ppe during the pandemic. supplying ppe during the pandemic. in whenever anyone approached us, they were _ in whenever anyone approached us, they were always referred to an appropriate channel. let's go back in time, you said you could provide ppe for the government.— could provide ppe for the government. could provide ppe for the covernment. ~ ., . could provide ppe for the covernment. ~ . . ,. , government. we watched the scenes unfurl, we looked _ government. we watched the scenes unfurl, we looked at _ government. we watched the scenes unfurl, we looked at each _ government. we watched the scenes unfurl, we looked at each other- government. we watched the scenes unfurl, we looked at each other and| unfurl, we looked at each other and we thought— unfurl, we looked at each other and we thought we could make a difference, we had strong contacts. a big _ difference, we had strong contacts. a big business opportunity as well. that wasn't the primary motivation, and we _ that wasn't the primary motivation, and we wanted to do our best, like any supplier in any contract, yes, there _ any supplier in any contract, yes, there will— any supplier in any contract, yes, there will be an of

any supplier in any contract, yes, there will be an— there will be an of profit, our rima there will be an of profit, our primary motivation _ there will be an of profit, our primary motivation was - there will be an of profit, our primary motivation was to i there will be an of profit, our i primary motivation was to help. what did you dan —— what did you do then, michelle? there was a call to arms forall lords, baronesses, mps, senior civil servants to help because they needed massive quantities of ppe. given the fact that i've got 25 years manufacturing experience, that's one of the reason i was put into the house of lords. a brand experts, etc, etc. i looked at doug and i thought, "we can really, really help here." ijust know all the key players in the far east. and i made the call to michael gove. what did you say to him? ijust said, "we can help, and we want to help." he was like, "oh, my goodness, this is amazing." so we entered into discussions, ppe medpro, myself, i led the consortium,

i had two other partners. and companies in the uk. said to be really clear. — and companies in the uk. said to be really clear, ppe _ and companies in the uk. said to be really clear, ppe med _ and companies in the uk. said to be really clear, ppe med pro _ and companies in the uk. said to be really clear, ppe med pro didn't - really clear, ppe med pro didn't exist before the pandemic? know we've not exist before the pandemic? know we've got three — exist before the pandemic? know we've got three partners - exist before the pandemic? know we've got three partners with - exist before the pandemic? know we've got three partners with a vehicle — we've got three partners with a vehicle to — we've got three partners with a vehicle to trade. at the end of the day. _ vehicle to trade. at the end of the day, we _ vehicle to trade. at the end of the day, we weren't going to trade with a company— day, we weren't going to trade with a company out of hong kong, and the british— a company out of hong kong, and the british government would've preferred to always trade with the uk company, so we created ppe med pro as _ uk company, so we created ppe med pro as a _ uk company, so we created ppe med pro as a uk _ uk company, so we created ppe med pro as a uk business so that the three _ pro as a uk business so that the three partners could provide ppe to the british— three partners could provide ppe to the british government. but you had vip access. you had a cabinet minister on speed dial you could phone up and say, "i think i can make this happen, can you put me in touch with the right people?" yeah, well, that's what we were asked to do. but what i think the public think is we're trying to keep it a secret that i was involved. everyone in dhse, nhs, the cabinet office, the government knew of my involvement. they asked us to both declare our interest.

when you say that, though, he told the government, the government was aware. did you tell the house of lords authorities? i discussed that with the cabinet office and they said, "we just need you to put it in writing and declare your interest "with us, that's all." and mine as well. but the house of lords rules say that members have a clear duty to provide information which might reasonably be thought by others to influence their actions. because there is a question of perception here too. and in fact the rules also say that sometimes registration of a spouse or a partner's interests is also required. again, laura, i was only doing what i was asked to do.

as far as i was aware, if you are not a director, not a shareholder, not financially benefiting, then that is exactly what i did. if i was told by the cabinet office, "no, you actually need to do this," i would have done it straightaway. i am a business guy, so i think like an entrepreneur. i don't know the parliamentary rule book. they must have been satisfied in the end to have awarded the contracts. if they were not satisfied, they should never have awarded us the contracts. i live at the woman, i'm married to the woman — i live at the woman, i'm married to the woman. it's an unusual situation _ they must have been satisfied in the end to have awarded the contracts. if they were not satisfied, they should never have awarded us the contracts. they should have said, "there is a perceived conflict here."

we had no hesitation to declare our interest and we did that straightaway. the reason why i was helping out is that i was just shocked, you know, the pandemic and running out. but what is also clear is the parliamentary rules are clear that members of the house of lords or members of the house of commons, if they have a financial interest or a perceived conflict of interest, which you mentioned, doug, the responsibility is on them. it was on you to tell parliament. do you wish you had? if i knew i had to... the cabinet office advised me only to do this. you listen to the cabinet office there in contact with all the ministers, they are in contact with the house of lords, they are in contact with everyone, the cabinet office, and i was doing exactly as they asked me to deal.

by your own admission, though, and for the reasons you set out, you say you wanted to help, but you used your contact with government ministers to help broker a commercial deal for a company that was to bring tens and tens of millions of pounds of profit... yeah. ..for your husband, for yourfamily, and you didn't tell the authorities in parliament. to a lot of our viewers watching, that might sound like you were trading on your title and not following the rules, not declaring it all. no, no, absolutely not. i was just acting the same way as every other baroness, lord, who also put names forwards. there was lots of us. and how much were you paid and how much of it was profit? so that the first contract was to surrpty— so that the first contract was to supply masks, which the average price _ supply masks, which the average price was— supply masks, which the average price was being paid at that time was 51p— price was being paid at that time was 51p per mask, and our last for 38 and _ was 51p per mask, and our last for 38 and a _ was 51p per mask, and our last for 38 and a half e. it wasn't they were

also used _ 38 and a half e. it wasn't they were also used in — 38 and a half e. it wasn't they were also used in fully deployed in the nhs, _ also used in fully deployed in the nhs, and — also used in fully deployed in the nhs, and there was no issue whatsoever with that contract. off the hack— whatsoever with that contract. off the back of the credentials that had been established with the dhs ee, we successfully won a second contract to surrpty _ successfully won a second contract to supply 25 million sterile surgical— to supply 25 million sterile surgical gowns.— to supply 25 million sterile surgical gowns. to supply 25 million sterile sura ical owns. �* ., . surgical gowns. and how much were ou aid? surgical gowns. and how much were you paid? how _ surgical gowns. and how much were you paid? how much _ surgical gowns. and how much were you paid? how much was _ surgical gowns. and how much were you paid? how much was that - surgical gowns. and how much were you paid? how much was that of- you paid? how much was that of profit? so, the two contracts in total came to a value of £202 million. and medpro made a return on its investment of about, realistically, 30%. so, about £60 million? yeah, about that. toa to a lot of people watching, making a profit of £60 million during a national emergency, like a pandemic? sounds notjust like an enormous amount of cash, but also a bit like profiteering. well, ppe prices during the pandemic

went up five times and a lot of our competitors were charging, as i said before, on the gowns front, between £7 and £12 a gown. at the very start of the pandemic, the government paid, actually, numbers way in excess of that. we cut out most of the middle people and we dealt direct with the manufacturer. so, you say you saved the government a lot of money, but you also made a lot of money? nothing wrong with making money, but that is what happened, right? we made a good return for the risk involved, and the risk was considerable. but when it became public that you were connected to the company, we had to fund the working capital to fund _ we had to fund the working capital to fund these contracts at the manufacturer committee have to pay 50% upfront, so 202 million of contract — 50% upfront, so 202 million of contract is _ 50% upfront, so 202 million of contract is a lot of money. the government did not give us any deposits— government did not give us any deposits up front. at one stage in a contract, _ deposits up front. at one stage in a contract, they owed a £74 million. and i_ contract, they owed a £74 million. and i can — contract, they owed a £74 million. and i can assure you we were sweating, — and i can assure you we were sweating, because the government held

sweating, because the government hetd att— sweating, because the government held all the cards with the contracts. untilthey were held all the cards with the contracts. until they were happy with the — contracts. until they were happy with the outcomes and the products that we _ with the outcomes and the products that we had supplied, there was no guarantee — that we had supplied, there was no guarantee we would get paid, so it was absolutely extraordinary. but when it became public that you were connected to the company, you both denied it. why? i wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and i regret and i'm sorry for not saying straight out, "yes, i am involved." because dhse, the nhs, the cabinet office, they all knew of my involvement, but i didn't want the press intrusion for my family. my family have gone through hell with the media over my career and i didn't want another big hoo—ha in the press. it was more than just an error. you

told the journalist who wanted to support the truth told them you are not connected. he said you had no role or function not connected. he said you had no role orfunction in ppe med pro. even telling us today how hard you worked to get the contracts and make the contracts happen over a period of months, you said again and again that you had no connection, and your lawyers even said to some journalists that it would be —— over a period of months, you said again and again that you had no connection and your lawyers even said to some journalists it would be defamatory, they would be libelling you if they told the truth. you know, thisjust wasn't a slip—up. yeah. you didn't tell the truth for months on end. i think if we were to say of anything that we have done, we've done a lot of good, but if we were to say anything we have done that we are sorry for, and that is not to, we should have told the press straight up, straightaway, nothing to hide. and again, i'm sorry for that.

ididn't want i didn't want to be all over the front pages again for my family. i wasjust front pages again for my family. i was just protecting my family. but i wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. no—one. but that's exactly what you were trying to do. you had lawyers working for both of you telling people, telling the public that you had nothing to do with the company and saying it would have been a libel to suggest you were. but the dhs ee, the cabinet office, i wish they would come out and said, you know, we know of their involvement. that would've helped. yeah, it is something we regret doing and we listened to our advisers. what happened then to the money, the profit you have alluded to, around about £60 million? so, i led the consortium. at the end of the day, i am an isle of man resident, the money comes to the isle of man, that's fundamentally where i live, it goes on my tax return, and like all my sources of income

that i have generated over many years, it goes into trust for the benefit of my family. was any of it used to buy a yacht? no, no. used to buy a what, sorry? a yacht. a yacht? it's not my yacht, it's not my money. i don't have that money and my kids don't have that money and my children, my family have gone through so much pain because of the media, they have not got £29 million. this money from ppe medpro, as i understand it, went into two trusts. one of those trusts, the beneficiaries of that trust, where half of the profit went, are you and your children. yes. and doug's children too. for the benefit of all my family. i am his wife, so i am a beneficiary, as well as his children, as well as my children. you have said repeatedly you didn't financially benefit from this deal. my

my husband, if i die someday, my husband is in my will, my kids are in my will. that is what couples deal. you have said repeatedly you didn't financially benefit from this deal. except it is just a matter of time before you benefit. the trust is in your and your children's name. that is a financial benefit. this is exactly what i'm trying to clarify. benefit. this is exactly what i'm trying to clarify-— trying to clarify. let's tier like that clarify — trying to clarify. let's tier like that clarify that _ trying to clarify. let's tier like that clarify that the _ trying to clarify. let's tier like that clarify that the trust - trying to clarify. let's tier like that clarify that the trust to l that clarify that the trust to settted _ that clarify that the trust to settled in my name. it is my income, it is taxed on my tax return, and actually, if i die, one day in the future, she is going to directly benefit. ultimately, one day, i'm not going to he _ ultimately, one day, i'm not going to he on— ultimately, one day, i'm not going to be on the planet forever. someone is going _ to be on the planet forever. someone is going to _ to be on the planet forever. someone is going to benefit from a lifetime of business experience. ultimately, i'm going _ of business experience. ultimately, i'm going to generate profits, ultimately, michelle in some shape or form _ ultimately, michelle in some shape or form is— ultimately, michelle in some shape or form is going to indirectly benefit _ or form is going to indirectly benefit. if i die one day in the future, — benefit. if i die one day in the future, she will directly benefit. i think— future, she will directly benefit. i think as — future, she will directly benefit. i think as he — future, she will directly benefit. i

think as he just said, your family is benefiting. you will benefit as a family— as a family, you are benefiting from those tens of millions of pounds, whether it is today or in ten years, 20 years, 30 years, for most people watching this, you did a deal with the government to provide more than £200 million worth of ppe and your family has made tens of millions of pounds from it. no, my family hasn't, laura, made tens of millions of pounds. god forbid if my husband decides to divorce me after this show! not an option. and takes me out of his letter of wishes, i take my husband out of my will, if we, god forbid, get divorced, i don't benefit. it's my husband's money. it's his money. it's not my money, and it's not my children's money. michelle has no access to that money. michelle has no discretion over that money. unless i wanted to give everything away to strangers or to charity or whatever,

she was always going to benefit, and my family will benefit in due course. her family benefit, my family benefit. that's what you do when you're in the privileged position of making money. then why notjust say i stand to benefit one day rather than what you have chosen to do, which has repeatedly say, i'm not benefiting financially. you will one day. we're not talking here about someone getting a christmas bonus and saying, "oh, i'm not going to give it "to my wife now, i'm going to put it in the bank and surprise her later "on with a lovely family holiday," or "i'm going "to hold that money back "because maybe one day we might be able to save a deposit for a kids flat further down the line." sure. you've both admitted today that you will, in time, benefit financially from that cash. yourfamily, as a unit, will benefit from that cash. why didn't you just be more straightforward about it? i am being straightforward about it now, laura.

i'm saying to you that i didn't receive that cash. that cash is not my cash. that cash is my husband's cash. but do you admit... it'sjust like my mum and my dad going home with his wage packet on a friday night and giving it to my mum, so she's, you know, benefiting from that as well. but that cash is not my cash, it's not my children's cash, as the press and the attacks keep going on. do you admit today that, one day that money will come to you or your children?— or your children? maybe not, maybe not. i 'ust or your children? maybe not, maybe not- iiust said _ or your children? maybe not, maybe not. i just said it _ or your children? maybe not, maybe not. i just said it to _ or your children? maybe not, maybe not. ijust said it to you, _ or your children? maybe not, maybe not. i just said it to you, maybe - not. ijust said it to you, maybe not, god forbid, if we get divorced after that show. but not, god forbid, if we get divorced after that show.— after that show. but to be crystal clear, after that show. but to be crystal clear. this _ after that show. but to be crystal clear. this is _ after that show. but to be crystal clear, this is at _ after that show. but to be crystal clear, this is at the _ after that show. but to be crystal clear, this is at the heart - after that show. but to be crystal clear, this is at the heart of - after that show. but to be crystal clear, this is at the heart of it, i clear, this is at the heart of it, and i know you want to get the facts out there, we want to be completely crystal clear, do you admit today with the way that you've currently got your finances set up, that one day you and your children will benefit from that money? because you right now are listed

as the beneficiaries of that trust. if one day, if, god forbid, my husband passes away before me, then i am a beneficiary, as well as his children and my children. so, yes, of course. how would you describe the government's overall handling of trying to get ppe during that crisis, from what you saw? the reason why doug and i are sitting here is because we've been their scapegoats, five years of stock of ppe when it only has a shelf life of two years. and all i will say right now is why are we not holding them to account, the dhs ee? why is there no management system, stock system, integration system, running a proper

business, a department store, a brand, you know your stocks, you know it's on the boat coming in, you know it's on the boat coming in, you know it's on the boat coming in, you know it's on the shop floor. you know it's on the shop floor. you know what is in your warehouse. why do they not know where everything is lying in fields all over the country? a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money. the reason why doug and i are sitting here is because we've been their scapegoats, and they have destroyed our lives for over two years because it suited them, the narrative suits them to attack us the way they have done. and the pain that's caused on ourfamily, and over, i think the attacks, they go up all the time. all the masks were delivered to him them, they paid for them, they congratulate them on a quality as well. i congratulate them on a quality as well. .. , congratulate them on a quality as well. ~' , ., ., ., , well. i think they wanted to hold us u . well. i think they wanted to hold us u- as the well. i think they wanted to hold us up as the bonnie _ well. i think they wanted to hold us up as the bonnie and _ well. i think they wanted to hold us up as the bonnie and clyde - well. i think they wanted to hold us up as the bonnie and clyde of - well. i think they wanted to hold us up as the bonnie and clyde of ppe. up as the bonnie and clyde of ppe because _ up as the bonnie and clyde of ppe because it — up as the bonnie and clyde of ppe because it suited their narrative. they— because it suited their narrative. they had — because it suited their narrative. they had a — because it suited their narrative. they had a one—way ticket to push

that narrative because we have not fought— that narrative because we have not fought back in two years. you that narrative because we have not fought back in two years.— fought back in two years. you feel like their lives _ fought back in two years. you feel like their lives have _ fought back in two years. you feel like their lives have been - fought back in two years. you feel like their lives have been ruined i fought back in two years. you feel| like their lives have been ruined in the last couple of years.— the last couple of years. yeah, of course they _ the last couple of years. yeah, of course they have. _ the last couple of years. yeah, of course they have. of— the last couple of years. yeah, of course they have. of course - the last couple of years. yeah, of course they have. of course they | course they have. of course they have. i mean...— course they have. of course they have. i mean. . ._ and | course they have. of course they i have. i mean. . ._ and the have. i mean... destroyed. and the ain that have. i mean... destroyed. and the pain that it's — have. i mean... destroyed. and the pain that it's cause _ have. i mean... destroyed. and the pain that it's cause to _ have. i mean. .. destroyed. and the pain that it's cause to our— have. i mean... destroyed. and the pain that it's cause to our family i pain that its cause to our family and the attacks, they go up all the time. over 700 threats, you know, "i'm going to throw acid over you," "i'm going to burn your house down." and the hatred, we've been absolutely vilified.- and, you know, we've onlyjust... we've done that one thing, which was lie to the press, to say we weren't involved. no—one deserves this. so, doug, let's then take you to a time when, as far as you're concerned, contracts have happened, the deliveries have taken place. the department of health then gets in touch, says something's gone wrong. they try to claw back money.

tell us what then happened. the gowns were delivered in august of 2020 _ the gowns were delivered in august of 2020. actually, in october 2020, we had _ of 2020. actually, in october 2020, we had an— of 2020. actually, in october 2020, we had an inquiry from the government for another 2 million gallons, — government for another 2 million gallons, this time they asked us to double _ gallons, this time they asked us to double pack them, debbie hadn't specified — double pack them, debbie hadn't specified their preference. they wanted — specified their preference. they wanted them double bagged, 24 other uk suppliers all produced single bag gowns— uk suppliers all produced single bag gowns as _ uk suppliers all produced single bag gowns as well and have their gowns reiected _ gowns as well and have their gowns rejected as — gowns as well and have their gowns rejected as well. so, we have a situation — rejected as well. so, we have a situation where we had a number of mediations — our view is we supplied everything on time to specification and at competitive prices. any problems with contract specification where your fault. we get to november 2022, and i attend this negotiation, as opposed to a mediation, and this individual asked me, it was very clear that they were interested in settling, they want to sum of _ interested in settling, they want to sum of money that quite honestly,

you know. — sum of money that quite honestly, you know, we are not of a mind to pay _ you know, we are not of a mind to pay so _ you know, we are not of a mind to pay so i_ you know, we are not of a mind to pay. so i then have a separate meeting. _ pay. so i then have a separate meeting, and this individual asks me would i pay more for the other matter to go away? i was speechless. i didn't quite understand what he meant by that, because the only other matter on the table was the nca investigation, which had commenced, as far as we were aware, in april 2022. i was absolutely gobsmacked. i think it raises very serious questions _ i think it raises very serious questions as to what their official men's. _ questions as to what their official men's, what he was saying. i'm clear in my mind what he was saying. he was asking me if i would pay more money for the nca investigation to be called off. so you are clear in your mind that a senior government official suggested

that you hand over a lot of money to make a criminal investigation go away. make a criminal investigation go awa . , . , “ make a criminal investigation go awa . , “ ~ make a criminal investigation go awa. , ., away. the phrase," will you pay more for the away. the phrase,�* will you pay more for the other— away. the phrase," will you pay more for the other matter _ away. the phrase," will you pay more for the other matter to _ away. the phrase," will you pay more for the other matter to go _ away. the phrase," will you pay more for the other matter to go away? " i i for the other matter to go away? " i think— for the other matter to go away? " i think teaves — for the other matter to go away? " i think leaves very little doubt that was t _ think leaves very little doubt that was i holding back any money on the civil case _ was i holding back any money on the civil case when in fact i pay more for the _ civil case when in fact i pay more for the other matter to go away as wett~ _ that's an extraordinarily serious allegation to make. if that's what you believed was happening, why didn't you go to the police at that point? if you believed a senior government official was trying to bribe you to make a criminal investigation go away, why didn't you report it to the police then? i take the advice of my legal team, and the legal team, at that point in time, suggested that we park that one for now. what has the worst moment then for you? what has the worst moment then for ou? , , , �* , .

you? everything, i guess... i'm such a stron: you? everything, i guess... i'm such a strong one — you? everything, i guess... i'm such a strong one in. _ you? everything, i guess... i'm such a strong one in, but _ you? everything, i guess... i'm such a strong one in, but it _ you? everything, i guess... i'm such a strong one in, but it is _ a strong one in, but it is relentless. it's, as i said, it's over 800 days in the media every day. it's attacks, its threats, its social media, the kangaroo court that, you know, they all think we are guilty, guilty for what? just that, you know, they all think we are guilty, guilty for what?- are guilty, guilty for what? just a factual question _ are guilty, guilty for what? just a factual question to _ are guilty, guilty for what? just a factual question to you, - are guilty, guilty for what? just a factual question to you, doug, i are guilty, guilty for what? just a l factual question to you, doug, are you a person over significant control act ppe med —— med pro? what control act ppe med -- med pro? what i am is somebody— control act ppe med -- med pro? what i am is somebody who _ control act ppe med -- med pro? what i am is somebody who is _ control act ppe med -- med pro? what i am is somebody who is a _ i am is somebody who is a beneficiary of the trust that owned ppe med _ beneficiary of the trust that owned ppe med pro, so what that means is i suppose _ ppe med pro, so what that means is i suppose i'm _ ppe med pro, so what that means is i suppose i'm the ultimate beneficiary, but that is a technical question— beneficiary, but that is a technical question you would have to ask my accountants and family office people _ you've told us very candidly today, you led the consortium, you did the deal, and yet when you look up, at companies house, which is where everything

is meant to be registered in a normal way, you're nowhere to be seen. in... in terms of my appointments, they're all handled by the people in my family office, that's just normal practice and has been that way forever. i think some of our viewers, though, might feel there's a bit of a pattern. you know, at the beginning of this, the rules of the lords say that your interests should be declared. you didn't, because you say the cabinet office told you not to. when it first emerged that you were behind ppe medpro, you didn't tell the truth about that. doug, you led this consortium, you've made tens of millions of pounds out of it for your family, but your name's nowhere to be found on companies house when it comes to the business. and, michelle, you've said repeatedly you didn't benefit financially, except you've also admitted today that, in time, your families may well benefit from huge amounts of money. there's a pattern here of time and again

trying to hide what really happened. to think that's what some of our viewers might think? at to think that's what some of our viewers might think?— to think that's what some of our viewers might think? at the end of that they can _ viewers might think? at the end of that they can make _ viewers might think? at the end of that they can make and _ viewers might think? at the end of that they can make and speak- viewers might think? at the end of that they can make and speak for. that they can make and speak for nrysetf, _ that they can make and speak for myself, and that is i am a private person. _ myself, and that is i am a private person. i'm — myself, and that is i am a private person, i'm a private person, there is a reason — person, i'm a private person, there is a reason i — person, i'm a private person, there is a reason i live in the isle of man — i'm not here today to defend my record on why i am a private person and don't want anyone in the press to know of any business activity or anything i get engaged in. but, michelle, it does feel like the truth has had to be dragged out here. not really, laura... no? ..because the only thing i would say to you is the only error that i have made is to say to the press that i wasn't involved. asi as i said, dhs ee, the nhs, the emergency cabinet office, they knew of all of my involvement. they were calling me constantly. i was calling them. they were sending me e—mails constantly, over 1400 e—mails.

but you repeatedly didn't tell the truth. whether it's the money, whether it's your involvement, it sounds like, whether it's the money, whether it's your involvement, whether it's whether you had to tell parliament. it's a smoke screen. that's why we're here today, doing an interview... but do you see why people listening might feel that? that's why we're explaining to people. what do you hope that 2024 will bring for you, legally, for your reputations and for you personally? i don't honestly see there's a case to answer. i can't see what we've done wrong. doug and the consortium have simply delivered a contract, a delivery contract of goods. but after everything, you can't see what you've done wrong? when you've admitted today that you lied to the press... that's not a crime. ..and, by extension,

you lied to the public? saying to the press i'm not involved to protect my family, can ijust make this clear? it's not a crime. the press have got nothing to do with my family. i was protecting my family. and i think people will realise that, and the press attacks that i have gone through, since i walked into the house of lords... i was a very successful individual businesswoman, and since i walked into the house of lords, it's been a nightmare for my family. so, that's not a crime, to say to the press... ..to tell, you know, the press what i did. that's not a crime. doug barrowman, michelle mone, thank you so much for speaking to us today.

live from london. this is bbc news hungry palestinians loot aid trucks entering gaza through the rafah crossing, as israel opens another crossing for aid. the uk and germany issue a joint call for a "sustainable ceasefire" in gaza, but prime minister netanyahu insists israel will "fight to the end" to eliminate hamas. former conservative peer baroness mone admits she stands to benefit from £60 million of profit from personal protective equipment sold to the government during the pandemic. voting wraps up in serbia's snap elections, called after two mass shootings shook the ruling party's hold on power. and a site in the shetland islands has become the uk's first spaceport for vertical rocket launches. hello, i'm tanya beckett.