just one pound in five has been paid out in financial redress to postmasters wrongfully accused of theft and fraud — is it time the post office is completely removed from delivering compensation? disarray at the top of the post office — in full view at a hearing in front of mps today. the main scandal remains the snails pace of redress for postmasters. we'll talk live to this post office manager wrongfully accused of stealing

£78,000 and jailed for six months, and this mp who's on the horizon compensation advisory board. also tonight. labour mp margaret hodge tells us she's written to the metropolitan police and the electoral commission to ask them to investigate whether the conservative party broke electoral law in taking £200,000 from the partner of a prominent donor. the chancellor said he wanted to get older workers off the golf course and back into employment — but why have they really opted out of the workforce? in a dramatic hearing today, current and former post office bosses traded claim and counter claim at a business select committee session involving the man who was sacked as post office chairman just over a week ago, and the current chief executive. that was the backdrop to testimony from subpostmasters describing how their lives had been ruined by wrongful accusations and convictions from the post office; and a familiar story of how difficult

it is for them to get financial redress: it is bureaucratic, unsympathetic and suspicious. after everything we've learned about how postmasters were treated, postmasters told mps today they are still essentially not being believed about the impact the horizon it scandal has had on their economic, social and emotional well being. and we learned that some are getting twelve hundred pounds of legal advice to help fill out forms for compensation — while other paid—for lawyers pore over the forms in order to pick holes in theirfigures. extraordinary. let's talk to vijay parekh, falsely accused of stealing over £70,000 and who spent six months in prison after his barrister advised him to plead guilty. and labour mp kevan jones, who supported victims of the post office scandal for several years and is on the horizon compensation advisory board. vijay, thank you for being with us.

how much of your life do you think you have lost because of the scandal? �* ,., you have lost because of the scandal? �* ' ~ you have lost because of the scandal? ~ v, ., , ., scandal? about 16 years from the day i have been — scandal? about 16 years from the day i have been convicted _ scandal? about 16 years from the day i have been convicted until _ scandal? about 16 years from the day i have been convicted until now. - scandal? about 16 years from the day i have been convicted until now. hasl i have been convicted until now. has it affected your whole family? very i it affected your whole family? very badl . i it affected your whole family? very badly- i grew— it affected your whole family? very badly- i grew up — it affected your whole family? very badly. i grew up in _ it affected your whole family? very badly. i grew up in an _ it affected your whole family? - badly. i grew up in an area and we lived there for 15 years and everybody at that time knew i was found guilty of stealing. what found guilty of stealing. what im act found guilty of stealing. what impact does _ found guilty of stealing. what impact does that _ found guilty of stealing. what impact does that had - found guilty of stealing. what impact does that had new? i found guilty of stealing. what. impact does that had new? we found guilty of stealing. what - impact does that had new? we had move out of— impact does that had new? we had move out of the _ impact does that had new? we had move out of the area _ impact does that had new? we had move out of the area and _ impact does that had new? we had move out of the area and a - impact does that had new? we had move out of the area and a really l move out of the area and a really bad impact on the whole family. fix, bad impact on the whole family. a lot of the testimony today was about how long it is taking to get financial redress. you have received some compensation. it is not enough. yet, to make up for what you have us. is it possible to put a figure

on how much this is because she financially and emotionally quiz the other how do you put to figure in 16 years of loss?— years of loss? financially or repeatedly- _ years of loss? financially or repeatedly. because you . years of loss? financially or l repeatedly. because you have years of loss? financially or - repeatedly. because you have lost the business, your dignity in the community as well as the area you were in. and also the family has lost that same pride as what we were living in the area. you lost that same pride as what we were living in the area.— living in the area. you said to me before we — living in the area. you said to me before we came _ living in the area. you said to me before we came on _ living in the area. you said to me before we came on air— living in the area. you said to me before we came on air that - living in the area. you said to me before we came on air that you . living in the area. you said to me . before we came on air that you don't think you would still be here if it wasn't for the support of your family. wasn't for the support of your famil . ., , wasn't for the support of your famil. . , , , wasn't for the support of your famil. . , ,, , family. that is true because my family. that is true because my family were _ family. that is true because my family were my _ family. that is true because my family were my backbone - family. that is true because my family were my backbone at. family. that is true because my| family were my backbone at the family. that is true because my - family were my backbone at the time, otherwise being in prison for the first three months was hectic and trying to go to sleep when you are crying out of your mind why this has happened. i still can't get the right answers from anyone. even now? even now.

right answers from anyone. even now? even now- nick. _ right answers from anyone. even now? even now. nick, that— right answers from anyone. even now? even now. nick, that hearing _ right answers from anyone. even now? even now. nick, that hearing today - even now. nick, that hearing today was re even now. nick, that hearing today was pretty dramatic, _ even now. nick, that hearing today was pretty dramatic, took- even now. nick, that hearing today was pretty dramatic, took us - even now. nick, that hearing today was pretty dramatic, took us with. | was pretty dramatic, took us with. it was quite a moment. henry staunton— it was quite a moment. henry staunton directly challenged one of the reasons he was sacked as chairman— the reasons he was sacked as chairman of the post office, that was the — chairman of the post office, that was the claim made in the commons last week_ was the claim made in the commons last week by the business secretary kemi badenoch that he was facing a bullying _ kemi badenoch that he was facing a bullying claim. today henry staunton told mp5 _ bullying claim. today henry staunton told mps essentially you are looking in the _ told mps essentially you are looking in the wrong place, you need to look at nick_ in the wrong place, you need to look at nick read — in the wrong place, you need to look at nick read the chief executive of the post _ at nick read the chief executive of the post office. letters into this exchange — the post office. letters into this exchange between mr staunton and the conservative mp jonathan gullis. conservative mp jonathan gullis. you are currently — conservative mpjonathan gullis. you are currently under investigation for allegations _ are currently under investigation for allegations you _ are currently under investigation for allegations you claim - are currently under investigation for allegations you claim is - are currently under investigation for allegations you claim is an i are currently under investigationl for allegations you claim is an 80 page _ for allegations you claim is an 80 page document, _ for allegations you claim is an 80 page document, is _ for allegations you claim is an 80 page document, is your- for allegations you claim is an 80 - page document, is your understanding of mr reid _ page document, is your understanding of mr reid is— page document, is your understanding of mr reid is also _ page document, is your understanding of mr reid is also under— of mr reid is also under investigation? - of mr reid is also under investigation?— of mr reid is also under investigation? indeed. this investigation _ investigation? indeed. this investigation is _ investigation? indeed. this investigation is primarily i investigation? indeed. this. investigation is primarily into investigation? indeed. this- investigation is primarily into nick reade and the 80 page dossier. that reade and the 80 page dossier. at the moment we have yourself as the former_ the moment we have yourself as the former chairman _ the moment we have yourself as the former chairman who— the moment we have yourself as the former chairman who is _ the moment we have yourself as the former chairman who is a _ the moment we have yourself as the former chairman who is a current - former chairman who is a current chairman— former chairman who is a current chairman being _ former chairman who is a current chairman being investigated - former chairman who is a current chairman being investigated andi former chairman who is a current. chairman being investigated and we now have _ chairman being investigated and we now have the — chairman being investigated and we

now have the ceo _ chairman being investigated and we now have the ceo allegedly- chairman being investigated and we now have the ceo allegedly now - chairman being investigated and we i now have the ceo allegedly now under investigation _ now have the ceo allegedly now under investigation as — now have the ceo allegedly now under investigation as well. _ now have the ceo allegedly now under investigation as well. i _ now have the ceo allegedly now under investigation as well. i was _ now have the ceo allegedly now under investigation as well. i was not - investigation as well. i was not expecting _ investigation as well. i was not expecting that _ investigation as well. i was not expecting that answer. - investigation as well. i was not expecting that answer. wasn't that made lain expecting that answer. wasn't that made plain to _ expecting that answer. wasn't that made plain to you? _ expecting that answer. wasn't that made plain to you? the first - expecting that answer. wasn't that made plain to you? the first thing | expecting that answer. wasn't that| made plain to you? the first thing i have heard — made plain to you? the first thing i have heard of _ made plain to you? the first thing i have heard of mr _ made plain to you? the first thing i have heard of mr reid's _ made plain to you? the first thing i have heard of mr reid's legit - have heard of mr reid's legit investigation, _ have heard of mr reid's legit investigation, but _ have heard of mr reid's legit investigation, but obviouslyl have heard of mr reid's legit i investigation, but obviously you have heard of mr reid's legit - investigation, but obviously you are claiming _ investigation, but obviously you are claiming that— investigation, but obviously you are claiming that and _ investigation, but obviously you are claiming that and i— investigation, but obviously you are claiming that and i will— investigation, but obviously you are claiming that and i will probably - claiming that and i will probably let the — claiming that and i will probably let the chair, _ claiming that and i will probably let the chair, but _ claiming that and i will probably let the chair, but cannot - claiming that and i will probably let the chair, but cannot want . let the chair, but cannot want because — let the chair, but cannot want because he _ let the chair, but cannot want because he has— let the chair, but cannot want because he has been- let the chair, but cannot want because he has been here - let the chair, but cannot want. because he has been here longer let the chair, but cannot want - because he has been here longer than me. ., because he has been here longer than me. . ., , �* ., ., me. that doesn't mean i am less sure. me. that doesn't mean i am less sure- what _ me. that doesn't mean i am less sure. what was _ me. that doesn't mean i am less sure. what was going _ me. that doesn't mean i am less sure. what was going on - me. that doesn't mean i am less sure. what was going on there? | me. that doesn't mean i am less - sure. what was going on there? that 80 -a~e sure. what was going on there? that 80 page document — sure. what was going on there? that 80 page document refers _ sure. what was going on there? that 80 page document refers to - sure. what was going on there? that 80 page document refers to claims l 80 page document refers to claims that nick— 80 page document refers to claims that nick reade is facing from an hr director~ _ that nick reade is facing from an hr director. mr staunton did say that the document contains a brief claim that he _ the document contains a brief claim that he said something politically incorrect — that he said something politically incorrect. he denies that. he held up incorrect. he denies that. he held up one _ incorrect. he denies that. he held up one page of the document and said that in— up one page of the document and said that in that _ up one page of the document and said that in that document somewhere is a claim _ that in that document somewhere is a claim that _ that in that document somewhere is a claim that mr reid had wanted to resign— claim that mr reid had wanted to resign because he was not happy with his pay _ resign because he was not happy with his pay ih— resign because he was not happy with his pay. in the last minute of his evidence — his pay. in the last minute of his evidence which was before the lunch break. _ evidence which was before the lunch break, before mr thompson, evidence which was before the lunch break, before mrthompson, mr evidence which was before the lunch break, before mr thompson, mr reid had been _ break, before mr thompson, mr reid had been asked by the committee chair— had been asked by the committee chair liam — had been asked by the committee chair liam byrne whether he had ever

tried to _ chair liam byrne whether he had ever tried to resign. mr reid said no and said he _ tried to resign. mr reid said no and said he wanted to stay to get justice — said he wanted to stay to get justice for supposed matters. what is the post office _ justice for supposed matters. what is the post office saying _ justice for supposed matters. twat is the post office saying tight? confirmation tonight that nick reade among _ confirmation tonight that nick reade among others is subject to a complaint. the post office is saying mr reade _ complaint. the post office is saying mr reade is cooperating. let's look at the _ mr reade is cooperating. let's look at the langton statement from bed to itself as _ at the langton statement from bed to itself as a _ at the langton statement from bed to itself as a senior independent director— itself as a senior independent director of the post office board and he _ director of the post office board and he said nick reade has at times felt the _ and he said nick reade has at times felt the weight of post office's iocai— felt the weight of post office's local history on his shoulders. it is no _ local history on his shoulders. it is no surprise and it is entirely appropriate... kevanjones, kevan jones, what did kevanjones, what did you make of some of the evidence today? kevan jones, what did you make of some of the evidence today? that was mind blowing- — some of the evidence today? that was mind blowing. no _ some of the evidence today? that was mind blowing. no one _ some of the evidence today? that was mind blowing. no one knew— some of the evidence today? that was mind blowing. no one knew nick- some of the evidence today? that was l mind blowing. no one knew nick reade was under— mind blowing. no one knew nick reade was under investigation. _ mind blowing. no one knew nick reade was under investigation. the _ was under investigation. the business _ was under investigation. the business secretary- was under investigation. the business secretary told - was under investigation. the business secretary told the i was under investigation. the - business secretary told the house last week— business secretary told the house last week that _ business secretary told the house last week that the _ business secretary told the house last week that the reason - business secretary told the house last week that the reason she - business secretary told the house i last week that the reason she sacked henry— last week that the reason she sacked henry staunton — last week that the reason she sacked henry staunton was _ last week that the reason she sacked henry staunton was the _ last week that the reason she sacked henry staunton was the fact - last week that the reason she sacked henry staunton was the fact that - last week that the reason she sacked henry staunton was the fact that he i henry staunton was the fact that he was being _ henry staunton was the fact that he was being investigated. _ henry staunton was the fact that he was being investigated. she - was being investigated. she conveniently forgot- was being investigated. she

conveniently forgot to - was being investigated. she conveniently forgot to tell. was being investigated. shel conveniently forgot to tell us was being investigated. she - conveniently forgot to tell us that the man— conveniently forgot to tell us that the man in— conveniently forgot to tell us that the man in charge _ conveniently forgot to tell us that the man in charge nick— conveniently forgot to tell us that the man in charge nick reade - conveniently forgot to tell us that l the man in charge nick reade was under— the man in charge nick reade was under investigation _ the man in charge nick reade was under investigation and _ the man in charge nick reade was under investigation and mr- the man in charge nick reade was under investigation and mr readel under investigation and mr reade today— under investigation and mr reade today didn't — under investigation and mr reade today didn't tell— under investigation and mr reade today didn't tell the _ under investigation and mr reade today didn't tell the committee i under investigation and mr reade . today didn't tell the committee that he was _ today didn't tell the committee that he was under— today didn't tell the committee that he was under investigation. - today didn't tell the committee that he was under investigation. they i today didn't tell the committee that i he was under investigation. they now need to— he was under investigation. they now need to come — he was under investigation. they now need to come clean _ he was under investigation. they now need to come clean on— he was under investigation. they now need to come clean on this _ need to come clean on this exactly what _ need to come clean on this exactly what those — need to come clean on this exactly what those allegations _ need to come clean on this exactly what those allegations are - need to come clean on this exactly what those allegations are and - need to come clean on this exactly what those allegations are and i. what those allegations are and i think— what those allegations are and i think most— what those allegations are and i think most people _ what those allegations are and i think most people have - what those allegations are and i think most people have got- what those allegations are and ii think most people have got little faith and — think most people have got little faith and i— think most people have got little faith and i have _ think most people have got little faith and i have no _ think most people have got little faith and i have no faith- think most people have got little faith and i have no faith at - think most people have got little faith and i have no faith at all. think most people have got little faith and i have no faith at all inl faith and i have no faith at all in the senior— faith and i have no faith at all in the senior leadership _ faith and i have no faith at all in the senior leadership of- faith and i have no faith at all in the senior leadership of the - faith and i have no faith at all inl the senior leadership of the post office _ the senior leadership of the post office it— the senior leadership of the post office. , , office. it is interesting. kemi izfadenoch's _ office. it is interesting. kemi badenoch's department - office. it is interesting. kemi badenoch's department are i office. it is interesting. kemi - badenoch's department are pointing out the _ badenoch's department are pointing out the two big things prompted her to remove _ out the two big things prompted her to remove mrs london was this claim she says _ to remove mrs london was this claim she says that he is blocking an investigation into his conduct and that on— investigation into his conduct and that on a — investigation into his conduct and that on a separate thing he was bypassing formal processes with a point _ bypassing formal processes with a point of _ bypassing formal processes with a point of a — bypassing formal processes with a point of a new director of the board — point of a new director of the board. with kemi badenoch you think that is— board. with kemi badenoch you think that is quite a significant intervention today, what will she do, intervention today, what will she do. will— intervention today, what will she do, will she be careful, measured response. — do, will she be careful, measured response, no, with kemi badenoch you will be _ response, no, with kemi badenoch you will be sure _ response, no, with kemi badenoch you will be sure she will come out fighting _ will be sure she will come out fighting. sources in her department have been_ fighting. sources in her department have been talking to bbc telling us that any— have been talking to bbc telling us that any staunton has been nothing but a _ that any staunton has been nothing but a distraction against our work to get—

but a distraction against our work to getjustice and compensation but a distraction against our work to get justice and compensation for the pulse _ to get justice and compensation for the pulse matters and talks about how he _ the pulse matters and talks about how he is — the pulse matters and talks about how he is trying to deflect focus onto _ how he is trying to deflect focus onto nick— how he is trying to deflect focus onto nick reade. the compensation scheme is still _ onto nick reade. the compensation scheme is still not _ onto nick reade. the compensation scheme is still not moving - onto nick reade. the compensation scheme is still not moving fast - scheme is still not moving fast enough. that is obvious to absolutely everybody. how would you accelerate things? part absolutely everybody. how would you accelerate things?— accelerate things? part of it is down to the — accelerate things? part of it is down to the management - accelerate things? part of it is down to the management of l accelerate things? part of it is l down to the management of the accelerate things? part of it is - down to the management of the post office, _ down to the management of the post office, nick— down to the management of the post office, nick reade. _ down to the management of the post office, nick reade. he _ down to the management of the post office, nick reade. he was— down to the management of the post office, nick reade. he was the - down to the management of the post office, nick reade. he was the one l office, nick reade. he was the one that wrote — office, nick reade. he was the one that wrote other— office, nick reade. he was the one that wrote other to _ office, nick reade. he was the one that wrote other to try— office, nick reade. he was the one that wrote other to try and - office, nick reade. he was the one that wrote other to try and block. that wrote other to try and block the overturning _ that wrote other to try and block the overturning of— that wrote other to try and block the overturning of convictions. l that wrote other to try and block. the overturning of convictions. ”$00 the overturning of convictions. 300 of them. contradicting _ the overturning of convictions. 300 of them. contradicting governmentj of them. contradicting government oli . of them. contradicting government policy- they _ of them. contradicting government policy- they have _ of them. contradicting government policy. they have ignored - of them. contradicting government policy. they have ignored the - policy. they have ignored the thankfully— policy. they have ignored the thankfully but _ policy. they have ignored the thankfully but it _ policy. they have ignored the thankfully but it does - policy. they have ignored the thankfully but it does this - policy. they have ignored thel thankfully but it does this idea policy. they have ignored the - thankfully but it does this idea and suspicion _ thankfully but it does this idea and suspicion that _ thankfully but it does this idea and suspicion that somehow— thankfully but it does this idea and suspicion that somehow they - thankfully but it does this idea and suspicion that somehow they don't believe _ suspicion that somehow they don't believe people _ suspicion that somehow they don't believe people. henry— suspicion that somehow they don't believe people. henry staunton i believe people. henry staunton talked — believe people. henry staunton talked about _ believe people. henry staunton talked about the _ believe people. henry staunton talked about the rotten - believe people. henry stauntonj talked about the rotten culture. believe people. henry staunton . talked about the rotten culture. he has got _ talked about the rotten culture. he has got someone _ talked about the rotten culture. he has got someone to _ talked about the rotten culture. he has got someone to blame - talked about the rotten culture. he has got someone to blame for- talked about the rotten culture. he has got someone to blame for thatj talked about the rotten culture. he . has got someone to blame for that as well, but _ has got someone to blame for that as well, but it— has got someone to blame for that as well, but it has— has got someone to blame for that as well, but it has not— has got someone to blame for that as well, but it has not changed - has got someone to blame for that as well, but it has not changed over- well, but it has not changed over the years — well, but it has not changed over the years. vijay— well, but it has not changed over the years. vijay was _ well, but it has not changed over the years. vijay was a _ well, but it has not changed over the years. vijay was a victim - well, but it has not changed over the years. vijay was a victim of. the years. vijay was a victim of that— the years. vijay was a victim of that and — the years. vijay was a victim of that and many— the years. vijay was a victim of that and many others - the years. vijay was a victim of that and many others were. . the years. vijay was a victim of that and many others were. i. the years. vijay was a victim of- that and many others were. i don't think— that and many others were. i don't think that — that and many others were. i don't think that has _ that and many others were. i don't think that has changed _ that and many others were. i don't think that has changed until- that and many others were. i don't think that has changed until the i think that has changed until the senior— think that has changed until the senior management _ think that has changed until the senior management is - think that has changed until the senior management is changedl think that has changed until the - senior management is changed and radical_ senior management is changed and radical action— senior management is changed and radical action is— senior management is changed and radical action is taken _ senior management is changed and radical action is taken we _ senior management is changed and radical action is taken we will- senior management is changed and radical action is taken we will not . radical action is taken we will not -et radical action is taken we will not get the _ radical action is taken we will not get the speeding _ radical action is taken we will not get the speeding up _ radical action is taken we will not get the speeding up of— radical action is taken we will not - get the speeding up of compensation. are you _ get the speeding up of compensation. are you talking — get the speeding up of compensation. are you talking about _ get the speeding up of compensation. are you talking about the _ get the speeding up of compensation. are you talking about the chief- are you talking about the chief

executive going as well? i are you talking about the chief executive going as well? i think he should. executive going as well? i think he should- we — executive going as well? i think he should. we need _ executive going as well? i think he should. we need to _ executive going as well? i think he should. we need to know - executive going as well? i think he should. we need to know what - executive going as well? i think hej should. we need to know what has happened — should. we need to know what has happened with _ should. we need to know what has happened with this _ should. we need to know what has happened with this but _ should. we need to know what has happened with this but to - should. we need to know what has happened with this but to keep - should. we need to know what has| happened with this but to keep this quite what — happened with this but to keep this quite what she _ happened with this but to keep this quite what she did _ happened with this but to keep this quite what she did today— happened with this but to keep this quite what she did today and - happened with this but to keep this quite what she did today and the i quite what she did today and the business — quite what she did today and the business secretary— quite what she did today and the business secretary didn't - quite what she did today and the. business secretary didn't mention it. , ., , ., and for it. their questions for her? and for him as well- _ it. their questions for her? and for him as well. the _ it. their questions for her? and for him as well. the key _ it. their questions for her? and for him as well. the key point - it. their questions for her? and for him as well. the key point is - it. their questions for her? and for him as well. the key point is they i him as well. the key point is they say it— him as well. the key point is they say it is— him as well. the key point is they say it is a — him as well. the key point is they say it is a distraction, _ him as well. the key point is they say it is a distraction, the - say it is a distraction, the business _ say it is a distraction, the business secretary- say it is a distraction, the business secretary camel say it is a distraction, the . business secretary came to say it is a distraction, the - business secretary came to the say it is a distraction, the _ business secretary came to the house and told _ business secretary came to the house and told part— business secretary came to the house and told part of— business secretary came to the house and told part of the _ business secretary came to the house and told part of the story but - and told part of the story but clearly — and told part of the story but clearly not _ and told part of the story but clearly not the _ and told part of the story but clearly not the main - and told part of the story but clearly not the main story. i and told part of the story but. clearly not the main story. we should say _ clearly not the main story. should say that as of clearly not the main story.“ should say that as of december 138 mayan pounds has been paid to 2700 claimants across the three redress schemes according to government data. including interim payments, full payments. you have received this interim payment. do you have any idea how long it might take to find out if the much larger sum you have asked for is going to be granted or not?— have asked for is going to be granted or not? don't know. they have not even _ granted or not? don't know. they have not even said _ granted or not? don't know. they have not even said anything, - granted or not? don't know. they have not even said anything, how| have not even said anything, how long it will take. at the moment

there is not enough people looking at these claims to try and settle these claims. more people protecting their lines and the back from the post office than they have people looking at the claims. i5 post office than they have people looking at the claims.— looking at the claims. is that ruite? . looking at the claims. is that quite? - the _ looking at the claims. is that quite? . the problem - looking at the claims. is that quite? . the problem as - looking at the claims. is that i quite? . the problem as there looking at the claims. is that - quite? . the problem as there are three schemes _ quite? . the problem as there are three schemes and _ quite? . the problem as there are three schemes and restarted - quite? . the problem as there are three schemes and restarted with| three schemes and restarted with these _ three schemes and restarted with these three — three schemes and restarted with these three schemes _ three schemes and restarted with these three schemes but - three schemes and restarted with these three schemes but it- three schemes and restarted with these three schemes but it is- three schemes and restarted with| these three schemes but it is slow and bureaucratic. _ these three schemes but it is slow and bureaucratic. you _ these three schemes but it is slow and bureaucratic. you have - these three schemes but it is slow and bureaucratic. you have the - these three schemes but it is slow. and bureaucratic. you have the post office _ and bureaucratic. you have the post office guibbling _ and bureaucratic. you have the post office quibbling over— and bureaucratic. you have the post office quibbling over quite - and bureaucratic. you have the post office quibbling over quite small- office quibbling over quite small sums— office quibbling over quite small sums of— office quibbling over quite small sums of money _ office quibbling over quite small sums of money.— sums of money. kenny gives an example? _ sums of money. kenny gives an example? one solicitor- sums of money. kenny gives an example? one solicitor said - sums of money. kenny gives an l example? one solicitor said there was a £10,000 _ example? one solicitor said there was a £10,000 fight. _ example? one solicitor said there was a £10,000 fight. what - example? one solicitor said there was a £10,000 fight. what on - example? one solicitor said there l was a £10,000 fight. what on earth that is— was a £10,000 fight. what on earth that is costing — was a £10,000 fight. what on earth that is costing and _ was a £10,000 fight. what on earth that is costing and lawyers in - was a £10,000 fight. what on earth that is costing and lawyers in the i that is costing and lawyers in the meantime — that is costing and lawyers in the meantime the _ that is costing and lawyers in the meantime. the key— that is costing and lawyers in the meantime. the key thing - that is costing and lawyers in the meantime. the key thing which. that is costing and lawyers in the - meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake _ meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is — meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is trying _ meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is trying to _ meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is trying to do _ meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is trying to do is— meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is trying to do is to - meantime. the key thing which kevin hollinrake is trying to do is to cut - hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers — hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers out _ hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers out of _ hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers out of it _ hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers out of it and - hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers out of it and he - hollinrake is trying to do is to cut the lawyers out of it and he is - the lawyers out of it and he is trying the _ the lawyers out of it and he is trying, the advisory _ the lawyers out of it and he is trying, the advisory board - the lawyers out of it and he is| trying, the advisory board has the lawyers out of it and he is - trying, the advisory board has made recommendations— trying, the advisory board has made recommendations to _ trying, the advisory board has made recommendations to him _ trying, the advisory board has made recommendations to him to - trying, the advisory board has made recommendations to him to see - trying, the advisory board has made| recommendations to him to see how trying, the advisory board has made . recommendations to him to see how he can cut _ recommendations to him to see how he can cut the _ recommendations to him to see how he can cut the post — recommendations to him to see how he can cut the post office _ recommendations to him to see how he can cut the post office out _ recommendations to him to see how he can cut the post office out of— recommendations to him to see how he can cut the post office out of it - can cut the post office out of it and makes _ can cut the post office out of it and makes a _ can cut the post office out of it and makes a more standard . and makes a more standard settlements, _ and makes a more standard settlements, get _ and makes a more standard settlements, get the - and makes a more standard settlements, get the more i and makes a more standard - settlements, get the more simpler cases— settlements, get the more simpler cases dealt— settlements, get the more simpler cases dealt with _ settlements, get the more simpler cases dealt with so _ settlements, get the more simpler cases dealt with so the _ settlements, get the more simpler cases dealt with so the more - settlements, get the more simpler.

cases dealt with so the more complex cases— cases dealt with so the more complex cases like _ cases dealt with so the more complex cases like vijay. — cases dealt with so the more complex cases like vijay, can _ cases dealt with so the more complex cases like vijay, can be _ cases dealt with so the more complex cases like vijay, can be dealt - cases dealt with so the more complex cases like vijay, can be dealt with. i cases like vijay, can be dealt with. otherwise if— cases like vijay, can be dealt with. otherwise if you _ cases like vijay, can be dealt with. otherwise if you have _ cases like vijay, can be dealt with. otherwise if you have this - cases like vijay, can be dealt with. otherwise if you have this culture. otherwise if you have this culture of the _ otherwise if you have this culture of the post — otherwise if you have this culture of the post office _ otherwise if you have this culture of the post office where - otherwise if you have this culture of the post office where you - otherwise if you have this culture of the post office where you are. otherwise if you have this culture i of the post office where you are not really _ of the post office where you are not really believing _ of the post office where you are not really believing people _ of the post office where you are not really believing people and - of the post office where you are not really believing people and your - really believing people and your spending — really believing people and your spending tens— really believing people and your spending tens of— really believing people and your spending tens of thousands - really believing people and your spending tens of thousands of l really believing people and your - spending tens of thousands of pounds on lawyers _ spending tens of thousands of pounds on lawyers to — spending tens of thousands of pounds on lawyers to dispute _ spending tens of thousands of pounds on lawyers to dispute relatively - on lawyers to dispute relatively small— on lawyers to dispute relatively small mince _ on lawyers to dispute relatively small mince of— on lawyers to dispute relatively small mince of money, - on lawyers to dispute relatively small mince of money, you - on lawyers to dispute relatively small mince of money, you will on lawyers to dispute relatively - small mince of money, you will never -et small mince of money, you will never get through— small mince of money, you will never get through this _ small mince of money, you will never get through this-— get through this. would you like to see the post _ get through this. would you like to see the post office _ get through this. would you like to see the post office removed from | see the post office removed from sourcing of the compensation? i would. independentjudges or whoever would. independent judges or whoever they take _ would. independent judges or whoever they take but— would. independent judges or whoever they take but it — would. independentjudges or whoever they take. but it is _ would. independentjudges or whoever they take. but it is better— would. independentjudges or whoever they take. but it is better to _ would. independentjudges or whoever they take. but it is better to have - they take. but it is better to have independent _ they take. but it is better to have independent people _ they take. but it is better to have independent people looking - they take. but it is better to have independent people looking at i they take. but it is better to havel independent people looking at the compensation _ independent people looking at the compensation side _ independent people looking at the compensation side so _ independent people looking at the compensation side so they- independent people looking at the compensation side so they can - independent people looking at the i compensation side so they can have a look at _ compensation side so they can have a look at it— compensation side so they can have a look at it on— compensation side so they can have a look at it on a — compensation side so they can have a look at it on a personal _ compensation side so they can have a look at it on a personal basis - look at it on a personal basis instead — look at it on a personal basis instead of— look at it on a personal basis instead of the _ look at it on a personal basis instead of the post _ look at it on a personal basis instead of the post office - look at it on a personal basis - instead of the post office looking at their— instead of the post office looking at their backs. _ instead of the post office looking at their backs. find _ instead of the post office looking at their backs.— at their backs. and she will have heard the argument _ at their backs. and she will have heard the argument against - at their backs. and she will have heard the argument against that which is you could set up a whole brand—new body but then doesn't that just like people like yourself getting full compensation? brute just like people like yourself getting full compensation? we need to net the getting full compensation? we need to get the simpler _ getting full compensation? we need to get the simpler cases _ getting full compensation? we need to get the simpler cases dealt - getting full compensation? we need to get the simpler cases dealt with i to get the simpler cases dealt with and the post office needs to pay them out. the more complex cases like vijay, the advisory board

already agreed and kevin hollinrake has agreed to it, we have gary higginbotham, and two retired judges which will look at the final appeal against things. but we can't have this system where money has gone on lawyers rather than paying people like vijay. it lawyers rather than paying people like vi'a . , , ., like vijay. it is ten days from the sunday times — like vijay. it is ten days from the sunday times interview - like vijay. it is ten days from the sunday times interview with - like vijay. it is ten days from the l sunday times interview with henry staunton— sunday times interview with henry staunton where he'd made a big allegation that there was an instruction to go slow from civil servants — instruction to go slow from civil servants on paying compensation. kemi _ servants on paying compensation. kemi badenoch profoundly disagrees and didn't— kemi badenoch profoundly disagrees and didn't trust henry staunton. there _ and didn't trust henry staunton. there have _ and didn't trust henry staunton. there have been civil servants taking — there have been civil servants taking issue with him but one of the other— taking issue with him but one of the other big _ taking issue with him but one of the other big things he talked about was how nick— other big things he talked about was how nick reade had written this letter— how nick reade had written this letter to— how nick reade had written this letter to the justice secretary saying — letter to the justice secretary saying around 300 convictions, said this after— saying around 300 convictions, said this after the itv series, they should — this after the itv series, they should be _ this after the itv series, they should be considered safe because they were — should be considered safe because they were based on non—horizon evidence — they were based on non—horizon evidence stop we were reporting a few weeks— evidence stop we were reporting a few weeks ago that when that letter was saying it was said to lord chancellor and when it was seen in his department there were gulps and ithought— his department there were gulps and

i thought it was astonishing because i thought it was astonishing because ithought— i thought it was astonishing because i thought as we are now finding out that there — i thought as we are now finding out that there should be an exoneration of all _ that there should be an exoneration of all. ~ , . ., , of all. mixed picture. can i be clear, kevan,, _ of all. mixed picture. can i be clear, kevan,, are _ of all. mixed picture. can i be clear, kevan,, are you - of all. mixed picture. can i be clear, kevan,, are you saying| of all. mixed picture. can i be i clear, kevan,, are you saying to nick agreed, consideryour clear, kevan,, are you saying to nick agreed, consider your position or to sack the chief executive is also german. or to sack the chief executive is also german-— or to sack the chief executive is also german. there should be a situation where _ also german. there should be a situation where she _ also german. there should be a situation where she had - also german. there should be a situation where she had him - also german. there should be a situation where she had him or| also german. there should be a i situation where she had him or put someone _ situation where she had him or put someone into— situation where she had him or put someone into the _ situation where she had him or put someone into the post _ situation where she had him or put someone into the post office - situation where she had him or put someone into the post office or. situation where she had him or puti someone into the post office or get the other— someone into the post office or get the other executives _ someone into the post office or get the other executives to _ someone into the post office or get the other executives to change - someone into the post office or get the other executives to change thatj the other executives to change that culture _ the other executives to change that culture it _ the other executives to change that culture it is— the other executives to change that culture. it is not _ the other executives to change that culture. it is not changed _ the other executives to change that culture. it is not changed and - the other executives to change that culture. it is not changed and that i culture. it is not changed and that is the _ culture. it is not changed and that is the problem _ culture. it is not changed and that is the problem. when— culture. it is not changed and that is the problem. when people - culture. it is not changed and that is the problem. when people like| is the problem. when people like vijay— is the problem. when people like vijay lose — is the problem. when people like vijay lose faith _ is the problem. when people like vijay lose faith in _ is the problem. when people like vijay lose faith in it. _ is the problem. when people like vijay lose faith in it. all— is the problem. when people like vijay lose faith in it. all this - is the problem. when people like vijay lose faith in it. all this he i vijay lose faith in it. all this he said. she — vijay lose faith in it. all this he said, she said _ vijay lose faith in it. all this he said, she said under— vijay lose faith in it. all this he said, she said under way- vijay lose faith in it. all this he said, she said under way in- vijay lose faith in it. all this he i said, she said under way in which the business _ said, she said under way in which the business secretary _ said, she said under way in which the business secretary reacted . said, she said under way in which| the business secretary reacted to this sacking — the business secretary reacted to this sacking i_ the business secretary reacted to this sacking i think— the business secretary reacted to this sacking i think is _ the business secretary reacted to this sacking i think isjust- the business secretary reacted to this sacking i think isjust giving l this sacking i think isjust giving it legs _ this sacking i think isjust giving it legs and _ this sacking i think isjust giving it legs and actually _ this sacking i think isjust giving it legs and actually quite - this sacking i think isjust giving it legs and actually quite clearly now it legs and actually quite clearly how she — it legs and actually quite clearly now she wasn't _ it legs and actually quite clearly now she wasn't telling - it legs and actually quite clearly now she wasn't telling the - it legs and actually quite clearly now she wasn't telling the full i now she wasn't telling the full truth — now she wasn't telling the full truth when _ now she wasn't telling the full truth when she _ now she wasn't telling the full truth when she reported - now she wasn't telling the full truth when she reported to . truth when she reported to parliament. _ truth when she reported to parliament.— truth when she reported to parliament. �* , . . ., parliament. but she made it clear she is trying _ parliament. but she made it clear she is trying really _ parliament. but she made it clear she is trying really hard _ parliament. but she made it clear she is trying really hard to - parliament. but she made it clear she is trying really hard to speed| she is trying really hard to speed this up. do not believe that? i don't think she is at all. she doesn't _ don't think she is at all. she doesn't understand - don't think she is at all. she doesn't understand the - don't think she is at all. she i doesn't understand the detail. don't think she is at all. she - doesn't understand the detail. the one person — doesn't understand the detail. the one person who— doesn't understand the detail. the one person who credit _ doesn't understand the detail. the one person who credit to - doesn't understand the detail. the one person who credit to has -

doesn't understand the detail. the i one person who credit to has worked very hard _ one person who credit to has worked very hard on— one person who credit to has worked very hard on this _ one person who credit to has worked very hard on this is _ one person who credit to has worked very hard on this is kevin _ very hard on this is kevin hollinrake _ very hard on this is kevin hollinrake the _ very hard on this is kevin hollinrake the post - very hard on this is kevin| hollinrake the post office very hard on this is kevin - hollinrake the post office minister who was— hollinrake the post office minister who was trying _ hollinrake the post office minister who was trying and _ hollinrake the post office minister who was trying and pushing - hollinrake the post office ministerl who was trying and pushing against the system — who was trying and pushing against the system and _ who was trying and pushing against the system and is _ who was trying and pushing against the system and is getting _ who was trying and pushing against the system and is getting some - the system and is getting some results — the system and is getting some results we _ the system and is getting some results. we are _ the system and is getting some results. we are getting - the system and is getting some i results. we are getting movement the system and is getting some - results. we are getting movement but i results. we are getting movement but i don't _ results. we are getting movement but ldon't think— results. we are getting movement but ldon't think she — results. we are getting movement but i don't think she understands - results. we are getting movement but i don't think she understands any - results. we are getting movement but i don't think she understands any of i i don't think she understands any of the detail — i don't think she understands any of the detail she _ i don't think she understands any of the detail. she thought _ i don't think she understands any of the detail. she thought she - idon't think she understands any of the detail. she thought she was- the detail. she thought she was being _ the detail. she thought she was being topped _ the detail. she thought she was being topped by— the detail. she thought she was being topped by sacking - the detail. she thought she was being topped by sacking the - the detail. she thought she was- being topped by sacking the chairman but she _ being topped by sacking the chairman but she has— being topped by sacking the chairman but she has clearly— being topped by sacking the chairman but she has clearly blown _ being topped by sacking the chairman but she has clearly blown it _ being topped by sacking the chairman but she has clearly blown it up - being topped by sacking the chairman but she has clearly blown it up on - but she has clearly blown it up on her face — but she has clearly blown it up on her face. �* , , ., , , her face. i'm sure she would push back on it — her face. i'm sure she would push back on it in _ her face. i'm sure she would push back on it in terms _ her face. i'm sure she would push back on it in terms of _ her face. i'm sure she would push back on it in terms of the - her face. i'm sure she would push back on it in terms of the tale - her face. i'm sure she would push back on it in terms of the tale ifi back on it in terms of the tale if she was sitting here with us. do you vijay have confidence that at some point you will get i have confidence on getting the amount i deserve but the question is one. how long is it going to take because we have new articles coming out nearly every day of he says, she says. so new points coming out almost every day that we did not even know about.— almost every day that we did not even know about. which must be

frustrating _ even know about. which must be frustrating when _ even know about. which must be frustrating when this _ even know about. which must be frustrating when this has - even know about. which must be frustrating when this has been i even know about. which must be . frustrating when this has been going on for at least 16 years of your life. thank you for talking to us. veteran labour mp margaret hodge has asked the police and electoral commission to investigate whether the conservative party broke electoral law in taking £200,000 from the partner of a prominent donor. the conservatives say they only accept donations from permissible sources and the donor says that no rules were broken and that margaret hodge has a vendetta against him and political motivations. joe pike is here to explain. thanks, victoria. let 5 jump to spring 2017. theresa may called a snap general election. remember that? but election campaigns are expensive and all political parties need donations. one prominent conservative donor is this man — the businessman and philanthropist mohamed amersi. emails obtained by the guardian suggest he wanted to give a large sum to the party.

but because he was at that point yet to be on the electoral roll, the conservatives said this... "i have just checked with compliance, and you will not actually come on to the electoral roll until 1stjune, so we cannot accept a donation from you until then. the donation must please come from nadia's account." i.e., to ensure we abide by electoral law, your partner nadia rodicheva — shown here alongside the now queen, should make the donation, not you. now the conservative party have told us tonight they "only accept donations from permissible sources". ms rodicheva, they say, was a permissible source. mohamed amersi has pointed out it was cchq who suggested ms rodicheva make the donation. and he 5 also told newsnight this: no electoral rules were broken by cchq, myself or nadezhda rodicheva. the £215,000 donation came from a sole account of ms rodicheva, of which she was the sole signatory and sole beneficial owner.

this account was operational since 2011 and ms rodicheva 5 net worth was significantly more than the donations in question." he also says margaret hodge, the mp who has tonight written to the met police and electoral commission calling for an investigation, has a vendetta against him and her political motivations should not be ignored. but all this does raise questions about how politics is funded. whether it all happens fairly and legally. and — as some suggest — whether in an election year the system is fit for purpose. and margaret hodge — labour mp and chair of the all party parliamentary group on anti corruption and responsible tax — is here. what is the issue? the issue is the conservative party may according to the memos that we've seen and the work done by tom burgess and i have to credit him as a fantastic

investigative journalist and he to credit him as a fantastic investigativejournalist and he has written it all up in a book. for is the conservative may have knowingly taken money, a donation, from a non—permissible person. at the time mohamed amersi was not on the electoral register and in that case you're not allowed to make a donation. if his money was transferred to a third party that is also non—permissible, you're not allowed to use a third party to transfer the money into the political party and that is a very serious offence that could carry a jail sentence. serious offence that could carry a jailsentence. so serious offence that could carry a jail sentence. so both the party and mohamed amersi i think of questions to answer. i have written to both the electoral commission and the metropolitan police asking them to investigate the matter with the number of questions that i think arise from the story in the guardian

newspaper today. bud arise from the story in the guardian newspaper today-— arise from the story in the guardian news--aer toda . �* a, . ~ , newspaper today. and mohamed amersi has answered — newspaper today. and mohamed amersi has answered your— newspaper today. and mohamed amersi has answered your questions, _ newspaper today. and mohamed amersi has answered your questions, he - has answered your questions, he says. no electoral rules were broken by gchq, myself or nadezhda rodicheva, margaret hodge has a vendetta against me and her political motivation should not be ignored? i political motivation should not be innored? ., ., ., political motivation should not be innored? ., ~ ., ., ignored? i do know about mohamed amersi in various _ ignored? i do know about mohamed amersi in various ways, _ ignored? i do know about mohamed amersi in various ways, i'm - ignored? i do know about mohamed amersi in various ways, i'm slightly| amersi in various ways, i'm slightly concerned about various aspects of where he gets his money from and how he spends it but putting that aside. his point is that you would not be doing this if it was a donation to the labour party. i doing this if it was a donation to the labour party.— the labour party. i would come at 10096. i the labour party. i would come at 10096- i think _ the labour party. i would come at 100%. 1 think it is _ the labour party. i would come at 100%. i think it is hugely - 100%. i think it is hugely important for politics that we clean it up and where donations come from are important. there is a pole at today showing that eight out of ten people think that politicians are less

trusted than almost anyone else in society and one third of those asked think they are only in it for themselves and i want to change that and restore trust and part of that is having a system of political donations in which people can have trust. and if people are donating when they are not allowed to that is one thing and if they are donating for the wrong reasons to get access or contracts or have influence on the government that is also something we need to tackle. and i have got answers about what we need to do as well to tackle that. in the meantime — to do as well to tackle that. in the meantime as _ to do as well to tackle that. in the meantime as we _ to do as well to tackle that. in the meantime as we said _ to do as well to tackle that. in the meantime as we said you - to do as well to tackle that. in the meantime as we said you have - meantime as we said you have written to the police and electoral commission, at the moment these are allegations that mohamed amersi denies. what should happen to the £200,000 donation, it may well of course have been spent but if it is in a bank account somewhere what should happen?—

should happen? under the law if it is an non-permissible _ should happen? under the law if it is an non-permissible donation - should happen? under the law if it is an non-permissible donation iti is an non—permissible donation it should be returned within 30 days which did not happen in this case so in this case my view is that if any of the allegations proved to be two, and there are e—mails and memos underpinning the story in the guardian newspaper today, if they are to if i were at the conservative party i would give the money to a charity. fin party i would give the money to a chari . ,., .., charity. on the political motivations _ charity. on the political motivations question i charity. on the political. motivations question from charity. on the political— motivations question from mohamed amersi, the biggest labour party donor the unite union are being investigated. have you called for the test to be put on ice? i investigated. have you called for the test to be put on ice?- investigated. have you called for the test to be put on ice? i think i a- eared the test to be put on ice? i think i appeared on _ the test to be put on ice? i think i appeared on this _ the test to be put on ice? i think i appeared on this programme - appeared on this programme about that, the investigations are still going on. that, the investigations are still auoin on. ., ., ., , that, the investigations are still auoin on. ., . ., that, the investigations are still auoin on. ., ., ., ., going on. the donations come from members? — going on. the donations come from members? i _ going on. the donations come from members? i do _ going on. the donations come from members? i do not _ going on. the donations come from members? i do not know— going on. the donations come from members? i do not know what - going on. the donations come from - members? i do not know what happened in that particular — members? i do not know what happened in that particular case. _ members? i do not know what happened in that particular case. but _ in that particular case. but should ou be in that particular case. but should you be saying _ in that particular case. but should you be saying the _ in that particular case. but should you be saying the same _ in that particular case. but should you be saying the same thing, - in that particular case. but should | you be saying the same thing, put the money on ice? you you be saying the same thing, put the money on ice?— you be saying the same thing, put the money on ice? you have asked me

about something _ the money on ice? you have asked me about something i _ the money on ice? you have asked me about something i do _ the money on ice? you have asked me about something i do not _ the money on ice? you have asked me about something i do not have - about something i do not have details on, if it is a similar set of circumstances and the evidence is cleared than i do not think we should be using the money. but i have had discussions with the people responsible for raising money in the labour party and i know many millions have not been accepted by the labour party because of concerns about the origin of the donation or whether someone is trying to seek influence or something out of giving a donation. what mohamed amersi himself called access capitalism. thank you very much. according to the government, too many people of working age are not working and not even looking for a job — and that's a problem they say particularly when we have so manyjob vacancies. so why have 50 to 64—year—olds in particular stopped looking for work? in a moment we'll talk to government's business champion for older workers. but first, to explain in more detail

the scale of the problem, why it matters and what can be done about it, here's ben. let's start with the context. since the pandemic, there's been a large and pretty concerning increase in economic inactivity among people of working age. that's people between 16 and 64. and note that inactivity does not mean unemployed. it means people who are not, for various reasons, currently actively looking for a job. working age inactivity has increased byjust under 650,000 people, according to the latest figures. and this is at a time when we still have very considerable vacancies in the labour market that need filling. so which age groups are driving this rise in activity? well, as this shows, 50 to 64—year—olds, shown in red, are a significant contributor, accounting for around a third of the increase since 2020. so why have they left the workforce? there was talk about the "great retirement" a few years ago, resulting from the pandemic, and lots of older working age people did take early retirement during and after that period, apparently because it forced

a reevaluation of their lives. a year ago, jeremy hunt said he wanted to get older people off the golf course and back into work. and there's a proposal today from the liz truss linked growth commission to encourage people back to work with cuts to inheritance tax in the forthcoming budget, on the grounds this would enable them to pass on more money when they die than otherwise. so it would be worth their while earning more to save it. the problem — there's no compelling empirical evidence that people respond in this way to cuts in wealth taxes, let alone to taxes like inheritance tax, where the financial burden, of course, falls not on the individual, but on their heirs. moreover, analysts say long term sickness is currently looking like a bigger driver of rising inactivity for those aged over 50 than people taking early retirement. official surveys show that being sick, injured or disabled is cited as the main reason why people aged 50 to 64 years are economically inactive.

in 2023, this was the main reason given by around 43% of the 3.5 million older working age adults for not seeking work. that compares with 31% who gave the reason as them being retired. so how to solve this? well, fixing the nhs is clearly important, but employment experts say work with employers to tailor jobs to these older workers is also vital. the sorts of things that older people have said in a lot of the survey research and a lot of the feedback since the pandemic has been they want work that's more flexible. that's maybe a bit closer to home. it's a better fit for their skills. and that they can balance their work and their wider life with. and employers, i think, need to respond to that. it's notjust about how you advertise yourjobs orjust about how you do recruitment. it's also about the practical steps you put in place to make sure that jobs are more flexible, adaptable and more supportive

for people coming back to work. it's something of a myth that older working age people have fled to the golf course or the bowling green, but getting them back into the workforce will not be a simple target to hit. the government is providing some support, but it will also involve cultural change among firms. one thing experts agree on is that it matters economically. let's speak to the government business champion for older workers andy briggs who is also the ceo of phoenix group a major pensions and savings provider. do you think this is a big problem? it is a significant problem. covid was disruptive in many ways and one consequence was lots of those aged over 50 coming out of the workplace. many will have a good retirement savings plot but only one in seven savers are doing enough to have a decent standard of living in retirement so the majority of those who have fallen out of work will not have a decent retirement ahead of

them. around half a million of those over 50 in the uk are not working and want to work. i speak to lots of businesses and regularly get feedback that they struggle to get the skills and capabilities they need so there is an opportunity to bring these things together and get them back working and fulfilling the roles that businesses want fulfilled. . ., roles that businesses want fulfilled. . . ., , roles that businesses want fulfilled. . . ., fulfilled. what was it about the andemic fulfilled. what was it about the pandemic that _ fulfilled. what was it about the pandemic that led _ fulfilled. what was it about the pandemic that led to _ fulfilled. what was it about the pandemic that led to so - fulfilled. what was it about the pandemic that led to so many. fulfilled. what was it about the - pandemic that led to so many people going, i don't want to work any more? ., , , . ., , more? one of the biggest challenges is 'ust10% more? one of the biggest challenges is just 10% of — more? one of the biggest challenges is just 10% of the _ more? one of the biggest challenges isjust10% of the population - more? one of the biggest challenges isjust10% of the population get - is just 10% of the population get advice as they go into retirement. and so many people that fell out of work during that period did not have a good grip on what their retirement income was going to look like and i think what is important is that people are able to appraise that and then make a conscious decision do i want to work or not and that is missing. want to work or not and that is missinu. ., ~' want to work or not and that is missinu. ., ~ , .,, ., ., ~' missing. you think people took the decision to go _ missing. you think people took the decision to go the _ missing. you think people took the decision to go the pandemic- missing. you think people took the decision to go the pandemic has i decision to go the pandemic has changed the approach in my outlook

on life and i'm going to work less or not work at all but actually you say people do not have enough savings to cope with how long they might live for because we are know that we are living longer?— that we are living longer? exactly riaht that we are living longer? exactly ri . ht and that we are living longer? exactly right and also _ that we are living longer? exactly right and also the _ that we are living longer? exactly right and also the pandemic - that we are living longer? exactly right and also the pandemic was i that we are living longer? exactly| right and also the pandemic was a scary time and we did not know what was going on so many people make decisions at the time but when someone over 50 falls out of the workplace there less likely to come back in. and the flexible working is an important part of this server example one main reason those over 50 leave a workplace is one in five have significant caring responsibilities for elderly relatives and if businesses do not offer flexible working it is hard to cope with both. we offer a full range of flexible working and all our colleagues get ten days of caring leave each year so we retain

those aged over 50 when they have caring responsibilities and that makes business sense because we do not spend money hiring and training people. then talked about the nhs waiting list, 7.7 million. if that was shorter and people could get treatment they might be able to get back to work sooner. i know it isn't your area of expertise in particular. what about people doing hard physicaljobs? they can keep working until they are 70, can they? i would like to see businesses, one part is returning to flexible working and another part is retrying people and there are lots of good examples. jaguar land rover and so the leather seats and what i saw a few years ago was the workforce was getting older but also starting to struggle physically, some with arthritis. they made the conscious decision to take a number of them and retrain them to be the trainers of the next generation of and other

seats hours. that sort of thinking needs to be more prevalent. over 50s have fantastic transferable skills to other roles and we need, training tends to be very focused on younger age group which is important and it still happen but should also be available to the over 50s. what available to the over 50s. what could the government - available to the over 50s. what could the government doing i available to the over 50s. what could the government doing budget next week to encourage people who are not currently looking for work back into the workforce? fine are not currently looking for work back into the workforce?- are not currently looking for work back into the workforce? one of the most important _ back into the workforce? one of the most important things _ back into the workforce? one of the most important things is _ back into the workforce? one of the most important things is in - back into the workforce? one of the most important things is in may i back into the workforce? one of the j most important things is in may this year flexible working and offering carers leave will become a legal requirement from day one of employment. up until now it has only been a requirement after 26 weeks of employment. that been a requirement after 26 weeks of employment-— employment. that will happen, an hinu employment. that will happen, anything they— employment. that will happen, anything they could _ employment. that will happen, anything they could do - employment. that will happen, anything they could do a - employment. that will happen, anything they could do a week. employment. that will happen, i anything they could do a week today? one of the most important things is to address people saving more towards retirement and address the fact that a lot of people get advice on the journey to retirement. people haven't gotten _ on the journey to retirement. people haven't gotten it _ on the journey to retirement. people haven't gotten it might _ on the journey to retirement. people haven't gotten it might save. - on the journey to retirement. people haven't gotten it might save. there i haven't gotten it might save. there is a challenge _ haven't gotten it might save. there is a challenge in _ haven't gotten it might save. there is a challenge in the _ haven't gotten it might save. there is a challenge in the current - haven't gotten it might save. there is a challenge in the current cost i is a challenge in the current cost

of living crisis but if you look in the uk we have automatic enrolment so you are enrolled into an employer pension scheme and the contribution rate is 8% was of some people pay more. the average contribution is 10% in the uk stop in canada that the average contribution rate is 20%. if you look in the uk the 8% contribution, 3% comes from the employer. if you go to australia they are just increasing their employer contribution to 12%. at the moment in a cost of living crisis i accept it as a challenge but as inflation starts to come down and interest rates start to come down, we must start increasing those contributions higher and then people in the 50s will have more options and choices about whether they work or not. ., ., and choices about whether they work or not. ., ~' ,. and choices about whether they work or not. ., ,, ,, ., and choices about whether they work or not. . ~' ,., ., _, one of the people behind russia 5 most respected human rights organisations has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison — for an article he wrote criticising the invasion of ukraine. oleg orlov — who helped run an organisation called memorial — had previously been given a fine for the piece — published

in a french newspaper — but recently faced a new trial after prosecutors said the punishment was too lenient. he is just the latest russian opposition figure to be jailed — or worse — by an increasingly repressive state. our international correspondent joe inwood — has the story. this was the moment oleg orlov�*s sentence was handed down, two and a half years for writing an article in a french newspaper criticizing russia's invasion of ukraine. throughout his trial, he was defiant. i don't consider myself alone. i am part of a large team. put that memorial and more broadly. we live in the 21st century. the russian authorities are going somewhere backwards, back from the 20s to the 17th and 16th century and unfortunately they are dragging our country with them but victory will still be ours.

in court was his wife, tatiana, as well as ambassadors, activists and journalists. oleg orlov had helped run memorial, russia's most respected human rights group. in 2022, they won the nobel peace prize shortly after being banned by the kremlin yesterday. before his sentence, he spoke outside court. he knew what would happen to him. translation: what is so strange about this? _ translation: what is so strange about this? against _ translation: what is so strange about this? against a _ translation: what is so strange about this? against a backdrop i translation: what is so strange about this? against a backdrop of| about this? against a backdrop of all the other censuses that are being handed down that are cruel, unfair and completely unrelated to any law, what is to stop them depriving me of my freedom. he joins an ever growing list of opposition figures jailed or worse, in russia. vladimir kara—murza, the softly spoken intellectual sentenced to 25 years for treason. the price of speaking out is high, he told the bbc soon after his arrest, but the price of silence is unacceptable. or ilya yashin, jailed for eight

years for reporting on russian atrocities in bucha. alexei gorinov, an opposition city councillor sentenced to seven years for "knowingly spreading false information about the russian army". and, of course, alexei navalny, who last week died in a maximum security prison. evgeny was a friend of his. he says no one feels safe anymore. people live in absolutely terrible fear. we are going, we are as a country, as russia, we are going to prop up fascism. and the western world could ignore it, like ignore adolf hitler in 1938. maybe coincidentally, or maybe not, today marks the ninth anniversary of the murder of boris nemtsov. earlier, foreign ambassadors attended the site where the leading opposition politician was gunned down, just outside the kremlin.

the us ambassador, here laying flowers, said the sentencing of oleg orlov showed the kremlin was dragging the country back into a dark, dangerous and isolated place. there's 600 or 700 at least, maybe 1000 political prisoners in russia today, it's very easy to get seized by individual cases. but any time i think any dealings with russia, we have to keep the political prisoners at the front of that discussion. throughout proceedings, oleg orlov sat with a copy of the trial by franz kafka. it tells the story of a man put on trial by an unknown authority for an unknown crime. oleg orlev knew who was prosecuting him and what crime he was accused of committing. that does not make his fate any less absurd. let's talk to nataliya sekretareva, human rights lawyer who works

as head of the legal team at the memorial human rights defence centre. thank you talking to us. oleg orlev is 70, jailed for 2.5 years. how worried are you about his safety? we worried are you about his safety? - are extremely worried because he is 70 years old, russian prison is very far from a 70 years old, russian prison is very farfrom a beach resort. we can 70 years old, russian prison is very far from a beach resort. we can see that he'd been very healthy and young people, if they survive the prison sentence they leave deeply traumatised psychologically and with the really deteriorated health. so it is already extremely worrying. president putin pulls my critics appear to be all injail or abroad like yourself, or dead. is putin

going to be in power until the day he dies? i going to be in power until the day he dies? ., �* ~' , going to be in power until the day he dies? ., �* ~ , ., he dies? i don't think it is for me to answer— he dies? i don't think it is for me to answer this _ he dies? i don't think it is for me to answer this question - to answer this question unfortunately.- to answer this question unfortunately. to answer this question unfortunatel . ~ , , ., unfortunately. why is that? because unfortunately _ unfortunately. why is that? because unfortunately or _ unfortunately. why is that? because unfortunately or fortunately - unfortunately. why is that? because unfortunately or fortunately i - unfortunately. why is that? because unfortunately or fortunately i do i unfortunately or fortunately i do not control, or any other russian citizen controls who will be in charge of the country and who will occupy officially the seat of the president of the country. so he is not democratically elected so i as a citizen unfortunately cannot predict when he will leave the office. i did not elect him and unfortunately right now as in authoritarian regimes citizens don't really influence the change of power for

people in charge of the country. white what do you think it tells us about president putin that white what do you think it tells us about president putin— about president putin that oleg orlev has been _ about president putin that oleg orlev has been jailed _ about president putin that oleg orlev has been jailed today i about president putin that oleg orlev has been jailed today for| about president putin that oleg i orlev has been jailed today for 2.5 years. the present selection as next month which putin will win as he has for the last 20 years. this month which putin will win as he has for the last 20 years.— for the last 20 years. this is true and i don't _ for the last 20 years. this is true and i don't think— for the last 20 years. this is true and i don't thinkjailing _ for the last 20 years. this is true and i don't thinkjailing oleg i for the last 20 years. this is true i and i don't thinkjailing oleg orlev changed anything for the presidential elections but on the other hand what i can say with a lot of certainty is that the sentence is very connected and very well timed when we talk about the elections. we saw there is a really clear political will to handle this sentiment as fast as possible and thejudge and sentiment as fast as possible and the judge and prosecutor who was investigating his case in some cases

openly said they have to handle the