a long way above the speed limit. the court heard how after the crash the driver suffered post—traumatic stress and he had separated from his family. his defence was that in the tunnel aproaching the corner there was a lack of visual cues, poor signage and many of the lights were broken. he became disorientated and thought he was going in the opposite direction. outside court, his solicitor spoke on his behalf. "i am truly and deeply sorry. it's something that i am going to have to live with for the rest of my life, and i would just like to end by saying there are no winners in this case." that's it. thanks. mr dorris, any messages to the families? no, no. the court also heard that transport for london and the operator allowed a safety blindspot to develop. no risk assessment for a high—speed derailment was ever carried

out at this corner. measures were never put in place to mitigate that risk. the court heard they created at sandilands an accident for more stories from across the uk head to the bbc news website. that's made local people and businesses very angry. a lot of people still don't have online and like myself. barclay says the closure was a response to changing customer behaviour

the ayes to the right, 254. the to the left, — the ayes to the right, 254. the to the left, seven. —— 354. —— the noes to the _ the left, seven. —— 354. —— the noes to the left, — the left, seven. —— 354. —— the noes to the left, seven. the left, seven. -- 354. -- the noes to the left, seven.—

the prime minister was otherwise engaged when the commons gave its verdict on the report into the conduct of his predecessor but one. we'll talk to a tory mp who backed borisjohnson for leader in 2019 but supported today's motion, and we'll hear from the liberal democrats. also tonight — labour promise energy security, lower energy bills, and ripping up planning laws that block onshore wind farms. but what will be the cost? it is going to have a cost, and we say it is right to invest the £28 billion a year that we will get to in the second half of the parliament to insulate homes, for example, and moved to green power. plus — who should pay for the reconstruction of ukraine? so far, the pledges cover barely a quarter of the cost of re—building, so could russian funds frozen in the west come into play?

and georgia williams was 17 when she was murdered by a college friend ten years ago. when her mum and dad, who was a police officer, looked into the events leading to her death, they discovered her killer could have been stopped years earlier. it breaks me down. i am not ashamed to say i cry every day. a number of times today. i am half the man i was. good evening. in the last hour, the house of commons read the last rites on borisjohnson�*s time as an mp. one day he may return, but for now, the man who was prime minister this time last year finds himself shorn of the pass to the parliamentary estate that ex—mps ordinarily enjoy, his one—time peers having endorsed the report of the privileges committee that found he had misled them. that opposition mps would endorse the report was to be expected.

what became apparent today was that some of the country's best—known conservative mps did too — leader of the house penny mourdant and former pm theresa may among them. there were tory mps speaking out in defence of borisjohnson in the chamber, but their numbers were modest. plenty of conservative mps were missing too, including brendan clarke—smith, who told this programme on thursday he believed the report was vindictive, and he would vote against it. he tweeted today he'd be watching the ashes instead. one person whose view we don't know is that of the prime minister. let's talk to nick in central lobby, where mps are just leaving after the vote. tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria, tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria. as — tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria. as you _ tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria, as you say, _ tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria, as you say, in _ tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria, as you say, in the - tell us what happens tonight. well, victoria, as you say, in the last - victoria, as you say, in the last hour or so, victoria, as you say, in the last hour orso, mps victoria, as you say, in the last hour or so, mps voted overwhelmingly to declare that borisjohnson deliberately misled the house of commons over those downing street parties by 354 votes to seven, but i

have to say it all happened after some parliamentary shenanigans. the government were determined to avoid a vote, borisjohnson supporters wanted to avoid a vote. labour and the snp were determined to have a vote, because they wanted to show that rishi sunak would not be turning up for that, and i witnessed how those shenanigans took place just as it was called to a vote, i was standing in the press gallery, i could see down just before the vote was called, a big borisjohnson supporter was in intense discussions with the labour whip, the reason for that as he could see that the labour opposition whip, chief whip, had positioned himself at the opposite end of the labour bench than he would normally set out, and when the speaker said, who supports the report against borisjohnson, a big shouts of yes. does anyone not support this, the labour chief whip repeatedly shouted no, no, no, which

got the division, absolutely not what rishi sunak wanted. i got a flavour of the thinking among senior conservatives earlier this evening as i caught up with some of them. lee anderson! yes, how are you? a sunny summer's evening. are you going to be heading into parliament to vote for or against boris johnson? erm, i'm abstaining. why are you abstaining? the reason i'm abstaining is because boris has gone. he's handed his notice in, so whatever happens tonight is not going to make any difference. he's not going back in to take his friends and family around parliament. so, i mean, ithink it's a bit of a waste of time, really. but i thought you always had firm opinions. you knew what you thought. i've just given you my opinion. have you not paid attention? but you're not going to vote, you're not going to vote. now, look. what is going to happen, if the vote goes through, what's going to happen? are you still a big borisjohnson supporter? i'm a supporter of the conservative party. and boris got us an 80 seat majority and got myjob. i'll be forever grateful for that. but, you know, this debate that's going on, it's a school ground pile—one. james cleverly. evening, nicholas.

you're a borisjohnson ally. your fortitude is fantastic but i'm afraid... - are you going to vote for him tonight? david tc davies. hello, nick, how are you? i'm very well, how are you? good, i'm very well indeed, thank you. on this summer's evening, are you going to be voting? yes, i will be voting. for or against? therese coffey. are you going to follow theresa may's example and stand up and vote for this report? nick. hello. tom tugendhat, as a very well—known fan of borisjohnson you're presumably heading over very soon to vote for this report? nick, is this really news? not voting for it? good evening. you'll be delighted to know that i'm not going to stop and speak to you. chloe smith. summer drinks before rushing off to vote for the boris johnson report? what is the significance of rishi sunak not telling anybody whether or not he endorses the vote? i sunak not telling anybody whether or not he endorses the vote?—

not he endorses the vote? i should 'ust sa not he endorses the vote? i should just say that _ not he endorses the vote? i should just say that nine _ not he endorses the vote? i should just say that nine members - not he endorses the vote? i should just say that nine members of - not he endorses the vote? i should just say that nine members of the l just say that nine members of the cabinets did vote for the report, and against borisjohnson, three of those were some of the people i spoke to just then, tom tugendhat, david t davis, and chloe smith, but you're absolutely right, the big issueis you're absolutely right, the big issue is rishi sunak not turning up for that vote, that is why labour wanted the vote, because they wanted to show him not able to stand by this cross—party committee that found that borisjohnson had deliberately misled parliament. and they will now be able to say, that allegation will be that the prime minister is weak, he was unable to accept the advice of theresa may, who said parliament has to stand up for procedures, it has to stand up for procedures, it has to stand up for this sort of report. i think the view in downing street will be that this was a matter for the house, there was no instruction for conservative mps, how they should vote, the prime minister's view was that mps in his side should follow their conscience, and he wanted them to do that without feeling that he and anywhere was influencing them. victoria. thank you very much, nick.

conservative mp bob seeley voted to support the privileges committee report, as did liberal democrat mp layla moran, chair of the all party parliamentary group on coronavirus. is rishi sunak in hiding? no, he is runnina is rishi sunak in hiding? no, he is running the _ is rishi sunak in hiding? no, he is running the country, _ is rishi sunak in hiding? no, he is running the country, as _ is rishi sunak in hiding? no, he is running the country, as it - is rishi sunak in hiding? no, he is running the country, as it should l running the country, as it should be doing _ running the country, as it should be doinu. ~ . ., running the country, as it should be doinu. a ., running the country, as it should be doinu. m . , ., doing. michael gove said she would abstain, doing. michael gove said she would abstain. any — doing. michael gove said she would abstain, any more _ doing. michael gove said she would abstain, any more than _ doing. michael gove said she would abstain, any more than and - doing. michael gove said she would abstain, any more than and to - doing. michael gove said she would abstain, any more than and to may| abstain, any more than and to may said they would back it, is only leader you have to step up at times like this, have you not? if i leader you have to step up at times like this, have you not?— like this, have you not? ifi had a choice between _ like this, have you not? ifi had a choice between rishi _ like this, have you not? ifi had a choice between rishi sunak- like this, have you not? ifi had a choice between rishi sunak and i choice between rishi sunak and sir keir starmer, choice between rishi sunak and sir keirstarmer, i choice between rishi sunak and sir keir starmer, i knowl choice between rishi sunak and sir keir starmer, i know i would choose. i keir starmer, i know i would choose. twas _ keir starmer, i know i would choose. twasjust_ keir starmer, i know i would choose. i wasjust rishi sunak any day. of i wasjust rishi sunak any day. (git course i wasjust rishi sunak any day. course you i wasjust rishi sunak any day. of course you would. i am asking about whether it is odd, bizarre, unusual that the prime minister does not tell us whether he backs this report? this is the guy who stood on the steps of downing street and said he wanted to restore integrity, yet we do not know what he thinks about this report into integrity. he has not voted against _ this report into integrity. he has not voted against it, _ this report into integrity. he has not voted against it, so - this report into integrity. he has not voted against it, so it - this report into integrity. he has not voted against it, so it has i this report into integrity. he has. not voted against it, so it has gone through. _ not voted against it, so it has gone

through, and penny... we not voted against it, so it has gone through, and penny...— not voted against it, so it has gone through, and penny... we do not know whether he supports _ through, and penny... we do not know whether he supports it _ through, and penny... we do not know whether he supports it or— through, and penny... we do not know whether he supports it or not. - through, and penny... we do not know whether he supports it or not. i - through, and penny... we do not know whether he supports it or not. i did - whether he supports it or not. i did not know if — whether he supports it or not. i did not know if i _ whether he supports it or not. i did not know if i would _ whether he supports it or not. i did not know if i would abstain or vote against _ not know if i would abstain or vote against it. — not know if i would abstain or vote against it. i— not know if i would abstain or vote against it, i went in with an open mind, _ against it, i went in with an open mind, penny spoke with great eloquence, and ice decided there was on the _ eloquence, and ice decided there was on the one _ eloquence, and ice decided there was on the one thing to do. rishi sunak is runhihg — on the one thing to do. rishi sunak is running the country, as it should be doing — is running the country, as it should be doinu. . . . , is running the country, as it should bedoin. . ., ._ , be doing. parliamentary democracy is im ortant. be doing. parliamentary democracy is important. you're _ be doing. parliamentary democracy is important. you're absolutely - be doing. parliamentary democracy is important. you're absolutely right, i important. you're absolutely right, ou want important. you're absolutely right, you want backbenchers _ important. you're absolutely right, you want backbenchers voting - important. you're absolutely right, you want backbenchers voting for l you want backbenchers voting for that, _ you want backbenchers voting for that, not — you want backbenchers voting for that, not necessarily cabinet ministers who have gotjobs that, not necessarily cabinet ministers who have got jobs to do. 0k. ministers who have got 'obs to do. 0k. ~ ~ ., , , ministers who have got 'obs to do. 0k. «a, y ., ok. we know why they are not there, and that is because _ ok. we know why they are not there, and that is because they _ ok. we know why they are not there, and that is because they are - and that is because they are cowards and that is because they are cowards and they are not worried about the membership of the conservative party that still loves boris johnson membership of the conservative party that still loves borisjohnson —— they are worried. is that still loves boris johnson -- they are worried.— that still loves boris johnson -- they are worried. is rishi sunak a coward? no- _ they are worried. is rishi sunak a coward? no. i— they are worried. is rishi sunak a coward? no. i have— they are worried. is rishi sunak a coward? no. i have on _ they are worried. is rishi sunak a coward? no. i have on the - they are worried. is rishi sunak a coward? no. i have on the isle i coward? no. i have on the isle of wiuht, coward? no. i have on the isle of wight. their— coward? no. i have on the isle of wight, their attitude _ coward? no. i have on the isle of wight, their attitude is _ coward? no. i have on the isle of wight, their attitude is beloved l wight, their attitude is beloved by us, but _ wight, their attitude is beloved by us, but it— wight, their attitude is beloved by us, but it did not work out for whatever— us, but it did not work out for whatever reasons, so we accept the fact he _ whatever reasons, so we accept the fact he is _ whatever reasons, so we accept the fact he is no — whatever reasons, so we accept the fact he is no longer leader. under

mentally, — fact he is no longer leader. under mentally, the dogs bark, the cannon and move _ mentally, the dogs bark, the cannon and move on, this scan event moved on a year— and move on, this scan event moved on a year ago — and move on, this scan event moved on a year ago. —— fundamentally, the dogs _ on a year ago. —— fundamentally, the dogs hark. _ on a year ago. —— fundamentally, the dogs bark, the caravan moves on. the --eole dogs bark, the caravan moves on. people running dogs bark, the caravan moves on. tue: people running the country dogs bark, the caravan moves on. ti9: people running the country should be able to make up their minds, do they back what parliament has said is the right sanction or not? i do not think it speaks well for them that they decided to abstain, i think we have more respect for the people who said what they would do, and did it and voted against, i think at least they are being honest, and this is a report about integrity and lying. so if we want to put borisjohnson to bed, let's stop talking about boris johnson, i think it is important that parliament was able to have its say, it is notjust the premise that, it is a whole suite of different people, how many tory mps ended up abseiling? a huge number, and i think we should all be ashamed of themselves. the and i think we should all be ashamed of themselves.— of themselves. the conservatives removed boris _ of themselves. the conservatives removed boris johnson _ of themselves. the conservatives removed boris johnson as - of themselves. the conservatives removed boris johnson as prime l removed borisjohnson as prime minister last year, he resigned as an mp last week, the commons has endorsed the report, is that it now?

i would say that i would love it to be it, i am absolutely synthetic to those who say we have got bigger issues, we have mortgage rates, we have so many things, i was looking back at what i was doing on the 18th of december 2020, i was propelling on the first debate on long covid in the house, we still have things to deal with on covid but i do not want to talk about borisjohnson any more. i spoke to one of your colleagues in the lobby and i said, is the set, are be done now? and he said, well, for chapter. so i hope so... —— is this it? a, said, well, for chapter. so i hope so... -- is this it?— so... -- is this it? a week last friday on _ so... -- is this it? a week last friday on newsnight, - so... -- is this it? a week last friday on newsnight, you i so... -- is this it? a week last i friday on newsnight, you disturb the privileges committee as a kangaroo court. i privileges committee as a kangaroo court. :, :, ~' -- court. i do not thinki did. -- described. _ court. i do not thinki did. -- described. you _ court. i do not thinki did. -- described. you did, - court. i do not thinki did. -- described. you did, i- court. i do not thinki did. --| described. you did, i watched court. i do not thinki did. -- i described. you did, i watched it back today. you obviously voted for the support, so should viewers believe... i the support, so should viewers believe- - -_ believe... i thinki said i have some sympathy _ believe... i thinki said i have some sympathy with - believe... i thinki said i have some sympathy with the i believe... i thinki said i have i some sympathy with the argument. believe... i thinki said i have - some sympathy with the argument. i am happy— some sympathy with the argument. i am happy to apologise if i did say that _ am happy to apologise if i did say

that. :, ., that. you called kangaroo court. somebody _ that. you called kangaroo court. somebody may _ that. you called kangaroo court. somebody may have _ that. you called kangaroo court. somebody may have made i that. you called kangaroo court. somebody may have made the l somebody may have made the allegation that... you somebody may have made the allegation that. . ._ somebody may have made the alleuation that... :, , :, , allegation that... you use the words kan . aroo allegation that... you use the words kangaroo court- _ allegation that... you use the words kangaroo court. fine, _ allegation that. .. you use the words kangaroo court. fine, i— allegation that... you use the words kangaroo court. fine, i do _ allegation that... you use the words kangaroo court. fine, i do not i allegation that... you use the words kangaroo court. fine, i do not a i kangaroo court. fine, i do not a member doing _ kangaroo court. fine, i do not a member doing it. _ kangaroo court. fine, i do not a member doing it. penny - kangaroo court. fine, i do not a member doing it. penny spoke | kangaroo court. fine, i do not a i member doing it. penny spoke well today— member doing it. penny spoke well today and _ member doing it. penny spoke well today and i— member doing it. penny spoke well today and i thought, i need to be supporting this. so today and i thought, i need to be sunporting this— supporting this. so you regret callin: at supporting this. so you regret calling at that? _ supporting this. so you regret calling at that? clearly, i supporting this. so you regret calling at that? clearly, my i supporting this. so you regret i calling at that? clearly, my memory is not that bad, _ calling at that? clearly, my memory is not that bad, but _ calling at that? clearly, my memory is not that bad, but if— calling at that? clearly, my memory is not that bad, but if you _ calling at that? clearly, my memory is not that bad, but if you said i i is not that bad, but if you said i say it. — is not that bad, but if you said i say it. i— is not that bad, but if you said i say it, i will... it is not that bad, but if you said i say it, iwill...— say it, i will... it is on the ipiayer. — say it, i will... it is on the ipiayer. you _ say it, i will... it is on the iplayer, you can _ say it, i will... it is on the iplayer, you can watch i say it, i will... it is on the iplayer, you can watch it i say it, i will... it is on the - iplayer, you can watch it yourself. fine. i thought we needed to support the privileges committee, openness and transparency are important, but as you _ and transparency are important, but as you say, — and transparency are important, but as you say, all of this stuff happened a year ago, two years ago, and what _ happened a year ago, two years ago, and what is _ happened a year ago, two years ago, and what is the future for us now is not the _ and what is the future for us now is not the stuff— and what is the future for us now is not the stuff that happened a year or two— not the stuff that happened a year or two ago, it is the stuff that will happen... or two ago, it is the stuff that will happen. . ._ will happen... but the line has happened _ will happen... but the line has happened in — will happen... but the line has happened in the _ will happen... but the line has happened in the last _ will happen... but the line has happened in the last 12 - will happen... but the line has happened in the last 12 to i will happen... but the line has happened in the last 12 to 18 i happened in the last 12 to 18 months. layla moran, what to study�*s debate and vote count is about the state of parliamentary democracy in this country? —— the lying has happened. i

this country? -- the lying has happened-— this country? -- the lying has ha ened. :, ,, . happened. i agree with you about penny mordauntmy _ happened. i agree with you about penny mordauntmy opening i happened. i agree with you about i penny mordauntmy opening remarks, it was heartening to hear members from across the house stand up for parliamentary democracy. frankly, when we have had various conservative governments illegally prorogue parliament and introduce hen with its powers and injuries in primary legislation using statutory instruments and all sorts of things, i feel like at instruments and all sorts of things, ifeel like at some instruments and all sorts of things, i feel like at some points it suited them to start up for parliamentary democracy today, maybe not always, but i am pleased that is there and i think it is very important but parliament does have its ability to hold its members to account. very quickly, the reason this was important was for the bereaved families who were watching all of this partying going on. i have spoken to a few of them in the last week or so, one today, who said i was not able to attend a loved one's funeral. i knowi was not able to attend a loved one's funeral. i know i said over and over again, but for those people who have lost people, they have not moved on, they were not able to grieve, this was an important part of that

process and it was important that it happened. tqm. process and it was important that it ha ened. ., ~ process and it was important that it ha ened. ., ,, i. process and it was important that it ha ened. . ~' ,, , happened. 0k, thank you both very much. climate change is the defining issue of our time, and according to some, we are at a defining moment. and with that in mind, labour had promised that if it wins the next election, it would borrow £28 billion a year each year for ten years to transition to a green economy. the week before last, it rowed back on that, delaying that level of spending until halfway through the parliament if it wins power. today, in edinburgh, it sought to regain the initiative by making a pitch for energy security, pledging to rip up planning rules for onshore wind and power and create a state—owned green energy company, gb energy, to be based in scotland. the party says that would lead to lower energy bills. our economics editor ben chu is at the uk's largest on—shore wind farm near scunthorpe, and looks at the costs of transitioning to green energy. turning green. is it the cheaper option?

clean british energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. three times cheaper. that's a potential gold mine for our mission on growth and the benefits flow primarily to working people and working class communities. the labour party, which launched its clean energy plan in edinburgh today, suggests moving to 100% clean energy by the end of this decade would be all gain and no pain for the economy. is that right? you won't find many credible analysts, economists or industrialists who argue that the likely costs of the uk getting to zero mean it's the wrong target, yet there are transition costs. some argue those costs are being underplayed. so, what are those costs? let's start with estimates from the government's own climate watchdog, the climate change committee or ccc. the ccc estimates that over the next two decades, the uk will have to invest around

£280 billion on new clean energy infrastructure including wind turbines, to decarbonise electricity generation. that works out at around £14 billion a year. we do need to invest. the sooner we invest, the sooner we get to realise all the benefits of a clean, home—grown energy system, notjust in terms of bills and emissions and energy security but also in terms of creating significantjobs in communities across the country. but getting to net zero is about more than clean power. this shows the ccc�*s estimates for how much the uk will need to invest each year to get to net zero. investment notjust in things like wind turbines and solar panels but also electric vehicles, electric heat pumps to power homes. it averages around £50 billion every year or around 1.5% of gdp. but there will be saving from this investment too as the energy from renewables will be cheaper

than using imported oil and gas, and electric vehicles will also be cheaper to run than petrol cars. and by 2050 the climate change committee projects the investment costs to be more than matched by these savings. however looking at investment costs minus savings, shown by the green line, it's not until 2044 that the savings start to be greater than investment costs, implying that over the next two decades, getting to net zero will be a net cost for our economy. and that those costs will peak later this decade. one has to bear in mind that this is a partial cost benefit analysis. it doesn't include the economic damage that climate change would do. nevertheless if national investment is going to rise that means national consumption and that's what we all have to spend as households will be lower than it otherwise would have been. there isn't a free lunch but we have to put our shoulder to it and it means higher taxes and higher bills and more savings and more investment

and less consumption. i understand entirely why no politicians tell the public that. but the reality is that unless we do that, we're going to have all these promises, as we've had for the last 20 years, trotted out and then not delivered. labour says it would scrap planning rules which effectively ban new onshore wind farms like this one near scunthorpe. but even with planning reform, is labour's 2030 electricity decarbonisation objective achievable? my personal view is there isn't a hope in hell of labour achieving the objective by 2030, though there is nothing to say they shouldn't try. but it needs to be systemic. it needs to be structured. it needs to be organised and it needs to recognise we just don't have the skills in britain. so it's a start from scratch, in many cases, to put this together. so, not the costless revolution into a net zero future

as sometimes implied, although experts agree, no less urgent because of it. i've been talking to the shadow climate and net zero secretary ed miliband. i started by asking him if he really believed 100% clean energy was all gain and no pain for the economy. i think we are saying that we have been, as a country, through a terrible cost of living crisis over the last 18 months, driven by what's happened to energy bills and the reason for that, victoria, is because we are so dependent on fossil fuels. fossil fuels are currently about three times more expensive than renewables. and that's why it's so massively in our interests to drive forward for 100% clean power. so, zero costs for consumers? lower costs for consumers. hang on, hang on. not zero, then? the investment is going to come from the private sector. the independent estimates that we've had done showed that energy bills

will be £93 billion lower than they otherwise have been, £400 for every family in the country, and that's just for the simple reason that if we'd been talking 15 years ago when i was energy secretary i would have said green was the right long—term economic choice, but not necessarily the right short—term choice. we've seen this revolution in the cost of green power over the last decade. so, let's drill down, then come on the cost of the voters because according to the independent climate change committee it's not until 2044 that the savings start to be greater than investment costs. in other words, over the next two decades, getting to net zero will be a net cost for our economy. and according to the committee the costs will peak towards the end of this decade. so, i don't understand why you're not being straight with voters about that. you are right to say that when it comes, for example to transforming our homes, it is going to have a cost

and that's why we say it's right to invest. that's the £28 billion that we'll get to in the second half of the parliament, to insulate homes, for example, and move to green power. so you're right to say that green energy is cheaper but in other areas there is a cost. now, that cost of acting is much less than the cost of not acting. and we know from the stern review in the 20005, that's from the climate change committee, the costs... and the office for budget responsibility, the costs that will store up if we don't act are significantly higher. that's why it's right to act. if you look at the drive towards net zero, there is a cost. i think the climate change committee estimates it as about 1% of our national income but that's public investment and private investment. i'm absolutely saying to you that there are costs that we are going to have to bear across the whole public sector, across government. for example, when it comes to homes, when it comes to various other areas that we need to transition. but it's the right thing to do.

but in terms of cutting back from the 28 billion a year you promised, just a couple of years ago, if you win the next general election, we know that won't happen now until the second half of a parliament. that must be a blow to you? it's the right thing to do. i'll tell you why. it's for two reasons. one, when we look at what is required, take, for example, home insulation, we placed we'll get to 6 billion a year to insulate homes but frankly we don't have the supply chains, we don't have the skills to do that in year one. we'll have to write up. and secondly, rachel reeves has been very open about this. we've had liz truss's mini budget, the fiscal position has significantly worsened. we are going to meet ourfiscal rules. we've got to found this green investment on our fiscal rules. if you look at that £28 billion a year that we are going to get to in the second half of the parliament, that's more ambitious than president biden's inflation reduction act. yes or no, will residents be able to veto new onshore wind farms? one resident won't be able to and that is the current position. right, so how many residents will it take to veto an onshore wind farm? that depends on local authority decisions.

it's important to say that we aren't taking decisions away from local authorities. these will remain decisions for local authorities. but the point is, we aren't going to say one objector stops a wind farm. the other thing we're going to do is, we are going to say to local people, here's our guarantee. if you build... if clean energy infrastructure is built in your area, you will get the benefit. and with gb energy, our publicly owned energy company, we'll actually work with local authorities to build the clean infrastructure and give local people money off their bills, council tax discounts, cash to tackle the cost of living crisis. sorry, you're going to give them cash, are you, if they say yes to an onshore wind farm? yes, that's one of the things that could be done. this will be done in partnership with local authorities. we want them to feel the benefit. the international energy agency, the global authority, says there should be no new oil and gas licences. they've said that from 2021, actually. and that's our policy.

no, it's not. what you're doing is saying you will only ban new oil and gas licences from the point at which you win an election, if you win it. i can see the question you're asking. are we going to rescind existing licences? we're not going to do that. i'll tell you why we're not going to rescind existing licences. first of all, it's the wrong thing to do because it sends the wrong signal to investors all over the world. but secondly and very pertinently it would mean we have to pay billions in compensation to the very oil and gas companies that have been making record profits. then i'd be on your programme, victoria, and you'd be saying, ed, why is the priority to spend billions in compensation for revoking these licences? why does that make sense to the taxpayer? and the answer is, it doesn't. ed miliband, thank you very much for talking to newsnight. ed miliband speaking to me from labour's green energy launch in edinburgh. who should pay for the reconstruction of ukraine? russia, of course, but failing that, a major global financial effort will be needed to rebuild the country once the war is over.

the uk, usa and the eu is already contributing substantially in terms of humanitarian and military aid. but the issue is pressing, and ukrainain officials are here in the uk this week for a conference on future rebuilding. in a moment we'll hear from president zelensky�*s advisor on the economy. first here's mark. the ebb of the dnipro's floodwaters has been under way for a few days, now. the initial tide, millions of litres flooded a broad area. now, the challenges from the dam disaster are different. the level of what used to be a huge reservoir has dropped alarmingly. and there will be lasting consequences for irrigation and drinking water across the region. the president has a long—standing commitment to rebuild the facilities left here and across ukraine. translation: before fleeing - from kherson the occupiers destroyed all critical infrastructure.

communication, water supply, heat, electricity. russian forces everywhere have the same goal, mockery of people as much as possible. we will restore everything, believe me. in some places like bakhmut, fought over four months and utterly —— in some places like bakhmut, fought over for months and utterly destroyed as a result, a complete rebuild will someday be needed. it's all part of a picture of massive damage to ukraine's national infrastructure. the world bank estimated before the dam disaster that reconstruction could cost $411 billion. other estimates range as high as $1 trillion. even the lower figure is a challenge. sources in ukraine suggest that so far only $100 billion of that money has been committed by donors. frozen russian government assets in g7 countries, meanwhile, are believed to be around $300 million. so, enough to make quite a difference, if they could be used.

—— meanwhile, are believed to be around $300 billion. so, enough to make quite a difference, if they could be used. lawyers differ on this. but there are at least precedents for state assets being taken and used for other purposes. one slightly different context, but one is the state assets of afghanistan after the fall of the ghani government, when the taliban came to power. the us has taken those and repurposed them. but there are other examples going further back. so, it should not be beyond the wit of cover government lawyers to be able to devise a way of doing that, and one way that you could do it is essentially to leave the assets on paper as belonging to the russians but to use them to purchase ukrainian government bonds to be able to be used for reconstruction. following last year's ukraine recovery conference in switzerland, this week, leaders will convene

in london in an attempt to increase aid pledges. but there are concerns from those who don't want to invest in an active war zone without some special insurance, and whether ukrainians will use their money wisely and transparently. they are doing many of the right things to fight against corruption. but you know, you've got to establish a bit of a track record. you can't say, well, now i've repented, please give me lots of money. you've got to prove that you are in fact on the wagon and can be trusted. for the moment, destruction is outpacing reconstruction. but this week leaders will focus on what needs to be done, whenever the guns do fall silent. let's speak now to a man who was in the bunker with president zelensky at the start of the war and on a lot of occasions since — his advisor on economic issues,

aleksandr rodnya nsky. thanks for being with us. how long will it take to reconstruct ukraine and how much do you think it will cost? it and how much do you think it will cost? :, ., and how much do you think it will cost? . ~ .. , and how much do you think it will cost? :, ~' ::, , :, �* , cost? it will take decades, that's for sure, cost? it will take decades, that's for sure. to _ cost? it will take decades, that's for sure, to really _ cost? it will take decades, that's for sure, to really reconstruct. . cost? it will take decades, that's. for sure, to really reconstruct. we cannot speak atjust for sure, to really reconstruct. we cannot speak at just about reconstruction per se. we speak about recovery and modernisation because we want to build back better. that's one of the principles of reconstruction. there's no question that ukraine was a poor country to begin with and it's going to take years. some of the sums in your report aren't going to come overnight. this is a stark capital thatis overnight. this is a stark capital that is now destroyed and we'll have to rebuild, wait for sustainable economic growth for that to happen. will it be right to draw on the russian money that's frozen in western bank accounts? that would certainly be — western bank accounts? that would certainly be right, _ western bank accounts? that would certainly be right, it _ western bank accounts? that would certainly be right, it would - western bank accounts? that would certainly be right, it would be i

western bank accounts? that would certainly be right, it would bejustl certainly be right, it would bejust and it seems efficient. it's the right thing to do no matter how you look at it. it's already been frozen, russia is responsible. they will pay reparations when the regime. no question. we have the money already frozen. we should use it. if money already frozen. we should use it. , ., , :, .. �* money already frozen. we should use it. if it is illegal you can't see western leaders _ it. if it is illegal you can't see western leaders sanction i it. if it is illegal you can't see western leaders sanction in i it. if it is illegal you can't see i western leaders sanction in that? that's the challenge. we hope western governments can overcome it. we've seen canada passing legislation to allow for the confiscation and transfer of funds to the recovery. we hope other countries follow suit including britain and europe. ukraine does not have a very good reputation when it comes to corruption. what guarantees could you give that money invested in the rebuilding of ukraine would be spent honestly and with transparency? yeah, that is a complex issue, and you have to view it in perspective. we have made enormous progress of the last nine years, starting from a

place where ukraine was very corrupt. now we have established around five institutions that are just there to combat corruption, including law enforcement agencies, special prosecutors offices, the high court to investigate corruption. so all that is now functioning as an integrated system to really combat corruption, and you're starting to see the fruits, people being persecuted, arrested, put on trial, you might think 0k, put on trial, you might think ok, that put on trial, you might think 0k, thatis put on trial, you might think ok, that is bad, because it is something to do with corruption, but that is good because you cannot make that transition in one day, you have to have heads rolling, you have to have essentially people being persecuted, so what you are seeing are the signs of corruption being combated, and thatis of corruption being combated, and that is good. so my answer is, we have made progress, we will continue to make progress, and we will address these issues systemically from all sides. this address these issues systemically from all sides.— from all sides. this conference takes place — from all sides. this conference takes place in _ from all sides. this conference takes place in london - from all sides. this conference takes place in london this - from all sides. this conference l takes place in london this week, from all sides. this conference - takes place in london this week, are you expecting people, countries, to invest in the rebuilding while we what is going on? we

invest in the rebuilding while we what is going on?— invest in the rebuilding while we what is going on? we are hoping that will happen. — what is going on? we are hoping that will happen. we _ what is going on? we are hoping that will happen, we are _ what is going on? we are hoping that will happen, we are putting _ what is going on? we are hoping that| will happen, we are putting measures in place trying to convince the private sector to reinvest now, we are getting weapons, increasingly better air defence systems, we have already managed to essentially completely protect several regions of our country, including the capital city you have, it is more or less completely protected, shouldn't and 100% of the missiles in any given air attacks, or when they are filing these missiles from the air. other regions are not as well protected unfortunately, so we need to put all of these measures in place, militarily and economically, to make sure the private sector feels induced to invest. {lilia to make sure the private sector feels induced to invest. 0k, thank ou ve feels induced to invest. 0k, thank you very much _ feels induced to invest. 0k, thank you very much for _ feels induced to invest. 0k, thank you very much forjoining - feels induced to invest. 0k, thank you very much forjoining us - feels induced to invest. 0k, thank you very much forjoining us on i you very much forjoining us on newsnight tonight.— this is georgia williams from telford. ten years ago, aged 17, she was planning a future that included joining the raf as a paramedic. that was taken away from her when she was sadistically murdered by a friend from college. jamie reynolds was a violent young man fascinated with extreme

pornography, and is now serving a rare whole—life term. a serious case review revealed that reynolds had come to the attention of the police and a number of other agencies five years before the killing, when he attempted to strangle another girl after inviting her to his house under the pretence of working on a project, the same ruse he used on gerogia williams when she died. ——georgia. she fought him off, and reynolds received a warning from police. no further action was taken, even after his parents told officers that their son was fascinated with violent pornography, and had drawn nooses onto images of girls he knew. a subsequent police watchdog report led to misconduct meetings for several officers. all kept theirjobs. georgia's mum lynette and steve, a former detective himself, have been talking to newsnight. lynette has written a book called our georgia, which lays out why they believe why their daughter's killing was preventable. first, steve told us about georgia.

georgia was my mate, georgia was. from a baby, she was so laid back. really grounded. very down—to—earth. and as she grew older, thatjust developed into a really sort of genuine person. she was caring. she'd help anyone wherever she could. georgia was killed in horrific circumstances, by this man that she considered to be a friend, that she was kind towards. a lot of the book is

about how it should have been possible to have stopped this predatory and dangerous man yes before what happened to georgia. tell us about that. we started to find out that actually, 2008, he had tried and failed to harm a girl, exactly the same routine as what he's done with georgia, and then we were finding there was no forensics, there was no follow—up to the _ interview with the young girl. and then in 2011 there was another incident, he rammed his car against a work colleague because she had rejected him. yeah. and again, the police didn'tjoin the dots. no. you had to fight to get answers, and you are a police officer. yes. so what does that mean for anybody else? i've always said, ever since, what about the people in the street?

they don't stand a chance, don't stand a chance, not unless they've got someone who knows the police inside out, behind them. it's a losing game. it was a losing game for us. what was going on, in your view? i think it was a case of, they were trying to look after the disciplined officers more so than thinking about poor steve. what happened to those who were brought forward for a misconduct meeting? not a lot, to be honest. nothing at all. everybody kept their jobs? everybody kept theirjobs and, to me, how it was handled, it was a complete waste of time. but we went to this disciplinary hearing and like we said before, it was like the headmaster sitting in front of this

group event and they were like naughty schoolchildren given a slapped wrist, basically. none of them were sympathetic, none of them were owning what they did or didn't do. we never got reasons. we got lots of excuses. we got people saying, those disciplined, i'd make the same decisions again. and someone's died. there will be some people watching who cannot imagine what you have gone through. you've lost your daughter. how do you carry on? i'll be totally honest, i'm not ashamed... i sufferfrom ptsd. ifind it very, very hard. ifind it very, very hard. a father, you think about the to me, it's torture. to me, it's torture. one of the things about being one of the things about being a father, you think about the

responsibility that you have towards your kids. and as a policeman i think, well, my therapists have said, it's made it 100 times harder. because that's what my unit did. investigate murders. so i'm used to postmortems, i know what go on in there. i see them. i relive the initial investigation over and over and over again, just going through what should have been done,