arsenal, in contrast, rather limping to the end of their campaign. and it raises questions about how competitive this leak truly is because faith are on line for a fifth league win in recent seasons, it is not mathematically over for arsenal but it feels almost done. many thanks to our sports editor, dan roan. time for a look at the weather. here's ben rich. it hasn't been particularly warm today, we've not had many particularly warm days this spring so far. the highest temperature so far this year was 21.2 celsius in the highlands, 19.1 in northern ireland but england and wales have not yet been above 18, we have to look back to 1986 to find a year where england and wales have waited so long for higher temperatures than that but that might change over the next few days with warmer air

pushing north across most of the uk, north and scotland may stick with something a bit colder, that is where we will have the coldest weather through the rest of the night, particularly in shetland with clear skies and some showers. some clear skies and some showers. some clear spells, aberdeen and hull will be one or 2 degrees, mounted to the far south—west, seeing more clouds, one area of rain pushing from the south west affecting southern england and parts of wales tomorrow, getting into the midlands. another band of rain will be drifting northwards across scotland, something wintry mixing and over the highest grunge, 8 degrees for aberdeen, 12 to 1a further south, things starting to turn warmer —— over the highest ground. heavy and perhaps lunge a rainforest time, mostly clearing on friday to leave spells of sunshine. some clouds and patchy rain in the north of scotland the temperatures really starting to climb and that theme will continue

for most of us into the weekend, part of scotland will struggle, lots of dry weather further and it's the tory right that have got their way. tonight, ministers agreed to adopt amendments to its plans from tory mps wanting a tougher line on immigration, but offered little but words to others worried about the detention of child migrants. they are pinning their hopes on the lords. labour's shadow immigration minister stephen kinnock is here and so too will be the conservative mp bob seely. also tonight: newsnight�*s seen evidence that alcohol—related deaths

in england and wales, which rose during lockdown, continued to rise in 2022 after the end of restrictions. i would wake up in the morning, have a drink, drink steadily throughout the day, and it got to a point in the day, and it got to a point in the final months where i was taking alcohol to bed with me. we'll talk to singer and presenter michelle heaton, who this friday will be two years sober. can we square free speech, equality and even uk law with the rules of organised religion? the author of today's downing street report on the relationship between faith and government is here. and will green investors force bp's hand on climate change? bp has no plans for large—scale emissions _ bp has no plans for large—scale emissions reductions by 2030, we need _ emissions reductions by 2030, we need low skill emissions reductions by 2030 _ need low skill emissions reductions by 2030 to— need low skill emissions reductions by 2030 to have any chance to stay below _ by 2030 to have any chance to stay below 15— by 2030 to have any chance to stay below 1.5 degrees. the woman who advises pension funds tells us what she thinks should happen.

hello. "asylum shoppers" — that's how the immigration minister robertjenrick in the commons today described people who come here on small boats. tonight, the government's illegal migration bill passed its third reading by 289 votes to 230 and now heads to the house of lords. mrjenrick said most people who arrive here having crossed the channel have come from france, where it's safe, hence the phrase "asylum shoppers". the bill means people will be detained including unaccompanied children and then removed either back to their home country if it's safe, or a safe third country like rwanda. nick's here. there is a bit of movement on both sides of the conservative party. where do you think we are tonight? as you were saying, it is a case of concrete changes for the tory right, undertakings for the tory left. so, three big concessions for the right, some of which we already know about. the first is strengthening the ability of the home secretary not to

accept so—called rule 39 orders from the european court of human rights. these are the ones that have stopped the rwanda removalflights, though we are told that this would be used judiciously. the second concession is limiting the right of appeal in uk courts, and the third concession to the right is what we were talking about last night, the age verification process. these are the so—called scientific tests that are carried out if a migrant is claiming to be a child but is thought to be an adult. under this change, if they don't agree to take part in that, they will be presumed to be an adult. the big demand from the tory left was that no unaccompanied child would be detained for more than three days without the authority of a court. they say they need that because their interpretation of the bill as it currently stands is, there children would be treated the same as adults, which would be a 28 day limit on detention. what they

got was an agreed form of wording agreed by the rebels on that side, led by the former children's minister, and the immigration minister robertjen rick, who read out that where there is no age dispute, it is our intention that children are not detained for any longer than absolutely necessary, with particular regard to the risk of absconding and suffering significant harm, and that that is meant to be amended in the house of lords. the final thing they wanted was a time limit on unaccompanied children who are detained for removal. there is a change there, but that is putting it, discretion powers, in the hands of the home secretary. so is this a complete victory for the right of the conservative party? well, the right are saying they got what they wanted. they are saying they had really good negotiations with the immigration minister robert jenrette, and the home secretary suella braverman was completely on board for the substance of their demands. —— robertjenrick. 0ne demands. —— robertjenrick. one source on that side told me that they said to the tory whips, give us

substance, give the left no more than milk and water, and all will be fine as far as we are concerned. it is important to say that the left, they have not given up hope. they are saying that that time limit on the detention of unaccompanied children that has got to be in there when the bill goes to the house of lords, they are saying if that does not happen, the bill will be eviscerated in the house of lords, although as we have seen in recent years, the lords are usually up for a bit of a challenge for the government but rarely a wholesale challenge. thank you very much, nick. in a moment we'll speak to the conservative mp bob seely. he's been held up getting to the studio, so first we can speak to labour's shadow minister for immigration, stephen kinnock. thank you very much for coming in, mr kinnock. thank you for inviting me. presumably, you are planning to scrap this law if labour wins the next election? that's right. it is not compatible with our international legal obligations, and it is a piece of legislation that will just obligations, and it is a piece of legislation that willjust make everything worse. it will increase the size of the backlog, it is a

gift to the people smugglers and it makes no attempt to get a returns deal with mainland europe. so we vote for things in the labour party that are actually going to work, rather than headline chasing gimmicks, and that's what this bill is. right, so absolutely you will scrap this, that is without question, if labour win the next election? there is no way that we will keep a piece of legislation in place that is counter to our aims, which is to create an asylum system that is both compassionate and competent, and controlled. a labour home secretary on day one of thejob, if a labour home secretary on day one of the job, if you were to win the next election, would be bound by this legislation. so when would you scrap it? this legislation. so when would you scra it? . this legislation. so when would you scra it? ~ ., this legislation. so when would you scra it? . ., , scrap it? welcome of course, we will have to, scrap it? welcome of course, we will have to. when _ scrap it? welcome of course, we will have to, when we _ scrap it? welcome of course, we will have to, when we get _ scrap it? welcome of course, we will have to, when we get into _ have to, when we get into government, look at the whole range of the mess that the conservatives are going to be leaving to us, and there will be a prioritisation. is this a priority? is this day one or day 100? it will be a top priority to fix our asylum system, but so much of it is also dependent on negotiations with

our european partners and allies. it is not a negotiation, is it? it is not a negotiation, is it? it is not really a legislative question, because you don't need to legislate to fix the asylum backlog, you need to manage it properly. you need to have the right caseworkers and decision—makers in place. you need a triage system so you are fast tracking high grant rate and low grant rate countries, just practical, common—sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy is what is required. you don't require big pieces of legislation to do any of that. the conservatives know that. the reason they are doing this is because they want to provoke a big row, they want to talk about how they are standing up to the european court and all the rest of it, but none of it will actually fix the problem. we will talk to bob seely about that in the moment, who i think it'sjust arriving. how big would your safe and legal roots me, and from which country is? the cap needs to be based on agreement with local authorities, what they can handle, and with parliament. i can't therefore give you a number, because there is a process, and of course, we have also seen with the ukraine crisis, with

hong kong, that it fluctuates, depending on the geopolitical situation. let's take sudan right now, sudanese people absolutely petrified for their lives. they are trying to escape over dead bodies. they have been telling our colleagues. would you have a safe and legal route for sudanese people? the government needs to... i'm asking what you would do if you were in government now. it would be an urgent convening of local authorities to assess the extent to which they can accommodate asylum seekers. family reunion would

be a the balance to get right here is, the case , . ., the case structure in the uk, and compassion _ the case structure in the uk, and compassion to — the case structure in the uk, and compassion to ensure _ the case structure in the uk, and compassion to ensure that - the case structure in the uk, and compassion to ensure that we i the case structure in the uk, and | compassion to ensure that we are helping, and doing our bit, alongside our european partners and allies, and the unhcr, to ensure we are doing our bit, but we also have to ensure that it is in line with what our local communities can handle. thank you very much, mr kinnock. we can now talk to bob seely, who has arrived. thank you for being with us. sorry i am late. sorry about the taxi issues. your colleague, the former children's minister, does not want

unaccompanied children to be detained any longer than three days. why has the government got a problem with that? we why has the government got a problem with that? ~ ., why has the government got a problem with that? ~ . ., ., with that? we are negotiating with tim, and i think _ with that? we are negotiating with tim, and i think he _ with that? we are negotiating with tim, and i think he has _ with that? we are negotiating with tim, and i think he has made - with that? we are negotiating with | tim, and i think he has made some reaiiy— tim, and i think he has made some reaiiy good — tim, and i think he has made some really good suggestions. sure _ really good suggestions. sure. so

i have no doubt there will be a case—by—case decision made, which i'm not going to give you position a. is

made, which i'm not going to give you position a-_ you position a. is nothing in the bill that talks — you position a. is nothing in the bill that talks about _ you position a. is nothing in the bill that talks about discretionary or case—by—case decision. if you arrive here by irregular means on a small boat, for example, you could be a 14—year—old sudanese boy. there be a 14-year-old sudanese boy. there are be a14-year-old sudanese boy. there are exceptional— be a 14-year-old sudanese boy. there are exceptional cases _ be a 14-year-old sudanese boy. there are exceptional cases in _ be a 14-year-old sudanese boy. there are exceptional cases in the _ be a 14—year—old sudanese boy. ii—ii” are exceptional cases in the bill. you are wrong, sorry. the secretary of state has the power to make exceptional circumstances and exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. it's in the bill, it was discussed today. pare exceptional cases. it's in the bill, it was discussed today.— it was discussed today. are you sure? i it was discussed today. are you sure? i was _ it was discussed today. are you sure? i was listening _ it was discussed today. are you sure? i was listening to - it was discussed today. are you sure? i was listening to the - it was discussed today. are you - sure? i was listening to the debate. it's in the bill, _ sure? i was listening to the debate. it's in the bill, i'm _ sure? i was listening to the debate. it's in the bill, i'm sorry. _ sure? i was listening to the debate. it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't- it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't apologise- _ it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't apologise- if— it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't apologise. if i'm _ it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't apologise. if i'm factually - it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't. apologise. if i'm factually wrong, it's in the bill, i'm sorry. don't- apologise. if i'm factually wrong, i will apologise, apologise. if i'm factually wrong, i willapologise, but apologise. if i'm factually wrong, i will apologise, but my understanding is that the home secretary can remove under 18 from the uk. for example if a pregnant woman comes over, she is not going to be removed back to any third country or where she came from if there is potential implications for her and her child. but there are exceptional cases. so the secretary of state says in the bill, the secretary of state has the

power to make provision for those cases. automatically going back to him not correct.— him not correct. sounds quite theoretical. _ him not correct. sounds quite theoretical. if— him not correct. sounds quite theoretical. if i'm _ him not correct. sounds quite theoretical. if i'm wrong, - him not correct. sounds quite theoretical. if i'm wrong, i. him not correct. sounds quite| theoretical. if i'm wrong, i put him not correct. sounds quite - theoretical. if i'm wrong, i put my hands up. actually laid out a very important case as to why we have got to do this, because at the moment from our system is being hijacked by organised crime. 0ur borders are effectively hijacked by organised crime. we have a very generous system. we taken 480,000 people since 2015. but it has to be legal, and it has to be fair. if since 2015. but it has to be legal, and it has to be fair.— since 2015. but it has to be legal, and it has to be fair. if you cannot move everyone back— and it has to be fair. if you cannot move everyone back to their- and it has to be fair. if you cannot move everyone back to their own | move everyone back to their own country if it is safe, what country if it is deemed safe, what is plan b? we country if it is deemed safe, what is plan b? ~ ., ., is plan b? we have nine safe and leual is plan b? we have nine safe and legal rights of — is plan b? we have nine safe and legal rights of the _ is plan b? we have nine safe and legal rights of the moment. - is plan b? we have nine safe and legal rights of the moment. as . is plan b? we have nine safe and legal rights of the moment. as a | is plan b? we have nine safe and i legal rights of the moment. as a lot of myths about this debate, there are currently four safe and legal routes which are generalised and we have taken 50,000 people in that time. there are five countries, and potentially with tim, he has asked the government to look into this, thatis

the government to look into this, that is going to be a fifth generalised safe and legal routes, so that we will take, depending on circumstances every year. so this is a good bill, but we have to make sure that we control our borders from organised crime step i thank you very much. thank you. during lockdown some who drank alcohol moderately began to drink more and there was an increase in the number of people

dying from alcohol. so what happened in 2022 when the population was free of restrictions? thanks to some number crunching from kate, we have an answer. here's her report. this is me when i came round in hospital in march 2021. i'd had a seizure in asda supermarket. i'd gone there to buy some alcohol. many felt the isolation of the pandemic lockdowns. for some the radical shift in day—to—day life allowed established habits to spiral. there was nobody to check up on me in the daytime to see if i was drinking. i would wake up in the morning, have a drink, i'd drink steadily throughout the day and it got to a point in my final months where i was taking alcohol to bed with me. around 2,000 more people in the uk died from specific causes in 2021 compared to 2019.

the reason? well, the office for national statistics suggested that increased consumption during the pandemic might be to blame. but data from 2022, preliminary as it might be, seems to suggest that far from returning to pre—pandemic levels, alcohol—related deaths in england and wales are actually continuing to rise. you can see here in england the pink line of 2022 not only above the yellow of 2018 and 2019, but on average 4% higher than even the year before. in sheffield researchers have also spotted rising trends in alcohol specific causes. i think that's really worrying. you might have hoped that they would have at least plateaued or started to go down, but the fact that they seem to be going up is quite worrying and that is driven by a continued increase in deaths from liver disease and quite a sharp increase in deaths related to alcohol dependence. while these conditions can take time to develop, there is reason to believe it is not

just a lag from those early lockdowns. actually what you see in practice when there has been a big policy change, for example if alcohol prices suddenly get much cheaper, then you see that alcohol liver disease deaths fall or increase almost immediately. surveys of alcohol consumption in england also indicate the number of people drinking at a higher level of risk still hasn't returned to pre—pandemic levels. if you have a problem with alcohol it generally gets worse, it's a progressive problem that you will have. something like an elevator going down and you can sort of get off at any point, but the elevator is going one way and it is down. so even when responsibilities started to come back into my life i was still self—medicating with the alcohol, but by that point it had become more of a survival. simon is now almost a year sober. the organisation which supported him

has seen a much wider rise in need. so in the early days of the pandemic our sheffield service in particular saw a 300% increase in referrals, so that was people contacting us to ask for some support. the numbers have not maintained at 300% but they have still remained higher than pre—pandemic. are you able to provide support to everyone who wants it? no. nationally across the country. 82% of adults that would benefit from alcohol treatment are not able to access it and i think if we were comparing this to an issue like diabetes or cancer, there would be a national outcry about that. we need to have more treatment capacity, we need a national alcohol strategy. the government says it has investigated millions to create more drug and alcohol treatment places and from august alcohol duty will rise in line with inflation for the first time in years. i think when the prime minister was formerly the chancellor to actually talk about alcohol in a budget as a public health message was a paradigm shift and it was a welcome one.

but i think we need to link it to inflation as the absolute minimum we should be doing as there is so much more that needs to be done from a much more holistic point of view and they are just not doing it. some suggested answers could lie in scotland were in contrast alcohol specific deaths appear to have fallen in 2022 and the minimum price per unit of alcohol was introduced the in 2018. alcohol tax reforms are planned in england but historic low tax drinks like cider remain at a lower rate to drinks of an equivalent strength. it is notjust cider, although that is a particular issue. you can buy your white ciders, which are particularly strong, particularly potent, at a very low price. that is not helpful to anyone who has got a problem. the pandemic then maybe triggered changes to drinking habits, but the consequences could be with us for some time. we're going to talk now to michelle heaton, who's a singer and presenter. she believes her unhealthy relationship with alcohol began around nine years ago.

this friday she will have been two years sober. welcome to newsnight, michelle. and congratulations on your two year anniversary. tell our audience what it has been like trying to stay dry all this time? it it has been like trying to stay dry all this time?— all this time? it was quite difficult initially, - all this time? it was quite i difficult initially, obviously. i was an alcoholic addict and coming out of an addiction takes a lot of hard work and dedication and i had to be ready to admit that i had a problem to be able to receive help. that is the biggest misconception out there, that women drink a lot, you are an alcoholic, why don't you just stop drinking? it was not that easy and it is not that simple. hoop easy and it is not that simple. how did look can _ easy and it is not that simple. how did look can affect _ easy and it is not that simple. how did look can affect your relationship with alcohol? mi; relationship with alcohol? ij�*i relationship with alcohol? ij�*ii: relationship with alcohol? ij�*ii: relationship with alcohol? mi relationship with alcohol greatly increased when i went through the menopause, when i had my two hysterectomies. ifelt

menopause, when i had my two hysterectomies. i felt that i was different to my peers around me, i felt like i didn't belong, i didn't have anything to talk about, and i kind of want to alcohol as a form of comfort and that became something of a habit and then i got addicted to alcohol. it didn'tjust happen overnight. it wasn't like one day i woke up and i was addicted to alcohol, it was a slow process. then i was like that gentleman in the film, i was dependent on alcohol and i needed to drink it to survive. i just had to have it. did lockdown make it worse? it just had to have it. did lockdown make it worse? it definitely made it more accessible _ make it worse? it definitely made it more accessible and _ make it worse? it definitely made it more accessible and i _ make it worse? it definitely made it more accessible and i suppose - more accessible and i suppose everybody was doing it will stop you know, the statistics don't surprise me, unfortunately. a lot of my friends, peers around me, were drinking more because we were in a kind of unknown and it was comforting and it was something we could do outside. now people are seeing that they have still got that habit going forward and it is hard to break that addiction. i

habit going forward and it is hard to break that addiction.— habit going forward and it is hard to break that addiction. i mean, in terms of the _ to break that addiction. i mean, in terms of the alcohol— to break that addiction. i mean, in terms of the alcohol related - to break that addiction. i mean, in| terms of the alcohol related deaths which continued last year when we were out of restrictions, is it naive for many of us, me included, to think people will suddenly stop drinking because we are out of lockdown?— drinking because we are out of lockdown? . , ., ., , , drinking because we are out of lockdown? i , i, i, , , lockdown? once you have built up the habit and you — lockdown? once you have built up the habit and you have _ lockdown? once you have built up the habit and you have got _ lockdown? once you have built up the habit and you have got that, - lockdown? once you have built up the habit and you have got that, it - lockdown? once you have built up the habit and you have got that, it is - habit and you have got that, it is hard to break it. and when you form such a habit and you drink every day and five o'clock came and six o'clock came and i maybe earlier, to get out of it all of a sudden it is not that easy. for those who have a problem with alcohol and can't stop thatis problem with alcohol and can't stop that is where we are seeing these alcohol—related deaths unfortunately. alcohol-related deaths unfortunately.- alcohol-related deaths unfortunately. alcohol-related deaths unfortunatel . i i, , i, , i, i, unfortunately. about two years ago ou unfortunately. about two years ago you accepted _ unfortunately. about two years ago you accepted that _ unfortunately. about two years ago you accepted that you _ unfortunately. about two years ago you accepted that you had - unfortunately. about two years ago you accepted that you had an - unfortunately. about two years ago you accepted that you had an issue| you accepted that you had an issue and you said earlier it is important for the individual to realise and acknowledge that, but to make that decision that you want to get sober, thatis decision that you want to get sober, that is hard, isn't it?— that is hard, isn't it? because you are addicted- _

that is hard, isn't it? because you are addicted. yes, _ that is hard, isn't it? because you are addicted. yes, absolutely. - that is hard, isn't it? because you are addicted. yes, absolutely. my loved ones around me, my friends, hugh my husband, they would tell me i had problems, they would tell me i was an alcoholic and i couldn't accept that because i always thought i had control over it, when in fact it had control over me. the substance completely control my life and i had to have it to live. again like the gentleman said, i was waking up and ijust needed alcohol and without it i felt like i couldn't function and towards the end i couldn't function without it. the doctors told me i was going to die and i really wanted to stop. i was hurting my family, but ijust couldn't. not knowing the reason why kind of helped me and stopped me from getting help. i think if there was more information around and we were educated more, then maybe more people would say, that has happened to me as well. i people would say, that has happened to me as well-— to me as well. i want to end on that because they _ to me as well. i want to end on that because they may — to me as well. i want to end on that because they may be _ to me as well. i want to end on that because they may be people - to me as well. i want to end on that l because they may be people watching who perhaps do have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, but they

function. they get up in the morning, get the kids dress, go to school, go to work, whatever. what would your advice be to them? i was one of them. — would your advice be to them? i was one of them. i— would your advice be to them? i was one of them, i still— would your advice be to them? i was one of them, i still functioned - would your advice be to them? i —" one of them, i still functioned and i got the kids to school, but inside i got the kids to school, but inside i was dying. but if you feel like you have got a problem or anyone has got a problem, check out the aa website and there is useful information there and give them a call. i, ,, , i, information there and give them a call. i: ,, , i, , information there and give them a call. i, ,, , i, , i information there and give them a call. imi , i ~i call. thank you very much, michelle heaton. thank you very much, michelle heaton. and if you've been affected by anything you've just seen and heard, please do get in touch with the bbc helpline. there are loads of organisations who can help, and as michelle said, aa is very helpful. nearly 20 years ago, a former prime minister's spin doctorfamously said, "i'm sorry, we don't do god", which led some to conclude that governments don't understand faith. in 2019, the conservative government announced the appointment of an independent faith engagement adviser to ask questions like how governments can promote freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law alongside the parallel freedom of religion,

and how best to break down barriers and promote acceptance between faith groups, including those of no faith or belief. the report was published today and we'll speak to its author colin bloom in a moment. first, here's sima. does government do god? that's the name of the 159—page report that's taken four years to compile after speaking to more than 20,000 people. its author is the government's faith advisor, colin bloom. it was commissioned by borisjohnson when he was in number 10, and it looks at the relationship between religion and the state. how best should ministers engage with various faiths? do they know enough about religion? here are my five takeaways. 0ne — the review says the main principles of various religions are often poorly understood in government and in public services such as the police and the nhs.

it recommends a consistent set of definitions, and what it calls generalised faith literacy training for all those on the public payroll. it says that this would improve communication, policy—making and human rights, and would work towards eliminating conscious or unconscious bias. two — it says the media and the government have focused on the threat from islamist extremism. colin bloom believes the government must redouble its efforts to ensure mainstream and peaceful muslims do not feel unfairly associated with islamist extremists. the important distinction between islam and islamism must form part of the faith literacy training for all staff on the public payroll, he says. three — in recent years, there's been a welcome crackdown on white supremacists and neo—nazis, and a robust response to a rise in anti—semitism, says the report. however, in the opinion

of the reviewer, this laser focus has allowed other types of faith placed or faith adjacent extremisms, such as sikh extremism, hindu nationalism and black nationalism, to grow under the noses of the authorities. it calls for more effort to be put into looking at these behaviours, and for greater government vigilance and the need for decisive and courageous action where these groups are politically subversive or where they use tactics to silence or threaten their opponents. four — there are concerns raised about the quality of teaching and the safeguarding of children and some faith—based schools. some who gave evidence called for more oversight and inspection to prevent hate speech, indoctrination and inappropriate discipline. they can includejewish yeshivas, islamic madrassahs, hindu settings, sikh settings, and christian sunday schools. the report says the government has

lacked the courage to regulate them. it's now advising more regulation and inspection. five — he ends the report by arguing that unless ministers really tackle forced and coercive marriages in various faith groups, their work on combating violence towards girls and women will be seen by many as meaningless. colin bloom says if only one thing is achieved from this report, confronting the pernicious and unlawful practice of forced and coercive marriage once and for all should be the goal. engagement adviser. thank you very much for being with us. underthe thank you very much for being with us. under the faith —based extremism in your report, you talk about seek extremism and hindu nationalism and there are a couple of paragraphs on that. some critics have told us they

think that is unfair, particularly in light of the disorder we saw in leicester. ~ i: in light of the disorder we saw in leicester. ~ i, , i, i, in light of the disorder we saw in leicester. ~ i, i, i, leicester. what you to that? the re ort, leicester. what you to that? the report. as _ leicester. what you to that? the report. as you — leicester. what you to that? the report, as you said, _ leicester. what you to that? the report, as you said, and - leicester. what you to that? the report, as you said, and the - leicester. what you to that? the | report, as you said, and the video there, it was fantastic, it summed up there, it was fantastic, it summed up 65 words injust there, it was fantastic, it summed up 65 words in just a few minutes and i thought it was expertly done. at the port goes into great detail to explain why the order of faith —based extremism is, number one islamist, extremism and terrorism and number two is not and neo—nazis and number two is not and neo—nazis and the third group is the rise of sikh extremism and pro—pakistan extremism. and behind that by some distance is hindu nationalism and the rise of hindu nationalism and others. it the rise of hindu nationalism and others. , , i, i, , i, the rise of hindu nationalism and others. , i, it the rise of hindu nationalism and others-— it is i others. it is your opinion. it is based on _ others. it is your opinion. it is based on 21,000 _ others. it is your opinion. it is based on 21,000 responses . others. it is your opinion. it is i based on 21,000 responses that

others. it is your opinion. it is - based on 21,000 responses that we had from a call for evidence. 0ne based on 21,000 responses that we had from a call for evidence. one of the biggest call for evidence that the biggest call for evidence that the government has had. you would ush back the government has had. you would push back on _ the government has had. you would push back on the _ the government has had. you would push back on the criticism? - the government has had. you would push back on the criticism? i - push back on the criticism? i understand where it is coming from. ten years ago we probably were not talking about hindu nationalism, it wasn't a thing. the fact we are talking about it means it is there, it is growing, it is an issue and the government needs to keep their eye on it. but in terms of pure quantity of evidence, the amount of extremist activity that is happening, it is not as big as perhaps some people are saying. what perhaps some people are saying. what should government be doing to engage with faith —based groups? {line should government be doing to engage with faith —based groups? fine at should government be doing to engage with faith -based groups?— with faith -based groups? one of the thins i sa with faith -based groups? one of the things i say in — with faith -based groups? one of the things i say in the _ with faith -based groups? one of the things i say in the report _ with faith -based groups? one of the things i say in the report is _ with faith -based groups? one of the things i say in the report is there - things i say in the report is there just needs to be much more discernment, they have to be much more courageous, a lot more bolder. it could, for example during lockdown when we needed to speak to places of worship and faith leaders in a really dynamic way in a fast—moving environment of covid, we

set up round tables which were very grand, we had a sikh round table, jewish roundtable and a christian roundtable and others and it was there where we make sure we were speaking to the right people. we were perhaps not doing what some business as usual would do, which would be a self appointed community leader who says i represent this group, i represent that group. we determine to be really granular and i think discerning in who we spoke to. we make sure we spoke to women in the faith leadership, as well as young people. that is the kind of approach that the government needs to take. he needs to be courageous. that is not courageous, is it? it feels common—sense. it is that is not courageous, is it? it feels common-sense. it is courageous if ou feels common-sense. it is courageous if you are saying _ feels common-sense. it is courageous if you are saying we're _ feels common-sense. it is courageous if you are saying we're not _ feels common-sense. it is courageous if you are saying we're not going - feels common-sense. it is courageous if you are saying we're not going to - if you are saying we're not going to speak to some groups or individuals. i think the responsibility is in government to make sure it does not engage in people who are involved in radicalisation, not involved in

extremism. and notjust to accept that because one person put themselves forward as a community leader that they necessarily r. and you really highlighted forced marriage. you called it forced and coercive marriage. and there is still a big setting at the forced marriage unit. what does the government need to do to make sure that that commitment that it says it has is not meaningless. there are 22 recommendations. they are around forced and coercive marriage, the most important to me. i don't criticise the civil servants who currently work in the unit. every successive governments as long as you and i have been involved in government, of every political persuasion, has dubbed this issue.

charles clarke wrote a book when he was home secretary called captain of the too difficult box, and i think forced marriage has been in that box forced marriage has been in that box for too long. the gunmen set up the forced marriage unit? but it sits between the home office and foreign office and doesn't have and foreign office and doesn't have a single secretary of state looking after it is not a single minister. and that will be key. and that will be key. and it is divided, yes. i have a lot of other questions, but we are out of time. thank you very much for coming in. tomorrow, investors will gather for the annual general meeting of the uk—headquartered fossilfuel giant bp. the company has been reporting record profits on the back of last year's energy crisis. but its board will face a challenge tomorrow from a group of shareholder activists who think bp is backsliding on its decarbonisation goals. they've put forward a resolution which will be voted on by all the other shareholders, which could compel bp to bring forward a new strategy to get out of fossil fuels and into renewable energy.

and the campaigners seem to have won support from some big pension funds, though by no means all of them. so is this kind of shareholder activism within fossil fuel firms something that could help them reach net zero? or is it, as others argue, a potentially dangerous distraction? here's ben. could tomorrow be a significant day in the struggle to get fossil fuel companies to align their activities with net zero? the uk's biggest pension fund, the national employment savings trust, or "nest", plans to back a resolution put forward by climate campaigners at the annual general meeting of shareholders of the london—headquartered energy giant bp. the resolution would require bp's managers to align their emissions reduction plans with the paris climate agreement, which, let's remind ourselves, aims to limit planetary warming this century to no more than 1.5 degrees celsius. bp's board has urged shareholders to vote against the resolution, calling it "unclear" and "simplistic". but the resolution has also won support from other big pension schemes, so it's possible it will be passed.

first, some context. there's a strong sense among campaigners, activists and scientists that large publicly listed fossil fuel companies, including bp, are backsliding on previous commitments to decarbonise. bp had outlined a strategy for a 40% cut in its oil and gas output by 2030 from 2019 levels. but in february, it reduced that target to a 25% cut. though the company insists it still aims to be net zero across its operations, production and sales by 2050 or sooner. bp has no plans for large—scale emissions reductions by 2030, and we need large scale emissions reductions by 2030 to have any chance to stay below 1.5 degrees, as agreed in the paris climate agreement. the argument of campaigners is that pressure on fossil fuel companies from their shareholders can force them back onto what they see as a credible net zero track. but is this realistic? can fossil fuel companies really change their business models,

especially when there are big short—term profits to be made from oil and gas? or is it better, as some other campaigners like extinction rebellion argue, to pressure shareholders to simply sell their shares in fossil fuel companies, something known as divestment? some critics say a problem with divestment and shareholder activism in general is that state—owned fossil fuel companies like the national iranian oil company or the china national petroleum corporation would simply fill any globalfossilfuel production gap created. it's worth noting that listed multinational oil companies in which ordinary people might find their pensions invested — the likes of shell, total, exxon and bp — only produce a quarter of the world's oil supply. 0thers argue shareholder pressure on fossilfuel companies is an unhelpful diversion and that it's better to pressure governments to curb emissions through regulation and taxation as well as subsidy for new clean technologies. in other words, focus on cutting demand for fossil fuels rather than the supply.

yet activists in favour of shareholder pressure within a company can point to the example of the danish firm 0rsted, which, since 2010, has successfully transformed itself from a fossil fuels company to a renewables giant. it's worth comparing the share price of 0rsted with bp since 2016. 0rsted is up 134%. bp, the yellow line, even after last year's jump during the energy crisis, is only 42% higher. it's a similar picture for most fossil fuel companies. their share prices over the longer term have stagnated relative to renewable companies. shareholder activists also point to the danger of so—called stranded assets — fossil fuel reserves that can't be extracted by these firms, either because the demand will not be there in the decades ahead or mining them will be prohibited. from this point of view, shareholders are protecting their investment by pressuring managers to re—orientate their businesses away from fossil fuels and towards renewables.

so where does that leave us? well, most experts agree that getting to net zero will not simply be a question of pulling one lever, whether government action, technological innovation or shareholder activism, but rather many levers. will tomorrow's bp vote prove to be a successful one? that remains to be seen. let's talk to courteney keatinge, senior director for environmental and social governance at glass lewis. they are investment advisers who have advised investers not to support the follow this resolution. thank you very much for talking to us. why are you advising your clients not to back this resolution? absolutely. when we are looking at proposals like this, we really are trying to understand if adoption of the proposal would help shareholders. we are looking at this through the lens of shareholder value, and in ourview, through the lens of shareholder value, and in our view, the proposal wasjust a bit value, and in our view, the proposal was just a bit too prescriptive, value, and in our view, the proposal wasjust a bit too prescriptive, and in our view, the board and

management should be handling things like operational strategies, which i really required in orderfor like operational strategies, which i really required in order for the company to try and set goals and meet those goals. although bp didst invite shareholders to vote on its original climate targets last year, but did not put these new curtailed ones of the consultation this year, so they have shot themselves in the foot in a way? absolutely. i think that was really the largest concern about this newest agm. it really is a governance concern when you are putting these up for a vote, shareholders are approving them, then you are not kind of going on board with them. i will say that most companies who have adopted this mechanism, what people call a sale climate, have said that they will put their plan