The inquiry is now going over emails that indicated a frustration among Post Office executives about the approach Second Sight was taking in its review by not taking into account the Post Office's input.

Vennells says at the point of the emails there was no suggestion that Second Sight was being biased in approach, but just that because the work had run on too long the forensic accountants hadn't had time to take into account the Post Office's evidence.

She adds that a sense of frustration was conveyed to her but that she didn't have regular conversations with Second Sight and that she doesn't believe she spoke with them on this point.

Vennells is now shown a note of a conference highlighting legal advice given to the Post Office about the risk of an independent review - a conference which Vennells says she had not been aware of.

Beer points to the paragraph that states that the Post Office would be "damned if they do and damned if they don't" after an independent review. It goes on to say that if the findings were positive it would be called a "whitewash" but if they were negative it would open the company up to lawsuits.

Was it communicated to you that if the independent review came back with negative conclusions, that sub-postmasters who had been convicted might bring claims against the Post Office? Beer asks.

"No absolutely not," Vennells replies.

"And that that would be a reason not to commission an independent report?" Beer presses.

"No, I didn't know about this," Vennells says.

Vennells denies knowing about it again or that such advice played any role in decision making.

Another line in the document says that a "less risky approach" would be to privately take relevant MPs through particular cases they were interested in. Was that ever communicated to you? Beer asks.

"No," Vennells replies.

The inquiry has shifted focus now to an email sent from sub-postmaster Alan Bates to Paula Vennells in which he raises concerns over some of the prosecutions.

Vennells says she was concerned to receive Bates' email, but said it was a point the JFSA (Justice For Subpostmaster Alliance) had raised for many years.

She adds that she took Bates' email back to the team to ask what the current status of the work was.

Her reply to Bates mentioned that she would be happy to meet him but that it might be more productive to meet after Second Sight had concluded its work on three specific cases it was working on.

Just to remind you, Bates is the former sub-postmaster turned-campaigner whose fight for justice inspired ITV’s Mr Bates vs The Post Office drama.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer displays a document showing the Post Office's three options to take forward issues it had with Second Sight.

The third option - Plan C - was to replace Second Sight if they didn't agree to the "proposed terms of engagement" with the Post Office.

Despite their appointment in mid-2012, had no terms of engagement been settled by 2013 for Second Sight? Beer asks.

"I don't know of terms of engagement," Vennells replies, saying that wasn't something she would have been involved with.

"Was it anticipated that Second Sight would refuse to work under the terms of engagement that the Post Office required?" Beer asks.

"It seems to say so here, I don't recall being aware of that," Vennells replies.

She adds that there were concerns within the Post Office that the investigation was becoming too costly, taking too long and not meeting its objectives.

Vennells is now being asked whether she knew if the Post Office was getting advice about the implications of bringing convictions into the Second Sight review.

She responds that she didn't know the substance of the advice until she read it in preparation for the Post Office inquiry.

Vennells is further asked whether she, and therefore the Post Office's board, took on board this advice covering the scope of the Second Sight review.

Vennells says she doesn't believe the advice was known by the board, but suggests Beer asks Alice Perkins, the Post Office chair who led the Project Sparrow sub-committee.

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

There's always a bit of an eerie silence at the beginning of these hearings - it's just after we're told that proceedings are about to start and before the witness and inquiry chair have arrived.

Today, as Paula Vennells was directed to her seat at the front of the inquiry, some other recognisable faces happened to enter the room at the same time: Former sub-postmaster Lee Castleton and sub-postmistress Janet Skinner, who are sitting in the rows of chairs for members of the public.

Castleton, from Bridlington, East Yorkshire, was falsely accused of stealing £25,000 from his branch. He was made bankrupt after he lost a two-year legal battle with the Post Office. Meanwhile, Skinner was jailed in 2007 for nine months over an alleged shortfall of £59,000 from her Hull branch. Her conviction was later quashed.

As all three sat down, it was a stark reminder that some of the people in the room are those whose lives were upended by this scandal.

Vennells is now shown a series of emails warning about the publicity being generated by high-profile cases of those affected by the Horizon scandal, such as sub-postmistress Seema Misra, who was was eight weeks' pregnant with her second child when she was sentenced to 15 months in prison.

Jason Beer asks if she had agreed that all cases should be included within Second Sight's independent review, even if they involved criminal convictions.

"Yes, I wasn't making any distinction," she replies.

Did you think the business was "pushing back unnecessarily against that?" Beer queries.

"I don't think I knew that," replies Vennells. She says that there was a lot consideration going on about what should and shouldn't happen that she was not in the loop on.

Image source, Post Office inquiry

Beer shows Vennells a Second Sight document featuring proposals for the independent review. It includes highlighted sections referring to a representative sample of past cases and to "study and selectively test" the Horizon system.

He asks Vennells whether that was exactly what was needed, to which she says "yes".

He follows up by asking - that didn't happen though, did it?

She confirms that the work the Post Office and Second Sight did didn't come to a final conclusion.

Vennells adds that she doesn't recall a narrow focus on prosecutions - she recalls that the plan was to look at a broad sample of cases, some with criminal convictions.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC begins by saying he will today focus on the investigation by forensic accountants Second Sight into the Post Office.

Beer says he will look at the process by which Second Sight was chosen over Deloitte.

Beer asks Vennells if she remembers the distinction between the work the companies were proposing.

"No I cannot remember the distinction," Vennells says, and adds that the documents they are looking at show they both look very different.

She says Second Sight's proposal was chosen because "we needed an organisation who would be able to work well with sub-postmasters", and that Deloitte may have come across as "too corporate" and wouldn't necessarily have the understanding of running a Post Office.

Vennells adds that she doesn't recall going through the details of the proposals in the meeting with other executives.

We'll be going into the weeds of evidence today, but here's a reminder of how many people were convicted in the Post Office Horizon scandal.

There have been 983 UK-wide convictions, with 700 being Post Office prosecutions and 283 prosecutions brought by other groups, including the Crown Prosecution Service, since the Horizon System was installed in 1999, according to the Department for Business and Trade.

So far just 103 have had their convictions overturned.

A draft report uncovered by the BBC shows the Post Office spent £100m fighting the group in court despite knowing its defence was untrue. The Post Office said it would be "inappropriate" to comment.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission said the scandal was "the most widespread miscarriage of justice" it had seen.

The Post Office prosecutions include some in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where separate action will have to be taken to clear those affected.

The inquiry has just resumed for the day.

Stay with us for updates, analysis and reporting from inside the inquiry room.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC is again questioning Paula Vennells.

Emma Simpson
Business correspondent, at the inquiry

Paula Vennells' defence is that she wasn’t given key bits of information. Crucial advice wasn’t shared. She says she was “too trusting”.

But how credible is her evidence?

The sub-postmasters find it hard to believe she didn’t know for five years that the Post Office did its own private prosecutions.

There’s an awful lot of ground still to cover, including her handling of the disastrous High Court legal action.

Image source, PA Media

Here's a quick reminder of who Paula Vennells is.

The 65-year-old was the Post Office’s chief executive between 2012 and 2019.

Prior to joining the Post Office in 2007 as a group network director, she had served as an ordained priest and in 2017 was interviewed for the position of Bishop of London.

After leaving the Post Office, she was a non-executive board member at the Cabinet Office for a year and also became chairman of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.

She left this post at the end of 2020 citing personal reasons for doing so. In 2021, she relinquished her clerical duties, although she remains an ordained priest today.

She also handed back her CBE earlier this year in the wake of the Horizon scandal following a public petition that called for her to be stripped of the honour.

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

Here we are then - day two of Paula Vennells' evidence.

A number of former sub-postmasters and postmistresses are here again, raring to get into the inquiry room (just opened) and see what the former chief executive of the Post Office has to say.

I've heard some people exchange their takes on yesterday: "dreadful", "wooden".

We learned a lot on Wednesday.

Vennells framed herself as a CEO who was "too trusting" and "too curious" and broke down in tears several times.

She repeatedly apologised and said key information wasn't shared with her. However, she denied there was a conspiracy at the Post Office to cover-up the Horizon scandal.

But what about today?

There are far fewer cameras outside the front of Aldwych House this morning - no doubt a reflection of yesterday's general election announcement - but there's still very much a buzz inside.

Her appearance may have arguably been overshadowed by yesterday's political news, but Paula Vennells' evidence on Wednesday was a major moment for the Post Office inquiry.

She faced tough questions from the inquiry lawyers over what she knew about the Horizon scandal and faces more of the same today and tomorrow.

Here's a recap of some of the key bits of her evidence:

On sub-postmasters and mistresses

• She broke down in tears as a list of sub-postmasters and postmistresses who had been acquitted after being accused of stealing money from the Post Office was read out
• She said she wasn't kept informed about the number of complaints being received from sub-postmasters about Horizon
• She claimed she didn’t know the Post Office was prosecuting staff till 2012

On giving evidence to MPs

• She admitted that an assertion she'd previously made to MPs that there had been no failed Horizon prosecutions was not correct
• She said that she was too trusting of her colleagues, and that maybe those who prepared her notes for the 2015 select committee hearing “were trying to direct [her] to answer in a certain way”

Good morning and welcome as we resume our coverage of Paula Vennells' evidence to the Post Office inquiry.

In a moment long waited for by sub-postmasters, the former Post Office boss on Wednesday spoke publicly about her role in the Horizon scandal for the first time in nearly a decade.

Vennells broke down in tears and acknowledged that an assertion she'd previously made that there had been no failed Horizon prosecutions was not correct.

She will give her second day of evidence today when the inquiry resumes later this morning.

Stay with us for updates and analysis.

Thank you for joining us. We've finished hearing the first day of evidence from Paula Vennells, the former Post Office CEO. She'll continue giving evidence over the next two days. Here are some key points from today:

• Vennells began with an apology, saying she was "sorry" for "all the sub-postmasters and their families who have suffered"
• She admitted that evidence she gave to MPs looking into problems with the Horizon IT system in 2012 was not true
• She broke down in tears as a list of sub-postmasters and postmistresses who had been acquitted after being accused of stealing money from the Post Office was read out
• Vennells said she was unaware the Post Office conducted its own prosecutions until 2012
• The former chief executive also broke down again when answering questions following the death of Martin Griffiths, a former sub-postmaster who attempted to take his own life on 23 September 2013, having been accused of a shortfall amounting to £100,000 at his Cheshire branch. He died in hospital weeks later

You can read more about today's evidence here. We'll be back tomorrow with live updates from the inquiry.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

The hearing has ended for today with Sir Wyn thanking those in the room and core participants for their restraint.

He also thanked them for not calling out or interfering verbally today.

Paula Vennells will return tomorrow for further questioning.

For a final question, the inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams asks Paula Vennells for clarification about the parliamentary select committee in 2015.

He asks whether the briefing she had been given before the hearing advised to be "very precise, very circumspect, and very guarded" about what she said.

"I would. I'm not sure I would have noticed that on the morning of the day," Vennells replies.

But that was the effect that was trying to be created by those who made that document, says Sir Wyn.

"It could have been, yes," Vennells says.

"Why?" the inquiry chair asks.

Vennells break down in tears again after a long pause. "At the time it didn't cross my mind at all," she says, adding that she took the information she was given and went into the select committee hearing.

"From what I know now, maybe other people knew more than I did and were trying to direct me to answer in a certain way."

Beer finishes today's evidence session by showing Vennells a letter in 2016 where she was told a number of people in Fujitsu did have access to Horizon remotely - referred to as "super-users" of the software.

It warns that while they feel safe on their previous position this wasn't possible legally, it was a "different positioning" over the issue of remote access than made in earlier statements.

Vennells replies noting the email is clear and follows up asking for clarification about what had been said about super-users before.

She is told they haven't previously addressed it and their previous phrasing referencing remote access to edit branch data is "quite narrow", as well as that it could lead to negative media coverage.

Beer asks directly if she knew about super-users before 2016, which Vennells says she doesn't think so

Pressed on what the previous positioning of the Post Office was, the former CEO says she the cannot remember and adds that she "clearly didn't know at the time".