for wondering if we've gone back to the future this week. private messages exploded into the public eye. sweary whatsapps from matt hancock about lockdown, his love affair, and the rest. a distraction from rishi sunak�*s relative success getting a new deal with the eu.

i'm pleased to report that we have now made a decisive breakthrough. we also both knew, rishi, that we could do it. after weeks of nerves, most brexiteers seemed willing to give it a chance. but... i'm going to find it very difficult to vote for something myself. i surely boris johnson wouldn't set out to stir the pot? facing trial by mp over whether he misled us all about what happened at number ten. new photos with bottles of booze on the desk. he still says he did nothing wrong and pointed to labour's shock hiring of the civil servant sue gray, who investigated what really happened under number ten�*s roof. with the return of partygate and the pandemic, we have one big question this morning — why is it so hard for the government to escape the recent past? with us live — the man who's been fixing one

of rishi sunak�*s toughest problems — chris heaton—harris, the northern ireland secretary — will he tell us what's in his whatsapps? what about labour's jon ashworth�*s? the man who wants to get millions back to work. labour's shadow work and pensions secretary is here too. the next contender to take on one of the biggestjobs in politics. wannabe first minster ash reganjoins us live. and as new laws to tackle the worst of social media grind through parliament, we talk to one grieving parent with a clear message for the big tech companies. with me at the desk — fraser nelson, editor of the tory bible, the spectator magazine — who has seen all of those whatsapps, hannah fry, mathmatician, and broadcaster is back — on the magic of maths. and sam tarry, labour mp for ilford south — proud trade unionist who's not afraid of rankling party hq.

welcome to the programme. it's like we've gone back in time this week with two big sprawling messes — products of massive events of recent years— partygate and the pandemic — does any of this damage today's leaders, does it bother you? let's see what the papers reckon with the front pages. the sunday telegraph think it matters, they have a splash of matt hancock, saying they were trying to frighten the pants of the public. the observer thinks borisjohnson is behaving like donald trump. the tabloids, two of them go with prince harry's latest with a therapist. and rishi sunak�*s new laws to try to stop the boats coming across the channel. plenty to talk about.

welcome all of you. let's talk about the telegraph. we will talk about the telegraph. we will talk about the big issues of lockdown, the conversation the papers have been trying to promote but there's lots of problems about how this emerge. the journalist, of problems about how this emerge. thejournalist, isabel oakshott of problems about how this emerge. the journalist, isabel oakshott was given these whatsapps to help matt hancock write his book. what she didn't —— what he didn't think she would do that she would give them to a newspaper. but surelyjournalist should keep the integrity? the a newspaper. but surely journalist should keep the integrity? the “ob ofthe should keep the integrity? the “ob of the journalist �* should keep the integrity? the “ob of the journalist is d should keep the integrity? the “ob of the journalist is to i should keep the integrity? the “ob of the journalist is to shine �* should keep the integrity? the “ob of the journalist is to shine a h of the journalist is to shine a light on things ministers would rather be kept in darkness. isabel oakshott had an incredible opportunity, to put into the public domain, all of these conversations, it is the biggest document dump ever made available in my lifetime. dozens of things, even hundreds of things they were trying to keep from us at the time. ethically, there is

no contest... us at the time. ethically, there is no contest. . ._ us at the time. ethically, there is no contest. . .- i _ us at the time. ethically, there is no contest. . .- i am - us at the time. ethically, there is no contest. . .- i am not i us at the time. ethically, there is - no contest. . .- i am not aware no contest... really? i am not aware of any journalist _ no contest... really? i am not aware of any journalist who _ no contest... really? i am not aware of any journalist who said _ no contest... really? i am not aware of any journalist who said she - of anyjournalist who said she should not have made these public. she did sign a nondisclosure... yes. she did sign a nondisclosure... yes, it is notjust — she did sign a nondisclosure... yes, it is notjust a _ she did sign a nondisclosure... yes, it is notjust a document _ she did sign a nondisclosure... 133 it is notjust a document dump, the daily telegraph has had a team of 21 journalists going at this for weeks on end to make sure people are told. there was a whole bunch of things we would never otherwise know about. the inquiry itself might take until the end of the decade so are we to keep quiet until then? but the end of the decade so are we to keep quiet until then?— keep quiet until then? but if it is about transparency _ keep quiet until then? but if it is about transparency and - keep quiet until then? but if it is about transparency and telling i keep quiet until then? but if it is. about transparency and telling the full story, why not publish them all and people canjudge full story, why not publish them all and people can judge for themselves. the telegraph has been accused of giving a partial version of events to fit in with the argument the newspaper wants to make that lockdown was too long, too harsh and a mistake. i lockdown was too long, too harsh and a mistake. .

lockdown was too long, too harsh and a mistake.- publish _ lockdown was too long, too harsh and a mistake.- publish them - a mistake. i agree. publish them all? the inquiry _ a mistake. i agree. publish them all? the inquiry has _ a mistake. i agree. publish them all? the inquiry has all _ a mistake. i agree. publish them all? the inquiry has all of - a mistake. i agree. publish them all? the inquiry has all of these l all? the inquiry has all of these messages. _ all? the inquiry has all of these messages. why _ all? the inquiry has all of these messages, why not _ all? the inquiry has all of these messages, why not publish - all? the inquiry has all of these l messages, why not publish them all? the inquiry has all of these - messages, why not publish them all right now? it is a conversation we need to have right now because there will be another pandemic, under the pathogen along in the future what chance have we got to get it right next time?— chance have we got to get it right next time? ,, ., , , , , next time? should the paper publish them all? you _ next time? should the paper publish them all? you are _ next time? should the paper publish them all? you are one _ next time? should the paper publish them all? you are one of _ next time? should the paper publish them all? you are one of the - next time? should the paper publish them all? you are one of the few- them all? you are one of the few people in the country has gone through every message, why not put them in the public domain? there are several more — them in the public domain? there are several more days _ them in the public domain? there are several more days of _ them in the public domain? there are several more days of this, _ them in the public domain? there are several more days of this, there - them in the public domain? there are several more days of this, there is - several more days of this, there is more to come. the files are four times the size of war and peace. the nixon tapes is comparison, when he was recorded in the white house and it took decades to publish those things. some things are not in the public interest to disclose, but what is being released day by day, each of them opening about a conversation we would not have had. one of the messages that was published yesterday suggested the government knew rishi sunak�*s eat

out to help out scheme was causing a spike in infections because it was encouraging people back out into the public domain. you were working with some of the scientist producing the data, was it a concern at the time? of course, there were all kinds of concerns — of course, there were all kinds of concerns at — of course, there were all kinds of concerns at the time. one of the things— concerns at the time. one of the things about the story, lies our lived _ things about the story, lies our lived forwards but understood backwards. viewing everything through— backwards. viewing everything through the lens of hindsight what went on— through the lens of hindsight what went on to happen, but this particular— went on to happen, but this particular cherry picked series of messages, i think it kind of skews the idea _ messages, i think it kind of skews the idea that at the time, a lot of people _ the idea that at the time, a lot of people were very sensible, compassionate and did the right thing _ compassionate and did the right thing and — compassionate and did the right thing and knew that being in crowded spaces _ thing and knew that being in crowded spaces wasn't the right thing to do. i do spaces wasn't the right thing to do. i do think_ spaces wasn't the right thing to do. i do think that at the time, even the commentary at the time, really noticed _ the commentary at the time, really noticed the — the commentary at the time, really noticed the government messaging was screeching _ noticed the government messaging was screeching in one direction and then screeching _ screeching in one direction and then screeching to another and it should have been—

screeching to another and it should have been a lot more consistent throughout. have been a lot more consistent throughout-— have been a lot more consistent throu:hout. ., , throughout. one of the interesting thin is throughout. one of the interesting thing is that _ throughout. one of the interesting thing is that whole _ throughout. one of the interesting thing is that whole period - throughout. one of the interesting thing is that whole period is - throughout. one of the interesting thing is that whole period is that i thing is that whole period is that labour pretty much always went with the government. as hannah has been reminding us, it was a scramble and people are trying to work out the right thing to do. but where labour are posing properly at that time, really interrogating the information? i really interrogating the information?— really interrogating the information? ., ., ., ., information? i would have gone for harsher lockdowns _ information? i would have gone for harsher lockdowns because - information? i would have gone for harsher lockdowns because the - harsher lockdowns because the evidence — harsher lockdowns because the evidence was quite apparent in my constituency is when the eat out to help out _ constituency is when the eat out to help out happen, there was a spike in deaths _ help out happen, there was a spike in deaths because of that, in ilford south _ in deaths because of that, in ilford south and — in deaths because of that, in ilford south and similar urban communities across— south and similar urban communities across the _ south and similar urban communities across the country. we knew that within _ across the country. we knew that within weeks. my question is, yes it is important — within weeks. my question is, yes it is important this stuff has come out but what _ is important this stuff has come out but what are the consequences going to he? _ but what are the consequences going to he? i_ but what are the consequences going to be? i want to see the full report _ to be? i want to see the full report. all of those messages are published — report. all of those messages are published and as soon as possible. will have _ published and as soon as possible. will have to deal with the journalistic integrity issues on

that — journalistic integrity issues on that but _ journalistic integrity issues on that. but government ministersjust ploughed _ that. but government ministersjust ploughed on and that is indefensible.— ploughed on and that is indefensible. . ., , ., indefensible. have we really learn new things _ indefensible. have we really learn new things question _ indefensible. have we really learn new things question what - indefensible. have we really learn new things question what you - indefensible. have we really learn | new things question what you have both said it confirmed what we knew already and we have lots of salacious colour, swearing thrown in, do you think it has told us things we did know?- in, do you think it has told us things we did know? yes, it shows the government _ things we did know? yes, it shows the government didn't _ things we did know? yes, it shows the government didn't have - things we did know? yes, it shows the government didn't have a - things we did know? yes, it shows i the government didn't have a serious strategy~ _ the government didn't have a serious strategy~ they— the government didn't have a serious strategy. they were _ the government didn't have a serious strategy. they were not _ the government didn't have a serious strategy. they were not listening - the government didn't have a serious strategy. they were not listening to i strategy. they were not listening to the evidence — strategy. they were not listening to the evidence and _ strategy. they were not listening to the evidence and this _ strategy. they were not listening to the evidence and this stuff - strategy. they were not listening to the evidence and this stuff about i the evidence and this stuff about scaring _ the evidence and this stuff about scaring the — the evidence and this stuff about scaring the population _ the evidence and this stuff about scaring the population and - the evidence and this stuff about scaring the population and so - the evidence and this stuff about i scaring the population and so forth. this is— scaring the population and so forth. this is clearly— scaring the population and so forth. this is clearly problematic, - scaring the population and so forth. this is clearly problematic, but - scaring the population and so forth. this is clearly problematic, but at l this is clearly problematic, but at the time, — this is clearly problematic, but at the time, we _ this is clearly problematic, but at the time, we have _ this is clearly problematic, but at the time, we have to _ this is clearly problematic, but at the time, we have to remember. this is clearly problematic, but at. the time, we have to remember that lahour— the time, we have to remember that labour was _ the time, we have to remember that labour was offering _ the time, we have to remember that labour was offering support. - the time, we have to remember that labour was offering support. from . the time, we have to remember that. labour was offering support. from my point of— labour was offering support. from my point of view, — labour was offering support. from my point of view, those _ labour was offering support. from my point of view, those lockdowns - labour was offering support. from my point of view, those lockdowns that i point of view, those lockdowns that were brought — point of view, those lockdowns that were brought in. _ point of view, those lockdowns that were brought in, i— point of view, those lockdowns that were brought in, i don't _ point of view, those lockdowns that were brought in, i don't agree i point of view, those lockdowns that were brought in, i don't agree with| were brought in, i don't agree with the telegraph _ were brought in, i don't agree with the telegraph or _ were brought in, i don't agree with the telegraph or whatever, - were brought in, i don't agree with the telegraph or whatever, they i were brought in, i don't agree with i the telegraph or whatever, they save lives _ the telegraph or whatever, they save lives i_ the telegraph or whatever, they save lives i called — the telegraph or whatever, they save lives. i called for— the telegraph or whatever, they save lives. i called for harsher— lives. i called for harsher lockdowns _ lives. i called for harsher lockdowns at _ lives. i called for harsher lockdowns at the - lives. i called for harsher lockdowns at the time. l lives. i called for harsher. lockdowns at the time. they lives. i called for harsher- lockdowns at the time. they might not have _ lockdowns at the time. they might not have been_ lockdowns at the time. they might not have been popular, _ lockdowns at the time. they might not have been popular, but- lockdowns at the time. they might not have been popular, but i- lockdowns at the time. they might| not have been popular, but i would rather _ not have been popular, but i would rather have — not have been popular, but i would rather have my— not have been popular, but i would rather have my residence - not have been popular, but i would rather have my residence alive. i not have been popular, but i would| rather have my residence alive. but roarin: rather have my residence alive. roaring back from the recent past

has been the question of partygate. time to borisjohnson may have misled parliament, so what does this do for boris johnson's misled parliament, so what does this do for borisjohnson's reputation? not very much. i am not surprised if people will not be surprised by it. we see that behind—the—scenes there was an incredibly flippant atmosphere, this thing about scaring the general public well having parties themselves, completely deplorable and sending the police after others who were they did that. that is hypocrisy from boris johnson. he might say so great was bias, this civil servant has now gone to work for keir starmer. do ou gone to work for keir starmer. do you buy that? know, _ gone to work for keir starmer. do you buy that? know, the - you buy that? know, the parliamentary _ you buy that? know, the parliamentary inquiry i you buy that? know, the i parliamentary inquiry found the same. they were having parties at a

time when they were literally going the next day to plan how to crack down and send the police, give plod their marching orders, was the language from matt hancock. what we now see is evidence of this toxic culture, they were being incredibly gung ho. they started off cautious, open—minded and ended up incredibly comfortable with the huge powers they had given themselves to lock people up, even laughing about people up, even laughing about people being locked up. at the same time they, themselves were behaving in a terrible way.— in a terrible way. hannah, he followed _ in a terrible way. hannah, he followed this _ in a terrible way. hannah, he followed this as _ in a terrible way. hannah, he followed this as a _ in a terrible way. hannah, he followed this as a scientist i in a terrible way. hannah, he. followed this as a scientist but also as a voter and a citizen, is what comes into your mind? especially when you put the two of those _ especially when you put the two of those stories together, for anybody who feels _ those stories together, for anybody who feels that the government was treating _ who feels that the government was treating the public with contempt at the time _ treating the public with contempt at the time doesn't help. the language being _ the time doesn't help. the language being used to describe it and the flippancv— being used to describe it and the flippancy of it all. there are

literally— flippancy of it all. there are literally photos of boris johnson at these _ literally photos of boris johnson at these parties. it is a bit pathetic reallv _ these parties. it is a bit pathetic reallv |— these parties. it is a bit pathetic reall . .., �* these parties. it is a bit pathetic reall . �* , , these parties. it is a bit pathetic reall. �*, ., really. i couldn't see my sister and she had a newborn _ really. i couldn't see my sister and she had a newborn baby, - really. i couldn't see my sister and she had a newborn baby, we i really. i couldn't see my sister and she had a newborn baby, we had l she had a newborn baby, we had constituency— she had a newborn baby, we had constituency couldn't _ she had a newborn baby, we had constituency couldn't help - she had a newborn baby, we had constituency couldn't help the i she had a newborn baby, we had i constituency couldn't help the hands of loved _ constituency couldn't help the hands of loved ones — constituency couldn't help the hands of loved ones as _ constituency couldn't help the hands of loved ones as they _ constituency couldn't help the hands of loved ones as they died _ constituency couldn't help the hands of loved ones as they died and - constituency couldn't help the hands of loved ones as they died and thenl of loved ones as they died and then seeing _ of loved ones as they died and then seeing these — of loved ones as they died and then seeing these photos _ of loved ones as they died and then seeing these photos of— of loved ones as they died and then seeing these photos of them - of loved ones as they died and then seeing these photos of them on i of loved ones as they died and thenj seeing these photos of them on the razzle _ seeing these photos of them on the razzle in_ seeing these photos of them on the razzle in downing _ seeing these photos of them on the razzle in downing street— seeing these photos of them on the razzle in downing street and - seeing these photos of them on the razzle in downing street and other. razzle in downing street and other places _ razzle in downing street and other places boris— razzle in downing street and other places. borisjohnson _ razzle in downing street and other places. boris johnson tried - razzle in downing street and other places. boris johnson tried to i razzle in downing street and other. places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bultet— places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bullet on— places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bullet on that _ places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bullet on that one _ places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bullet on that one but _ places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bullet on that one but it - places. boris johnson tried to dodge the bullet on that one but it is - the bullet on that one but it is clear— the bullet on that one but it is clear he — the bullet on that one but it is clear he was— the bullet on that one but it is clear he was there _ the bullet on that one but it is clear he was there and - the bullet on that one but it is clear he was there and broke. the bullet on that one but it is i clear he was there and broke the rules _ clear he was there and broke the rules the — clear he was there and broke the rules. the prime _ clear he was there and broke the rules. the prime minister- clear he was there and broke the rules. the prime minister has i rules. the prime minister has already— rules. the prime minister has already been _ rules. the prime minister has already been fined. _ rules. the prime minister has already been fined. it - rules. the prime minister has already been fined. it is- rules. the prime minister has already been fined. it is a i rules. the prime minister has i already been fined. it is a problem that will— already been fined. it is a problem that will roll — already been fined. it is a problem that will roll on _ already been fined. it is a problem that will roll on and _ already been fined. it is a problem that will roll on and on _ already been fined. it is a problem that will roll on and on and - already been fined. it is a problem that will roll on and on and the i that will roll on and on and the hypocrisy— that will roll on and on and the hypocrisy has _ that will roll on and on and the hypocrisy has totally _ that will roll on and on and the i hypocrisy has totally undermined that will roll on and on and the - hypocrisy has totally undermined the government — hypocrisy has totally undermined the government-— government. those issues are definitely back _ government. those issues are definitely back in _ government. those issues are definitely back in the - government. those issues are definitely back in the public'sl definitely back in the public�*s mine. thank you both review for now, but stay with us. in rishi sunak�*s world this could have been a week to bask in the glory of doing a new deal with the eu to sort out how trading rules work in northern ireland, after many months of fraught talks. but the past roared back. matt hancock's whatsapps about

the pandemic and borisjohnson's behaviour during partygate came back to the fore. chris heaton harris is the northen ireland secretary and was one of team johnson's loyal lieutenants. he's here. let's start with covid, as we will in a few minutes with labour'sjonathan ashworth, as it feels like a moment where we can process a bit of what happened to us all. no, the government strategy was to try and protect the british public as best as they could to try and protect the british economy as best as it could and to try and give as much information as it possibly could at the right times, which is why you saw chris whitty in press conferences and doing other things. do you think it was ok for notjust ministers, but the most senior civil servant in the country to be talking about what was going on, choking on their phones with each other about what was going on? one mp said it looks cringeworthy? what what was going on? one mp said it looks cringeworthy?— looks cringeworthy? what we are seeinr , it looks cringeworthy? what we are seeing. it is— looks cringeworthy? what we are seeing. it is a _ looks cringeworthy? what we are

seeing, it is a partial— looks cringeworthy? what we are seeing, it is a partial account i looks cringeworthy? what we are seeing, it is a partial account of. seeing, it is a partial account of what was going on and kind of almost view into the psyche of matt hancock, ratherthan view into the psyche of matt hancock, rather than into the actual decision—making. all decisions would have been recorded by civil servants, lots of cross government meetings in the usual way. what in whatsapp cc is what matt hancock was thinking. whatsapp cc is what matt hancock was thinkina. �* ,., whatsapp cc is what matt hancock was thinkina. ~ ~ . ., whatsapp cc is what matt hancock was thinkina. �* a ., , thinking. also michael gove, still in government, _ thinking. also michael gove, still in government, simon _ thinking. also michael gove, still in government, simon cayce, i thinking. also michael gove, still in government, simon cayce, my question is, our viewers watching this money, are they to believe they are comfortable with the tone of conversation? i are comfortable with the tone of conversation?— are comfortable with the tone of conversation? ~' , ., conversation? i think viewers would exect conversation? i think viewers would expect politicians _ conversation? i think viewers would expect politicians being _ conversation? i think viewers would expect politicians being human i expect politicians being human beings would express things human way. i don't think you would find one politician that wasn't afraid at the beginning of the lockdown, first lockdown when we had no idea what the pandemic was going to be. these revelations were around the time when there were no vaccines, there

was limited testing. you have got to put it in the time context, as well as everything else which is why it is important to wait for the inquiry because we will see this evidence at the right time. matt hancock said rishi sunak�*s eight out to help out scheme is causing problems in intervention areas, where they were local covid spiking outbreaks. he messages he was trying to keep it out of the news. that's a cover—up, isn't it? it depends in what context that message was sent. eat out to help out was a scheme to keep the whole sector of industry going at one time because we also wanted to protect the economy. we were trying to protect the nhs, economy, britain from a pandemic and we were doing exactly the same things to what other countries were doing at different times. there was no playbook for fighting a pandemic of this nature in modern day british

society and the previous time we had a pandemic we certainly didn't have whatsapp. we would never have known what the politicians of the time or indeed the scientists were thinking. let's talk about a big issue for our viewers and for your party, and for many people coming this week. we are expecting the next couple of days rishi sunak to announce new laws to try to stop small boats coming across the channel and arriving in this country. the idea is to deport anyone who arrives and to stop them ever from anyone who arrives and to stop them everfrom claiming anyone who arrives and to stop them ever from claiming asylum anyone who arrives and to stop them everfrom claiming asylum here in this country. the problem is if anyone's been paying attention, the new laws proposed to be brought in are almost identical to the laws that have already been brought in and they haven't worked, rivals are at record levels, so what's the point of new laws?— at record levels, so what's the point of new laws? actually, i've et to point of new laws? actually, i've yet to see _ point of new laws? actually, i've yet to see the — point of new laws? actually, i've yet to see the new— point of new laws? actually, i've yet to see the new law _ point of new laws? actually, i've yet to see the new law and i i point of new laws? actually, i've. yet to see the new law and i don't think anybody else has apart from the home secretary and the prime minister and a handful of civil servants around it, so we can't authoritatively say they are exactly the same laws.— the same laws. rishi sunak said in the same laws. rishi sunak said in the mail on _ the same laws. rishi sunak said in the mail on sunday, _ the same laws. rishi sunak said in

the mail on sunday, so _ the same laws. rishi sunak said in the mail on sunday, so we - the same laws. rishi sunak said in the mail on sunday, so we got i the same laws. rishi sunak said in the mail on sunday, so we got a i the mail on sunday, so we got a pretty good idea. we the mail on sunday, so we got a pretty good idea-— pretty good idea. we need a full ranue pretty good idea. we need a full ranae of pretty good idea. we need a full range of our— pretty good idea. we need a full range of our arsenal _ pretty good idea. we need a full range of our arsenal to - pretty good idea. we need a full range of our arsenal to try i pretty good idea. we need a full range of our arsenal to try to i pretty good idea. we need a full. range of our arsenal to try to stop both people trafficking and illegal migration across the channel that involves proper conversations that are ongoing with our french counterparts and indeed other european counterparts too. that is to try to ensure people are held in the first safe country they come to. but also includes international development aid, because you want to try and make sure the economy in places where people are trying to come from develop themselves so they don't need to make thatjourney and there's a whole piece around legislation as well which we need to get right. flan legislation as well which we need to net riuht. ., legislation as well which we need to net riuht. . ., legislation as well which we need to net riuht. ., . legislation as well which we need to et riht. ., ., a, ., get right. can i read you what the team of priti _ get right. can i read you what the team of priti patel, _ get right. can i read you what the team of priti patel, former- get right. can i read you what the team of priti patel, former home| team of priti patel, former home secretary, she brought in loads of new laws to try to address this problem. herteam new laws to try to address this problem. her team a call this plan window dressing, having hyped up what they will do, they haven't come up what they will do, they haven't come up with anything remotely new. if priti patel thinks you already have laws that you need what is the point

in new legislation? doesn't it look like you're trying to give the impression of tackling a very complex problem but they might not have any impact? i complex problem but they might not have any impact?— have any impact? i think my constituents _ have any impact? i think my constituents would - have any impact? i think my constituents would say i have any impact? i think my constituents would say we l have any impact? i think my i constituents would say we don't have any impact? i think my - constituents would say we don't have the laws we need to tackle this problem because this problem is still ongoing. so it's only part of what needs to be done and, you know, as politicians, we know we need to reflect on public opinion and not answer these questions and stopping the boats coming across the english channel is a very big part in the arsenal. i was out campaigning yesterday in my constituency. it is very high on people to gender. it certainly isn't that exactly why is it not what the government is proposing, it's actually something you can be sure would have a practical effect?— you can be sure would have a practical effect? yeah, that of the government _ practical effect? yeah, that of the government would _ practical effect? yeah, that of the government would like _ practical effect? yeah, that of the government would like to - practical effect? yeah, that of the government would like to think. practical effect? yeah, that of the. government would like to think will happen. i government would like to think will ha en. ., government would like to think will ha en. . ., government would like to think will ha en. ., ., , ., government would like to think will hauen. ., .,, ., , government would like to think will ha en, ., ., , ., , ., happen. i want to show people what ha--ened happen. i want to show people what happened in — happen. i want to show people what happened in the _ happen. i want to show people what happened in the last _ happen. i want to show people what happened in the last few _ happen. i want to show people what happened in the last few years. i happened in the last few years. we've seen the home office time after time tighten up the laws under priti patel, she believed it was the

right thing to do many people agreed with her. if you look at what actually happened, and i think we can show our view is a graph which hopefully will magically appear, backin hopefully will magically appear, back in 2010, the conservatives came to power, more than 10,000 asylum seekers were being returned. look through this period, during which the law has been tightened up, what has happened, the number is gone down and down and down and down. now there is no dispute it's a matter of huge public concern, but this suggests tightening the law is not going to have any impact at all. we do going to have any impact at all. - do need to tighten the law because the law has been challenged on pretty much all those occasions and equally when we announced the scheme for room and it was challenged immediately as people know. you reported on it. that was found in the uk high court to be a legal scheme. but we need to put this all together because i don't disagree, people will be upset by what they see on that graph and also how we are... this is something we accept a

huge amount of migration into this country and we like it because it's really good for our economy and social fabric really good for our economy and socialfabric in really good for our economy and social fabric in general, really good for our economy and socialfabric in general, but really good for our economy and social fabric in general, but the one thing in my constituency that upset that balance slightly as a number of people coming into this country. number of people coming into this count . , ,., number of people coming into this count . , , ., ., number of people coming into this count . , ,., ., ., country. this is about what you do, if --eole country. this is about what you do, if people arrive. _ country. this is about what you do, if people arrive. you _ country. this is about what you do, if people arrive. you mentioned i country. this is about what you do, | if people arrive. you mentioned the rwanda scheme if it gets up and running, as the gagnant hopes it will do, it's not projected to take any more than a few hundred people. the only other deal uk has is with albania. rishi sunak�*s proposal would involve detaining tens of thousands of people. where are they all going to go and how... where are you proposing you send them? that’s you proposing you send them? that's wh it's you proposing you send them? that's why it's part — you proposing you send them? that's why it's part of _ you proposing you send them? that's why it's part of a _ you proposing you send them? that's why it's part of a whole _ you proposing you send them? that's why it's part of a whole range - you proposing you send them? that's why it's part of a whole range of i why it's part of a whole range of things, whole gambit of things to try and both keep people in home country as they possibly can be to try to make sure that they are

looked after in the first three country they might come to, try and stop illegal people trafficking which is a huge part in this. and crack down on that. legislation at home to return people who come here. there's a whole range of things. but where are you proposing people go if they arrive here?— they arrive here? hopefully will get they arrive here? hopefully will get the oint they arrive here? hopefully will get the point when _ they arrive here? hopefully will get the point when people _ they arrive here? hopefully will get the point when people arrive i they arrive here? hopefully will get the point when people arrive here, | the point when people arrive here, they arrive legally and then des... but where should it go? it doesn't sound like a practical proposal you've got here for the many thousands of people who have been arriving here in the uk. i’m thousands of people who have been arriving here in the uk.— arriving here in the uk. i'm not accepting _ arriving here in the uk. i'm not accepting your _ arriving here in the uk. i'm not accepting your premise - arriving here in the uk. i'm not| accepting your premise because arriving here in the uk. i'm not i accepting your premise because i don't think there will be tens of thousands of people coming if we get this right. certainly it illegally. we are accepting huge numbers of people legally to come to the uk, but i believe this plan, this complete plan will do the job. let’s complete plan will do the 'ob. let's see in the coming i complete plan will do the 'ob. let's see in the coming days. i complete plan will do the job. let's see in the coming days. you were a key part of a team trying to keep borisjohnson in number ten as a

scandal over knock—down parties unfolded. we talked about it with our panel this morning and seen as a game splashed over the newspapers in the last few days. and a committee of mps has clearly said in their view there are at least four occasions where they believe boris johnson might�*ve misled parliament. and the public. you agree? there johnson might've misled parliament. and the public. you agree? there are four occasions — and the public. you agree? there are four occasions where _ and the public. you agree? there are four occasions where boris _ and the public. you agree? there are four occasions where boris may i and the public. you agree? there are four occasions where boris may have | four occasions where boris may have done that. made. when i became his chief whip, this was halfway through, a third of the way through this period of time, i wouldn't have become his chief whip if i didn't believe him that he did not knowingly mislead parliament and i believe him to be an honest man and he did not knowingly mislead parliament. did he did not knowingly mislead parliament.— he did not knowingly mislead parliament. , , ., ., parliament. did you ever ask him directl ? parliament. did you ever ask him directly? and _ parliament. did you ever ask him directly? and what _ parliament. did you ever ask him directly? and what did _ parliament. did you ever ask him directly? and what did he - parliament. did you ever ask him directly? and what did he say i parliament. did you ever ask him directly? and what did he say to. directly? and what did he say to you? directly? and what did he say to ou? , ., directly? and what did he say to ou? , . . ., , ., you? yes, he gave me chapter and verse which _ you? yes, he gave me chapter and verse which demonstrated - you? yes, he gave me chapter and verse which demonstrated to i you? yes, he gave me chapter and verse which demonstrated to me i you? yes, he gave me chapter and | verse which demonstrated to me he did not know he misled parliament and he is a genuinely an honest man and he is a genuinely an honest man and i truly believe that. is and he is a genuinely an honest man and i truly believe that.— and i truly believe that. is that the government _ and i truly believe that. is that the government official - and i truly believe that. is that l the government official position that boris johnson the government official position that borisjohnson did not knowingly mislead parliament? i

that boris johnson did not knowingly mislead parliament?— mislead parliament? i don't think it's an official— mislead parliament? i don't think it's an official position... - mislead parliament? i don't think it's an official position... you i mislead parliament? i don't think it's an official position... you are | it's an official position... you are in the cabinet. _ it's an official position... you are in the cabinet. there _ it's an official position... you are in the cabinet. there is - it's an official position... you are in the cabinet. there is a - in the cabinet. there is a parliamentary process going on and i think we will wait to see what came out of a parliamentary process. as things stand, you are convinced he did not knowingly estimate i am absolutely convinced. ok, thank you very much for coming in and it's great to have you here in the studio for the first time. hope to see you again soon. thank you. as you, we, read the inside track of how ministers were discussing the pandemic, described as teenage lols to me by one mp — there was genuine shock this week when news broke that civil service enforcer, sue gray, was leaving government to work for the labour party. that led borisjohnson's supporters to to claim that he was the victim of some kind of stitch up. in lots of ways this week it feels like we're all reliving some nightmares! jonathan ashworth is labour's shadow work and pensions secretary. welcome to you. first of all i want to go back to eat out to help out.

lester, your constituency, was one of the cities where there were ongoing lockdowns for a very long time. abs. ongoing lockdowns for a very long time. �* ., did ongoing lockdowns for a very long time-_ did you - ongoing lockdowns for a very long time._ did you have i time. a long time. did you have concerns about _ time. a long time. did you have concerns about a _ time. a long time. did you have concerns about a tech _ time. a long time. did you have concerns about a tech to - time. a long time. did you have concerns about a tech to help i time. a long time. did you have. concerns about a tech to help out time. a long time. did you have i concerns about a tech to help out at the time? ~ ., _, . , concerns about a tech to help out at the time? ~ ., . , ., the time? well we had concerns about all kinds of things. _ the time? well we had concerns about all kinds of things. in _ the time? well we had concerns about all kinds of things. in the _ all kinds of things. in the pandemic. and i think what we have seenin pandemic. and i think what we have seen in the whatsapp messages and of course they may well be selective and there are two sides to a story, but i think many people will be deeply troubled by what has been revealed. it's why all of these messages need to be passed to a proper inquiry. we need to get on with that inquiry. it needs to report in some preliminary way by the end of the year and i also think rishi sunak needs to get a grip of the situation and insist all ministers handover everything, no whatsapps are deleted. on the specifics of e—type to help out i totally understand why the government wanted to support the hospitality sector —— eat out to

help out. we were calling for support during the lockdown but cities like my own in leicester, bolton, bradford, they were in longer knock—downs over that summer and we now know matt hancock thought that the infection rates were worse in places like leicester or bolton because of that scheme. but in places like leicester or bolton because of that scheme.- in places like leicester or bolton because of that scheme. but do you re . ret because of that scheme. but do you recret not because of that scheme. but do you regret not imposing _ because of that scheme. but do you regret not imposing e-type - because of that scheme. but do you regret not imposing e-type to i because of that scheme. but do you regret not imposing e-type to help. regret not imposing e—type to help out? scientists thought if you get more people together you are going to get a spike so should labour have opposed it? me to get a spike so should labour have opposed it?— opposed it? we raise concerns but all kinds of — opposed it? we raise concerns but all kinds of things _ opposed it? we raise concerns but all kinds of things throughout i opposed it? we raise concerns but all kinds of things throughout the l all kinds of things throughout the pandemic. but all kinds of things throughout the andemic. �* ., ., ., ., , pandemic. but not eat out to help out. i do recall— pandemic. but not eat out to help out. i do recall people _ pandemic. but not eat out to help out. i do recall people asking i out. i do recall people asking questions — out. i do recall people asking questions about _ out. i do recall people asking questions about it _ out. i do recall people asking questions about it when i out. i do recall people asking questions about it when we i out. i do recall people asking i questions about it when we asked questions about it when we asked questions we expected and i don't think this is an unreasonable expectation, but the responses we were getting were giving us the full picture. and it now turns out we weren't getting the full picture which is why we need a public inquiry. which is why we need a public inuui . ~ ., ~ .

which is why we need a public inuui .~ ., ~ ., ., inquiry. we need to get... we have a ublic inquiry. we need to get... we have a public inquiry — inquiry. we need to get... we have a public inquiry and _ inquiry. we need to get... we have a public inquiry and i'm _ inquiry. we need to get... we have a public inquiry and i'm sure _ inquiry. we need to get... we have a public inquiry and i'm sure we - inquiry. we need to get... we have a public inquiry and i'm sure we will. public inquiry and i'm sure we will talk about it a lot in the months to come but do you look back at that whole period, and it was such a scramble, genuine national emergency, if you are honest with yourself other things you look back on now and think got that wrong? there was a national emergency. and in the end, you've got to use your judgment in a fast moving situation. 50 where there things labour got so where there things labour got wrong? so where there things labour got wron: ? ~ ., ., ~' so where there things labour got wron~?~ ,,'., wrong? when i look back at the significant _ wrong? when i look back at the significant failings _ wrong? when i look back at the significant failings throughout l wrong? when i look back at the i significant failings throughout that period, care homes, we were raising concerns about care homes and testing of people moving into care homes from the start. we now know from the whatsapp messages that why the testing... we from the whatsapp messages that why the testing- - -— the testing... we were raising this. we've covered _ the testing... we were raising this. we've covered that _ the testing... we were raising this. we've covered that though, - the testing... we were raising this. i we've covered that though, jonathan. we've covered that though, jonathan. what i'm asking is year with the shadow health secretary and intimately involved in all of this notjust because what was happening in your constituency but honestly can you tell us, do you think there were things labour got wrong? are there things you wish you shouting about mark, posed more vigorously, things which preoccupy you now? you

alwa s look things which preoccupy you now? um. always look back on a situation and question things and ask questions about things and quite right, because you have to learn lessons. that's why we need an inquiry because we are going to see more diseases in the future. so because we are going to see more diseases in the future.— diseases in the future. so what would the _ diseases in the future. so what would the things _ diseases in the future. so what would the things be _ diseases in the future. so what would the things be that - diseases in the future. so what would the things be that he - diseases in the future. so what i would the things be that he would diseases in the future. so what - would the things be that he would do differently? i would the things be that he would do differentl ? ~ ., differently? i think when we now look back at _ differently? i think when we now look back at that _ differently? i think when we now look back at that period - differently? i think when we now look back at that period i - differently? i think when we now look back at that period i think i look back at that period i think that... i'm going to talk about sick pgy- that... i'm going to talk about sick pay. we continually press the government on sick pay. i still think it was a monstrous failing that government didn't give people adequate sick pay particularly low—paid workers on insecure contracts particularly in the care sector, we did raise concerns about care homes, we did raise concerns about giving proper economic support to businesses in areas like leicester and so on. all of this, we reflect on this all the time, and we need an inquiry because, sadly, because of global travel, and what's happening in the environment, we are likely to see more pathogen isjump to humans, hopefully not on this

scale, but we do need to be prepared for the future.— for the future. during that whole eriod for the future. during that whole period peeple's _ for the future. during that whole period people's faith _ for the future. during that whole period people's faith in - for the future. during that whole i period people's faith in government was really put to the test. and this week, we have seen i think another test a people's faith, maybe not in a public but in the civil service. the senior civil servant sue gray, widely respected in whitehall, she's been recruited to your leaders chief of staff which some people, neutral civil servants and people on the conservative backbenches and in government, thought was absolutely jaw—dropping. when did the conversations between her and keir starmer begin? let conversations between her and keir starmer begin?— starmer begin? let me 'ust say so treat as a starmer begin? let me 'ust say so great as a woman i starmer begin? let me 'ust say so great as a woman of i starmer begin? let me just say so great as a woman of exceptional l great as a woman of exceptional ability and talent and the fact that sue gray wants to come and work for keir starmer in the same way business leaders are coming on your programme to endorse the policies of the labour party, it shows how seriously people are taking the prospect of keir starmer as a prime minister. ,, , ., ., . minister. she is a neutral civil servant. and _ minister. she is a neutral civil servant. and how _ minister. she is a neutral civil servant. and how seriously i minister. she is a neutral civil| servant. and how seriously we minister. she is a neutral civil- servant. and how seriously we are... i'm not questioning that. i'm not questioning her integrity but i'm

asking is a neutral civil servant which she was until very recently, when did she begin conversations with the leader of the opposition? you are right not to question her integrity because she's a woman of integrity. integrity because she's a woman of inteuri . ~ integrity. when did her conversations - integrity. when did her conversations with i integrity. when did her conversations with keir integrity. when did her - conversations with keir starmer begin? we conversations with keir starmer beuin? ~ ~' ., conversations with keir starmer beuin? ~ ~ ., ,, ., conversations with keir starmer beuin? ~ ., ,, ., , begin? we know keir starmer has been for several weeks _ begin? we know keir starmer has been for several weeks now _ begin? we know keir starmer has been for several weeks now looking - begin? we know keir starmer has been for several weeks now looking for i for several weeks now looking for someone to fill this role. she was always going to be on the list. mas always going to be on the list. was she? we knew _ always going to be on the list. was she? we knew there _ always going to be on the list. was she? we knew there was _ always going to be on the list. was she? we knew there was a - always going to be on the list. was she? we knew there was a vacancy emer: in . she? we knew there was a vacancy emerging- lt— she? we knew there was a vacancy emerging- it is— she? we knew there was a vacancy emerging. it is quite _ she? we knew there was a vacancy emerging. it is quite rightly - she? we knew there was a vacancy emerging. it is quite rightly going l emerging. it is quite rightly going to go through a process, proper procedural place when a senior civil servant leaves the civil service and i'm sure she will set it all out when she has those conversations with do you know when those conversations began? personally i have not been privy to hr decisions in the labour party. it have not been privy to hr decisions in the labour party.— in the labour party. it matters because this — in the labour party. it matters because this is _ in the labour party. it matters because this is about - in the labour party. it matters because this is about the i in the labour party. it matters i because this is about the neutrality of the civil service and the integrity of the civil service which, for so long as been something which, for so long as been something which her reputation suggests sue gray has taken so dear, but the rules state very clearly if you want to know, it's a directory of civil

servants guidance, it says contact between senior civil servants and members of the opposition should always be cleared with departmental ministers. she was meant to get permission to begin conversations with keir starmer. do you know if that didn't happen because if it didn't happen, if she didn't seek permission, then she broke the rules and keir starmer then has been part of breaking the rules that are there to protect the integrity of the civil service? you are asking me to speculate on a process when sue gray will outline all of this in the proper way. does it matter she _ all of this in the proper way. does it matter she broke _ all of this in the proper way. does it matter she broke the _ all of this in the proper way. does it matter she broke the rules? all of this in the proper way. does | it matter she broke the rules? you askin: me it matter she broke the rules? you asking me to _ it matter she broke the rules? wm. asking me to speculate on something when i have not been privy... you asking me to engage in a hypothetical. i asking me to engage in a hypothetical.— asking me to engage in a hypothetical. asking me to engage in a h othetical. . ., hypothetical. i am asking you a direct question, _ hypothetical. i am asking you a direct question, jonathan i hypothetical. i am asking you a i direct question, jonathan ashworth, direct question, jonathan ashworth, does it matter to you if sue gray did not follow the rules to the letter when she was talking to keir starmer about coming to work for the labour party? i starmer about coming to work for the labour party?— labour party? i am confident sue gra is a labour party? i am confident sue gray is a woman _ labour party? i am confident sue

gray is a woman of— labour party? i am confident sue gray is a woman of immense i labour party? i am confident sue i gray is a woman of immense integrity and she will set all of this house as she follows the proper processes and procedures when you leave the civil service. the and procedures when you leave the civil service-— civil service. the problem some viewers might _ civil service. the problem some viewers might find _ civil service. the problem some viewers might find with - civil service. the problem some viewers might find with this, i viewers might find with this, everyone understands the civil service is meant to be absolutely beyond reproach and completely neutral. keir starmer is someone in the studio, and very often sets out huge store about integrity, transparency, following the rules to the letter. at the way this has all come out, the way that they have done whatever deal it is for her to go and work for the party, itjust creates a sense that actually, when it suits him, he is willing to, to some people, looks a bit on the hand. i some people, looks a bit on the hand. , ., ~' hand. i disagree with you. i think it shows that _ hand. i disagree with you. i think it shows that the _ hand. i disagree with you. i think it shows that the prospect - hand. i disagree with you. i think it shows that the prospect of i hand. i disagree with you. i thinkj it shows that the prospect of keir starmer as prime minister and a labour government, if we win the trust of the british people, we are taking nothing for granted, but it

shows how seriously people are taking that prospect. i think it is a good thing that sue gray wants to come and work for keir starmer. we willt come and work for keir starmer. we will try and find when those conversations began. you are the shadow work and ten and is secretary, your plan to get the over 50s back to work and it sounds like the government will have something to say about that in the budget next week. have they nicked your plan? i week. have they nicked your plan? i have been setting out plans, not just for the over 50s, but reform to sickness and disability benefits to encourage people to return to work. we have a million young people who are out of work. we know if you are out of work when you are young, it risks a life on the margins, it can be devastating. those young people should be given support, they should be required to interact with the job centre, required to take on more training opportunities if they have been unemployed for over six months, for example. i really hope they do

take on my plans, which is about giving hope and confidence in getting people back to work. thank ou for getting people back to work. thank you for coming _ getting people back to work. thank you for coming in _ getting people back to work. thank you for coming in and _ getting people back to work. thank you for coming in and we _ getting people back to work. thank you for coming in and we will- getting people back to work. thank you for coming in and we will see what the budget holds next week. thanks to our two politicians. it can be hard to escape the past whether on the pandemic or partygate, but rishi sunak might hope to change the subject with the budget in ten days' time. next week, the chancellor and shadow chancellor rachel reeves will be here. let me know your questions for them at kuenssberg@bbc.co.uk. or the hashtag, bbclaurak. or follow today's converations on the bbc�*s live page now we've talked before about what happens online. it can be great. it makes it easy for us to hear from all of you. what happens can be cringeworthy if it goes wrong, as matt hancock has found out in the last few days. we've discussed in this studio before how we grapple with the good and the bad on screens at everyone's fingertips, both young and old. it can affect everyone, everywhere,

from hollyhead to hollywood. a reminder that kate winslet voiced her own concerns to us. i do definitely feel that the world of social media is frightening to parents because we don't really know what's there. we don't know how our children are using it. we don't know the effect that it's really having on them. we don't know really what's going on in their friendship groups any more. her concern, so many parents concerns, and so many families worry too. and in extreme circumstances, it can change lives. ministers have spent months and months talking about the challenge to pass new laws to tackle the problem. frankie thomas was 15. she was vulenrable. when she was at school one day, she came across content that talked about how to take your life. sadly, frankie did just that. her mum judy thomas is campaigning along with baroness kidron, the cross bench peer,

for more support, and more access for families for information from big tech companies about what might have gone wrong. we had no idea why frankie had taken her life and it was only when we were informed elsewhere that she had accessed things. the coroner in the inquest, said that the stories she accessed right at the end which were her favourite band was copied. because there was content in there about people in the band. it is fictional, about people taking their own lives, methods and the place and everything. so that has helped us a little bit to understand what had happened. also, we were still left,

as every parent is, with unanswered questions. and we would have really appreciated that platform going to the inquest, as they were requested to. parentsjust the inquest, as they were requested to. parents just want to know, the inquest, as they were requested to. parentsjust want to know, what is this all about. because we were really careful with frankie, she had special needs, she was vulnerable. we were absolutely at a loss. we didn't realise frankie had left a note. the police found it when they came to the house. she mentioned someone in the hoof we had no idea who it was. we went on instagram, online, making inquiries and this went on for about a year with no answers. it wasn't like, what have you done? but, can you help us? it

would help us get a bit of closure. we can hear their very clearly, how much of a struggle it was for you to get information. what effect did that have on you as a family while you are trying to come to terms with what happened, but also just trying to get to the bottom of it, what effect has it had? i to get to the bottom of it, what effect has it had?— to get to the bottom of it, what effect has it had? i am not trying to be sentimental, _ effect has it had? i am not trying to be sentimental, that - effect has it had? i am not trying to be sentimental, that is - effect has it had? i am not trying to be sentimental, that is not i effect has it had? i am not trying| to be sentimental, that is not the purpose of this. we've absolutely... we wanted to speak to somebody and say, would you help us? as parents, hadley failed her? all that sort of thing, wejust hadley failed her? all that sort of thing, we just wanted to know. this thing, we 'ust wanted to know. this is thing, we just wanted to know. this is obviously — thing, we just wanted to know. this is obviously such a distressing situation and the attitude that the tech companies took a whilejudy and

herfamily were tech companies took a whilejudy and her family were searching for answers was obviously so hard for them to deal with. we know the government is trying to come up with this legislation to help people deal with what can go wrong online, but as the bill stands, do other parents still face this kind of terrible distress? figs still face this kind of terrible distress? �* , still face this kind of terrible distress? a , ., , . , distress? as it stands currently, the do. distress? as it stands currently, they do- and — distress? as it stands currently, they do. and that _ distress? as it stands currently, they do. and that is _ distress? as it stands currently, they do. and that is why - distress? as it stands currently, they do. and that is why i i distress? as it stands currently, they do. and that is why i have l distress? as it stands currently, i they do. and that is why i have put forward _ they do. and that is why i have put forward an— they do. and that is why i have put forward an amendment with, i have to say, the _ forward an amendment with, i have to say, the most comprehensive support of 0ther— say, the most comprehensive support of other peers and other politicians in the _ of other peers and other politicians in the commons. we are struggling to keep a _ in the commons. we are struggling to keep a dry— in the commons. we are struggling to keep a dry eye here in the studio as judy speaks. and judy speaks, i have known _ judy speaks. and judy speaks, i have known her_ judy speaks. and judy speaks, i have known her many years and she has fought _ known her many years and she has fought valiantly. there is nothing that she — fought valiantly. there is nothing that she and her husband andy have not done _ that she and her husband andy have not done to— that she and her husband andy have not done to try and get this information. the inquest has opened and closed _ information. the inquest has opened and closed without the information

being _ and closed without the information being given to them. and we cannot have it _ being given to them. and we cannot have it that— being given to them. and we cannot have it that it is a sort of maybe i will, _ have it that it is a sort of maybe i will, maybe — have it that it is a sort of maybe i will, maybe i won't, iwill tell you this, _ will, maybe i won't, iwill tell you this, i_ will, maybe i won't, iwill tell you this, i will— will, maybe i won't, iwill tell you this, i will not tell you that. we have _ this, i will not tell you that. we have to — this, i will not tell you that. we have to have a proper, formal route for parents — have to have a proper, formal route for parents and for the coroner to -et for parents and for the coroner to get the _ for parents and for the coroner to get the kind of information that we need to— get the kind of information that we need to see. we get the kind of information that we need to see-— get the kind of information that we need to see. ~ ., ., need to see. we need to say, we have been in touch — need to see. we need to say, we have been in touch with _ need to see. we need to say, we have been in touch with the _ need to see. we need to say, we have been in touch with the tech _ need to see. we need to say, we have been in touch with the tech firms i been in touch with the tech firms involved. they have sent a robust witness statement to the coroner and they have said it is a challenging and complex issue. they say we have beenin and complex issue. they say we have been in touch with the family and we want to be as helpful as we can with the family at this time. but do you accept, having campaigned on this for a long time, it is not easy to do any of this and sometimes the big tech firms are saying, we are being asked to meet impossible standards? no, i don't accept that and the tech firms_ no, i don't accept that and the tech firms are _ no, i don't accept that and the tech firms are largely sympathetic to this amendment, so that we have in

law what— this amendment, so that we have in law what the route is. my main is very— law what the route is. my main is very practical... for law what the route is. my main is very practical- - -— law what the route is. my main is very practical... for change are you t in: to very practical... for change are you trying to make _ very practical... for change are you trying to make to — very practical... for change are you trying to make to the _ very practical... for change are you trying to make to the law? - very practical... for change are you trying to make to the law? the i trying to make to the law? the online safety _ trying to make to the law? the online safety bill— trying to make to the law? the online safety bill gives a lot of powers — online safety bill gives a lot of powers to ofcom. let's make them the interlocked _ powers to ofcom. let's make them the interlocked between parents and karen _ interlocked between parents and karen is — interlocked between parents and karen is so if a coroner asks for information_ karen is so if a coroner asks for information that they immediately have the _ information that they immediately have the powers that ofcom have put at their— have the powers that ofcom have put at their disposal to stop companies... right—macro say there is a mechanism for families like judy is— is a mechanism for families like judy is to — is a mechanism for families like judy is to go to ofcom and say, we want _ judy is to go to ofcom and say, we want to— judy is to go to ofcom and say, we want to find — judy is to go to ofcom and say, we want to find out what happened and then they— want to find out what happened and then they can make the happened? i -ot then they can make the happened? i got an_ then they can make the happened? i got an e—mailfrom then they can make the happened? i got an e—mail from judy, but my inbox _ got an e—mail from judy, but my inbox since — got an e—mail from judy, but my inbox since i have taken up this issue _ inbox since i have taken up this issue are — inbox since i have taken up this issue are full of bereaved families who want— issue are full of bereaved families who want access to data. this is the important _ who want access to data. this is the important thing, that the service has not — important thing, that the service has not managed to get that information, families have not

managed _ information, families have not managed to get that information and it is inhuman. the sort of distress that is— it is inhuman. the sort of distress that is happening all these years later that is happening all these years tater is— that is happening all these years later is unacceptable. we need access— later is unacceptable. we need access to — later is unacceptable. we need access to the data on a basis that is managed — access to the data on a basis that is managed and private for other uses _ is managed and private for other uses the — is managed and private for other uses. the other thing is, the transparency that it gives, we only know _ transparency that it gives, we only know what — transparency that it gives, we only know what is really going on when we see it _ know what is really going on when we see it in _ know what is really going on when we see it in open court.— see it in open court. judy, this campaign _ see it in open court. judy, this campaign is — see it in open court. judy, this campaign is now— see it in open court. judy, this campaign is now pushing, - see it in open court. judy, this campaign is now pushing, as l see it in open court. judy, this i campaign is now pushing, as we see it in open court. judy, this - campaign is now pushing, as we have heard, for changes to the law. do you have confidence that things might change? in you have confidence that things might change?— you have confidence that things miaht chance? , ~ might change? in some ways i think i desair. might change? in some ways i think i de5pair- but. — might change? in some ways i think i de5pair- but. it— might change? in some ways i think i despair. but, it would _ might change? in some ways i think i despair. but, it would be _ might change? in some ways i think i despair. but, it would be so - despair. but, it would be so brilliant if they now take the opportunity, the government, to act. i'd like to close our conversation with something slightly different. how would you like frankie to be remembered? she how would you like frankie to be remembered?— how would you like frankie to be remembered? ,, ., ., , ., .,

remembered? she wanted to stand for thins remembered? she wanted to stand for thin . s that remembered? she wanted to stand for things that were _ remembered? she wanted to stand for things that were right, _ remembered? she wanted to stand for things that were right, she _ remembered? she wanted to stand for things that were right, she honestly i things that were right, she honestly did. i remembersomeone coming things that were right, she honestly did. i remember someone coming up to me, a youngster coming up to me and they asked who i was, are you frankie's mum? i said, yes. they asked who i was, are you frankie's mum? isaid, yes. they said ijust want frankie's mum? isaid, yes. they said i just want you to frankie's mum? isaid, yes. they said ijust want you to know frankie's mum? isaid, yes. they said i just want you to know that someone came up to bully me and she stood in front of them. she saved me and she was just like that. the and she was 'ust like that. the government — and she wasjust like that. the government is _ and she wasjust like that. the government is pushing this bill through parliament right now and we will keep a close eye on the issue on this programme. thank you so much to both of you. judy thomas sharing her story. details of organisations offering information and support with addiction are available at bbc.co.uk/actionline, or you can call for free, at any time to hear recorded information on 08000155 947. there is information out there to help people if they find themselves

in a distressing situation. let's talk to our panel and when you listen to that distressing story and trying to get information from the tech companies, how does it make you feel? it tech companies, how does it make you feel? , . , ., ~ tech companies, how does it make you feel? , . , . ~' , tech companies, how does it make you feel? , . , .,~ , ~ , feel? it is heartbreaking, my kids are at the age _ feel? it is heartbreaking, my kids are at the age where _ feel? it is heartbreaking, my kids are at the age where they - feel? it is heartbreaking, my kids are at the age where they can - feel? it is heartbreaking, my kids| are at the age where they can use youtube kids, and all sorts of things, sharing things on such rapid terms, you can see the acceleration of bullying and sorts of things have happened. these companies are making billions of pounds of the social networking, connecting human beings together or turning out to be faceless corporation, stonewalling parents who are bereaved and grieving and not looking at the suggestion is that put forward. i do think things need to toughen up and the social media companies need to be held account.— be held account. there is a huge iece of be held account. there is a huge piece of legislation _ be held account. there is a huge piece of legislation going - be held account. there is a huge | piece of legislation going through parliament, which would, for the first time, put the tech companies

on the spot in a way they haven't before. fraser, do you acknowledge it is a difficult, complicated issue. the government has been wrangling about it for a long time and there has been an issue of freedom of speech on whether legislation could impinge on what people should be allowed to express? this is territory that politicians themselves don't understand. you think they don't _ themselves don't understand. gm. think they don't get it? themselves don't understand. you think they don't get it? know, - themselves don't understand. you i think they don't get it? know, there are some black _ think they don't get it? know, there are some black and _ think they don't get it? know, there are some black and right _ think they don't get it? know, there are some black and right cases - think they don't get it? know, there l are some black and right cases where it should _ are some black and right cases where it should be, — are some black and right cases where it should be, terrorism, drugs but there _ it should be, terrorism, drugs but there is— it should be, terrorism, drugs but there is a — it should be, terrorism, drugs but there is a dangerous area where they brin- there is a dangerous area where they bring in _ there is a dangerous area where they bring in censorship for the first time _ bring in censorship for the first time of— bring in censorship for the first time of the government by what is promoted — time of the government by what is promoted. you can end up with stories— promoted. you can end up with stories that might go against the grain _ stories that might go against the grain i_ stories that might go against the grain. i can think, as an editor, we come _ grain. i can think, as an editor, we come up— grain. i can think, as an editor, we come up against this new breed of censorship — come up against this new breed of censorship bots. when we were mocking — censorship bots. when we were mocking joe biden, that was a casualty— mocking joe biden, that was a casualty of it. the efficacy of face mass. _ casualty of it. the efficacy of face mass. that — casualty of it. the efficacy of face mass, that became a casualty as

welt _ mass, that became a casualty as welt these _ mass, that became a casualty as well. these media companies don't care about — well. these media companies don't care about free speech, so they are quite _ care about free speech, so they are quite happy— care about free speech, so they are quite happy if they think the government doesn't want them to promote _ government doesn't want them to promote things, tojust promote junk and to— promote things, tojust promote junk and to make sure... facebook is now the number— and to make sure... facebook is now the number one source of news in this country— the number one source of news in this country outside the broadcasters, so control over what facebook — broadcasters, so control over what facebook shows raises the questions. you work— facebook shows raises the questions. you work a _ facebook shows raises the questions. you work a lot with technology with the power of mats to harness technology for the good, but do you think a modern government is capable of grappling with this challenge in a way that can protect people in the right way? ido i do think there are problems of literacy around the stuff and if you don't have a technical background, if you don't understand the nuances of these questions, they are hard to kind of come in and take a view on. i think also, as people, as we've seen with the latest round of chat bots, people have a habit of thinking of ai as though it some kind of deity rather than thinking

of it as an entity like wikipedia or whatever. i think actually what that means is the algorithms and the way they are changing the structure of society don't really get criticised and questioned in quite the way they would if they were more transparent. how would we question an algorithm? you can't invited to a studio on a sunday morning.— sunday morning. algorithms are decidinu sunday morning. algorithms are deciding what — sunday morning. algorithms are deciding what we _ sunday morning. algorithms are deciding what we are _ sunday morning. algorithms are deciding what we are bidding - sunday morning. algorithms are deciding what we are bidding to | sunday morning. algorithms are i deciding what we are bidding to the ektent— deciding what we are bidding to the extent politicians simply don't understand. it is a major threat to democracy, — understand. it is a major threat to democracy, how do you cope, when they got— democracy, how do you cope, when they got more power over our lives than would — they got more power over our lives than would ever imagine? we must leave it there _ than would ever imagine? we must leave it there but _ than would ever imagine? we must leave it there but we'll _ than would ever imagine? we must leave it there but we'll hear - than would ever imagine? we must leave it there but we'll hear from i leave it there but we'll hear from you at the end of the programme. thank you very much. it's a very difficult issue and you want to say thank you again tojudy difficult issue and you want to say thank you again to judy thomas difficult issue and you want to say thank you again tojudy thomas for sharing her story with us and we will keep an eye on this issue and the bill as it goes through parliament. now it's not so long ago that nicola sturgeon told us she had plenty left in the tank, but that didn't hold and the contest for herjob is hotting up.

lastly we spoke to humza yusuf who fancies it. now let's talk to ash regan, who reckons westminster would be willing to negotiate on a scottish indpendence referendum, despite both prime minister rishi sunak and labour leader sir keir starmer saying they would refuse to do so. ash regan is in edinburgh. good morning to you. the biggest point of difference between you and your opponents is how quickly you would want to go for independence. what would your plan b to make it happen? what would your plan b to make it ha en? , ~ , , what would your plan b to make it ha . en? , ~' , , ., happen? yes, i think the speed at which we move _ happen? yes, i think the speed at which we move to _ happen? yes, i think the speed at which we move to independence l happen? yes, i think the speed at| which we move to independence is important because i want to focus on the things that are important to the people of scotland, their priorities, some of the moment that's things like nhs recovery, environment, net zero, the cost of living crisis, access to the single market. and so i see scotland being able to govern its own affairs as actually crucial in how we make scotland a better country to live in

for everyone. scotland a better country to live in for everyone-— scotland a better country to live in for eve one. ,, , , , for everyone. snp members were very interested in — for everyone. snp members were very interested in how _ for everyone. snp members were very interested in how you _ for everyone. snp members were very interested in how you would _ for everyone. snp members were very interested in how you would achieve i interested in how you would achieve their desired getting scotland to be an independent country, so how would you do that?— you do that? yes, obviously people who are members _ you do that? yes, obviously people who are members of _ you do that? yes, obviously people who are members of the _ you do that? yes, obviously people who are members of the snp - you do that? yes, obviously people who are members of the snp think| who are members of the snp think that scotland should govern itself and its entirely natural for countries to take control of their own affairs, so what i am setting out is that the first minister, if i'm chosen to be leader of the party, will focus on the priorities of the country. that's things like the nhs, the environment and so on. i will set up an independence convention and that will be for all the pro—independence parties, it will be for civil society, academics, think tanks, businesses, and everyone to get involved with making that case for independence and that will be the campaigning side. and we need to work together in unity i believe in order to make this work and then the other part of this work and then the other part of this plan i have is that i will set “p this plan i have is that i will set up an independent commission, so

your viewers may not have heard about before, and the idea behind this is that that will be a body that be tasked with planning for independence and creating the infrastructure to get scotland ready for independence. haifa infrastructure to get scotland ready for independence.— for independence. how would you actually make _ for independence. how would you actually make it _ for independence. how would you actually make it happen, - for independence. how would you j actually make it happen, though? for independence. how would you - actually make it happen, though? you previously said it pro—independence parties got 50% plus one of the votes cast in an election, that would be an instruction that you would be an instruction that you would expect the uk government to say, ok, we can talk about independence now. why do you think they would do that because labour and the conservatives have repeatedly said they couldn't see a general election as a vote for independence, it's not the same as a referendum. it is independence, it's not the same as a referendum-— referendum. it is the same as a referendum _ referendum. it is the same as a referendum if— referendum. it is the same as a referendum if you _ referendum. it is the same as a referendum if you think - referendum. it is the same as a referendum if you think about l referendum. it is the same as aj referendum if you think about it referendum. it is the same as a i referendum if you think about it in terms of the fact that if the ballot box so that's a perfectly normal way to test the will of what the public is. my opponents in this contest are setting out a system where they are going to have an election that's based on independence and they are going to use that as what they are calling a moral mandate to back to

westminster and to ask them again for another referendum and we know that's not going to happen. the london government has been very clear it doesn't think it's going to agree to have a referendum anytime soon. we know this. so i don't think that's the way to go about this. what westminster is doing at the moment is it's trying to stop scotland expressing its democratic will. ithink scotland expressing its democratic will. i think that's not tenable. i don't think that's credible. what i'm suggesting is that the gold standard here in fact is not a referendum, the gold standard here is the ballot box, i'm proposing that we give that power over when scotland should become an independent country, then it's not anything to do with what westminster things, is not even to do what i think, it's a question for the people of scotland. but think, it's a question for the people of scotland. but how would ou people of scotland. but how would you practically _ people of scotland. but how would you practically make _ people of scotland. but how would you practically make that - people of scotland. but how would you practically make that happen? | people of scotland. but how would i you practically make that happen? as the law stands, there is no connection between the results of a general election and scotland becoming an independent country, so

how practically would you make it happen? 50 how practically would you make it ha en? ., �* how practically would you make it hauen? ., �* , , , happen? so what i'm suggesting is that we run — happen? so what i'm suggesting is that we run each _ happen? so what i'm suggesting is that we run each and _ happen? so what i'm suggesting is that we run each and every - happen? so what i'm suggesting is| that we run each and every election in scotland, that would be the general elections, and also the scottish elections as a test of public opinion for a trigger point if you like, and if we get the majority of votes cast and let's just remember that this is a previous snp policy that used to be accepted by the london government, as entirely legitimate... in accepted by the london government, as entirely legitimate. . ._ as entirely legitimate... in the context of _ as entirely legitimate... in the context of referendum - as entirely legitimate... in the context of referendum but - as entirely legitimate... in the context of referendum but notj as entirely legitimate... in the i context of referendum but not in as entirely legitimate... in the - context of referendum but not in the context of referendum but not in the context of referendum but not in the context of a general election. ihla. context of a general election. no, this is a previous _ context of a general election. idrr, this is a previous snp policy that if he got the majority, i think previously it was a majority of seats, but making it a slightly tougher test and saying it should have the majority of votes cast. and that was previously accepted by the london government that this was a legitimate way for scotland to express its views. l’m legitimate way for scotland to express its views.— express its views. i'm still struggling _ express its views. i'm still struggling to _ express its views. i'm still struggling to understand l express its views. i'm still i struggling to understand ash express its views. i'm still - struggling to understand ash regan how you practically think you could turn the results of a general election into making the government in westminster say fine, scotland

can have its independence because there is no suggestion from anybody in the labour party or the conservative party to form the next election, what is it you believe will change if indeed you have that kind of result in a general election? i can see what you're saying that would make it happen practically. it saying that would make it happen racticall . ., , , practically. it would be practical because it _ practically. it would be practical because it would _ practically. it would be practical because it would be _ practically. it would be practical because it would be clearly - practically. it would be practical because it would be clearly set | practically. it would be practical. because it would be clearly set out so people in scotland would know that what they were voting for was to get the government in edinburgh and the government in westminster together to negotiate scotland's exit, so scotland would be very clear what they were voting for, the uk would be very clear what scotland would be voting for, and the international community would be very clear about what scotland is voting for. so i don't think there's any question of the uk government not recognising scotland's democratic choice and we must remember that there is international law operating here. of course, there's the un charter, article 1.2,

which says that the right to self—determination must be respected. self-determination must be respected-— self-determination must be respected. self-determination must be resected. ., , , . respected. you first came to public prominence — respected. you first came to public prominence for— respected. you first came to public prominence for a _ respected. you first came to public prominence for a lot _ respected. you first came to public prominence for a lot of _ respected. you first came to public prominence for a lot of people - respected. you first came to public| prominence for a lot of people when you resign from the scottish government over their plans to cut the age at which people could legally change their gender to 16. that has, though, created your position, created some concern amongst some of the trans community who are seeking reassurance and scotland all of the candidates wouldn't roll back the rights for the trans community. do you want to give that assurance today? yes. the trans community. do you want to give that assurance today?— give that assurance today? yes, i may committed _ give that assurance today? yes, i may committed progressive. - give that assurance today? yes, i may committed progressive. i- give that assurance today? yes, i | may committed progressive. i did have concerns about the way that that bill was drafted. if i had been in charge of drafting a bill i don't think we would have got quite into the position we did wear what we ended up with was a conflict of rights. so i can say quite confidently today, if i become first minister i will make sure i protect and promote everyone's rights but i will be very clear that there will be no compromise on the rights for women if i was to become the first minister. , , ., , , women if i was to become the first minister, , . , , , ~

minister. just lastly, this week when ou minister. just lastly, this week when you are _ minister. just lastly, this week when you are talking _ minister. just lastly, this week when you are talking about. when you are talking about independence, you suggested the idea you were interested in a physical readiness thermometer to monitor how close independence was for scotland as a country. you suggested it could be some kind of even installation somewhere in a public place. can you just explain what that might be and what the purpose would be? yes. just explain what that might be and what the purpose would be? yes, what i was explaining _ what the purpose would be? yes, what i was explaining to _ what the purpose would be? yes, what i was explaining to you _ what the purpose would be? yes, what i was explaining to you earlier - i was explaining to you earlier about the independent commission, the idea behind this is that we build confidence in the public by explaining to them what we are doing to get scotland ready, so this is actual infrastructure, things like planning for the currency and getting all that stuff arranged and what we want to do is have some sort of representation and an index perhaps, a better way of expressing it, so the public and the media and everybody interested can see the progress that we are making towards setting up that infrastructure in order to build confidence for the public that scotland is ready to take control of its own affairs. {lilla take control of its own affairs. 0k, ash regan. _ take control of its own affairs. 0k, ash regan, thank— take control of its own affairs. 0k, ash regan, thank you very much for joining us. if you do win, do come

back and talk to us as a new first minister. now it's nearly ten, and we started this morning asking why its so hard for the government to escape the recent past. this was what the cabinet minister, chris heaton harris had to say about the govts handling of the pandemic and minister's use of instant messaging. it really is a partial account of what was going on and kind of almost a view into the psyche of matt hancock, ratherthan a view into the psyche of matt hancock, rather than into the actual decision—making is, all decisions would have been recorded by civil servants, lots of cross government meetings in the usual way. in whatsapps, what he was thinking... let's have some final thoughts from fraser nelson, hannah fry and sam tarry. we had lots of e—mails on the show today. jerry wants to ask, why is internal government discussion taking place through whatsapp? fraser, forgive me to call a westminster insider, but why does it all happen on here?— all happen on here? that's a very

aood all happen on here? that's a very good question — all happen on here? that's a very good question and _ all happen on here? that's a very good question and is _ all happen on here? that's a very good question and is one - all happen on here? that's a very good question and is one of - all happen on here? that's a very good question and is one of the l good question and is one of the major disclosures we learned that decisions in government, millions of people were taken, what strikes me as all these messages, what's not there, not where it is but where is there, not where it is but where is the evidence and the science we repeatedly were assured? to think that when you suspend democracy, when you take emergency powers, knew then that a group of men sent whatsapp messages and decide who should be allowed outside and who shouldn't comment that is what we now know we didn't before. it's a culture which should never be allowed to happen again. if culture which should never be allowed to happen again. if you are the culture and _ allowed to happen again. if you are the culture and politics _ allowed to happen again. if you are the culture and politics and - allowed to happen again. if you are the culture and politics and other. the culture and politics and other professions as well, doesn't the labour party also run on whatsapp? yeah, this disclosures about everything, but there is a serious point _ everything, but there is a serious point here — everything, but there is a serious point here. you can go to the national— point here. you can go to the national archives in kew, you can see things winston churchill road, i'll see things winston churchill road, ill be _ see things winston churchill road, i'll be going to get matt hancock there _ i'll be going to get matt hancock there to — i'll be going to get matt hancock there to analyse that for posterity sake? _ there to analyse that for posterity sake? they are taking decisions by whatsapp, not involving civil servants _ whatsapp, not involving civil servants and to the formal channels, and that's— servants and to the formal channels, and that's a — servants and to the formal channels, and that's a dereliction of government definitely. as

and that's a dereliction of government definitely. as you are here some — government definitely. as you are here some viewers _ government definitely. as you are here some viewers will _ government definitely. as you are here some viewers will know - government definitely. as you are here some viewers will know you | government definitely. as you are - here some viewers will know you have been booted out of your seat in ilford south because you made the leadership cross for various reasons as a vote in your constituency but without going into the details, are you going to try and stand as a labour candidate anyway? find labour candidate anyway? and challenging — labour candidate anyway? and challenging the _ labour candidate anyway? and challenging the result and i fully intend _ challenging the result and i fully intend to — challenging the result and i fully intend to stand as a candidate at the next — intend to stand as a candidate at the next election.— intend to stand as a candidate at the next election. great to have you back in the — the next election. great to have you back in the studio _ the next election. great to have you back in the studio to _ the next election. great to have you back in the studio to tell _ the next election. great to have you back in the studio to tell us - the next election. great to have you back in the studio to tell us about i back in the studio to tell us about your greatest project. yes. back in the studio to tell us about your greatest project.— your greatest pro'ect. yes, so it's all about your greatest pro'ect. yes, so it's at about the — your greatest project. yes, so it's all about the future _ your greatest project. yes, so it's all about the future of _ your greatest project. yes, so it's all about the future of technology and the _ all about the future of technology and the impact— all about the future of technology and the impact on _ all about the future of technology and the impact on society- all about the future of technology and the impact on society and - all about the future of technology and the impact on society and it's all about the future of technology i and the impact on society and it's a show— and the impact on society and it's a show that— and the impact on society and it's a show that you — and the impact on society and it's a show that you can _ and the impact on society and it's a show that you can find _ and the impact on society and it's a show that you can find on _ and the impact on society and it's a i show that you can find on bloomberg. from now _ show that you can find on bloomberg. from now it's— show that you can find on bloomberg. from now. it's called _ show that you can find on bloomberg. from now. it's called the _ show that you can find on bloomberg. from now. it's called the future - from now. it's called the future with— from now. it's called the future with hannah _ from now. it's called the future with hannah fry. _ from now. it's called the future with hannah fry. saar— from now. it's called the future with hannah fry.— from now. it's called the future with hannah fry. say what you see. thank ou with hannah fry. say what you see. thank you very _ with hannah fry. say what you see. thank you very much _ with hannah fry. say what you see. thank you very much for _ with hannah fry. say what you see. thank you very much for being - with hannah fry. say what you see. thank you very much for being with j thank you very much for being with us in the present. all three of you have been great. sam tarry, fraser nelson and hannah fry. we've had a flavour this morning of the arguments that may come over the rights and wrongs of lockdown. now, as a country, we've had a bit of time to process what went on. but more revelations are expected in the coming days

about who said what privately to whom during the pandemic. in a fortnight or so, borisjohnson will be questioned on partygate too. rishi sunak wants to crack on. an announcement on small boats is coming in the next couple of days. a meeting with the french president too. but the party, the parliament, the public too, are all products of the past, what we've just lived through. it's still present in all of our minds. and the spectacle of sweary whatsapps and brutal political calculation doesn't do much for the public�*s trust. you can watch anything again on the iplayer as ever, or i'll see you here next sunday. goodbye till then.

this is bbc news, broadcasting in the uk and around the globe. our top stories... after years of talks, a landmark agreement to safeguard the world's oceans. we will formally adopt the text in all six official languages of the united nations. china says it will boost military spending by more than 7% this year and will train more of its soldiers under combat conditions. israel sees the largest protests so far against the government's planned judicial reforms. separation of powers is very important and they want to cut the judicial independence and i think it's very dangerous. and prince harry describes writing his memoir as an act of service in the hope that sharing

details will help others.