this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. the long—awaited report into alleged russian interference in british politics will be released in around half an hour. doctors, teachers and police officers — some of the 900,000 uk public sector workers getting an above—inflation pay rise. alongside some of the pension enhancements we've seen over the last couple of years, this means they're making significant advances in pay, which is both right, but also a reward for the work they've done over the last few months. uk government borrowing soared to more than £35 billion injune, about five times more than the same time last year. eu leaders strike a deal on a huge recovery package for member states hit by coronavirus, after a fourth night of talks.

and the funeral of football great jack charlton will take place later with hundreds expected to line the streets of his hometown. hello and welcome if you're watching in the uk or around the world. and stay with us for the latest news and analysis from here and across the globe. a long—awaited report intro alleged russian interference in british politics is going to be published in just half an hour, more than a year after it was completed. its original release, due before last december‘s general election, was held back by the government, leading to accusations of a cover—up. here's our security correspondent, gordon corera. what does the threat from russia look like, and has enough been done to counter it? that's the focus of today's long—awaited russia report.

it's written by the intelligence and security committee of parliament, which oversees the work of britain's spy agencies and it's based on those agencies‘ classified contribution, as well as other expert witnesses. it's expected to cover the range of moscow's activities, from the poisoning of sergei skripal in salisbury in 2018 with nerve agent, through to the questioning of whether there was any interference in british politics, including the brexit referendum, and what impact it might have had. what it's actually going to do is unveil a whole range of often really very small—scale activities, from pushing particular subversive news stories through to attempts to woo particular individuals, and that actually gives us a more accurate position of how the russians operate. the report itself was completed over one year ago, but the government failed to publish it before the last election, leading to questions as to what details it might contain.

but last week, a new intelligence and security committee was formed, but only after manoeuvring meant that the government's preferred chair, chris grayling, missed out on the role. so this morning, we should finally find out what is in the russia report, or at least in the public version. a classified version will remain under wraps. gordon corera, bbc news. frank gardner is our security correspondent. what security correspondent. is this going to tell us abo russian what is this going to tell us about russian spying activities in this country? as you heard from my colleague, gordon, there are two versions to this. there is the redacted version which we will be seeing in the next half an hour, which i think you'll have a lot censored out. it is compiled by

britain's three intelligence agencies, mi6, mi5 and gchq together with input from a number of independent commentators. even that alone, as well as the official version will give quite an insight into what britain knows about what russia has been up to in this country. there is a widespread sense in whitehall that britain wasn't nearly as robust enough after the 2006 murder of alexander litvinenko with radioactive poisoning. two yea rs with radioactive poisoning. two years ago, skripal poisoning, britain acted robustly and it led to expulsion of russian agents from around the world. now, does that mean they were involved in any of the political activities this report is going to look at? we will have to

find out in half an hour. thank you very much, frank. 0ur assistant political editor norman smith is in westminster. the scale of this, norman, and the timing of the publication? the scale of this, norman, and the timing of the publication7m the scale of this, norman, and the timing of the publication? it is going to have an impact, the question is how much does it resonate now? i say that because the report was actually pulled together in 2017, a lot of the events, as we have been hearing, look back quite a way before then. i wonder whether things might have moved on a bit and the very fact the government delayed publication, they got the report nine months ago, again has perhaps blunted some of the impact the report might have had if it was published in the aftermath, or closer to the brexit referendum and the independence referendum. the other thing which i think has perhaps taken some of the steam out

of it, we had allegations about russia last week when the government announced about russian attempts to get hold of our coded vaccine and then there was also the announcement from dominic raab, that the trade document which jeremy corbyn brandished during the election campaign, that was apparently the work of so—called russian actors. i wonder if that will make people think, we know all about russian interference and russian involvement, there is nothing new here, tell us something different. just a sense the timing and the fact it has been so delayed might have taken a lot of the immediate impact out of this report. we'll have to see what it says. the other thing worth noting, the intelligence and security committee, it is not known for producing, you know, shocking, revelatory reports. you do get select committees which can do that. and security committee is basically staffed by some of the most long

serving senior mps who are not in the market to do that. i think, therefore, we will be in for a report which may contain blows but i don't think will be absolutely devastating. 0k, what will actually happen at 10.30 when it is due out? we will get a link to the report which will go up on the committee's website so if you go on the intelligence committee website that isa intelligence committee website that is a section called publications. i am told that pretty much right on time, 50 pages will go up. you can read it there. at the same time, the chairman of the committee will be doing a virtual news conference, thatis doing a virtual news conference, that is julian doing a virtual news conference, that isjulian lewis, the conservative, who has outmanoeuvred boris johnson's favourite candidate chris grayling, to seize the chairmanship last week. he will do a

brief resume on his thoughts on the report and we will hear from stewart hosie and kevin jones report and we will hear from stewart hosie and kevinjones from the labour party. they too will do a brief resume and then we will be into a brief resume and then we will be intoa q brief resume and then we will be into a q and a about the report. thank you very much, stay with us on bbc news if you want to find out what is in the russia report. nearly a million public sector workers in the uk will get an above—inflation pay rise, after the chancellor said he recognised their "vital contributions" during the coronavirus pandemic. the treasury said the pay increases will come out of existing departmental budgets and will go to doctors, dentists, police officers and teachers. nurses negotiated a separate pay deal in 2018. this comes as the latest figures show government borrowing increased to £35.5 billion injune, five times higher than last year, but lower than the previous two months. the figure for borrowing for the three months tojune is now nearly £128 billion — reflecting the effects of lockdown more on that in a moment, but first this report

by our correspondent andy moore. after several months on the front line of the crisis, some welcome news for key public sector workers. they will get the full pay increases recommended by the independent pay review bodies. teachers in england will get the biggest pay rise — 3.1%. doctors and dentists across the uk will see their pay increase by 2.8%. police officers and prison staff in england and wales will get 2.5%. while the armed forces and the judiciary across the uk will get 2%. some of the increases, such as the ones for doctors, will be backdated to april. others will come into effect in september. more than a million nurses and hospital staff are not included in this announcement. they've already agreed a separate deal which works out at over 4%.

chancellor rishi sunak said: the labour party and the trade unions say the pay rises are good news, but don't make up for a decade of real—time cuts in the years of austerity. the doctors' union, the british medical association, said the government could have done even more for staff who'd put their lives on the line during the pandemic. government departments won't get extra funding to pay for these rises. the treasury claims that pay awards should be affordable, that they shouldn't affect the provision of public services. but where budgets are already under pressure, this decision could force other tough choices. andy moore, bbc news. 0pposition labour party have welcomed the pay increase, but warned it won't make up

for a decade of real—term cuts for front line workers. the policing minister, kit malthouse said the salary increase was a recognition of the contribition of public sector workers at the present time. we do have a period of wage restraint in the public sector while we were dealing with the aftermath of the crash of 2007/8 that did mean that wages were held down. over the last two or three years we are starting to see a correction of that, there have been above inflation pay rises of which this is a very significant one. and, you know, decisions about future pay obviously lie with the treasury and will have to be taken against the backdrop of what we face economically over the next few years. but for the moment today, i hope that the 900,000 public—sector workers who are affected will see this as good news. because alongside some of the pension enhancements that we've seen over the last couple of years, this means that they‘ re making significant advances in pay, which is, you know, both right, but also a reward for the work they've done over the last few months. frances 0'grady is the general secretary of the trade union congress.

hello to you. first of all, what do you think of these pay rises? dedicated public servants get a real pay rise and as you have already acknowledged, the public services have put up with real pay cuts so this is only beginning to restore some of that money for some workers. but i think, as with all government announcements, i am always keen to look at the small print. of course, there are many, many public servants just as dedicated who currently are still waiting to hear what will happen to their pay packets. in particular, social care workers, many of whom have been getting in touch with me this money. do you think there is an above invention pay rise coming down the track for them? would

pay rise coming down the track for them ? would you pay rise coming down the track for them? would you be surprised if that wasn't the case? what we have seen over the years is very severe cuts to local government budgets. we have seven in ten social care workers u nless seven in ten social care workers unless than £10 an hour. you will remember that many of them didn't even have remember that many of them didn't eve n have a ccess remember that many of them didn't even have access to proper ppe during this pandemic. we have a number of vacancies, not least because the pay is so poor but the government has to step up and start funding social care properly, we need a national social care service in my view. but we need to prove the value though star. the only way social care workers will get a rise is, if you say, government gives local authorities more funding? absolutely. what we cannot have four public for public services across the board is robbing services to pay

workers. we could be facing a second spike or a second wave this winter, we need to recognise that, get real and invest properly in pay packets, but also in the services are dedicated servants provide. thank you very much for talking to us this morning. frances 0'grady of the trades union congress. we are going to get a briefing from the uk intelligence committee at 10.30 and we will bring that to you live. it will be brought to you from the chair of that committee, julian lewis, who only got the job last week i got it instead of a favoured candidate from number ten. he will start with the opening remarks and we will hear more from the committee into what they have found, what the

committee found more than a year ago, actually. that is when the report was finalised. edward lucas is a security expert and a columnist for the times. he was also the first witness to the inquiry. why is it onlyjust been published now? that is a question that needs to be put to borisjohnson and dominic cummings, because they decided the reasons not everybody understood, that they would not publish it when it was ready. they said it was not to be released in the run—up to the general election. maybe they were worried it would say something nasty about donald trump and that would jinx a transatlantic relations, maybe it wasjust personal spite that they didn't like

dominic grieve, the then chair of the committee, a tory brexit rebel. it means the report, would probably not have attracted that much attention if it came out in the normal course of events, is now absolutely headline news. everyone is eager to see what is in it. according to the daily telegraph today, they have been briefed that russia try to influence the scottish independence referendum, it wanted scotla nd independence referendum, it wanted scotland to break away from the rest of the uk. but it didn't try to involve itself in the brexit referendum. if it proves to be true, what is your reaction?” referendum. if it proves to be true, what is your reaction? i suspect it is not true, i am sceptical about the story. i suspect what is true there was an attempt by russia to cast doubt on the result of the referendum and that has been very well evidenced and researched that there was some doctored videos that seem there was some doctored videos that seem to show ballot rigging at

ballot boxes and papers discounted. sorry, for which referendum? for scottish referendum. and the snp, which lost the referendum, they would have complained if there had been any malpractice, but there was a completely been any malpractice, but there was a com pletely clea n been any malpractice, but there was a completely clean count. that is a very clear exa m ple a completely clean count. that is a very clear example of interference. it underlines the fact that what russia really wants to do is destroy trust and confidence in our system. they are much more interested in that than they are in any political outcome. there is a separate outcome about the financing of the brexit campaign and there may or may not be something about that in the report, we will have to wait and see. of course, we will have to wait and see andi course, we will have to wait and see and i don't know how many times we must have previewed this russia report and we still don't have it yet, but the speculation has been russia always tried to influence the

brexit outcome. according to a briefing by the daily telegraph, there will be no evidence of that in this report? i am very sceptical of these briefings, until it is published, it is a classified document. i think we should be careful about, you know, that is a lot anna knott downing street is very interested in throwing up some chaff around us. we saw a report how the russians are trying to hack documents in the 2019 election and passing a document on tojeremy corbyn. it is a bad mix that the security world does not mix well with downing street spin. although the report may be bland, the evidence it has taken in the

country's most hard one and jealously guarded secrets. what was the thrust of your evidence in the enquiry? my job, i reckoned was to range more widely, the traditional job is to hold the intelligence and security agencies to account and asked them about drone strikes, rendition and so on. i said because the threat from russia is so broad they should go outside whitehall and talk to financial regulators, the police, to media watchdogs, to a whole range of bodies and agencies across government who may have experienced russian activity and have insights and recommendations about it. i also said they should look outside britain and take evidence from the baltic states, lithuania, or finland owe another country which has more recent experience in dealing with this. that was the main thrust of my

evidence. i was particularly worried about the political system and i said we should treat the political system, whether it is constituency, political headquarters, think tanks or mp's offices as part of our critical national infrastructure. there is a lot of evidence that russia and also china, sees this as a soft target and tries to penetrate it with either sex, money or any other influence. thank you very much, edward lucas, security expert and times columnist and witness to the enquiry. ten minutes to go and it will be published. after four days of difficult and sometimes acrimonious talks — all 27 member—states of the european union agreed a massive coronavirus rescue package worth 750—billion euros. the talks saw a split between nations hardest hit by the virus, and so—called "frugal" members who were concerned about costs. alanna petroff has the details. after days of tense talks and

uncomfortable late—night discussions, leaders of the european union have finally reached a deal. they have come together with a plan to distribute hundreds of billions of euros between their nations, all designed to help recover from the deep economic damage inflicted by the coronavirus. these were difficult negotiations in very difficult negotiations in very difficult times for all europeans. a marathon which ended in success for all 27 member states, but especially for the people. is this a good deal, it isa for the people. is this a good deal, it is a strong deal and most importantly, is this the right deal for europe right now? at the end of the talks, you could see smiles in the talks, you could see smiles in the room but this came after more than 90 hours of negotiations. the main issue that dragged things out related to the question, should

recipient countries get less money as grants or as loans? in total, 750 billion euros is being spread around to the different member states. hard—hit countries like italy and spain are set to be big beneficiaries. from that money, 390 billion euros will be given to countries as grants. this money doesn't have to be repaid. the other 360 billion euros will be given as loa ns, 360 billion euros will be given as loans, that has to be paid back. europe as a whole has now a big chance to come out stronger from the crisis. today, we have taken an historic step that we can all be proud of. lead distressed this money will be used towards many environmental initiatives so the new rescue package helps member states and helps the world as a whole.

here in the uk, mps on the health select committee are hearing evidence on the management of the first wave of covid—19. they're due to hear evidence from chief medical officer, chris whitty, and drjenny harries, the deputy chief medical officer for england after 10.30. professor devi sridhar, who is the professor of global public health at the university of edinburgh, spoke in the last few minutes. she told the committee it was "a dangerous decision" for the government to abandon containment when we had learned so much from other countries about how to successfully contain the virus. i think that was one of the benefits that european and north american countries had, we had seen what had happened in china, south korea, hong kong and there was a playbook as to how you could control this virus and it was not uncontrollable. it was not like flue, so for example you

could already see by february that south korea was keeping a hold on this through mass testing and tracing and isolation of carriers to try and keep the economy going through this process and it seemed to be relatively successful. you could see it having travel restrictions. south korea put those in in earlyjanuary and most parts of the world had them in by february and early march. next you learn about face covering and distancing between individuals, clear communication, local dashboards of data. let's speak now to professor susan michie, a member of independent sage and director of the centre for behaviour change at university college london. she is on the behavioural science committee for sage, the scientific group that advises the prime minister and the cabinet. at this stage, when people like professor chris whitty and jenny harries are giving evidence to mps, what kind of

questions do you think are relevant to be asking? i think the overarching question is, what is the strategy? what is the government strategy? what is the government strategy and what is the scientific basis for the strategy? is it their zero decker—macro strategy that we have heard about in south korea, singapore, they nam, germany and scotla nd singapore, they nam, germany and scotland seems to be going down that road also. is it, as it has been suggested at some point, herd immunity by default? 0r suggested at some point, herd immunity by default? or is it what sage has described it as as a drift strategy? this is the most important thing at the moment. because unless we know what the strategy is, it is very difficult to evaluate the government's lifting of various restrictions and what is likely to be happening as we come up to the winter. the other issue, i think, is very likely to be asked about is this issue about the winter months. imean, this issue about the winter months.

i mean, basically we have two months to drive down the transmission rate toward zero, if we are, the nhs, is going to cope with the inevitable influenza outbreaks that we always have. if you were feeding into this committee today and were asked for your advice, what would you say the strategy would be? your advice, what would you say the strategy would be ?|j your advice, what would you say the strategy would be? i am speaking here in my independent capacity. but my advice would be zero covid as scotla nd my advice would be zero covid as scotland is doing and really doing quite successfully. but that does mean identifying high—risk situations and not lifting restrictions at this stage, while we are having tens of thousands of cases in the community. and the really high risk settings are indoors, enclosed indoor spaces such as pubs. doubling the risk is because people have a couple of drinks, their behavioural intentions tend to go awry. and also, opening

up tend to go awry. and also, opening up indoor gyms is another very high risk situation. if we really want not to be in a crisis again this autumn and winter, if we really want to get our children back to school, which seems a real priority for the society, i think we have to look at priorities and if the priority of getting children back to school is greater than, for example, indoor pubs and indoor gyms? 0utside is fine, but indo is really problematic. thank you very much for talking to us, professor. well—wishers and football fans are lining the streets of ashington and newcastle this morning ahead of the funeral of jack charlton who died earlier this month at the age of 85. big jack, as he was known, won the world cup with england in 1966 and later led ireland to the world cup quarter finals as manager. fiona trott is in ashington. tell us what people are saying there

this morning, fiona? this is the street outside his school. i want to show you briefly just street outside his school. i want to show you brieflyjust how many people are here already, ahead of the cortege which is due to pass here in maybe 15 or 20 minutes. there are hundreds of people along a six kilometre route around ashington. i want to introduce you toa ashington. i want to introduce you to a couple of ladies here, who are here with their families. they have come out especially for the cortege today. your partners and friends had taken the day off work, explain to us taken the day off work, explain to us why it is so important everybody comes out today to show their respects? everybody has so much respects? everybody has so much respect forjack respects? everybody has so much respect for jack charlton respects? everybody has so much respect forjack charlton and his family. he is a massive celebrity in ashington, he never forgot his roots. he used to come back and speak to everybody, just a wonderful man. that says a lot about the man, obviously football defined him but

it was his personality as well. he is to come back here a few times a week when he was playing at leeds, a real northumberland man, loved his shooting and fishing? the amount of people who have turned out today has proved how highly thought of he is. how about you, lindsay? he seemed a lovely man. his mum taught you at school? yes, she was a lovely lady. what do you think of the fact that jack charlton came from the town where you live? happy, like, good. you are pretty proud of him, you are telling me earlier? yes. thank you for having a chat with us this morning. the family have asked people that because we are in a pandemic, they have asked people to be distancing and wear masks. these are strange times, but how touching for them that despite that, so many

are coming out today to pay their respects to jack charlton. thank you very much, fiona. thank you. you are about to find out what is in the russia report nearly a year and a half after it was completed. the report will be published by parliaments, intelligence and security committee any moment now. the chair is julian security committee any moment now. the chair isjulian lewis and he will start with opening remarks and then you will hear from other members of the committee he were involved in preparing this report. this report, we've been waiting for for almost 18 months, expected to provide an overview of the threat russia poses to the uk. particularly when it comes to democratic elections. and what is being done to counter that kind of threat. as you know, comes after allegations of russian interference in last year ‘s

general election which the kremlin says was false and before that the brexit referendum in 2016 and the scotla nd brexit referendum in 2016 and the scotland independence referendum in 2014. did russia meddle in those two referendum? hopefully, we will get some kind of definitive answer in the next few minutes. we await the chair of the intelligence and security committee to begin the briefing. to the nation. i mean, it's not just about alleged interference in the uk political process. but mostly it is. the report that russia produced —— at the port produced by the previous intelligence and security committee in parliament. as chairman, i host the event but i will not be speaking to the report itself. the inquiry and report, were ably conducted by my predecessor the right honourable dominic grieve and the members of his committee. i myself am not in a

position to discuss the report or its contents. i am, however, delighted to be joined its contents. i am, however, delighted to bejoined by its contents. i am, however, delighted to be joined by two members of the current committee who also served in the previous committee. kevin jones, also served in the previous committee. kevinjones, stewart hosie, both worked on the russia inquiry and produced this report. they will make a statement now about the report explaining its findings and are then happy to answer any questions you may have. kevin, over to you. thank you and good morning to you. thank you and good morning to everyone. this report is the result of extensive enquiries by the previous committee on which both myself and stuart hosie sad. can i also take the opportunity to thank the chair of the committee dominic grieve for his work and the former members that also served on the committee. can i also thank the

agencies and civil servants for their impact, the input into this report and also thank the open source commentators and academics who also contributed to the report. under thejustice who also contributed to the report. under the justice and who also contributed to the report. under thejustice and security who also contributed to the report. under the justice and security act the committee must send its report to the prime minister for confirmation that it can't be published and as has been widely reported, the prime ministerfailed to provide his confirmation that this report could be published within the standard ten working days. and as a result, the house rose for the general election before the report could be published. there was no reason for this delay. number ten have said that there are only six days in which to look at this report, that is not true. the prime minister has also said, his office has also said it usually takes six

weeks to actually get this confirmation, can i also say that is categorically not true. number ten has also reported it also had to go back around government for comment, again, this is not true. it had already been through the processes. the final point is it was said the proper processes hadn't been followed in the consideration of this report. can i also state that categorically is not true. everyone who needed to see the report in government had done so. it was now awaiting the prime minister to agree the report. which was sent to him on the report. which was sent to him on the 17th of october. the prime minister finally provided confirmation of the day after the election, having ta ken confirmation of the day after the election, having taken a record time in doing so. however, the report can only be laid by the committee so we

had to wait seven months the committee to be constituted, again, a record period of time. the committee met last week to agree unanimously that the report would be published before the house rose for the summer recess. and i'm pleased the summer recess. and i'm pleased the report has therefore finally been published today, nine months after it was completed. there has been some attempt to discredit the report by suggesting the nine—month delay means the report is now stale and out of date. you will see very clearly yourselves today this is not the case. the delay by the prime minister inevitably fuelled a great deal of speculation as to why and what the report might say in particular around the eu referendum. that is why stuart hosie and i thought it was important to talk about the report to tell you the key

findings and to address the speculation that has taken place over the last nine months. and i will hand over to him. kevin, thank you. let me start by saying the uk is one of russia ‘stop western intelligence targets and we know russia targets the uk, notjust to steal secrets or research, it suits russia if there is disunity in the west. it weapon isis information. russian intelligence services or disproportionately large and powerful and they can act with little constraint. and fusion between state, business, organised crime in russia gives them for their weight and leverage. russia poses an all—encompassing security threat which is fuelled by paranoia about the west and a desire to be seen as a resurgent great power. it carries out malicious cyber activity in order to assert itself aggressively,

for example by attempting to interfere in other countries elections and pipe repositioning itself in other countries critical national infrastructure and this is an immediate threat to national security. which is why we were concerned during our inquiry to find out there is no clear coordination of the numerous organisations across the uk intelligence community who are working on this issue. and that there is a bizarrely complicated wiring diagram of responsibilities amongst ministers for no good reason. we need a simpler chain of command. we've seen that the government is now taking an assertive approach when it comes to identifying and laying blame on the perpetrators of cyber attacks and we do welcome this. the uk should encourage other countries to adopt a similar approach to naming and shaming and we shall also be working with our allies to develop an

international doctrine on the use of offensive cyber. kevin. russia promotes disinformation, and attempts to influence overseas, whether that's through social media, hack and leak or using its state—owned traditional media as has been widely reported. uk is clearly a target and must equip itself to counter such effort. 0ur paper—based voting and counting system makes actual interference with the mechanism difficult. the focus instead is on attempts to influence vote rs instead is on attempts to influence voters before they cast their votes by spreading disinformation and creating discord by amplifying existing differences. so the question is, who is protecting the

british public from interference in our democratic process? well, in a nutshell, we found no one is. we found the defence of the uk democratic process is a hot potato. no one was prepared to accept their overall lead, now we do understand that there is a considerable nervousness about the security intelligence agencies getting involved in the mechanics of the democratic process and that is rightly so. but we are also talking about here the protection of the process. dcms and the electoral commission simply do not have the white and access required to tackle a major hostile state threat. —— do not have the weight. democracy is integral to our country 's success and well— being, protecting integral to our country 's success and well—being, protecting it must bea and well—being, protecting it must be a ministerial priority. with the

office of security and counterterrorism taking the policy lead and operational role sitting with m15. lead and operational role sitting with mi5. this needs to be gripped now. the government must also ensure that social media companies who have failed to play their part to take down the use of their platforms by hostile states. we need clear deadlines within which material will be removed and government needs to name and shame those who fail to do so. name and shame those who fail to do so. i will hand back to stuart. this lack of interest in responsibility is important because it translates directly across in terms of investigation, into an action against interference and we saw that when we looked into allegations that russia sought to influence voters in the 2016 referendum on the uk membership of the european union.

studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro—brexit or anti—eu stories and the use of bots and controls. the actual impact of such attempts on the result itself, which i mean did the disinformation actually change how people voted, would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. there has, however, been speculation that this report was going to reveal either that russia had interfered in or sought to influence the referendum, in the view of the committee it is worse than that. the report reveals that no one in government knew if russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum because they did not want to know. the uk government have actively avoided looking for evidence that russia interfered. we were told they hadn't seen any interfered. we were told they hadn't seen any evidence but that is meaningless if they hadn't looked for it. the committee found it astonishing that no one in

government had sought beforehand to protect the referendum from such attem pts protect the referendum from such attempts or investigated afterwards what attempts to influence it there may have been. the the uk government should have recognised the threat backin should have recognised the threat back in 2014 in relation to the scottish referendum but it did not. it did not understand the threat until after the hack and leak operation against the democratic national committee in the united states. and because it was too slow to recognise the threat, did not ta ke to recognise the threat, did not take action to protect the uk in 2016. one would have thought that once the existence of that thread had been understood, seeing what had happened in the us, that someone here would have wanted to understand the extent and nature of the threat to the uk and we wanted to see the post referendum assessment but there isn't one. there has been no assessment of russian interference in the eu referendum. and this goes

back to nobody wanting to touch this issue with a ten foot poll. this is in stark contrast to the us response to reports of interference in the 2016 presidential election. no matter how politically offered or potentially embarrassing, there should have been an assessment of russian interference in the eu referendum and there must now be one. and the public must be told the results of that assessment. we heard last week, the government disclosed details of attempts to influence the 2019 election. and it there was considerable suspicion of the timing of that announcement, whether it was designed to draw the sting from this report. i cannot see anything that would draw the sting from this report. i will say that it is good that work now appears to be done to investigate attempts to interfere in the uk democratic process, although the uk democratic process, although the committee, the new committee will reservejudgement

the committee, the new committee will reserve judgement as it has yet to receive the underlying intelligence. but it is all rather too late, they should have done this in respect of previous democratic processes . in respect of previous democratic processes. and we must not let what has happened recently, deflect attention from the retrospective work which does need to be done to investigate previous attempts. coming back to kevin ‘s comments about the delay in publication and public —— speculation as to why that was, the previous chair said he thought the british public should have been able to see the report before the election. and i agree. the public was allowed to go into that election without knowing that the government had not sought to investigate whether hostile states had been interfering in uk democratic processes. and ifind that shocking. kevin. thank you. the average is and that

there was interference, the average is that no one would want to know if there was a difference. —— the outrage. that, ithink, come through very loud and clear in the report. what we do know about russian influence in the uk is that it's the new normal. successive governments welcomed russian oligarchs and their money with open arms and there is a lot of russians with very close links to vladimir putin who are now very well integrated into uk business, political and social scenes. in what has been referred to as london grand. yet few if any questions have been asked about the problems of considerable wealth. this open door approach has provided an ideal mechanism by which illicit finance could be recycled through the london laundromat. and it is not

just the oligarch s either. the arrival of russian money has enabled arrival of russian money has enabled a growth industry, flower mad lawyers, accountants, estate agents have all played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, and formed our buffer of westerners, de facto agents of the russian state. there is an obvious intention between the government austerity agenda and the need to protect national security. toa certain need to protect national security. to a certain extent, this cannot be untangled, the priority now must be to mitigate the risk and ensure for a hostile activity is uncovered, proper tools exist to tackle it, at its source and to challenge it. proper tools exist to tackle it, at its source and to challenge itm is notable, for example, that a number of members of the house of

lords have business interests linked to russia or work directly for major russian companies linked to the russian companies linked to the russian state, these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the should be carefully scrutinised, given the potentialfor the russian state to exploit them. there must be com plete state to exploit them. there must be complete transparency about any links with russian businesses at every level of politics. and we do not have that in respect of the house of lords at present. now, that is all i am going to say about what is all i am going to say about what is in the published report. there is, of course, a classified annex that we cannot reveal details of in that we cannot reveal details of in that report without revealing information which could be harmful to the uk. 0n the other side of the coin, in addition to vladimir putin at linked elites, the uk is also home to a number of vladimir putin critics who sought sanctuary here, fearing politically motivated charges and harassment. the events of the 4th of march 2018 showed the vulnerability of former russian

intelligence officers who have settled in the uk and this is one of theissues settled in the uk and this is one of the issues we do address in the classified annex to the report. what we can say is that it's been clear for some time that russia under vladimir putin is an established threat, and a mentally unwilling to adhere to international law, the murder of alexander living in ko in 2006 and annexation of crimea in 2014 are stark indicators of this. —— alexander living in ko. in our opinion, the uk government took its eye off the ball because of a focus on counterterrorism, the government had badly underestimated the response required to the russian threat and is still playing catch up. russia poses a tough intelligence challenge and the agencies here must have the tools they need to tackle it. the official secrets act, example, is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to tackling foreign spies. and until we

change that, the intelligence community is hands are tied. kevin. just one final point. the need for international consensus against russian action. to constrain their nefarious activities will rely on making the price to russia that they extract, sufficiently high, that they will change their actions. the we st they will change their actions. the west is strong when it acts collectively together and the uk it needs to take a leading role in that. the expulsion of 153 diplomats from 29 countries and nato following the us chemical weapons attack in salisbury was unprecedented. together with subsequent exposure of gru agents responsible, this sent a clear and strong message that actions would not be tolerated. we

must build on that momentum and that momentum must not be lost. we are now ready to take questions. i have a list. ten people so far. the first will be laura kuenssberg, the bbc. loss of sound simply drop the ball in terms of looking for political interference. who do you hold responsible for the failure to look for evidence of what was really going on? i wouldn't want to say that the uk

government deliberately avoided asking the questions but nevertheless, they did avoid asking the questions. and the real criticism is that after the scottish referendum in 2014, after the dmc —— the democratic national congress episode in 2016, it must have been clear that had they looked for similar evidence in the uk, as the report said, it would have been extraordinary if they hadn't reached the same conclusions. so i'm not going to say this was a deliberate act of omission, but an act of omission it was, nevertheless and it's left the uk vulnerable because we do not yet know the scale and scope of the interference. can i just add to that, the security and

defence, i think, just add to that, the security and defence, ithink, of just add to that, the security and defence, i think, of not only our democracy but are people, should be the first rule of government. the government here have clearly led us down because is has been outlined, it wasn't that this was some type of wild fishing expedition that had been going on, there was clear evidence not only just been going on, there was clear evidence not onlyjust from the scottish referendum, but also the democratic league in the united states. so serious questions need to be asked why ministers did not then see that they should at least look at the level of russian interference in those elections. which is remarkable to me, suddenly, last thursday, we had a statement saying or claiming that russia interfered in the 2019 general election. but complete silence on what went on

before. because of the numbers and the anticipated time of finishing, i'm allowing about four minutes per journalist back in forth so laura, would you like to come back again? i cannot hear you. thank you. were reasons given to you by any of your witnesses surrounding the investigations as to why investigations as to why investigations had not taken place? the reasons appeared to be a com plete the reasons appeared to be a complete lack of clarity as to who should instruct it or whether it should instruct it or whether it should be self tasked and as we describe in the report, a complete hot potato. nobody wanted to take responsibility for this. hot potato. nobody wanted to take responsibility forthis. now, hot potato. nobody wanted to take responsibility for this. now, as kevin pointed out earlier, it was understandable nervousness about intelligence agencies being engaged in the democratic process but as the report makes clear, that doesn't

mean they shouldn't be protecting the democratic process. so what we are saying now is there needs to be clarity from government that this assessment needs to be undertaken whether that's tasked directly by government, or if the agencies, m15, self tasked to do this work. the written evidence, the ways the committee looks at evidence, evidence the government provided says they hadn't seen any successful interference in the uk democratic process or any activities that lead to impact on elections, for example, interference in results but the scandal is, the reason for that is because no one had actually sought that, there was no investigation so they can make that statement without any, no attempt was made to look at it so it's a pretty hollow

statement. let's squeeze one more m, statement. let's squeeze one more in, if you have got it, laura? would you like to ask one more question? i cannot hear you. obviously, spooks are causing problems here! there we go. thank you. problem with the mute button. thank you. you could use the prime minister of misleading people around this publication, are you saying he has lied about why it should be published? you will have to as the prime minister that. all i was setting out was various statements have been made, by number ten, which were not true. they are facts. and it's, i know there is a new thing, if number ten says something it has got to be true,

unfortunately, on this occasion, it clearly wasn't. i think i listed at least four occasions, all statements made by numberten least four occasions, all statements made by number ten can't be refuted. thank you, laura. —— they can be refuted. deborah haynes. deborah. thank you. can you hear me. thank you. you've obviously set out this failure, this lack of curiosity in the threat to our democratic processes. while obviously ministers have questions to answer about that, do you also think the spy chiefs, despite masters, who are in charge of the agencies, should have been more forceful in gripping what you describe as a hot potato and get into the bottom of whether or not there was actually russian interference in the brexit referendum? primarily, this is a political

question. should the government have instructed this work to be undertaken and the answer is yes, of course it should have. as to the question about heads of agencies, only m15 can self task and direct work itself, the other agencies would require to be asked to do it. so yes, m15 perhaps should have done this work, but more importantly, and i think you lead off very cleverly, the lack of curiosity particularly after the democratic national congress hack and leak episode, one would have assumed someone at the heart of government might have wa nted heart of government might have wanted to know if efficacy of democratic processes in the uk was being undermined, if discordant m essa g es we re being undermined, if discordant messages were being amplified, if there was an attempt to actually change the result, that work has not been done. i think quite rightly, in

our democracy, there is a reluctance for security services to directly get involved in the democratic process, i think that's a given but i think what is not excusable here as hasjust i think what is not excusable here as has just been i think what is not excusable here as hasjust been outlined, that no one in government in terms of ministers, ministerial level or above, actually looked at the flashing lights that were there already in terms of the scottish referendum and the issue in terms of the democratic party in the united states. and that is a political question. you know, that is one that should have been looked at and in terms of failure is, that is a major failure because we say in the report, if we had discovered, for example, interference, could we have quantified its effect on elections? no, we couldn't, i don't think you could but at least we would or could have known what the threat was but

also measures in future we could ta ke also measures in future we could take to mitigate against those threats. deborah, have another go. obviously, you cannot say categorically whether or not there was russian interference in the brexit referendum but given all the evidence that you have heard, what is your best guess, do you believe that russia are trying to influence that russia are trying to influence that vote and just a second follow—up, if i may. you talked about out that standard government line that we've heard so many times that there's been no evidence of successful interference, do you believe that was the government being deliberately evasive to avoid the fact that they simply don't know because they haven't looked? well, i'm not sure if it was being evasive orjust i'm not sure if it was being evasive or just trying to i'm not sure if it was being evasive orjust trying to be a little too cute. and as kevin said, it would be impossible to quantify the impact of interference. so in a sense, it's

impossible to prove whether that interference had been successful or otherwise. the key point though, and you allude to it in your question, they had not sought even to ask that question. and that's at the heart of this report. i think the question is this, and i think there is obviously a misunderstanding, we deal with evidence. we have extensive powers, including access to some of the most highly classified and secret material that is available to government. there was no evidence that we saw, and the reason why there was no evidence was because no one had actually asked for the work to be done. so in terms of saying, did russia interfere in the eu referendum, you can't say that. no one in government asked that either. so in the evidence we saw, i think

we came to the conclusion that we can't make a judgment call and stewart is right. even if there had been an investigation into it, quantifying the effect of that on the result would be very difficult. we saw no evidence because no one in government asked the questions that need to be asked. one more? given that that is now your finding, are you demanding the no go and find out? will you, as a committee, be following up this enquiry and finding out conclusively whether or not russia did influence in our democratic events like the referendum? we cannot ask the agency is to do work. we can only ask them to tell us what they already know. but it self evident from the publication of this report that the government should now set up and pay

attention as i said, we welcome the work they have appeared to have done in relation to 2019. we have yet to see evidence of that, but we've also said that the committee will now look at any evidence which comes forward in relation to what has happened in 2019 and beyond. we would also agree, and it's in the report, with the dcms select committee which has made a similar request to government in the past that it should try to understand the scale and nature of the interference in previous electoral and democratic events. what i would say is this. there was a written ministerial statement last week from the foreign secretary suggesting russia had interfered in the 2019 general election. we've seen no evidence of

that because we've not been provided with any of the intelligence which supports that statement. we have asked to see it. but the important point here i think is that in terms of the protecting the democratic process, lessons should have been learned or at least question should have been asked. and they were not. so, the report is very clear, we suggest government should now do it. but we cannot task the agencies or anyone else to undertake that review. we now come to andy bell from five news. thank you. i take the central point you say that the uk authorities simply didn't ask questions, but you must be able to point to something. what is the worst exa m ple point to something. what is the worst example you can give of

russian interference in our democratic process? what is the worst thing they have done, as far as you know? well, that's the question which we want to have answered. the uk government in the richest —— written ministerial statement last week, i think they said ina statement last week, i think they said in a statement, there was an extensive assessment and there was the leaking of is described as illicitly acquired material in relation to the uk— us trade deals. it was posted on the website reddit. the uk government says it didn't claim traction but it was clearly put out there in order to directly interfere ina put out there in order to directly interfere in a uk election. i'm not going to say that is the worst that

has happened, and this is the whole point that is alluding to in your question, we don't know because no assessment of previous electoral events was undertaken or requested. and that's absolutely shocking, given what we do know about russian interference, particularly the operation at the democratic national committee and the united states.|j think a lot of it has been on open source, think a lot of it has been on open source, some think a lot of it has been on open source, some of the things you suggested about. but what shocked me is that the government have not actually looked at this area. there was evidence after the scottish referendum, there was clear evidence in the united states and the united states took it seriously enough to actually investigated. there are hack and leaks in terms of the french elections as well, so there

was a lot of evidence that russia we re was a lot of evidence that russia were doing this to some of our closest allies. but the government thought it wasn't necessary to look in terms of how it affected those elections. and stewart highlighted the statement next week. if you look at the statement, i don't think it says that russia did the original leaking, they said they would amplify it. but we can't comment on that from an intelligence point of view because we've not seen the underlying intelligence which we have asked for. until we have seen the evidence that underlies that statement, we're taking the statement, we're taking the statement as it being produced. another question, andy? one more

quick one. do you have any faith that the uk government is now taking this seriously and in similar situations would be asking the questions that you say were not asked in the past? yes, because this is the first time i can imagine for a very long time that these sorts of matters are being discussed widely in the media and in the public. today and last week, we have had two written ministerial statements on this sort of subject, with the publication of this report today. i think there is an understanding now of the way state and non—state operators behave and try to influence peoples opinions on the results of elections. bots and trawls all over the place. i think this will now become part of the further moment of political and media discussion. how we stop the disinformation —— trolls. how we

protect from state interference. so i hope this is the start of a watershed in making sure everything we do is as clean as it can be from outside interference. let's move on. luke harding of the guardian newspaper. thank you. i wonder if i could clarify whether the committee looked at interactions between leave the eu, aaron banks and the russian media in the months before the referendum? he says he was exonerated by the report. all! can say is the only reference to it is

on page 50. it is in a footnote. the audio was very poor. could you repeat that? it is referred to on the report. on page 13, footnote 50 cove rs aaron the report. on page 13, footnote 50 covers aaron banks. ifi might follow up, just to be clear, are you now saying that downing street and the security agencies should launch a comprehensive investigation into russian interference around the 2016 referendum, is that one of your m essa g es referendum, is that one of your messages today? yes, self evidently.

we need to understand the uk government needs to understand what interference there may have been, whether it had any influence on the result or not. not least to ensure that future political events, future electoral processes can be protected from similar interference. the clear line is yes, we do, because it's notjust that looking historically at what happened or did not happen, but it's making sure we can go forward, knowing the threat and protect the democratic process. ina and protect the democratic process. in a democracy, that is very important, in terms of people having confidence that the process is robust —— as robust as possible. if

you haven't even looked at the process in the past, you can predict the future. yes, we want the government now to look. but we do not have the powers to insist the government does that. last question, ican imagine government does that. last question, i can imagine what the prime minister's response will be. i expect he will be extremely relu cta nt to expect he will be extremely reluctant to investigate this. is there anything further you might say to persuade him that this isn't about party political advantage but this is about the integrity of the british democratic processes? this is not about party politics. this is above that. it's about making sure that our political process is as secure as that our political process is as secure as possible and people have faith that their vote counts. and it is important, and i would say this

very clearly, and i know a lot of accusations have made about the past chair of the committee that dropped this report, that was not anything to do with it at all. it was to ensure that we actually looked at russian interference in the political system and if we are going to have integrity in the system going forward, we need to see it as a threat but also learn lessons. and see if there are things we need to change, for example, to ensure that electoral system is secure because democracy at the end of the day is very precious. thank you, kevin. we now move on to sam lister of the express newspaper.” now move on to sam lister of the express newspaper. i wonder if you can be very explicit pleas about why you think the government doesn't wa nt you think the government doesn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole? is it money, politics,

intelligence and security agencies don't have a grip —— have the ability to get a grip on this? don't have a grip —— have the ability to get a grip on this7m certainly is not the latter. the intelligence agencies must certainly have the ability to get a grip on this. they need to be tasked or choose to task themselves to do it. as to why the government won't touch this, perhaps that's a question you might want to ask them. because one would have imagined whichever party or parties that were in government at any or parties that were in government atany time, or parties that were in government at any time, the one thing we would wa nt to at any time, the one thing we would want to ensure was the robustness and security and efficacy and trust in the electoral process, so it's beyond this committee to understand why there's been such an omission and information of potential interference was never requested. as to why they wouldn't want to do it in the future, let's hope those opinions and minds have changed and they will now take this matter more

seriously. i wonder if i could touch on an issue stewart hosie raised earlier about the house of lords and the lack of transparency. this morning, bill broder who gave evidence to the investigation said he handed over names and evidence about conservative and labour peers who take money from oligarchs to do their bidding. do you think there is any evidence of criminal matters in relation to that? should there be an investigation into the activities in the lords and an overhaul?” investigation into the activities in the lords and an overhaul? i won't comment on the specific allegation andi comment on the specific allegation and i don't know what information was handed over to whom, obviously if it's alleged criminality that's a matter for the police, if it's alleged criminality that's a matterfor the police, but what we're saying is that in the house of for example, every earning over £100

has to be declared. that does not exist in the house of lords. even that absence of obvious transparency needs to be addressed and we believe because of the potential for people or the russian state to try to use people then the more transparency we can have and the quickest we can have it, the better. so the most basic level, let's have people who do work for oligarchs and companies linked to the russian state at the very least declaring their income from that, in the same with members of parliament have to do. that strikes me as a sensible, modern, transparent common sense thing to do and there's no reason why that can't be done quickly. i agree. in terms of the name suggested, i know who

the r but we chose not to name them in this report. the reductions were agreed with the entire committee and also the security services as well. names were mentioned at the committee and i don't think i wish to comment on those that are not in the open report. do you think there are questions about peoples behaviour, even if you can't name them? and just more generally, you talked about how the government is playing catch up now and must take action, what are the top three priorities you feel that the government must now look at to rectify this issue? well, there are many things it could do. you want three. let's start with investigate thoroughly whether there has been

interference historically. let's do the transparency on the house of lords. and of course there so much more in this report than the rather narrow scope we have more in this report than the rather narrow scope we have spoken about so far. there is a revamp needed of the official secrets act. it is not illegal to be a foreign agent in the uk today. it's not illegal to spy. it's only illegal once you pass information over. that surely can't be right. there are three off the top of my head, there are many more. individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions in terms of how the operate. i will not comment on names that you referred to. there is another report that we will not comment on because of the nature of the material for national security reasons. if there isa national security reasons. if there is a criminality, as stewart said, thatis is a criminality, as stewart said, that is a matter for the police. the

best issue here is transparency. so we know what people's connections are, what they are doing. and i think that would be important. for those individuals on the list you referred to, i think it's for them to comment on what their actions are, not this committee. thank you very much. we now move to marisa brown. there's obviously been a huge delay to the publication of this, as you have set out. would you think the impact of that has been? —— what do you think the impact of that has been? and on cyber attacks, you detail how attempted cyber attacks against the sco were carried out, has uk government been doing enough

in this domain? thank you. the government delayed this report, is the reason. if you read the report, it is very relevant. the motivations for that are obviously for government and the prime minister to answer. what i want to reiterate at this point, the reasons put up for the delay by government are not true. they need to answer that. in terms of cyber, think it's well documented... what you think the impact has been, rather the reasons? the previous chairman said this

should have been produced before the 2019 general election and it is plain for the general public to make a judgment on that. it was delayed because of government, not by this committee. what has saddened me in the past couple of weeks, and certainly in the past 24 hours, is a way of trying to diminish the impact of this report. we do a seriousjob for this country. it is an important pa rt of for this country. it is an important part of our democracy. and i think the way in which the government have tried to politicise this and to push this report aside does not help in terms of the important role that this committee and parliament has in terms of scrutinising our democracy. if we are going to have faith in our security services, we have brave men and women who work for us, the

public have trust in them, parliamentary oversight is very important. i think there are two a nswe rs important. i think there are two a nswers to important. i think there are two answers to your question. the impact is that any lessons which could have been learned will now be learned rather later than the ought to have been, perhaps too late to stop some other cyber attacks. but the other thing we need to learn from it is ridiculously complex wiring diagram of responsibilities in relation to cyber alone. it's in the report, it in paragraph 18, but just cyber alone. it's in the report, it in paragraph 18, butjust as an example the foreign secretary has responsibility for the national cyber security centre. the defence secretary has responsibility for the national cyber programme. the secretary of state at the cms leads

on digital manners. the chancellor of the duchy of lancaster responsible for the national cyber security centre strategy, which is different from the security centre. this is ridiculous. there are a number of lessons that went unlearned. one more question? in that case, we will move on. it is a question for kevan jones first. there is a key line in this report where you state it appears the intelligence community did learn the lessons from the american experience in the british government recognised the russian threat to the uk democratic processes. in may 2017 the joint intelligence committee concluded, had relevant parts of the

intelligence community conducted an assessment prior to the brexit referendum, it is inconceivable we would not have come to the same conclusion. you've talked a lot about the uk government failure is here, but do what extent are the intelligence services at fault here? should they have blotted amongst themselves to outline the threats? well, there is a genuine nervousness in the security services about getting involved in the democratic process. i think we all appreciate the reasons for that. but ultimately this was a government decision, a ministerial decision. and short of

getting a flashing light outside numberten saying getting a flashing light outside number ten saying this was going on, they could not have missed this. and it wasn't taken. sol they could not have missed this. and it wasn't taken. so i think to sidestep and blame the agencies is not fair because i wouldn't want to live in a society where our security services are politically directed, that's going down a road that i don't think is very healthy for democracy and healthy for a society that certainly i want to live in. the government have to take responsibility for this, they can sidestep and blame other people. a decision was taken not to. the evidence was there. the court you have just given in the report is the conclusion we came to. the quote you read out, that if they had done the same investigation they don't reach the same conclusions, that's really damning of the government's

subsequent failure not to undertake that assessment. it's not that they didn't know by then what was going on in other parts of the world. we still are on in other parts of the world. we still a re left on in other parts of the world. we still are left flummoxed as to understand why no one lacked the curiosity to say, are we fully protected here, what more needs to be done to beef up the cyber defences particularly? can i check more precisely who you think is responsible within government? you keep seeing the uk government had some serious failure is here. are you talking about the cameron government in its dying days, the government in its dying days, the government under theresa may, in particular boris johnson who was foreign secretary under theresa may?

who are you talking about particularly, or all of them? uk government is now talk about a joined up approach. they talk about whole of government approach. when it comes to national security, when it comes to national security, when it comes to cyber security, as i've just laid out, covering multiple departments, this should have been a cabinet decision. whether it was david cameron, theresa may or boris johnson at the helm is almost irrelevant. the action required to be taken to assess and identify the threat are put in place the defences should have been undertaken by government, with a decision made at a cabinet level and that appears to us to simply not have happened. sorry, can i just

us to simply not have happened. sorry, can ijust say, i concur with what stewart has said. ultimately, the prime minister of the day is responsible for how his or her government is conducted. and in terms of that oversight, the responsibility has ultimately got to live with them. if you want the harry truman, the buck has to stop somewhere. stewart said earlier that ministers actively avoided checking into this whole matter. do you have any evidence the actively avoided it? sorry, i said quite the reverse. i thought i said there was no active running away from this, but nevertheless no action was taking and it wasn't investigated.” nevertheless no action was taking and it wasn't investigated. ijust wa nt to and it wasn't investigated. ijust want to clarify the hot potato

remark was about this issue that the press release makes very clear which is about which of the agencies should take the lead in protecting our systems from threats of the sort. so that's really where we make a firm recommendation. and in a way it's commendable that the intelligence services are reluctant to get into close to the party political process and the electoral process but someone has to protect them and someone needs to take legal responsibility and the report makes clear recommendations. i want to get that on the record. we now come to ben glaze of the mirror newspaper. thank you. what you think russia seeks to gain from this campaign of interference in our politics? given

what in your report, is there any reason why russia wouldn't have tried to interfere in the brexit referendum? youjust tried to interfere in the brexit referendum? you just need to read the open source material. they have form in this area. as a report says, takes a form in this area. as a report says, takesa numberof form in this area. as a report says, takes a number of different approaches, whether it be the influence event in terms of fake news, but also amplifying, aimed at amplifying existing divisions. what is to be gained? i think it's to disorientate what it sees as one of its adversaries. and there's obviously in terms of the hack and leak in the united states and france, that was a way of doing that. in terms of influence, yes,

the ultimate thing is to weaken us in terms of... we are vulnerable in one respect because in a democracy like our own, we are open to different opinions. they clearly seek to amplify those divisions which leads possibly to destabilising the system, which is what they are aiming to do. isaid in i said in my introductory remarks, it takes a cyber activity to assert itself. it does pre-position itself in other countries critical national infrastructure. it is notjust about picking a fight with the traditional adversary or an enemy, it's about

positioning itself as a research and great power. we mustn't understand the motivation behind many of the things that it does. i'm wondering what role you see for social media companies in curbing the spread of this information from russia, one where they can do? the main one is taking misinformation down as quickly as possible. this has already been pursued by dcms. it needs to be timely and taken down —— in being taken down. the main role the government can play is when there is clear evidence of any state actor using social media in this way, we should name them and shame them, but also i think the recommendation is this a around social media, where if they refuse to take what are designed to

interfere in our system, they should be named and shamed as well. would you like a third, ben? very well, we will move on to hallux hodgson of newsweek, please. -- alex hudson. . you talked a lot about future election processes, language around proof and evidence is very carefully worded. how much more are you expecting to game if we look into the election interference in 2019, given those questions weren't asked at the time? if you look at what the government said in its written ministerial statement last week, it said after the analysis the government has concluded it is almost certain russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the on—line application of illicitly acquired

and leaked government documents. the new committee will undertake to seek further enquiries into this to see the evidence, the intelligence that would stand this up. at which point we will be able to answer the question much more clearly, was the interference widespread, did it simply takea interference widespread, did it simply take a few dodgy documents and amplify them, did it seek or achieve in changing how people voted, although that is unlikely? only after we begin to see some of the intelligence behind the government's statements and other information will be be able to a nswer fully information will be be able to answer fully the question about the scale and scope of the interference you are asking. we as a committee have access to requests the

information behind this dcms and we have done that, but we are limited in the sense that at this time we can't really say a great deal more thanit can't really say a great deal more than it is in the public domain because we have not seen any of the classified material which the government used to come to this conclusion. likewise, we have not seen any conclusion. likewise, we have not seen any classified information about any wider involvement or alleged involvement in the 2019 general election. once we see the classified information, then we can make a judgment on that wms. it did come as a surprise to members of the committee that this wms came a week out before this russian report was being presented. we will assess it

when we get the intelligence. we can't say any more because we haven't seen it. will the evidence be better at this time than the previous evidence you have looked through? if they provided to us, will be delighted, because the whole theme of this is they did not seek evidence on interference in previous political or democratic events. therein lies the fundamental problem. self—evidently, if they provide evidence this time it will be 100% better than the very limited or nonexistent effort that has been put in historically. if we have had a change in government and somehow they are now looking for evidence on interference in elections that is a good move, but again we haven't seen

the evidence around this particular wms, and the more important thing is not just this thing wms, and the more important thing is notjust this thing and the reasons why it was put in the public domain last week i am sceptical of, but is there a wider investigation into other things? we have not been informed that as a committee prior, and the first we heard of this last week was when we receive their wms on thursday morning. given mike pompeo is in the uk today and he is very keenly focused on china, do you think that this work on russia has falle n think that this work on russia has fallen down the priority list for governments, particularly with the us, because of the recent political focus on china and hong kong, and

how are you hoping that this report will bring back to the top of the agenda? the fact that we have journalist after generally speaking about it today, that this report has been much awaited, and i don't think it will let people down, this is not out of date. this brings russia back up out of date. this brings russia back up the political and diplomatic agenda, as it should do. that is not to ta ke agenda, as it should do. that is not to take any focus out of china, of course, but sometimes governments need to think about more than one thing simultaneously, particularly when it comes to these matters. china has a lot of attention in the la st china has a lot of attention in the last few months, certainly within parliament. one could ask why similar questions are being asked around russia's involvement. the point i would make is the russian

ambassador said at the weekend that he wants good relationships with the uk. i personally would agree with that, most people would come i can only be achieved if russia applies and works by the international rules —based order that we all accept. i think without that, russia continues to bea think without that, russia continues to be a threats to the uk. this is why it is remarkable that the government haven't looked at what involvement they have had in terms of previous elections, apart from the late wms last week on the 2019 general election. thank you very much, alex. iwould general election. thank you very much, alex. i would like to point out for the record that with regard to the issuing of the wms, that government would undoubtedly say

that they briefed the new committee at the first opportunity, so soon after it had been formed. the problem is of course that the committee should have informed a lot earlier. good morning. what is fascinating here is that the warning lights were flashing on the dashboard of democracy in 2014 during the scottish independence referendum. you refer to open source material on that, i wonder if you could tell us a little bit about that and whether the committee itself investigated these allegations. how did the uk government missed this? this is meant to be the gold standard of referendum. we are five things that russians did interfere in 2014 at night that it is in russia's in tracks to break up the united kingdom? firstly, the report, and

this is on page 13, talks about the scottish independence referendum in 2014, so that is there. there is a very clear footnote on that page, which i will read for clarity. it says, it was widely reported shortly after the referendum that russian election observers had suggested there were irregularities in the conduct of the vote and that this position was being widely pushed by russian state media. we understand the uk government viewed this as primarily aimed at discrediting the uk in the eyes of a domestic russian audience, but nevertheless, those messages post referendum were being put out there to discredit the results, so you're absolutely that was a warning light, there were subsequent ones, the 2016 dnc hack and leak, and it wasn't the case of

the government weren't told they should be looking at this. on page 14, this is in a footnote but i'm sure you will avidly read it over the next few days, there dcms select committee called on the government to launch an independent investigation into foreign influence. this information funding, photomanipulation and the sharing of data in relation to the scottish independence referendum. so the government were told by a select committee of the house, another select committee, to undertake precisely the work that would have identified the scale and scope of this threats. you reported there are agents...

kevan will reply first. all the evidence was there from the scottish referendum. short of having a large van outside downing street with a billboard on it saying this is what was going on, what more did the government need? it does raise the question of why the decision was taken not to look at the referendum. i think the report quite rightly draws comparison to what happened in the united states, where investigations did take place into the leaking. here, thatjust decision wasn't taken. sorry to cut across you there, mr chairman. i was interested in what stewart says. the report says there were people who played a role wittingly or

unwittingly and formed at the facto agency of the russian state. do you include russia today and this, the edinburgh—based sputnik agency, and alex salmond, se at the facto agent of russian state? the reference to the fact loose and referred to people who wittingly or unwittingly got close to the russian state. we make our criticism, we actually say in the run—up to the eu referendum, there was a preponderance of anti—eu pieces on sputnik. what the report does not do is make any criticism of any individual, programme maker or commentator or presenter. that is

not that this is about. it is about russia today and sputnik as institutions who are able to very quickly, when they need to, to get out the russian state version of events. it is not a criticism of any particular individual at all and i don't think i can be much clearer on that one. one more go if you want it. in general, you report talks about this being the new normal, russian interference in western democracy, so in a few words, how would you summarise the threat of russia to western democracy? is it a nuisance we will have to live with, is ita nuisance we will have to live with, is it a serious threat or should vote rs really is it a serious threat or should voters really be worried about the electoral process being undermined by russia? you could describe it as

the new normal. it is part of their strategy. what we need to do is make sure that we have policies in place which protects our democratic process. uniquely in the uk, because there is a paper based voting system it makes it harder to attack that side of it, but one of the great strengths would be doing the investigation, because if the government had done that then at least it could have look for vulnerabilities, look for things and been able to change things. choose not do that. thank you. we have a late addition to our list. paul brand from itv. thank you very much, chair, for allowing longer slit submission, it is very much appreciated. summarising this press conference, fundamentally, do you believe the government has been

relu cta nt believe the government has been reluctant to look at russian interference in the brexit referendum because the government is run by the winning side? that is a very political question which i don't think we can answer. all we can say and all the report says is that they didn't seek the information. that is the real shock in this. the political subterfuge that may be dreadfully interesting in the tea rooms of the house of commons is irrelevant. the fact is they did not seek to understand the impact or scale or scope of the interference in previous political events, including the eu referendum. they should not do that so that we can now understand what it entailed, what impact it may or may not have had, the influence it may or may not have had, and to work out how to

protect the efficacy of the democratic process going forward. protect the efficacy of the democratic process going forwardm is not for this committee to make a politicaljudgment on that, if they wa nt to politicaljudgment on that, if they want to draw their own conclusions it is completely up to them. what we we re it is completely up to them. what we were tasked with was unique access to material which is not in the public domain. we were able to look at what was or in escape what was done. the really serious issue that this report puts forward is that democracy is a very precious thing. we need to do what we can to protect it and the government has not done that. that is why we are suggesting isa that. that is why we are suggesting is a matter of urgency it is looked at because we are not dealing here with an adversary who is going to go away soon. with an adversary who is going to go away soon. why ministers choose not to do that and learn the lessons and

if necessary change things, that is one you have to address to them. thank you very much. before i make my concluding point, i would just like to ask about my colleagues have got any questions that they wish they had been asked and wants? no? on page 33 of the report, it is about legislation which is going forward , about legislation which is going forward, concentrating a lot on elections, but it is the issue around the new espionage act. the director of m15 did give evidence to us, when he said there were issues in the official secrets act which we re in the official secrets act which were no longer relevant and should

be changed. the law commission did report in 2017 on a new espionage act and as a matter of priority that should be brought forward. the other one which repairs to the section in terms of the use of individuals here to promote our foreign terms of the use of individuals here to promote ourforeign power as a recommendation similar to the us foreign registration tax, that should also be a priority of the government so that anybody acting on behalf of a foreign government will have to register before doing so again, coming to the point about having maximum transparency that those who operate within our democracy. so, in closing, iwould like to thank all of the media who have taken part in this event. i would like to thank the committee

staff, who have worked tremendously hard, and also the broadcasting technicians who have made it possible. this committee has been subjected to unprecedented delay and dislocation. this really must never happen again. the sooner normal relations are restored between this committee and the governments the better it will be for all concerned. yet that prospect has not been helped by the government refusing to tell us what was in the written ministerial statement about this russia report, which the government choose to table in the commons at 10:30am this morning to clash with the start of this event. know maybe iam being the start of this event. know maybe i am being unfair to them, maybe they have another plan, maybe they are going to add to their written ministerial statement by making an oral statement to the commons

tomorrow so the commons can have its say. that would be a very positive sign. let's hope it happens. thank you, and that concludes this event. you are watching bbc news. i'm rebecca jones. we have been listening to them members of the intelligence and security committee who have been given and use conference about the report into alleged russian interference into elections in the uk. let's look at some of the key points that were made in the report. they said that russia considers the uk to be one of its top western intelligence targets and stated that russian influence in the uk is the new normal. the committee also said that the government actively avoided looking for evidence of russian interference in the 2016 eu referendum. kevan

jones said the outrage was not that russia had interfered, but rather that no one wanted to know about it. the russia report accuses successive governments of welcoming russian oligarchs and their money with open arms and said that they had high level access to uk companies and political figures. level access to uk companies and politicalfigures. meanwhile, level access to uk companies and political figures. meanwhile, the kremlin says it has never interfered with electoral processes and any country in the world. in the last few moments we have also received a ‘s response to the report. the foreign secretary, dominic raab, has tweeted we have been clear that russia must desist from its attacks on the uk and our allies. we will be resolute in defending our country, our democracy undervalues from such hostile state activity. it is a lengthy response, which we will bring you more of in the coming

moments, but i suppose the headline is that the british government has said it has seen no evidence of successful interference in the eu referendum and it has set a retrospective assessment of the brexit vote is not necessary. frank gardner is our security correspondent and he has been watching alongside us. frank, a lot to digest, clearly. there was no evidence that russia sought to influence the eu referendum but only because the british government did not seek to find out if it had, said the committee. what are your thoughts? i think that is really the central plank of this committee because my criticism. they have said it again and again that this was an act of omission. they find a quite staggering that given the indications of alleged russian

meddling in democratic processes, given what was known about the hostile intent with the vladimir putin leadership in moscow, they find it very strange that nobody really grasped this and delve deeply or even ordered a deep dive into potential russian meddling. our indications are that there wasn't exactly interference but there were influence operations going on with the scottish referendum. that is really their big criticism, that it was not investigated and that it should have been. the problem here is partly our way told one of what i would call sloping shoulders, that nobody was taking responsibility, well, it is not us, it is somebody else. interestingly, when m15, the uk domestic intelligence agency, was asked for their input originally they provided just six lines of

text. that was it laziness, it was indicative of the extreme reluctance on the intelligence agency's part to be seen as interfering in any way with the uk democratic process. the committee said the government must set up and pay attention to russian interference, it has taken its eye off the ball. an act of omission. how embarrassing is this for the government? i think it is quite embarrassing for them, notjust this government. this goes back a few yea rs. government. this goes back a few years. russian involvement in the uk economy and its affairs is not new, but it has certainly accelerated. one of the interesting things that has come out of this is the official secrets act, a household name that is often branded about, has been termed unfit for purpose because, interestingly, and we were told some

time ago, that if you are an agent ofa time ago, that if you are an agent of a foreign government, even a supposedly hostile government like russia, as it has been termed in this report, you haven't committed a crime unless you passed secret intelligence. you can come to this country has a secret agent of another country undeclared and not break the law. they are saying that has to be changed. they are saying that more effort needs to be done, tougher measures, tougher legislation to stop foreign espionage in this country. thank you. you are watching bbc news. now it's time for a look at the weather with matt taylor. hello. after a fresh, but sunny start to the day for many parts of the country, what we will actually see through today compared with yesterday is a bit more cloud develop. now, most will stay dry, but not quite as much sunshine

around as some of you saw through yesterday afternoon. and with that in mind, temperatures will drop a little bit as well. now, the reason for the increased amounts of cloud comes from this, pushing in off the atlantic. that will be most notable across parts of northern ireland and western scotland, once again. so, after a brighter, middle part of the day in northern ireland, the cloud will thicken up here. to the north and west we will see some splashes of rain. still a few showers in the far north of scotland this afternoon, but eventually turning wetter across the islands in the west. much of england and wales will stay dry, varying amounts of cloud. as i said, not quite as sunny as yesterday, and so temperatures that little bit lower. the highest around 22 celsius through parts of hampshire and the channel islands. as we go through this evening and overnight, it turns damper more widely across northern ireland and scotland. some heavy bursts of rain as well at times later in the night into the first part of tomorrow morning. clearer skies for orkney and shetland. drier for much of england and wales, could be a few splashes of rain in the far north, but a milder night tonight, the exception being across some rural parts in eastern england. now, as we go through tomorrow, outbreaks of rain across scotland, northern ireland, the heaviest and most widespread in the morning, turning lighter and patchy

into the afternoon. the far north of mainland scotland, orkney and shetland, may stay dry through the day. it turns a bit damper across northern england and the far north of wales. much of england and wales, though, particularly the midlands southwards will stay dry. some spells of hazy sunshine. the lightest winds here, more of a breeze generally, but with those winds coming from a south—westerly, it is going to feel warmer again across the south, even with that hazy sunshine. further north, the cloud, of course, will dominate. and more cloud to come as we go through into thursday. this is the pressure chart. an area of low pressure. when we see low pressure, it usually means rain is never too far away, and certainly, that will be the case on thursday. plenty of cloud. outbreaks of rain pushing southwards across england and wales, perhaps a brighter day for northern ireland and parts of central and southern scotland, though, compared with wednesday. and a bit more of a breeze around on thursday across the west, too. so temperatures will take a little bit of a dip, but that will be offset by the fact that you will see a bit more sunshine. so, southern scotland, northern ireland the same. probably a pleasant day compared with wednesday. beyond that, things are quieter on friday. dry weather for most, turning wet in northern ireland later. but this weekend, expect

to see some rain at times. bye for now.

a highly critical report finds that russian influence in the uk is the new normal, but that the government had made no assessment of russian interference in the eu referendum. the report reveals that no—one in government knew if russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum because they did not want to know. the uk government have actively avoided looking for evidence that russia interfered. the uk says there was no evidence of successful russian interference in the eu referendum, while the kremlin insists it has never intefered with electoral processes in any country of the world. doctors, teachers and police officers — some of the 900,000 uk public sector workers getting

an above—inflation pay rise. uk government borrowing soared to more than £35 billion injune, about five times more than the same time last year. eu leaders strike a deal on a huge recovery package for member states hit by coronavirus, after a fourth night of talks. applause. and applause as fans pay their respects to football great jack charlton ahead of his funeral. a long—awaited report on russia's activities in the uk has concluded

that the government took its eye off the ball and failed to respond to moscow's threat. the intelligence and security committee — now chaired byjulian lewis — said russia considers the uk to be the intelligence and security committee — now chaired byjulian lewis — said russia considers the uk to be one of its top western intelligence targets and stated that russian influence in the uk is the new normal. the committee also said that the government actively avoided looking for evidence of russian interference in the 2016 eu referendum. committee member kevanjones said the outrage was not that russia had interfered, but rather that no—one wanted to know about it. the russia report accuses successive governments of welcoming russian oligarchs — and their money — with open arms

and said they had high—level access to uk companies and political figures. responding to the report on behalf of the government, the foreign secretary dominic raab said: meanwhile, the kremlin says it has never interfered with electoral processes in any country of the world. the snp's stewart hosie from the committee said the report found that the uk government didn't recognise the threat posed by russia ahead of the 2016 brexit referendum and therefore didn't take action to protect the uk. the impact of attempts on the result itself, did the disinformation change how people voted, would be difficult if not impossible to

prove. there has however been speculation that this report was going to reveal that either russia sought to interfere or influence the result of the referendum. the report reveals that no one in government knew if russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum because they did not want to know. the uk government have actively avoided looking for evidence that russia interfered. we were told that they haven't seen any evidence, but that is meaningless if they hadn't looked for it. the report also accuses the uk of welcoming russian oligarchs. kevanjones from the committee says the priority now should be to make sure the tools exist to tackle hostile activity when it is uncovered. what we do know about russian influence in the uk is that it's the new normal. successive governments have welcomed russian oligarchs and their money with open arms.

and there is a lot of russians with very close links to putin who are now very well integrated into both uk business, political and social scene. what has been referred to as londongrad. yet few if any questions have been asked regarding the provenance of considerable wealth. keir giles is a research fellow at the russia eurasia program at chatham house, a think tank focussing on international affairs. i know you have been patiently waiting to talk to us, so thank you very much for that. there is a lot to digester in this report. what are your initial thoughts?” to digester in this report. what are your initial thoughts? i hope the gaping emission in the report, that there was no attempt to investigate russian interference in elections, won't distract from the other

important points. russia is interfering in an ongoing process. some of the introductory findings explained why russia does this. they do it because it can. russia sees an advantage in harming its adversaries. the uk is one of the top level adversaries. russia of course has denied any involvement and said it has never interfered with electoral processes in any country of the world. i wonder whether it gives us any more information about russian involvement in elections here? in other words, just how informative is it on that particular point? it's not. the point was made clearly in the press conference and in your report earlier, the reason we don't have the evidence everyone was waiting for is because it has never been sought. no willingness on the

pa rt been sought. no willingness on the part of the intelligence agencies to ta ke part of the intelligence agencies to take on this highly toxic question without direction from the government. russia will deny it. they will say we didn't do it, show us the evidence, even if russia did do it, everyone does it anyway, and finally let's be friends and put this behind us. the report finds that even if there is an up —— an improved relationship with russia, these attacks will not stop.” improved relationship with russia, these attacks will not stop. i do think the government and intelligence services have failed to get a intelligence services have failed to geta grip intelligence services have failed to get a grip of this? i think that's for the government to explain. the point made repeatedly in the press conference we've just seen is that it was plain that russia would seek to influence this. so the reason why this has not been undertaken... it

sits uneasily with what intelligence services perceive us the question of why there was no direct remit to look at this problem. russia opposes a threat to the whole of society. notjust government. it has this broad span of different ways in which it seeks to harm others. there has been limited recognition of that until now. what about another section of the report? it accuses successive governments of welcoming russian oligarchs and their money with open arms and they had high—level access to uk and political figures. high—level access to uk and politicalfigures. did that high—level access to uk and political figures. did that tell you anything that you did not already suspect? this is not a surprise at all. everyone who works in my business, professional russia— watching, knows about the situation. the report is careful to note that

some of these people facilitate these processes unwillingly but others do it entirely consciously. it is another of the most striking points made in this report. it is perfectly legal in this country to work as an agent of a foreign power seeking to attack the uk, unless and until you actually carry out a successful piece of espionage. so there is a huge hole in our domestic legislation because it cannot be right you can work against this country with impunity in that way. we've seen today are redacted, a censored version of the report. there is also a classified version that has not been released to the public. so how confident can we be that we have actually got to the truth and find out everything that we need to know, going forward?” think we can be confident that we have found out everything apart from those which threaten national

security if they were released. of course russia will take a keen interest and will be trying to decipher the reductions. it makes sense to keep sensitive information out of the public domain. we must leave it there. thank you so much for your time. our correspondent sarah rainsford is in moscow. cera, we've been hearing some of the russian reaction to this report. tell us more. well, i think a predictable reaction from russia, to dismiss the report i write and say there is no sensation. those were there is no sensation. those were the words of the foreign ministry spokesperson. we spoke to the spokesman for the kremlin and asked if they would be following what came out and he sounded pretty tired with the very suggestion. he said that

russia does not meddle in any elections and doesn't tolerate others meddling in russia's domestic affairs. the same language with your time and time again. but i think russia will latch on to the domestic aspect of russian politics. they will see the political fighting that will see the political fighting that will now go on, the accusations and the criticism directed at the british government from the intelligence agencies in the uk. it will latch onto that and to the fact that there is no evidence to prevent it -- that there is no evidence to prevent it —— presented of interference in the year referendum. the suggestion is that that is because they were not looking for it, but russia will argue that they have done nothing wrong. the report looks at more than interference in elections. it was interesting that they concluded that russia considers the uk as an

intelligence target. will russian authorities be concerned about that observation? i don't think they will be concerned. russia tends to belittle the uk as some kind of poodle of the us. i don't think russia would agree with the assessment that it sees the uk has a specific or important target, whether or not that is the case. but the russian perspective isjust entirely the opposite of what we're hearing in this report. since vladimir putin, seven in the last yea rs of vladimir putin, seven in the last years of his presidency here, we've seen years of his presidency here, we've seen this presentation of the west asa seen this presentation of the west as a hostile force for russia. —— certainly in the last years of his presidency. they are presenting the west as the aggressor. that's the message we have on state television here and it's the message we have from president putin and his

officials. so our parallel universe here inside russia. but russia would argue that the west has been interfering in russian politics for many years and that any accusations against russia whilst that denies them, it would suggest that this is essentially the west getting back what it is owned. the committee said that oligarchs had high level access to uk companies and political figures. we werejust to uk companies and political figures. we were just talking to kier giles from chatham house who was using phrases like the laundering of dirty money. will that be of any concern to russians, that perhaps it might not be so easy to come to london, as it has been, and settle here, educate their children here and spend their money here? well, certainly, yes. but this is

not new. steps have been taken to address that in recent years with visas required. many of russia's top figures in the business and political world are now already under sanctions from the uk and from the west more broadly. and that does hurt. individual sanctions against key members of the russian government and the russian elite, those more targeted responses to perceived russian hostility and aggression, that does have more of an effect than simply this you approach the uk appears to have of calling out russian hostility and aggression. russia doesn't really respond to being called out and it uses that to help boost the patriotic mood here at home to present the west as hostile and as an enemy aggressor, if you like, and

to try to rally the troops, the population here at home. sarah ra i nsfo rd , population here at home. sarah rainsford, our correspondence in moscow, thank you very much for that. mps on the health select committee are hearing evidence on the government's management of the first wave of covid—19. the morning's questioning has focussed on the advice that ministers were given and how they used it. and the committee has also asked how the government should act going forward. the chair of the health and social care select committee, jeremy hunt, has been putting questions to the government's advisors. he asked chief medical officer chris whitty about whether he was comfortable with the government's decision to delay the nationwide lockdown back in march. i am confident that the ministers at the time, who were put in an incredibly difficult position, in my view followed the advice given by sage, which are clearly

signposted through the minutes of sage, with a delay that was no more than you would reasonably expect for what are really very difficult things to operationalise and assign. i think i would make a slightly further comment, which is obviously to be able to do this, there was a bit of signposting that sometimes you may have to go further, and ministers were aware of that and they said that at the time. so, for example, on the 16th, my memory is that the prime minister did not announce schools closing, but i think he did say at that at that time "we may need to consider schools closing". i do not think, and i'm not saying now and i'm not going to set any point, to be clear, that in my view there was huge delay between the advice that the ministers received given the enormity of the difficulties we were grasping for people and the practical implications of what was being done.

does that give you a clear enough answer to the question you were asking me? it does. it is a much more complicated picture than that, but as a summary. let's cross to edinburgh where the first minister nicola sturgeon is giving an update on the scottish government's response to coronavirus. thank you forjoining us at the earlier time of 12:15pm. that will be the case from now on. i can confirm an additional 22 positive cases of covid cases have been identified. these cases are all being looked into very carefully as you would expect and steps taken to trace contact and break the chains of transmission. the health board breakdown of these new cases will be available later today as normal, however the provisional information i have at this stage is that the

majority of these cases are in lanarkshire and at majority of these cases are in la narkshire and at least majority of these cases are in lanarkshire and at least some of them are likely to be connected to them are likely to be connected to the call centre that has been doing work for nhs england. i will chair a meeting this afternoon to consider the latest situation in lanarkshire and consider any further steps required. ican and consider any further steps required. i can report that a total of 618 patients are currently in hospital with a virus, either confirmed or respected. that is 51 more than yesterday and includes an increase of four in the number of confirmed cases. i will see more about the suspected and confirmed breakdown in a moment. there was an increase of one in terms of patients in intensive care. it is worth

saying that although we have all along reported both suspected and confirmed covid patients in hospital or nicu, that has sometimes caused fluctuations in the daily figures. and that is partly because most patients in hospital over the age of 70 are now tasted for —— tested for covid every four days or so. for that reason, from tomorrow, we intend to report only on confirmed covid cases in intensive care and in hospital, which i think gives us a more accurate picture of the situation. this is also part of a wider review of how we will report information which i will say more about later this week, as we go into the next stage of dealing with this

epidemic. it's important that the information we are providing gives the public the most reliable picture of how the virus is behaving. finally, statistics, during the past 24 hours, no deaths were registered, so 24 hours, no deaths were registered, so the total number of deaths under this particular measure remains at 2491. that is very welcome news but the overall figure for deaths is a reminder of how many families have been deeply affected by this virus and my thoughts are with everyone who is grieving a loved one. additionally, i want to thank health and care workers. the deputy first minister will speak in a moment or two about the reopening of schools, the chief medical officer will then talk about our decision to make covid testing available for children with symptoms under the age of five. this step is designed to prevent

families from isolating unnecessarily. we think this is increasingly important as childcare resumes. i want to cover a couple of points. firstly, iwant resumes. i want to cover a couple of points. firstly, i want to say more about the figures for new cases that we have seen in recent days. since the last media briefing on thursday, there has rightly been quite a lot of attention paid to the fact that we reported more than 20 new cases on saturday and sunday. i havejust reported more than 20 today. i have mentioned the cluster of cases identified in the call centre in lanarkshire. we are going to leave nicola sturgeon's news conference. actually, i think we might be going back to that. if we allow it to, it will spread rapidly in workplaces or social settings. so a great deal of

work has been done not least through test and protect to understand all of these cases, follow—up contact of them and make sure that all necessary and appropriate steps are being taken to break the chains of transmission. in total, more than 25,000 tests were processed across the two days of the weekend when we reported more than 20 cases. an even more than number of cases we reported on these days were larger than little, they were still at a low level. new cases can be assessed in some detail. health protection scotla nd in some detail. health protection scotland can tell us if new cases are scotland can tell us if new cases a re clustered scotland can tell us if new cases are clustered and if any particular patterns are being identified. we are ca re patterns are being identified. we are care homes are involved, that enables necessary precautions to be taken and enables necessary precautions to be ta ken and test enables necessary precautions to be taken and test and protect staff are testing and tracing contact for all cases identified. so while any rise in new cases is unwelcome and we

wa nt to in new cases is unwelcome and we want to drive cases to be as low as possible, but while any rise is unwelcome, we have always said that the virus is still out there so as lockdown easy is cases unfortunately are possible. thejob of our lockdown easy is cases unfortunately are possible. the job of our public health teams and test and protect, supported by the scottish government, is to step in and break the chains of transmission wherever possible and i want to see my thanks and give my gratitude and appreciation to a public health teams and test and protect staff right across the country. but the key point i want to meet you as this, we all have a part to play in keeping this virus under control. things like physical distance and, washing hands and surfaces, wearing face coverings, indeed all of the elements of our facts campaign continued to be crucial. as life sta rts continued to be crucial. as life starts to be more normal, there is a

danger we are all capable of succumbing to come of dropping a regard. but i think we should all stop right now and think about whether that might be true. if we have been dropping a regard and if the evidence of that... have been dropping a regard and if the evidence of that. .. we are going to have to leave that news conference in edinburgh now with the first minister nicola sturgeon giving an update on coronavirus because we are returning to that highly critical report that has found that russian influence in the uk is the new normal and that the government had made no assessment of russian interference in the eu referendum. dominic grieve was the intelligence and security committee chair when the russia report was produced. we're very grateful to you for your time. it's finally been published, this report, after a nine—month delay. why do you think the government did delay it for so long? i've no idea. there are two schools

of thought, one is that they didn't like part of the content and they didn't want it published just before the election, i've never really understood that. i think it was very much in the public interest that the public should know about the threat from russia before the election took place. so that's one speculation. the other one i've sometimes heard is the suggestion it was done because i was the chair and i had become an independent mp and they didn't want me to have the publicity. if that's the case, this isa publicity. if that's the case, this is a bipartisan, nonparty political committee and if that is the explanation, it's shallow and bass. but i will never know the answer, you'll have to ask the prime minister. ok, let's look at the substance of some —— let's look at some of the substance of the report. the government did not seek to find out if there was evidence. who do you find responsible for the failure to find out evidence to what was

going on? there was clear evidence from the 2014 scottish referendum that russia had an influence in manipulating the process. the clearest evidence was subsequent, trying to suggest it had not been a true democratic process. so there are warning signs about russia's activity, and their cyber activity is well known. including the use of bots and trying to disseminate information. so we should have been alert in 2016 to the possibility of interference. but because we were not alert, we did nothing effectively about it. and subsequently when we came to ask the question, can you tell us that there wasn't interference or can you tell us that there was, we really were not able to get an answer. and we thought that that was a very u nfortu nate state thought that that was a very unfortunate state of affairs. one of the reasons is that our security services for a very proper reasons do not wish to be seen to be

meddling in any way in a democratic processes . meddling in any way in a democratic processes. but we face a new challenge of a foreign state actor who is clearly intent on interviewing in peoples democratic processes with a view to either skewing them or alternatively to reducing public confidence in democracy in its institutions. and we really got to guard against this and the evidence and is the hacking of the democratic national computer, the attacks, or the attempts to influence the results of the french elections and other activities that have taken place elsewhere all point to the fact that this is clearly a significant threat and we need to ta ke significant threat and we need to take it seriously. why haven't they got to grips with this serious threat? i don't why they haven't done it in the past. perhaps a lack of understanding about what might be taking place. just before this report was published, the government announced it had clear evidence

there was attempts to manipulate the 2019 general election, so perhaps the penny has dropped and the lesson has been learned, but we still make recommendations for things which can be done. particularly, we think there needs to be a dedicated unit in the home office linked to the security service, part of his remit is to protect our democracy. do you think, out of interest, russia did try to influence the referendum in 2016? well, i can't answer the question for the reasons that we set out ina question for the reasons that we set out in a report. so i don't think there's any point in my trying to speculate on that, one where the other. the government have said it will not launch an investigation into whether there was interference in that referendum. do you think it should? i would in that referendum. do you think it should? iwould have in that referendum. do you think it should? i would have thought there would be some value in doing so. if there is evidence which has not been picked up so far, then the modus operandi, how they operate, will be of use. i've no doubt our security services have a much better idea of

what's going on, so i hope for the future this problem will not recur. we've made some recommendations and we do think that was the response surprised us. particularly in view of the importance of the democratic event that the 2016 referendum constituted. you have been with this report for many months, i wonder how you feel today, finally seeing it published? i'm pleased to see it being published, i'm pleased to see that two members of the committee we re that two members of the committee were on the old committee and were therefore able to front at the press conference this morning, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to do a press co nfe re nce . we wouldn't have been able to do a press conference. my pleasure is mitigated by a sense of frustration and bluntly anger at the way the government behaved over this report in october last year. there was no valid reason for it not been published then and no explanation has ever been put forward that has

any credibility in explaining why they refused to do so. are you rather pleased thatjulian lewis is the new chair? i'm delighted he is the new chair? i'm delighted he is the new chair? i'm delighted he is the new chair. an old friend and colleague with a reputation for independence and for being trusted ona independence and for being trusted on a cross—party basis because of his integrity and independence. and thatis his integrity and independence. and that is exactly what the intelligence and security committee needs in order to do its work, to be trusted by the agency is that it won't leak and to be trusted ultimately by parliament and i would like to think to be trusted by government that it isn't seeking to pursue some personal or political agenda but is there to try to ask the awkward questions that need to be asked to protect our security. dominic grieve, many thanks for joining us. thank you. now it's time for a look at the weather with chris fawkes

over recent hours we have seen some cloud bubble up, that will spread across the skies for some time. it will be cloudy for a few hours, wales, south—west england, sutherland and having the best of the sunshine. late in the day, weather system moves or of the atla ntic to weather system moves or of the atlantic to threaten some rain in western scotland. overnight, this area of rain is going to continue to move into scotland and northern ireland, as well as the removal have some low cloud, so mist and fog patches forming around our coasts and hills. further south, patches forming around our coasts and hills. furthersouth, dry patches forming around our coasts and hills. further south, dry with clear spells but not as chilly as it has been recent nights. tomorrow, rural mooring for northern ireland and scotland, trickling into northern areas of england. further south of this, he is a sunny spells. a high of 23. hello this is bbc news with rebecca jones. the headlines:

a highly critical report finds that "russian influence in the uk is the new normal", but that the government had made no assessment of russian interference in the eu referendum. the report reveals that no—one in government knew if russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum because they did not want to know. the uk government have actively avoided looking for evidence that russia interfered. the uk says there was no evidence of successful russian interference in the eu referendum, while the kremlin insists it has never intefered with electoral processes in any country of the world. doctors, teachers and police officers are some of the 900,000 uk public sector workers getting an above—inflation pay rise. uk government borrowing soared to more than £35 billion injune, about five times more than the same time last year.

eu leaders strike a deal on a huge recovery package for member states hit by coronavirus, after a fourth night of talks. sport and, for a full round—up from the bbc sport centre, here's jane dougall. good afternoon. both aston villa and bournemouth could be relegated from the premier league tonight. here's why. if watford get at least a point against manchester city, bournemouth will go down. that leaves villa, who will then need to match watford's result, otherwise they will be in the championship next season too. i think there has been pressure on us since we came back from project restart. i mean, ten games we were in the bottom three and everybody had us relegated since march. our job is to go and prove people wrong.

isaid job is to go and prove people wrong. i said before, these players have played under pressure and they seem to thrive on it. the new scottish football season starts next saturday, but last season's scottish cup final will go ahead on 20th december this year. the match at hampden was scheduled for may, but then postponed due to the pandemic. unlike the top divisions, which were abandoned, this tournament wasn't, meaning the semis between hearts and hibs and celtic and aberdeen will take place on 31st october and 1st november, with the final five days before christmas. next year's rugby league world cup will begin at newcastle's st james' park, with the hosts england playing samoa. the match will take place on 23rd october, while the reigning champions, australia, will take on fiji at the kcom in hull. scotland and ireland play the following day, with wales in action on the 27th. it's the first time the men's, women's and wheelchair tournaments will be played at the same time, with 61 matches taking place across five weeks.

let's take a look at some of the key dates. it all starts on 23rd october. 9th november is when the first women's match between england and newcomers brazil takes place at leeds' headingley stadium. there's a double—header of games at london's copper box arena to start the wheelchair tournament, that's on the 11th, with the final 15 days later in liverpool. on the 20th, arsenal's emirates stadium will hold it's first rugby league match — that'll be the second men's semi. and then a week later it's the first ever double—header of finals — the mens and womens matches will be played at old trafford. ben stokes is the world's number one ranked all—rounder, overtaking the west indies captain, jason holder. it's after stokes scored 254 runs and took three wickets in the second test. he's the first english player to top the rankings since 2006. meanwhile, joffra archer, who missed the match for breaking bio—secure rules,

has passed two coronavirus tests and will rejoin the team for the series decider which begins on friday. meanwhile, moeen ali has been named as vice—captain for england's three—match one—day series against ireland which starts next thursday. eoin morgan will lead the side. all matches will take place in a bio—secure bubble at the ageas bowl in southampton. golf now and the european tour returns tomorrow with the first of six back—to—back tournaments, all being held in the uk. first up is the british masters at close house, from behind closed doors. it's being hosted by lee westwood, who thinks it might take a while for some of the golfers to get used to playing without fans. we get into a routine as golfers only set up to the ball and thanks for that. i'm sure there will be a routine when you hold up waiting for a round of or a cheer. so i'm sure there'll be a few people tipping their cap to invisible people, invisible crowds. that's all the sport for now.

i'll have more for you in the next hour. within the last hour, the secretary of state, the us secretary of state, mike pompeo, has arrived at downing street. he is holding a series of meetings today. he arrived at number ten to have talks with boris johnson. we think on issues ranging from coronavirus to the ongoing situation in hong kong and mike pompeo appeared in the rose garden with the prime minister, boris

johnson, in the last hour. socially distanced, of course, but able to pose for photographers before heading in for talks on coronavirus, perhaps, and hong kong, as well. within the next five minutes, i think, mike pompeo will be meeting the foreign secretary, dominic raab, and the two men are expected to hold and the two men are expected to hold a news conference later this afternoon to bring us all an update on how those talks have gone. an independent inquiry into allegations that children and mothers died or were permanently harmed by poor maternity care at an nhs trust is to look at hundreds of more cases. the review has examined the records of nearly 1,500 cases over a 40—year period at telford's princess royal and the royal shrewsbury hospital.

letters will be sent to the nearly 500 newly—identified families asking if they want their case to be reviewed. nearly a million public sector workers in the uk will get an above—inflation pay rise, after the chancellor said he recognised their "vital contributions" during the coronavirus pandemic. the treasury said the pay increases will come out of existing departmental budgets and will go to doctors, dentists, police officers and teachers. nurses negotiated a separate pay deal in 2018. this comes as the latest figures show government borrowing increased to £35.5 billion injune, five times higher than last year, but lower than the previous two months. the figure for borrowing for the three months tojune is now nearly £128 billion, reflecting the effects of lockdown.

more on that in a moment, but first this report by our correspondent andy moore. after several months on the front line of the crisis, some welcome news for key public sector workers. they will get the full pay increases recommended by the independent pay review bodies. teachers in england will get the biggest pay rise — 3.1%. doctors and dentists across the uk will see their pay increase by 2.8%. police officers and prison staff in england and wales will get 2.5%. while the armed forces and the judiciary across the uk will get 2%. some of the increases, such as the ones for doctors, will be backdated to april. others will come into effect in september. more than a million nurses and hospital staff are not included in this announcement. they've already agreed a separate deal which works out at over 4%. chancellor rishi sunak said:

the labour party and the trade unions say the pay rises are good news, but don't make up for a decade of real—time cuts in the years of austerity. the doctors' union, the british medical association, said the government could have done even more for staff who'd put their lives on the line during the pandemic. government departments won't get extra funding to pay for these rises. the treasury claims that pay awards should be affordable, that they shouldn't affect the provision of public services. but where budgets are already under pressure, this decision could force other tough choices. andy moore, bbc news.

opposition labour party have welcomed the pay increase, but warned it won't make up for a decade of real—term cuts for front line workers. the policing minister, kit malthouse, said the salary increase was a recognition of the contribition of public sector workers at the present time. (sot next) we do have a period of wage restraint in the public sector while we were dealing with the aftermath of the crash of 2007/8 that did mean that wages were held down. over the last two or three years we are starting to see a correction of that, there have been above inflation pay rises of which this is a very significant one. and, you know, decisions about future pay obviously lie with the treasury and will have to be taken against the backdrop of what we face economically over the next few years. but for the moment today, i hope that the 900,000 public—sector workers who are affected will see this as good news. because alongside some of the pension enhancements that we've seen over the last couple of years, this means that they‘ re making significant advances in pay, which is,

you know, both right, but also a reward for the work they've done over the last few months. eu leaders have agreed the terms of a huge recovery fund for member states hit by coronavirus, after their summit in brussels stretched into a fifth day. the package totals 750 billion euros — about £680 billion — with almost half in the form of loans, which countries will have to repay. the president of the european council said members had reached the "right deal." i believe this agreement will be seen as a as a pivotal moment in europe's journey, but it will also launch us into the future. in fact, it's the first time, the first time in european history, that our budget will be clearly linked to our climate objectives. the first time, the first time that the respectful rule of law is a decisive criteria

for budget spending. and the first time, the first time that we are jointly reinforcing our economies against a crisis. hundreds of well—wishers and football fans have lined the streets of ashington in county durham to pay their final respects to jack charlton, who died earlier this month at the age of 85. ‘big jack', as he was known, won the world cup with england alongside his brother bobby in 1966 and later led ireland to the world cup quarter finals as manager at italia 90. supreme courtjustices in the uk are to consider whether uber drivers should be classed as "workers" or self—employed in a landmark case. bosses from the ride—hailing app appealed to the supreme court after losing three rounds of a fight with two former drivers.

the two—day hearing will look at whether drivers are entitled to the minimum wage, paid leave and other legal protections. and gunmen who killed two people after entering an synagogue in germany is due to go on trial today. as our berlin correspondent reports, the attack has highlighted concerns about the safety of germany's jewish community. opening fire on the streets of halla, he murdered two people. but his intended target was the synagogue, and the people praying

inside. the front door, newly reinforced, held firm and save their lives. christina told us, inside she and others rush to secure the other entrances to the complex.” and others rush to secure the other entrances to the complex. i didn't even understand what was happening, ijust even understand what was happening, i just knew there was some even understand what was happening, ijust knew there was some guy in full battle gear. i didn't know if he was on the premises are on the street. i saw my friend jumping up andi street. i saw my friend jumping up and i thought, you are not dying alone, i barricaded the other door. the attack on germany. there was concern, soul—searching in germany. after the horror of the holocaust, this country vowed never again. there has been rising anti—semitism in germany for years. people should trust, not have to worry when their children go out alone just because they have asked star of david on

their chain. two years ago, germany appointed this man at its anti—semitism commissioner. the government also passed a law against online hate speech, but there is a long way to go. we have a severe problem in germany where in schoolyard the word due is used as an insult. there are many fields we have to tackle. the main thing is that people should need choose and see thatjewish life is an integral pa rt see thatjewish life is an integral part of our culture. this trial is about bringing the killer to justice, but for many it is also a chance of emphasising the continuing threat of anti—semitism. it also gives me the chance to look this guy in the eye and prove to him, but especially to me, you are the one who tried to kill me, but i am still here, you failed, but only

that, i am facing you in court. let's return to the highly critical report that has found that russian influence in the uk is the new normal and the government had made normal and the government had made no assessment of russian interference in the eu referendum. we can get the response from labour now from the shadow foreign secretary, lisa nandy.” now from the shadow foreign secretary, lisa nandy. ithink now from the shadow foreign secretary, lisa nandy. i think the report is quite damning. it paints a very bad picture of a government that was far too slow to wake up to the threat posed by russia towards democracy, far too slow to take the action is required to defend us. it says that within government there was no clear strategy, it was confusing, there was no clear lines of responsibility and that defending democracy was given a low priority. it calls on the government to wake up it calls on the government to wake up and take this gaping hole in our defence is much more seriously and we are calling on the government

today to act. let's speak now to stewart hosie, who sits on the intelligence and security committee and joins us now. i know this has been quite a long and arduous journey for you to get to this point. it has finally been published, this report, after a nine—month delay. why do you think the government to delay it? i've got no idea what their motivations where. all i know is that we sent them back report nine months ago. there was more than enough time for it to be returned after all the checking had been done and for it to be published in advance of the last general election. it wasn't, and the speculation as to why has continued, but it has been published today and i think it is pretty damning of the government was not lack of action on the russian threats. let's talk about that. he said in the report there was no evidence that russia

sought to interfere with the eu referendum only because the government did not seek to find out if it had. are you saying that it is only the government you are holding responsible in the failure to look for evidence on what was going on? political leadership has to come from government. yes, m15 can self task, under take action to identify threats, but the direction really should have come from the government. after what we know about the interference after the scottish independence referendum, given what we know about the hack and leak operation in the united states with the democratic national committee, one would have thought there were huge alarm bells ringing and the government should have asked a question of the intelligence agencies, find out what involvement or interference there may have been, quantify it, then we can work out

how to protect the democratic process in the future. so why didn't it? that is a matter for the government. ifrankly it? that is a matter for the government. i frankly think it is shocking that they didn't, but it is for them to answer and justify, why they sat on the report for so long, and to answer the substantial question why they did nothing about what was a real threats as we witnessed in other countries. you will be aware that the government says it takes the threat seriously. it is also said there is no need for an enquiry into the referendum in 2016. what is your view on that? should there be? are there more questions that need to be answered? it is impossible for the government to say there is no need for an enquiry because they are simply allowing the situation where they are floundering around in the dark not knowing what influence may have been maligned lee directed against

voters in the uk. of course they should carry out an assessment and an enquiry and it should be deep, detailed and the intelligence agencies should not be tasked with getting to work to identify what was done and by whom, not to point blame looking backwards, but to put in place the mechanisms to protect the democratic process going forward. the committee has also said the russian interference in the uk is the new normal. to move the song from any potential party political point scoring, it lays the blame at the point of successive governments, is that right? i think that is absolutely right. the report makes clear there are people unwittingly becoming enablers for those close to the russian government. accountants, lawyers, estate agents, people who do company formation, who are insulating some of vladimir putin's

people in london from the authorities so we can't even follow the money because the money is put through the laundromat, it is claimed, so people can ever identify where it came from. there are things which are nonparty political that must be addressed. i hope that in time we are friendly with russia, but what we are seeing today is not the new normal, but right now it is. we need to address the threats only see them. stewart hosie, from the snp, who sits on the intelligence and security committee, thank you for your time. )the coronavirus pandemic has hit care homes in the uk hard. in england and wales, a third of all covid related deaths occurred in care settings. our reporter olivia richwold has spent the day with the residents and staff at saint cecilia's nursing home in scarborough.

start turning for me. it's been scary, it's been sad, there's been tears. we've also laughed. the people came in knowing they were putting their own lives on the line, they were putting their lives of their family and loved ones on the line. they're all heroes, in my eyes. they look after you, and they don't get paid enough bloody money, i'll tell you. sorry for swearing. these are the staff and residents of saint cecilia's nursing home in scarborough. there was a coronavirus outbreak here early on during the pandemic. ten residents died. three were confirmed covid cases. the other seven were not tested, so their families will never know. i wore full ppe to enter the home and film their story. the truth is that we lost people that were in the nursing home for years. we knew them, because we're like a family, more or less. we lost friends. very sad. to date, 23 staff have self—isolated after showing symptoms, and many still don't know if they've had coronavirus. i was quite ill with a viral illness. very tired, lethargic,

high temperature. so i would like to know if i have had it, whether my antibodies... but it doesn't matter. all i know is i have got over whatever it was i had, and i've carried on. the home accepts elderly patients from hospital. they live in the second floor and they're all isolated for two weeks in case they're covid—positive, but many of them have ended up staying a lot longer, waiting for the social care system to find them a new permanent home. you get a lot of fun, looking out of the window. lily has been here on the second floorfor six weeks. and a gentleman came and said i was fit to go home, but i'm still here. but somebody came the other week and they said, "is there anything you want?" i said, "i'd love a mirror." i said, "there's not a mirror here." and all of a sudden they stuck that there. staff are frustrated they can't help, and find that those living in limbo on the second floor become isolated and lonely.

so they can't see any of their family, they can't see any of their friends. i've noticed the massive detrimental effect it has for their mental health. care workers here are paid the living wage, but residentjack thinks it is not enough. if i could afford it, i would give them some money, and if i win any money, they're going to get some, so... the home has started allowing families to meet in the garden, but hopes to open its doors and welcome the world back one day soon. olivia richwald, bbc news. simon mccoy will be here shortly with the news at one, but now it's time for a look at the weather with chris fawkes. hello, they are. we have more sunshine to come to the rest of the day for quite a few of you, but we have seen this card develop over recent hours and i will spread across the skies for a time. the

best of the sunshine across parts of southern wales, south—west england and central and southern england. out in the atlantic, this area of cloud is having its way in and it is an area of low pressure that would bring some rain and across western scotla nd bring some rain and across western scotland as we end the day. it does arrive quite late on in the day, but before the rain works in the qb isolated showers in scotland. most areas will have a dry afternoon. temperatures into the low 20s at best, feeling warm weather sunshine comes through. overnight, ourareare will continue to make inroads, sojourning wet in northern ireland and scotland with mist and fog patches forming around some of the coastal hills. further site which will keep some clear spells, the cloud tending to filter through northern ireland, scotland and the midlands. the rain tomorrow morning will slowly move southwards into northern england. in the south, further spells of sunshine, warm in

the sunshine with highs of 23. where it stays clouded the temperatures will be disappointing, parts of scotla nd will be disappointing, parts of scotland with highs of 16. our low pressure pushes slowly eastwards as we head into thursday, so outbreaks of rain will be moving across scotland, with brighter skies following and a mixture of sunshine and showers here. the gulf and in the area of low pressure slate southwards across england and wales bringing outbreaks of are permitted. it could be a few heavy bursts, but by and large the rear not too heavy. a north—western areas that will turn brighter with more sunshine, sojourning warmer in northern ireland and scotland compared to recent cloudy days. we aim to recent cloudy days. we have a week on friday with a sunny start through the day cloud bubble up. outbreaks of rain moving into northern ireland and the cloud across southern areas of england could be taken up patches patch is a brain to develop as well, with the best of any sunshine across eastern scotland, northern areas of england, stretching into the midlands, as well. we could look

pretty unsettled, often quite cloudy and we will see spells of rain at times. that is your weather.

an immediate and urgent threat to our national security — the damning verdict on russia from the long—awaited russia report criticism of the british government too — for not being willing to investigate whether moscow interfered in the 2016 brexit referendum the report reveals that no one in government knew if russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum because they did not want to know. few questions were asked as the uk welcomed russian money with ‘open arms' — with cash recycled through what the report called ‘the london laundromat‘ there is a lot of russians with very close links to putin who are now very well integrated into both uk business, political and social scenes.