it really helps them — both in terms of cost, sustainability, maintenance, safety. 50 change is coming no matter which side of the debate golfers land. natalie pirks, bbc news. time for a look at the weather. here's simon king. we had some freezing fog in inverness airport, cold air is still in place, elsewhere rain is spreading in bed as it bumps into colder air in the north—east we see a bit of snow, particularly over higher ground, but through tonight there could be significant snow in central and northern scotland, more confined to the higher ground through the night as the rain spreads north and east, patchy into the early hours of tomorrow. frost free for many of us, we have not

seen that widely across the uk for quite awhile. any snow should clear away quickly and we robertjenrick was a close friend and ally of rishi sunak�*s — even he doesn't believe this new emergency legislation will work. we'll talk to a former conservative attorney general, labour's chair of the home affairs select committee, and a former conservative mep. also tonight... sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering.

an apology from boris johnson to relatives of those who died during the pandemic. at the covid inquiry he admitted both he and the scientists underestimated how fast covid was spreading. we should have twigged, we should collectively have twigged much sooner. we'll speak to michael rosen, who spent 42 days in a coma with covid, and was outside the inquiry this morning along with other protestors. also — us funding for ukraine is on the brink of collapse. what will that mean for president zelensky and president putin? hello. the emergency bill published by the government this evening to apparently get planes to rwanda taking off is �*a triumph of hope over experience�*, according to the man who quit as immigration minster tonight. in his resignation letter, robertjenrick said he couldn't take the legislation through the commons because he doesn't believe it will actually work — people arriving on boats will still be able to appeal against removal from the uk using domestic and foreign courts, he says.

you'll remember rishi sunak at the start of this year promised to �*stop the boats�* completely — and he later claimed he would do �*whatever it takes�*. mrjenrick clearly feels the pm didn�*t mean that last bit. on the front of the new bill, the home secretary james cleverly states he is unable to say whether it is compatible with human rights legislation. pretty similar to the sentiment printed on the front of the last bill which was going to stop the small boat arrivals and send people to rwanda. nick is here, there�*s a lot going on, what�*s happening? this nick is here, there's a lot going on, what's happening?- nick is here, there's a lot going on, what's happening? this is of course a personal— on, what's happening? this is of course a personal blow - on, what's happening? this is of course a personal blow to - on, what's happening? this is of course a personal blow to the i on, what's happening? this is of. course a personal blow to the prime minister because as you say, and robertjenrick were meant to be political allies. robertjenrick were meant to be politicalallies. it�*s robertjenrick were meant to be political allies. it�*s a political blow because robertjenrick was meant to be taking this emergency legislation through the house of commons. but it turns out that in the end cambridge wins out, that�*s because robertjenrick and suella braverman have been good friends

ever since they were at university together, and as we now know, they are on the same political planet. and just to get an idea of that, let us look at robertjenrick�*s resignation letter to the prime minister, and you can see there, he is saying, thank you for our discussions, you did move towards my position but then he says, i am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the commons as i do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success. and then look at this. the bill you�*re proposing a triumph of hope over experience. we wait a few hours and then we got the response from the prime minister, and some of the language in that, if we look at that letter, is pretty strong. it says, this bill is the toughest piece of illegal migration legislation ever put forward by the uk government and then it says, it makes clear that parliament deems rwanda safe, that answering one of the main points of the supreme court, and then it says it disapply is the relevant parts of the human rights act and makes clear it is for

ministers to decide whether or not to comply with any temporary injunctions issued by the european court of rights. that is saying, we are going to make it all but impossible to challenge you being removed to rwanda in the courts. then it goes on to say that the rwandan government wouldn�*t accept this if we went any further, so if we go down your route of the prime ministers saying, we wouldn�*t have a deal. ministers saying, we wouldn't have a deal. �* ., ., , , ., ., deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? _ deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? it's _ deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? it's the _ deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? it's the second i the legislation? it�*s the second reading next week, isn�*t it? i the legislation? it's the second reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally — reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of— reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of the _ reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of the prime _ reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of the prime minister. to one ally of the prime minister and they say this is a bad omen for rishi sunak. the right have been meeting tonight and their view is that this resignation means that robertjenrick can�*t vote for this bill, it means other people on the right convert for it, you only need 28 mp5 right convert for it, you only need 28 mps to rebel and the legislation will not get through. so what they think might happen, they don�*t know whether it will happen, it might happen, is that rishi sunak could, they think, turn it into a confidence vote, which is, if you vote down this you�*re effectively

voting down the government. they say, if he does that we will vote for it to keep the whip and then we will stick in no—confidence letters in the prime minister. will stick in no-confidence letters in the prime minister.— will stick in no-confidence letters in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank ou in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very _ in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. _ in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. there's - in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. there's a - in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. there's a lotj thank you very much. there�*s a lot to absorb there, a lot to ingest. we asked for an interview with the government, they declined. with robertjenrick and didn�*t get a repsonse. we also tried multiple conservative mps who might support the government�*s new emergency legislation, but so far without joy. we are on until 11:15, please dm me on twitter. let�*s speak to former conservative mp and former attorney general for england and wales from 2010 to 2014, dominc grieve, labour�*s dame diana johnson, she�*s chair of the home affairs select committee, and former conservative mep david campbell bannerman. right, let me start with you, mr campbell bannerman, a quote, as nick did there, rishi sunak�*s letter to mrjenrick, saying it�*s the toughest piece of anti—illegal migration

legislation ever, it deems rwanda safe and no court can disagree with that, and this applies parts of the human rights act, from your point of view and robertjenrick�*s point of view, what�*s wrong with that? it�*s view, what's wrong with that? it's what view, what's wrong with that? it�*s what robertjenrick view, what's wrong with that? it�*s what robert jenrick said, view, what's wrong with that? it�*s what robertjenrick said, the problem is it doesn�*t... this notwithstanding motion doesn�*t actually get us out of the european court of human rights legislation, and that is a big problem. and you know, the excuse is that rwanda doesn�*t, you know, won�*t allow this. rwanda is not in the council of europe, as far as i can see. so that is... , ., ., europe, as far as i can see. so that is... legislation... sorry to interruot. _ is... legislation... sorry to interrupt, but— is... legislation... sorry to interrupt, but the - is... legislation... sorry to i interrupt, but the legislation, is... legislation... sorry to - interrupt, but the legislation, i have read it, makes it clear that it�*s for ministers to decide whether or not to comply with any temporary injunction that might be issued with the european court of rights. i was at the erg last _ the european court of rights. i was at the erg last night, _ the european court of rights. i was at the erg last night, and - the european court of rights. i —" at the erg last night, and that was exactly what was discussed, but they do have this legal... the test is,

is it going to work? are we going to get flights to rwanda with immediate effect? and i think that is the ultimate test. and it doesn�*t look like it will work, i�*m afraid. and thatis like it will work, i�*m afraid. and that is very, very serious for the government. it is serious for rishi sunak especially. i government. it is serious for rishi sunak especially.— sunak especially. i will come back to that and _ sunak especially. i will come back to that and get — sunak especially. i will come back to that and get you _ sunak especially. i will come back to that and get you to _ sunak especially. i will come back to that and get you to describe i sunak especially. i will come back. to that and get you to describe what you mean by serious, but dominic grieve, let me come to you. the substance of mrjenrick�*s resignation letter is that individuals will still be able to make claims against being removed to both domestic and international courts, is he right? he both domestic and international courts, is he right?— courts, is he right? he is right it would be possible _ courts, is he right? he is right it would be possible for— courts, is he right? he is right it| would be possible for individuals courts, is he right? he is right it. would be possible for individuals to argue _ would be possible for individuals to argue that — would be possible for individuals to argue that even though rwanda is a safe country, there are exceptional circumstances mean they shouldn't be sent there _ circumstances mean they shouldn't be sent there. and it's also right that somebody will bring, undoubtedly, a challenge _ somebody will bring, undoubtedly, a challenge in our own supreme court, that in_ challenge in our own supreme court, that in fact _ challenge in our own supreme court, that in fact the bill is incompatible with our obligations under_ incompatible with our obligations under the european convention. both

those _ under the european convention. both those things will undoubtedly happen. and the irony is that the government may have a credible policy _ government may have a credible policy by — government may have a credible policy by having this treaty with rwanda — policy by having this treaty with rwanda but by trying to short cut and force — rwanda but by trying to short cut and force the courts not to consider it, i and force the courts not to consider it. ithink— and force the courts not to consider it. lthink it— and force the courts not to consider it, i think it greatly undermines any credibility it has to make this policy— any credibility it has to make this policy work. and just picking up david's — policy work. and just picking up david's point, the policy wouldn't work_ david's point, the policy wouldn't work if_ david's point, the policy wouldn't work if they adopted the route that he is advocating.— he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go _ he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along _ he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along with _ he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along with it. - he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along with it. rwanda | wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go _ wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along _ wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with _ wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with it, - wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with it, it i wouldn't go along with it, it would -et wouldn't go along with it, it would get through the house of lords who will undoubtedly reject it because they would be entitled to do it, because — they would be entitled to do it, because they would say that such a gross _ because they would say that such a gross violation of ordinary constitutional conventions —— it would — constitutional conventions —— it would not — constitutional conventions —— it would not get through the house of lords _ would not get through the house of lords foot— would not get through the house of lords foot of including ousting the course _ lords foot of including ousting the course of — lords foot of including ousting the course of administrative decisions. robert _ course of administrative decisions. robertjenrick will know course of administrative decisions. robert jenrick will know that. he ought to know that. he - robert jenrick will know that. he ought to know that. he will- robert jenrick will know that. he | ought to know that. he will know that so why _ ought to know that. he will know that so why hasn't _ ought to know that. he will know that so why hasn't he _ ought to know that. he will know that so why hasn't he resigned? l ought to know that. he will knowj that so why hasn't he resigned? i have no idea why he has resigned. i assume _ have no idea why he has resigned. i assume because he wanted, as was

clear— assume because he wanted, as was clear so— assume because he wanted, as was clear so braverman wanted, to use this bill— clear so braverman wanted, to use this bill as — clear so braverman wanted, to use this bill as an opportunity effectively to pull the uk out of the european convention. and of course _ the european convention. and of course that— the european convention. and of course that isn'tjust the european convention. and of course that isn't just about reputation, that's also about whether— reputation, that's also about whether we can stay in trade and cooperation agreement with the eu, it's about _ cooperation agreement with the eu, it's about the northern ireland good friday— it's about the northern ireland good friday belfast agreement, it's about our security and home affairs corporation with the eu and our participation in horizon, i think there _ participation in horizon, i think there is— participation in horizon, i think there is along this i could add to that _ there is along this i could add to that. , ., ., g ., that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided _ that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided the _ that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided the most _ that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided the most dramatic l minister avoided the most dramatic option, which would have been withdrawing from the european convention on human rights, you must be pleased with that? the home affairs select — be pleased with that? the home affairs select committee - be pleased with that? the home affairs select committee has i be pleased with that? the home i affairs select committee has never looked _ affairs select committee has never looked at _ affairs select committee has never looked at that _ affairs select committee has never looked at that. what _ affairs select committee has never looked at that. what we _ affairs select committee has never looked at that. what we were - affairs select committee has never looked at that. what we were sentl affairs select committee has never. looked at that. what we were sent to the governrnent— looked at that. what we were sent to the government was _ looked at that. what we were sent to the government was this _ looked at that. what we were sent to the government was this policy - looked at that. what we were sent to the government was this policy theyl the government was this policy they came _ the government was this policy they carne up— the government was this policy they came up with. — the government was this policy they came up with, which _ the government was this policy they came up with, which was _ the government was this policy they came up with, which was very- came up with, which was very headline _ came up with, which was very headline grabbing, _ came up with, which was very headline grabbing, was - came up with, which was very headline grabbing, was neverj headline grabbing, was never properly— headline grabbing, was never properly evidence—based i headline grabbing, was never properly evidence—based and | headline grabbing, was never. properly evidence—based and it headline grabbing, was never- properly evidence—based and it was never— properly evidence—based and it was never properly— properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. _ properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. and - properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. and i- properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. and i think i never properly costed. and i think what _ never properly costed. and i think what we _ never properly costed. and i think what we are — never properly costed. and i think what we are seeing _ never properly costed. and i think what we are seeing today - never properly costed. and i think what we are seeing today now, i never properly costed. and i think i what we are seeing today now, these announcements. _ what we are seeing today now, these announcements, this _ what we are seeing today now, these announcements, this legislation, i announcements, this legislation, emergency— announcements, this legislation, emergency legislation _ announcements, this legislation, emergency legislation going i announcements, this legislation, i emergency legislation going through the house, — emergency legislation going through the house, it— emergency legislation going through the house, it seems— emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to _ emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to me - emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to me this i

emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to me this is i the house, it seems to me this is kind of— the house, it seems to me this is kind of a — the house, it seems to me this is kind of a kneejerk reaction - the house, it seems to me this is kind of a kneejerk reaction whenl kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually— kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what _ kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what the _ kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what the home - kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what the home office i kind of a kneejerk reaction when i actually what the home office need to do is— actually what the home office need to do is look— actually what the home office need to do is look again _ actually what the home office need to do is look again at _ actually what the home office need to do is look again at a _ actually what the home office need to do is look again at a range - to do is look again at a range of options — to do is look again at a range of options to deal— to do is look again at a range of options to deal with _ to do is look again at a range of options to deal with the - to do is look again at a range of options to deal with the small. to do is look again at a range of- options to deal with the small boats problem _ options to deal with the small boats problem because _ options to deal with the small boats problem because we _ options to deal with the small boats problem because we are _ options to deal with the small boats problem because we are really i problem because we are really concerned _ problem because we are really concerned that _ problem because we are really concerned that there - problem because we are really concerned that there is - problem because we are really concerned that there is no i problem because we are really i concerned that there is no evidence of the _ concerned that there is no evidence of the deterrent _ concerned that there is no evidence of the deterrent effect _ concerned that there is no evidence of the deterrent effect of— concerned that there is no evidence of the deterrent effect of this - of the deterrent effect of this policy — of the deterrent effect of this policy. the _ of the deterrent effect of this policy. the permanent - of the deterrent effect of this i policy. the permanent secretary of the deterrent effect of this - policy. the permanent secretary at the home — policy. the permanent secretary at the home office _ policy. the permanent secretary at the home office refused _ policy. the permanent secretary at the home office refused to - policy. the permanent secretary at the home office refused to sign i policy. the permanent secretary ati the home office refused to sign this policy— the home office refused to sign this policy off— the home office refused to sign this policy off because _ the home office refused to sign this policy off because he _ the home office refused to sign this policy off because he could - the home office refused to sign this policy off because he could not i policy off because he could not guarantee _ policy off because he could not guarantee value _ policy off because he could not guarantee value for _ policy off because he could not guarantee value for money i policy off because he could not i guarantee value for money because there _ guarantee value for money because there was— guarantee value for money because there was no— guarantee value for money because there was no evidence _ guarantee value for money because there was no evidence of— guarantee value for money because there was no evidence of the - there was no evidence of the deterrent— there was no evidence of the deterrent effect. _ there was no evidence of the deterrent effect. find - there was no evidence of the deterrent effect.— there was no evidence of the deterrent effect. and in fact the then home _ deterrent effect. and in fact the then home secretary _ deterrent effect. and in fact the then home secretary suella i deterrent effect. and in fact the - then home secretary suella braverman wrote to your committee injanuary this year saying there was no evidence yet because litigation was, because it hasn�*t happened. david campbell bannerman, you said this is serious for rishi sunak, how serious? what do you mean? i think, ou know, serious? what do you mean? i think, you know. i— serious? what do you mean? i think, you know. i was _ serious? what do you mean? i think, you know, i was in _ serious? what do you mean? i think, you know, i was in the _ serious? what do you mean? i think, you know, i was in the commons i serious? what do you mean? i think, you know, i was in the commons last�* you know, i was in the commons last night and mp5 are basically looking at the rwanda bill as night and mps are basically looking at the rwanda bill as a trigger, you know, if this doesn't work then that is of no confidence will go in, as you report. and i think there will be a vote of no—confidence. —— letter is of no confidence will go in. even if rishi sunak wins that

vote i think it was to have to step aside because so many mps, the pills are so terrible, —20%, by—elections, worst ever by—election results in history... he will be forced to step aside. , . ., , history... he will be forced to step aside. , . . , . , aside. is that really credible? i mean, aside. is that really credible? i mean. are _ aside. is that really credible? i mean. are you _ aside. is that really credible? i mean, are you jang _ aside. is that really credible? i mean, are you jang telling - aside. is that really credible? i mean, are you jang telling me| aside. is that really credible? i - mean, are you jang telling me and mean, are you jang telling me and our audience tonight that there are credible politicians, tory politician suggesting there could possibly be another prime minister within the space of 12 months? —— aryou genuinely telling me? would it be the fourth? it aryou genuinely telling me? would it be the fourth?— be the fourth? it would be the fourth. i wouldn't _ be the fourth? it would be the fourth. i wouldn't have - be the fourth? it would be the fourth. i wouldn't have gotten | be the fourth? it would be the i fourth. i wouldn't have gotten rid of boris, he was elected in the first place... of boris, he was elected in the first place- - -— first place... too late for that, are ou first place... too late for that, are you saying...? _ first place... too late for that, are you saying. . . ? rishi - first place... too late for that, l are you saying. . . ? rishi sunak first place... too late for that, i are you saying. . . ? rishi sunak is such a doubt. — are you saying. . . ? rishi sunak is such a doubt, things _ are you saying. . . ? rishi sunak is such a doubt, things are - are you saying. . . ? rishi sunak is such a doubt, things are not - are you saying. . . ? rishi sunak is - such a doubt, things are not working out, even number ten knows its endgame now. —— rishi sunak is such a dud. if the conservative party wants to avoid annihilation, as suella braverman rightly put it, we've got to sort this out now. and

the real problem, actually, is our own voters, conservative voters have gone on strike, as we've seen in all these by—elections, and we have got to get back to real conservative policies and leadership. and i think thatis policies and leadership. and i think that is possible and we can still turn things around, boris did in six months, by the way, when he became leader. mr months, by the way, when he became leader. ~ ., , , months, by the way, when he became leader. ~ . , , ., leader. mr campbell bannerman said for the good — leader. mr campbell bannerman said for the good of _ leader. mr campbell bannerman said for the good of the _ leader. mr campbell bannerman said for the good of the conservative - for the good of the conservative party. dominic grieve, would it be good for the country for there to be another tory leadership contest and another tory leadership contest and a fourth conservative prime minister within 12 months?— within 12 months? well, hardly so that we are _ within 12 months? well, hardly so that we are facing _ within 12 months? well, hardly so that we are facing something - that we are facing something approaching is on the moment so on that i_ approaching is on the moment so on that i might — approaching is on the moment so on that i might perhaps agree with david _ that i might perhaps agree with david campbell bannerman but i agree with him _ david campbell bannerman but i agree with him that i don't see much prospect— with him that i don't see much prospect of this government recovering. it has, i'm afraid, been wrecked _ recovering. it has, i'm afraid, been wrecked hy— recovering. it has, i'm afraid, been wrecked by borisjohnson. that is where _ wrecked by borisjohnson. that is where the — wrecked by borisjohnson. that is where the destruction came from and it's been_ where the destruction came from and it's been impossible to put it back together— it's been impossible to put it back together again. at the idea that replacing — together again. at the idea that replacing rishi sunak with a new prime _ replacing rishi sunak with a new prime minister is going to save the conservative party from the destruction which i think it's

coming _ destruction which i think it's coming towards it, i think it is a complete — coming towards it, i think it is a complete fantasy. the reality is that it _ complete fantasy. the reality is that it ism _ complete fantasy. the reality is that it is... it is now seriously split— that it is... it is now seriously split ideological in a way that i've never_ split ideological in a way that i've never seen — split ideological in a way that i've never seen before.— split ideological in a way that i've never seen before. come on, what about other _ never seen before. come on, what about other brexit? _ never seen before. come on, what about other brexit? i _ never seen before. come on, what about other brexit? i mean, - never seen before. come on, what about other brexit? i mean, so - never seen before. come on, what i about other brexit? i mean, so many splits in the tory party... about other brexit? i mean, so many splits in the tory party. . ._ splits in the tory party... brexit is undoubtedly _ splits in the tory party... brexit is undoubtedly the _ splits in the tory party... brexit is undoubtedly the origin - splits in the tory party... brexit is undoubtedly the origin of - splits in the tory party... brexit| is undoubtedly the origin of this. but actually, the split has got much worse _ but actually, the split has got much worse because what we are now watching — worse because what we are now watching is split between people who believe _ watching is split between people who believe in _ watching is split between people who believe in the rule of law and people — believe in the rule of law and people who don't actually believe in the rule _ people who don't actually believe in the rule of— people who don't actually believe in the rule of law told the because the policy _ the rule of law told the because the policy being pursued by suella braverman and indeed robertjenrick is not _ braverman and indeed robertjenrick is not about the rule of law. it is in fact— is not about the rule of law. it is in fact about a form of parliamentary tyranny because it shows _ parliamentary tyranny because it shows complete disregard for individual rights and the way they've _ individual rights and the way they've approached this issue, and i recognise _ they've approached this issue, and i recognise it's a serious issue over migration, — recognise it's a serious issue over migration, and asylum seeking, but the way— migration, and asylum seeking, but the way they've approached it shows that really. — the way they've approached it shows that really, theyjust think the basic— that really, theyjust think the basic rule _ that really, theyjust think the basic rule book of how the united

kingdom — basic rule book of how the united kingdom should behave in its relation — kingdom should behave in its relation to its international obligations canjust be relation to its international obligations can just be turn relation to its international obligations canjust be turn up relation to its international obligations can just be turn up and there _ obligations can just be turn up and there are — obligations can just be turn up and there are no consequences that flow from this _ there are no consequences that flow from this. whereas there are in fact massive _ from this. whereas there are in fact massive consequences and the ultimate — massive consequences and the ultimate irony is, it won't work. diana _ ultimate irony is, it won't work. diana johnson, ultimate irony is, it won't work. dianajohnson, it ultimate irony is, it won't work. diana johnson, it wasn't that long ago, 2019, the conservative manifesto promised to bring down legal and illegal migration. doesn't the fact that this will now be the third piece of legislation to try to do what was promised in that manifesto, in which people voted for because they one an 80 seat majority, shows how difficult it is, and if you win the next election, it's not going to be as easy as you say it is? j it's not going to be as easy as you sa it is? ., it's not going to be as easy as you sa it is? . ,, ., ~ it's not going to be as easy as you sa itis? . ,, , ., say it is? i am speaking in behalf ofthe say it is? i am speaking in behalf of the home _ say it is? i am speaking in behalf of the home affairs _ say it is? i am speaking in behalf of the home affairs select - of the home affairs select committee _ of the home affairs select committee.— of the home affairs select committee. �* �* ., ., ~ i] committee. but you're a labour mp. i am a labour— committee. but you're a labour mp. i am a labour mp _ committee. but you're a labour mp. i am a labour mp but _ committee. but you're a labour mp. i am a labour mp but what _ committee. but you're a labour mp. i am a labour mp but what we - committee. but you're a labour mp. i am a labour mp but what we say - am a labour mp but what we say on the committee _ am a labour mp but what we say on the committee is _ am a labour mp but what we say on the committee is you _ am a labour mp but what we say on the committee is you need - am a labour mp but what we say on the committee is you need to - am a labour mp but what we say on the committee is you need to havel the committee is you need to have good _ the committee is you need to have good evidence—based _ the committee is you need to have good evidence—based policy, - the committee is you need to have good evidence—based policy, havel the committee is you need to havel good evidence—based policy, have a property— good evidence—based policy, have a property costed _ good evidence—based policy, have a property costed [_ good evidence-based policy, have a properly costed— properly costed. i think the home office... properly costed. i think the home office- -- the _ properly costed. i think the home office... the home office - properly costed. i think the home office... the home office at - properly costed. i think the home office... the home office at the i office... the home office at the moment. _ office... the home office at the moment. we — office... the home office at the moment, we have _ office... the home office at the moment, we have had - office... the home office at the moment, we have had five - office... the home office at the| moment, we have had five home secretaries — moment, we have had five home secretaries in _ moment, we have had five home secretaries in the _ moment, we have had five home secretaries in the last _ moment, we have had five home secretaries in the last couple - moment, we have had five home secretaries in the last couple of. secretaries in the last couple of

years. — secretaries in the last couple of years. numerous— secretaries in the last couple of years, numerous immigration. years, numerous immigration ministers, _ years, numerous immigration ministers, the _ years, numerous immigration ministers, the home - years, numerous immigration ministers, the home office i years, numerous immigration. ministers, the home office has allowed — ministers, the home office has allowed the _ ministers, the home office has allowed the backlog _ ministers, the home office has allowed the backlog of- ministers, the home office has allowed the backlog of asylum i allowed the backlog of asylum seekers — allowed the backlog of asylum seekers to _ allowed the backlog of asylum seekers to grow— allowed the backlog of asylum seekers to grow to _ allowed the backlog of asylum seekers to grow to over- allowed the backlog of asylum - seekers to grow to over 170,000, that organisation, _ seekers to grow to over 170,000, that organisation, that _ seekers to grow to over 170,000, that organisation, that body, - seekers to grow to over 170,000, that organisation, that body, the| that organisation, that body, the home _ that organisation, that body, the home office _ that organisation, that body, the home office, has— that organisation, that body, the home office, has got— that organisation, that body, the home office, has got serious- home office, has got serious problems— home office, has got serious problems in— home office, has got serious problems in being _ home office, has got serious problems in being able - home office, has got serious problems in being able to- home office, has got serious- problems in being able to deliver, whichever— problems in being able to deliver, whichever party— problems in being able to deliver, whichever party is _ problems in being able to deliver, whichever party is in _ problems in being able to deliver, j whichever party is in government, problems in being able to deliver, i whichever party is in government, to be honest _ whichever party is in government, to be honest. there _ whichever party is in government, to be honest. there is— whichever party is in government, to be honest. there is a _ whichever party is in government, to be honest. there is a fundamental. be honest. there is a fundamental problem. — be honest. there is a fundamental problem. it— be honest. there is a fundamental problem, it seems— be honest. there is a fundamental problem, it seems to _ be honest. there is a fundamental problem, it seems to me, - be honest. there is a fundamental problem, it seems to me, with - be honest. there is a fundamentalj problem, it seems to me, with the home _ problem, it seems to me, with the home office — problem, it seems to me, with the home office. we _ problem, it seems to me, with the home office. we had _ problem, it seems to me, with the home office. we had a _ problem, it seems to me, with the home office. we had a permanentj home office. we had a permanent secretary— home office. we had a permanent secretary in — home office. we had a permanent secretary in front _ home office. we had a permanent secretary in front of— home office. we had a permanent secretary in front of us _ home office. we had a permanent secretary in front of us last - home office. we had a permanent secretary in front of us last week. secretary in front of us last week who was— secretary in front of us last week who was unable _ secretary in front of us last week who was unable to _ secretary in front of us last week who was unable to give - secretary in front of us last week who was unable to give us - secretary in front of us last week who was unable to give us basicl who was unable to give us basic facts _ who was unable to give us basic facts and — who was unable to give us basic facts and figures _ who was unable to give us basic facts and figures about - who was unable to give us basic facts and figures about what - who was unable to give us basici facts and figures about what was going _ facts and figures about what was going on. — facts and figures about what was going on. for— facts and figures about what was going on, for instance, - facts and figures about what was going on, for instance, how- facts and figures about what wasl going on, for instance, how many children— going on, for instance, how many children have _ going on, for instance, how many children have gone _ going on, for instance, how many children have gone missing - going on, for instance, how many children have gone missing froml children have gone missing from hotels, — children have gone missing from hotels, unaccompanied - children have gone missing from hotels, unaccompanied asylum i children have gone missing from - hotels, unaccompanied asylum seeking children _ hotels, unaccompanied asylum seeking chitdren 1— hotels, unaccompanied asylum seeking children. he hotels, unaccompanied asylum seeking children.- he could _ hotels, unaccompanied asylum seeking children.- he could not - children. i saw it. he could not tell us how _ children. i saw it. he could not tell us how many _ children. i saw it. he could not tell us how many children - children. i saw it. he could notj tell us how many children have children. i saw it. he could not - tell us how many children have been found, _ tell us how many children have been found, it _ tell us how many children have been found, it is _ tell us how many children have been found, it is disgraceful, _ tell us how many children have been found, it is disgraceful, it's - tell us how many children have been found, it is disgraceful, it's not - found, it is disgraceful, it's not how— found, it is disgraceful, it's not how it — found, it is disgraceful, it's not how it would _ found, it is disgraceful, it's not how it would expect _ found, it is disgraceful, it's not how it would expect a - found, it is disgraceful, it's not how it would expect a senior i how it would expect a senior official— how it would expect a senior official in— how it would expect a senior official in the _ how it would expect a senior official in the civil _ how it would expect a senior official in the civil service - how it would expect a senior l official in the civil service to... from — official in the civil service to... from your— official in the civil service to... from your experience - official in the civil service to... from your experience on - official in the civil service to... from your experience on this. official in the civil service to... i from your experience on this site committee as its name whose party wants to be in government after the next election, have you evidence—based proposalfrom next election, have you evidence—based proposal from your own party? j evidence-based proposal from your own -a ? ~' ., evidence-based proposal from your own -a ? ~ ., ., evidence-based proposal from your owna ? «m, ., , . ., own party? i know the front bench of the labour party _ own party? i know the front bench of the labour party is _ own party? i know the front bench of the labour party is working - the labour party is working proposals _ the labour party is working proposals in _ the labour party is working proposals in all— the labour party is working proposals in all areas, - the labour party is working proposals in all areas, they the labour party is working - proposals in all areas, they want to be prepared — proposals in all areas, they want to

be prepared and _ proposals in all areas, they want to be prepared and they've _ proposals in all areas, they want to be prepared and they've got - proposals in all areas, they want to be prepared and they've got five i be prepared and they've got five missions— be prepared and they've got five missions that _ be prepared and they've got five missions that keir— be prepared and they've got five missions that keir starmer- be prepared and they've got five missions that keir starmer has i be prepared and they've got five . missions that keir starmer has set out clearly— missions that keir starmer has set out clearly to — missions that keir starmer has set out clearly to change _ missions that keir starmer has set out clearly to change this - missions that keir starmer has set out clearly to change this country, | out clearly to change this country, talking _ out clearly to change this country, talking about _ out clearly to change this country, talking about not _ out clearly to change this country, talking about not one _ out clearly to change this country, talking about not one term - out clearly to change this country, talking about not one term but. out clearly to change this country, i talking about not one term but two terms _ talking about not one term but two terms because _ talking about not one term but two terms because of— talking about not one term but two terms because of the _ talking about not one term but two terms because of the state - talking about not one term but two terms because of the state of- talking about not one term but two terms because of the state of the i terms because of the state of the country. — terms because of the state of the country. my— terms because of the state of the country, my constituents - terms because of the state of the country, my constituents tell - country, my constituents tell me every _ country, my constituents tell me every day — country, my constituents tell me every day when _ country, my constituents tell me every day when they _ country, my constituents tell me every day when they go - country, my constituents tell me every day when they go out, - country, my constituents tell me. every day when they go out, when country, my constituents tell me i every day when they go out, when i knock _ every day when they go out, when i knock on _ every day when they go out, when i knock on doors, _ every day when they go out, when i knock on doors, everything - every day when they go out, when i knock on doors, everything is - knock on doors, everything is broken. — knock on doors, everything is broken. you _ knock on doors, everything is broken, you can't— knock on doors, everything is broken, you can't get- knock on doors, everything is broken, you can't get to - knock on doors, everything is broken, you can't get to see. knock on doors, everything is - broken, you can't get to see your gp, can't— broken, you can't get to see your gp, can't find— broken, you can't get to see your gp, can't find train— broken, you can't get to see your gp, can't find train networks, - gp, can't find train networks, everything _ gp, can't find train networks, everything is _ gp, can't find train networks, everything is broken, - gp, can't find train networks, everything is broken, so - gp, can't find train networks, everything is broken, so it. gp, can't find train networks, i everything is broken, so it will gp, can't find train networks, - everything is broken, so it will be a huge _ everything is broken, so it will be a huge job— everything is broken, so it will be a huge job for— everything is broken, so it will be a huge job for whoever— everything is broken, so it will be a huge job for whoever forms - everything is broken, so it will be a huge job for whoever forms the j a huge job for whoever forms the next _ a huge job for whoever forms the next government. _ a huge job for whoever forms the next government.— a huge job for whoever forms the next government. thank you all very for cominu next government. thank you all very for coming in- _ next government. thank you all very for coming in- i— next government. thank you all very for coming in. i know _ next government. thank you all very for coming in. i know mr— next government. thank you all very for coming in. i know mr campbell . for coming in. i know mr campbell bannerman is staying with us because we are going to talk about boris johnson at the covid inquiry. before today, we've heard much evidence about how borisjohnson didn't take covid seriously enough early on, didn't understand the science, ran a toxic and dysfunctional government, couldn't make decisions, and when he did, he cldn't stick to them. today, for the first time, the former prime minister responded to those accusations. he remained for the most part calm, didn't make anyjokes, admitted he had underestimated the scale and pace of covid, that he should have �*twigged' how serious the virus was sooner, and that �*unquestionably

mistakes were made'. he stated that he took personal responsibility for those mistakes, and �*we did our level best�*, as well as apoloigising for the pain and suffering people endured. four protestors were removed from the hearing, with posters saying "the dead won't hear your apologies". he claimed too that all the way up to mid march 2020, his key scientific advisers were not pushing for a full lockdown. and he defended the lockdowns, saying he gave the arguments against locking down �*pretty short shrift�*. here's nick. good evening. the coronavirus is the biggest threat this country has faced for decades. at the helm during dark, alarming and confusing days. could you commence your evidence, please, by giving us your full name? alexander pfeffel borisjohnson. and now held to account by the inquiry he established, opening with an apology.

how sorry i am for the... the pain and the loss and the suffering. sit down. please, please stop. ..of the covid victims. please sit down! i'm sorry, if you don't sit down, i'm going to ask the ushers - to get you to leave. interrupted by a protest by relatives of victims. regaining his stride ahead of a grilling after weeks in which we heard the case against borisjohnson. "not the right skill set." "bamboozled by the science," "rolls around like a trolley," and, "presiding over a toxic culture" were some of the criticisms. today the defence, starting with contrition, a fulsome apology for describing long covid as bollocks. on the rows in number 10, johnson spoke of encouraging a disputatious culture in which people spoke their minds rather than acquiesced.

on whether he should have locked down earlier in march 2020. he was the man in the middle, facing calls for an early lockdown from some... warnings about the need to proceed with caution from others. ultimately, there was no other choice but to lockdown on the 23rd of march 2020. "not locking down then? "i gave that idea short shrift," he said. borisjohnson has spent hours preparing for today and tomorrow's evidence sessions for one very simple reason — he knows his reputation depends on showing that ultimately he acted in a responsible way during the pandemic. and of course, he's not given up on a political future. i was speaking to one of his close allies, a former cabinet minister who outlined a three year timetable to me. rishi sunak loses the election and stands down as conservative leader. a new leader comes in. they fail. and at that point, up goes the cry — "bring back boris." he didn't lose his cool at all.

he actually answered the questions in quite a sort of reasonable way. a whitehall observer saw an even—stevens performance. i think a lot of people willjust have whatever their prior impression was confirmed by borisjohnson. was he a bit lackadaisical? no, not perhaps as interested, he madee a lot of really quite unpleasant, casual comments and he did apologise for his dismissal of long covid. so i think if you didn't like borisjohnson going in, you won't have changed your mind and thought, "actually, i should forgive him." if you thought boris johnson actually has been a bit traduced reputation, you probably thought he actually put up a relatively reasonable job of defending himself. borisjohnson's biographer believes he will be pleased with his performance. i thought he was veryj

good at the beginning at looking chastened, - vulnerable, like a new boy who was worried that he was going l to be bullied at this new school. that he'd arrived at. by the end, he was he was he's very confident. - and he was explaining to the lawyers how the british system _ of government worked. but at the beginning, _ he knew that because the grieving families were there, - he'd absolutely got to show that he was extremely sorry. is this a good day in the fight against covid, prime minister? images that will define a premiership and a politician with an eye to the future fighting to change perceptions of his handling of that era. author michael rosen was outside the inquiry this morning supporting the protestors who gather each day. he had covid in 2020 and spent 47 days in a coma. and david campbell bannerman, former conservative mep and chairman

of the conservative democratic organisation. mr campbell bannerman, what do you take of mrjohnson's manor and words today? j take of mrjohnson's manor and words toda ? ~ , today? i think he did very well toda . it today? i think he did very well today- it was _ today? i think he did very well today. it was refreshing - today? i think he did very well today. it was refreshing that l today? i think he did very welll today. it was refreshing that he didn't try to blame everyone else as we have heard today from dominic cummings, officials and scientists all arguing amongst themselves. he was right to show contrition. it was an awful thing and he was very emotional at times, and genuinely so. you know, i do salute him for being so honest and open about what went on then and i think he has come out of it well. ok. went on then and i think he has come out of it well-— out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did ou think out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did you think mr— out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did you think mrjohnson _ out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did you think mrjohnson was - out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did you think mrjohnson was open l out of it well. ok. mr rosen, did i you think mrjohnson was open and honest and do you accept his apology? honest and do you accept his a 010: ? , honest and do you accept his a 010: ? . . honest and do you accept his aoloa ? ,. , _, apology? there is a misunderstanding of what an apology — apology? there is a misunderstanding

of what an apology is. _ apology? there is a misunderstanding of what an apology is. there - apology? there is a misunderstanding of what an apology is. there are - apology? there is a misunderstanding of what an apology is. there are two l of what an apology is. there are two ways of— of what an apology is. there are two ways of saying you are hurting, you can say— ways of saying you are hurting, you can say i_ ways of saying you are hurting, you can say i am — ways of saying you are hurting, you can say i am sorry you were hurting and you _ can say i am sorry you were hurting and you can — can say i am sorry you were hurting and you can say i am sorry i punched you _ and you can say i am sorry i punched you what _ and you can say i am sorry i punched you. what borisjohnson did was say i am sorry— you. what borisjohnson did was say i am sorry you are hurting. anybody can say— i am sorry you are hurting. anybody can say that — i am sorry you are hurting. anybody can say that. so he got away with it, can say that. so he got away with it. which— can say that. so he got away with it. which is— can say that. so he got away with it, which is what mrjohnson does. we can— it, which is what mrjohnson does. we can be — it, which is what mrjohnson does. we can be as chastened as we like but he _ we can be as chastened as we like but he doesn't take responsibility for the _ but he doesn't take responsibility for the actions he took, or more importantly, didn't take. what would ou have importantly, didn't take. what would you have wanted _ importantly, didn't take. what would you have wanted to _ importantly, didn't take. what would you have wanted to hear— importantly, didn't take. what would you have wanted to hear today? - importantly, didn't take. what would you have wanted to hear today? is i you have wanted to hear today? is there anything he could have said today that may have satisfied, in part, somebody like yourself? i would like to have seen him cross—examined about why it was he said those _ cross—examined about why it was he said those things about old people. namely, _ said those things about old people. namely, we have had a good innings and we _ namely, we have had a good innings and we have had our time anyway. does _ and we have had our time anyway. does that— and we have had our time anyway. does that mean, the likes of me and mr campbell bannerman, we are superfluous, we canjust be dissipated, got rid of? is that what he meant? — dissipated, got rid of? is that what he meant? iwould dissipated, got rid of? is that what he meant? i would like to know why this word _ he meant? i would like to know why this word herd immunity was played around _ this word herd immunity was played around with in the first part of

march — around with in the first part of march and ride that had some credence _ march and ride that had some credence when it is a complete nonsense. _ credence when it is a complete nonsense, herd immunity. we know what _ nonsense, herd immunity. we know what it— nonsense, herd immunity. we know what it is, _ nonsense, herd immunity. we know what it is, those of us who saw rabbits — what it is, those of us who saw rabbits dying by the side of the road with— rabbits dying by the side of the road with myxomatosis. he did say they exolained _ road with myxomatosis. he did say they explained it _ road with myxomatosis. he did say they explained it they _ road with myxomatosis. he did say they explained it they didn't - road with myxomatosis. he did say they explained it they didn't mean | they explained it they didn't mean herd immunity in the conventional way we would understand it. i don't understand — way we would understand it. i don't understand what _ way we would understand it. i don't understand what he _ way we would understand it. i don't understand what he means - way we would understand it. i don't understand what he means when i way we would understand it. i don't| understand what he means when he said we wouldn't understand it. it is all— said we wouldn't understand it. it is all obscure. we have not had any explanation — is all obscure. we have not had any explanation as to what they were playing _ explanation as to what they were playing with at that moment and when you marry— playing with at that moment and when you marry that up with getting rid of all— you marry that up with getting rid of all people, which is essentially what _ of all people, which is essentially what we — of all people, which is essentially what we were talking about, i shudder~ _ what we were talking about, i shudder. it reeks of eugenics to me. how do _ shudder. it reeks of eugenics to me. how do you — shudder. it reeks of eugenics to me. how do you respond to that, it reeks of eugenics? i how do you respond to that, it reeks of eugenics?— of eugenics? i have every sympathy with michael— of eugenics? i have every sympathy with michael and _ of eugenics? i have every sympathy with michael and those _ of eugenics? i have every sympathy with michael and those who - of eugenics? i have every sympathy with michael and those who did - with michael and those who did suffer, it was a terrible, terrible year. suffer, it was a terrible, terrible ear. ~ . suffer, it was a terrible, terrible ear, ~ ., ., suffer, it was a terrible, terrible ear. ~ . ., suffer, it was a terrible, terrible ear, ~ ., ., , year. what about the point he 'ust made about i year. what about the point he 'ust made about eugenics? * year. what about the point he 'ust made about eugenics? i i year. what about the point he 'ust made about eugenics? i don't i year. what about the point he just| made about eugenics? i don't think it was about _ made about eugenics? i don't think it was about eugenics _ made about eugenics? i don't think it was about eugenics at _

made about eugenics? i don't think it was about eugenics at all. - made about eugenics? i don't think it was about eugenics at all. there | it was about eugenics at all. there are some terrible choices, this is like a wall. the cost of covid is equivalent to as having fought a war. it overwhelmed governments all over the world. and donald trump paid a place and new zealand paid the price. it overwhelmed governments and we have to set it in context. what came out today, no one was taking it as seriously as they should have done, but we weren't prepared for it. jeremy hunt was health secretary for many years and i know he has shown some contrition as well. we were not preparing for the scale of this. we have had these things, we have had aids, we have had bird flu, threats and all of these... ., ., i. had bird flu, threats and all of these... ., ., ., , , these... how do you marry up the fact that these. .. how do you marry up the fact that mr— these... how do you marry up the fact that mrjohnson _ these... how do you marry up the fact that mrjohnson admitted - these... how do you marry up the fact that mrjohnson admitted he | these... how do you marry up the . fact that mrjohnson admitted he saw those _ fact that mrjohnson admitted he saw those pictures coming from italy, he already— those pictures coming from italy, he already said on february the 3rd in his greenwich speech he will set

against — his greenwich speech he will set against the idea of market segregation. in other words, against the idea of market segregation. in otherwords, he against the idea of market segregation. in other words, he was set against — segregation. in other words, he was set against the idea of the world health _ set against the idea of the world health organization of a public health— health organization of a public health policy. if you are against market — health policy. if you are against market segregation, that is what he meant _ market segregation, that is what he meant. what he didn't want to do was interfere _ meant. what he didn't want to do was interfere with the market in a way for dealing — interfere with the market in a way for dealing with covid. we never had anything _ for dealing with covid. we never had anything in _ for dealing with covid. we never had anything in place as far as test, trace _ anything in place as far as test, trace and — anything in place as far as test, trace and isolate and the ppe situation _ trace and isolate and the ppe situation was terrible. the world health _ situation was terrible. the world health organization was putting out these _ health organization was putting out these warnings and mrjohnson already— these warnings and mrjohnson already had seen these pictures coming — already had seen these pictures coming from italy, what did he think was going _ coming from italy, what did he think was going to happen? we had the cheltenham event, we had the liverpool— cheltenham event, we had the liverpool european game happening and the _ liverpool european game happening and the first advice towards old people. — and the first advice towards old people, supposedly, people who needed — people, supposedly, people who needed shielding wasn't until as i remember it, it was late march, at any rate _ remember it, it was late march, at an rate. . . remember it, it was late march, at an rate. , , ., , . any rate. hindsight is a perfect science, isn't _ any rate. hindsight is a perfect

science, isn't it? _ any rate. hindsight is a perfect science, isn't it? i— any rate. hindsight is a perfect science, isn't it? i am - any rate. hindsight is a perfect science, isn't it? i am afraid, l any rate. hindsight is a perfect i science, isn't it? i am afraid, we didn't know what it was, i know people who went to italy in december and they had this strange illness. and looking back, that was covid, probably december and january. brute probably december and january. we did know because we were reporting on what was going on, notjust in china, but places like spain, like italy? china, but places like spain, like ital ? ., ~ ., china, but places like spain, like ital? ., ~ ., ., ., ., , italy? you know, again, governments have to estimate _ italy? you know, again, governments have to estimate how— italy? you know, again, governments have to estimate how serious - italy? you know, again, governments have to estimate how serious it - italy? you know, again, governments have to estimate how serious it is - have to estimate how serious it is and the scale of it. we were all overwhelmed, frankly. it was an incredibly serious and far—flung thing. thank god borisjumped on the vaccine, let's not forget that. scientists and mrjohnson were having — scientists and mrjohnson were having ideas it wouldn't matter that much _ having ideas it wouldn't matter that much because it would only be old and sick— much because it would only be old and sick people who would die of it. it wasn't _ and sick people who would die of it. it wasn't true because of the viral load that— it wasn't true because of the viral load that when hit people, they knew straightaway that there were people, young _ straightaway that there were people, young people in healthjobs and there _

young people in healthjobs and there were transport workers, the moment— there were transport workers, the moment they hit the viral load they were dying — moment they hit the viral load they were dying at a rate very quickly, straight _ were dying at a rate very quickly, straight from the off. can were dying at a rate very quickly, straight from the off.— straight from the off. can i ask ou, straight from the off. can i ask you. you _ straight from the off. can i ask you. you were _ straight from the off. can i ask you, you were in _ straight from the off. can i ask you, you were in intensive - straight from the off. can i ask i you, you were in intensive care... 47, 48 days. you, you were in intensive care... 47. 48 days-— you, you were in intensive care... 47, 48 days. in a coma for most of that. 47, 48 days. in a coma for most of that- what — 47, 48 days. in a coma for most of that. what are _ 47, 48 days. in a coma for most of that. what are the _ 47, 48 days. in a coma for most of that. what are the physical - that. what are the physical consequences three years on, how are you? i consequences three years on, how are ou? . . . ., , you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of— you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of the _ you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of the site _ you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of the site in _ you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of the site in my - you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of the site in my left i you? i am ok, i am alive. i lost most of the site in my left eye, | most of the site in my left eye, most _ most of the site in my left eye, most of— most of the site in my left eye, most of the site in my left eye, most of the hearing in my left ear from _ most of the hearing in my left ear from microbe leads in my brain. and then i_ from microbe leads in my brain. and then i am _ from microbe leads in my brain. and then i am numb in my toes because people _ then i am numb in my toes because people don't understand, quite often, — people don't understand, quite often, some people don't understand that covid _ often, some people don't understand that covid can affect the vascular system, — that covid can affect the vascular system, so — that covid can affect the vascular system, so you get clotting and thicken — system, so you get clotting and thicken blood, and you get aneurysms. that is why people were dying _ aneurysms. that is why people were dying so— aneurysms. that is why people were dying so quickly because they were getting _ dying so quickly because they were getting heart attacks and strokes and also — getting heart attacks and strokes and also people forgetting covid toes, _ and also people forgetting covid toes, losing their toes, and also people forgetting covid toes, losing theirtoes, something like frostbite. people often think

it was— like frostbite. people often think it was a — like frostbite. people often think it was a respiratory illness, but it affected — it was a respiratory illness, but it affected the blood, in the most serious — affected the blood, in the most serious cases.— affected the blood, in the most serious cases. ., , ., , serious cases. how did you survive? i had incredible _ serious cases. how did you survive? i had incredible care, _ serious cases. how did you survive? i had incredible care, they— serious cases. how did you survive? i had incredible care, they gave i serious cases. how did you survive? i had incredible care, they gave me| i had incredible care, they gave me this intensive care treatment, to switch _ this intensive care treatment, to switch off— this intensive care treatment, to switch off your body, force air into so you _ switch off your body, force air into so you are — switch off your body, force air into so you are not even making the effort _ so you are not even making the effort of — so you are not even making the effort of breathing and hoping your body will _ effort of breathing and hoping your body will do the job. just before i went— body will do the job. just before i went under, the doctor said to me, will i _ went under, the doctor said to me, will i sign _ went under, the doctor said to me, will i sign a — went under, the doctor said to me, will i sign a piece of paper to let them _ will i sign a piece of paper to let them put — will i sign a piece of paper to let them put me to sleep. i said, will i wake _ them put me to sleep. i said, will i wake up? — them put me to sleep. i said, will i wake up? he— them put me to sleep. i said, will i wake up? he said, you have a 50—50 chance _ wake up? he said, you have a 50—50 chance and — wake up? he said, you have a 50—50 chance. and they said, if i don't sign? _ chance. and they said, if i don't sign? he— chance. and they said, if i don't sign? he said zero. sol chance. and they said, if i don't sign? he said zero. so i sign. they are quite _ sign? he said zero. so i sign. they are quite blunt, doctors. around about— are quite blunt, doctors. around about 20 — are quite blunt, doctors. around about 20 days they were getting worried — about 20 days they were getting worried because this i was blown, still is, _ worried because this i was blown, still is, the — worried because this i was blown, still is, the people doesn't really dilate _ still is, the people doesn't really dilate properly. they were concerned iwouldn't _ dilate properly. they were concerned i wouldn't wake up. it was only my

wife coming — i wouldn't wake up. it was only my wife coming in, iwas i wouldn't wake up. it was only my wife coming in, i was wheeled out onto the _ wife coming in, i was wheeled out onto the fourth floor atrium and she held my— onto the fourth floor atrium and she held my hand and played recordings of our— held my hand and played recordings of our kids— held my hand and played recordings of our kids in my ear and apparently i waved _ of our kids in my ear and apparently i waved my— of our kids in my ear and apparently i waved my arm of our kids in my ear and apparently lwaved my arm in of our kids in my ear and apparently i waved my arm in the air and pretendingl i waved my arm in the air and pretending i know what i did, but i don't _ pretending i know what i did, but i don't remember. and according to professor— don't remember. and according to professor hugh montgomery, the consultant, when they pushed me back into the _ consultant, when they pushed me back into the lift. _ consultant, when they pushed me back into the lift, i didn't stop talking _ into the lift, i didn't stop talking. there is a big surprise. i'm quite — talking. there is a big surprise. i'm quite glad you didn't stop talking at that point. thank you both gentlemen, thanks for being with is and amazing medics. thank you. us presidentjoe biden's plan for a massive aid bill for ukraine, with the white house warning funds to help the war torn country is in serious trouble tonight. as we came on air it failed a vote in the us senate. republicans are insisting the deal, which includes 61 billion dollars for ukraine, is tied to sweeping us immigration and asylum reforms. in a televised message to lawmakers today president biden had said he was "willing to make significant

compromises on the border". here's mark. how big a problem is this blocking of funds when it comes to ukraine? it's pretty important, as you know, this type of funding to buy weapons, essentially, and keep the ukrainian military going was supposed to go through in october. it was blocked in the house of representatives, where the republicans do have a small majority, and tonight the administration tried to get through administration tried to get through a sort of clearing motion through the senate, but it also failed to get the super majority there. most people think nothing is going to go through this side of christmas. so that means several months' delight weapons and other sustainment for the ukrainian campaign. —— delay to weapons. there is also a move that the viktor orban of hungary to slow things down on the european funding,

he is planning to table that next week at the summit in brussels. the european funding looks a bit more secure but still, a lot of people now in europe are beginning to worry about that as well, so quite a serious issue for ukraine. what is the reaction in _ serious issue for ukraine. what is the reaction in kyiv? we - serious issue for ukraine. what is i the reaction in kyiv? we are seeing uuite a the reaction in kyiv? we are seeing quite a lot of— quite a lot of recriminations breaking out of a type of fairly tough political argument that was suspended, really, during the war. vitali klitschko, the mayor of kyiv, condemning president zelensky today, his predecessor likewise. we are also seen lots of signs of difference between president zelensky and the military commander general solution, all suggesting quite a lot of friction and blame game going on, people blaming president zelensky for not making a briefing to those us congressmen, for some reason he didn't do that yesterday, he was expected to. so there's quite a lot of political tension now as a consequence of this in ukraine. n. ~ tension now as a consequence of this in ukraine. ~ ., ~ , tension now as a consequence of this in ukraine. ~ . ~ , . live to kyiv and melinda haring,

who is an expert on ukraine and a senior fellow at the atlantic council's eurasia center. thank you for talking to us. is this going to go through? is this brinkmanship now, is it going to go through eventually, what do you say? i think you might be unmuted. i am so sorry, can you hear me now. —— i think you might be on mute. so sorry, can you hear me now. -- i think you might be on mute. vladimir putin aot think you might be on mute. vladimir putin got what _ think you might be on mute. vladimir putin got what he _ think you might be on mute. vladimir putin got what he wanted _ think you might be on mute. vladimir putin got what he wanted for- putin got what he wanted for christmas today. it looks like the aid bill will not go through in the next two weeks and it may go through in january. there next two weeks and it may go through injanuary. there are enough votes to put the bill through the house of representatives but all of the ukrainian aid is stuck now in america's domestic politics, and it's not an easy way out, that's the reality. it's not an easy way out, that's the reali . , ., it's not an easy way out, that's the reali . ,., , .. .., reality. ok, so the practical indications _ reality. ok, so the practical indications for _ reality. ok, so the practical indications for ukraine, i reality. ok, so the practical indications for ukraine, you reality. ok, so the practical- indications for ukraine, you have said, obviously, it's a great christmas present for president

putin, what does it mean for ukraine?— putin, what does it mean for ukraine? ., ., , , putin, what does it mean for ukraine? , , , ukraine? the mood in kyiv is very dark, it's ukraine? the mood in kyiv is very dark. it's very _ ukraine? the mood in kyiv is very dark, it's very cold _ ukraine? the mood in kyiv is very dark, it's very cold physically i ukraine? the mood in kyiv is very dark, it's very cold physically but| dark, it's very cold physically but people's spirits, i think, are very diminished by what's happening in the us. it means the war will be prolonged and human suffering will be prolonged. so more people will die and the war will continue. it means more people will lose limbs, more children will have to tolerate separation as parents are fighting, there are 6 million ukrainians in europe and they will have to stay in europe and they will have to stay in europe until it is safe and secure for people to come back home. who; europe until it is safe and secure for people to come back home. why do ou sa it for people to come back home. why do you say it will — for people to come back home. why do you say it will prolong _ for people to come back home. why do you say it will prolong the _ for people to come back home. why do you say it will prolong the war? - for people to come back home. why do you say it will prolong the war? so i you say it will prolong the war? for ukrainians are you say it will prolong the war? 6r ukrainians are not going to give up. they will continue to fight. but the sooner that ukraine gets the weapons it needs, the sooner it can end this war foot up so if you continue to string out the assistance that ukraine needs, it's going to make it more difficult for ukraine to retake its territory.

more difficult for ukraine to retake its territory-— its territory. ok. so, you still feel that _ its territory. ok. so, you still feel that come _ its territory. ok. so, you still feel that come 2024, - its territory. ok. so, you still feel that come 2024, this i its territory. ok. so, you still- feel that come 2024, this package will cross the line as long asjoe biden compromises with the reforms when it comes to the border? yes. victoria, when it comes to the border? yes. victoria. i — when it comes to the border? yes. victoria. i am _ when it comes to the border? yes. victoria, i am confident _ when it comes to the border? yes. victoria, i am confident this - victoria, i am confident this bill will pass, so that is the good news. when you do the maths and look at the members of congress who support ukraine, the bill passes. the problem is that the majority leader of the house will not bring it to the floor. and even senator mitch mcconnell, someone who has been very strong on ukraine, is now digging his feet in and saying president biden, you've got to reform the southern border. this has become, ukraine has become a partisan issue. it's not a good sign because this is probably the last big assistance package for ukraine before our next presidential elections so for ukraine it's now or never, it really has to pass. and the united states is the big leader on military assistance. so, yes, many other countries give including britain, but what we do, others will follow,

so it is imperative that this passes. and it's notjust military assistance, it's also humanitarian assistance, it's also humanitarian assistance and economic assistance. and this economic assistance is what keeps ukraine from not becoming afghanistan. ukraine is not a failed state. it is paying its pensions on time, its hospitals are open, its railway works, everything is still working, its banking system works, and that is because of the economic assistance the us and eu have provided. assistance the us and eu have rovided. . ~ assistance the us and eu have rovided. ., ~ , ., , . provided. thank you very much. thanks for— provided. thank you very much. thanks for being _ provided. thank you very much. thanks for being with _ provided. thank you very much. thanks for being with us. i well, as president biden attempts to shore up support for ukraine, this programme has seen satellite imagery that reveals a new russian naval base could be under development at a port in a russian occupied region of georgia. plans to build the base on the black sea coast of abkhazia, which has been under russian control since 2008, were confirmed after their naval fleet was attacked by the ukrainian army earlier this year. there are now concerns that russia's plan to further militarise the black sea region could drag georgia into russia's war with ukraine.

the bbc�*s rayhan demytrie reports. this is where russia plans to establish another naval base on the black sea. it is in abkhazia, georgia's separatist region backed by russia. bbc verify and newsnight analysed satellite imagery indicating dredging and new buildings. the port is dual use as a coal terminal and as a russian coastguard facility. the latest construction has taken place since russia's invasion of ukraine. we see that there are some changes for sure here. we see that the access has been widened, which makes sense from russia's point of view, because they want to expand this port. russia's black sea fleet is under pressure. ukraine claims to have destroyed or damaged as many as 27 russian naval vessels, including warships. the base in abkhazia is almost 400

miles from crimea, a potential refuge for russia's beleaguered navy. but it also presents a new security threat in the black sea region. back in 2014, when vladimir putin annexed crimea, such a threat to russia's black sea fleet would have been unthinkable. black sea plays a fundamental role in putin's thinking, in how he views russia's dominance within the region. and of course this would mean that russia will not only have this base, it will use this base to attack ukraine. i think if russia needs and it is within its interests to drag georgia into this war, they will do it. just south of russian—controlled abkhazia lies the georgian town of anaklia. there were once big plans for this city but these are turbulent times. georgians worry that russia's plan to establish a naval base just a few

kilometres from here will bring the russian ukrainian war too close to home, and that it will threaten this country's aspirations to become a major trade and logistics hub between china and the west. georgia started building a deep sea port here in anaklia in 2017 with western investors. if completed it would have dramatically increased trade between asia and europe through the so called middle corridor, avoiding russia. the kremlin claimed us navy submarines would dock here. in 2020, georgia's government cancelled the contract. the case has gone to international arbitration. mamuka khazaradze, who led the project, has gone into politics. it is the biggest, biggest problem you have with this government, because they are serving russian interests. because anaklia is not in the russian interest to be built. and proof of it, you see that in 20km of from anaklia,