

When Davey says he can't remember reading Bates's original letter, people shake their heads and sigh.

Davey even says he may have just signed his reply to Bates, without seeing Bates's original letter - prompting more murmurings of what sounds like disbelief.

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Ed Davey is shown the letter sent to him from Alan Bates, dated to 20 May 2010.

In it, Bates spells out concerns he has about the Horizon IT system and requests a meeting with Davey. Pressed on whether those requests were "not unreasonable", Davey says they weren't.

He goes on to say it might have been the case that he hadn't seen the original letter, but he recalls a secondary letter and his reply.

Davey says he first became aware of complaints about the integrity of the Horizon system on the day he took office in May 2010 - through a letter from Sir Alan Bates.

He's then asked when he was learned that a large number of sub-postmasters were alleging their convictions weren't safe.

Davey responds that he knew Alan Bates was representing a number of them who felt that way but that he doesn't think it was until the High Court process in 2019 that he knew of a group action.

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

Ed Davey is back in the inquiry room ready for the questioning to continue.

So far, he's told us the Post Office was misleading ministers - and says it's up to the inquiry to determine which individuals exactly were doing the misleading.

There was also a bit of exasperation among people here earlier, when Davey said he didn't know when he was minister that the Post Office had the power to carry out prosecutions.

In his witness statement, former postal affairs minister Ed Davey apologises for declining to meet Alan Bates - the sub-postmaster who led the campaign highlighting the Post Office scandal.

The Lib Dem leader says his dismissal of a meeting in May 2010 was "poorly judged".

"On reflection, and with the benefit of hindsight, I am really sorry that I followed the advice and did not question it, and I can also see why Sir Alan took offence at the phrase 'I do not believe a meeting would serve any useful purpose'," he says.

"It was poorly judged, and I apologise to Sir Alan for signing it off."

While he declined that meeting, Davey did go on to meet Bates in October 2010.

Image source, Post Office inquiry

As the inquiry breaks for lunch, we're sifting through Ed Davey's witness statement, which was released as he began giving evidence.

In it, he says he would have "acted differently" as postal affairs minister if the "Post Office had told the truth".

"With all issues in such a busy portfolio, you had to be able to rely on the advice of civil servants, and you were not in a position to dig into the detail of every question that came across your desk," he says.

"I believe I was seriously misled by the Post Office. I do not know if one or more civil servants misled me during my time as a minister, or if they were themselves misled by the Post Office.

"I hope the inquiry can shed light on this. However, if I had known then what we all know now - if the Post Office had told the truth - of course I would have acted differently."

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry is going on a lunch break - we've heard all of McFadden's evidence and about 40 minutes of Ed Davey.

We'll be back in about 40 minutes with more from Davey, which will probably get a bit more interesting as the inquiry digs more into his time as Post Office minister.

Davey has just been asked about the truth, and whether he believes senior executives lied to him.

He says he believes Post Office Ltd was misleading ministers, and it was difficult for him to know who was responsible within the business.

But, he adds, it's up for the inquiry to establish who was to blame for misleading ministers, the courts and "above all the sub-postmasters".

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

Some of the people listening in the room here are shaking their heads at the exchange just now between Davey and the lawyer.

Davey says he wasn't aware when he was a minister that the Post Office had the power to investigate and prosecute sub-postmasters itself. He says he probably only became aware of that during the inquiry - sparking murmurings in the room here.

There are several former sub-postmasters and postmistresses here, as well as members of the public.

The issue of whether the government, which owns the Post Office, was responsible for overseeing the Post Office's prosecutions has been a big theme today.

Davey tells the inquiry he was not aware the Post Office carried out prosecutions against sub-postmasters when he was postal affairs minister.

Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asks if Davey needed to have an understanding of how Post Office systems worked to become a minister.

Davey says it was not his role as minister to get involved in the day-to-day running of the Post Office, and his focus in cabinet was to ensure there were no more closures of post offices and to maintain the network.

He says it did not occur to him to look further into the organisation's IT systems.

Ed Davey faces his first question from Jason Beer KC.

He agrees that in his role as minister with responsibility for postal affairs he was accountable for the Post Office.

Asked how he ensured proper and effective management of the business - Davey says he was reliant on the advice of his officials from the department.

He adds that he didn't receive any handover from his predecessor but he also wasn't sure it was that common to do him - he himself wasn't asked for a handover in 2015.

Ministers "rely on civil servants to be the continuity part", he adds.

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

The Lib Dem leader Ed Davey has been led to the witness stand.

Davey recently celebrated success for his party in the elections after they saw 72 MPs elected.

But today he'll be asked about his stint as postal affairs minister between May 2010 and February 2012 during the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government.

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

Image source, KINGSTON INDEPENDENT RESIDENTS GROUP

One of those who’ll be listening closely to Ed Davey - who's coming up in the next few minutes - is former deputy postmistress Yvonne Tracey.

She worked at a post office in Davey’s constituency for more than 30 years – and was so angry about the scandal that she stood against him in the election this month.

“I do hope he doesn't have memory loss like most of the people involved,” Tracey tells me ahead of today’s hearing.

Davey has previously said he was lied to by the Post Office, when he asked them about Alan Bates’ concerns.

Tracey says: “He had that lie in front of him so he should have asked questions as to why this lie was being told. Did that not ring alarm bells with him?

“It will be interesting to hear his answers.”

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

There's some shaking of heads and sighs among those listening here when McFadden is asked why ministers didn't go back to the sub-postmasters to find out more about what they were alleging.

Instead, ministers went back to the Post Office, lawyer Sam Stein says.

There's a bit of exasperation in the room at McFadden's responses.

"I've asked that question I think three times, I'll stop now," says Stein.

McFadden has finished his evidence. Next up we'll hear from Ed Davey. I'm just in the adjoining room, where people are digesting what they've heard this morning.

Lawyer Sam Stein - representing sub-postmasters - now goes back to the email from Brain Binley about IT flaws.

McFadden agrees that the allegations in the letter were unusual. He's then asked why no one spoke with the sub-postmasters.

McFadden says it was the "right thing to do" to ask the people running the business. He again alludes to their "emphatic" defence of the system.

He also refers to the fact that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters was not raising concerns over the system at that point - saying he only later learned of its "bad relationship" with sub-postmasters.

Stein pushes him specifically on the response to Binley's letter. McFadden says it wasn't known at the time that Post Office assurances would prove to be wrong and court judgements were unsafe.

Francesca Gillett
Reporting from the inquiry

That's it for the questions from Sam Stevens, the counsel to the inquiry.

Next up is Sam Stein, representing the largest group of sub-postmasters and postmistresses - the Justice for Sub-Postmasters Alliance, which was founded by Alan Bates.

We'll also have questions from another group, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Stick with us.

McFadden is again asked about what the government should have done more to make sure prosecutions were fair.

He repeats a previous answer - that ministers are instructed not to interfere with court proceedings.

"It's a very unusual thing to do," he says, adding that it took Parliament a long time to overturn legislation preventing ministers from scrutinising court proceedings.