right now the weather is rainfall. right now the weather is pretty quiet, we have cloudy skies developing across many eastern and central areas, developing across many eastern and centralareas, may developing across many eastern and central areas, may be one or two showers towards the early hours of the morning. around eight to 10 degrees. cloudy around eastern areas first thing then the sunshine works its magic. we could see one or two showers developing further south west. these are temperatures, a fresh 1a, 15, 16 on the east coast. more typically possibly the high 20s tomorrow. saturday, a weatherfront approaches, that is basically moisture and clouds coming our way. a lot of sunshine but then we will see localised storms for me across parts of england and wales. here are the temperatures, high 20s across a large part of england, may be nudging up to 30 degrees and here is

an outlook for sunday. really very warm indeed and some welcome rain across western parts of the uk. yes, that alert is in force and quite a prolonged spell of warm weather. nothing exceptional in the temperature itself but many of us will absolutely love this kind of weather. some of us will really not enjoy it but i personally quite like it. thank you. and that's bbc news at ten. there's more analysis of the day's main stories on the bbc news website. the news continues here on bbc one, as now it's time to join our colleagues for the news where you are. but from the ten team, it's goodnight.

remember that post—brexit trade deal we were promised with america? well, today, rishi sunak and joe biden instead unveiled the washington declaration to "push the envelope" in their economic partnership. with the prime minister in washington, we found out how new technology and fighting climate change might define the next chapter in relations with the us. when the united states and the united kingdom stand together, the world is a safer, better and more prosperous place. that's why ours is

the indispensable alliance. we'll delve beneath the white house flummery to find out what that might really contribute to the uk economy. also tonight — britain's betting big on quantum for everthing from medicine to ai. we'll ask whether the old saga of world—beating innovation being exploited by others is about to be repeated? the uk quantum technologies programme rests on a relatively small number of people. and if they do move for whatever reason then it does become fragile. those german—built leopard 2 tanks in action are one more sign. ukraine's long—heralded counter—offensive is under way. i've got the latest analysis on whether it's making progress. and this. life imitates art as the sons of a deceased media magnate are elbowed aside and one

of britain's biggest conservative media groups is put on the market. a former telegraph journalist and a media analyst tell us who might buy it. good evening. rishi sunak has wound up a trip to washington dc with a vision of a future trading relationship with the us. they're calling it the atlantic declaration. inevitably critics will scrutinise the economic partnership sketched out today for what it isn't. and that's the type of over—arching free trade deal that many brexiteers had suggested would be possible. many trade experts were dubious about that from the get—go and instead, today what we've got is a package that pushes on areas of current cooperation, from data to economic security, and increased investment. president biden also backed mr sunak�*s plans to lead the global regulation of ai. nick watt is here now —

nick did today amount to much? clear confirmation of no trade deal with the us but that's clear confirmation of no trade deal with the us but that's what clear confirmation of no trade deal with the us but that's what liz truss during her brief premiership said when she went to the us in the autumn but instead we had, as you mentioned, the atlantic declaration which downing street believes is a serious economic step forward. that comes almost exactly two years to today since boris johnson comes almost exactly two years to today since borisjohnson signed an atlantic charter with joe today since borisjohnson signed an atlantic charter withjoe biden at the g7 summit in cornwall. 0ne the g7 summit in cornwall. one interesting element, a+ as far as downing street are concerned is that negotiations on a critical minerals agreement, meaning access to tax credits in line with the us system for buyers of vehicles using critical minerals, ie electric car vehicles. that matters because that looks pretty much like a deal that the eu managed to secure with the us backin the eu managed to secure with the us back in march. both london and

brussels have expressed big fears that washington has become very protectionist with its big green energy investment plan known as the inflation reduction act. the background of this for the uk was the windsor framework where london and brussels sorted out their disagreements on northern ireland. joe biden was absolutely delighted by that and the language he used today, effusive language, talking about the uk and us, it is a special relationship and he said there is no country that is closer to us than great britain. that clearly isn't true geographically but today it is true geographically but today it is true in joe true geographically but today it is true injoe biden�*s hard. as far as downing street is concerned, today is a very successful day in washington —— true injoe biden�*s heart. can you name one country that has said it _ can you name one country that has said it will— can you name one country that has said it will give us a better deal if we _ said it will give us a better deal if we leave the eu? just one

countrx _ hailed as one of the benefits of brexit, a new and sweeping trade deal with the us would be coming our way. confidence? uk is going to be at the back of the queue. even after the president of the time signalled that washington would be in no rush to sign a deal. and now our stateside prime minister, confirming what has been known for some time — no trade deal is on the horizon. manna from heaven for one remainer. george osborne tweeted, it almost feels like we are at the back of the queue when it comes to a brexit trade deal with the us. but the prime minister hailed a new era of economic relations, as he signed an atlantic declaration with president biden. if you look at what we've announced today, it responds to the particular

opportunities and challenges that we face right now and into the future. and it asks the question, what do we need to do working together that can bring the most benefit to our citizens as quickly as possible? our agreement does that. a first of a kind agreement in what it seeks to achieve. and warmth from the president. we we re we were launched negotiations on critical_ we were launched negotiations on critical materials and agreement to deal with_ critical materials and agreement to deal with the climate crisis. echoes of a similar partnership — two years ago, borisjohnson signed an atlantic charter withjoe biden. an atlantic charter, an atlantic declaration. it is easy to say we have seen these before, as prime ministers seek their churchillian moment with the us president. but rishi sunak says this is a genuinely significant economic agreement, and a closing of ranks on security cooperation against china and russia.

a former brexit trade adviser sees an enduring relationship. the uk—us partnership is very, very strong. we clearly are one of the biggest investors in each other's economies, we clearly still have an extremely strong and intense trade relationship, stronger than we have with any other country. and this atlantic declaration, and the previous atlantic charter, the aukus deal, these are all reflections on the strength of that relationship. i mean, whoever is in the white house has always recognised that when the chips are down, you know, the primary ally that the us has around the world is the uk. a whitehall observer who believes a trade deal was possible is unsure about rishi sunak�*s explanation for why one has now fizzled out. i don't think it was a complete fantasy.

i mean, it is always possible, and they are right to do a trade deal with the us. after all, the eu was talking about doing a trade deal with the us. so it wasn't completely off the cards, but i don't like it is particularly right to say everything changed because of covid, everything changed because of ukraine. you could have argued that the ukraine war made trade cooperation between like—minded countries more essential rather than less essential. a trade expert says the prime minister went to the us with his eyes wide open, knowing joe biden has no interest in trade deals with anyone. i actually think the prime minister isjust trying to be polite and not offend his guests, because the actual reason we are not going to be doing a trade agreement with the us anytime soon is that the us is not really that interested in free trade at the moment. it is not interested in free trade agreements, it is not interested in doing them with anyone. but of course, if he just tells the media "it is

because the president is protectionist," that is proper were not going to go down that well. under scrutiny in the shadow of the founding fathers. celebrating the special relationship, but is it in good shape? yes, came the answer. setting the seal on a new area.— to discuss what the atlantic declaration is and isn't, we're joined by sir peter westmacott, formerly uk ambassador in washington, christine mcdaniel, who held numerous trade posts in the us government before moving to the mercator foundation, and has advised the international trade department here. and also with us, mark garnier, conservative mp, trade envoy and previously trade minister. mark, let's start with you. you know that the conservative manifesto in 2019 promised in its praise, to agree a trade deal with the us.

that's not been possible, has it? apparently not but i think we are moving forward in various areas. we've got this agreement today. that's following on from a couple of agreements we had last year. penny mordaunt when she was trade minister went out and secured memorandums of understanding with north carolina and indiana. this is a move forward in terms of incremental steps towards an enhanced trade relationship rather than necessarily a singing and dancing free trade agreement. it a singing and dancing free trade agreement-— a singing and dancing free trade aareement. ., ., ., ., agreement. it takes two to tango, doesnt agreement. it takes two to tango, doesn't it. — agreement. it takes two to tango, doesn't it. so — agreement. it takes two to tango, doesn't it, so peter— agreement. it takes two to tango, doesn't it, so peter fahy you - agreement. it takes two to tango, doesn't it, so peter fahy you were one of those who was sceptical in weather the us would be interested in a full—blown deal? this weather the us would be interested in a full-blown deal?— in a full-blown deal? this was put out there as _ in a full-blown deal? this was put out there as one _ in a full-blown deal? this was put out there as one of— in a full-blown deal? this was put out there as one of the _ in a full-blown deal? this was put out there as one of the great - out there as one of the great benefits _ out there as one of the great benefits of brexit, the freedom to negotiate — benefits of brexit, the freedom to negotiate our own free trade agreements. that's been limited success — agreements. that's been limited success in— agreements. that's been limited success. in terms of the us, having been _ success. in terms of the us, having been a _ success. in terms of the us, having been a veteran of the transatlantic negotiations between the eu and the

us i was_ negotiations between the eu and the us i was always doubtful this would work _ us i was always doubtful this would work we _ us i was always doubtful this would work. we would have had to make a lot of— work. we would have had to make a lot of very _ work. we would have had to make a lot of very difficult concessions in the agricultural and financial sectors _ the agricultural and financial sectors. america has, by legislation, number of things that would _ legislation, number of things that would have made a competitive deal difficult _ would have made a competitive deal difficult. we are the biggest investor— difficult. we are the biggest investor in the us economy and vice verse _ investor in the us economy and vice verse it _ investor in the us economy and vice versa. it doesn't really matter much whether— versa. it doesn't really matter much whether we — versa. it doesn't really matter much whether we have this agreement or not. whether we have this agreement or not i_ whether we have this agreement or not i think— whether we have this agreement or not. i think there's quite a lot there — not. i think there's quite a lot there i— not. i think there's quite a lot there. i suspect the prime minister has got _ there. i suspect the prime minister has got more from this visit to the 0val has got more from this visit to the oval office — has got more from this visit to the oval office than boris johnson has got more from this visit to the oval office than borisjohnson or liz truss— oval office than borisjohnson or liz truss would have got. there are important _ liz truss would have got. there are important exemptions, dependent on congress. _ important exemptions, dependent on congress, from certain areas that exclude _ congress, from certain areas that exclude foreign companies from some subsidies— exclude foreign companies from some subsidies and benefits and there's stuff on _ subsidies and benefits and there's stuff on civil nuclear, quantum mechanics. there's quite a lot there — mechanics. there's quite a lot there. ~ �* ., mechanics. there's quite a lot there. �* ., ., ., there. we'll come to the inflation reduction and _ there. we'll come to the inflation reduction and concessionary - there. we'll come to the inflation - reduction and concessionary moment but let's bring in christine from washington. do you think that at

this point in his presidency washington. do you think that at this point in his presidenchoe biden was not going to do a trade deal with pretty much anyone is right, and the you think some of the phrasing, there was talk about the test case for reimagined alliances, was just flummery or are they charting a new course in trade relationships?— charting a new course in trade relationships? you can always... it is eas to relationships? you can always... it is easy to be _ relationships? you can always... it is easy to be cynical— relationships? you can always... it is easy to be cynical but _ relationships? you can always... it is easy to be cynical but i - relationships? you can always... it is easy to be cynical but i agree - is easy to be cynical but i agree with— is easy to be cynical but i agree with peter— is easy to be cynical but i agree with peter that _ is easy to be cynical but i agree with peter that the _ is easy to be cynical but i agree with peter that the us- is easy to be cynical but i agree with peter that the us uk- with peter that the us uk relationship _ with peter that the us uk relationship is _ with peter that the us uk relationship is so - with peter that the us uk relationship is so strong i with peter that the us uk. relationship is so strong and with peter that the us uk- relationship is so strong and as was said we _ relationship is so strong and as was said we are — relationship is so strong and as was said we are one— relationship is so strong and as was said we are one of— relationship is so strong and as was said we are one of the _ relationship is so strong and as was said we are one of the largest - said we are one of the largest investors— said we are one of the largest investors in— said we are one of the largest investors in each _ said we are one of the largest investors in each other's - said we are one of the largest - investors in each other's countries, largest— investors in each other's countries, largest trading _ investors in each other's countries, largest trading partners. _ investors in each other's countries, largest trading partners. when - investors in each other's countries, largest trading partners. when it. largest trading partners. when it comes— largest trading partners. when it comes to — largest trading partners. when it comes to free _ largest trading partners. when it comes to free trade _ largest trading partners. when it comes to free trade agreements| largest trading partners. when it- comes to free trade agreements right now washington— comes to free trade agreements right now washington and _ comes to free trade agreements right now washington and congress - comes to free trade agreements right now washington and congress just i now washington and congress just isn't there — now washington and congress just isn't there the _ now washington and congress just isn't there. the american public, i isn't there. the american public, pockets — isn't there. the american public, pockets of— isn't there. the american public, pockets of them _ isn't there. the american public, pockets of them are _ isn't there. the american public, pockets of them are there - isn't there. the american public, pockets of them are there but i pockets of them are there but washington _ pockets of them are there but washington isn't _ pockets of them are there but washington isn't right- pockets of them are there but washington isn't right now. i pockets of them are there but - washington isn't right now. except on taiwan —

washington isn't right now. except on taiwan. anyway, _ washington isn't right now. except on taiwan. anyway, once - washington isn't right now. exceptj on taiwan. anyway, once congress -ets on taiwan. anyway, once congress gets there, _ on taiwan. anyway, once congress gets there, i— on taiwan. anyway, once congress gets there, ithink— on taiwan. anyway, once congress gets there, i think the _ on taiwan. anyway, once congress gets there, i think the uk - on taiwan. anyway, once congress gets there, i think the uk is- gets there, i think the uk is the low gets there, i think the uk is the tow hanging _ gets there, i think the uk is the low hanging fruit. _ gets there, i think the uk is the low hanging fruit. it's _ gets there, i think the uk is the low hanging fruit. it's the - gets there, i think the uk is the. low hanging fruit. it's the perfect candidate, — low hanging fruit. it's the perfect candidate, a _ low hanging fruit. it's the perfect candidate, a very— low hanging fruit. it's the perfect candidate, a very strong - low hanging fruit. it's the perfect candidate, a very strong ally- low hanging fruit. it's the perfect candidate, a very strong ally and| candidate, a very strong ally and there _ candidate, a very strong ally and there are — candidate, a very strong ally and there are some _ candidate, a very strong ally and there are some deeper- candidate, a very strong ally and i there are some deeper integration issues _ there are some deeper integration issues that— there are some deeper integration issues that we _ there are some deeper integration issues that we could _ there are some deeper integration issues that we could do, _ there are some deeper integration issues that we could do, on digital corridors, — issues that we could do, on digital corridors, customs— issues that we could do, on digital corridors, customs integration. . corridors, customs integration. there's— corridors, customs integration. there's got— corridors, customs integration. there's got to _ corridors, customs integration. there's got to be _ corridors, customs integration. there's got to be some - corridors, customs integration. - there's got to be some substantive agricultural— there's got to be some substantive agricultural commitments - there's got to be some substantive agricultural commitments by- there's got to be some substantive agricultural commitments by the i there's got to be some substantivel agricultural commitments by the uk if you _ agricultural commitments by the uk if you really— agricultural commitments by the uk if you really want _ agricultural commitments by the uk if you really want to _ agricultural commitments by the uk if you really want to get _ agricultural commitments by the uk if you really want to get congress's i if you really want to get congress's approvat _ if you really want to get congress's a- roval. , ., ., if you really want to get congress's a- roval. , ., . ., if you really want to get congress's a . roval. , ., ., ., ., approval. yes, for a full on deal. mark, is this _ approval. yes, for a full on deal. mark, is this a _ approval. yes, for a full on deal. mark, is this a la _ approval. yes, for a full on deal. mark, is this a la carte, - approval. yes, for a full on deal. mark, is this a la carte, variable| mark, is this a la carte, variable geometry list of agreements entered a's package, is it the best we can hope for in current circumstances? no, i think we can move forward and it's worth bearing in mind you can have a federal trade deal but also a state deal. you can have a free trade agreement with america and still find you have barriers to access to certain states. i think

what we're doing is not a bad idea. it isn't an all singing and all dancing free trade agreement but it's worth bearing in mind that the prime minister has appointed a new trade envoy who will be looking at state—by—state agreements. we are looking betterforward state—by—state agreements. we are looking better forward than the headlines may suggest.- headlines may suggest. those state-by-state _ headlines may suggest. those state-by-state agreements, l headlines may suggest. those i state-by-state agreements, how headlines may suggest. those - state-by-state agreements, how much state—by—state agreements, how much do they compensate for not having a wider full—scale federal or national trade deal? i wider full-scale federal or national trade deal? ., ., , trade deal? i love that the uk is doinu trade deal? i love that the uk is doing that _ trade deal? i love that the uk is doing that and _ trade deal? i love that the uk is doing that and i _ trade deal? i love that the uk is doing that and i love _ trade deal? i love that the uk is doing that and i love how - trade deal? i love that the uk is| doing that and i love how certain trade deal? i love that the uk is - doing that and i love how certain us states— doing that and i love how certain us states are _ doing that and i love how certain us states are stepping _ doing that and i love how certain us states are stepping up _ doing that and i love how certain us states are stepping up and - doing that and i love how certain us states are stepping up and saying. states are stepping up and saying yes, you — states are stepping up and saying yes, you know. _ states are stepping up and saying yes, you know. we _ states are stepping up and saying yes, you know, we want- states are stepping up and saying yes, you know, we want to - states are stepping up and saying yes, you know, we want to do - states are stepping up and saying i yes, you know, we want to do this. washington — yes, you know, we want to do this. washington may— yes, you know, we want to do this. washington may not _ yes, you know, we want to do this. washington may not be _ yes, you know, we want to do this. washington may not be interestedl washington may not be interested i’i l ht washington may not be interested right now — washington may not be interested right now in — washington may not be interested right now in moving _ washington may not be interested right now in moving forward - washington may not be interested right now in moving forward but. washington may not be interestedl right now in moving forward but we are interested. _ right now in moving forward but we are interested. you'll— right now in moving forward but we are interested. you'll find - right now in moving forward but we are interested. you'll find that- are interested. you'll find that more — are interested. you'll find that more and _ are interested. you'll find that more and more _ are interested. you'll find that more and more states- are interested. you'll find that more and more states are - are interested. you'll find that. more and more states are going to step uo _ more and more states are going to step uh i— more and more states are going to step up. ilove— more and more states are going to step up. itove how— more and more states are going to step up. i love how the _ more and more states are going to step up. i love how the uk - more and more states are going to step up. i love how the uk is - step up. i love how the uk is pushing _ step up. i love how the uk is pushing on— step up. i love how the uk is pushing on this. _ step up. i love how the uk is pushing on this. it's worth i step up. i love how the uk is - pushing on this. it's worth noting, there _ pushing on this. it's worth noting, there are — pushing on this. it's worth noting, there are so — pushing on this. it's worth noting, there are so many—

pushing on this. it's worth noting, there are so many people - pushing on this. it's worth noting, there are so many people in the l pushing on this. it's worth noting, . there are so many people in the uk, at the _ there are so many people in the uk, at the policy— there are so many people in the uk, at the policy level, _ there are so many people in the uk, at the policy level, and _ there are so many people in the uk, at the policy level, and various - at the policy level, and various levels. — at the policy level, and various levels, working _ at the policy level, and various levels, working so— at the policy level, and various levels, working so hard - at the policy level, and various levels, working so hard on- at the policy level, and various l levels, working so hard on trying at the policy level, and various - levels, working so hard on trying to push _ levels, working so hard on trying to push through — levels, working so hard on trying to push through some _ levels, working so hard on trying to push through some of _ levels, working so hard on trying to push through some of these - levels, working so hard on trying to i push through some of these barriers. it's push through some of these barriers. it'siust_ push through some of these barriers. it's just amazing _ push through some of these barriers. it's just amazing to _ push through some of these barriers. it's just amazing to get _ push through some of these barriers. it's just amazing to get these - push through some of these barriers. it's just amazing to get these mous i it's just amazing to get these mous with individual— it's just amazing to get these mous with individual states. _ it'sjust amazing to get these mous with individual states.— with individual states. they are worth something, _ with individual states. they are worth something, in _ with individual states. they are worth something, in your- with individual states. they are | worth something, in your view? yes, absolutely- — worth something, in your view? yes, absolutely. countries _ worth something, in your view? yes, absolutely. countries don't trade but people — but people trade and people still want to— but people trade and people still want to trade. _ but people trade and people still want to trade. these _ but people trade and people still want to trade. these actors - but people trade and people still want to trade. these actors are i want to trade. these actors are stepping — want to trade. these actors are stepping up— want to trade. these actors are stepping up and _ want to trade. these actors are stepping up and doing - want to trade. these actors are stepping up and doing it- want to trade. these actors are| stepping up and doing it without washington _ stepping up and doing it without washington and _ stepping up and doing it without washington and the _ stepping up and doing it without washington and the trade - washington and the trade negotiators. _ washington and the trade negotiators.— washington and the trade ne . otiators. . ,., , negotiators. peter, dare i say it that perhaps — negotiators. peter, dare i say it that perhaps there _ negotiators. peter, dare i say it that perhaps there was - negotiators. peter, dare i say it that perhaps there was some i negotiators. peter, dare i say it- that perhaps there was some cynicism on the press flight out about the idea about rishi sunak would be anointed by president biden as the man to save mankind from al but lo and behold, it happened and twice the president praised his leadership in this area and said over to you,

britain, for the global summit on al regulation. a win or something that will have everyone at the foreign office sweating? probably both. i think it is an achievement. there was a heavy briefing from number ten in advance that this was one of rishi sunak�*s main objectives. i think it is impressive that he has got president biden officially endorsing the idea of uk leadership and that there will be a global summit on al in the uk later this year. there was talk of the japanese doing something later this year, but there it is, the united states saying they want the uk to play that role. i think it is very convenient for the prime minister because here we are outside the european union and out single market, seeking a global role. global britain is a slogan that i think has been patched, but here's something that is important which everyone is bothered about, particularly last few weeks, with a prime minister has raptures mined around the issue has got the president there saying yes, we are going to work with the uk to make a

difference in this issue and establish new guardrails in this challenging and important area of technology, i think it is a win. when you look back at this post—brexit period, and the promise of free trade deals, do you think you were not frank enough of the british public? for example, the australian one, about what it might not yield, the concessions that might have to be made in terms of agriculture products, and how will that condition thinking if indeed it us trade deal comes back onto the horizon? i us trade deal comes back onto the horizon? ~' ., ., horizon? i think there are a couple of thins horizon? i think there are a couple of things to _ horizon? i think there are a couple of things to say — horizon? i think there are a couple of things to say on _ horizon? i think there are a couple of things to say on this. _ horizon? i think there are a couple of things to say on this. the - horizon? i think there are a couple of things to say on this. the first l of things to say on this. the first point _ of things to say on this. the first point is — of things to say on this. the first point is we — of things to say on this. the first point is we have actually been very good with— point is we have actually been very good with somethings. we are also diatogue _ good with somethings. we are also dialogue partners, the seventh round with an _ dialogue partners, the seventh round with an indian free trade deal, so we are _ with an indian free trade deal, so we are moving ahead quite well. but the point _ we are moving ahead quite well. but the point you made about australia and new— the point you made about australia and new zealand trade deals are quite _ and new zealand trade deals are quite interesting, because they were the first— quite interesting, because they were the first trade deals that were not

rollover _ the first trade deals that were not rollover deals, we now have 71 in total. _ rollover deals, we now have 71 in total. and — rollover deals, we now have 71 in total, and what they do as they set the benchmark for what the next trade _ the benchmark for what the next trade deals will look like, if we then— trade deals will look like, if we then do— trade deals will look like, if we then do a — trade deals will look like, if we then do a trick to deal with another country. _ then do a trick to deal with another country, they will turn round and say, _ country, they will turn round and say, you — country, they will turn round and say. you did _ country, they will turn round and say, you did x, y, and z country, they will turn round and say, you did x, y, and 2 with say, you did x, y, and zwith farming— say, you did x, y, and zwith farming and the say, you did x, y, and 2 with farming and the australian deal, and so on _ farming and the australian deal, and so on. ~ , ., ., ., farming and the australian deal, and so on. ~ , . ., ., ., so on. the australian trade deal, suite a so on. the australian trade deal, quite a few _ so on. the australian trade deal, quite a few people _ so on. the australian trade deal, quite a few people involved - so on. the australian trade deal, quite a few people involved in . so on. the australian trade deal, quite a few people involved in it, j quite a few people involved in it, but salt it, carry on. i quite a few people involved in it, but salt it, carry on.— but salt it, carry on. i was going to say on _ but salt it, carry on. i was going to say on that. _ but salt it, carry on. i was going to say on that, the _ but salt it, carry on. i was going to say on that, the nfu - but salt it, carry on. i was going to say on that, the nfu were i to say on that, the nfu were making a point _ to say on that, the nfu were making a point about the fact that perhaps british— a point about the fact that perhaps british farmers were being thrown under— british farmers were being thrown under the — british farmers were being thrown under the bus, british farmers were being thrown underthe bus, perhaps that british farmers were being thrown under the bus, perhaps that is a bit too harsh. — under the bus, perhaps that is a bit too harsh, but always be difficult, you always — too harsh, but always be difficult, you always end up with this very computed — you always end up with this very computed balancing act between the interests of the producers in the uk, and — interests of the producers in the uk, and the nfu, but also the interests — uk, and the nfu, but also the interests of the consumers. to be do we want _ interests of the consumers. to be do we want to— interests of the consumers. to be do we want to have people who are struggling with household bills being — struggling with household bills being waitrose prices for food? it

is a very— being waitrose prices for food? it is a very difficult balancing act. time _ is a very difficult balancing act. time for— is a very difficult balancing act. time for one quick one for christine before we wrap up. rishi sunak is clearly established it a relationship now with joe clearly established it a relationship now withjoe biden, how much of the survives of donald trump is re—elected next year? that much of the survives of donald trump is re-elected next year?— is re-elected next year? that is a conversation _ is re-elected next year? that is a conversation that _ is re-elected next year? that is a conversation that i _ is re-elected next year? that is a conversation that i don't - is re-elected next year? that is a conversation that i don't think - is re-elected next year? that is a conversation that i don't think a l conversation that i don't think a lot of— conversation that i don't think a lot of people _ conversation that i don't think a lot of people over— conversation that i don't think a lot of people over here - conversation that i don't think a lot of people over here really i conversation that i don't think a i lot of people over here really want to be _ lot of people over here really want to be having — lot of people over here really want to be having. donald _ lot of people over here really want to be having. donald trump- lot of people over here really want to be having. donald trump is- to be having. donald trump is transaction— to be having. donald trump is transaction —based, _ to be having. donald trump is transaction —based, and i to be having. donald trump is transaction —based, and if- to be having. donald trump is- transaction —based, and if there's something — transaction —based, and if there's something in— transaction —based, and if there's something in it _ transaction —based, and if there's something in it in _ transaction —based, and if there's something in it in his— transaction —based, and if there's something in it in his view- transaction —based, and if there's something in it in his view for- transaction —based, and if there's something in it in his view for thej something in it in his view for the united _ something in it in his view for the united states— something in it in his view for the united states to _ something in it in his view for the united states to do _ something in it in his view for the united states to do a _ something in it in his view for the united states to do a deal - something in it in his view for the united states to do a deal with i united states to do a deal with the uk, then— united states to do a deal with the uk, then it — united states to do a deal with the uk, then it will— united states to do a deal with the uk, then it will be _ united states to do a deal with the uk, then it will be done. _ united states to do a deal with the uk, then it will be done. so in- united states to do a deal with thej uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, _ uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, i_ uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, ithinkm _ uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, ithink... i— uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, ithink... ijust_ uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, i think... ijust hope - uk, then it will be done. so in that sense, i think... ijust hope both. sense, ithink... ijust hope both sides— sense, ithink... ijust hope both sides keep — sense, ithink... ijust hope both sides keep working _ sense, ithink... ijust hope both sides keep working quietly - sense, ithink... ijust hope both sides keep working quietly on i sense, i think... ijust hope bothi sides keep working quietly on the test to— sides keep working quietly on the test to tedious _ sides keep working quietly on the test to tedious up _ sides keep working quietly on the test to tedious up for— sides keep working quietly on the test to tedious up for the - test to tedious up for the next administration, _ test to tedious up for the next administration, and _ test to tedious up for the next administration, and if- test to tedious up for the next administration, and if it- test to tedious up for the next administration, and if it is- test to tedious up for the next administration, and if it is a i test to tedious up for the next i administration, and if it is a biden administration, _ administration, and if it is a biden administration, then— administration, and if it is a biden administration, then your- administration, and if it is a biden administration, then your prime l administration, then your prime minister— administration, then your prime minister already— administration, then your prime minister already has— administration, then your prime minister already has a _ administration, then your prime minister already has a very i administration, then your prime | minister already has a very good retationship _ minister already has a very good relationship going _ minister already has a very good relationship going there, - minister already has a very good relationship going there, they. minister already has a very good i relationship going there, they can 'ust relationship going there, they can just continue _ relationship going there, they can just continue pushing _ relationship going there, they can just continue pushing on - relationship going there, they can just continue pushing on that. if. relationship going there, they canj just continue pushing on that. if it is a new— just continue pushing on that. if it is a new one. _ just continue pushing on that. if it is a new one. at— just continue pushing on that. if it is a new one, at least _

just continue pushing on that. if it is a new one, at least you have i just continue pushing on that. if itj is a new one, at least you have all that water— is a new one, at least you have all that water behind _ is a new one, at least you have all that water behind you _ is a new one, at least you have all that water behind you in _ is a new one, at least you have all that water behind you in terms i that water behind you in terms of working _ that water behind you in terms of working with _ that water behind you in terms of working with the _ that water behind you in terms of working with the negotiators - that water behind you in terms of working with the negotiators one | that water behind you in terms of. working with the negotiators one on one. , working with the negotiators one on one, , t, a, working with the negotiators one on one. y ., ., ., one. sorry, we are out of time. thank you _ one. sorry, we are out of time. thank you all— one. sorry, we are out of time. thank you all for _ one. sorry, we are out of time. thank you all forjoining - one. sorry, we are out of time. thank you all forjoining us. - you may recently have heard suggestions that the government was under—investing in new micochip technology compared to the eu or us. but what if they've had a better idea, using our taxes instead to back something that could finish off microprocessors as surely as steam ships left sailing clippers in their wake? the sector in question is quantum technology, where research suggests a revolution in computer speeds is now attainable. but is the uk's early investment going to ensure this country reaps the rewards? here's kate. betting big on something very small.

..which will set out our vision to be a world—leading quantum—enabled economy by 2033. this year, the government committed £2.5 billion to the next decade of quantum technology. that means currently the uk has put more public funding into quantum than the us, and it's more than twice what the government announced this yearfor semiconductors, technology essential for much of modern life. quantum technology uses the fundamental properties of individual particles. take probably the most famous example, quantum computing. normal computers use binary code, vast strings of zeros and ones. if you had two bits, that would give you four options for what that code could be. quantum replaces zeros and ones with particle states. for example, a particle could be polarised one way or the other. quantum mechanics, though, actually allows for something weird. particles can be in both states at the same time, so rather than four options,

it can code for all of them once. that can mean better encryption orjust a chance for a brand—new way of looking at problems. so it's not going to speed up excel. it's not going to make facebook run any faster. but it will help us completely revolutionise the way we design new drugs, make them more efficient, optimise logistical networks, or accelerate machine learning. the uk has historic strengths in many of the fields necessary for this tech, and we started investing a decade ago. companies have already been spun out of cutting—edge british research. one of them, orca, has sold five computers, including the first quantum machine, to the ministry of defence. they argue it's precisely that we are in the early stages of this technology which makes it the right time to commit as a country. the existing semiconductor industry is fairly well formed. there are some new maybe developments which the uk can get on top of but in general the main players, the main investments have been made and have been made decades ago.

quantum is a completely new industry. the game hasn't been won. in fact, the game isjust beginning. computers aren't the only useful quantum. ——0nly use for quantum. individual particles are very sensitive to their surroundings. in nottingham, they're harnessing that potential to develop sensors. what quantum has allowed us to do is to... ..turn this giant machine into this. so, this sensor... oh, it's a fraction of the size. so they do the same thing, this and this? yeah, exactly. these tiny bricks can detect a faint magnetic field produced by your brain and can help pinpoint the exact location of electrical activity. which is useful for studies like this into tourette�*s or as part of planning treatment for epileptic patients. children don't even need to sit

still while it happens. the spin out company here is already selling its technology to large research institutions in the us. academics say they've been helped by the way the uk's quantum programme has been run. nationwide hubs were designed to bring together notjust science but industry too. academia's been driven by the end—user, the end goal. so it's not the case that, you know, we developed a sensor or system and then try to doll it out to industry and they say, it's no use to us. industry have come and said this is what we want, and that's allowed uk academia to actually deliver in perhaps a way that's not been done before. none of this early success, of course, means the uk is guaranteed a thriving quantum industry. china are investing roughly five times the uk's funds, and this week, ibm announced their quantum data centre will be based in germany. to compete, the uk will need to attract talent. the uk quantum technologies programme rests on a relatively small number of people,

and if they do move, then it does become fragile. i certainly know people who work with me, have been given very good offers to go and work in, in particular, north america. some who have chosen to leave acknowledge the uk was leading the world, but they can also see dreams of a future industry will need more than products. it needs homes for that technology, too. i think the uk has been really good at kick—starting the supply chain but it hasn't accelerated the market pool as much, and for that, i think we really need to get the right companies on board. there has been a very notable initiative by bae, bp, and bt to create a national accelerator for quantum sensors, to look into the energy, defence, and communication infrastructure and think about innovation there. but that definitely needs a programme to make it really happen. i often describe the uk as having

a very strong opening game but maybe not having so much experience of the late stages of the endgame when it comes to scaling companies up and taking market position and things like that. i think quantum 3 one of the ways that we can change that. i think quantum is one of the ways that we can change that. each quantum investment holds risk, but the uk's burgeoning industry argues the future for the technology is a safe bet. now, while attention has focused on the khakovka dam disater in ukraine this week, the long—heralded counter—offensive has been under way for a few days now. there's an awful lot riding on it. ukraine is committing a carefully husbanded reserve of units trained and equiped by the west, hoping to free large tracts of occupied territory. unsurprisingly, given the stakes, president zelensky�*s government has been tight—lipped about it, with one or two officials even claiming it hadn't started. but events on the battlefield show us clearly it has.

a rude reminder in kherson today of the wider war coming to a key phase, people trying to rescue those stranded by flooding come under russian artillery fire. if the flooding has achieved anything of military value, it's to deny the ukrainians a possible route of advance south of the dnipro. it's moot whether they ever planned to do that, but attention anyway is now fixed further east. the key fighting of the counter—offensive launched at the start of this week is an attempt to drive southwards towards melitopol in this area between zaporizhzhia and vuhledar, and also fighting around bakhmut in the north east. if we zoom in, we can get a sense of an advance that's taken place around zaporizhzhia. drone video released by the russians this week shows pieces of equipment associated with ukraine's western—trained reserve brigades being fed into the battle.

french heavy armoured cars, apparently abandoned earlier this week. and overnight, moving pictures emerged of leopard 2 tanks — among the most precious of those western weapons deliveries in action on that key axis. independent researchers have geolocated the footage to these locations a0 miles south—east of zaporizhzhia, and while little the russians say about losses caused to these columns can be taken at face value, the basic facts that they have been committed to the fight and where it's happening appear to be clear now, as indeed evidence of some losses of leopard 2 tanks and american—made personnel carriers. and the images we've seen this week suggest that three of the nine ukrainian nato—trained brigades, the 33rd, 37th, and a7th, are feeding troops into this battle. how do we know this?

because the discord leaks in america included information about which units had which signature pieces of western equipment. how far has the ukrainian advance got? this map, based on research by a finnish expert, shows the situation earlier this week, suggests some progress, but they're still a good way short of the main russian defensive lines. but it's not the only place where the ukrainians have gained ground. over in the north—east, that cauldron of violence, bakhmut, has been the scene of ukrainian gains of a few kilometres in recent days. there's some suggestion even of a pincer attack trying to cut off the russian defenders of the city, but they've got a good way to go still before that becomes realistic possibility. the units committed in bakhmut, like the third storm brigade here,

are not part of ukraine's strategic reserve, but that could easily change. overall, the ukrainian military is still feeling its way. if, hypothetically, its uncommitted reserve brigades are in this area, they are able to swing either south or east, depending on where progress is greater. to sum up — the types of unit committed and the direction of the attacks leave no doubt that the ground phase of ukraine's counter—offensive began earlier this week, and that some key brigades have already been committed. progress so far has been modest, but this could take weeks to unfold. and now i am joined by brigadier ben barry, formerly of the british army and now a senior fellow for land warfare at the international institute for strategic studies. welcome to newsnight. what do you make of the ukrainians still not really admitting that this is happening? is that sound operational security? happening? is that sound operational securi ? . , happening? is that sound operational securi ? , , security? yes, very sound operational _ security? yes, very sound operational security. -

security? yes, very sound operational security. they security? yes, very sound - operational security. they want to confuse and mislead the russians as much as they can impart because they don't want to come up against any russian reserves heading in their direction, attempting to frustrate their advances. they maybe keeping some of their tactical options open. they may well have different options for the brigades that haven't been committed and misleading the russians i think is very much part of their operational design. it is of their operational design. it is early days _ of their operational design. it is early days but _ of their operational design. it is early days but i _ of their operational design. it is early days but i think fair to say that strikes on the key logistics hubs around those areas have been ongoing for weeks. it is hubs around those areas have been ongoing for weeks.— ongoing for weeks. it is early days and of course _ ongoing for weeks. it is early days and of course the _ ongoing for weeks. it is early days and of course the russians - ongoing for weeks. it is early days and of course the russians have i ongoing for weeks. it is early days| and of course the russians have an interest in downplaying what they're doing is. the ukrainians would like to talk it up and have good news but i think the blanket of operational security is probably the priority. of course as well as the nine western trained strategic reserve brigades they have three more that

they trained and equipped themselves. and it maybe they are saving them up, they may well want to give the impression of giving everything everywhere all at once and continuous attacks on the front line but they may have assembled concentrations of several brigades, anywhere between three and six, which maybe used for a big blow with concentrated artillery support to try and penetrate the russian supplies, breakthrough and fan out. talking about brigades, that's 3000, 5000 troops in each.— talking about brigades, that's 3000, 5000 troops in each.- some | 5000 troops in each. correct. some the have 5000 troops in each. correct. some they have committed. _ 5000 troops in each. correct. some they have committed. we _ 5000 troops in each. correct. some they have committed. we have - they have committed. we have zaporizhzhia on the map, the site of the huge nuclear plant. given what we've seen with the dam is there a danger there? we've seen with the dam is there a dangerthere? of we've seen with the dam is there a danger there? of disaster or sabotage?— danger there? of disaster or sabotaae? , . . ., sabotage? there is a danger and there is a danger— sabotage? there is a danger and there is a danger of— sabotage? there is a danger and there is a danger of crossfire - sabotage? there is a danger and l there is a danger of crossfire given that separate year is effectively a russian military base. the international atomic energy agency issued a statement in the last

couple of days saying where they thought the threat was not yet serious. if something happens at zaporizhzhia, if there is a deliberate or accidental release of radioactive material, the prevailing wind in europe goes from west to east so unless there are unusual conditions, russian occupied ukraine and russia itself would be at the greatest risk from a nuclear release, accidental or deliberate. let's hope that's not a scenario we are talking about. one thing we haven't charted on here is the force. a fleeting presence on the battlefield. as the ukrainians move forward, how much is that a challenge for them, that the russians have a stronger air force? yes, there is evidence that the russian air force is yes, there is evidence that the russian airforce is more yes, there is evidence that the russian air force is more active yes, there is evidence that the russian airforce is more active in the south, possibly because ukraine's air ground defences are less thick. the russian air force ukraine's air ground defences are less thick. the russian airforce is largely start over its own territory and done very limited support in the

front line, the attacks in kyiv have been fired from russian territory. one option the russians may have prepared is an all—out ten par effort, attacking ground troops. against that, ukraine has air defences that can accompany their columns but it is a difficult judgment for the ukraine height command. do they emphasise the air defence of the brigades or the defence of the brigades or the defence of the brigades or the defence of their cities and infrastructure? so we have action and reaction dynamics and the chance of unexpected events which could mean the battle goes in a different direction for either side —— compared to what either side intended and we may have a complicated and uncertain time. thank you, i'm sure we'll return to that. the rule of the barclay family dynasty over the telegraph

newspapers and spectator magazine is over. so say receivers called in to recover a debt of more than £1 billion owed by the paper's parent company. they've also dismissed the two sons of david barclay, who died more than two years ago, from the board of the papers. while the family is still trying to hold onto the business, the ft reports receivers are "aggressively" moving forward with the sale of the titles. given their importance, there are already suitors lining up to buy them. sonia purnell, former telegraph journalist as well as author and abi watson, senior media analyst at city firm endersjoin us now. is the financial health of the papers themselves robust? yeah, the 've papers themselves robust? yeah, they've been _ papers themselves robust? yeah, they've been improving _ papers themselves robust? yeah, they've been improving for- papers themselves robust? yeah, | they've been improving for several years. revenue was up 1r% they've been improving for several years. revenue was up ii% this year and operating profit was, i think it

was 30 million, a0 million. about 2016 levels. and at a conference a month ago, it has improved again and that will be the information that the receivers have. they have strong recurring revenues because 70% of their revenues are subscription based which would be quite attractive to a buyer.- based which would be quite attractive to a buyer. we'll come in attractive to a buyer. we'll come in a moment — attractive to a buyer. we'll come in a moment to _ attractive to a buyer. we'll come in a moment to who _ attractive to a buyer. we'll come in a moment to who those _ attractive to a buyer. we'll come in a moment to who those buyers - attractive to a buyer. we'll come in i a moment to who those buyers might be. sonia, the barclays took it over in 200a, when it was a different world. it in 2004, when it was a different world. . . . , ' world. it was a very different -a er. i world. it was a very different paper. i worked _ world. it was a very different paper. i worked for - world. it was a very different paper. i worked for it - world. it was a very different paper. i worked for it in - world. it was a very different paper. i worked for it in the l world. it was a very different. paper. i worked for it in the 90s and at _ paper. i worked for it in the 90s and at times i barely recognise the telegraph— and at times i barely recognise the telegraph from what we had then. back then — telegraph from what we had then. back then there was a solid comment between _ back then there was a solid comment between comments and news. you see comment— between comments and news. you see comment bleeding into the news agenda _ comment bleeding into the news agenda a — comment bleeding into the news agenda a lot more and the commenters are probably— agenda a lot more and the commenters are probably more extreme. this great _ are probably more extreme. this great expression with —— the great

session— great expression with —— the great session with woke blobs that we wouldn't — session with woke blobs that we wouldn't have seen in days past. there _ wouldn't have seen in days past. there are — wouldn't have seen in days past. there are very good journalists at the telegraph but many think it isn't _ the telegraph but many think it isn't the — the telegraph but many think it isn't the trustworthy organ that it used _ isn't the trustworthy organ that it used to— isn't the trustworthy organ that it used to be. i wonder therefore whether— used to be. i wonder therefore whether a _ used to be. i wonder therefore whether a new buyer coming in will want _ whether a new buyer coming in will want to— whether a new buyer coming in will want to carry on, because it is profitable _ want to carry on, because it is profitable or whether they will want to re—badge it, reform it in the way it used _ to re—badge it, reform it in the way it used to _ to re—badge it, reform it in the way it used to be — to re—badge it, reform it in the way it used to be. i hope it goes back to howard — it used to be. i hope it goes back to howard used to be. do it used to be. i hope it goes back to howard used to be.— it used to be. i hope it goes back to howard used to be. do you think it's still very _ to howard used to be. do you think it's still very influential? _ to howard used to be. do you think it's still very influential? or - to howard used to be. do you think it's still very influential? or will - it's still very influential? or will people say it is a legacy business that doesn't have the same influence. mi that doesn't have the same influence.— that doesn't have the same influence. . , , , ., that doesn't have the same influence. . , , , . influence. all newspapers have lost influence. all newspapers have lost influence because _ influence. all newspapers have lost influence because they _ influence. all newspapers have lost influence because they don't - influence. all newspapers have lost influence because they don't have l influence. all newspapers have lost| influence because they don't have as many— influence because they don't have as many readers as they used to. perhaps — many readers as they used to. perhaps the telegraph has lost even more _ perhaps the telegraph has lost even more influence because of this thing. — more influence because of this thing, the news agenda seems to be so politics— thing, the news agenda seems to be so politics led and people say, can i so politics led and people say, can i realty _ so politics led and people say, can i really believe this story, is it right— i really believe this story, is it right or— i really believe this story, is it right or skewed one way or the

other? —