quite a dramatic clown vista behind me. this is what we can expect tomorrow. there will be sunny spells, but also some big shower clouds, so a good chance of catching one or two downpours, may be a crack of thunder. but it's not going to be cold, actually relatively mild from the morning onwards. this was what we had today, a window of sunshine, but that clear sky is now giving way to this area of low pressure which is moving across ireland, the centre just approaching the coast there. rain for a just approaching the coast there. rainfora time just approaching the coast there. rain for a time for some of us overnight, certainly in northern ireland, northern england and southern parts of scotland. a few showers elsewhere, but also one or two clear spells, and mild. a bit colder in the north. wet across northern and eastern areas tomorrow rishi sunak�*s premiership.

mr sunak is trying to save his rwanda scheme ahead of a vote in the house of commons tomorrow. we'll talk to conservative mp sir geoffrey cox, a former attorney general, who supports the bill. also tonight: an exclusive report from newsnight discovers that elite afghan soldiers trained by the uk are facing imminent deportation back to taliban—controlled afghanistan. the afghans will say, well, you manage to mount a complex, comprehensive— manage to mount a complex, comprehensive enduring military o eration comprehensive enduring military operation into _ comprehensive enduring military operation into afghanistan, - comprehensive enduring military operation into afghanistan, so i comprehensive enduring military. operation into afghanistan, so the fact you cannot help us with this small thing of managing the

migration of maybe a couple of thousand, you are either guilty of incompetence or ill will. you can't have it both ways. the full report in a quarter of an hour. and as the prime minister spent the day giving evidence at the covid inquiry about his actions when he was chancellor, how did the decisions of the government fare in comparison to other countries? we will ask whether there really was a trade—off between lives and livelihoods. the chair of the public accounts committee is here to discuss how much value for money taxpayers got from furlough, all the business grants, the bounceback loans and more. good evening. like theresa may when she was pm during the various brexit battles, tonight another conservative prime minister finds themself wrangling with their own backbench mps to try and get a totemic piece of legislation through the commons. this time it's rishi sunak�*s emergency rwanda legislation. today, mps on the right of the conservative party, the european research group, said mr sunak�*s latest plan has

"a lot of holes" in it and the pm would do better to pull it and start again. others on the right, calling themselves the �*new conservatives', have warned that it "requires major surgery or replacement". meanwhile, mps who see themselves as moderates say they will support it as long as it doesn't go any further. you can see that mr sunak is under pressure from all sides. voters who want the boats stopped and who support the rwanda scheme might be forgiven for completely losing patience. this is, after all, the latest of many attempts to try to get planes taking off with asylum seekers on board. for those voters who don't support it, any chance to kill this scheme will probably be welcome. labour, we know, will vote against it, and tonight they say it's "time to end tory psychodrama". here's nick.

a prime minister on a mission, to stop the boats and steady his party. never mission impossible, but certainly mission difficult. and tomorrow, showdown in parliament. a first vote in emergency legislation to answer the supreme courtjudgment that the rwanda settlement plan is unlawful. from the tory right, pull the bill, because it does not go far enough. i'm not going to get into voting now. the bells and currently due to ring until 7pm tomorrow night. —— aren't currently due to ring. as you will rememberfrom the aren't currently due to ring. as you will remember from the battle for brexit, as i used to call it, often these voting decisions are taken relatively late in the day after negotiations aren't multifarious meetings. i think it is early for that now, but what we did do today is drop the government a very broad hint that because the bill has a lot of holes in it, in layman's english, they would be better to pull that legislation and come back with something which is fit for purpose. so that is not a vote, but it is a

very broad hint. from the tory left, yes to the bill, but don't move any further and risk breaking international law. the caps are one nation has always acknowledged what a hugely important ille-al acknowledged what a hugely important illegal and legal immigration is, and the — illegal and legal immigration is, and the reality is they built the prime — and the reality is they built the prime minister has put forward tests some _ prime minister has put forward tests some boundaries for members of groups— some boundaries for members of groups like the one nation, but holding — groups like the one nation, but holding our noses, the mood of the group _ holding our noses, the mood of the group is _ holding our noses, the mood of the group is very much to support it tomorrow — group is very much to support it tomorrow. the challenge, of course, comes_ tomorrow. the challenge, of course, comes when— tomorrow. the challenge, of course, comes when there are amendments that itii-i'it comes when there are amendments that might go— comes when there are amendments that might go furtherand comes when there are amendments that might go further and if we had gone as far_ might go further and if we had gone as far as— might go further and if we had gone as far as we — might go further and if we had gone as far as we can go, the challenge then— as far as we can go, the challenge then ieaves— as far as we can go, the challenge then leaves us with a decision to make _ then leaves us with a decision to make iater~ _ make later. a _ make later. a prominent brexit supporter sees make tater. — a prominent brexit supporter sees a smart government move. give all mps a chance to amend the bill.— a chance to amend the bill. everyone in the house — a chance to amend the bill. everyone in the house of _ a chance to amend the bill. everyone in the house of commons _ a chance to amend the bill. everyone in the house of commons would - in the house of commons would effectively be on that committee and effectively be on that committee and effectively have the chance to table an amendment to the bill and have it tested in the commons. it seems to me that's the best way to deal with the political divisions

created by the legislation itself. give everyone a chance to have their say, give everyone a vote on the issue, and then whatever people say, it will be the democratically expressed will of the elected parliament. there are a lot of nervous government ministers walking the corridors here right now after those warhorses of the brexit years said, put the bill to one side. hushed conversations in the corridors and lobbying by cabinet ministers of backbench conservative mps. all in all, rishi sunak knows he has an almighty challenge on his hands. caution from ministers. hello, nick. always a pleasure to see you. how are you? i have been in the middle east, and working on ukraine today, so i am afraid i have not spent very much time looking at this. is it looking difficult? this vote tomorrow, is it looking difficult? we have had the er g star chamber coming out saying, pull the bill. i don't know. let's wait and see, shaii— i don't know. let's wait and see, shall we? — i don't know. let's wait and see,

shall we?— i don't know. let's wait and see, shallwe? �* , , ., , ~ , shall we? but it seems to be arnis on the right _ shall we? but it seems to be arnis on the right and _ shall we? but it seems to be arnis on the right and on _ shall we? but it seems to be arnis on the right and on the _ shall we? but it seems to be arnis on the right and on the left. - shall we? but it seems to be arnis on the right and on the left. can i on the right and on the left. can rishi sunak pull this off? it on the right and on the left. can rishi sunak pull this off? it sounds to me if you _ rishi sunak pull this off? it sounds to me if you are — rishi sunak pull this off? it sounds to me if you are in _ rishi sunak pull this off? it sounds to me if you are in that _ rishi sunak pull this off? it sounds to me if you are in that middle - to me if you are in that middle ground, — to me if you are in that middle ground, you are in the right place, so let's— ground, you are in the right place, so let's see — ground, you are in the right place, so let's see-— so let's see. you are quite a rishi sunak loyalist. _ so let's see. you are quite a rishi sunak loyalist. it _ so let's see. you are quite a rishi sunak loyalist. it is _ so let's see. you are quite a rishi sunak loyalist. it is said - so let's see. you are quite a rishi sunak loyalist. it is said this - so let's see. you are quite a rishi sunak loyalist. it is said this is i sunak loyalist. it is said this is his most difficult call. i sunak loyalist. it is said this is his most difficult call.- sunak loyalist. it is said this is his most difficult call. i am not a lo alist his most difficult call. i am not a loyalist to _ his most difficult call. i am not a loyalist to the _ his most difficult call. i am not a loyalist to the extent _ his most difficult call. i am not a loyalist to the extent i _ his most difficult call. i am not a loyalist to the extent i believe i loyalist to the extent i believe that i— loyalist to the extent i believe that i support anything that richey does blindly, but to me, he strikes the middle — does blindly, but to me, he strikes the middle ground, which is the right— the middle ground, which is the right place. -- - right place. —— rishi. a commentator right place. — —— rishi. a commentator believes number 10 will experience a tough overnight wait. speaking to tory mps tonight, the sense i have got is that it is going to go down to the wire, and that is uncomfortable territory for a prime minister. if a bill were to fall at the second reading, the last time that happened was decades ago, and it would inevitably lead to questions about rishi sunak�*s authority, his grip on his party and what happens next. some mps say if he does lose it, they will be confidence letters. how he fares in

a confidence vote is a different issue. he should win it confidently, but it would be very difficult for the prime minister. therefore, i think whatever happens on that note, there are bumpy weeks and months ahead. countdown to a momentous day for rishi sunak. wounded or a survivor, a changed premiership from tomorrow. nick is in westminster. what is your sense of how the government are feeling tonight about this vote tomorrow? well, victoria, they are very twitchy, and you can see it in their eyes. there is one very simple reason for that. they have been caught on the hop by the strength of the feeling in the conservative right. you saw in my film that crucial meeting with the so—called star chamber of the european research group, basically concluding, put this to one side. the key person is bill cash, veteran brexiteer. he offered qualified support to rishi sunak at the 1922

committee, and they are all saying, we think we have got bill cash on board. it appears it is not quite like that. talking to leading figures in the right in the last few hours, they say the government's handling of this has been absolutely shambolic, and even if rishi sunak wins, it will be a pyrrhic victory, with travel being stored up in the future. on the one nation side, they are saying, we are actually more numerous than the european research group. it is being overblown. we think rishi sunak and win this. so if the government do when, what could the next flashpoint be? obviously, victoria, we don't know what is going to happen, but we must consider what happens if rishi sunak loses. that would be a devastating blow to his authority, and he would be in a perilous position. if he wins, how does he win? if he wins in a triumph, that is good for him. if he wins but is bloodied, that goes to the committee stage. as liam fox is saying, it looks like that will

be a committee of the whole house, and that will be plenty of opportunities for all sides to try and amend it. but remember, at that stage, you can only defeat the government from the government side if you win the support of the opposition parties. thank you very much, nick. we asked the government for an interview. as always, they declined. we asked various conservative mps in the various different groupings, but with nojoy. we will talk to conservative mp sir geoffrey cox, a former attorney general, veteran of the theresa may brexit votes, and he who supports the rwanda legislation. the scheme is open to significant levels of legal challenge, and could get bogged down with legal challenges, the flights would be scuppered. you cannot both be right.

well, i think this is a very strong bill, a very muscular assertion of parliamentary sovereignty. myself, i am surprised that my colleagues feel that it am surprised that my colleagues feel thatitis am surprised that my colleagues feel that it is so porous to legal challenge, because it seems to me that it has been drafted very tightly. there is a very narrow window for legal challenge. that window for legal challenge. that window itself is restricted by other provisions that mean that the serious harm that somebody would have to proved that they would have suffer in rewind it couldn't, for example, be based on differences in health care or economic prospects and so on. so i think it's about as far as you could go without risking the complete blockage and collapse of the bill. if we go further, we will have problems with the rwandan government. we will have problems in the house of lords. and we could quite easily have problems in the

courts. well, and that wording of the bill allowing people to appeal against removal if there is a risk of serious, irreversible harm, the er g's lawyers say that in practice will be much easier to overcome than the words might suggest, and that rishi sunak has suggested, for example, they say, through medical statements of mental health conditions which aren't easy to prove or disprove. you see, ijust don't buy that, as i said. what is missing from that analysis is that section four or cause four of this bill specifically invokes the previous migration act, which defines serious harm as excluding things like disparity in health care treatment. we would have to have compelling, highly cogent evidence that there was a real, imminent and serious risk. now, you

couldn't simply kabul together some psychiatric evidence and expect a court to agree that it passed that threshold. you are a former conservative attorney general. another former conservative attorney general, edward garnier, described the legislation is political and legal nonsense. a government bill declaring the one is like declaring all dogs are cats. —— declaring rwanda a safe country is like declaring all dogs are cats. i have an enormous respect for him, but don't agree with him on this issue. parliament is entirely entitled to conclude, after approving a treaty, and we have to remember, the bill refers to the new treaty, which addresses one by one many of the issues the supreme court found troubling, for example, legal aid, legal representation, independent monitoring committee with the right to take up individual complaints from asylum seekers in rwanda, a whole range of safeguards

that were not there at the time of the supreme court. so the facts have changed, and on the basis of those changed, and on the basis of those changed facts, i think it is perfectly legitimate for parliament to decide that it should deem rwanda to decide that it should deem rwanda to be, for the purposes of removal of chosen persons to rwanda, to be safe. that isn't to call black white, it is to recognise changed circumstances and facts. what do you say to those voters who are absolutely sick to the back teeth of tory infighting and simply want an early general election? well, i say on the first point of your question, i completely sympathise. it is really time that my conservative colleagues, all of us, realise that we are one team, and we must unite behind a sensible interpretation of how we implement this policy, and i believe this

bill, and i am not ruling out for a minute that there may be some valuable suggestions being made in the documents published today, those need to be looked at and can be in committee, but we must agree on the structure of the bill. this structure of the bill. this structure seems to me by no means namby—pamby when it comes to asserting parliamentary sovereignty. it seems to me to be a very good starting point. let's see what committee brings by way of amendments, but let's get it through second reading, let's show the public and the british people that we are moving forward on the plan to stop these boats, which are a corrosive, undermining of public trust and confidence in our entire immigration system. it needs to be addressed. this bill is at least the beginnings of doing it. have you got absolutely any faith that the conservative party is going to unite, when we have the erg, the

so—called common sense group, the caps and a one nation caucus... there is no chance of uniting. you have seen what your colleagues have said about this today. people say all kind of things in the heat of the moment. the conservative party is good at coming together when its back�*s against the wall. if we go on like this, of course we are going to switch off millions of people upon whose votes we will depend. division will be punished. and there can be nothing to be gained by perpetuating divisions over this bill. if gained by perpetuating divisions over this bill.— over this bill. if this rwanda bill is defeated. _ over this bill. if this rwanda bill is defeated, maybe _ over this bill. if this rwanda bill is defeated, maybe not - over this bill. if this rwanda bill. is defeated, maybe not tomorrow, over this bill. if this rwanda bill- is defeated, maybe not tomorrow, is it all over for rishi sunak? is defeated, maybe not tomorrow, is it all overfor rishi sunak? his. is defeated, maybe not tomorrow, is it all overfor rishi sunak? kiwi it all over for rishi sunak? no, i don't think— it all over for rishi sunak? no, i don't think so _ it all over for rishi sunak? no, i don't think so for _ it all over for rishi sunak? no, i don't think so for a _ it all over for rishi sunak? no, i don't think so for a moment. - it all over for rishi sunak? no, i don't think so for a moment. if. it all over for rishi sunak? no, i | don't think so for a moment. if it gets through second reading we can debate on amendments, it can get through second reading tomorrow, i think it will. the next question is what amends will come and there may

be ability to agree to certain of them. what we can't do is exclude them. what we can't do is exclude the courts altogether. if we do that, we will make rwanda withdraw from the agreement, it will be bogged down in the lords and it will unquestionably have challenges in the courts. by striking the balance that has been struck now it is more likely that we will succeed than not in my view. likely that we will succeed than not in my view— likely that we will succeed than not in m view. ., ., in my view. you were in government last time factions _ in my view. you were in government last time factions of _ in my view. you were in government last time factions of conservative . last time factions of conservative party were pulling in very different directions and stopping the government getting legislation through, that was over brexit and theresa may was the prime minister. here is a clip of when you were attorney general then and have a listen. ~ . ., , ., attorney general then and have a listen. ~ . ., , ., listen. what are you playing at? what are you — listen. what are you playing at? what are you doing? _ listen. what are you playing at? what are you doing? you - listen. what are you playing at? what are you doing? you are i listen. what are you playing at? | what are you doing? you are not childreh— what are you doing? you are not children in— what are you doing? you are not children in the playground. you are legislators — children in the playground. you are

legislators. fire children in the playground. you are leuislators. �* ., legislators. are some of your colleagues — legislators. are some of your colleagues behaving - legislators. are some of your colleagues behaving as - legislators. are some of your i colleagues behaving as children legislators. are some of your - colleagues behaving as children in the playground over this? his. colleagues behaving as children in the playground over this? ho. i the playground over this? no, i don't think— the playground over this? no, i don't think so. _ the playground over this? no, i don't think so. this _ the playground over this? no, i don't think so. this is _ the playground over this? no, i don't think so. this is a - the playground over this? no, i don't think so. this is a really l don't think so. this is a really fundamental issue to many millions of people. they are upset and they are distressed that after effort upon effort to what what is an abuse of our system we have not succeeded in doing so. if i didn't think this bill was the way forward, i have no reason to be here talking to you today. i think it is the beginnings of the way forward. we have to unite, understand my colleagues' frustration, impatience, ishare it. but this bill is the beginnings of the solution to the problem. we need to unite, improve it, but get it through. and at least we will be able to argue in the other place, in international fer forums there is a

real argument, international fer forums there is a realargument, real international fer forums there is a real argument, real pace that it complies with our international obligations, with reasonable access to courts and so much more likely that make it. if we carry out unrealistic amendments to the bill, blocking off and excluding courts, we will come up against a brick wall. parliament is part of a whole system, a constitutional system, it is the most important part, but it is the most important part, but it is not the only part. we must have a proper regard to that in considering how this legislation should move forward. . ~ how this legislation should move forward. ., ,, , ., how this legislation should move forward. . ~' , ., , how this legislation should move forward. ., ,, , . how this legislation should move forward. . ~ , . ., forward. thank you very much for bein: forward. thank you very much for being with _ forward. thank you very much for being with us- — an investigation by newsnight has discovered around 200 members of the afghan special forces, trained and funded by the uk, face imminent deportation back to taliban—controlled afghanistan.

the soldiers fled to pakistan, which now says it will expel afghan refugees. one former uk general has called it a "betrayal" and a "disgrace". back in 2021, then prime minster borisjohnson told parliament that the service of these afghan specialforces had been "incredily important", adding that the uk would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage for them". joe inwood has this exclusive report. on the dusty and dangerous frontlines of afghanistan, british forces relied on the support of their afghan allies. many of those men say they have been betrayed. translation: we are all so disappointed. we never thought that heroes would be abandoned. we worked shoulder to shoulder with the shared aim of bringing security for the people of helmand. how can people trust us in the future if we can't do - the simple thing of getting people who served with usj

out of harm's way? these were afghanistan's elite — commando force 333 and territorial force 444. initially set up to combat the spiraling opium trade, they eventually became the most effective counterinsurgency force in the country. we carried out thousands of operations to destroy the drugs trade. then, after 2007, when the taliban network started their activities, we carried out operations against them wherever they were. the triples, as they became known, had a fierce reputation. the triples were at the front end of the uk's supported counter—terrorism operation. they did the most dangerous, the most difficult, the most important missions, accompanied by british soldiers, and did many things that british

soldiers didn't do. one of the places they operated was helmand, where mohammed fahim served as a district governor. the british were responsible for our security in helmand.| we ran programs shoulder to shoulder, with the - shared aim of bringing security for the people who lived in helmand,j giving them a good - life and making peace. mohammed paid a heavy price for his involvement with the british. his brother and two cousins were killed by the taliban. in 2018, he was beaten so badly he spent nearly a month in hospital. and so when kabul fell, both ali and mohammed knew they would need to get out of the country. the triples were amongst the last standing, helping british passport holders at the baron hotel. while mohammed

gathered with friends. it was the worst 2a hours of my life. i feel scared just remembering it. i didn't cry when my brother was killed, but i cried a lot that night. neither ali nor muhammad made it onto the evacuation flights. instead, they fled to neighbouring countries, from where they assumed their work with the british meant they would be rescued. but they were wrong. both men applied to the uk's afghan relocation and assistance scheme called arap. it's run by the mod and is designed to help people who worked for or with british forces and government departments. both of them have been rejected more than once. i have been so disappointed. i served in different high ranking

positions and fulfilled my duties honestly. despite that, arap rejected my request twice. i respectfully request that the british authorities check my file. they have all my documents. i am in a terrible situation. ali was told that he had not been employed by or even worked with the british. according to the man who set up his unit, they didn't just work with the british, they were paid for by them. so we had one mission. we in british forcesm, british government, afghan and british government, we had one mission — fight insurgency. it was one mission and donor for this mission, the triples, were british, british government. it is crystal clear. so, 100% we worked together.

mohammed was also told he didn't meet any of the criteria, even the ones saying he had to have worked alongside a uk government department. it was really disappointing as we were told they would support their allies. i even had generals and ambassadors supporting my cause, but was rejected. and that support came in the form of this letter. now, this is a confidential document that we've been given a copy of, and it was sent by high ranking military and diplomatic figures to the foreign office. and it's calling for 32 named afghans who worked in helmand to be given sanctuary here in the uk, because of what it called their "tireless and courageous work". now, one of the people it names is mohammed fahim, and one of the signatories was sir richard barrons. so if you're going to object someone who was the governor—

of garmsir province during the time of the british service _ in afghanistan, it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies - the rubric of this i particular scheme. this is a man who is in injeopardy, who in my mind falls— under the commitment that we made to get those people out. _ and i haven't seen the evidence, i but rejection defies common sense. it is more than two years since they fled the taliban. and for both men, the clock is ticking. they are now in hiding in neighbouring countries, their visas expired, and they are far from the only ones. i've been told there are around 200 former members of the triples stuck in pakistan who've been denied help by the mod and facing imminent deportation. and they fear what will happen if they're sent back to afghanistan. we know of many former soldiers who were recognised and have disappeared, almost certainly killed. when iran and pakistan

deport people, the taliban have a list and our biometric data. i was governor in garmsir district when we arrested the famous taliban commander. he was in bagram prison for eight years, but now he is in the government. he knows that we were part of the operation when he was arrested. he is a cruel person. if they're sent back to afghanistan, the taliban will feel— that they have been handed back some of their most fierce opponents. - and the track record is they're eitherjailed or killed. - two years on and the taliban are now fully in control of afghanistan. some say it is not only the humiliation of the withdrawal which has dented britain's reputation. i'm100% sure that others went, other nations, other progressive forces, when they see afghanistan, when they look at afghan people, afghan miseries, how they can trust to the west?

the afghans will say, well, you managed to mount- a complex, comprehensive, enduring military operation into afghanistan. l | so the fact that you can't help us| with this small thing of managing the migration of maybe a couple |of thousand, well, you're either| guilty of incompetence, i or you're guilty of ill will. you can't have it both ways. the arap scheme is managed by the ministry of defence. in a statement they said: they also said nearly 25,000 afghans had been helped to the uk. but ali and muhammad are not amongst their number. as the pakistani authorities continue to crack down on afghans living there illegally, the triples are getting desperate.

we spend all our time waiting day and night checking our emails to receive a positive response from arap. this is our only option as there is no way we can return to afghanistan. if there was just 1% chance we would not stay here enduring all this humiliation and suffering. it is painful, it is sad. it shouldn't have turned out like this. but i will not forget how we looked after one another in remote villages with british and american soldiers we shared our blankets during the cold day. our commander put his blanket over my shoulders. it is sweet memory for me, but it makes what happened later so disappointing.

your important investigation was brought up in the house of commons today. yes, we published a version of this this morning, and soon after, we found there were a question has been tabled by the labour party, but questions came from all sides of the house. hopefully the clip is coming. i hopefully the clip is coming. i think we are going to hear some questions. bear with me. here we go. on the dusty and dangerous front lines of afghanistan... sorry, that is busy the wrong clip. i am so sorry. i am so sorry. i can reflect a couple of the questions. i can reflect a couple of the questions-— i can reflect a couple of the cuestions. ., , ., ., ., , questions. please do, apologies. there were _ questions. please do, apologies. there were some _ questions. please do, apologies. there were some from _ questions. please do, apologies. there were some from the - questions. please do, apologies. | there were some from the labour front bench, basically questioning the way in which the government has handled this, and how the... the measures they are taking on what they are assessing, because this is really what they are coming down to. are they assessing these cases on a case—by—case basis? from the conservative side as well, you had

people, many former soldiers there, people, many former soldiers there, people reflecting the genuine anger, i think. there was a sense of quiet fury you got from some of the backbenches about this, because are people, some members of parliament have served with them, and it is reflecting the fact, if in the exact quote was, if this wasn't so tragic, it would almost be funny. and so you are finding, i think, from both sides, realangerabout the are finding, i think, from both sides, real anger about the way this has been handled. for the government, it was the armed forces minister who was responding, and he was at pains to point out that as we heard in my report there, the government say they are helping afghans, but he was also keen to emphasise that really, there is a limit to the number of people they can help. of course, there have been debates around the net migration figures, and that was brought up, the total numbers here, and they say they are doing their best. one of

they are doing their best. one of the big challenges they have got is that you don't... they don't have, they say, the correct information, they say, the correct information, the correct records for all of these people, and they also suggested that some people are making claims which they can't really substantiate. so what will happen next? that is a very good question, and it is impossible to answer these things entirely, but what we can say is it felt like they were sort of a change in the mood today. this was something which has been raised before, but this isn't question, i think the debate that it brought on does feel like it might have started to shift the dial. i have been speaking to diplomatic and military sources, and i know there have been people pushing behind the scenes. there was a question to david cameron, lord cameron, the new foreign secretary, last week about this issue, they think will keep raising this. the government have said there is a limit to the number of people they can help, but supporters of these people, and they are silently furious about this, say

that exceptions need to be made, and they need to be brought to safety. thank you very much. i am told that was the technology, with the clips. sorry about that. rishi sunak was new in thejob of chancellor of the exchequer when the pandemic hit in 2020, and today he gave evidence to the covid inquiry. he was popular three years ago after coming up with furlough, which cost tens of billions of pounds and saved many people's livelihoods. in the august of 2020, he spent more public money enticing us all to go out more. eat out to help out was his scheme. since then, he's attempted to position himself as on the lockdown sceptic side within government. he's also said politicians have a responsibility to balance the need to protect public health, with protection of the economy. but is that framing sensible? or is it a false choice? here's ben. during the pandemic, did policy—makers face a trade—off between health and wealth, between saving lives and looking after livelihoods? here's what rishi sunak said today. there were a range of impacts,

many of them socio—economic, the impact on children's education, on mental health, on the issue in the criminaljustice system, as well as the pure economic impact. and it was important that policy—makers considered the totality of those. during the pandemic, a consensus emerged over time that there probably wasn't much of a trade off, that the best way to protect the economy and everything else was ultimately to lock down and concentrate on containing the virus. but what does the evidence today suggest? let's look at it through newsnight�*s global tracker lens. here's how the g7 economies did economically in the initial stages of the pandemic, between the end of 2019 and the middle of 2020. the uk took the biggest hit, with gdp falling by 22%. and here's the relative performance of the g7 in deaths per million. again, the uk seems to come out worst. 3,438 deaths per million people. put the two measures together and you have this — the uk in the top left — worst on deaths and also

worst on gdp performance. some attribute this double whammy to the uk's delay in locking down. and look at the downward sloping trend. you might look at this and conclude that countries that did better on reducing deaths also did better on protecting the economy, so there was indeed no trade off between the two. but we need to be careful aboutjumping to such strong conclusions from cross country statistical comparisons like this. first, because there is the uncertainty about how comparable the economic data is between countries. second, because the performance on deaths depends on many complex factors, such as the underlying health of the population and the state of the health service. not just the stringency and timing of lockdowns. but be careful too of that common argument that sweden, which didn't lock down, proves that lockdowns really do more harm than good. researchers have looked at sweden's performance on the economy and lives lost relative to other directly comparable scandinavian countries which did lock down and rejected that arguement.

this shows sweden — like the uk — with apparently the worst of both worlds and a bigger economic hit than its peer scandinavian economies of norway, denmark and finland and also a worse performance on deaths. despite the trenchant claims on both sides, the picture on lockdowns is nuanced. recent detailed work by researchers at the institute for new economic thinking, using data from new york, suggests the argument that lockdowns were entirely counter—productive is not justified. but they also argue that in hindsight there was a trade off between health and wealth and that blanket lockdowns might be have been a mistake. shutdowns could perhaps have been more focussed on customer—facing industries, rather than covering sectors like manufacturing and construction. and many other researchers argue that the decision to close schools looks very questionable. again, in hindsight, given what we know of the impacts on children's education. this isn't the final word of course, and there may never be a final word

on something so contentious and where the data is so open to different interpretations. but given this inquiry is meant to look at lessons learned, the hope is that we can do better if there is a next time. if we had had a more collaborative sort of approach to analysis, advice and policy—making, perhaps we could have identified those policies that control the virus with the minimal impact in a more effective way. perhaps any lesson learning needs to start with an appreciation of the inherent complexity of these kind of situations and the uncertainty about the data that informs them. as chair of the cross—party public accounts committee, labour's dame meg hillier has monitored the amounts of money spent by the government during covid when mr sunak was chancellor, to see if taxpayers were gettting value for money. it's a big question. why are they?

one thing we have been really clear about is because of the lack of preparation, and— about is because of the lack of preparation, and particularly with bounce back _ preparation, and particularly with bounce back loan schemes, - preparation, and particularly with| bounce back loan schemes, there preparation, and particularly with - bounce back loan schemes, there was not enough done to drive out the prospect of fraud. that was one lack of value for money, because that was money going to fraudsters, not to keep people in work or business is going. i will take a long time to crystallise, only 7 billion. we don't know what the figure will be. obviously, and we were very tolerant as a committee at the beginning, certainly things have to be done fast, but even at that early stage, we were looking at this from the summer of 2020, and there wasn't a real plan for how to balance these issues. although there had been some previous plans for dealing with pandemics, more recent plans had been reported as focused on health, not relating at the economy. always moving parts meant there were questions about particularly that, and that was one of our questions. the former chancellorjeremy hunt said this week it was ferociously determined to recover money obtained by fraud during covid. parliament

mandated the government to act fast. when you think about securing ppe, for example. and they mandated it to do it without tendering, because there was a global race to get hold of ppe. �* , ,., , there was a global race to get hold ofppe. ~ , , of ppe. absolutely. it is in the rules to do — of ppe. absolutely. it is in the rules to do things _ of ppe. absolutely. it is in the rules to do things like - of ppe. absolutely. it is in the rules to do things like that - of ppe. absolutely. it is in the - rules to do things like that without tendering in emergency situations. they didn't even have to change the law to do that. we give some credence is in credit only way, really, those early stages. even by the autumn of 2020, some of the same mistakes we had been highlighting and publishing reports on were still happening. that's things like the bounce back loans, 24—48 hours for a bank to agree alone. not surprisingly, banks and we went 100% government guarantee or will not do this, that's a long tail, because we still don't know whether those will be paid back. that is a tale from when they were first learnt. there is a lot of uncertainty about that level. some of that will be bad credit, not forward, so there are levels of overpayments that won't necessarily be down to egregious fraud, and the longer it goes on, the harder it is to get that fraud,

so furlough fraud, now, in many cases, will be difficult to pursue. in many industries, it is easier, but even now, it will be difficult to do that. in terms of the coben inquiry itself, this section has now finished, with the prime minister giving evidence today. you have written and flagged that the inquiry is expensive, in particular the amount of public money spent on lawyers and pr advice. the public accounts committee _ lawyers and pr advice. the public accounts committee hasn't - lawyers and pr advice. the public accounts committee hasn't done | lawyers and pr advice. the public. accounts committee hasn't done any work to look exactly at the inquiry, and of course, it is a judge led inquiry and needs to have its own spaces. it would be wrong for me to try and make a conclusion about where it is going and whether it itself is value for money at this point, because of is still part way through, but i think it's important to conclude there would have an inquiry that does this way, nothing is important to look at what happens in governments in these situations. going back to the committee have said, we were concerned when we look at the preparation for covid that the preparation had all been around health and that other things, and there was not a plan. and really, a

lot of people thought they would not be standing when the music stopped.