north sea straight into the north sea straight into north—eastern coastal counties. here it all starts to become a little more easterly through wednesday, so perhaps not quite as warm across western scotland. but we will see through wednesday a bit more cloud across england and wales and come the afternoon, continuing to lurk across wales and the south—west of england, providing a few showers. another look at that window and i will use the word nagging because effectively as it goes on day on day, that is what it will do. we're not going to lose that until the end of the week. for north sea coastal resorts, we will see temperatures no higher than ten or ii. resorts, we will see temperatures no higher than ten or 11. further west, a of sunshine, 15 or 16 possible on wednesday thursday, this high wobble is about a debt, the isobars open up and a chilly start on thursday, a frost who have —— for those who have put anything in early. friday, some rain spreading across england and

wales. it looks pretty messy for the weekend with some longer, heavier spells of rain and then sunday or monday, look what happens there. we start to pick up a northerly wind and temperatures plunge right the way across the uk. spring has not properly set up shop yet. you have been warned, thank you, susan. and that's bbc news at ten on tuesday the 18th of april. there's more analysis of the days main stories on newsnight with victoria derbyshire, which is just getting underway on bbc two. the news continues here on bbc one, as now its time to join our colleagues across the nations and regions for the news where you are — but from the ten team, it's goodnight.

the police investigation into snp finances widens. another arrest on the day the new first minister hoped to set out his stall to scotland. is the snp now in freefall and, if it is, what, or who, can stop it?

can humza yousaf — the snp continuity candidate — distance himself from the previous sturgeon regime, when he was such a part of it? and if he can't, what next for the party? we'll talk to an snp politician and leading independence campaigner, and to the scottish conservatives. also tonight, the two mothers who've forged a campaigning bond, after their daughters were murdered after being stabbed dozens of times in their homes by their ex—boyfriends. the pair are calling on thejustice secretary to give domestic homicides a minimum jail term of 25 years. ijust thought, he should go and visit some young women in the morgue and see their injuries, and then tell me that that's just worth two years.

and here in south wales, there's a row rumbling over the future of a tech firm whose chinese owners have been ordered by the westminster government to sell over national security concerns. what does the fate of this newport business tell us about the uk's relationship with beijing, and its industrial ambitions after brexit? we'll speak to one of the fathers of the british tech industry. good evening. it was the day humza yousaf made his first key speech as first minister of scotland — a chance for him to draw a line under the damaging headlines around the snp's finances and show the people of scotland what his policy priorities are. hours before, though, police scotland made another arrest in their investigation into the funding of the party and the £600,000 for a referendum campaign that didn't happen. this time, the arrest was of the snp's treasurer. he's been released without charge

and it's an ongoing inquiry. how can mr yousaf persuade voters there is real distance between him — the continuity candidate, nicola sturgeon�*s preferred successor — and her previous governance? nick reported yesterday from glasgow on a rocky weekend for the snp and he's been in edinburgh today, after things got rockier still. brightness, as spring bursts into life over edinburgh, but dark times for scotland's governing party, as police intensified their investigation into its finances. that has left questions in the air about whether the tide will now turn on the snp and the independence movement, after 16 years in office. all of that after the snp's treasurer — the veteran msp colin beattie — was arrested. he was released without charge this evening, pending further investigation.

that followed the arrest two weeks ago of the former snp chief executive, peter murrell, who's married to nicola sturgeon. he too was released without charge, pending further investigation. trauma for the snp. .. ..and a major political challenge for the new first minister, humza yousaf. can you guarantee that the party isn't operating in a criminal way right now and since you became leader? 0h, certainly, yeah. i don't believe it is at all, no. i mean, i've, as you know, instructed a review into transparency, transparency and good governance. of course, with the issue around financial oversight, and i want some external input into that. so there's change that is needed within the way how the party is operated. i've made that absolutely clear. being first minister is, of course, not without its challenges, it's fair to say, but not... and then an attempt to open a new chapter, as humza yousaf put the handbrake on a series of sturgeon initiatives,

though he's still standing by the former first minister. he announced a delay to a controversial bottle recycling scheme, a review of plans to restrict alcohol advertising, a delay to a vote on the national care bill, and scotland will rejoin two international schemes comparing educational outcomes. this government's work will be defined by three distinct and interdependent missions. those missions — centred on the principles of equality, opportunity and community — require us to tackle poverty, to build a fair, green and, indeed, a growing economy, and to improve our public services. they will be central to our efforts over the next three years to improve the lives of the people of scotland. a scathing assessment from the opposition. the snp is in total meltdown. humza yousaf is so indebted to his former mentors

that he will not do the right thing and suspend them while the investigation is ongoing. afterjust three weeks already, - we have a lame duck first minister, leading a lame duck snp government. this country is now i crying out for change. scottish labour believes humza yousaf was hamstrung from the start. humza yousaf is a self—styled continuity candidate, - but it's clear continuity's not going to cut it _ incompetence is not going to cut it. incompetence has consequences. and he might want to ditch - a few of the policies that have been so chaotic over the last period. but the reality is, this i is a chaotic government. the symptoms of this go much deeper than these three - individual policies. this is a government that's lost its way. . it's lost touch with reality. it's grown arrogant in power, and it needs to go back to opposition. - but support for the first minister from his governing partners. i thought the first minister gave a really inspiring speech, committing to redistribution of wealth, committing to the wellbeing economy, committing to delivering

the deposit return scheme. i thought that was great. today had been slated in the diary by humza yousaf for his big statement, setting out his approach to government, up there in the debating chamber of the scottish parliament. but his day was completely overshadowed by that continuing police investigation into the snp�*s finances. but significant moves today. distance between himself and nicola sturgeon on policy, but not doing the step that some are calling for, which is personal distance between himself and his predecessor. a gentle feel outside the political arena on a balmy day, but deep uncertainty about the political future for a governing party that's appeared unassailable for so long. we'rejoined now from edinburgh byjim fairlie —

the snp member of scottish parliament and co—founder of the pro—independence group farmers for yes. and the conservative shadow cabinet secretary for socialjustice, housing and local government, miles briggs. gentlemen, good evening. jim fairlie, how would you describe today? i fairlie, how would you describe toda ? ., ., , today? i thought today was very ositive, today? i thought today was very positive, actually. _ today? i thought today was very positive, actually. really? - today? i thought today was very positive, actually. really? yes,| today? i thought today was very | positive, actually. really? yes, i did. positive, actually. really? yes, i did- which _ positive, actually. really? yes, i did. which bit — positive, actually. really? yes, i did. which bit was _ positive, actually. really? yes, i did. which bit was positive? - positive, actually. really? yes, i did. which bit was positive? i - did. which bit was positive? i thought the first minister set out a good start to his statements. i thought we were looking at how we were going to deliver the policies that he has set out. now, don't get me wrong, of course having one of our colleagues arrested on the potential issues around the finances has been difficult, but there have been no charges brought against anybody. ifirmly been no charges brought against anybody. i firmly believe been no charges brought against anybody. ifirmly believe is anybody. i firmly believe is the first minister said earlier on today that you are innocent until proven guilty, that is the prospectus we

live under in this country. we will just have to wait and see what any investigation brings out. but in terms of how we are going to move forward, with equality, opportunity and community, i think what the first minister today did was very good, i thought he was very strong in the chamber.— good, i thought he was very strong in the chamber. nicola sturgeon had to disown alex _ in the chamber. nicola sturgeon had to disown alex salmond. _ in the chamber. nicola sturgeon had to disown alex salmond. does - in the chamber. nicola sturgeon had to disown alex salmond. does mr. to disown alex salmond. does mr yousaf have to essentially disown nicola sturgeon now? $5 i yousaf have to essentially disown nicola sturgeon now?— nicola sturgeon now? as i said alread , nicola sturgeon now? as i said already. you — nicola sturgeon now? as i said already, you are _ nicola sturgeon now? as i said already, you are innocent - nicola sturgeon now? as i said already, you are innocent until| already, you are innocent until proven guilty. and i haven't seen nicola sturgeon being arrested, i haven't seen her being charged with anything, i haven't seen any issues brought against her. so until such time as that happens, i don't see why humza yousaf, the first minister, oranyone why humza yousaf, the first minister, or anyone else should disassociate themselves with anyone until such time as we have a clear and final result and what the investigation shows.-

and final result and what the investigation shows. miles briggs, what ou investigation shows. miles briggs, what you think _ investigation shows. miles briggs, what you think should _ investigation shows. miles briggs, what you think should happen - investigation shows. miles briggs, | what you think should happen now? i certainly would give gem ten out of effort _ certainly would give gem ten out of effort -- _ certainly would give gem ten out of effort —— ten out of ten for effort today, _ effort —— ten out of ten for effort today, today has been an unmitigated disaster_ today, today has been an unmitigated disaster for— today, today has been an unmitigated disaster for the snp and especially for the _ disaster for the snp and especially for the first minister. this was meant — for the first minister. this was meant to— for the first minister. this was meant to be his relaunch today and we have _ meant to be his relaunch today and we have seen colleagues arrested and u-turns _ we have seen colleagues arrested and u—turns throughout his speech. the idea today— u—turns throughout his speech. the idea today was successful for the snp is _ idea today was successful for the snp is probably something everyone in scotland watching this will be laughing — in scotland watching this will be laughing at. we now need to see full transparency and that is something we have _ transparency and that is something we have been calling for for some time _ we have been calling for for some time now — we have been calling for for some time now. we have certainly seen the police _ time now. we have certainly seen the police take _ time now. we have certainly seen the police take forward their investigations, that is very important, but the first minister who is— important, but the first minister who is nicola sturgeon's choice almost — who is nicola sturgeon's choice almost as— who is nicola sturgeon's choice almost as first minister also needs to present — almost as first minister also needs to present that transparency and accountability as well. what does that mean in _ accountability as well. what does that mean in practical— accountability as well. what does that mean in practical terms? - accountability as well. what doesj that mean in practicalterms? we need to that mean in practical terms? we need to know what he knew and when he knew _ need to know what he knew and when he knew as _ need to know what he knew and when he knew as well. it was quite clear he knew as well. it was quite clear he was _ he knew as well. it was quite clear he was the — he knew as well. it was quite clear he was the continuity candidate, yes. _ he was the continuity candidate, yes, but— he was the continuity candidate, yes, but also that he was put in place _ yes, but also that he was put in place quite _ yes, but also that he was put in place quite quickly after nicola sturgeon decided to step down. her

reasons— sturgeon decided to step down. her reasons for— sturgeon decided to step down. her reasons for that, she outlined, but we are _ reasons for that, she outlined, but we are now — reasons for that, she outlined, but we are now seeing a completely different — we are now seeing a completely different story unfold under this notice _ different story unfold under this police investigation. ithink different story unfold under this police investigation. i think there are questions for many people in the snp and _ are questions for many people in the snp and the book. with the first minister— snp and the book. with the first minister ultimately as well. jim fairlie, minister ultimately as well. i “n fairlie, should the first minister show was the box? i mean, why not? well, all of these things will come out. ., . ., well, all of these things will come out. ., .., ,., well, all of these things will come out. ., ., , out. no, could you answer the question- _ out. no, could you answer the question- why _ out. no, could you answer the question. why not _ out. no, could you answer the question. why not show- out. no, could you answer the question. why not show us? l out. no, could you answer the - question. why not show us? well, that will be _ question. why not show us? well, that will be up _ question. why not show us? well, that will be up to _ question. why not show us? well, that will be up to the _ question. why not show us? well, that will be up to the nec - question. why not show us? well, that will be up to the nec of - question. why not show us? well, that will be up to the nec of the l that will be up to the nec of the snp. ~ ., ., that will be up to the nec of the snp. . ., ., ,., ~ , snp. what do you think they should do? hold on — snp. what do you think they should do? hold on one _ snp. what do you think they should do? hold on one second. _ snp. what do you think they should do? hold on one second. let's - snp. what do you think they should do? hold on one second. let'sjustl do? hold on one second. let's “ust remember. — do? hold on one second. let's “ust remember. fl do? hold on one second. let's “ust remember, are you i do? hold on one second. let's “ust remember, are you asking i do? hold on one second. let's “ust remember, are you asking the h do? hold on one second. let'sjust| remember, are you asking the tory party, are you asking the labour party, are you asking the labour party to show theirs? this is an internal snp issue, it has nothing to do with taxpayers' money, it has nothing to do with anybody. but it has rot to nothing to do with anybody. but it has got to do _ nothing to do with anybody. but it has got to do with _ nothing to do with anybody. but it has got to do with the _ nothing to do with anybody. but it has got to do with the money - nothing to do with anybody. but it has got to do with the money of snp members. it has got to do with the money of snp members. ., , ., ., ., members. it has nothing to do with an one members. it has nothing to do with anyone other _ members. it has nothing to do with anyone other than _ members. it has nothing to do with anyone other than the _ members. it has nothing to do with anyone other than the members i members. it has nothing to do with anyone other than the members of| members. it has nothing to do with . anyone other than the members of the snp. .. , ,., anyone other than the members of the snp. , , .,

anyone other than the members of the snp. , ., snp. exactly, so show them some sort of transnarency- _ snp. exactly, so show them some sort of transparency. exactly, _ snp. exactly, so show them some sort of transparency. exactly, people - snp. exactly, so show them some sort of transparency. exactly, people who l of transparency. exactly, people who have given their hard earned money to their party, showed them the books. ii to their party, showed them the books. ., , to their party, showed them the books. . , . ., books. if that is decided that will ha en, books. if that is decided that will happen. that _ books. if that is decided that will happen, that will _ books. if that is decided that will happen, that will be _ books. if that is decided that will happen, that will be decided. - books. if that is decided that will l happen, that will be decided. what books. if that is decided that will. happen, that will be decided. what i find bizarre about this process is we are getting this moral outrage from other political parties standing up there demanding we expel nicola sturgeon without any reason behind it, there is no charge brought against her. they are demanding this transparency. this is an internal snp issue and the snp members are absolutely engaged with the party. members are absolutely engaged with the -a . ~ , members are absolutely engaged with thea .~ , ., ., the party. miles, respond to that. what this party — the party. miles, respond to that. what this party has _ the party. miles, respond to that. what this party has to _ the party. miles, respond to that. what this party has to do - the party. miles, respond to that. what this party has to do to - the party. miles, respond to that. | what this party has to do to satisfy its membership. i what this party has to do to satisfy its membership.— what this party has to do to satisfy its membership. what this party has to do to satisfy its membershi -. . ., ., , ., its membership. i am not a member of the snp, but — its membership. i am not a member of the snp, but if — its membership. i am not a member of the snp, but if this was _ its membership. i am not a member of the snp, but if this was happening - the snp, but if this was happening in my— the snp, but if this was happening in my party, i would want full transparency and the fact jim wants to shut _ transparency and the fact jim wants to shut this— transparency and the fact jim wants to shut this down shows you what is wrong _ to shut this down shows you what is wrong with— to shut this down shows you what is wrong with the snp at this moment in

time _ wrong with the snp at this moment in time. people across scotland have given _ time. people across scotland have given their— time. people across scotland have given their money to this campaign and it— given their money to this campaign and it is— given their money to this campaign and it is quite clear that money has not been _ and it is quite clear that money has not been accounted for or been used for things— not been accounted for or been used for things it — not been accounted for or been used for things it shouldn't have been, and that— for things it shouldn't have been, and that is— for things it shouldn't have been, and that is where this police investigation is so important. for any political party, they need to have _ any political party, they need to have strong financial accountability and transparency and the snp clearly do not _ and transparency and the snp clearly do not and — and transparency and the snp clearly do not. and that is something when we have _ do not. and that is something when we have this party is our party of government in scotland, i think we also have _ government in scotland, i think we also have questions. they are looking — also have questions. they are looking after our public finances in scotland. — looking after our public finances in scotland, yet they will not want any transparency over what is happening with this _ transparency over what is happening with this money within their own party _ with this money within their own party i— with this money within their own party. i think that is concerning and for— party. i think that is concerning and for many people in scotland, a reason _ and for many people in scotland, a reason why— and for many people in scotland, a reason why they are turning away from _ reason why they are turning away from the — reason why they are turning away from the snp as well. that reason why they are turning away from the snp as well.— from the snp as well. that is not what i actually _ from the snp as well. that is not what i actually said. _ from the snp as well. that is not what i actually said. the - from the snp as well. that is not what i actually said. the process| what i actually said. the process and governance of the party will be taking care of by the party and the party members are absolutely entitled to ask the questions and get the answers, and they will. what i am finding a bit curious... who will do that? — i am finding a bit curious... who will do that? your— i am finding a bit curious... who

will do that? your chief- will do that? your chief executive has been — will do that? your chief executive has been questioned, your treasurer has been questioned, your treasurer has been _ has been questioned, your treasurer has been questioned, your treasurer has been questioned by the police. who will— has been questioned by the police. who will take that forward? your former— who will take that forward? your former chief executive has been resigned —— has resigned and been questioned — resigned —— has resigned and been questioned by the police, you'll treasure — questioned by the police, you'll treasure today has also been questioned by the police, who do you think is— questioned by the police, who do you think is doing this transparency for you? _ think is doing this transparency for ou? , ., ., , , you? -- your treasurer. the first minister of— you? -- your treasurer. the first minister of scotland _ you? -- your treasurer. the first minister of scotland a _ you? -- your treasurer. the first minister of scotland a new - you? -- your treasurer. the first| minister of scotland a new leader you? -- your treasurer. the first i minister of scotland a new leader of the party has already said he will look at the transparency and governance and processes within the snp to make sure that is what he delivers and i would have every faith that is what he will do. miles, isn't it a bit rich for you to be on the moral high ground so to speak when you have had your fair share of scandals in the conservative party? no, iwould arrue conservative party? no, iwould argue and _ conservative party? no, iwould argue and l— conservative party? no, iwould argue and i have _ conservative party? no, iwould argue and i have argued - conservative party? no, iwould argue and i have argued in - conservative party? no, iwould argue and i have argued in my l conservative party? no, i would i argue and i have argued in my own party— argue and i have argued in my own party and _ argue and i have argued in my own party and i— argue and i have argued in my own party and i argue tonight that transparency in political parties is absolutely critical and that is for public _ absolutely critical and that is for public confidence more than anything. but i will always make sure it's — anything. but i will always make sure it's scotland especially with these _ sure it's scotland especially with these other people who said that we would _ these other people who said that we would be _ these other people who said that we would be an independent scotland, who wanted to that scotland. i am 'ust

who wanted to that scotland. i am just pleased we do not see that today— just pleased we do not see that today because it feels like we would be living _ today because it feels like we would be living in — today because it feels like we would be living in some sort of banana republic under the snp. i want to make _ republic under the snp. i want to make sure — republic under the snp. i want to make sure we move forward now is a country _ make sure we move forward now is a count . �* make sure we move forward now is a count .�* ,, ., ., country. and presumably, you want to due process — country. and presumably, you want to due process to — country. and presumably, you want to due process to be _ country. and presumably, you want to due process to be allowed _ country. and presumably, you want to due process to be allowed to - due process to be allowed to take its course. , due process to be allowed to take its course-— due process to be allowed to take its course. , ., , , ., its course. yes, absolutely, and we are seeing — its course. yes, absolutely, and we are seeing that _ its course. yes, absolutely, and we are seeing that with _ its course. yes, absolutely, and we are seeing that with the _ its course. yes, absolutely, and we are seeing that with the police. - its course. yes, absolutely, and we are seeing that with the police. i i are seeing that with the police. i think— are seeing that with the police. i think there are questions over timing — think there are questions over timing of— think there are questions over timing of this which has taken place and the _ timing of this which has taken place and the first minister's resignation and the first minister's resignation and when — and the first minister's resignation and when this saw the police investigation take forward. but ultimately, the police are now responsible for this and we will see in the _ responsible for this and we will see in the coming weeks where this goes. you paint the snp as an effective and you must be a pretty effective opposition because people keep voting for the snp.— opposition because people keep voting for the snp. recent polls are showinr voting for the snp. recent polls are showing the — voting for the snp. recent polls are showing the snp _ voting for the snp. recent polls are showing the snp losing _ voting for the snp. recent polls are showing the snp losing support - voting for the snp. recent polls are showing the snp losing support in l showing the snp losing support in scotland — showing the snp losing support in scotland. you are way behind. now the chance — scotland. you are way behind. now the chance is for us to show as scottlsh— the chance is for us to show as scottish conservatives that we are the real— scottish conservatives that we are

the real alternative in scotland, and put — the real alternative in scotland, and put forward a platform but also make _ and put forward a platform but also make sure — and put forward a platform but also make sure we can rebuild confidence in scotland — make sure we can rebuild confidence in scotland. because so many people watching _ in scotland. because so many people watching do not want to see the snp continue _ watching do not want to see the snp continue in _ watching do not want to see the snp continue in the scottish government so there's— continue in the scottish government so there's a — continue in the scottish government so there's a chance they are and that is— so there's a chance they are and that is something i know my colleagues are working hard to make sure we _ colleagues are working hard to make sure we demonstrate that we are the alternatives in scotland and get people's — alternatives in scotland and get people's confidence. a alternatives in scotland and get people's confidence.— alternatives in scotland and get people's confidence. a quick word on the u-turns — people's confidence. a quick word on the u-turns that _ people's confidence. a quick word on the u-turns that humza _ people's confidence. a quick word on the u-turns that humza yousaf - the u—turns that humza yousaf announced today including the fact that scotland would be taken back into the international education comparative studies, a reversal of 13 years of snp education policy, do you back that? because nicola sturgeon failed to close the attainment gap. i sturgeon failed to close the attainment gap.— sturgeon failed to close the attainment gap. sturgeon failed to close the attainment ra.- ., , ., attainment gap. i do support that and ou attainment gap. i do support that and you call— attainment gap. i do support that and you call it — attainment gap. i do support that and you call it a _ attainment gap. i do support that and you call it a u-turn _ attainment gap. i do support that and you call it a u-turn and - attainment gap. i do support that and you call it a u-turn and there and you call it a u—turn and there have been various things, or things that humza yousaf has taken a look at but what he has done is listened to the people who are in the process

of being asked to deliver the things that we are asking them to deliver and said ok if we need to rethink that we will take that away and come back with better proposals. i would not call that u—turns. any politician should listen to the people to what they tell them and react accordingly. i do not think he had a u—turn today, he just listen to people and took appropriate action. , ., ., to people and took appropriate action. , ., ,, ,., to people and took appropriate action. , . ~' ,. , action. gentlemen, thank you very much. this is 17—year—old ellie gould. she was halfway through her a—levels when she was stabbed to death by her first boyfriend, a fellow student, in her family home in wiltshire. ellie had broken off the "suffocating" three—month relationship the night before. this is 24—year—old poppy devey waterhouse. she was a quantititive trading analyst, living in a flat in leeds with her boyfriend of three years. she had ended the relationship, was due to leave. her bags were packed.

before she could, her boyfriend attacked and killed her. she was asleep in her bed. he inflicted 100 injuries upon her as she tried to escape. if those men had taken a knife and killed the women in the street, in a park, their minimum jail term would have been 25 years, but because they killed them in their homes, it wasn't. ellie and poppy's mums — carole gould and julie devey — have forged a friendship over what they see as an injustice, and have come together to try and change what they call an "immoral" disparity in sentencing. they met yesterday with the victims minister to discuss their cases. 0n newsnight, we're focusing this year on questions over the justice system, and i spoke to carole and julie earlier today, in theirfirst interview since meeting the government minister. first, they told me what had happened to their daughters. ellie was halfway through her a—levels. she started dating thomas griffiths. he was her first boyfriend.

about a couple of months into the relationship, she started noticing some traits that were odd. as time went on, she felt she wanted to end the relationship. her friends described it as suffocating. he came to a house where he knew she was home alone, revising, and he strangled herfirst. and then he picked up a knife and he stabbed her 13 times in the neck. and the sentence for that was 12 and a half years. that's the justice system when it comes to violence against women and girls. poppy and joe atkinson had been a couple for over three years. in the october, she decided that she just didn't want to stay in the relationship anymore and called an end to it. she was going to leave on the 17th of december. she'd got a flat to move into, but on the 14th, on the friday night, just before that, he came back from his christmas party. she was in bed asleep. he went to the kitchen. he chose a knife.

he chose the knife for a specific intent. he didn't choose a knife to cut bread. you know, he chose it, and this is really important that there is an element of premeditation, knowing what they're doing. chose the knife. he went back into poppy's bedroom and he began his attack then. there were 23 stab wounds, one in her skull and round her neck and things. 49 knife wounds. 100 injuries altogether. he wasjailed for 16 years and two months. and my understanding is that if in both these horrific cases, they had taken a knife from somewhere, gone out into the street or into a park and murdered someone, the minimum starting point for their sentence would be 25 years. absolutely. you could stab somebody once in the park. but that, straight away, because they've taken the weapon to the scene, is seen as more serious than a brutal murder in the home. and we think the idea

about that was about premeditation or if you're carrying a weapon round. but the logic is you have, there is intent to kill. but you are saying in the cases of your daughters, there was intent. of course there was. and you will never know what that person was thinking when they were approaching the houses, in our instance. they're never going to say, yes, i was thinking about it, that's never going to happen. at the moment, there's a huge disparity between sentencing of those murders that take place in the street as opposed to murders that take place in the home. there's an immediate ten year difference in starting point of sentencing, and we're just looking to close that gap because it's immoral to treat women, who are generally the ones who are murdered in the home, to treat them as valued less. the message we're putting out there to men is, if you want to kill your partner, just turn up at the house, try and strangle them first because they can't prove it's premeditation then.

and if that does fail, well, then pick up a knife from the worktop. but either way, you'll get a much lower sentence if you do it that way. now the government is introducing longer sentences that will include overkill as an aggravating factor. and just to define overkill, it is the use of excessive or gratuitous violence beyond that necessary to kill, which happened in your daughters' cases. dominic raab, the justice secretary, says that is going to add about two years to sentences. well, you're shaking your head. it's disgusting. if that's all he really thinks that these lives are worth, what they've gone through, and the trauma and the absolute horrific murders that take place in the home,

it was so upsetting to read that they were adding two years for overkill. ijust thought they were adding two years for overkill. i just thought and visit some young women in the morgue and see those injuries and then tell me thatis see those injuries and then tell me that is just worth two years. the problem with the law at the moment, it's just written with violence on the street in mind and nobody has given a second thought, thejudges and barristers and sentencing counsel to domestic homicides and the horrific nature of them. although it is, for all murders, it is possible forjudges to give life sentences. and the moj reminds us of that. we've spoken to a few judges and lawyers, and they like a framework. they will stick within that framework. none of them want to sort of put their head above the parapet and go, ok, no, actually, ithink this. because what will happen is there will probably be an appeal then, and then because it doesn't fall in line with all the others, the appeal would win, and it would go down again. so the ministry ofjustice are going, the judges can do that.

the judges are going, yes, ok, but we don't want to do that because we're sticking to the guidelines. so actually, the guidelines have to change. it's difficult to even get your head round or even, you know, to work out how you have coped at the loss of your daughters. ellie was 17. she's on the cusp of adulthood. you've got her through primary school. you've almost got her through secondary school. poppy's, you know, 2a and thriving and independent, and both are taken from you just like that. how do you, how do you cope with that? perhaps the campaigning gives us a purpose to fight for change, because as it stands, it's so immorally wrong. but every day is a struggle, you know, there's no denying it. every day you can have tears, a memory, a thought, a piece of music playing. it's...

and, you know, you're empty inside. you know, you often think, oh, i wonder what it would be like if ellie was coming home for easter, for example, from universityjust a few weeks ago. and that's gone. it takes a huge part of you away. it's really, really tough. and, you know, i say goodnight to a photograph goodnight to a photograph every night. you know, this is my life. and i can't see that changing, but i also can't see very far ahead. you just can't see very far ahead. both of you went to the morgue to see your daughters. i asked if you wanted to talk about this and you said that you did because you want people to know what it is like. what do you want to say to our audience about that? we had to go and see ellie in the morgue. they warned us before we saw her that they had

covered up her injuries. she had plasters on herface so that we couldn't see the stab wounds. and she had bandages around her neck and on her chest area so that we couldn't see the extent of the forensic attack that she had gone through. yeah, we saw, we went several times to see poppy. her injuries weren't covered up, partly because they didn't think we would be going in to see her. they didn't want us to go in and see her. but a family liaison officer discussed it with us and we decided that we would. so we saw all of the injuries. and in her head, ijust kept thinking she was breathing. and of course, she wasn't. yeah. i am so, so sorry. thank you.

can i ask you finally about your friendship, your bond? how would you describe it? how has it helped each of you? i don't think, i certainly couldn't have done the campaign on my own. i wouldn't have got this far. we have an absolutely unique relationship. most days, there's a text or something, you know, and we say anything to each other and we know we can get away with saying anything to each other. so things that would be completely shocking to other people have become our norm, you know, horrific stabbings. and, you know, and i could never have imagined years ago that this would be part of my normal, everyday language. but sadly it is. and that's what we have to live with. thank you both very much for talking to newsnight. julie, thank you. carole, thank you very, very much.

thank you for listening. thank you. the ministry ofjustice told us tonight: "our changes to the law will mean murderers who use excessive or gratuitous violence or have a history of coercive or controlling behaviour against their victims will spend longer behind bars. we are very grateful tojulie devey and the gould family for finding time to meet with minister ed argar this week to discuss how we further improve women's safety and tackle domestic violence." a legal battle is raging over the future of a factory down the road from here in newport which mass—produces technological components called semiconductors. the government has ordered its dutch owners, nexperia, to sell it under national security laws because they're owned, in turn, by a chinese company. today, the foreign secretary's said that it's not in the uk's interests to pull the shutters down on the relationship with china. a legal battle is raging over the future of a factory down

but the decision could mean the factory�*s closure, at the cost of some 500 high—paying jobs. meanwhile, the government has this week again postponed the publication of its long—promised and long—awaited national semiconductor strategy. that comes as the eu and the us are pushing ahead with their own massive subsidy schemes for this technology, which will likely shape our everyday lives and economic fortunes in the decades to come. is the uk at risk of being left behind? here's ben. britain's largest semiconductor producer. this factory in wales produces some 32,000 silicon wafers every month. what is the newport wafer fab? what do they make here? well, it's not the super—sophisticated, minuscule logic chips of south korea or taiwan. they make something here called power semiconductors. these help devices manage power efficiently. you'll find them in things like kettles, tvs and mobile phone chargers. a big buyer is the car industry, which uses them for electric brakes and windows. but this site is now at the heart of a legal battle

which could help define the uk's post—brexit economic future. last november, the government ordered the unwinding of the takeover of newport wafer fab by a dutch company called nexperia. why? because nexperia is itself owned by a chinese company called wingtech, and the decision was made on national security grounds using the provisions of the new national security and investment act. nexperia has brought a judicial review against the government's order, which is ongoing. so what will happen to this company? a sale is a possibility, but the newport fab was loss—making before the nexperia purchase in 2021. there are fears it could have to close down as a result of the government's decision, at a cost of 600 well—paying local jobs. there are also fears skilled workers could leave the company because of the uncertainty that's been created. we were enjoying the benefits

of a new and forward—thinking owner. nexperia have brought lots of benefits. they've brought bonuses, they've brought pay rises. they've brought investment into both the building and the fabrication facility. it's a little bit like being given a christmas present and, suddenly, it's been taken away again and it's being kept in a box out the back and nobody really knows whether we're going to be getting it back again. the local mp thinks the way the government has handled this risks delivering a regional levelling down. we take it very personally that, you know, why is the government seeming to penalise us? yeah, "levelling down" is a phrase we could use very well to describe what's actually happening here in newport at the moment. if we don't have clear certainty in the next few months, these people are going to go to otherjobs. we will lose this site. there's a much bigger picture here. this newport factory sits at the centre of a welsh cluster

of what's called compound semiconductor expertise, with other local companies like iqe and spts technologies. you could, at a bit of a stretch, call it wales's silicon valleys. so what are these compound semiconductors? they're making them at cardiff university on an experimental basis. they're chips made from compounds such as silicon and carbon rather than pure silicon. the combination of different materials gives them very useful properties. they can generate and detect light. they can facilitate high—speed communication. experts say they're likely to be a central plank of massive future global markets, from self—driving cars to advanced medical sensors to 6g wireless to superfast quantum computers, and that the uk is a genuine world leader in this frontier technology. pretty much all of the photovoltaics that are sent into space are compound semiconductor

photovoltaics, and that's because of the size, weight and power advantages. there are some really crazy things going on there, some really interesting things. so at the moment, people are doing a lot of research in how to transmit power back from space to the earth safely. and once those issues are solved, you can imagine compound semiconductor, large—scale photovoltaics in space, power stations in space, really very exciting. now, the newport wafer fab doesn't at the moment actually produce these cutting—edge compound semiconductors that they're experimenting on in cardiff. but the government seems to think the nexperia takeover could mean valuable technological knowhow in this area being extracted from the wider welsh cluster and sent to china, or that attempts to develop it here could be stymied because of the chinese presence at newport. compound semiconductor technologies could have security and defence applications, and some insist there are valid national security reasons to block the newport takeover. they'll be taking a very evidence—based approach, so they'll be bringing lots of information they have

to hand to weigh up the risk. it's basically a risk—management decision of weighing up the downsides versus the upsides about taking these calls. so for them to have made a decision based on this approach, that would suggest there is some evidence, some information they're looking at that i think ultimately worries them just a bit too much. but nexperia says it's ruled out any future compound semiconductor development at the newport site and has pledged to block the export of technology overseas. and some fear the government's divestment order will end up damaging, not safeguarding, this important domestic technology cluster. there's certainly a strong feeling from the industry's leaders that the absence of a national semiconductor strategy from the government is deterring vital foreign investment. we've lost some opportunities for semiconductor companies, including compound semiconductor companies, to locate in the uk and in particular into wales, going instead to germany where there are much bigger incentives.

and the same with the us. there are financial incentives, sometimes tax breaks, tax credits for research and development and so on, and we're competing on a global stage. there's a lot of fear and confusion here, and it's pretty hard, actually, to escape the conclusion that the uk government finds itself trapped by some globalforces. on the one hand, there's pressure to side with the us in its new technological cold war against china. on the other hand, it badly needs investment into post—brexit britain. there's also a lack of clarity over economic strategy. does the government go with international market forces on the direction of tech, or does it go with the international trend for more public subsidy and intervention? there is no digital. without those chips. the european union today pressed ahead with its own answer to america's multibillion dollar chips act, subsidising local silicon chip production. the chancellor, jeremy hunt, has said he wants to turn britain

into the world's next silicon valley. but a uk national semiconductor strategy was first promised by ministers two years ago. plans to publish were postponed again this week. those who live and work in wales's nascent silicon valley's insist they cannot wait any longer. we will go live to new zealand to talk to hermann hauser. co-ceo of amadeus capital partners, and founder of acorn, which spun out the semiconductor giant arm. he has founded companies in a wide range of technology sectors. you are seen as the father of the uk tech sector. i wonder if you have any worries the government might kill off what you helped build by its failure to support it? yes. kill off what you helped build by its failure to support it?- kill off what you helped build by its failure to support it? yes, i am worried about _ its failure to support it? yes, i am worried about that. _ its failure to support it? yes, i am worried about that. it _ its failure to support it? yes, i am worried about that. it is _ its failure to support it? yes, i am worried about that. it is a - its failure to support it? yes, i am| worried about that. it is a question of unintended consequences. if the objective of the government is to

have independent access to these wafers, which of course the government has at the moment from nexperia, it won't have access to these wafers if the company doesn't exist. 50 these wafers if the company doesn't exist. ., these wafers if the company doesn't exist, ., ., these wafers if the company doesn't exist. ., ., , ., these wafers if the company doesn't exist. ., ., , ., exist. 50 how do you see the threat from china. — exist. 50 how do you see the threat from china, then? _ exist. 50 how do you see the threat from china, then? well, _ exist. 50 how do you see the threat from china, then? well, i - exist. 50 how do you see the threat from china, then? well, i believe l from china, then? well, i believe that our policy— from china, then? well, i believe that our policy with _ from china, then? well, i believe that our policy with respect - from china, then? well, i believe that our policy with respect to - that our policy with respect to china, especially in semiconductors, will achieve exactly the opposite of what is intended. it is one of those consequences of the law of unintended consequences. because by forcing them to produce the semiconductor capabilities themselves, you have got to ask the question, do they have the money? because it is a question of enough money and enough talent and there is no doubt they have more money they are spending on this because it is a national initiative in china, more money than europe and the us taken together. you then ask the question, do they have the talent? there is also no doubt they have more highly

qualified engineers than europe and america taken together. and they work harder. so who is going to win this long—term? so the right strategy is to actually negotiate with china, do deals with china. so whilst we still have something to bargain for, we get a better deal with china may be for china to produce some of its factories in europe and the us.— produce some of its factories in europe and the us. which is fair enou~h, europe and the us. which is fair enough. but _ europe and the us. which is fair enough. but i — europe and the us. which is fair enough, but i wonder, - europe and the us. which is fair enough, but i wonder, do - europe and the us. which is fair enough, but i wonder, do you . europe and the us. which is fair. enough, but i wonder, do you think is some do that there is a risk, a real risk that the chinese could take the compound semiconductor technology and use it for military purposes? technology and use it for military reuroses? , , ., ., purposes? yes, there is a risk and therefore. — purposes? yes, there is a risk and therefore. we _ purposes? yes, there is a risk and therefore, we have _ purposes? yes, there is a risk and therefore, we have to _ purposes? yes, there is a risk and therefore, we have to have - purposes? yes, there is a risk and therefore, we have to have thesel therefore, we have to have these export restrictions and be very careful. and negotiate with china what they can and cannot use when it is produced in the west. but if the alternative is that they will have more advanced technology than us and we become then depended on them, thatis we become then depended on them, that is not a very good alternative. so there is a short—term

optimisation and policy with