the only alternative was liz truss or rishi sunak. i chose what i believe to be the lesser of two evils but she screwed it up and made a mess of it. that's it, that's fine. how many times do we get a political decision wrong? what you are saying is i probably have got it wrong with labour. if i have, god help... i wrong with labour. ifi have, god hel... ., �* wrong with labour. ifi have, god hel... .,�* . ., wrong with labour. ifi have, god hel... j . ., . help... i don't want to lecture you because you _ help... i don't want to lecture you because you are _ help... i don't want to lecture you because you are a _ help... i don't want to lecture you because you are a very _ help... i don't want to lecture you because you are a very successful| because you are a very successful guy _ because you are a very successful guy iti— because you are a very successful cu . �* because you are a very successful ru _ �* ., ., because you are a very successful guy. if i'm naive how did i build a business in _ guy. if i'm naive how did i build a business in a _ guy. if i'm naive how did i build a business in a tough _ guy. if i'm naive how did i build a business in a tough environment| guy. if i'm naive how did i build a i business in a tough environment for 20 years that made 1.5 billion sell out? was i the luckiest guy on earth or did ifight like fury? haifa out? was i the luckiest guy on earth or did i fight like fury?— or did i fight like fury? how much ofthat or did i fight like fury? how much of that was _ or did i fight like fury? how much of that was under _ or did i fight like fury? how much of that was under a _ or did i fight like fury? how much of that was under a labour - of that was under a labour government? _ of that was under a labour government? 0r— of that was under a labour government?— of that was under a labour government? of that was under a labour covernment? ~ , government? or did i fight like fury and make shrewd _ government? or did i fight like fury and make shrewd commercial, - government? or did i fight like fury i and make shrewd commercial, wise decisions? i’m and make shrewd commercial, wise decisions? �* ' :: :: ' . and make shrewd commercial, wise decisions? �* ' :: :: , , , ., decisions? i'm100% sure you did those things- _ decisions? i'm 10096 sure you did those things. but _ decisions? i'm 10096 sure you did those things. but i'm _ decisions? i'm10096 sure you did those things. but i'm a _ decisions? i'm10096 sure you did those things. but i'm a bit - decisions? i'm 10096 sure you did | those things. but i'm a bit worried that there — those things. but i'm a bit worried that there is — those things. but i'm a bit worried that there is a _ those things. but i'm a bit worried that there is a naivety_ those things. but i'm a bit worried that there is a naivety there - those things. but i'm a bit worried that there is a naivety there about| that there is a naivety there about what _ that there is a naivety there about what labour — that there is a naivety there about what labour is _ that there is a naivety there about what labour is really _ that there is a naivety there about what labour is really going - that there is a naivety there about what labour is really going to - that there is a naivety there about what labour is really going to do i what labour is really going to do for business _ what labour is really going to do for business. of— what labour is really going to do for business. of course - what labour is really going to do for business. of course they - what labour is really going to do for business. of course they are| for business. of course they are doing _ for business. of course they are doing att— for business. of course they are doing all of— for business. of course they are doing all of this. _ for business. of course they are doing all of this. they _ for business. of course they are doing all of this. they did - for business. of course they are doing all of this. they did this i doing all of this. they did this back— doing all of this. they did this back in— doing all of this. they did this back in 1997, _ doing all of this. they did this back in 1997, do— doing all of this. they did this back in 1997, do you - doing all of this. they did this i back in 1997, do you remember doing all of this. they did this - back in 1997, do you remember the back in1997, do you remember the prawn— back in1997, do you remember the prawn cocktait— back in 1997, do you remember the prawn cocktail offensive _ back in 1997, do you remember the prawn cocktail offensive when - back in 1997, do you remember the prawn cocktail offensive when they| prawn cocktail offensive when they went around — prawn cocktail offensive when they went around cosying _ prawn cocktail offensive when they went around cosying up _ prawn cocktail offensive when they went around cosying up to - prawn cocktail offensive when they. went around cosying up to business? i went around cosying up to business? hust— went around cosying up to business? iiust dont— went around cosying up to business? iiust don't really— went around cosying up to business? ijust don't really believe it. - went around cosying up to business? ijust don't really believe it. find - ijust don't really believe it. and that is, ijust don't really believe it. and that is. of— ijust don't really believe it. and that is, of course, _ ijust don't really believe it. and that is, of course, your - ijust don't really believe it. that is, of course, your choice. that's your choice not to believe it. i do believe it and i hope to god i'm not being filled. i don't think i am. the manifesto is full of real positive stuff that i believe in. i'll give you another factor. can i bring injo swinson?i in. i'll give you another factor. can i bring in jo swinson? i 'ust need to make i can i bring in jo swinson? i 'ust need to make this i can i bring in jo swinson? i 'ust need to make this point, h can i bring in jo swinson? ijust need to make this point, sorry. i can i bring in jo swinson? i just l need to make this point, sorry. i commissioned a report nine months ago and that report was to find out what was wrong with britain and to suggest ways of fixing it. it took nine months with experts all over the uk contributing to it. we published that report two or three weeks ago, and when we did a crossover check with the labour manifesto and caudwell�*s strong written the synergy was unbelievable and that was an independent report. what do you think, jo swinson? i am what do you think, jo swinson? i am curious, it what do you think, jo swinson? i am curious. it is — what do you think, jo swinson? i am curious, it is an _ what do you think, jo swinson? i am curious, it is an interesting journey, _ curious, it is an interesting journey, but in particular that sort of ratiohate — journey, but in particular that sort of rationale for supporting liz truss. — of rationale for supporting liz truss, that it was either liz or richey — truss, that it was either liz or richey its— truss, that it was either liz or richey. it's possible to spot heither— richey. it's possible to spot neither of them. i recognise it wasn't — neither of them. i recognise it wasn't a — neither of them. i recognise it wasn't a great choice between liz truss _ wasn't a great choice between liz truss and — wasn't a great choice between liz truss and rishi sunak, but did that ever cross — truss and rishi sunak, but did that ever cross your mind?— truss and rishi sunak, but did that ever cross your mind? somebody had to and when — ever cross your mind? somebody had to and when liz _ ever cross your mind? somebody had to and when liz talked _ ever cross your mind? somebody had to and when liz talked about - ever cross your mind? somebody had to and when liz talked about gdp - to and when liz talked about gdp growth, that really sparked me. —— rishi sunak. that is what we have to gain in the uk, whatever party is in, we have to grow gdp in order to pay for social services. that's a fact and there is no disputing that. liz truss portrayed that image. when she came in, what did she do? one of the first things she did which i condemned the hell out of, she reduced, or suggested reducing income tax for the high earners from 45, income tax for the high earners from a5, down to a0. i was apoplectic for that. why would you do that? what for? we didn't know she was going to do that. . . ~ for? we didn't know she was going to do that. . , ~ ., . , do that. it was kind of what she was an uint do that. it was kind of what she was arguing for, right? _ do that. it was kind of what she was arguing for, right? it _ do that. it was kind of what she was arguing for, right? it wasn't - arguing for, right? it wasn't entirety— arguing for, right? it wasn't entirely out of step with the political— entirely out of step with the political philosophies. you entirely out of step with the political philosophies. you want to create wealth _ political philosophies. you want to create wealth and _ political philosophies. you want to create wealth and you _ political philosophies. you want to create wealth and you want - political philosophies. you want to create wealth and you want to - political philosophies. you want to i create wealth and you want to create incentive. what you don't want to do is make ridiculous commercial decisions that have no benefit whatsoever either politically or commercially. reducing 5p for the rich people was never going to attract people into the uk. it was never going to keep people in the uk, and all it was was a political disaster. ~ , ., �* , ., uk, and all it was was a political disaster. ~ , ., �* , . disaster. why don't you become a politician? — disaster. why don't you become a politician? you _ disaster. why don't you become a politician? you are _ disaster. why don't you become a politician? you are obviously - disaster. why don't you become a | politician? you are obviously really into it _ politician? you are obviously really into it. you've made a load of money — into it. you've made a load of money |_ into it. you've made a load of mone . . ., . into it. you've made a load of mone. . ., . into it. you've made a load of| money-_ i money. i am not a politician. i think you'd — money. i am not a politician. i think you'd be _ money. i am not a politician. i think you'd be quite _ money. i am not a politician. i think you'd be quite good. - money. i am not a politician. i think you'd be quite good. i i think you'd be quite good. i absolutely despair of politics, i'm absolutely despair of politics, i'm a commercial animal that wants to put the great back in britain. i want to do everything right for britain and i want britain to look after its poorest people. to do that we have to grow gdp and i do not want to be a politician. i’m we have to grow gdp and i do not want to be a politician.— want to be a politician. i'm glad ou've want to be a politician. i'm glad you've settled _ want to be a politician. i'm glad you've settled that _ want to be a politician. i'm glad you've settled that one - want to be a politician. i'm glad you've settled that one then! i want to be a politician. i'm glad - you've settled that one then! that's not indecisive, _ you've settled that one then! that's not indecisive, is _ you've settled that one then! that's not indecisive, is it? _ you've settled that one then! that's not indecisive, is it? definitely - not indecisive, is it? definitely not. you not indecisive, is it? definitely not- you can — not indecisive, is it? definitely not. you can listen _ not indecisive, is it? definitely not. you can listen to - not indecisive, is it? definitely not. you can listen to a - not indecisive, is it? definitely not. you can listen to a live i not indecisive, is it? definitely i not. you can listen to a live audio version of — not. you can listen to a live audio version of newsnight _ not. you can listen to a live audio version of newsnight as - not. you can listen to a live audio version of newsnight as one i not. you can listen to a live audio version of newsnight as one of i not. you can listen to a live audio | version of newsnight as one of all of the abc election coverage on bbc sounds, so if you don't want to see our faces you can listen to our voices. head to the sound sap and find the stream, between 5 live sports extra and 6 music i've done it, it is really easy, sounds more completed than i've made it sound —— bbc election coverage. thank you for joining us. thank you for being with us, mr caudwell. we are going to hear more from ron warmington who gave evidence to the post office inquiry today along with his colleague ian henderson. both worked for the independent forensic accountants second sight and that firm played a key role in exposing flaws in the post office's horizon it computer system which, as you know, let the wrongful prosecution is of sub—postmasters. both men were portrayed as one character in itv�*s mr bates vs the post office. i have spent a lot of the past 12 months... yes, come on, bob! ..requesting access to documents that have been challenged. one issue we are looking into relates to fujitsu's office in bracknell. now, we first requested documents relating to that almost two years ago. and we have still not been provided with those documents. erm, may i respond? we did provide a year's worth of e—mails that second - sight requested. unfortunately, those e—mails that were provided were for the wrong year. ron warmington meet jo swinson, jo swinson meet ron warmington. jo swinson — you were post office minster 2012 — 2015. in the coalition government when your report for second sight which your report for second sight which you were here to do by the post office came out. just tell our audience what you told the public inquiry today about when you realise that things were going wrong? irate that things were going wrong? we first that things were going wrong? - first realised things were going wrong on the prosecution front almost immediately. right away by september, no later than september 2012. and when i say that i have to qualify that by saying we made it abundantly clear to everyone that my colleagues and i are forensic accountants fraud investigators are not lawyers and any suspicions we had as to the inadequacies of evidence and failure to disclose evidence and failure to disclose evidence that might support the defendants was an opinion of accountants are not lawyers. and therefore one of the first things that we did was to say don't take our word for it, go and check with one of the top firms of criminal law firms. i suggested some names. the general counsel said i will go to, i'd better not name them, the firm that we've always used as i go to prosecution firm. and i said you must be nuts. you cannot possibly be serious about doing that why would you go to the firm that got you into this mess to mark their own homework? go to one of the top firms and i named a couple of them and the response was, we cannot do that because the board will not tolerate that cost. 50 because the board will not tolerate that cost. ., .,, that cost. so how did the post office treat — that cost. so how did the post office treat you, _ that cost. so how did the post office treat you, how - that cost. so how did the post office treat you, how did i that cost. so how did the post | office treat you, how did paula vennells treat you when you are getting to the truth?— getting to the truth? initially, call me gullible, _ getting to the truth? initially, call me gullible, having i getting to the truth? initially, l call me gullible, having spoken getting to the truth? initially, i call me gullible, having spoken to the very top brass, the chairman and chief executive, and i had said do not harm my firm if you want to whitewash or unless you want to help me get to the truth. i'm going to, i don't need the work, i will reject this job unless you agreed to join us in an unrestricted search for the truth regardless of the consequences. iwas truth regardless of the consequences. i was reassured up front. absolutely reassured. and we took on the job. but as soon as we started to find stuff, nasty evidence of awful prosecution practices, sitting on top of really poor investigation processes that did not seek the underlying root cause of problems but simply focused on getting the money back and keeping the brand safe and keeping the reputation of the system safe, as soon as we started to see that and say something about it, particularly when the general counsel changed, anyone came in. then the tide turned massively. so much so that i'm no quitter but pretty soon after that i said to my team i've had enough of this, this is not what we agreed to do and i'm going to pull the team out. jo swinson, you are yet to give evidence. can i ask you did paula vennells lie to you? yes. really? yes. what did she say to you that was a lie?— yes. what did she say to you that was a lie? .,, ., , , was a lie? so obviously during the unfolding of _ was a lie? so obviously during the unfolding of everything that i unfolding of everything that happened in my term as minister i was asking lots of questions and probing. — was asking lots of questions and probing, seeking assurances and being _ probing, seeking assurances and being told about the investigations that they— being told about the investigations that they had undertaken into all of the prosecution is that it happened. and she _ the prosecution is that it happened. and she told me in categorical terms that ho— and she told me in categorical terms that no evidence had been and turned that no evidence had been and turned that had _ that no evidence had been and turned that had shown any of those prosecutions were unsafe in any way. and that _ prosecutions were unsafe in any way. and that if _ prosecutions were unsafe in any way. and that if anything did become discovered in the process of their investigations that would ever give any potential that any conviction might— any potential that any conviction might be — any potential that any conviction might be unsafe that they had an immediate duty to disclose that and they complied with that duty seriously. i took that as a categorical assurance to my face and also in writing in a letter that i publish — also in writing in a letter that i publish in _ also in writing in a letter that i publish in parliament in march 2015 and we _ publish in parliament in march 2015 and we now know from subsequent court _ and we now know from subsequent court cases — and we now know from subsequent court cases that that was not true. they— court cases that that was not true. they had _ court cases that that was not true. they had not been complying with their disclosure duty as they should have done — their disclosure duty as they should have done. and their disclosure duty as they should have done. �* , ., their disclosure duty as they should have done. �* ,, ., ., ~' their disclosure duty as they should have done. �* i. ., ., ~ . have done. and you looked at the second sight _ have done. and you looked at the second sight interim _ have done. and you looked at the second sight interim report i have done. and you looked at the second sight interim report in i have done. and you looked at the | second sight interim report in 2013 and gave this statement to the house of commons. the post office was proactive in identifying these problems and rectifying those problems so that no sub—postmaster was out of pocket. that is an entirely separate issue from the issues that were actually looked at in the report that had been raised through the jfsa and through second sight. and indeed that has found there are not any system wide issues, or indeed any softwar