the bow is still instantly recognisable, more than 100 years after it sank. 800 metres away, the stern, though, is a chaotic mess of metal. it collapsed as it corkscrewed into the sea floor. the titanic�*s been extensively explored, but there are still fundamental questions. we really don't understand the character of the collision with the iceberg. we don't even know if she hit it along the starboard side, as shown in all the movies. she might have grounded on the iceberg. and this photogrammetry model is one of the first major steps to driving the titanic story toward evidence—based research and not speculation. the sea is eating away at the wreck and time is running out to find out what happened on that night in 1912 when more than 1,000 lives were lost. but the scan now freezes the wreck in time. the hope is titanic may yet

give up its secrets. rebecca morelle, bbc news. the time is 10:30pm and darren is here with the weather. hello, i want to touch on the flooding in italy first of all. this is just another example of severe weather becoming more severe and happening more often. it wasn't too long ago that this part of italy was in drought, but there has been six months of rain in the last couple of weeks which has certainly changed all that.

this programme contains repetitive flashing images there's more analysis of the days main stories on newsnight with victoria which is just getting under way the site of the former redcar steelworks is at the centre of a furious row between the conservative mayor of tees valley and labour. truly shocking. industrial scale corruption on teesside. a huge site acquired by the public body south tees developments limited for £12 million, in 2019.

what's going on then? we'll talk live to the conservative mayor who's facing labour claims of cronyism, corruption and backroom deals, and we'll ask labour's levelling up secretary if those allegations stack up. just after these images were taken in new york, prince harry, meghan and her mother were, the couple say, involved in a near catastrophic car chase involving the paparazzi. we'll ask harry's biographer what he knows. how much did the requirement for voters to show photo ids change the local election results? we'll ask the chief executive of the electoral commission at the time the new rule was formed. and as myanmar begins the clean up after that cyclone, we learn that the world is likely to breach 1.5 degrees of warming in the next five years. what can be done to limit the havoc caused by extreme weather events? good evening.

first tonight a story about money, land and politics — and this question — how have private developers ended up with a 90% stake in the country's largest brownfield site, on teesside, without any kind of tendering process? first some background: after the redcar steel plant closed in 2015, a public/private company was created to manage the regeneration of the huge site — led by the conservative mayor for tees valley ben houchen. so far, so uncontroversial. the regeneration of the land is seen as central to teesside�*s future — attracting multi pound investment in an area now designated as a freeport, a scheme championed by rishi sunak, which seeks to create tax—free zones for shipping. but, afer detailed reporting from richard brooks at private eye and this week, jen williams at the financial times, labour have called for a full investigation by the national audit office. according to them at the heart of this are allegations

of secrecy, cronyism and at its worst — corruption. the conservatives reject all that and say labour's guilty of smears and mudslinging, resentful they say, that it's the tories who are rejunevating an area once solidly labour. we'll talk live to the conservative mayor ben houchen in a moment — he too says he wants a full national audit office inquiry, and also to the shadow levelling up secretary lisa nandy. nick's live in teesside tonight too and has new details on the row for us in a moment — first, here's his report from redcar. a forlorn halt from a mighty industrial past. 0nce a forlorn halt from a mighty industrial past. once a symbol of hope. then a symbol of decline, when the redcar steelworks closed in 2015. dealing a blow to the smoky behemoth of teesside. hope reborn,

an energetic mayor, with a plan to redevelop europe's largest brownfield site, a prime example of levelling up, public and private money to create a centre of renewable energy. but now, questions for ben houchen. 0ff renewable energy. but now, questions for ben houchen. off the back of an ft investigation, labour is demanding an inquiry, which the mayor is supporting full stop it asking why a 90% stake in the company operating the site, funded to the tune of millions by taxpayers, was transferred to two local developers, chris musgrave and martin corney, without any public tender, by the south tees developments corporation, chaired by the mayor. that company, teesworks limited, says the decision to place the site in a much wider teesside

freeport with time—limited tax breaks meant that contaminated land had to be cleared up more quickly. in exchange for taking on those costs, the shareholding of the two developers increased from 50% to 90%. developer chris musgrave told newsnight he welcomes the mayor's support for a full investigation. he said, we are delivering something special that will deliver jobs. we have absolutely nothing to hide. this is the heart of this political row. 140 years of steel production ended here, and ben houchen, the tory poster boy of the redwall, has staked his reputation on rejuvenating this historic industrial heartland. you've got questions to answer, say labour. you don't like those in your former back yard, say the conservatives. for a

local mp, a simple explanation of the whole affair.— local mp, a simple explanation of the whole affair. yesterday, private e e the whole affair. yesterday, private eye revealed _ the whole affair. yesterday, private eye revealed truly _ the whole affair. yesterday, private eye revealed truly shocking, - eye revealed truly shocking, industrial scale corruption on teesside. a huge site acquired by the public body south tea is is limited. i think the government back a look at ben houchen and think, he is our presence in the north and we will support him no matter what, we will support him no matter what, we will heap praise on him, as well as unlimited resources, just about. and, without thinking it through about how that will play out. they've abdicated their responsibilities, in addition, and said, overto responsibilities, in addition, and said, over to you, responsibilities, in addition, and said, overto you, get responsibilities, in addition, and said, over to you, get on with it, and we will praise you to the skies, whether it is deserved or otherwise. it's the most unintelligent way to go about a devolution process, and they need to grow up and do the job properly. we they need to grow up and do the “ob ro erl . ~ . they need to grow up and do the “ob --roerl .~ . , they need to grow up and do the “ob --roerl . ~ ., , ., they need to grow up and do the “ob --roerl .~ ., , .,, ., properly. we have seen a shameful attem -t to properly. we have seen a shameful attempt to smear _ properly. we have seen a shameful attempt to smear the _ properly. we have seen a shameful attempt to smear the amazing - properly. we have seen a shameful| attempt to smear the amazing tees works_ attempt to smear the amazing tees works project. white a former conservative cabinet minister who criticised labour in the commons

today— criticised labour in the commons today says — criticised labour in the commons today says the redevelopment represents a huge opportunity. it is bi aer than represents a huge opportunity. it 3 bigger than gibraltar. it represents a huge opportunity. it 1 bigger than gibraltar. it is the largest brownfield regeneration project anywhere in the country. and it is absolutely central to teesside for the future. we have lost thousands ofjobs over the last 40 years in steel, chemicals, engineering and shipbuilding. all of those anchor industries that used to support the north—east economy and were so important to the wider uk. we've now got a once chance to reset, based around the clean energy sector. hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, onshore and offshore wind, and it's imperative that we seize that. but this is something that is usually contaminated, it had a long industrial history, the mediation costs are in hundreds of millions. a local commentator believes a ben houchen and his project are the tories' last hope on teesside. in tories' last hope on teesside. i1 2019, there was a tory soon army

sweeping down the tees valley. —— soon army matter. soon army it sweeping down the tees valley. —— soon army it was the three bs, boris, ben and brexit. there is only ben left. he now has to prove that this new, pragmatic interventionist form of conservatism really does work. and labour therefore have to prove that he is not some great vote winning totem. prove that he is not some great vote winning totem-— winning totem. daily routines in the shadow of history. _ winning totem. daily routines in the shadow of history. new _ winning totem. daily routines in the shadow of history. new beginnings, but old conflicts rumble on. and breaking news tonight? yes. but old conflicts rumble on. and breaking news tonight? yes, this afternoon. _ breaking news tonight? yes, this afternoon, dehenna _ breaking news tonight? yes, this afternoon, dehenna davison, - breaking news tonight? yes, thisj afternoon, dehenna davison, the levelling up minister, she wrote a letter to andy mcdonald, the labour mp you so fitted in my report. in that letter, she said that the

government has found no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality in the project. some eyebrows have been raised in labour circles, because the minister has received a donation from a local businessman who has a minority holding in teesworks limited, the company that is redeveloping this massive site. that businessman is ian waller, a director of northern land management limited. it has a 25% stake in teesworks limited, declared in december 2021. the electoral commission and the register of interests in the house of commons says that to dehenna davison received a donation from the businessman in november 2019. he's also made donations to simon clarke, the former cabinet minister you saw in my film, and ben houchen, who you will hearfrom just a in my film, and ben houchen, who you will hear from just a minute. in my film, and ben houchen, who you will hearfrom just a minute. it in my film, and ben houchen, who you will hear from just a minute. it is important to say that all of these donations were openly declared, and, crucially, these donations were made to years before those shareholdings

were declared with companies house. there is, of course, no obligation on politicians to check the shareholdings of business people, rich people who want to fund their political work. the view in government is that dehenna davison has made all the right declarations and that this letter that was sent out this afternoon was done in the usual way, which means, basically, it was drafted by civil servants. the view from labour is politicians here are far too close to local business people. lisa nandy is labour's shadow levelling up secretary. thank you for talking to us. why are you making what the mayor of tees valley says are unfounded allegations of misconduct against him, against the south tees developments corporation and against its joint—ventu re developments corporation and against its joint—venture partner teesworks limited? i its joint-venture partner teesworks limited? ., �* ., .. ., ., limited? i haven't made a allegation auainst him limited? i haven't made a allegation against him or— limited? i haven't made a allegation against him or any _ limited? i haven't made a allegation against him or any of— limited? i haven't made a allegation against him or any of those - limited? i haven't made a allegation against him or any of those bodies. l against him or any of those bodies. but the labour party is? fine

against him or any of those bodies. but the labour party is?— against him or any of those bodies. but the labour party is? one of the local mps has _ but the labour party is? one of the local mps has been _ but the labour party is? one of the local mps has been on _ but the labour party is? one of the local mps has been on the - but the labour party is? one of the local mps has been on the case - but the labour party is? one of the local mps has been on the case for| local mps has been on the case for quite some time and has made several assertions. but i and the labour party have not made allegations about this. we are responding to a report on a national newspaper that has been painstakingly researched over several months, which gives voice to local concerns about the fact that the government appears to have handed over hundreds of millions of pounds to a project that means a great deal to people on teesside, but now appears to be 90% in private hands, with no money going in from the private investors, according to the financial times, but £45 million taken out. we think thatis but £45 million taken out. we think that is worthy of scrutiny. local scrutiny arrangements appear to have broken down. this is a site through which people on teesside contributed a great deal to the uk, over many decades. it deserves to be used for their benefit, public money used

wisely, they deserve answers to their serious questions. that is why i've written the secretary of state, to highlight the fact that the national audit office appears to not have the right to investigate this unless they have permission from the secretary of state. i'm asking him to step forward and make sure. you sa no to step forward and make sure. you say no local— to step forward and make sure. you say no local scrutiny. they say that the teesworks limited board signed it off. five local authorities. according to the mayor of tees valley, three government departments.— valley, three government deartments. ., departments. the government departments _ departments. the government departments that _ departments. the government departments that signs - departments. the government departments that signs it - departments. the government departments that signs it off l departments. the government - departments that signs it off appear to have had no involvement since. it appears what they have done is hand over hundreds of millions of pounds of public money and simply walk away and pay no attention to what happened next. there are some very troubling reports that have surfaced in the media about officials not being present in the room and having to e—mail later to find out what was happening, and why deals had been done of a transfer of the project into 90% public ownership, with no

tendering process. the important thing is that there is a cross—party consensus that there has to be more transparency and scrutiny around all of the devolved deals. i was one of the people calling for that, in greater manchester, where we have a labour mayor, back in 2014. two months ago, the government might go accepted that case. michael gove has rightly introduced greater transparency requirements on greater manchester and the west midlands, which were welcomed by the conservative and labour mayors there. ., ., , ., ., there. i want to put to you what teesworks _ there. i want to put to you what teesworks limited _ there. i want to put to you what teesworks limited says. - there. i want to put to you what teesworks limited says. they l there. i want to put to you what l teesworks limited says. they say this was a site with liabilities of nearly £500 million. they say they are now attracting £2 billion worth of private investment and more than 3000 jobs. they ask why are you talking it down? i’m 3000 jobs. they ask why are you talking it down?— 3000 jobs. they ask why are you talking it down? i'm not talking it down, i talking it down? i'm not talking it down. i am _ talking it down? i'm not talking it down, i am asking _ talking it down? i'm not talking it down, i am asking what - talking it down? i'm not talking it down, i am asking what are - talking it down? i'm not talking it down, i am asking what are the l down, i am asking what are the answers to some very basic questions. what has this money been spent on? why are two private investors now 90% in control of what

is a public asset that ought to be used for public benefit? and we are asking them to open the books and invite the people of teesside in, so that they can understand what decisions are being made on their behalf, and what public money is being spent on. we would expect this for any other project in national politics. the national audit office would have a remit to investigate. the covenant has not seen fit to give it a remit to investigate the whole works, it says it can only investigate one very limited part, the money that was originally handed over. we say that is not right, it's not fair. people on teesside deserve more respect than that. that is why we have written to the secretary of state to ask him to act. ben houchen is the conservative mayor of tees valley. thank you for talking to us. why do private investors own 0% without a

public tendering system? public tendering system ? because public tendering system? because the fact of matter is when the stool works went bust the government was paying more than £20 million a year, when that steelworks closed. the liability when the company went bust landed with the taxpayer, and for two years, the taxpayer, and for two years, the taxpayer was paying more than 20 million a year, we had to go through a three year process to get control of that land, the government was spending more than £20 million a year, had we not entered into a public private partnership with tees works and created them with private partners they delivered a deal and without that that site would still be empty, it would still be costing the taxpayer more than 20 million a year, there would be no free port, no jobs and no year, there would be no free port, nojobs and no investment. is you no jobs and no investment. is you transferred _ no jobs and no investment. is you transferred first _ nojobs and no investment. is you transferred first 50% stake to the developers and then you transferred another 40% the developers in 2021 so they control 90%, why did you give them that extra 40% and why did you do it secretly?—

give them that extra 4096 and why did you do it secretly?— you do it secretly? well, let us be clear again. _ you do it secretly? well, let us be clear again. we — you do it secretly? well, let us be clear again, we didn't _ you do it secretly? well, let us be clear again, we didn't transfer - you do it secretly? well, let us be| clear again, we didn't transfer 5096 clear again, we didn't transfer 50% to them, when we took control of the site was a 50—50 public private partnership, we have never owned the site 100%, it has been shared, because they unlocked the deal to make sure that we could get back control of the site and reduce to coast to the taxpayer. lastly; control of the site and reduce to coast to the taxpayer.— control of the site and reduce to coast to the taxpayer. why did you rive them coast to the taxpayer. why did you give them another _ coast to the taxpayer. why did you give them another 4096 _ coast to the taxpayer. why did you give them another 4096 then - coast to the taxpayer. why did you give them another 4096 then in - coast to the taxpayer. why did you i give them another 4096 then in 2021, give them another 40% then in 2021, and do it without telling anybody? well, we told lots of people, we told the government, who had to review the arrangement to make sure we were still compliant with things like subsidy control, we had to get more legal advice, we took it back to the various boards. fin more legal advice, we took it back to the various boards.— more legal advice, we took it back to the various boards. on that point about the government _ to the various boards. on that point about the government if _ to the various boards. on that point about the government if i _ to the various boards. on that point about the government if i may, - to the various boards. on that point about the government if i may, on | about the government if i may, on the point about the government, according to the financial time, the treasury appears to have no prior knowledge of the latter 40% share transfer, responding in freedom of information request to say it held no record or correspondence on it. according to emails received from the department of business which has responsibility for the project

within government, one official only became aware of the deal via the media injanuary became aware of the deal via the media in january 2022. became aware of the deal via the media in january 2022.— became aware of the deal via the media in january 2022. well, ok, i want to come _ media in january 2022. well, ok, i want to come back do your- media in january 2022. well, ok, i l want to come back do your question on the 90% because your listeners and watchers would want to know the answer, on that point that is not true, we have a government initial that sits on the south tees development corporation board. we record on a quartty lays by, which have to report on a quarterly basis to the department of business and directly to the treasury, they have to sign off that money, because if you think about this, right, the government are funding this site, there are huge costs to this site and even with public intervention this site is worth minus nearly more than 200, £300 million. hang on, this is an important point, this is a really important point, i need to answer it. when you are talking about well, the government didn't know about it, the government funded it, so for the government to continue to be able to fund a site when this share transfer has happened they need to satisfy themselves that i can continue to fund it and make sure it is legally compliant, the government sit on the

board, the government review it. it is fundamentally untrue to say the government and various local stakeholders signed off the 90—10 deal. it is untrue when they say otherwise. deal. it is untrue when they say otherwise-— deal. it is untrue when they say otherwise. ._ ., , ., otherwise. there may have been a civil servant _ otherwise. there may have been a civil servant based _ otherwise. there may have been a civil servant based in _ otherwise. there may have been a civil servant based in the - otherwise. there may have been a civil servant based in the north . civil servant based in the north east, but... civil servant based in the north east, but. - -_ civil servant based in the north east, but... that is not true, the government _ east, but... that is not true, the government have _ east, but... that is not true, the government have a, _ east, but... that is not true, the government have a, an - east, but... that is not true, the government have a, an official, l east, but... that is not true, the i government have a, an official, but we have to be clear with the fact, the government have an allocated fish who is on the board, he attends every meeting, he provides input and he feeds back to government from every meeting, it is not true to say the government does not have a presence on that board. £250 million of taxa er presence on that board. £250 million of taxoaver money — presence on that board. £250 million of taxpayer money has _ presence on that board. £250 million of taxpayer money has been - presence on that board. £250 million j of taxpayer money has been invested in this site. how much have the private developers spent so far? well, the 250 million £ again, is a misnomer, as nick said in the run up to my interview, the site is valued is at having liabilities of over 480

million, to be clear that means somebody needs to pay £480 million on that site, for it to be worth £1. we got about 240 million. hagar on that site, for it to be worth £1. we got about 240 million. how much have they spent _ we got about 240 million. how much have they spent so _ we got about 240 million. how much have they spent so far? _ we got about 240 million. how much have they spent so far? the - we got about 240 million. how much have they spent so far? the cob - we got about 240 million. how much have they spent so far? the cob text | have they spent so far? the cob text is important, — have they spent so far? the cob text is important, and _ have they spent so far? the cob text is important, and again _ have they spent so far? the cob text is important, and again people - have they spent so far? the cob text is important, and again people need| is important, and again people need to see what is a complex picture, need, so £240 million spent by us means that site is worth a significant minusle have a, in the same way if i tried to sell you a house and said you can have my four bedroom house but the roof has fallen in, it has been set fire and the walls are falling down, i will sell it to you for a pound but you have to spend a million before you can live in it. so we spent 2 million but we had to go and get that from the private sector, our private partners are committing all of the money to remediate the site, to deliver investment and they are taking on that liability. so to deliver investment and they are taking on that liability.— taking on that liability. so my ruestion taking on that liability. so my question again, _ taking on that liability. so my question again, if _ taking on that liability. so my question again, if i _ taking on that liability. so my question again, if i may - question again, if i may for the third time, how much have they spent so far? , ., , , ., ,

so far? they have spent millions. how much? _ so far? they have spent millions. how much? they _ so far? they have spent millions. how much? they are _ so far? they have spent millions. how much? they are liable - so far? they have spent millions. how much? they are liable for. so far? they have spent millions. | how much? they are liable for the 107 million, _ how much? they are liable for the 107 million, well _ how much? they are liable for the 107 million, well i _ how much? they are liable for the 107 million, well i am _ how much? they are liable for the 107 million, well i am going - how much? they are liable for the i 107 million, well i am going through the number, so 107 million for the redevelopment of the new qe that is being built, we are not paying, they are paying it all. thea;r being built, we are not paying, they are paying it all-— are paying it all. they haven't sent are paying it all. they haven't spent that — are paying it all. they haven't spent that yet. _ are paying it all. they haven't spent that yet. wfrnts - are paying it all. they haven't spent that yet. wfrnts have . are paying it all. they haven't - spent that yet. wfrnts have spined spent that yet. wfrnts have spined bp and, well they are pay for it because it's a lone, so they have funding from finance and they are repaying that. so it is a lone and they are liable but they have spent to money, yes, correct? ida. they are liable but they have spent to money, yes, correct?— to money, yes, correct? no, they have spent— to money, yes, correct? no, they have spent money _ to money, yes, correct? no, they have spent money as _ to money, yes, correct? no, they have spent money as well - to money, yes, correct? no, they have spent money as well and - to money, yes, correct? no, they have spent money as well and we j to money, yes, correct? no, they- have spent money as well and we have said we have signed bp as well who are building a gas—fired power plant, a 1.5 billion investment. they are spending 20—50 million, it is difficult to understand how much because of the liability of what is in ground, they are liable for that they have to remediate it. they will have to pay for it. you they have to remediate it. they will have to pay for it.— have to pay for it. you are talking, ou are have to pay for it. you are talking, you are talking _ have to pay for it. you are talking, you are talking in _ have to pay for it. you are talking, you are talking in the _ have to pay for it. you are talking, you are talking in the future - have to pay for it. you are talking, | you are talking in the future tense, you are talking in the future tense, you are talking in the future tense, you are saying they are liable, they will be liable, they are going to spend. so, thus far, they haven't

invested anything, correct? well, auain, if invested anything, correct? well, again, if you. _ invested anything, correct? well, again, if you, it's _ invested anything, correct? well, again, if you, it's a _ invested anything, correct? well, again, if you, it's a simplistic- again, if you, it's a simplistic view to take because if you look at the bp investment, that has taken three years to get over the line, it will take another year to remediate. that only started last week, we have signed a korean factory who are building a facility, they have signed another deal that we will announce shortly, these are projects of international scale, this isn't like building a small shed on a industrial park, you have got years of environmental responsibility, years of permitting to go through, so they are committed to it. the clear thing is the taxpayer is not on the hook for what was according to the labour mps at the time and unions when the steelworks closed a billion pounds worth of taxpayer money, we got 240 million and the government said that is saul you are getting you have to raise the foreign secretary the private sector. they are delivering job, investment and it's a fantastic thing for the region. can investment and it's a fantastic thing for the region.— investment and it's a fantastic thing for the region. can you see how this might _ thing for the region. can you see how this might look _ thing for the region. can you see how this might look to _ thing for the region. can you see how this might look to some - how this might look to some taxpayers, a few major property

developers, get some of whom have donated to you, and other conservative mps in the region, are getting access to a massive development, that is already made them million, they have at least 45 million from the sale of scrap metal on the site, and for some people thatjust on the site, and for some people that just doesn't on the site, and for some people thatjust doesn't and they haven't spent a penny yet, it doesn't pass the smell test to some people. weill. the smell test to some people. well, what i the smell test to some people. well, what i would — the smell test to some people. well, what i would say _ the smell test to some people. well, what i would say is _ the smell test to some people. well, what i would say is you _ the smell test to some people. well, what i would say is you played - the smell test to some people. .11 what i would say is you played a clip from andy mcdonald, he is complaining about i, he had an interview, it is interesting he didn't repeat the accusations he made in parliament. we have asked him to repeat those. you are iuanorin him to repeat those. you are ignoring my _ him to repeat those. you are ignoring my point. _ him to repeat those. you are ignoring my point. his- him to repeat those. you are ignoring my point. his own i him to repeat those. you are - ignoring my point. his own shadow minister i ignoring my point. his own shadow minister i am _ ignoring my point. his own shadow minister i am not, _ ignoring my point. his own shadow ministeri am not, you _ ignoring my point. his own shadow ministeri am not, you are - ignoring my point. his own shadow minister i am not, you are saying l ignoring my point. his own shadow| ministeri am not, you are saying it minister i am not, you are saying it doesn't pass the sniff test so lisa nandy said we are no make, accusation, they won't back their mp who is abusing parliamentary privilege, he won't make them outside of owe —— jute side of parliament if he does he knows he will be be sued for deaf nation

macing, he knows he has abused parliamentary privilege, that doesn't pass the sniff test, going back to what simon said, labour did nothing for this region for over half a century, we have rocked up in the last three years and did more they did in 50 year, they are embarrassed by it. there is no evidence of corruption, there is no evidence of corruption, there is no evidence of corruption, there is no evidence of criminality, they can make accusation in the houses of parliament all they look, there is no example. that is why i am supportive of anybody investing in us. i am happy and supportive, bring it oner, the reason why, we know we have done nothing wrong, we know a inquiry will find that, let us get on with it, we know we are going to get to the end, and hopefully we can move on and the labour politicians with have serious questions to answer because andy mcdonald has talked about corruption but not given an example of it, you know why? there isn't one.— given an example of it, you know why? there isn't one. thank you for talkin: to why? there isn't one. thank you for talking to us- _ why? there isn't one. thank you for talking to us. ben _ why? there isn't one. thank you for talking to us. ben houchen, - why? there isn't one. thank you for talking to us. ben houchen, the - talking to us. ben houchen, the

conservative mayor for tees valley. now a warning, because there is flash photography coming up. "a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi" was how the duke and duchess of sussex described their treatment by the press, following a charity event last night in new york. prince harry and meghan left the ms foundation for women event in manhatten with meghan's mother dorian ragland, after which they say they were chased in a "relentless pursuit" for more than two hours by six blacked out vehicles. the incident has raised questions over the level of security around the couple, and of the conduct of the paparazzi, more than a quarter of a century after the death of princess diana. prince harry's statement has opened the latest front in his own growing dispute with the media. he's spoken before of his anger at the paparazzi — memorably describing those who pursued his mother as "a pack of dogs", and is due to appear next month in a prominent phone hacking case against the daily mirror. full details of exactly what happened last night in new york remain unclear — but where does the latest

row leave the prince? we'll speak to the couple's biographer in a moment. first here's how the new york mayor eric adams responded to the incident today. i don't think there's many of us who don't recall how his mom died. and it would be horrific to lose an innocent bystander during a chase like this. and something to have happened to them as well. so i think we have to be extremely responsible. i thought that was a bit reckless and irresponsible. i would find it hard to believe that there was a two—hour, high—speed chase. that would be... i'd find it hard to believe. but we will find out the exact duration of it. but if it's a ten minute chase, that is extremely dangerous in new york city. 0mid scobie, prince harry and meghan's biographerjoins us now to discuss last night's events in new york city. so their spokesman says there was a catastrophic car case with a

relentst two hour car chase resulting in near collisions involving other drives on the road and you have heard what the new york mayor said, what have you been told about what happened? i mayor said, what have you been told about what happened?— about what happened? i think it is im ortant about what happened? i think it is important to _ about what happened? i think it is important to remember _ about what happened? i think it is important to remember that - about what happened? i think it is important to remember that the l important to remember that the statements that we get from the mayor, from the nypd, these are very much about the facts, what we heard from harry and meghan's team was an emotional statement. this was awe couple i understand still this morning were shaken up, and just as scared from last night's incident and it was just after it happened. they are relieved that nothing bad came of it but i think it highlights the intense amount of scrutiny and people watching them. in a time like this. ., ., , ., ., , ., this. from what you have been told, how fast was — this. from what you have been told, how fast was their _ this. from what you have been told, how fast was their car _ this. from what you have been told, how fast was their car going? - this. from what you have been told, how fast was their car going? yeah, | how fast was their car going? yeah, i think it how fast was their car going? yeah, i think it is — how fast was their car going? yeah, i think it is important _ how fast was their car going? yeah, i think it is important to _ how fast was their car going? yeah, i think it is important to break - i think it is important to break down what that two hour chase was, because i think when you read the statement you assume it was some

sort of fast and furious situation in the middle of new york city which we know crawls at snail�*s pace, and what i understand from speaking with their team and from sources, this was a pursuit that went on for a two hours, sort of a game of cat—and—mouse with the paparazzi who were desperate to get a shot, find out where they were staying, desperate to see if there was an afterparty or if they were with their children, those pictures are worth a huge amount 06 money and so, as they meanders and weaveed throughout the street their car sometimes sat in traffic, surrounded by photographers on bikes and car, behind them and then there were moments where the road was clear and the car went up to 80mph, trying to lose some of the people thater were followling them and as we heard there was that desperate moment towards sort of the end of the sort, into that close to that second hour, where they even stopped and one of the police precinct in new yorkjust to sort of get their bearings, and figure out the next plan, which of

course saw them getting into a taxi briefly for ten minutes, to try and evade the paparazzi. it is a dangerous game.— evade the paparazzi. it is a dangerous game. evade the paparazzi. it is a dancerous came. , ., , dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do ou dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do you know — dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do you know if _ dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do you know if the _ dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do you know if the royal— dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do you know if the royal family - dangerous game. sorry, to interrupt, do you know if the royal family have | do you know if the royal family have beenin do you know if the royal family have been in touch with them since this happened? i been in touch with them since this ha ened? ., been in touch with them since this hauened? ., , , happened? i mean it is impossible not to think _ happened? i mean it is impossible not to think of _ happened? i mean it is impossible not to think of princess _ happened? i mean it is impossible not to think of princess diana - happened? i mean it is impossible | not to think of princess diana when we hear about car accidents, and this kind of like aggressive paparazzi chase, and so i was surprised to hear from sources that not one member of the royal family, including king charles and prince william who are obviously affected by princess diana's death had not reached out to prince harry hours after this news had broken, it was almost sort of every single headline round the world and sadly that shows the state of disrepair that relationship is, it is hard not to forget that haar iry was here a couple of weeks ago for the coronation, you would have thought that may go towards building a path towards reconciliation in some way, but it seems like that is not felt

on the other side, and that would have no doubt been a disappointing addition to what had already been a traumatic 12 hours for the couple. does this incident suggest there is something not right with their us security? something not right with their us securi ? ., ~' security? no, i think in the uk, the had security? no, i think in the uk, they had very — security? no, i think in the uk, they had very different - security? no, i think in the uk, | they had very different problems security? no, i think in the uk, - they had very different problems to think about, you know, the number of threats they received in this country were far greater than anywhere else in the world they receive, and that requires a level of intelligence, and a level of royal protection officers to keep them safe from that and the us it is a different threat, that threat is often those paparazzi pursuits that in california take place on the high way at high speed, we have heard of celebrities being in accidents and there are few laws in place to protect high profile figures from this, nothing to stop them being talked and followed, of course if there is news value, to their story

ror there is news value, to their story r or a least pictures of them, and thatis r or a least pictures of them, and that is something that we see public figure plus the us struggle with on a regular basis, their team did their best to evade these photographers that were following them but it wasn't good enough, as new york traffic sits still it is hard to get away from people at high speeds. hard to get away from people at high seeds. ., ., hard to get away from people at high seeds. ., ,, i. ., hard to get away from people at high seeds. ., ~' y., ., ., ~' hard to get away from people at high seeds. ., ,, i. ., ., ,, ., , speeds. thank you for talking to us this evening- _ speeds. thank you for talking to us this evening. thank— for years we've been warned about the dangers of the world warming by more than 1.5 degrees above pre—industrial levels. it has become the symbol of climate change negotiations — with countries pledging to keep global temperatures below that threshold for fear of the catastophic and potentially irreversible change that would follow if its breached. but the world meterological 0rganisation is today warning that the world is likely to break that temperature limit for the first time over the next few years. their researchers say there's now a 66% chance we will exceed it between now and 2027 — that's in four years' time — as the world warms. and with that comes an increased likelihood of extreme weather events.

kate's here. does breaking this 1.5 mean the paris agreement has failed? hat paris agreement has failed? not necessarily- _ paris agreement has failed? iirrt necessarily. the paris agreement famously committed to keeping global temperature is well below the 2 degrees above pre—industrial levels, preferably to 1.5 degrees. but that is talking about long—term global averages. the prediction today are slightly different. it's about the average of a one of the air between now and 2027, more likely than not to break the limit. the report is not saying it is to later take action. we should remember that 1.5 degrees is kind of an arbitrary figure. every tenth of a degree could help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change. what it does is makes our direction of travel clear. these years that break the 1.5 limit are likely to happen with increasing frequency towards the end of this decade. pm? with increasing frequency towards the end of this decade.— with increasing frequency towards the end of this decade. why is this otentiall the end of this decade. why is this potentially going _ the end of this decade. why is this potentially going to _ the end of this decade. why is this potentially going to happen - the end of this decade. why is this potentially going to happen in - potentially going to happen in the next few years?— next few years? partly, the productions _ next few years? partly, the productions of _ next few years? partly, the productions of record - next few years? partly, the - productions of record temperatures because there is an el nino on the

way, a naturally occurring climate pattern where wind across the tropical pacific weakens. it is typically followed by higher global temperatures. but we've also got a look at global emissions. there should be a graphic which shows how an emissions should need to fall if we want to keep it below 1.5. the line above it is if the most ambitious targets are met, and current policies, if nothing changed, the top. there is a significant gap between where we need to be if we want to avoid the temperature rises and where we are at the moment. i5 temperature rises and where we are at the moment-— at the moment. is there anything ositive at the moment. is there anything positive you _ at the moment. is there anything positive you can say about - at the moment. is there anything positive you can say about how. at the moment. is there anything | positive you can say about how we are managing to protect people from these kind of events? this are managing to protect people from these kind of events?— these kind of events? as you said earlier, climate _ these kind of events? as you said earlier, climate change _ these kind of events? as you said earlier, climate change affect - these kind of events? as you said earlier, climate change affect the | earlier, climate change affect the frequency and intensity of extreme weather. there is an example of the importance of preparation, the difference that it can make going on at the moment. this week, the bay of bengal was hit by one of the stronger cyclones this century. bangladesh and the border with neighbouring myanmar have large

rohingya refugee camps, charities say that in some camps 10% of shelters were destroyed by winds of “p shelters were destroyed by winds of up to 120 mph. while there have been some reports of hundreds of deaths in myanmar, in bangladesh there seem to have been limited fatalities because bangladesh has spent decades building a network of 14,000 shelters and an early warning system involving some 80,000 volunteers. we have community volunteers within the camps _ have community volunteers within the camps and _ have community volunteers within the camps and also from the bangladeshi communities. preparedness, information, the opening up of the shelter. _ information, the opening up of the shelter, putting in dry food and arranging — shelter, putting in dry food and arranging for water, whatever was possible. — arranging for water, whatever was possible, those measures were taken. 4000 _ possible, those measures were taken. 4000 people have been brought inland. — 4000 people have been brought inland, and this help from not having — inland, and this help from not having any casualties, you know, we've _ having any casualties, you know, we've not— having any casualties, you know, we've not had any loss of life. compared _

we've not had any loss of life. compared to 1991, where 140,000 compared to 1991, where 140 , 000 people compared to 1991, where140,000 people were killed by cyclones in bangladesh. there are hopes to copy the preparation elsewhere. last year, the un announced efforts to make sure every country had extreme weather early warning system in place by 2027 to get ready for these. some vulnerable countries have concerns about how funding the adaptation is going to work. you need lots of _ adaptation is going to work. you need lots of funding. building the new embankments, the new roads, after destruction, investing a lot in recovery. every time there is a cyclone. — in recovery. every time there is a cyclone. you _ in recovery. every time there is a cyclone, you need to activate the volunteers. you need to spend a lot of money _ volunteers. you need to spend a lot of money. hopefully, this year, at copy 28. _ of money. hopefully, this year, at copy 28. we — of money. hopefully, this year, at copy 28, we will be in agreement of how the _ copy 28, we will be in agreement of how the funding should be channelled towards _ how the funding should be channelled towards the victims.— the former cabinet minister jacob rees—mogg raised eyebrows earlier this week when he seemed to suggest the government's decision to bring in tighter restrictions

on voter identification ahead of this month's local elections amounted to �*gerrymandering'. mr rees mogg — who was in government when the new rules were drawn up — said he believed the move had �*backfired' on his party, blocking older people more likely to vote conservative from reaching the ballot boxes. as the dust settles on the elections — what do we know about how big a part, if any, the new voter id rules played? the introduction of voter id for the first time in an election in great britain was a controversial move, although it did bring th uk into line with most european countries. so were there large number of voters disenfranchised? the election was only two weeks ago so the short answer is we don't know. so far, the electoral commission have only said that the elections were "well run" but their interim report won't be out until next month with theirfull verdict coming in september. if you don't want to wait that long, the psephologist david cowling, who is a former head of political research here at the bbc has

attempted to gather some information direct from local authorities to get an early picture. and this is what it looks like for the metropolitan district councils. let's look at the top one of those and we can see that in barnsley there were 45,569 total votes cast. 78 people got to the front desk of the polling station but were refused a ballot paper. of those, 41 later returned with the correct id, meaning 37 people tried to vote but were refused, just 0.08% of the votes cast. that number though includes 26,000 postal votes in barnsley so the percentage of polling station voters is much higher. but as we look down the range of percentages of those who tried but were refused a ballot paper, we can see that we are broadly in the same territory of the pilot study in the 2019 local elections that found a refusal

and non—return rate of 0.24%. one of the questions researchers will want answering is whether voter id has different impacts on different demographics. 0ne criticism of the new rules from the opposition parties at westminster was that it would suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. if we look at these figures we can see that sandwell with a 43% non—white population had by far the biggest refusal and no return rate of 0.64%. but of course, this is only partial data — we won't be able to spot any really useful trends until the electoral commission give us their report next month but differential impact will be something many will be watching for. now some caveats. firstly, these were local elections where turn out is always low. we don't know how this will read across to the next general election where a far bigger proportion of the population vote.