this is bbc news, the headlines... the british prime minister's former chief adviser has described borisjohnson as unfit for the job. in a parliamentary public hearing, dominic cummings said tens of thousands of people died needlessly from coronavirus, because of disastrous failings by the government. britain has been one of the countries worst hit by the pandemic. eight people have been killed and others wounded after a gunman opened fire in a railyard in san jose, california. the gunman, who worked at the railfacility, also died. there have been 230 mass shootings so far this year across the united states. environmental campaigners have welcomed a landmark ruling by a dutch court which ordered the oil giant shell to make big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. the decision is only binding in the netherlands, but it could influence judges elsewhere.

lewis will be here with a full summary of the news of the top of the art. now though, it's time tojoin stephen of the art. now though, it's time to join stephen sachar for hardtop. ——now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. now, this has to be one of the most distinctive museum spaces in the world, the main hall of the natural history museum in london. for more than a century, this space was dominated by the vast skeleton of dippy, the diplodocus dinosaur. but dippy has gone, to be replaced by hope, the blue whale. and that is perhaps a symbol of this museum's desire to focus not so much on the deep past and more on the fragility of our planet today. my guest is museum director doug gurr. is this now a museum on a mission?

doug gurr, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. welcome. it's a real pleasure to be here. but the strangest thing is to be in this vast, beautiful museum with absolutely no people. that, of course, is because of the pandemic. how strange and hard has it been running a museum in this time? yeah, it's been, at one level, very, very frustrating because, you know, we're here to offer this extraordinary museum to all of our visitors. and we've had almost a year now, over a year now when we've not been able to have as many physical visitors. but actually, at another level, a lot of the work goes on behind the scenes. there is so much exciting science work going on, there's crucial conservation work. and actually, it's been a real impetus for us, if you like,

to actually get outside of these four walls and start to communicate with our audiences, particularly through the digital channels. so actually, paradoxically, we've actually had more visitors this year than last year, even though we've been closed. you mean online visitors now exceed the average annual numbers you get coming physically to the museum? absolutely. so if you think... i mean, obviously last year's been strange, but back in 2019 we had about 5.3 million physical visitors to our sites, which i think puts us about seventh in the world, but over 16 million digital visitors. so it's already three times what a normal physical year would be. but isn't that actually telling you that the whole function and purpose and meaning of museums is changing and the pandemic has perhaps hastened that change? the physical space, maybe, in the future, matters very much less and what you do virtually — so much more important. so i think it's about doing both. i mean, i think as we sit here, as you know and i know, there is nothing that can replace the magic of sitting in this space, seeing the real object,

you know, the things that darwin brought back on the beagle or something like that. it's just magical. so i don't think we'll ever replace, if you like, that extraordinary experience of standing in front of a real object, seeing it, touching things. but, if you like, we've had a challenge, you know. over the last 20—odd years, we've welcomed 100 million people through the doors here, but we had no real way of talking to them between times, whereas actually, if you can communicate through digital channels between the occasions when somebody can physically visit, we can stay in touch. we can keep you in touch with programming, with behind the scenes content. and if you get those right, i think you can create a hugely richer experience in which we can engage with our visitors digitally and physically. and then when they come back physically, there'll be an even richer experience. you are arguably the most, or certainly one of the most famous natural history museums in the world. do you think this pandemic and all of the discussion it's prompted about the balance between the human presence on earth and the natural world and whether that balance is out of kilter, is that

something you now need to reflect in this museum? absolutely. i mean, if you think about us as a museum, our subject matter is planet earth and the life here on planet earth. but the challenge, and there is a problem, and i think the pandemic has brought this home really starkly to us, which is that that life is under threat. you know, we can look back through the fossil record. we know that life has been on earth for about 3.5 billion years, 3,500 million years. but over that time, there have been five mass extinction events. that's moments when almost all the life on earth has disappeared, and all the data is telling us we're heading for a sixth. but this one is different because all the data is telling us that this sixth potential mass extinction event, the first mass extinction event since we lost the dinosaurs over 60 million years ago, this one is caused by the actions of a single species, and that's us, humanity. and some of it's climate change. some of it is actually land use, nearly a third

of the world's land surface and other things, and some of it's pollution. so that's the challenge. and that, by the way, is what the museum is out to try and fix. you, in that answer, sound a bit like a missionary, like you now see it as your mission in this museum to be sort of an advocate for a very different approach to man's management of the planet. is that what you've become? absolutely, we do. i mean, we're saying, the museum actually declared a planetary emergency and a planetary emergency because life on earth — and that's our subject matter — is under threat. but we can fix it. but is that what museums are for, to tell the public that they have to respond to a planetary emergency? i mean, isn't that deeply political as well as based on science? so, i think if you think about what we have here, we have three extraordinary assets. we have the science. it's not necessarily that well known, but we have over 300 full—time scientists here working on biodiversity, working on the solutions to this challenge. we actually also have trust.

you know, we have extraordinary trust from our audiences, who do trust us to tell the facts, to be impartial, to present it as it is. and we also have reach, both physically and digitally. and if you have the trust, you have the science, you have the reach, then you have the opportunity to do something about it. and what we believe we can do about it... and i'm glad you used the word advocate because that's the word we use. what we want to do is try and create advocates for the planet, and what that means is inspiring millions and then tens of millions and then hundreds of millions of people first of all to care about the natural world, but secondly, to be inspired to want to do something about it. and that's both individuals in the choices we make about the food we eat, the products we buy, the way we travel, but also inspiring individuals to care enough about this planet to be able to do something about it. that's what we want to do. but this is very interesting, because is there a shift in the balance within the exhibitions and displays you do? i mean, for example, behind your shoulder, one of the most magnificent dinosaur skeletons ever found in the united kingdom. but i do notice that perhaps the emphasis these days is less on the fossils and the dinosaurs. it's more on, for example,

the threats posed to species right now, right across the world. above our heads is this magnificent blue whale, which actually replaced what many people around the world will remember as the most magnificent skeleton of a diplodocus. dippy, absolutely. and dippy�*s gone. the blue whale�*s come. is that a sign that you care more about the present and the future than the deep past? we care about life on earth. that's our subject, and hope, which is hope, the beautiful blue whale that hangs above us, we chose hope because it is a symbol very much of the future. and in fact, we're actually opening with a really interesting exhibition, part of a year—long programme that we're calling 0ur broken planet — how we got here and, crucially, ways to fix it. and the point about this is, we do see that the impact of humanity on the natural world is massive. but crucially, we know that if we want to inspire action, it has to be done from a message of hope. and there is still time.

the good news — and it is good news — is that, actually, there is a sustainable path. it's narrow, but there is a sustainable path in which we can still have development, but do it in a way that we don't overconsume the world's natural resources. now, i have to ask you, given what you have just said to me, how credible your message is as director of this wonderful museum, when everybody around the world should also be aware that your most recent past was as a very senior corporate executive in one of the world's most successful and biggest companies, amazon, and amazon's record on sustainability and respecting the planet is, to many people's eyes, extremely poor. so how credible an advocate, as you say, are you? yes, so i can't speak directly for amazon because i don't work there any more. but you did until...six months ago. idid, yeah. and i think, actually, amazon is a good example of the way in which we want to engage with all corporates because we know that we can't actually deliver what we need to deliver unless we work with people and companies and governments.

and actually, amazon's a good example because you're quite right, it's a retailer. but actually, if you look two years ago, amazon set out the climate pledge. 0nly last week, i was actually delighted to see that amazon joined the leaf coalition to really commit energy and resources behind notjust being net—zero on carbon, notjust being 100% renewable, but also a commitment to rewilding and reforestation. i think it's actually a really good example of how you can engage with the corporate, explain to them with the facts, with the evidence, how we can actually do what we do, continue to serve customers, but do so in a much more sustainable way. but, doug, while you were a very senior executive in the company, the company was one of the most notoriously reluctant to actually talk about its emissions on a year—by—year basis. it has been worked out that in 2018, for example, amazon was responsible for 44 million metric tonnes of c02. it also has been plagued by lawsuits from workers who complain about working conditions, about low wages, about a work style which they say is not humane.

now, you'vejust come from there. so have you had some sort of damascene conversion or what has happened here? so, look, i have to say, that wasn't my experience. i mean, ispenta number of years at amazon. i worked very closely with colleagues from the fulfilment centres, with drivers. and that wasn't my experience. that wasn't what they told me. it wasn't what they said. but you don't have to take my word for that. you don't even have to take amazon's word for that. i'm sure if they were here, they would say, "come and see for yourself." i mean, while i was there, we opened up the operation to public tours. i believe those will continue, or will come back when the pandemic ends. and i think people should, just as ever, come and make up theirown mind. when it comes to the future of this place, what's your ambition for what people will walk away thinking and feeling? will it be less the marvel and more political? it won't be political. as i say, our ambition

here, our vision here is to create advocates. and an advocate is somebody, and that means, as i say... and by the way, it's many, many advocates. it's millions. it's tens of millions, which we can do, we have the reach. but it's somebody who's inspired to love and care about the natural world, but then, crucially, inspired to make changes in their own lives and also, by the way, back to your earlier point, to put pressure on companies to encourage them to change. and i think if we all get together on that, we can actually do the things we need to do to fix the planet. very idealistic, but you need money, and during the covid pandemic you've had very limited revenues. you've been very dependent on state support. but you also do rely on major contributions from big corporate donors. you have links to mining companies, to fossil fuel companies. and you also have links in the past to, for example, the sacklerfamily, who made theirfortune out of selling opioids, highly addictive drugs, in the united states

and elsewhere. are you going to change that policy of taking funds from such sources? so we always look at any of these situations on a case—by—case basis. you always ask yourself the question, "why are we engaging with the corporate?" and really, it comes down to two things. 0ne, as you rightly say, is that we do want support to run the programmes we can and we'll always look for that, but we'd be very thoughtful before we took money from anybody about, "are we feeling good "about working with this organisation? " have mistakes been made? i think the question we ask ourselves always these times is, "what is the direction of travel?" so if you ask, for example, about the mining industry, we know, for example, we have scientists here who are helping mining companies to say it's fantastic that we've seen governments around the world making a commitment to decarbonise the economy. that's great, but actually, that's going to drive up demand for batteries. and to run batteries, you need lithium, you need cobalt, you need rare earth minerals. we actually have world experts in here in thinking about sustainable ways of mining. so part of the reason we would engage with mining companies is, of course it's always helpful to get financial support for your programmes. even more importantly,

i would argue, if we can engage with the corporation, we can help them move on that journey and actually be able to actually find the minerals we need to decarbonise the economy, but to do it in the most sustainable possible way. that's the nature of the kind of interaction we want to have with corporates. and the question... the question remains, have mistakes been made? i mean, i'm very mindful, i think it was in 2015, you took a major contribution from the sacklers to develop a new part of the museum. six years on... ..was that a mistake? i think the question you would ask yourself on any occasion is, with the information the team at the time had available, did they take the appropriate decisions? sometimes over time, new information emerges. if you'd have had that information at the time, you might have taken a different view. will you take money from them in the future? i think on any occasion, we'll look at it on a case—by—case basis and we'll ask the same question. is it a good direction of travel? do you welcome the debate that is raging in the united kingdom and many other countries now about the degree to which

museums like this have to be much clearer about the context in which these extraordinary exhibits around us arrived here in london? you know, i really do. i hugely welcome it. actually, i think one of the things that's been enormously positive... and i know this may be an unusual thing, a surprising thing to say. i actually think it's been hugely positive that we've had this debate because, for me, museums are about the collections, but also the stories you tell around them and actually our ability to engage with more diverse audiences. the more we can open up these things, the more we can tell more stories. and by the way, one of the benefits of the digital challenges is, you can tell so many more stories and you can start to tell stories that engage with people all around the world. so actually, i think it's terrific we're having these debates. this argument cuts very different ways. i want to get to sort of the whole discussion about colonialism in a second, but first, just the origins of so many of the exhibits here, they were brought

here from right around the world and mostly, they were brought during the colonial imperial period of uk history. indeed. many countries have asked for some of these extraordinary things back, and you have been very reluctant to give them back. why? so, i think, if you... first of all, we're a natural history museum. so most of our collections are, as you know, they're fossils, they're botanicals, they're plants, they're animals. they're not typically sort of human artefacts. but what difference does that make? they still have an origin. they still belong somewhere. and they were still taken, very usually without any sort of permission or authorisation, by explorers and scientists who felt that, rather arrogantly, they had a right to take whatever they wanted. so, there's two sides to this. 0n the one hand, we're extremely fortunate that scientists and collectors collected these objects, because if they had not done that, we would have lost them forever. so, for example, if you look in our collections, we have samples of wheat that

are now extinct. we have samples that we can go back and take dna from, so it's important these collections exist. but as you've said, stephen, these are global collections that we have to make available to the world. so one of the most important things we're doing, and by the way, very often there's a focus on the objects on display but that's a tiny fraction of the collection. even in this vast museum we're in, we have 27,000 objects on display. i have 80 million in the collection. that means that for everything on display, there are 3,000 objects behind the scenes, and that is a treasure trove that we have to make available. but it's also an argument for saying, actually, you could very easily give some magnificent pieces back to the places of origin and, actually, you wouldn't lose very much. you absolutely can, and we absolutely do. you know, our goal is to make this collection available to everybody. but with respect, you absolutely don't. i mean, yes, you've returned some human remains and human tissue to, i think, australia, new zealand, hawaii,

where indigenous people's remains had ended up here and now they've been returned. i understand that. but in many other cases, i'll give you one example. chile, it wanted, from here, this extraordinary exhibit you have, i think it's called the mylodon. it's a particular creature, a huge sort of sloth—like creature, remains discovered in a cave in chile in the late 19th century, ended up here. the chileans want it back. of course, it's been extinct for 10,000 years. chilean people want to see this thing. why should you have it? yeah, and they're complex issues. there's always the question of, where do you keep it and how? i think the thing that we try and do, and we do this a lot, is, we work with museums around the world, with universities around the world to make these collections available, which we can do digitally, we do through loans, we do through touring. we make sure that this collection is available to everybody and in every single case like that, we look at it very carefully. we understand provenance. we work out a decision. but you haven't given it back. on that occasion, we have not. i'd really like to know, why?

what was your rationale for saying, "no, you can't have it back, we're keeping it"? yeah. so first of all, the circumstances under which we're legally permitted to return are quite proscribed. so we're not simply able to just return everything. we have to go through a very clear process. we need to understand provenance. we need to take into account those things. in most cases on things like that, we also need to be reassured about, you know, the collection storage. in most cases, we've found that the right thing to do for natural history collections is to make them available through loans, through tours, through collections, and that, we do all the time. so you'll find our collections all over the world as we speak right now. the deeper issue here, maybe the more ideological issue, is the degree to which you, and i used the word before, you contextualise what is here and explain to people that so many of the collectors and so many of the amazing sort of exploration expeditions which brought stuff here were absolutely tied up to colonialism, to imperialism and indeed, to violence. and i'm not necessarily seeing that you're being open and upfront about that

in this museum. i think it's a very legitimate challenge. and i think it's one of those challenges that if you say, "have we done as much as we could, should "and will be doing to tell more of the stories?", i think the answer is perhaps not. i mean, i'll give you a simple example. if you think about the captain cook expeditions on the endeavour back in the late 18th century, extraordinary expeditions, the first time europeans, they weren't discovered, but the first time europeans had actually been to australia or new zealand. we're very fortunate to have the entire botanical artworks of those collections in our collection here. but actually, a lot of those artworks were actually created by local artists, and we've never really told that story before. and that's the kind of thing we're going to be telling. but the one thing i would say is, we're very, very clear that we want to be additive in our approach. it's more stories that can engage with more audiences, and particularly more diverse audiences that we have

all around the world. 0ver there, there's a statue of charles darwin, one of the inspirationalfigures behind so much of what we see in this museum. the daily telegraph, not so long ago, got hold of an internal report from this museum where there was a very active discussion about how you should deal with charles darwin today. some of your staff wrote that it was clear darwin was involved in colonialist scientific expeditions, that science, racism and colonial power were inherently entwined, that there were, quote, "covert racism issues "which exist in the gaps between our displays, "and the collections need to be decolonised." do you agree with all of that? because that came from members of your staff. and do you think that charles darwin needs to be taken out of this? because that came from members of your staff. and do you think that charles darwin needs to be taken out of this? you know, we've been very clear, and we've said

so publicly, we are not going to cancel darwin. darwin was a scientific hero. you know, without darwin, there would be no real evolution story. he was a truly extraordinary individual. but, of course, as you rightly call out, and as our own curators have rightly called out, there are many, many stories around this that are real issues that we do need to address and will be addressing. but the point i want to make is, the approach will be additive, so that's why we would not cancel darwin or take him out, but we will, of course, contextualise and bring to life all of these other stories. well, the government is taking a view on much of this, there is a lot of talk about culture wars. and one of the battlegrounds, it seems, is now museums. and there's talk of pressure being put on museum directors because the government doesn't want to see too much focus now, it seems, according to the culture secretary, not too much focus put on the need to acknowledge colonialism, to go too deep into this response to movements like black lives matter. you're a director of one of the most important museums in the uk. where do you sit on this? well, first of all, i'm genuinely thrilled that museums

are right at the forefront of these crucial debates. you want to be a battleground? we don't want to be a battleground. we think these are important conversations to have and we think it's important that museums... in a sense, it's reflective ofjust how relevant museums are, just how important these collections are that you can actually use them to tell the stories. and museums, throughout their history, have been places where these kind of debates take place. i think the important thing for museums is, you find a way to engage and inspire that works for the audience. and actually, a good example of this is — and it's back to this point about physical space — you know, this wonderful museum, it's fabulous, but it's in central london. that's not always easy for everybody, even in the uk, to get to. and particularly, it's not easy for perhaps people from more disadvantaged or less affluent communities. so it's one of the most important things we're going to be doing, is taking this museum out. you know, we've got an incredible project called the urban nature project, which is going to be able

to connect with people across the uk and all four nations of the uk, particularly reaching out to less advantaged communities to engage them with nature and the science in their own communities. and that, for me, is a great example of where you actually, you know, that's not about a debate about culture wars. it's about getting people inspired by nature. and that's one thing i think the pandemic has taught us. we need to get people inspired and we need to do it where they are. and that's really where i see our direction. and a final thought. i'm mindful that it is 140 years since the first visitors came to this wonderful place. do you think it's going to look very different, never mind 140 years, but in 20 or 30 years from now, are museums going to be fundamentally different? i think museums are going to be, at their core, exactly what they've always been, which is extraordinary places for people all around the world to engage in some of the most important issues facing society. but i think they're going to be able to do it in a much more expansive way because we will take away the constraint of saying, "you have to come to us here." we will come to you.

doug gurr, it's been a pleasure talking to you in this wonderful space. thank you very much. thank you so much. hello. it feels like it's been a while since i've been able to say this, but on thursday, most parts of the country will be dry. it's been one of those months, hasn't it? notjust dry, it should feel a little bit warmer, and that's after quite a chilly start. even though temperatures in single figures for most, rural parts of southern england, wales, northern ireland could drop down to 1—2 celsius at first light. so, there could be a touch of frost around. dry and sunny here. a bit more in the way of low cloud and mistiness across parts of scotland and eastern england, but that will break up.

although it will stay grey in shetland through the day. sunshine turning hazy across western areas later. maybe a few spots of rain in west cornwall, fermanagh, and an isolated shower down eastern parts of england and eastern scotland. but the vast majority dry, and temperatures in the mid to high teens. now, into the evening and overnight, we will see the return of some wet weather, particularly in the west. a lot of low cloud with that. quite a murky start to friday morning, but notice the temperatures, double figures for some. coolest where we've got the clearest skies towards the east of the country. and it's here where high pressure is building in as we go into friday. and what that does — stops that weather front moving much further eastwards and it will decay in situ. damp and drizzly, quite murky across western areas to begin with. brightening up a touch, but there'll still be some rain and drizzle around into the afternoon. eastern areas favoured for the cloud breaking up, some sunshine, particularly in the north east of scotland, away from some coasts that is. and temperatures are down a little bit on thursday, but if you get some sunshine, it should still feel quite pleasant. but the temperatures will be on the rise further as we go into the weekend, and there will be more sunshine developing.

we will start saturday fairly cloudy, especially in the west. still one or two light drizzly showers. isolated shower further east, most will be dry, increasing amounts of sunshine through eastern areas. and by this stage, a few more spots will be getting to 20 degrees. parts of southern england and western and northern scotland are best favoured for that. into sunday, though, after some morning mist and fog patches, bluer skies for most. it will be a sunny day, little bit of fairweather cloud and some hazy sunshine out towards the north and the west. but by this stage, could be hitting 22 degrees in parts of scotland, maybe up to around 22—23 in the south east of england. but with the sunshine out, the warmth, you may be tempted towards the coast, but our recent chilly spell has had an impact on sea surface temperatures. be brave. temperatures for some only around 8—9 degrees. then, as we go into bank holiday monday, well, it's high pressure and the warmth and sunshine lasts in the south. there's a chance of a return of some rain in scotland and northern ireland. bye for now.

this is bbc news, i'm lewis vaughanjones with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. a blistering attack on british prime minister borisjohnson's handling of the coronavirus pandemic by his former chief adviser. i regarded him as unfit for the job and i tried to stop what i thought were extremely bad decisions. at least eight people are killed in a shooting ata railyard in sanjose, california. a judge in australia dismisses what could have

been a landmark case, brought on by a group of teenagers and a nun trying to stop the expansion of australia's coal production.