joe wilson, bbc news, at lord's. time for a look at the weather — here's stav daneos. thank you very much.

including nadine dorries and a leading peer — are expected to be censured by the committee they called "a kangaroo court". the privileges committee is about to point the finger at serving mps and a peer, alljohnson allies,

for contempt of parliament. nick has the story. yes, strong criticism of those parliamentarians and a process that could lead to punishment. we're joined by an ally of the former prime minister. also tonight, in the thames water bucket, they've got a massive financial hole, as the company which supplies a quarter of the uk population is in danger of collapse. how did it happen? we are going to break the door down, it is up— we are going to break the door down, it is up to _ we are going to break the door down, it is up to you. we we are going to break the door down, it is up to vom— it is up to you. we will explain what is happening _ it is up to you. we will explain what is happening as - it is up to you. we will explain what is happening as soon - it is up to you. we will explain what is happening as soon as| it is up to you. we will explain i what is happening as soon as we it is up to you. we will explain - what is happening as soon as we come in. we have a special investigation into the loan sharks using brutal tactics to profit from the cost—of—living crisis. replace your vehicle, your windows, your door, _ replace your vehicle, your windows, your door, a — replace your vehicle, your windows, your door, a broken _ replace your vehicle, your windows, your door, a broken nose, _ replace your vehicle, your windows, your door, a broken nose, smashedl replace your vehicle, your windows, . your door, a broken nose, smashed up eye sockets, _ your door, a broken nose, smashed up eye sockets. they— your door, a broken nose, smashed up eye sockets, they are _ your door, a broken nose, smashed up eye sockets, they are going _ your door, a broken nose, smashed up eye sockets, they are going to - your door, a broken nose, smashed up eye sockets, they are going to wish - eye sockets, they are going to wish they paid _ eye sockets, they are going to wish they paid me — in kyiv, president zelensky tells visiting western leaders to stop looking at the kremlin when making important decisions.

we'll hear from a leading member of the country's national security and defence team. good evening. the large shadow of borisjohnson is looming once again over the conservative party tonight, as westminster�*s privileges committee prepares to publish a report into its dealings with several allies of the former prime minister, as mps waited to vote. that report, which is expected to find them guilty of bad behaviour, will go to parliament, and it will be up to parliament to decide on censure. i'm joined by nick. tell me more about this report. as you say, borisjohnson is out of parliament but, of course, he hasn't really gone away. in that privileges report published earlier this month in which it was agreed that boris johnson had deliberately misled parliament over those lockdown parties in downing street, the mps on that committee, which does have a conservative majority, they were very upset by the behaviour of some

mps and peers as they carried out their inquiry. so as you are saying, we have another report tomorrow. it will name some mps and peers. it will name some mps and peers. it will criticise them and it will say there was an element of coordination in their response to the work of the committee which they believe was designed to undermine their work. as i understand it, members of this committee were very upset by an article that appeared on the front page of the daily telegraph which i think we can look at on the 16th of june. johnson allies vowed to oust mps who vote for his censure. no criticism of the daily telegraph or the political correspondents who are just doing theirjob. but criticism of nadine dorries, the former culture secretary, big borisjohnson ally. and they picked up on a tweet that boris johnson ally. and they picked up on a tweet that borisjohnson did after the publication of the report before the vote in parliament and this is what

nadine dorries said. any conservative mp who would vote for this report is fundamentally not conservative and will be held to account by members and the public. deselection may follow. it is serious. now, that idea of deselecting mps who vote for the report, that was seen as interference in the work of parliament. i should say that we did ask nadine dorries and the other big government supporterjacob rees—mogg if they wanted to talk to us tonight and they declined to do that. the committee are quite limited in what they can do because they have strict rules on what you can do when you are investigating matters of privilege. but this report is likely debated on the floor of the house next week. there will be a motion to approve it and that may well be amended, possibly for another further report or actually amended to say, this is how these parliamentarians should be punished. and the view is that would probably go through. i do have to say that borisjohnson supporters absolutely

do not accept the findings of the report. earlier, ispoke do not accept the findings of the report. earlier, i spoke to a big borisjohnson ally so report. earlier, i spoke to a big boris johnson ally so jake report. earlier, i spoke to a big borisjohnson ally so jake berry, he was highly peter mccall of this report. i should say i spoke to him before we had news this report will before we had news this report will be published tomorrow —— he was highly critical. we do not believe jake berry is mentioned in this report, because he is critical, that is fine, but you are not allowed to undermine the report. this was my interview with sirjake berry. i interview with sirjake berry. i would encourage your viewers to read that report _ would encourage your viewers to read that report and i spent a long time practising — that report and i spent a long time practising in large commercial law firms, _ practising in large commercial law firms, that — practising in large commercial law firms, that report stretched the facts _ firms, that report stretched the facts around what 12 iko said, firms, that report stretched the facts around what12 iko said, in my view to— facts around what12 iko said, in my view to suit — facts around what12 iko said, in my view to suit the conclusion. in the report— view to suit the conclusion. in the report itself, it said it is not what — report itself, it said it is not what borisjohnson said report itself, it said it is not what boris johnson said to parliament, it is how people perceived it, mps, members of the media _ perceived it, mps, members of the media i_ perceived it, mps, members of the media lam— perceived it, mps, members of the media. i am a member of parliament, nobody— media. i am a member of parliament, nobody asked me howl media. i am a member of parliament, nobody asked me how i perceived it so it is— nobody asked me how i perceived it so it is hot— nobody asked me how i perceived it so it is not even howl nobody asked me how i perceived it so it is not even how i perceived it, so it is not even how i perceived it. it _ so it is not even how i perceived it. it is — so it is not even how i perceived it. it is how— so it is not even how i perceived it, it is how the committee perceived i may have perceived it.

to m3, _ perceived i may have perceived it. to me. that — perceived i may have perceived it. to me, that is stretching the facts to suit _ to me, that is stretching the facts to suit the — to me, that is stretching the facts to suit the conclusion. i don't agree — to suit the conclusion. i don't agree with _ to suit the conclusion. i don't agree with the conclusions of the report, _ agree with the conclusions of the report, actually. i spent a long time _ report, actually. i spent a long time reading it. and that really is a point _ time reading it. and that really is a point in — time reading it. and that really is a point in fact. about how there is a point in fact. about how there is a predetermined outcome which are processes— a predetermined outcome which are processes invented by parliament to deliver _ processes invented by parliament to deliver. that is my view, you may disagree — deliver. that is my view, you may disauree. ., . ., ., , deliver. that is my view, you may disauree. ., . . . , disagree. you are a lawyer we could be litigated- — disagree. you are a lawyer we could be litigated. boris _ disagree. you are a lawyer we could be litigated. boris johnson - disagree. you are a lawyer we could be litigated. boris johnson told - be litigated. borisjohnson told parliament he was advised by officials all guidance was followed and two of his officials, his principal private sector and communications director, advised him and it is writing, i would be careful about saying that. there is a strong case. if you read the report... i have read the report and i'm quoting from it. i am sorry, i have read the report. i am specifically quoting from the report. is the point here about borisjohnson and you and his supporters is, you can never accept responsibility, it is always somebody else's vault? it is responsibility, it is always somebody else's vault? it is in that re ort. in

somebody else's vault? it is in that report- in that _ somebody else's vault? it is in that report. in that report, _ somebody else's vault? it is in that report. in that report, somebody . somebody else's vault? it is in that i report. in that report, somebody who has studied _ report. in that report, somebody who has studied the report like i have, several— has studied the report like i have, several paragraphs in that report talk about where his parliamentary private _ talk about where his parliamentary private secretaries were in the room — private secretaries were in the room he _ private secretaries were in the room. he was advised by officials on the point _ room. he was advised by officials on the point you have just made. and that was— the point you have just made. and that was dismissed. by the committee, is not having enough evidence — committee, is not having enough evidence to back it up. i don't know where _ evidence to back it up. i don't know where you — evidence to back it up. i don't know where you would believe the words of civil servants are not parliamentarians, it rather reinforces my point that i think, i completely accept the legitimacy of this committee, but i think it was a cohciusioh— this committee, but i think it was a conclusion looking for a process that they— conclusion looking for a process that they have stretched the facts to suit _ that they have stretched the facts to suit. we mayjust disagree about that _ to suit. we mayjust disagree about that boris — to suit. we mayjust disagree about that. borisjohnson has gone, we need _ that. borisjohnson has gone, we need to— that. borisjohnson has gone, we need to talk about the future of britain — and the future of our party. we will hear more — and the future of our party. we will hear more from _ and the future of our party. we will hear more from nick _ and the future of our party. we will hear more from nick and _ and the future of our party. we will hear more from nick and jake - and the future of our party. we will| hear more from nick and jake later. i'm joined now by the borisjohnson supporter and former mep david campbell—bannerman. now, the accusation by the privileges committee and the report is essentially bad behaviour by two

supporters and a sense that also, it was a coordinated response. j supporters and a sense that also, it was a coordinated response.- was a coordinated response. i think this is outrageous _ was a coordinated response. i think this is outrageous and _ was a coordinated response. i think this is outrageous and stalinist. - this is outrageous and stalinist. mps are elected to parliament, they have their own voice. why they are being silenced in this way is outrageous. what we should be discussing is, did the deputy speaker according to guido fawkes have a lockdown party herself, the deputy speaker? is the speaker going to mount an inquiry into her? these are far more important issues than what this privileges committee is up to. ~ ., , what this privileges committee is up to. . . , , ., to. what this privileges committee seems to be _ to. what this privileges committee seems to be suggesting _ to. what this privileges committee seems to be suggesting is - to. what this privileges committee seems to be suggesting is there i to. what this privileges committee | seems to be suggesting is there was some kind of threat issued by people like yourself although you are not a parliamentarian, and others. if i put to you what you said at the time of the report and when the vote was going to be held on the report. any tory mps, in my view, that backs this committee is anti—democratic and they will face a vote of no confidence at the selection. so what

the committee is saying is that is unparliamentary. you said that. nadine dorries said, if tory mps boat for the report, nadine dorries said, mps could be deselected. —— vote for the report. you are saying the same thing, did you talk to each other, was their conversation? trio. other, was their conversation? no, not on that- _ other, was their conversation? no, not on that. the _ other, was their conversation? iifr, not on that. the point is, mps are responsible to their members. they can be selected or deselected by their members at any point. but is it u- to their members at any point. but is it up to you _ their members at any point. but is it up to you or _ their members at any point. but is it up to you or nadine _ their members at any point. but is it up to you or nadine dorries - their members at any point. but is it up to you or nadine dorries to i it up to you or nadine dorries to suggest that would happen? weill. it up to you or nadine dorries to suggest that would happen? well, the rocess has suggest that would happen? well, the process has brought _ suggest that would happen? well, the process has brought parliamentary - process has brought parliamentary democracy into the gutter. it is absolutely outrageous. the wait has been conducted, harriet harman admitted in parliament and in hansard that she tweeted three times boris was guilty —— the way it has been conducted. she boris was guilty -- the way it has been conducted.— been conducted. she went to the government _ been conducted. she went to the government of _ been conducted. she went to the government of which _ been conducted. she went to the government of which boris - been conducted. she went to the i government of which boris johnson government of which borisjohnson was prime minister, she said because of that tweet that she was prepared to stand back and the government of

two said, absolutely not. he. to stand back and the government of two said, absolutely not.— two said, absolutely not. no, the government _ two said, absolutely not. no, the government of _ two said, absolutely not. no, the government of rishi _ two said, absolutely not. no, the government of rishi sunak. - two said, absolutely not. no, the government of rishi sunak. so i two said, absolutely not. no, the i government of rishi sunak. so who said it? we need an inquiry into that, who said it? because it hasn't been admitted. flan that, who said it? because it hasn't been admitted.— that, who said it? because it hasn't been admitted. can i 'ust go back on that to say that _ been admitted. can ijust go back on that to say that parliament - been admitted. can ijust go back on that to say that parliament was - that to say that parliament was happy. so let's put that to one side. parliament was happy that she continue. butjust on this point of both you and nadine dorries essentially issuing, i won't say a threat in an aggressive way, but saying that mps that voted for this report were in danger of deselection. and actually, the words nadine dorries said, mps could be deselected. you said, any tory mp in my view that backs this is anti—democratic and they will face a vote of no confidence. is it for you to say that? it vote of no confidence. is it for you to say that?— to say that? it is for the members to say that? it is for the members to say that? it is for the members to sa it. to say that? it is for the members to say it- i — to say that? it is for the members to say it- i am _

to say that? it is for the members to say it. i am chairman _ to say that? it is for the members to say it. i am chairman of - to say that? it is for the members to say it. i am chairman of the - to say it. i am chairman of the conservative organisation. we don't have a direct locus on it. but the members can bring a vote of confidence and they have come to us and said they will do so.— and said they will do so. some must have. and said they will do so. some must have- some — and said they will do so. some must have- some of— and said they will do so. some must have. some of he _ and said they will do so. some must have. some of he didn't. _ and said they will do so. some must have. some of he didn't. the - have. some of he didn't. the question is, what you say carries weight. —— some obviously didn't. is that something you and nadine dorries should have said so vehemently? i dorries should have said so vehemently?— dorries should have said so vehementl ? ,, , , vehemently? i think so because we believe in democracy. _ vehemently? i think so because we believe in democracy. i— vehemently? i think so because we believe in democracy. i thought - vehemently? i think so because we| believe in democracy. i thought this was all about democracy parliamentary democracy. what we are saying is mps are responsible to their members. their members think they have done a greatjob, they will not be deselected. but if they have acted inappropriately according to members, they can get into trouble. it is not ourjob, it is for the members who have the right to do so. but for the members who have the right to do so. �* ~ , for the members who have the right todoso.�* ~, ., ., for the members who have the right todoso. �* ~ , ., ., ., ., to do so. but mps had a free vote on this report- — to do so. but mps had a free vote on this report. this _ to do so. but mps had a free vote on this report. this report _ to do so. but mps had a free vote on this report. this report was - this report. this report was compiled by committee, on which where a majority of conservative mps. a number of mps. it was a

majority, factually accurate. yes, but they were _ majority, factually accurate. yes, but they were not _ majority, factually accurate. yes, but they were not all _ majority, factually accurate. yes, but they were not all pro - majority, factually accurate. yes but they were not all pro boris. there were a number of agendas, i'm afraid. what agendas? i'm sorry, bernard jenkin when he was chairing the committee was very aggressive to borisjohnson. you did not see that before he resigned. i'm sorry. without all the ins and outs. but the point is this has been a shambles this privileges committee. it has brought parliamentary democracy into disrepute. and it is right to challenge it. but democracy into disrepute. and it is right to challenge it.— right to challenge it. but look at the vote. right to challenge it. but look at the vote- in _ right to challenge it. but look at the vote. in the end, _ right to challenge it. but look at the vote. in the end, the - right to challenge it. but look at the vote. in the end, the vote i right to challenge it. but look at i the vote. in the end, the vote was absolutely overwhelming.- the vote. in the end, the vote was absolutely overwhelming. well, half of tteole absolutely overwhelming. well, half of people didn't _ absolutely overwhelming. well, half of people didn't turn up. _ absolutely overwhelming. well, half of people didn't turn up. 354 - absolutely overwhelming. well, half of people didn't turn up. 354 voted i of people didn't turn up. 354 voted and seven voted _ of people didn't turn up. 354 voted and seven voted against. - of people didn't turn up. 354 voted and seven voted against. look- of people didn't turn up. 354 voted and seven voted against. look at l of people didn't turn up. 354 voted l and seven voted against. look at the tory mps voting in favour, one accusation was this was a remainer pot. charles walker brexiteer. bernard jenkins are brexiteer. steve baker brexiteer. david davis

brexiteer. andrea leadsom brexiteer. any modern brexiteer. is it not the case it is over for borisjohnson and you need to get over the fact? we're not really arguing about that, what we are arguing about is the conduct of the privileges committee, it is about process and not about boris, it is about democracy. and again, bernard jenkins, talking about process. guido fawkes alleges bernard jenkins was at a party. so one of thejudges bernard jenkins was at a party. so one of the judges of borisjohnson was allegedly at a party with his wife run by eleanor laing, allegedly. so these are very relevant. no court in the land would allow this. no court in the land would allow the chiefjudge, harriet harman, to tweet the defendant is guilty. harman, to tweet the defendant is tuil . ., ~ harman, to tweet the defendant is tuil . . , harman, to tweet the defendant is tuil . ., ~' , . guilty. thank you very much indeed. thank ou guilty. thank you very much indeed. thank you very _ guilty. thank you very much indeed. thank you very much. _ a newsnight investigation into illegal money lending has conducted rare interviews with two loan sharks who say that business

has never been so good, and that it's partly to do with the cost—of—living crisis. a new report commisiioned by fair4all finance — a government—backed body that works on finanical inclusion — heard from users of money lenders who are borrowing £3,000, on average, and they are more likely to be lower—waged, full—time earners. the money lenders, who say they are providing a service likened to a bank, can sometimes use violence which results in hospitalisation, and intimidation. here's laura jones. open the door! if you're going to delay us, we're going to break the l door, it's up to you. we'll explain what's going on as soon as we come in. we need you to open the door now, or we're going to have to force entry. are you going to open the door? investigators from the england illegal money lending team are targeting an alleged illegal moneylender, or loan shark. interest rates, normally, are about 100%. borrow £100, you'll pay back 200. but what you end up

with is individuals that are really in financial difficulty, and then they're being pushed further and further into debt. the team's investigators work closely with local police forces on tracking illegal money lenders. it's funded by the government and overseen by the financial conduct authority. they've helped 30,000 people since they started nearly 20 years ago, and written off over £87 million worth of illegal debt. we investigate people that lend money to other people. hang on, hang on. the money—lending business is booming, according to those lending the cash. with more regulation around payday loans and home credit, there are limited options for those who struggle to borrow money. more people are potentially being forced to use loan sharks, who offer cash loans without any paperwork, but it comes at a price. notjust exorbitant rates of interest, but sometimes, threats of violence. i'm outside your house, and you don't want me outside your house. newsnight has spoken to two loan sharks. they would only speak to us anonymously, because they're involved in illegal activity. we spoke to them because we wanted

to understand why more people are turning to them and how they exploit those desperate enough to use their services. dee saye he's an enforcer. he collects debts. we're not using his real name. he says he's lent money to hundreds of people, from £500 right up to £100,000. what happens if somebody can't pay their debt back? it depends on who it is, or what relationship we've got. the ones that seriously take the piss, who've got no intention of paying you, they're the ones in trouble. what does trouble mean? replace your vehicle. replace your windows, your door a broken nose, smashed—up eye sockets. they're going to wish they paid me. they get a chance to explain themselves. usually, it's once, or twice, and that's it. i'm not texting you. i'm not following you. i am outside your house. and you don't want me outside your house. does it have to be so brutal, when these are vulnerable people?

the ones it happens to aren't the vulnerable ones. they're borrowing money to make money. these people can pay me back, they can. the thing is, they don't want to. i think it's my own fault, coming across so nice, an easy—going gentleman, they think they can take the kindness for weakness. would you say with the cost of living going up, people are generally going more to illegal money lenders? yes. defaulting on their loans, their mortgages. they are defaulting on their credit cards. i help. that's how you see it? that's how i see it. but listen, i might have done damage to their property or physically harm them, but that'sjust the same with the banks. you miss your payments, they are repossessing you, taking property away from you, your assets and you are on the street. same thing, it'sjust hurting in a different way. there is no paper work and no credit check for a reason, and that reason is you're not protected. they are not checking your credit history because they don't care if you can pay it back. they will absolutely bleed you dry. maybe they threaten you explicitly

in terms of physical harm, or it may be subtler than that. a lot of the time, it's much more about being in someone's head than it is about breaking their legs. there is no such thing as an average loan sharks any more. a fifth of those arrested by cath waller�*s team last year were female and somewhere in their 70s. new research nonprofit fair4all finance and fraud prevention firm we fight fraud shows illegal money lenders could be businessmen, religious leaders and working men and women. most illegal lenders had fairly prominent positions within their communities. the authors of this report spoke to more than 200 current and former clients, as well as eight illegal lenders. the research can't be generalised, but it found that while violence is still used, it is rarer than you might think. back in the day, it used to be a very bully boy business. but now, everything has evolved. we consider ourselves businessmen now and we try and act in a businesslike fashion.

this is a different loan shark to earlier. m, who says he rarely, if ever, uses violence. he claims to run a team of illegal money lenders and says he even lends to pop stars and footballers. once you punch someone or bully someone, the threat is no good. it's better to have that fear, that intimidation and all that coercion. maybe someone will go out and knock on your neighbour's door and their conversation will go like, "oh, is he 0k? because he has borrowed some money off me and all of a sudden, i can't get in touch with him." pictures outside your house, that type of thing. showing up at work, showing up outside the house, that is terrifying. then pay. current and former clients the authors of the report spoke to described the impact it had on their lives. from the huge interest rates to the threats and intimidation. 0thers described the struggle to get credit in the first place. industry figures are keen to highlight that other borrowing options are out there, though, such as community lenders and credit unions.

as prices continue to rise, business for illegal money lenders isn't likely to slow. but as cath waller warns, the cost can be very steep. if you are in debt, speak to your creditors, have conversations there, rather than borrowing more money to get out of it. i've seen what it does to lives and it just isn't worth it. if you are affected by any of the issues mentioned in the report contact: i'm joined by sacha romanovitch, from the fair4all finance campaign group. you are the ceo of that. thanks for coming in. terrifying in a way watching that and seeing what loan sharks are capable of. there is this gap in the credit market and they've come straight into bit. tell me some of the examples of the things they have been doing. it’s of the examples of the things they have been doing.— have been doing. it's interesting because that _ have been doing. it's interesting because that whole _ have been doing. it's interesting because that whole idea - have been doing. it's interesting because that whole idea of - have been doing. it's interestingj because that whole idea of them breaking your legs probably isn't there but the threat of violence is there but the threat of violence is the thing that really creates that

situation where people feel they have to pay. i can give you one example. there was one lad, 17, took out his first loan of £250 to buy a car. it was when he was 35 that he finally went to the illegal money lending team by which point he had paid back £90,000 to the illegal moneylender because the illegal moneylender because the illegal money lending keep saying, you have missed a payment, it has doubled. ihla missed a payment, it has doubled. no paper were, missed a payment, it has doubled. no paperwere, of course. missed a payment, it has doubled. no paper were, of course. exactly. and i paper were, of course. exactly. and it was only when _ paper were, of course. exactly. and it was only when he threatened - it was only when he threatened to harm his children that he thought he needed to get some help and he came to the money lending team. thea;r needed to get some help and he came to the money lending team. they were then able to — to the money lending team. they were then able to help, _ to the money lending team. they were then able to help, point _ to the money lending team. they were then able to help, point him _ to the money lending team. they were then able to help, point him in - to the money lending team. they were then able to help, point him in the - then able to help, point him in the right direction, he didn't have to pay any more money. he may have lost his house. , pay any more money. he may have lost his house.- this _ pay any more money. he may have lost his house.- this idea _ pay any more money. he may have lost his house.- this idea that - his house. exactly. this idea that these guys _ his house. exactly. this idea that these guys are — his house. exactly. this idea that these guys are coming _ his house. exactly. this idea that these guys are coming into - his house. exactly. this idea that these guys are coming into their| his house. exactly. this idea that - these guys are coming into their own in the cost of living crisis. what other options to people civilly not realise are there, or do a lot of

people not have any other options in the lives they lead? it is people not have any other options in the lives they lead?— the lives they lead? it is a really important _ the lives they lead? it is a really important point. _ the lives they lead? it is a really important point. since _ the lives they lead? it is a really important point. since the - the lives they lead? it is a really i important point. since the financial crisis there was a big clampdown on banks doing unsecured lending to what they call sub—prime customers. then you had the payday lenders step in. but they were doing some really bad behaviour in terms of lending to people who couldn't afford it and some of they're chasing techniques weren't great. that came under a crackdown. but it has meant that there has been a collapse in regulated provision for people with poor credit records all thin the credit histories and also —— or not great credit histories. the credit histories and also -- or not great credit histories.— great credit histories. the idea of in work people — great credit histories. the idea of in work people who _ great credit histories. the idea of in work people who cannot - great credit histories. the idea of in work people who cannot pay i in work people who cannot pay their food bills or their car payment. simple things like 40 million people in the uk have less than £100 in

saving. a washing machine breaks down. you know. being able to actually have the money to be able to replace that washing machine so you can wash your clothes. that sort of credit to smooth those expenses is really important.— is really important. credit unions do exist. tell— is really important. credit unions do exist. tell me _ is really important. credit unions do exist. tell me about - is really important. credit unions do exist. tell me about them - is really important. credit unions| do exist. tell me about them and tell me why people aren't using them. in tell me why people aren't using them. ., tell me why people aren't using them. . ., ' ~:: . them. in england we have 160 credit unions across _ them. in england we have 160 credit unions across the _ them. in england we have 160 credit unions across the nation. _ them. in england we have 160 credit unions across the nation. -- - them. in england we have 160 credit unions across the nation. -- and - unions across the nation. —— and across the nation there are over 300. they had mammoth marketing budgets which was reflected in their interest rates. credit unions keep their interest rates low. they aren't spending all of that money on marketing. that is one of the messages we want to get out, there are places you can go. you messages we want to get out, there are places you can go.— are places you can go. you launch the financial— are places you can go. you launch the financial inclusion _ are places you can go. you launch the financial inclusion action - are places you can go. you launch j the financial inclusion action plan. how will it be better for people, quickly, and how are people going to feel safe? in quickly, and how are people going to feel safe? , ., ., ,, , feel safe? in terms of making things better for people — feel safe? in terms of making things better for people quickly, _ feel safe? in terms of making things better for people quickly, what - feel safe? in terms of making things better for people quickly, what we i better for people quickly, what we wanted to do was raise awareness that, you know, illegal money

lending isn't a great option. report early because the illegal money lending team really can help. but go to find your credit union or finding finance which takes you to community finance which takes you to community finance providers and they can actually give you the right support to help you find what you need. because not only will they help you in terms of is the lone right for you, but they might also be able to guide you through other benefits you aren't claiming. there are 15 billion of unclaimed benefits in the system. £10 million worth of grants through various foundations. what we have been doing is helping credit unions and community finance providers to build those into their journeys so people can get the help. thank you very much forjoining us. thames water, which leaks more water than any other water company in the uk — equivalent to up to 250 olympic—sized swimming pools every day from its pipes — is now in danger of financial collapse. it has been heavily criticised for its leaks and for a series of sewage discharges. its chief executive resigned unexpectedly, and the government says it's ready to act in the worse—case scenario that

thames water does collapse. so what has gone wrong with the company that supplies water to a quarter of the uk's population? and what does this tell us about the privatisation of the wider english and welsh water sector that took place 34 year ago? here's ben. english and welsh water companies were the last of the big privatisations of margaret thatcher s time in office. what was the objective? to encourage efficiency and improve productivity in the sector and deliver private investment by this regulatory regime which would control prices but not effectively control prices but not effectively control profit. that was the first objective. the second objective was to create a shareholder to

democracy, to avoid popular capitalism, to spread ownership of the uk's major utilities among the population as a whole. today, there are nine main english regional water and sewerage companies. three are listed on the stock market. but despite the thatcherite ambition of small—scale shareholder democracy, six are owned privately by big foreign pension funds, private equity firms and sovereign wealth funds. the water companies were debt—free at the point of privatisation but, today, their collective debt amounts to around £60 billion. and debt seems to be at the heart of the problems of thames water, which serves 15 million customers across london and the thames valley. thames water has £14 billion of debt and it has to renegotiate £1.4 billion of that by the end of next year. thames water chief executive sarah bentley resigned yesterday. and fears are rising tonight that it might have to go into a government—orchestrated

"special administration", similar to that of the energy company bulb, potentially putting the taxpayer on the hook for billions of pounds. the government says the sector as a whole is financially resilient. yet in december, the water regulator 0fwat said it was concerned over the resilience of not only thames water but, and also, three other companies — yorkshire water, portsmouth water and ses water. more than half of the sector's debt, on average, is inflation—linked, putting pressure on companies in the current high—inflation environment. as we've heard, thejustification for privatisation in 1989 was efficiency, investment and better management. but recently, there has been a crescendo of complaints. complaints about sewage dumping and leakage. as much as three billion litres — a fifth of total usage — is estimated to leak from the water system every day. and the leakage rate from thames water pipes

is the highest in five years, and the company has conceded it will not meet its target to reduce them this year. critics cite a legacy of under—investment since privatisation. some of the companies — and also the public regulator 0fwat — deny this and insist investment has been adequate and is rising. yet the total dividends paid to the privatised companies' shareholders since 1989, at £72 billion, are equivalent to almost half of total expenditure on capital infrastructure — that's pipes and new sewers — in that time. and customers' bills? official data shows that between privatisation and 2020, they rose from £250 per year to around £400 in real terms — a 60% increase, albeit down over the past decade. yet there are complaints that the water companies are now adding to the cost—of—living crisis. household water bills were hiked by 7.5% in april, the biggest rise in two decades. is a different model possible? scottish water is publicly owned, and analysts say it has a better record in infrastructure investment than its english counterparts. water in wales is now supplied by a not—for—profit operator. and despite the trailblazing nature of english water privatisation, no other country has followed

in the decades since. having water owned by financial investors like this creates a crazy set of incentives and priorities which i don't think can be resolved if you are trying to manage the interests of global finance at the same time as the environment. we have seen the terrible outcomes in terms of sewage pollution and the interests of consumers who are struggling to pay their bills. i think the system needs a massive reboot. public and political dissatisfaction with the privatised model of water provision in england and its regulation has been building for a while. if financial instability and public bailouts are now on the agenda,

in russia today, vladimir putin was at pains to show it was business as usual following the mutiny by yevgeny prigozhin. russian state television showed president vladimir putin meeting "hundreds of people" in the centre of russia's southern—most city of derbent, in dagestan. the moment came days after his authority was shaken by a failed mutiny by members of the wagner group, led by prigozhin, who took military bases and the large southern city of rostov—on—don, before marching on moscow. in ukraine, it was constitution day, and in a speech, president zelensky took aim at all those in russia who he said were responsible for the war against ukraine. translation: they aren't the leaders ofthe translation: they aren't the leaders of the state. they _ translation: they aren't the leaders of the state. they are _ translation: they aren't the leaders of the state. they are bandits - translation: they aren't the leaders of the state. they are bandits who - of the state. they are bandits who seized control of the state unions in russia and began to terrorise the whole world.

zelensky said that even russia's internal forces have already stopped looking back at the "fragile master of the kremlin", vladimir putin, and called for an action plan for nato membership. this, as the baltic countries call on nato to strengthen its eastern flank in response to the presence of the wagner leader in belarus and the possibility that prigozhin will set up a new base there. but does putin's perceived weakness make any real difference to the attitude of leading members of nato to ukraine's quest for membership? earlier, i spoke to yehor cherniev, chairman of the permanent delegaton of ukraine at the nato parliamentary assembly. i began by asking him.... why the mutiny of prigozhin impacted the war in ukraine. i think it's too early to discuss the consequences of this rebellion. but i think in the medium—term or long—term perspective, it will cost putin his position.

and it will lead to destabilisation first of all inside of the elites, inside of the kremlin and inside of the army. and of course, as a result, it will influence on the battlefield, on the front line. and i think it will be a distraction, you know? 0r de—motivation of the soldiers on the front line. president zelensky — in his message today — said to nato to stop looking at the kremlin when making important decisions. but the problem is that what you're saying may come to pass, but vladimir putin is still in power at the moment. yes, and actually, i agree with my president. because, you know, this rebellion with prigozhin clearly shows us that even inside russia, some part of the elites

isn't afraid any more of his leader. and it was actually a humiliation of the de—escalation of the power of putin. that's why i think it is not any war a monolith power inside the kremlin, inside russia. and it's just a question of time when the leader will be replaced from the kremlin. that's why we are asking to appeal to our partners, don't be afraid of putin. he is not so strong as it can be considered from abroad, from your side. however, the more humiliated putin is, is there not a danger that he is actually more reckless, more dangerous? maybe, but he is not crazy. he is not crazy. he tried to persuade us that he will go

to the final end, you know, and cross any red lines. but you know, there wasn't any reaction when we crossed the red lines. for example, with the tanks. with the long—range missiles. with, actually, the announcing of the f—16s for ukraine. so, you know, they can try and continue to threaten us. but they will not cross the line if we are talking about the nuclear weapons, for example. what do you say to the view that at the moment, the spring and now summer offensive by ukraine is not making as big a dent as you would have wanted to make in the russian campaign? well, first of all, we don't use all the resources still in this counter—offensive.

it is just a stage of preparation, of reconnaissance, we were trying to find a weak part of the defence lines. and this counter—offensive is quite unique because we don't have superiority of the sky and we are moving forward even without airjets from the ukrainian side. we are quite successful, because during this small period of time since the start of this counter—offensive, we have already de—occupied 300 square kilometres, which is more than russia occupied during their winter campaign offensive during the last half of the year. the baltic states and poland have said that nato needs to strengthen its eastern flank. yes. that is different from saying that ukraine will at some point bejoining nato. we will see.

i hope that we will have some strong messages on the summit in vilnius just in two weeks. i see, actually, quite a strong position and public position of 20 member states out of 31 about our perspective as a member of nato. so i hope that we will have good news. and actually, i think this is a good and actually, i think this is a good win—win situation for ukraine and nato to have ukraine onside. because we don'tjust ask for an umbrella of security. we offer to protect win—win situation for ukraine the eastern flank. because we have a strong army, which have proven on the battlefield that we can stop and can resist those barbarians like russians, and can protect nato also. thank you very much indeed. thank you.

now, nick is back again with more on his interview with jake berry and talk of a blob. yes, blob and our politics dates back to that big red blob. that is from a 1958 sci—fi starring steve mcqueen. lots of conservatives have identified the blob as growing and an unaccountable elite who want to control our lives. the latest to talk about this is sirjake berry, the former conservative chairman, talking about so, i asked him about the blob come up with a history. there is a bit of a history, it was a 1958 steve mcqueen sci—fi film, it comes in from space to get you, the north of england being - william bennett was ronald reagan's education secretary and he talked about how the educational bureaucracy was growing. michael gove talked about aggro to talking about resisting his educational

reform. your example are said to be a vague definition of sinister forces, the mindset of opposition and blaming everyone else. the idea of blobenomics _ and blaming everyone else. the idea of blobenomics as _ and blaming everyone else. the idea of blobenomics as there _ and blaming everyone else. the idea of blobenomics as there is _ and blaming everyone else. the idea of blobenomics as there is a - and blaming everyone else. the idea of blobenomics as there is a flawed i of blobenomics as there is a flawed economic— of blobenomics as there is a flawed economic model that is pushed by the treasurer _ economic model that is pushed by the treasurer i_ economic model that is pushed by the treasurer. i will give you two good examples — treasurer. i will give you two good examples. number one, as a government, a conservative government, a conservative government, we have spent more money building _ government, we have spent more money building a _ government, we have spent more money building a tunnel under the chilterns h52, important for people in the _ chilterns h52, important for people in the south of england, then we are prepared _ in the south of england, then we are prepared to — in the south of england, then we are prepared to spend connecting it bradford, one of britain's youngest and most _ bradford, one of britain's youngest and most dynamic cities in northern situation _ and most dynamic cities in northern situation as — and most dynamic cities in northern situation as northern powerhouse rail. ., , ., situation as northern powerhouse rail. . , . ., situation as northern powerhouse rail. . , ., ., . , ., ~ rail. that is a wrong decision. a wront rail. that is a wrong decision. a wrong decision _ rail. that is a wrong decision. a wrong decision taken _ rail. that is a wrong decision. a wrong decision taken by - rail. that is a wrong decision. a wrong decision taken by boris i wrong decision taken by boris johnson and you were in his government. i johnson and you were in his government.— johnson and you were in his tovernment. ., , ., ., government. i was not in government at the time and — government. i was not in government at the time and was _ government. i was not in government at the time and was very _ and actually, i think this is a good win—win situation fo very aine government. i was not in government at the time and was very critical- government. i was not in government at the time and was very critical at. at the time and was very critical at the time — at the time and was very critical at the time so— at the time and was very critical at and actually, i think this is a good win—win situation fo very critical at at the time and was very critical at the time — at the time and was very critical at the time so— at the time and was very critical at the time. so why are we spending the time. so why are we spending more _ the time. so why are we spending more money building tunnels than more _ the time. so why are we spending more money building tunnels than super— super— more money building tunnels than super connecting the north of more money building tunnels than super connecting the north of england? that is clearly wrong and england? that is clearly wrong and the treasury orthodoxy and agree but the treasury orthodoxy and agree but we talk— the treasury orthodoxy and agree but we talk about in government, we need we talk— the treasury orthodoxy and agree but we talk about in government, we need

to break— we talk about in government, we need to break that open. you to break— we talk about in government, we need to break that open. you we talk about in government, we need to break that open.— to break that open. you mentioned the north of— we talk about in government, we need to break that open.— to break that open. you mentioned the north of— to break that open. you mentioned the north of england _ to break that open. you mentioned to break that open. you mentioned the north of england _ to break that open. you mentioned the north of england being - to break that open. you mentioned the north of england being let -