hello. this is bbc news. we'll be taking a look at tomorrow mornings papers in a moment — first the headlines. the bbc‘s director general, lord hall says he'll go further and faster to tackle the pay gap. he was responding to a letter by high—profile female personalities who have called on the corporation to "act now". a 20—year—old man has died, after being apprehended by a police officer in an east london shop. he's been been named by his family as rashanjermaine charles. prince william and prince harry have spoken candidly about their relationship with their mother, princess diana, in a documentary marking the twentieth anniversary of her death. police in the us state of texas say the number of deaths in the human smuggling incident has risen to nine. 20 others are thought to be in a critical condition. on meet the author this week, my

guest is one of the most popular crime writers, the rather aptly named karin slaughter, to talk about her latest book, the good author. dump —— the good daughter. hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are the author and broadcaster, natalie haynes and rob merrick, deputy political editor at the independent. let's get straight on. rob, perhaps you would start us off. daily telegraph front page, the telegraph says nhs bosses have ordered a review , after warnings that plans to cut down on a&e numbers are risking lives. as we know, a&e departments are in crisis. there is a plan, they are

being asked to introduce front door streaming. it will convert them into different arms of the nhs. there has been a case in bristol, a man who was turned away from a&e under this scheme and tragically died soon afterwards. this story says they are being it would visibly lead to more people being treated in a&e and it shows how difficult it is for the government to tackle these problems without causing unintended consequences. natalie, it is one terrible tragic case, but it seems a bit strange that the whole system has been thrown into reverse on the basis of that. there must be a bit more to it, would have thought? you would think so, we're told so many times that a&e departments are

clogged, when people turning up when they shouldn't have, brutally, either because they have committed an incredibly minor injury to themselves because they should have gone to the gp and either don't have agpor gone to the gp and either don't have a gp orthe gone to the gp and either don't have a gp or the gp wasn't open at that or whatever. because they are drunk. it turns out if somebody turns up to an amd department with chest pains, as could happen, they could be turned away without having his blood pressure checked. if you are turning away people, i would have thought chest pains but pretty much the go to for a&e. i am obviously in no way ina to for a&e. i am obviously in no way in a place to qualify that. the point is it was a gp, because they call it the triage, i think on the way you see a nurse any way to start with, very often, so there is also a

filter, this sounds like an even more draconian one. seems like this streaming system will be in place before the review has fully taken place, so there will be six months worth of it having happened in theory before the time the review comes back. slightly worrying, but isa comes back. slightly worrying, but is a tragic case but on the other hand it is only one case. it is hard to believe they will end streaming altogether. as you say, it is perhaps just one terrible example. there must surely be some people who can so there must surely be some people who can so obviously be turned away from three macro without causing disorder problem. things presumably they want people to stop turning up is with the winter vomiting virus, they are incredibly contagious, so the last thing you want to do is to bring them in the hospital is full of ill people. drink some water, stay in bed. let's quickly go onto the front page of the telegraph, still.

cabinet split over imports of american chlorine chicken. that hast to rank as one of the most odd headlines. i wonder whether they got to the point where it had to arm wrestle... we think overall they spent very little time talking about it but they should. quite an important printable behind all this. absolutely, but as we know liam fox is in the us and about to try and start a bit of trade talk. here's the trade secretary, yes. he is hoping to persuade everyone and presumably the rest of his cabinet (l) presumably the rest of his cabinet (!) that what would be a great thing is if we have american meat products, this is not good for me, i had not eaten meat for 30 years, but lam sure had not eaten meat for 30 years, but i am sure it matters to many more of you. that would include chlorine washed chicken, which sounds revolting to me, but to be honest the chicken sounds worse than maclaurin, i quite like swimming. hormone —— sounds maclaurin, i quite like swimming. hormone “ sounds worse maclaurin, i quite like swimming. hormone —— sounds worse than the chlorine. but actually it is a

brexit story, isn't it? yes, if we are not going to trade with europe, we have to trade more with america, and there is a lot more of them and they have a lot more money than us. the inevitable but, in this case michael gove. ceremony sentences begin like that! indeed, and angela ballard some, —— andrea leadsom, we must keep the standards up even though not governed by the eu. they are on other side of the great chlorine soaked debate. debate or schism? that is all i am saying. they are all arch supporters of brexit. on the issue of the chicken and whether it will be allowed in this country, but what is new about it is the suggestion that liam fox would favour its import, and arrange to a cce pt would favour its import, and arrange to accept it. he is not quoted in the story, obviouslyjust a short teaser, the story on the front page. if that is true, it would be nice to

see when liam fox is in america tomorrow he could be interviewed on the subject when i found out. you remember whenjohn the subject when i found out. you remember when john gummer was feeding beefburger to his daughter backin feeding beefburger to his daughter back in the 1990s, mad cow disease, whether liam fox would be asked if he would be happy for his own family to eat chlorine soaked chicken. 0k, in the metro, sorry, before we do that, let's go to the eye. —— the iyer. slightly alarming, there has been breaches of computer systems of public bodies, hospitals, councils, museums, watchdogs have been breached over the last three years, since may 2014. 424 successful attacks. we are not sure how many unsuccessful, mostly using ransomwa re ,

unsuccessful, mostly using ransomware, local authorities and other public bodies. the big nhs attack a couple of months ago. but this sounds deadly, much more serious and widespread. it is clearly a large and. it is one of those stories, i know cybercrime is really important, but my eyes tend to glaze over when i read it. when your credit card gets cloned...” know. there are a couple of interesting details in the story that struck me, one says there were nine health trust and several councils who confirmed they had been breached but had not reported it. you wonder whether they are too busy trying to protect their own repetition rather than being honest about the problem they have, which seemed alarming. they said one nhs trust had been told by police that an attacker had been found to be outside the european union, and therefore no further action could be taken. i did not understand that at all. there seem to be examples where even when a problem has been identified, it even wasn't being admitted to or wasn't being taken.

they tend to be places you can't get at, russia and china. perhaps you could try. 0k, at, russia and china. perhaps you could try. ok, the metro, i started to talk about it, let's get to that. rob coming you can have a go here. this is mr corbyn being taxed by my colleague andrew marr on the matter of student debts. we never said we we re of student debts. we never said we were going to write them off. ever since the election, it has been the story of theresa may carrying out u—turn after you turn, this is the press piling in onjeremy corbyn instead. when mr corbyn says we didn't say we would write off student debts, he is absolutely right and he is clearly did not say that, but unfortunately for him, he uttered the phrase we will deal with it, at least try to ameliorate the problem in some way, now he is running back from that. he also said he didn't realise when he said he would deal with it that it would be a £100 billion bill for wiping out existing student debt, which clearly nobody thinks they can afford to

pat’- nobody thinks they can afford to pay. it is a big embarrassment for jeremy corbyn but to be honest, jeremy corbyn but to be honest, jeremy corbyn but to be honest, jeremy corbyn is not the prime minister, there was no likelihood of him doing that in the nearfuture. ifi him doing that in the nearfuture. if i was a student, or a graduate with a debt, what would be far more concerned about is in october the level of interest on that student debt is going to soar to 6.1%, even when interest rates are on the floor under legislation the government put through, and that to be honest is a much bigger issue when it comes to the problem of student debt, rather than what jeremy corbyn the problem of student debt, rather than whatjeremy corbyn did or did not say during the election campaign. but isn't the point really natalie thatjeremy corbyn, had they had a much better successful campaign, said an awful things about what they would do but the actual total bill would be absolutely enormous. it is a bit strange she can say i didn't know about the figures. straying into diane territory. one could legitimately argue that the actual total bill whatever happens will be enormous, not least because the filthy left

wing rag which is the financial times suggested that about 70% of students won't ever pay off their debt, which is an enormous percentage of £100 billion. not writing off all of their debt, but even so, writing off all of their debt, but even so, a writing off all of their debt, but even so, a large quantity of this debt will never be paid back, because it is only levied once people and a certain amount and many people and a certain amount and many people simply don't earn that much and may never. so all you are really giving people is a sort of horrendous stress millstone to live with with no expectation really of the payment coming back. if you are the payment coming back. if you are the person who loans money to people and have been told that roughly seven upset of those people won't pay back and you haven't taken that into account in your figures, then you are an idiot, and i am sure the people running the student loans company are not idiots, so they are expecting a lot of money to be defaulted on, so why do you have to make 70 people's lives miserable before that money doesn't get paid back one way or another? i'm not sure there is a good reason. just coming back to what mr corbyn was saying about it, the election

campaign was very much saying don't worry, students, there will be no more student loans in the future. that seemed an absolute key part of the whole thing. can a senior labour politician, or whichever politician, say all these things and then come roaring back again? we will deal with it is a relatively fluid term, it could mean we will cut fees for the next generation, they will be much lower. student debt used to be paid, in 2002 it was pretty much all paid, in 2002 it was pretty much all paid off within something like nine years of graduation. we will deal with it is an extremely protean phrase that can be read in a bunch of ways. i think he could legitimately argue it is not necessarily his fault. it was not in the manifesto either, it was a phrase in an interview. there is embarrassment, but on the scale of great u—turns, not quite. embarrassment, but on the scale of great u-turns, not quite. very quickly, to the daily mail. you can't get away from it, bbc pay. they have a picture of my colleague emily maitlis, who apparently earns

less tha n emily maitlis, who apparently earns less than £150,000 a year, calling on male tv stars to publicly back the pay gap fight. we can't do it right now, we are on the news, so you are obliged to be entirely impartial but of course i am not surprised. she is absolutely right to suggest people need to be supporting her. it is of course terrific that her male colleagues have allowed her female colleagues 48 hours, 78 hours or so to have all the headlines, but now i think it is time for you to step up and join in and say, yes, it is lastly unfair that female colleagues are being paid less than we offer doing the same sorts of jobs paid less than we offer doing the same sorts ofjobs and it is also unfair that women are not going to get those best paid jobs because they are all taken up by perfectly delightful and equally competent men. i see the south american correspondent with davis, ifully backed calls for senior debuts to be pay the same as male counterparts. quite a thing building up, but the point building up i suppose is that

the director—general says he will act fast on this, and do something about this. how fast can it be, and what about the overall cost of the public purse in the end, if you have to raise a lot of people's salaries? i think he said he would act by 2020, and clearly the women who signed the open letter believe that is probably not achievable, not very far away, and they doubt that. of course you don't have too raise the salaries of the women, you could cut the salaries of the men.