-- the latest decision on undermine —— the latest decision on sending migrants to rwanda. a series of sewage discharges and leaks, thames water, loses the equivalent of 250 olympic —sized swimming pools every day from its pipes. in urgent talks this morning as to whether it can stay afloat. taking your water calls, whether you are, whatever you drink, whatever you need, you would not want to swim in it. the original premise was, who owns it now? think of a boardroom scene in succession. we have experts but you are the experts, how do you feel about your water? are you calm, cool, boiling,

steaming? i look forward to hearing from you. that is coming up. and here is the news. tens water is holding urgent talks today to secure extra funding —— thames water. the government says supplies will not be affected if it collapses. the court of appeal are set to rule today on a challenge to the government plan to deport migrants to rwanda. at least 150 people have now been arrested across france after protests over the killing of a 17—year—old boy by a police officer. the teenager was shot in a traffic

stop in a paris suburb on tuesday. the committee which found boris johnson repeatedly lied to parliament over downing street party is in lockdown will publish another report today about how it believes the findings were undermined. it is expected to name certain mps and peers. i have hints of some of the anger from you about your water from a couple of callers we took in mp5 panel yesterday. if you feel you want to howl at the moon, we are hear from you, want to howl at the moon, we are hearfrom you, if want to howl at the moon, we are hear from you, if you want to take a measured approach, and supportive of the companies, this has been going on for some time... that is fine. whatever you want to say. 08085 909693 on the phones. interested to

hear from you. 909693 on the phones. interested to hearfrom you. quick bit 909693 on the phones. interested to hear from you. quick bit of politics. the privileges committee who found boris johnson lied politics. the privileges committee who found borisjohnson lied to parliament over partygate have published a follow—up report talking about mps and peers who say they undermined the privileges committee. nick adley, chief political correspondent, we are in something of a hall of mirrors —— nick eardley. give us the basics of the report, the premise behind it. i am t in: , report, the premise behind it. i am trying. looking _ report, the premise behind it. i am trying. looking at — report, the premise behind it. i am trying, looking at my _ report, the premise behind it. i —n trying, looking at my phone, i have not seen it yet, supposed to be coming at around now, i am not sure it has quite been published. it has. someone has sent me a link as we talk. give me a couple of seconds... i will give you a couple of seconds and i will wabble about it. a commons committee is expected to criticise boris johnson commons committee is expected to criticise borisjohnson supporters, there has been speculation some of

there has been speculation some of the mp5 who are appointed to for undermining the privileges committee, said jacob rees—mogg, brendan glucksman, nadine dorries, some of whom who have been stolen supporters of mrjohnson, mrjohnson was thoroughly reprimanded for his behaviour of course which included his commons pass being taken away from him which was unprecedented. it has been claimed there was a sustained attempt to undermine the credibility of the committee which is seen as integral to integrity and undermines the very integrity of parliament. it is a big thing if this happens. parliament. it is a big thing if this happens-_ parliament. it is a big thing if this happens. parliament. it is a big thing if this hauens. �* , ., ., this happens. any “oy? yeah, on the face of it, skin — this happens. any joy? yeah, on the face of it, skin reading, _ this happens. any joy? yeah, on the face of it, skin reading, pretty - face of it, skin reading, pretty short, compared to the one on boris johnson, it is critical, asking the house of commons to refer the conduct of some mps to a committee to look at. what is really

interesting, quite an extensive annexin interesting, quite an extensive annex in the switch name several mps and members of the house of lords —— in this which names. nadine dorries, lord goldsmith, zac goldsmith, a friend of borisjohnson, the mp mark jenkinson, brendan clark smith, said jacob rees—mogg, andrea jenkins. what we know is the committee through the book at borisjohnson but was also absolutely livid in the way it thought both mrjohnson and his allies usually sought to undermine its work. the argument the mp5 made quite frankly was that they mps made quite frankly was that they couldn't do their work properly in the future if these sorts of campaigns were allowed to go unchecked. there is a debate about this, there are some mps who say, it is not, if we think something has

gone wrong and we think a process is flawed, we should be able to say so. but clearly there is a lot of anger within the committee about what was said and there are a number of mps who have been named in the annex to this report as having made comments that were problematic. 2.34: this report as having made comments that were problematic.— that were problematic. zac goldsmith is a minister. — that were problematic. zac goldsmith is a minister, isn't _ that were problematic. zac goldsmith is a minister, isn't he? _ that were problematic. zac goldsmith is a minister, isn't he? minister- is a minister, isn't he? minister for the commonwealth. i is a minister, isn't he? minister for the commonwealth.- is a minister, isn't he? minister for the commonwealth. i think you are riuht. for the commonwealth. i think you are right. priti _ for the commonwealth. i think you are right. priti patel— for the commonwealth. i think you are right. priti patel as— for the commonwealth. i think you are right. priti patel as well, - are right. priti patel as well, former home secretary, named in this. that is going to be... a bunch of mps now who are facing really... criticism from the committee. really interesting to see what the commons decides to do and whether to throw it back to another committee of mps, basically to see if more action needs to be taken against some of these really significant figures in these really significant figures in the conservative party. what

these really significant figures in the conservative party. what happens if the figures — the conservative party. what happens if the figures criticise _ the conservative party. what happens if the figures criticise this _ if the figures criticise this report? will they be criticised for criticising this one? what are the sanctions? slap on the rest, shouldn't have done that? as i was hinting at, you can say it far better than i, this strikes at the very integrity of parliament when people do this and they take a dim view of it. ., , w , , people do this and they take a dim viewofit. . , , , , view of it. that is exactly why this is happening _ view of it. that is exactly why this is happening- i — view of it. that is exactly why this is happening. i have _ view of it. that is exactly why this is happening. i have been - view of it. that is exactly why this is happening. i have been handedi view of it. that is exactly why this i is happening. i have been handed a paper copy by one of my excellent colleagues who has dashed in with it. do you want me to read you a couple of bits?— it. do you want me to read you a couple of bits?- the - it. do you want me to read you a l couple of bits?- the report couple of bits? please. the report sa s, we couple of bits? please. the report says, we consider— couple of bits? please. the report says, we consider the _ couple of bits? please. the report says, we consider the house - couple of bits? please. the report i says, we consider the house should maintain its protection of inquiries into individual conduct in the same way it does those being considered by the house's own committee. basically that they think parliament needs to make a statement to say, we totally think it is fair for the privileges committee to look into

individual mps and to do so without criticism. it is recommending a few things to the house of commons. basically there is a vote in the house of commons that were approves this report from the privileges committee and says it agrees to refer a matter relating to individual conduct to the committee of privileges the members of the commons should not impugn the integrity of that committee. basically, they should not criticise it or claim mps have an ulterior motive in doing it or attempt to lobby or intimidate those members or encourage others to do so. the argument is it totally undermines the whole process. also saying the house of lords should look into this as well. what is really interesting here, i will get a bit tacky, bear with me. mi here, i will get a bit tacky, bear with me. �* here, i will get a bit tacky, bear with me.- what - here, i will get a bit tacky, bear with me.- what will. with me. all good. what will

-robabl with me. all good. what will probably happen _ with me. all good. what will probably happen now, - with me. all good. what will probably happen now, a - with me. all good. what will. probably happen now, a motion with me. all good. what will- probably happen now, a motion goes to the house of commons saying all of this stuff, saying we do not think it is fair mps are criticising this committee and the way they did. but it is possible that it will be amendable. which means an mp can say, we note it, but we also think this, and that opens pandora's box. it means there is a possibility that could be a vote on a further committee looking into the mp5 who made these comments, it could even say they should ultimately face punishment from the commons as well. would it be whipped? ila. i punishment from the commons as well. would it be whipped?— would it be whipped? no, i don't think so. privileges _ would it be whipped? no, i don't think so. privileges committee i think so. privileges committee reports are normally free votes. that is the normal experience. what this report is doing, it is saying there are a bunch of prominent conservatives who we think of the

privileges committee, have made comments that really undermine our work and we don't think that is acceptable. it is naming some really prominent people in the conservative party. nadine dorries, big ally of borisjohnson, a minister lord goldsmith, the former ministerjacob rees—mogg, former home secretary priti patel. that they question parliament is now facing is whether it can do anything about it, whether it can do anything about it, whether it wants to sanction individuals or whether it thinks noting it was not happy is enough. ii it whether it thinks noting it was not happy is enough-— happy is enough. if it is a minister. _ happy is enough. if it is a minister, surely - happy is enough. if it is a minister, surely he - happy is enough. if it is a minister, surely he must| happy is enough. if it is a i minister, surely he must be happy is enough. if it is a - minister, surely he must be on his bike? zac goldsmith. one final thing, said jacob rees—mogg, worth reminding people about his comments, he described the proposed 90 day sanction of borisjohnson as vindictive and he said it was perfectly reasonable for mp5 to challenge the findings of committees. forsome challenge the findings of committees. for some reason, challenge the findings of committees. forsome reason, i quote, the privileges committee

thinks it is in communist china and we must kowtow. that is what he said. in a nutshell, what is the story? said. in a nutshell, what is the sto ? , . , said. in a nutshell, what is the sto ? ., ., said. in a nutshell, what is the sto ? , story? the basics of this, the thing ou need story? the basics of this, the thing you need to _ story? the basics of this, the thing you need to know, _ story? the basics of this, the thing you need to know, a _ story? the basics of this, the thing you need to know, a committee . story? the basics of this, the thing you need to know, a committee in| you need to know, a committee in parliament has criticised several conservative mps parliament has criticised several conservative mp5 for criticising it, for trying to question the way it looked intojohnson it said a bunch of borisjohnson allies were wrong to do that and it has asked the houses of parliament to basically make a statement saying the committee should not face to pressure, intimidation, lobbying when it is looking into the conduct of people like borisjohnson. the big unanswered question that we will try to get to the bottom of in the next couple of hours, is parliament going to do anything about it? is it simply going to say, we think they are bad, slap on the west? hick are bad, slap on the west? nick eardle , are bad, slap on the west? nick eardley, political— are bad, slap on the west? nick eardley, political correspondent. none of that is water under the

bridge. let us talk about water, thames water in urgent talks this morning to try to secure the cash to stay afloat. we want to hear about your water down the drain, whatever your water down the drain, whatever you think. this morning a new line as well, britain's water regulator ofwat has said thames water has strong liquidity although it needs to improve its financial resilience. this is a statement issued this morning as the talks go on. a bit of a confidence booster to make sure it is not a don't panic situation. let us hearfrom you. john, ashley in leicester, dr kevinjoining us too from the school of geography and environment at the university of oxford, good stuff. actually, what do you think? i oxford, good stuff. actually, what do you think?— do you think? i guess i have two oints to do you think? i guess i have two points to make. _ do you think? i guess i have two points to make. in _ do you think? i guess i have two points to make. in full— do you think? i guess i have two i points to make. in full disclosure, i have experience in the administration of utilities, i am a

partner, helped support some administrators for energy companies. i guess from my point, if the company is not financially viable, why would it notjust company is not financially viable, why would it not just fall company is not financially viable, why would it notjust fall into the standard administration process similar to the utility companies that have gone into administration, energy companies? given that situation and circumstance, we wouldn't have to pay shareholder dividends, compensation, bailthem dividends, compensation, bail them out for dividends, compensation, bailthem out for instance. if the desire was to take it back into state ownership, why wouldn't that process be appropriate when it is appropriate for every other utility that has gone into administration? ofgem, talking about regulatory bodies, often have what is referred to as a process meaning if your gas or electricity cannot be supplied by your existing company, they select a different supplier. why do we have

two industries were so many things in common that would not be subject to the same process? that is my question. to the same process? that is my cuestion. ., ., ., , to the same process? that is my cuestion. ., . ., , question. you and i would be exposed to the debts — question. you and i would be exposed to the debts and _ question. you and i would be exposed to the debts and running _ question. you and i would be exposed to the debts and running costs - question. you and i would be exposed to the debts and running costs of - to the debts and running costs of thames water were it to be taken back into public ownership. i guess, but i guess — back into public ownership. i guess, but i guess in _ back into public ownership. i guess, but i guess in the _ back into public ownership. i guess, but i guess in the same _ back into public ownership. i guess, but i guess in the same sentence i back into public ownership. i guess, i but i guess in the same sentence and respect, what would be the difference be in bailing it out? from the consumer perspective, it feels like one in the same. many consumers will feel the same thing, seems to be a drive for it to go back into public ownership anyway. if that company cannot function as a normal business, if i cannot function as a normal business, i go into administration and someone may take me over, may full by the wayside, i don't understand why we have allowed so many energy companies to go into administration but not a similar process for water. thames water having financial

difficulty, why couldn't scottish water take over their customers? very different business structure, publicly owned. john, what do you think? ~ ., publicly owned. john, what do you think? a, ., ., publicly owned. john, what do you think? ., ., .,~ think? morning. thanks for taking michael. i look— think? morning. thanks for taking michael. i look after _ think? morning. thanks for taking michael. i look after a _ think? morning. thanks for taking michael. i look after a block - think? morning. thanks for taking michael. i look after a block of. michael. i look after a block of flats _ michael. i look after a block of flats -- — michael. i look after a block of flats -- my— michael. i look after a block of flats —— my call. i have done for 30 years _ flats —— my call. i have done for 30 years. they— flats —— my call. i have done for 30 years. they were sewage problems last month, sewage started coming tbrough— last month, sewage started coming through the ground floor through a couple _ through the ground floor through a couple of— through the ground floor through a couple of manholes. it happened a couple _ couple of manholes. it happened a couple of _ couple of manholes. it happened a couple of times, got someone out with a _ couple of times, got someone out with a camera, it was blocked. i did my homework and it was thames responsibility. i phoned them at, took— responsibility. i phoned them at, look a _ responsibility. i phoned them at, took a while, they sent a chap up on thursday— took a while, they sent a chap up on thursday night and said, what is the problem? _ thursday night and said, what is the problem? mark on the pavement, it is blocked _ problem? mark on the pavement, it is blocked he _ problem? mark on the pavement, it is blocked. he went, it is pavement, pavement— blocked. he went, it is pavement,

pavement belongs to the block of flats _ pavement belongs to the block of flats it _ pavement belongs to the block of flats it is — pavement belongs to the block of flats. it is a public right of way. he goes. — flats. it is a public right of way. he goes, no, i'm going home now anyway _ he goes, no, i'm going home now anyway. put — he goes, no, i'm going home now anyway. put the phone down on me. saturday, _ anyway. put the phone down on me. saturday, another chap there, what we did _ saturday, another chap there, what we did not — saturday, another chap there, what we did not know, sewage tanker was called _ we did not know, sewage tanker was called again, 700 gallons of raw sewage — called again, 700 gallons of raw sewage taken away. there was nothing for him _ sewage taken away. there was nothing for him to— sewage taken away. there was nothing for him to see. up until last friday. _ for him to see. up until last friday, one of their top engineers went— friday, one of their top engineers went up— friday, one of their top engineers went up to — friday, one of their top engineers went up to see it, the amount of time— went up to see it, the amount of time i_ went up to see it, the amount of time i spent on the phone, getting absolutely nowhere. i had to get a local radio — absolutely nowhere. i had to get a local radio station involved. when they got— local radio station involved. when they got involved, they started to do things — they got involved, they started to do things. as far as i know, they still haven't _ do things. as far as i know, they still haven't done it. i spoke to the guy— still haven't done it. i spoke to the guy last friday and he said, hole _ the guy last friday and he said, hole in— the guy last friday and he said, hole in the _ the guy last friday and he said, hole in the valley in the bottom of the pipe —

hole in the valley in the bottom of the pipe. building up, raw sewage in the pipe. building up, raw sewage in the ground _ the pipe. building up, raw sewage in the ground floor... been out about six times — the ground floor... been out about six times. they sent a company out, cleaning _ six times. they sent a company out, cleaning company, wasting your time, rip it up _ cleaning company, wasting your time, rip it up. they agreed. because thames— rip it up. they agreed. because thames water, insurance, have not given— thames water, insurance, have not given permission to wrap up the carpet. — given permission to wrap up the carpet. in — given permission to wrap up the carpet, in hot weather, disgraceful. john, _ carpet, in hot weather, disgraceful. john, thoughts and prayers, goodness me. dr kevin, school of geography and environment, university of oxford, how did we get here? kevin, has it always been this bad? are we focusing on and now? a tory mp on the plan yesterday, said testing has never been better. what do you make on. ., , never been better. what do you make on. . , ., , , on. that is right, our testing is very good- _

on. that is right, our testing is very good- how _ on. that is right, our testing is very good. how did _ on. that is right, our testing is very good. how did we - on. that is right, our testing is very good. how did we get - on. that is right, our testing is| very good. how did we get into on. that is right, our testing is - very good. how did we get into this mess? by waiting too long and now water companies are playing a game of catch up. nothing has been done shareholders have profited but only the minimum has been invested in infrastructure and we are seeing the results now. . infrastructure and we are seeing the results now— results now. . shareholders have rofited. results now. . shareholders have profited- had _ results now. . shareholders have profited. had it _ results now. . shareholders have profited. had it been _ results now. . shareholders have profited. had it been a _ results now. . shareholders have i profited. had it been a nationalised company all along, would we be in a better situation in your opinion. that is a very speculative question because we don't know how things would have gone, but i would say probably yes because there would be more oversight if it had been a national company, like a public asset. it national company, like a public asset. ., , ., national company, like a public asset. ., ., , asset. it has a monopoly as well. you cannot _ asset. it has a monopoly as well. you cannot go — asset. it has a monopoly as well. you cannot go to _ asset. it has a monopoly as well. you cannot go to another - asset. it has a monopoly as well. you cannot go to another water i you cannot go to another water company, if you are in the area, about ill million of us are served by thames water, i don't like what you are doing, the huge block of sewage

in the block of flats, i am taking my business elsewhere, you cannot do it. is my business elsewhere, you cannot do it. , , , ., , ., my business elsewhere, you cannot do it. , ,, ., ., it. is it essentially a flawed model? no, _ it. is it essentially a flawed model? no, in— it. is it essentially a flawed model? no, in the - it. is it essentially a flawed model? no, in the case - it. is it essentially a flawed model? no, in the case of| it. is it essentially a flawed - model? no, in the case of water, in response to the first caller as well, as you say, water is a natural monopoly. because the infrastructure is very expensive. there is no use in putting a separate set of pipes in putting a separate set of pipes in the ground. too expensive. however, in the business sector, it is... ~ ., ., however, in the business sector, it is... . . . . however, in the business sector, it is... what i mean, i am so sorry, the argument _ is... what i mean, i am so sorry, the argument is, _ is... what i mean, i am so sorry, the argument is, because - is... what i mean, i am so sorry, the argument is, because you - is... what i mean, i am so sorry, - the argument is, because you cannot do that, it goes against the very argument of privatisation in the first place. it isn't one of the glories of those who love privatisation, you have choice, you have competition. we don't. and i have competition. we don't. and i think it may _ have competition. we don't. and i think it may work _ have competition. we don't. and i think it may work for _ have competition. we don't. fific i think it may work for broadband, it may work for electricity, gas, but it does not work for water because water is different. very difficult

to move water around. there is no national grid for water. you cannot just move water from the south of england to the north of scotland, impossible. physically impossible. that is the big difference to electricity for example. angela, 40 ears 0 en electricity for example. angela, 40 years open water— electricity for example. angela, 40 years open water and _ electricity for example. angela, 40 years open water and wild - electricity for example. angela, 40 i years open water and wild swimming, how wonderful, i bet you have been swimming in some beautiful places. i have, good morning. how— swimming in some beautiful places. i have, good morning. how has- swimming in some beautiful places. i have, good morning. how has it - swimming in some beautiful places. i| have, good morning. how has it been recently and — have, good morning. how has it been recently and what _ have, good morning. how has it been recently and what do _ have, good morning. how has it been recently and what do you _ have, good morning. how has it been recently and what do you make - have, good morning. how has it been recently and what do you make of - have, good morning. how has it been recently and what do you make of all| recently and what do you make of all of this? murky old business and you wouldn't want to swim in it. it is re wouldn't want to swim in it. it is pretty diabolical, _ wouldn't want to swim in it. it is pretty diabolical, but it is way bigger— pretty diabolical, but it is way bigger than that. about the people that want— bigger than that. about the people that want to swim. for 40 years, i am in— that want to swim. for 40 years, i am in the — that want to swim. for 40 years, i am in the water over time, i spend a lot of— am in the water over time, i spend a lot oftime— am in the water over time, i spend a lot of time below the surface, i

monitor— lot of time below the surface, i monitor the aquatic life. it is my office _ monitor the aquatic life. it is my office and — monitor the aquatic life. it is my office and my playground. i have a decline _ office and my playground. i have a decline over the years and some sections. — decline over the years and some sections, i go out along the wye every— sections, i go out along the wye every now— sections, i go out along the wye every now and again come to see what is going _ every now and again come to see what is going on. _ every now and again come to see what is going on, you get a lot of sewage pump— is going on, you get a lot of sewage pump ten— is going on, you get a lot of sewage pump ten at— is going on, you get a lot of sewage pump ten at night, pipes under the water, _ pump ten at night, pipes under the water, in— pump ten at night, pipes under the water, in sections where nobody actually — water, in sections where nobody actually goes, so it is very much hidden — actually goes, so it is very much hidden it— actually goes, so it is very much hidden it is— actually goes, so it is very much hidden. it is dial equipped diabolical —— it is diabolical. the whole _ diabolical —— it is diabolical. the whole circle _ diabolical —— it is diabolical. the whole circle from us at home to what we put _ whole circle from us at home to what we put down — whole circle from us at home to what we put down our toilets, chemicals, wet wipes, — we put down our toilets, chemicals, wet wipes, the whole equation. i have _ wet wipes, the whole equation. i have spoken in westminster, i am back in— have spoken in westminster, i am back in two— have spoken in westminster, i am back in two days' time, i am a campaignerfor back in two days' time, i am a campaigner for the river because we have an _ campaigner for the river because we have an invitation into the river and we — have an invitation into the river and we need to respect it. very much from the _ and we need to respect it. very much from the ground up to the people... we have _ from the ground up to the people... we have no— from the ground up to the people... we have no choice. these

stakeholders taking love the prophet out. stakeholders taking love the prophet out we _ stakeholders taking love the prophet out. we are always going to need water~ _ out. we are always going to need water~ we — out. we are always going to need water. we are always going to need to go— water. we are always going to need to go to _ water. we are always going to need to go to the — water. we are always going to need to go to the toilet. what choice have _ to go to the toilet. what choice have we — to go to the toilet. what choice have we got. it is an insult to think— have we got. it is an insult to think water is nice and we are being held to _ think water is nice and we are being held to ransom by companies that take huge — held to ransom by companies that take huge profit and have no thought about— take huge profit and have no thought about the _ take huge profit and have no thought about the environmental impact they have _ about the environmental impact they have i_ about the environmental impact they have i have — about the environmental impact they have. i have been monitoring for years— have. i have been monitoring for years the — have. i have been monitoring for years the pollution. i helped with panorama — years the pollution. i helped with panorama. i trained at dozens of volunteers _ panorama. i trained at dozens of volunteers. i have been doing... i want _ volunteers. i have been doing... i want to— volunteers. i have been doing... i want to prove... i want to shoot the bullets _ want to prove... i want to shoot the bullets and — want to prove... i want to shoot the bullets and campaign and march up to london _ bullets and campaign and march up to london and _ bullets and campaign and march up to london and get invited to all of the bil london and get invited to all of the big meetings to tell them the data i have collected... big meetings to tell them the data i have collected. . ._ big meetings to tell them the data i have collected... thank you so much for caettin have collected... thank you so much for getting in — have collected... thank you so much for getting in touch. _ have collected. .. thank you so much for getting in touch. i _ have collected... thank you so much for getting in touch. i love _ have collected... thank you so much for getting in touch. i love the - have collected... thank you so much for getting in touch. i love the way i for getting in touch. i love the way you put it, just a month ago, you

protect poetically. i will try and paraphrase. a lot of ps. mother nature invites us into the river and we are guests in the river and we should respect the river on that basis, that is what you're saying, i that. i basis, that is what you're saying, i that. ., , ., basis, that is what you're saying, i that. . , ., . . that. i am. it is a full circle, starting _ that. i am. it is a full circle, starting with _ that. i am. it is a full circle, starting with us _ that. i am. it is a full circle, starting with us at - that. i am. it is a full circle, starting with us at home - that. i am. it is a full circle, starting with us at home to | that. i am. it is a full circle, i starting with us at home to the that. i am. it is a full circle, - starting with us at home to the big companies — starting with us at home to the big companies. that whole circle is not being _ companies. that whole circle is not being completed. the health of the river, _ being completed. the health of the river, the _ being completed. the health of the river, the health of the river compliments each and every one of us. compliments each and every one of us if— compliments each and every one of us if we _ compliments each and every one of us if we all— compliments each and every one of us. if we all turn around and say, look, _ us. if we all turn around and say, look. this— us. if we all turn around and say, look, this isn't good enough, not getting _ look, this isn't good enough, not getting respect, then we have to get that movement. all i am hearing about— that movement. all i am hearing about when i am in westminster and talking _ about when i am in westminster and talking to _ about when i am in westminster and talking to mps is, our constituents, top of— talking to mps is, our constituents, top of the _ talking to mps is, our constituents, top of the list of what they ask us, if they— top of the list of what they ask us, if they are — top of the list of what they ask us, if they are asking for that, do something about it. the regulators

that are _ something about it. the regulators that are supposed to be there to monitor— that are supposed to be there to monitor and find the leaks are not regulated — monitor and find the leaks are not reaulated. , , , regulated. listen, the wet wipes oint, regulated. listen, the wet wipes point. those _ regulated. listen, the wet wipes point, those fatbergs _ regulated. listen, the wet wipes point, those fatbergs as - regulated. listen, the wet wipes point, those fatbergs as well, i regulated. listen, the wet wipes i point, those fatbergs as well, great you got in touch, angela. there is passion, someone trying to do something. mark, tunbridge wells, dave, hereford. mark, good morning, when you go. dave, hereford. mark, good morning, when you go— when you go. good morning, nicky. i am in tunbridge _ when you go. good morning, nicky. i am in tunbridge wells, _ when you go. good morning, nicky. i am in tunbridge wells, south - when you go. good morning, nicky. i am in tunbridge wells, south east i am in tunbridge wells, south east water, before christmas we went without any running water at all the days. occasionally it would come on for an hour or two. every day they told us, tomorrow, ten o'clock, it will be back. lie after lie, no updates, people struggle to get hold of bottled water anywhere. some people had to drive 30 minutes to get bottled water. they would get

there and it had run out, not a single person from south east water to say if any more is coming that day or anything else. the other day we also went without water for 12 hours. i know people nearby went five, six days without water. the reservoir is awful. they simply cannot pump it around enough or treat enough. so many excuses we have had another six months, when it rains too much, the treatment plants flood, they go out of action for a few days. flood, they go out of action for a few da s. ~ ., , �* flood, they go out of action for a fewda s. ~ ., , �* ., few days. when it doesn't rain enough- -- _ few days. when it doesn't rain enough- -- so _ few days. when it doesn't rain enough... so we _ few days. when it doesn't rain enough... so we have - few days. when it doesn't rain i enough... so we have hosepipe few days. when it doesn't rain - enough... so we have hosepipe bans. it lets too enough... so we have hosepipe bans. it gets too hot — enough... so we have hosepipe bans. it gets too hot and _ enough... so we have hosepipe bans. it gets too hot and the _ enough... so we have hosepipe bans. it gets too hot and the water- enough... so we have hosepipe bans. it gets too hot and the water supply l it gets too hot and the water supply is too high, they cannot cope. it gets too cold, the pipes freeze. they cannot pump the water around. it gets hot too quick and there is a rapid thaw and that causes even more pipes to burst. electrical storm the

other day that caused the treatment plant to go out of action for half a day. it seems whatever happens in the weather, which i don't think has been extreme, they simply cannot cope with it and i use it as excuse after excuse after excuse. == cope with it and i use it as excuse after excuse after excuse. -- they use it. after excuse after excuse. -- they use it- we — after excuse after excuse. -- they use it. we will— after excuse after excuse. -- they use it. we will be _ after excuse after excuse. -- they use it. we will be with _ after excuse after excuse. -- they use it. we will be with sandra i after excuse after excuse. -- they i use it. we will be with sandra soon, environmental correspondent of the guardian. you are on my list. jan. what about this? it is guardian. you are on my list. jan. what about this?— guardian. you are on my list. jan. what about this? it is a mess, isn't it. what what about this? it is a mess, isn't it- what to — what about this? it is a mess, isn't it. what to do? — what about this? it is a mess, isn't it. what to do? i have _ what about this? it is a mess, isn't it. what to do? i have always i it. what to do? i have always worried about _ it. what to do? i have always worried about the _ it. what to do? i have always worried about the fact - it. what to do? i have always worried about the fact waterl it. what to do? i have always. worried about the fact water is privatised, something so important. we are _ privatised, something so important. we are seeing the fruits of bad decision— we are seeing the fruits of bad decision back in the day. with water companies — decision back in the day. with water companies giving more money to shareholders than perhaps putting back into — shareholders than perhaps putting back into infrastructure.— shareholders than perhaps putting back into infrastructure. yeah, have ou had back into infrastructure. yeah, have you had any — back into infrastructure. yeah, have you had any close _

back into infrastructure. yeah, have you had any close encounters i back into infrastructure. yeah, have you had any close encounters of- you had any close encounters of the... i was going to say the turd kind. i the... i was going to say the turd kind. , ., ,. ., ~ ., kind. i used to schedule for anglian water many — kind. i used to schedule for anglian water many years _ kind. i used to schedule for anglian water many years ago. _ kind. i used to schedule for anglian water many years ago. i _ kind. i used to schedule for anglian water many years ago. i have i kind. i used to schedule for anglian water many years ago. i have to i kind. i used to schedule for anglian i water many years ago. i have to say, angllan_ water many years ago. i have to say, anglian water were very good at getting — anglian water were very good at getting out to sewage leaks, but the amount— getting out to sewage leaks, but the amount of— getting out to sewage leaks, but the amount of fun that is happening in the fact— amount of fun that is happening in the fact we — amount of fun that is happening in the fact we are having sewage put into our— the fact we are having sewage put into our precious rivers and pressure _ into our precious rivers and pressure see —— the amount of them. if we _ pressure see —— the amount of them. if we want— pressure see —— the amount of them. if we want people to stay home on vacation. — if we want people to stay home on vacation, we need to keep the rivers and the _ vacation, we need to keep the rivers and the sea — vacation, we need to keep the rivers and the sea is clean so they spend money— and the sea is clean so they spend money here — and the sea is clean so they spend money here rather than going abroad. it is our— money here rather than going abroad. it is our heritage, natural heritage. sandra, environmental correspondent with the guardian. hello. what is really interesting it is the environmental problems which have raised public awareness about

the financialjiggery pokery of the last 30 years because it is the public outrage of the sewage discharges into rivers in particular which was happening for years but not known about, it has raised public anger, made the politicians sit up and look at this more closely and really put pressure on water companies. the financial engineering has been going on for decades and it has been going on for decades and it has got worse in the last ten, 15 years. has got worse in the last ten, 15 ears. ., ., ., , has got worse in the last ten, 15 ears. ., ., .,, ., has got worse in the last ten, 15 ears. ., ., ., ., , years. how do we... has it got worse in our rivers — years. how do we... has it got worse in our rivers and _ years. how do we... has it got worse in our rivers and seas? _ years. how do we... has it got worse in our rivers and seas? one - years. how do we... has it got worse in our rivers and seas? one of - years. how do we... has it got worse in our rivers and seas? one of our i in our rivers and seas? one of our callers early one, angela saying the sewage pipes where you cannot find them, it is a hidden problem. has it got so much worse? it them, it is a hidden problem. has it got so much worse?— them, it is a hidden problem. has it got so much worse? it has been bad for a lona got so much worse? it has been bad for a long time- _ got so much worse? it has been bad for a long time. no _ got so much worse? it has been bad for a long time. no whether- got so much worse? it has been bad for a long time. no whether in i for a long time. no whether in england and wales is in good health ecologically or chemically, that indicates pollution, chemical pollution from agricultural run—off in the fields, from industry and

pollution from water treatment plants. the pollution from water is coming notjust from the raw sewage coming notjust from the raw sewage coming out of the storm overflows but treated sewage also goes into our rivers and there is a very low threshold on treatment. we don't know what is happening to the sewage treated and released, another huge issue. it has got worse because 2023, we were the dirty man of europe all those years ago, we were called. not one river is in good health. it is one of those discussions that should have a trigger warning, it is so unpleasant, some of these. what is the answer? you know, how have we ended up in this situation, and how do we get out of this situation? i think the example of thames is showing what happens with the lack of investment and planning, if it is

going to take 10 billion to get the infrastructure to work, that illustrates a massive lack of investment, but what do we do now, i mean, it names tackling like an emergency situation, we are turning into a developing nation in terms of our water. into a developing nation in terms of ourwater. if into a developing nation in terms of our water. if you cannot give people freshwater and treat their sewage, you are a developing country. so what do we do? there are many ideas out there? renationalise... out there? renationalise. .. expensive. out there? renationalise... expensive. it out there? renationalise. .. expensive-_ out there? renationalise. .. exensive. , , expensive. it could be, but when the took expensive. it could be, but when they took northern _ expensive. it could be, but when they took northern rock - expensive. it could be, but when they took northern rock into i expensive. it could be, but when i they took northern rock into public ownership, shareholders got not a penny, and that has been upheld by three different courts. fiur penny, and that has been upheld by three different courts.— three different courts. our learned friends would _ three different courts. our learned friends would get _ three different courts. our learned friends would get involved. - three different courts. our learned friends would get involved. it i three different courts. our learned | friends would get involved. it could no on for friends would get involved. it could go on for a — friends would get involved. it could go on for a long — friends would get involved. it could go on for a long time, _ friends would get involved. it could go on for a long time, but - friends would get involved. it could go on for a long time, but those i go on for a long time, but those shareholders were not compensated and were not due compensation, because it was in the public interest. we have got climate change, we have got drought, flooding. this is all critical

infrastructure that has not been kept up, and it is hugely important, and i think central control and covid style focus in terms of what we will do to fix the situation. wow, ok, dave and hereford, hi. great to have you on, if i canjust interject quickly, there is a website called top of the hoops, which is all about this, and thames water has been discharging for 7000 hours, more than 80 years cumulatively in 378 locations, just thought i would throw a view starts in, what would you like to say? following on from your previous caller. _ following on from your previous caller. in — following on from your previous caller, in regards to compensation to the _ caller, in regards to compensation to the shareholders, saying, if the company— to the shareholders, saying, if the company fails and we have to take it

back into _ company fails and we have to take it back into a _ company fails and we have to take it back into a nationalised company, it is going _ back into a nationalised company, it is going to _ back into a nationalised company, it is going to cost paying out to shareholders — no, we don't. when you buy— shareholders — no, we don't. when you buy shares, you take a risk, the value _ you buy shares, you take a risk, the value can _ you buy shares, you take a risk, the value can go — you buy shares, you take a risk, the value can go up and down, you are playing _ value can go up and down, you are playing with — value can go up and down, you are playing with money, you are taking a chance _ playing with money, you are taking a chance. they have had their chance, they have _ chance. they have had their chance, they have made a fortune out of a thing _ they have made a fortune out of a thing that— they have made a fortune out of a thing that was always a monopoly, because _ thing that was always a monopoly, because where else could you go for water? _ because where else could you go for water? it _ because where else could you go for water? it is — because where else could you go for water? it is exactly the same, everything on privatisation has been a disaster~ _ everything on privatisation has been a disaster. look at the standing charge, — a disaster. look at the standing charge, which we are paying, and we shouldn't— charge, which we are paying, and we shouldn't be — charge, which we are paying, and we shouldn't be paying anybody, the taxpayer— shouldn't be paying anybody, the taxpayer should not be taking the burden _ taxpayer should not be taking the burden. the taxpayer should not be taking the burden. ., taxpayer should not be taking the burden. . , burden. the china investment corporation. _ burden. the china investment corporation, the _ burden. the china investment corporation, the queensland | corporation, the queensland investment corporation, hermes, one of your�*s leading independent specialist in private markets, infinity investments, the universities superannuation scheme,

the ontario municipal employees retirement system, one of canada's largest pension plans, these are the external shareholders of thames water. we are not talking about shareholders at a... we are talking about succession boardroom... thank you very much indeed. take care. thanks, dave. water down the drain, thatis thanks, dave. water down the drain, that is what we are discussing on this busy morning, more to come. here is the news. the privileges committee has criticised allies of borisjohnson, including nadine dorries, so jacob rees—mogg and priti patel, for

undermining procedures of the house of commons for criticising its inquiry into the former prime minister. thames water has significant issues to address and needs to improve its financial resilience, according to the water regulator. the uk's largest water companies trying to secure extra funding, as it struggles to pay its debts. president macron has got a crisis meeting after a second night of unrest in france. police clashed with protesters after the fatal shooting of a 17—year—old driver by a police officer on tuesday. on the government has been warned it doesn't have a credible strategy to get people online who do not yet have internet access. a report by the house of lords committee says action is needed to tackle digital exclusion. ministers insist they are committed to making sure no is left behind. the former england captain david gower says the team needed a mini miracle to turn the second ashes test around all the mood around the series will slide downhill. it comes after a frustrating day for england's bolus. —— bowlers. arsenal

have agreed a £105 million fee for declan rice, they also signed kai havertz from chelsea. and two british players ranked outside the world's top 300 will play for a place in the main draw at wimbledon later. neitheranna place in the main draw at wimbledon later. neither anna brogan nor billy harris have reached a grand slam before.

good morning, more war but at ten, the court of appeal delivers its ruling on the challenge to the appeal to deport migrants to rwanda. this is one of the government's flagship policies in tackling small boat crossings, tackling that is one of their big pledges. in december, the high court dismissed a series of legal challenges to the government plans, but several individual asylum seekers and also the charity asylum aid took the keys to the court of appeal, the decision is due at ten o'clock today. that is in 23 minutes' time, and we will bring you that live and get your reactions to

it. water, sandra is an environmental correspondent with the guardian, good morning, janet, susan. . guardian, good morning, janet, susan.- morning. - guardian, good morning, janet, susan.- morning. janet, l guardian, good morning, janet, i susan.- morning. janet, what susan. hello. morning. janet, what do ou susan. hello. morning. janet, what do you make _ susan. hello. morning. janet, what do you make of _ susan. hello. morning. janet, what do you make of all _ susan. hello. morning. janet, what do you make of all of _ susan. hello. morning. janet, what do you make of all of this, - susan. hallo. morning. janet, what do you make of all of this, watered down the drain is the big strap for this, what do you think? i down the drain is the big strap for this, what do you think?— this, what do you think? i think it is completely _ this, what do you think? i think it is completely disgusting. - this, what do you think? i think it is completely disgusting. there i this, what do you think? i think it i is completely disgusting. there are so many points that can be made, and many of your viewers or listeners have already made quite a few points, ie the privatisation, investment, all those things, but one of the main things that i want to ask is, if we have got someone like ofwat who are supposed to be regulating these people, checking them, making sure that services are provided, why haven't they done something about this sooner? they have fined them for dumping sewage

into rivers. what did they do with that money? has that money being used to improve those things? has it stopped it? no, it hasn't. what is the point of ofwat?— stopped it? no, it hasn't. what is the point of ofwat? thames water was fined £51 million _ the point of ofwat? thames water was fined £51 million last _ the point of ofwat? thames water was fined £51 million last year _ the point of ofwat? thames water was fined £51 million last year alone - fined £51 million last year alone for breaches of industry standards, pollution, missed targets, internal sewage leaks. between 2017 and 2021, it accrued another £32 million in penalties for 11 cases of water pollution, this is according to the environment agency. and this is what you are saying, fines are imposed by ofwat and are meant to be given back to customers in the form of built reductions. however, wait a minute, since companies have been allowed to increase bills in line with cpi inflation, these reductions are wiped out with a wet wipe, so that is the point, isn't it? it is

completely. _ is the point, isn't it? it is completely, so _ is the point, isn't it? it is completely, so it - is the point, isn't it? it is completely, so it is i is the point, isn't it? it is completely, so it isjust i completely, so it isjust disgusting. completely, so it is “ust disgustingi completely, so it is “ust disgusting. completely, so it is “ust disauustin. ., ., disgusting. sandra, it is a fair oint disgusting. sandra, it is a fair point there- _ disgusting. sandra, it is a fair point there. it _ disgusting. sandra, it is a fair point there. it is _ disgusting. sandra, it is a fair point there. it is disgusting, i disgusting. sandra, it is a fair i point there. it is disgusting, yeah, i think it is — point there. it is disgusting, yeah, i think it is outrageous, _ point there. it is disgusting, yeah, i think it is outrageous, and - point there. it is disgusting, yeah, i think it is outrageous, and what i i think it is outrageous, and what is also _ i think it is outrageous, and what is also outrageous is the regulatory and political oversight of this for so many— and political oversight of this for so many years by both these major political _ so many years by both these major political parties. you know, what has been — political parties. you know, what has been going on and why haven't they been— has been going on and why haven't they been paying more attention to this? _ they been paying more attention to this? 70%— they been paying more attention to this? 70% of the water industry is owned _ this? 70% of the water industry is owned by— this? 70% of the water industry is owned by foreign companies, private equity, _ owned by foreign companies, private equity, you _ owned by foreign companies, private equity, you know, these are businesses where you cannot follow the money — businesses where you cannot follow the money. it is so complex, you cannot— the money. it is so complex, you cannot follow the money. you can follow _ cannot follow the money. you can follow the — cannot follow the money. you can follow the sewage, but not the money — follow the sewage, but not the mone . . ., follow the sewage, but not the money- yeah. - follow the sewage, but not the money.- yeah, good i follow the sewage, but not the i money.- yeah, good point, follow the sewage, but not the - money.- yeah, good point, well money. janet? yeah, good point, well made. money. janet? yeah, good point, well made- what — money. janet? yeah, good point, well made- what can _ money. janet? yeah, good point, well made. what can you _ money. janet? yeah, good point, well made. what can you say? _ money. janet? yeah, good point, well made. what can you say? the - money. janet’s“ yeah, good point, well made. what can you say? the other thing is that, obviously, the british public are the people who

build these things, paid for these things in the first place, then it has been privatised, they have ripped all the profits out of it, giving it away to other people, and now they want to hand it back to us as a bag of costs.— now they want to hand it back to us as a bag of costs. susan in reading, aood as a bag of costs. susan in reading, good morning- _ as a bag of costs. susan in reading, good morning. good _ as a bag of costs. susan in reading, good morning. good morning. i as a bag of costs. susan in reading, good morning. good morning. a- good morning. good morning. a sliuhtl good morning. good morning. a slightly different _ good morning. good morning. a slightly different end _ good morning. good morning. a slightly different end of- good morning. good morning. a slightly different end of the i slightly different end of the spectrum i am coming from, because my daughter has not paid any water bills for— my daughter has not paid any water bills for over a year, and thames water— bills for over a year, and thames water absolutely declined to bill her. ,, water absolutely declined to bill her. . it is water absolutely declined to bill her.- it is complete - water absolutely declined to bill her. shhh! it is complete nonsense, she is within — her. shhh! it is complete nonsense, she is within the _ her. shhh! it is complete nonsense, she is within the terms _ her. s�*i�*i�*ii it is complete nonsense, she is within the terms water area, and i_ she is within the terms water area, and hust— she is within the terms water area, and ijust say, no, you are not served — and ijust say, no, you are not served by— and ijust say, no, you are not served by us, it isjust complete incompetence. so this speaks of bureaucratic balderdash, that they are just _ bureaucratic balderdash, that they are just not organised enough, yeah.

and you _ are just not organised enough, yeah. and you just— are just not organised enough, yeah. and you just wonder how many other new builds are in similar situations, they cannot pay their water bills. situations, they cannot pay their water bills-— water bills. isn't that extraordinary? i water bills. isn't that extraordinary? and i water bills. isn't that i extraordinary? and she has water bills. isn't that _ extraordinary? and she has been on the phone, — extraordinary? and she has been on the phone, she has been on hold, she has been _ the phone, she has been on hold, she has been listening to some bland music, _ has been listening to some bland music, she — has been listening to some bland music, she has eventually got through— music, she has eventually got through to someone, pressed all the buttons, _ through to someone, pressed all the buttons, all— through to someone, pressed all the buttons, all the options, and then they say, — buttons, all the options, and then they say, no, not us. she has had two emails — they say, no, not us. she has had two e—mails are saying, you are not in our— two e—mails are saying, you are not in ourarea. — two e—mails are saying, you are not in ourarea. go— two e—mails are saying, you are not in our area, go to affinity, and they— in our area, go to affinity, and they have _ in our area, go to affinity, and they have pushed her back to terms water~ _ they have pushed her back to terms water~ and — they have pushed her back to terms water. and so she has contacted them again, _ water. and so she has contacted them again. and _ water. and so she has contacted them again, and they still say, no, we don't _ again, and they still say, no, we don't supply water to your property. daniel— don't supply water to your property. daniel is _ don't supply water to your property. daniel is in — don't supply water to your property. daniel is in high wycombe, hello. did you hear that? i daniel is in high wycombe, hello. did you hear that?— did you hear that? i am the other way round. _ did you hear that? i am the other

way round. i _ did you hear that? i am the other way round. lam _ did you hear that? i am the other way round, i am probably- did you hear that? i am the other way round, i am probably paying | did you hear that? i am the other i way round, i am probably paying her water bill! i have been living in my flat for 13 years, i am a single person, i have got a shower, but i am billed for a family of four, because they changed my water metre and put it on someone else's house. so i have complained to them, and i am paying £51 a month for one person in a flat. i have complained to them, they have said they will get on it. the last four months, they have not physically done anything at all, they keep coming up with excuses about not digging up the road or lifting up the manhole, because the water metre is under the ground. so i had to pay someone £500 to come out and do that, because i had a leak, so i had to turn my water off, and that is how i realised i was charged the wrong metre, because thames water gave me my metre number.

metre, because thames water gave me my metre number-— metre, because thames water gave me my metre number. there we are. windy in bedford, my metre number. there we are. windy in bedford. good _ my metre number. there we are. windy in bedford, good morning. _ my metre number. there we are. windy in bedford, good morning. -- _ my metre number. there we are. windy in bedford, good morning. -- wendy. i in bedford, good morning. —— wendy. what would you like to say? i iise what would you like to say? i live in bedford, _ what would you like to say? i live in bedford, which _ what would you like to say? i live in bedford, which is _ what would you like to say? i live in bedford, which is run - what would you like to say? i live in bedford, which is run by - what would you like to say? i live in bedford, which is run by anglia water, _ in bedford, which is run by anglia water, which obviously, you know, all these _ water, which obviously, you know, all these companies are monopolies, and the _ all these companies are monopolies, and the village i live in has been du- and the village i live in has been dug up— and the village i live in has been dug up for— and the village i live in has been dug up for five times in at least... in the _ dug up for five times in at least... in the last — dug up for five times in at least... in the last six months, say, road closures— in the last six months, say, road closures and _ in the last six months, say, road closures and all this sort of thing. and then — closures and all this sort of thing. and then last week, we had biblical reigns— and then last week, we had biblical reigns that — and then last week, we had biblical reigns that actually flooded the village, — reigns that actually flooded the village, because the water couldn't -et village, because the water couldn't get away, — village, because the water couldn't get away, and yet every night on the tv, on— get away, and yet every night on the tv, on the _ get away, and yet every night on the tv, on the tv, i adverts, anglia water— tv, on the tv, i adverts, anglia water are — tv, on the tv, i adverts, anglia water are promoting anglia water. now, _ water are promoting anglia water. now. it _ water are promoting anglia water. now. it is — water are promoting anglia water. now. it is a — water are promoting anglia water. now, it is a monopoly, it is not like _ now, it is a monopoly, it is not like i_ now, it is a monopoly, it is not like i can— now, it is a monopoly, it is not like i can go—

now, it is a monopoly, it is not like i can go anywhere else, sol want _ like i can go anywhere else, sol want to— like i can go anywhere else, sol want to know why they are using their— want to know why they are using their customers' money to pay for advertising — their customers' money to pay for advertising when, in fact, they should — advertising when, in fact, they should be _ advertising when, in fact, they should be fixing our sailors and our roads? _ should be fixing our sailors and our roads? ~ ., ., ., should be fixing our sailors and our roads? ~ . . ., . ., ., roads? what a great point! what a treat roads? what a great point! what a great point. _ roads? what a great point! what a great point, what _ roads? what a great point! what a great point, what a _ roads? what a great point! what a great point, what a paradox, i roads? what a great point! what a i great point, what a paradox, sandra, what do you think about that? the aradox what do you think about that? iia: paradox there? what do you think about that? the paradox there? hmm. _ what do you think about that? the paradox there? hmm. it _ what do you think about that? the paradox there? hmm. it is - what do you think about that? the paradox there? hmm. it is a i what do you think about that? the paradox there? hmm. it is a great idea. paradox there? hmm. it is a great idea- they — paradox there? hmm. it is a great idea- they are _ paradox there? hmm. it is a great idea. they are advertising - idea. they are advertising themselves. _ idea. they are advertising themselves. they - idea. they are advertising themselves. they do i idea. they are advertising themselves. they do that | idea. they are advertising i themselves. they do that all the time, themselves. they do that all the time. don't _ themselves. they do that all the time, don't they? _ themselves. they do that all the time, don't they? how— themselves. they do that all the time, don't they? how great i themselves. they do that all the | time, don't they? how great they are. ~ g time, don't they? how great they are. ~ i time, don't they? how great they are-- i suppose _ time, don't they? how great they are.- i suppose they - time, don't they? how great they are. why? i suppose they are trying to su: est are. why? i suppose they are trying to suggest that _ are. why? i suppose they are trying to suggest that we _ are. why? i suppose they are trying to suggest that we have some freedom of choice which we do not. they also like to blame us for a lot of issues, we talked about wet wipes, our water usage, and they do have a point... our water usage, and they do have a oint. .. ., our water usage, and they do have a oint. .. . ., ._ , our water usage, and they do have a oint... . ., ., point... paving our driveways and all that. point... paving our driveways and all that- at _ point... paving our driveways and all that. at the _ point... paving our driveways and all that. at the same _ point... paving our driveways and all that. at the same time, i point... paving our driveways and j all that. at the same time, where are all these _ all that. at the same time, where are all these smart _

all that. at the same time, where are all these smart meters? i all that. at the same time, wherej are all these smart meters? what all that. at the same time, where i are all these smart meters? what is the point of using less water if they are leaking as much as they are? we don't have a choice, it is a private monopoly, we cannot go elsewhere. but private monopoly, we cannot go elsewhere-— private monopoly, we cannot go elsewhere. �* , . , , elsewhere. but why are they using our money — elsewhere. but why are they using our money to _ elsewhere. but why are they using our money to advertise _ elsewhere. but why are they using our money to advertise on - elsewhere. but why are they using our money to advertise on the i elsewhere. but why are they using our money to advertise on the tv | our money to advertise on the tv where _ our money to advertise on the tv where and — our money to advertise on the tv where and last week here, because of this biblical— where and last week here, because of this biblical rain we had, had their houses _ this biblical rain we had, had their houses flooded? | this biblical rain we had, had their houses flooded?— houses flooded? i agree... i think--- _ houses flooded? i agree... i think... no. _ houses flooded? i agree... i think... no. wait— houses flooded? i agree... i think... no. wait a - houses flooded? i agree... i think... no. wait a minute, | houses flooded? i agree... i- think... no. wait a minute, one second, sandra, _ think... no. wait a minute, one second, sandra, you _ think... no. wait a minute, one second, sandra, you are - think... no. wait a minute, one second, sandra, you are saying| think... no. wait a minute, one i second, sandra, you are saying that thames have spent more... in a recent advertising _ thames have spent more... i�*i 5 recent advertising campaign for thames, they have had a little badger or mole or something talking about fixing the pipes, and i suppose they would argue they are raising public awareness of how well they are doing. i don't know, it is a pr push, we don't have a choice, as you said. a pr push, we don't have a choice, as you said-— as you said. they are raising public awareness of _ as you said. they are raising public awareness of how _ as you said. they are raising public awareness of how well _ as you said. they are raising public awareness of how well they - as you said. they are raising public awareness of how well they are i awareness of how well they are doing. i

awareness of how well they are doinu. ~ , awareness of how well they are doinu. ~' , a, awareness of how well they are doinu. ~ , a, , a, doing. i think they are trying to sa , we doing. i think they are trying to say. we are _ doing. i think they are trying to say, we are fixing _ doing. i think they are trying to say, we are fixing the - doing. i think they are trying to say, we are fixing the leaks, i doing. i think they are trying to | say, we are fixing the leaks, we doing. i think they are trying to - say, we are fixing the leaks, we are trying to fix the leaks.— trying to fix the leaks. well, they are clearly _ trying to fix the leaks. well, they are clearly not _ trying to fix the leaks. well, they are clearly not in _ trying to fix the leaks. well, they are clearly not in bedford! - trying to fix the leaks. well, they are clearly not in bedford! i - trying to fix the leaks. well, they| are clearly not in bedford! i know. i asked one _ are clearly not in bedford! i know. i asked one of _ are clearly not in bedford! i know. i asked one of the _ are clearly not in bedford! i know. i asked one of the contract - are clearly not in bedford! i know. i asked one of the contract is - are clearly not in bedford! i know. i asked one of the contract is one| i asked one of the contract is one day. _ i asked one of the contract is one day, and — i asked one of the contract is one day, and i— i asked one of the contract is one day, and i said, how many more times i going _ day, and i said, how many more times i going to _ day, and i said, how many more times i going to dig — day, and i said, how many more times i going to dig up our road? why don't _ i going to dig up our road? why don't they— i going to dig up our road? why don't theyjust replace these old pipes? _ don't theyjust replace these old pipes? he said, which, they want to do that, _ pipes? he said, which, they want to do that, it _ pipes? he said, which, they want to do that, it is— pipes? he said, which, they want to do that, it is far too expensive, and yet — do that, it is far too expensive, and yet they spend money on advertising. we know they are fixing some _ advertising. we know they are fixing some leaks, but they are losing more weter— some leaks, but they are losing more water than _ some leaks, but they are losing more water than they are fixing. | some leaks, but they are losing more water than they are fixing. itell water than they are fixing. i tell ou water than they are fixing. i tell you what. _ water than they are fixing. i tell you what. you _ water than they are fixing. i tell you what. you get _ water than they are fixing. i tell you what, you get the - water than they are fixing. hell you what, you get the truth of the matter, don't you? the real goings—on when you speak to the guys outside who are doing the fixing, they tell it like it is, don't they? yeah, absolutely. hey. yeah. i am yeah, absolutely. hey. yeah. iam 'ust yeah, absolutely. hey. yeah. iam just incensed _ yeah, absolutely. hey. yeah. iam just incensed that _ yeah, absolutely. hey. yeah. iam just incensed that they _ yeah, absolutely. hey. yeah. iam just incensed that they are wasting money— just incensed that they are wasting money advertising for nothing, because — money advertising for nothing, because who cares they say they are fixing _ because who cares they say they are fixing it _ because who cares they say they are fixing it when we know that our

houses — fixing it when we know that our houses are _ fixing it when we know that our houses are flooded and the roads are shut? _ houses are flooded and the roads are shut? you _ houses are flooded and the roads are shut? you know? it beggars belief, really _ shut? you know? it beggars belief, reall . ., , ., ., , ., shut? you know? it beggars belief, reall . ., , ., ., ., �* really. tony in carnforth, you don't like this, really. tony in carnforth, you don't like this. do _ really. tony in carnforth, you don't like this, do you? _ really. tony in carnforth, you don't like this, do you? you _ really. tony in carnforth, you don't like this, do you? you don't - really. tony in carnforth, you don't like this, do you? you don't like i like this, do you? you don't like it, do you? like this, do you? you don't like it. do you?— like this, do you? you don't like it, do you? hello? right, ok. so there was _ it, do you? hello? right, ok. so there was a _ it, do you? hello? right, ok. so there was a phrase _ it, do you? hello? right, ok. so there was a phrase used - it, do you? hello? right, ok. so there was a phrase used in - it, do you? hello? right, ok. so there was a phrase used in a - there was a phrase used in a statement a few years ago, the unacceptable face of capitalism, and i really do think that these illustrate that what is happening with the water companies is the unacceptable face of capitalism. um... so the water companies were sold off by margaret thatcher, they were really given away, because they cleared all the data from them, and what has happened is that the owners, and it has gone through lots

of incarnations, borrowed heavily against the assets of the companies. they took that money out as dividends, and then they have got no stake in it, yes, they would like it to carry on doing well so they can take out more dividends, but they got their money out, and we are left with the consequences. and it does seem to be happening a lot these days, particularly with these private equity companies, actually, that they buy something, they load it with death, they take their money out, and then they don't really care what happens next.— out, and then they don't really care what happens next. well, some people will sa ou what happens next. well, some people will say you have _ what happens next. well, some people will say you have kind _ what happens next. well, some people will say you have kind of— what happens next. well, some people will say you have kind of got _ what happens next. well, some people will say you have kind of got it - what happens next. well, some people will say you have kind of got it on - will say you have kind of got it on the money, as it were, but others will react, i'm sure, we have still got time, we are still taking your calls, how do you feel about this?

do you feel cool, calm? are you at boiling point? we have heard quite a lot of people are. but the court of appeal is about to give its ruling on a challenge to government plans to deport migrants to rwanda, we will bring you that live. you can give your reaction to that significant decision, we will be taking your reactions through out the morning on that. hello, you are watching bbc news. the court of appeal will today rule on a challenge to the government's plan to deport asylum seekers to rwanda. the case centres on whether there are sufficient guarantees of safe and fair treatment for people if they are sent to the country. the asylum plan was brought in by the former prime minister borisjohnson to try to tackle record numbers of migrants crossing the channel from northern france in small boats.

let's speak to our correspondentjoe inwood, who is outside the court. that was a brief outline of what we are awaiting today. take us through some of the points being discussed, some of the points being discussed, some of the legal challenges that the bill has gone through to date. is what they are discussing is whether that plan, a flagship of government policy, to take people claim asylum in this country, who have reached here through non—legal means and deport them to rwanda, a policy where the government have spent a large amount of money on about 140 million so far, and so far no people have been sent. there has been a long and ongoing legal challenge by various individuals and charities and a trade union to say that this plan does not take into account the fundamental rights of people who are claiming asylum here. now, the government, of course, say

it does, that it is legal, and that they need to take this really unprecedented action. i think it is worth pointing out that this sort of plan hasn't been tested anywhere in the world before, and the government themselves admit that. they are saying it is both legal and necessary to stop the huge numbers, as they see it, people coming across on small boats.— as they see it, people coming across on small boats. now, obviously, this is the court — on small boats. now, obviously, this is the court of _ on small boats. now, obviously, this is the court of appeal, _ on small boats. now, obviously, this is the court of appeal, like _ on small boats. now, obviously, this is the court of appeal, like you - is the court of appeal, like you said, there have been numerous legal challenges that have been thrown at this bill by the government. we are expecting to hear from the home secretary later, i understand. expecting to hear from the home secretary later, iunderstand. in terms of parliamentary opposition to this, within the minister is' ranks, what have they been saying, how unified have they been behind the then prime minister and then today? this is a flagship part of government policy, for them they are

pretty much united, certainly they have presented a united front outside of the cabinet office. this is obviously controversial, but it has got through because of that huge conservative majority. of course, in parliament, there is a lot of opposition. the labour party, the liberal democrats, the snp say this is notjust unworkable but also immoral, as they put it. we have also seen that the house of lords can offer challenges to different parts of immigration government policy, the small boats bill has been challenged today, so i think we are seeing parliamentary opposition, but really, if they want to stop this happening, it is going to be in the law courts. interestingly, there hasn't been any indication before of which way this will go. we understand that neither of the legal teams know which way this is going to go, and we will find out in about ten minutes also what the decision is here, but i think it is worth pointing out, as home editor mark easton was saying, this will almost

certainly go to the supreme court, which way the decision goes today. just before i leave you, there was an attempted deportation flight earlier... it was last year, wasn't it? what happened there? so earlier... it was last year, wasn't it? what happened there? so it's got almost, i believe _ it? what happened there? so it's got almost, i believe they _ it? what happened there? so it's got almost, i believe they may _ it? what happened there? so it's got almost, i believe they may have - almost, i believe they may have almost, i believe they may have almost got to the runway, but it was stopped at the very last minute because of individual appeals from people on the flight. it was not the overall policy that led to this being stopped, but individual appeals, and that is what we saw, that was in the ruling we had a few months ago, the initial one. the high court declared this to be a legal policy. it was pointed out that there needed to be more care and attention paid to the individual cases of the asylum seekers in question. cases of the asylum seekers in cuestion. g ., ., question. 0k, joe, we will leave it there for now. _ question. 0k, joe, we will leave it there for now, don't _ question. 0k, joe, we will leave it there for now, don't go _ question. 0k, joe, we will leave it there for now, don't go away, - question. 0k, joe, we will leave it there for now, don't go away, i i question. 0k, joe, we will leave it| there for now, don't go away, i will come back to you shortly. this has been a big, huge political issue, i have had heated debate in the house of commons, let's get a bit of

background now from uk political correspondent rob watson. we had a little bit of context there given to us byjoe inwood, but in terms of the political ramifications of this bill, take us through that.- the political ramifications of this bill, take us through that. well, i think, lukwesa, _ bill, take us through that. well, i think, lukwesa, greetings, i bill, take us through that. well, i think, lukwesa, greetings, you i bill, take us through that. well, i l think, lukwesa, greetings, you and jill think, lukwesa, greetings, you and jill have set it up very nicely. it is worth remembering that the pledge to stop the boats, as rishi sunak puts it, is one of those five key pledges that he has made to the british people, so it is front and centre of this government is's policy in its aim to look as if it is able to bring results. i mean, the polling is a little bit mixed on this, lukwesa, it suggests that a majority of people think it is a good idea, approve of deporting people to rwanda, but large numbers also oppose it, and rather interestingly, polling also suggests that even people who do support the

idea of deporting people to rwanda are highly sceptical as to whether it will achieve its principle effect, and the government says what it really wants to do is just deter people from coming on the boats. labour, obviously, have said this is a completejoke. what else has been said from across the political spectrum?— said from across the political sectrum? ~ , , spectrum? well, interestingly, the main opposition — spectrum? well, interestingly, the main opposition labour— spectrum? well, interestingly, the main opposition labour party i spectrum? well, interestingly, the main opposition labour party has l main opposition labour party has concentrated much less, if you like, on any moral dimension, saying there is something distasteful about putting people on planes to rwanda, itjust putting people on planes to rwanda, it just says putting people on planes to rwanda, itjust says it is not practical, that if you look at the government's long record on this, it is fairly hopeless and it should be concentrating on looking at setting up concentrating on looking at setting up a legal ways for people to apply for asylum and then processing the huge backlog, because it is worth remembering there are over 100,000 people in the uk who are waiting for claims to be processed, many of them in very expensive hotels. so if you like, the main opposition thrust on

this, they don't want to be seen as being soft on immigration, that is an absolute vote loser, people in britain do not like the idea of people coming in small boats, but they are taking a more practical approach, whereas, if you like, the moral argument comes from charities, refugee groups, who say never mind the practicalities of this, the fact that it probably will not work as theyit that it probably will not work as they it is just something wrong and could put britain, as they would see it, on the wrong side of international law and assorted un conventions. sojust international law and assorted un conventions. so just to clarify, are there currently any legal routes for asylum seekers to enter the uk? yes, but they are limited. so let's say if you are in a war—torn country, it would be incredibly difficult to get to a british embassy and to lodge a claim for asylum here, so the

argument that is made, notjust by opposition politicians, but some of the governing conservative party, they say what you really have to do, they say what you really have to do, the many things you would have to do to deter people from coming over the channel on small boats, one of them would be to make more legal and easier routes to apply for asylum in the uk. 0k, easier routes to apply for asylum in the uk. ok, thank you very much, we will go back tojoe, who is standing outside the court of appeal. will go back to joe, who is standing outside the court of appeal. again, not very nice _ outside the court of appeal. again, not very nice weather _ outside the court of appeal. again, not very nice weather here - outside the court of appeal. again, not very nice weather here in i outside the court of appeal. again, not very nice weather here in uk, l not very nice weather here in uk, pretty horrible and drizzly. we're just waiting for this ruling now, aren't we? over the last few days and in the past few weeks, some of the numbers and figures involved in trying to tackle what the government sees as a migrant problem has been revealed to the public about what sort of figures are we talking about? unfortunately, it looks like

we have lostjoe for now, but i do have you on my screen, rob, don't go away! as soon as we getjoe back... sure, the answer to your question... we havejoe back. rob, thank you. the figures, what sort of figures have been announced in terms of supporting asylum seekers in the uk, what sort of reaction has never been to those figures? 50 what sort of reaction has never been to those figures?— what sort of reaction has never been to those figures? so at the moment, the government _ to those figures? so at the moment, the government says _ to those figures? so at the moment, the government says it _ to those figures? so at the moment, the government says it is _ to those figures? so at the moment, the government says it is spending l the government says it is spending about £7 million a day on housing asylum seekers in hotels in the uk, and that figure, which has really gone up massively since the schemes to help ukrainians and afghans, is one of the reasons, one of the impetus behind this. it was interesting, quite a few report out at the end of last year said it was now the government using its foreign budget to pay to house asylum seekers here in the uk, so

significant, as they see it, is the scale of the problem. but the interesting thing about this is that the cost of the rwandan scheme, if anything, is said to be higher, so there was debate about this yesterday, one report said it could be as much as £169,000 per person to have them deported to rwanda. now, of course, the government would make savings on the cost of housing people in the uk, and these are contested figures, but they think it would be about £60,000 per year more to deport someone to rwanda. the government has already spent £140 million on the scheme, and no—one has gone across yet. so the figures here are huge, but the government argument is that, in the long term, the cost of the deterrent effect of rwanda will discourage people from coming over, and all of the upfront per person cost is higher to rwanda, they say the long—term cost to the

uk would be lower, although these figures are very much contested. the court of appeal in the uk, but the european court of human rights has also been involved, how have they played their part? a, has also been involved, how have they played their part? fix. lat has also been involved, how have they played their part?— they played their part? a lot of international _ they played their part? a lot of international bodies _ they played their part? a lot of international bodies have i they played their part? a lot of international bodies have said, j international bodies have said, especially the court of human rights, and the un as well have criticised these plans. as i was saying, these are virtually unprecedented, the idea of moving asylum seekers to a completely third country has never been done before. there has been widespread international criticism of this. i think probably the government... because it is such a central part of the policy, they will try to write it through. the policy, they will try to write it through-— the policy, they will try to write it throuuh. . ~' ., ., . it through. thank you for that. we are awaiting _ it through. thank you for that. we are awaiting this _ it through. thank you for that. we are awaiting this ruling. _ it through. thank you for that. we are awaiting this ruling. it - it through. thank you for that. we are awaiting this ruling. it could i are awaiting this ruling. it could happen at any moment now. if you are

joining us on bbc news, i have my colleagues in central london at the court of appeal and also our political correspondent rob watson who is giving us context to this ruling we are waiting for, challenge to the government's plan to deport asylum seekers to rwanda. this is the scene live, judges have entered the scene live, judges have entered the room, now taking their seats. let us listen in. ladle the room, now taking their seats. let us listen in.— let us listen in. we are handing down our _ let us listen in. we are handing down ourjudgments _ let us listen in. we are handing down ourjudgments in - let us listen in. we are handing down ourjudgments in these i let us listen in. we are handing i down ourjudgments in these appeals this morning. i shall read a summary which does not form part of the judgment. the appellants in these cases individual asylum seekers and one charity asylum made. the

appellants are from syria, iraq, vietnam, sudan and albania. they arrived in the uk irregularly by crossing the english channel from france in small boats. in the cases of each of the appellants, the government made a decision in late may, earlyjune 2022 not to consider their asylum claims but to remove them to rwanda where their claims would be decided under the rwandan asylum system. those decisions were made in accordance with arrangements between the two governments announced on the 14th of april 2022 and contained in a memorandum of understanding and a number of diplomatic notes they comprised the rwanda agreement. on the basis of the assurances from the rwandan government contained in the terms of the rwanda agreement, its terms more broadly, monitoring arrangements in place and other inquiries carried

out by the uk government, rwanda was treated as a safe third country under the reverent provisions of the immigration rules —— the relevant provisions. this is the rwanda policy. the claimants brought proceedings in the high court challenging both the lawfulness of the rwanda policy gallery, referred to as the generic challenge, and the government's decision specifically to remove each of them to rwanda. removals did not go ahead pending the outcome of the proceedings. the central issue before the high court and before us was whether the asylum system in rwanda was capable of delivering a reliable outcome. the appellants' case is there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk that any person sent to rwanda will be removed to their home country when in fact they have a good claim for asylum. sending them to rwanda in those

circumstances would breach article three of the european convention on human rights. in that sense the appellants submitted rwanda is not a safe third country. the high court, lord justice lewis and mrjustice swift, heard the challenges in september and october 2022. its decision was handed down on the 19th of december 2022. in the case of the individual claimants, the decisions to remove than were quashed on the basis of procedural unfairness in their particular cases. but the court dismissed the generic challenges to the rwanda policy. the appeals to this quote are against the high court's decision on the generic challenges. the government has not appealed against the quashing of the decisions in the appellants individual cases. it has not yet made any fresh decisions on those or other cases pending the

outcome of the appeals. the appeals were argued before us over four days between the 24th and 27th of april 2023. the grounds were numerous and included the legal issues besides the question whether rwanda was a safe third country in the sense we have described. the court had to consider a great deal of detailed evidence as well as other materials. the united nations high commissioner for refugees was permitted to make submissions as an interested party. evidence filed on behalf of the unhcr formed the foundation of much of the appellants' case. by a majority this court allows the appeal on the issue of whether rwanda is a safe third country, it unanimously dismisses the other grounds. there is a subsidiary question about whether there are substantial grounds for believing person sent to rwanda will face a

real risk of treatment contrary to article three in rwanda itself. although we do not will take the same view on that subsidiary question, the decision of the high court is undisturbed on that point. i will now give a very brief summary of the court of appeal�*s reasons. to understand the detail, it is necessary to read the judgments which will be made available in court and online as soon as i have delivered this summary. the decision of the majority, the master of the role and lord justice, the vice president of the court of appeal civil division, is the deficiencies in the asylum system in rwanda are such there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk that person sent to rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they face persecution or other

inhumane treatment when in fact they have a good claim for asylum. in that sense, rwanda is not a safe third country. that conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the high court that rwanda's system for deciding asylum claims was in the period up to the conclusion of the rwanda agreement inadequate. the court is unanimous inadequate. the court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in the asylum process. howeverthe to address any defects in the asylum process. however the majority believes the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes have by then even reliably affected or would have been by the time of the proposed removals. in consequence sending anyone to rwanda would constitute a breach of article three of the european convention on human rights which parliament has required the government to comply

with. in agreement with the high court we have reached the opposite conclusion. i agree the procedures put in place under the rwanda agreement and the insurance is given ljy agreement and the insurance is given by the rwandan government are sufficient to ensure there is no real risk asylum seekers relocated under the rwandan policy will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment. i have concluded the chances of failed asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin are in any event below, not least because rwanda has no agreements in place with any of the countries in question. in addition extensive monitoring arrangements, formal and informal, of all those sent to rwanda and of their asylum claims once there provide powerful protection. i take the view the arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards in the context

where both governments will be determined to make the agreement work and be seen to do so. as for the grounds on which the appellants have been unsuccessful, i can summarise our reasoning as follows. one, the effect of the refugee convention. article 31 of the refugee convention does not in principle prevent the uk from removing asylum seekers to a safe third country. two, retained eu law, eu law only permits asylum seekers to be removed to a safe third country if they have some connection to that country. none of the appellants has any connection to rwanda. howeverthe appellants has any connection to rwanda. however the court holds that the requirement has ceased to be part of united kingdom law as a result of the provisions of the immigration and social security cooperation eu withdrawal act 2020

which is part of the legislation dealing with the consequences of the uk's dealing with the consequences of the uk's withdrawal from the european union. three, the designation as a safe third country. schedule three to the asylum and immigration treatment of claimants act 2004 allows the government as long as it obtains parliamentary approval to designate particular countries and safe. the government did not in these cases make use of those procedures. instead it proceeded by giving guidance to caseworkers for application in individual decision. the court holds it was not unlawful for it to proceed in that way. four, data protection. decisions to remove individuals to rwanda are not themselves invalidated by any breaches of the data protection legislation which it is alleged would or might occur in the course or in consequence of their removal.

five, fairness of procedures. asylum aids submitted the procedures by which the government decided whether to relocate individual asylum seekers to rwanda were inherently unfair. in particular because of the short timetable applying to representations seeking to resist removal. the court rejects that submission. but it holds that some aspects of the high court's reasoning cannot be supported and that the government needs to give guidance to caseworkers emphasising the importance of flexibility in granting extensions to the time limits where fairness requires. the result is that the high court's decision that rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum seekers to rwanda will be unlawful. finally, i should

make clear our decision implies no fee whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the rwanda policy. those are entirely a matter for the government on which the court has nothing to say. our concern is only whether the policy complies with the law as laid down in parliament. i deliberately tight timetable has been set for consequential orders and directions partly so that any application for permission to appeal can be decided promptly. the court hopes and expects it will be able to deal with all consequential matters on the papers. forthe all consequential matters on the papers. for the avoidance of doubt, ourjudgments are published with immediate effect, albeit on a subject to editorial corrections basis in accordance with direction one which i shall shortly mention. if any corrections are necessary, the revised version will in due

course be sent to the parties and published on thejudiciary course be sent to the parties and published on the judiciary website and published on thejudiciary website and on the national published on the judiciary website and on the national archives website. we will give the following directions for the steps of the parties need to take consequential on our decision. we direct that by 4pm on thursday sixjuly 2023, one, the parties file with the court lists of suggestions for correction of typographical or other minor areas in thejudgment of typographical or other minor areas in the judgment handed of typographical or other minor areas in thejudgment handed down. —— errors. two, the parties file with the court draft orders in each of the appeal so far as possible in agreed terms giving effect to the terms of ourjudgments and covering all consequential matters such as permission to appeal to the supreme court. three, insofar as the terms of the orders cannot be agreed, short written submissions from the

parties on the disputed items can be filed. in the case of any application for permission to appeal to the supreme court, submissions are required only from the applicant. submissions from the respondent will be required only if the court asks for them. that timetable is deliberately tight, partly so that any application for permission to appeal to the supreme court can be decided promptly, but we believe it is achievable. any application for an extension will be entertained only for the most cogent reasons. it should relate only to particular aspects of the orders in relation to which it is that that timetable cannot be complied with. thank you. that concludes this morning's proceedings. studio: this is bbc news. that was the chamber in the royal courts of justice, part of the appeal hearing

regarding the government's so—called rwanda bill. we will cross to our correspondent who is outside the courts of appeal. first, for anybody listening to that, it was confusing, can you tell us what did the ruling actually say? so many aspects to this. what was the ruling? thea;r actually say? so many aspects to this. what was the ruling? they have ruled the government's _ this. what was the ruling? they have ruled the government's decision i this. what was the ruling? they have ruled the government's decision or i ruled the government's decision or policy of deporting asylum seekers to rwanda is unlawful, they have reversed the earlier decision of the high court, but the reason it was confusing, difficult to listen for everyone to make sense of it entirely because it was a split decision. what we got first was the views of two members of the bench, the master of the rose and lord justice underhill, they said they thought the policy was not lawful because basically deficiencies as they saw it within the rwanda asylum

system. this was not so much about whether removing people to a third country at all was [awful but whether if they were sent to rwanda they would be able to have a fair process there. the purpose of the policy is not to deny people asylum rights but to have then managed elsewhere. the idea is, if they want to rwanda, would the procedure they face there be in line with the various un conventions? article three of the un convention of human rights. two members of the bench said no. the lord chiefjustice said he thought they would be. the long and short of it is there is most likely going to be an appeal. a central part of government policy. they have been told by the court of appeal it is not lawful but they have the supreme court to go to and thatis have the supreme court to go to and that is almost certainly what will happen. i! i that is almost certainly what will ha . en, , ., ., that is almost certainly what will ha--en. , . , happen. if i understood correctly, followinu happen. if i understood correctly, following in _ happen. if i understood correctly, following in the _ happen. if i understood correctly, following in the studio, _ happen. if i understood correctly, following in the studio, there i happen. if! understood correctly, |

following in the studio, there were expectations made of rwanda and of the government as well, starting off with the government of rwanda, what was said about kigali?— was said about kigali? essentially what it came _ was said about kigali? essentially what it came down _ was said about kigali? essentially what it came down to _ was said about kigali? essentially what it came down to is _ was said about kigali? essentially what it came down to is whether. was said about kigali? essentially i what it came down to is whether the immigration policy, the asylum policy, i should say, in kigali is fit for purpose, basically. two of the member said it wasn't, one is that it was. the concern is that if you are deported to rwanda what would happen is there was a possibility that you might then be sent back if your claim failed to the country from which the person had originally fled. but the lord chiefjustice dissented from that view and said there was no problem with that not least because rwanda doesn't have an agreement to extradite people to the countries in question here. as i say, there was dissent, disagreement. ithink question here. as i say, there was dissent, disagreement. i think i heard correctly them say that all of

the judges were not thinking the rwanda government were acting in bad faith, they did not think kigali was being disingenuous in saying they would be able to uphold their end of the bargain when it came to treating asylum seekers fairly, but simply the systems were not in place at this point. the systems were not in place at this oint. the systems were not in place at this point-— this point. 0k, we will leave it there for— this point. 0k, we will leave it there for now, _ this point. 0k, we will leave it there for now, don't _ this point. 0k, we will leave it there for now, don't go i this point. 0k, we will leave it there for now, don't go away, | this point. 0k, we will leave it i there for now, don't go away, we will discuss it further. 50 many aspects, not only eu law, unhcr were involved, designation of rwanda as a third country and its third country status, but also brexit as well. robertson is with us, you were following the proceedings —— rob watson. in terms of the political fallout from this, what does this do to rishi sunak?— fallout from this, what does this do to rishi sunak? well, there are two wa s of to rishi sunak? well, there are two ways of looking _ to rishi sunak? well, there are two ways of looking at _ to rishi sunak? well, there are two ways of looking at this. _ to rishi sunak? well, there are two ways of looking at this. on - to rishi sunak? well, there are two ways of looking at this. on the i to rishi sunak? well, there are two ways of looking at this. on the one| ways of looking at this. on the one hand,it ways of looking at this. on the one hand, it is a blow because you have

had the second highest court in the land had the second highest court in the [and after the supreme court saying it has a problem with aspects of the policy. but i suppose you could say may be the government and the conservative party will say this tells you some of the problem we are up tells you some of the problem we are up against, up against lefty lawyers making trouble, we'll notice common sense you cannot have it as they would see eight people coming over in small boats from france to the uk —— as they would see it. there will be some attempt to use it to political advantage. the thing we need to look out for is what will be the home secretary, suella braveman, what will she say when she addresses parliament at 5pm? whether she decides, look, the government will challenge the ruling in the supreme court. forthe challenge the ruling in the supreme court. for the prime minister, you could say, look, we believe we are on the right track, they may decide to continue with the policy, hadn't they can use the legal battles they

are having as part of the case —— and they can use. are having as part of the case -- and they can use.— are having as part of the case -- and they can use. what has suella braveman had _ and they can use. what has suella braveman had to _ and they can use. what has suella braveman had to say _ and they can use. what has suella braveman had to say on _ and they can use. what has suella braveman had to say on the i and they can use. what has suellal braveman had to say on the matter and they can use. what has suella i braveman had to say on the matter of the rwanda policy? many of us remember her comments at the hope and joy seeing the plane takes off heading for kigali. i and joy seeing the plane takes off heading for kigali.— heading for kigali. i was there in the room at _ heading for kigali. i was there in the room at the _ heading for kigali. i was there in the room at the conservative i heading for kigali. i was there in i the room at the conservative party conference when the comments were made. she is a huge enthusiast for it, as indeed are senior members of the government. they believe it is a policy popular with most voters, certainly most conservative voters, polling suggests they are probably right. she makes the case rather bluntly, look, you cannot continue to have over 45,000 people coming to this country in small bites across the water from france. this country in small bites across the waterfrom france. what this country in small bites across the water from france. what are you going to do? —— small boats. her argument is, if you deport people to

rwanda, they will be safe, but it will also act as a deterrent to other people doing it. she believes in the policy. of course there are many people who argue against it, that there is absolutely no guarantee it would have a deterrent effect. we are not sure whether it would be legal, whether it would be in accordance with the uk's international obligations. then you have the other argument opponents throw in, rather distasteful and rather immoral, as they would see it. ,, ._ , rather immoral, as they would see it. ,, , . . rather immoral, as they would see it. stay with us. we are going to continue to _ it. stay with us. we are going to continue to analyse _ it. stay with us. we are going to continue to analyse what - it. stay with us. we are going to continue to analyse what it i it. stay with us. we are going to continue to analyse what it all i continue to analyse what it all means for policy in the uk. in the meantime, i want to update you on our top story on bbc news. events taking place in france. president emmanuel macron had been holding an emergency meeting following protests that brought out in the suburbs of paris initially but spread to other towns and cities across france and

this was in response to the shooting dead of a 17—year—old youth when he, police say, failed to comply in stopping his vehicle. we understand from the french prosecutor at the police officer who fatally shot the teenager has been named, place voluntary detention for homicide. he has asked for temporary detention of the police officer who fatally shot the police officer who fatally shot the teenager on tuesday evening. in response to what the police initially said... initially they said the 17—year—old had failed to stop and driven the car and then, until video emerged showing a slightly different story. in response to that, we had protests break out. they have continued for

two days in the last of those were overnight on wednesday night going into today, which is thursday. there were scenes of cars burnt out on the streets in a suburb of paris. there has been and there is a history of allegations of police violence in the french police violence, against certain members of the community, particularly in large cities like paris. ok, let us return to the other developing story here, the ruling or statement on rwanda and the uk's decision or rather build to send asylum seekers to rwanda in eastern africa —— bill. there was a judgment right out in the court of appeal in london. joe has been

following that for us. just to summarise, what was decided in the court of appeal this morning? there was a slit court of appeal this morning? there was a split decision, _ court of appeal this morning? there was a split decision, two _ court of appeal this morning? ii—ii” was a split decision, twojudges on was a split decision, two judges on one side, one on the other, the government's policy of deporting asylum seekers to rwanda to have claimed processed is not lawful, thatis claimed processed is not lawful, that is the headline. what it can down to was whether they thought the asylum system in rwanda in particular was fit to hear their claims, whether they would get a fair hearing. two members of the bench, master of the rolls, lord justice, they decided it was not a safe third country. there was one member, the lord chiefjustice, who said he thought it was. that is what it came down to. not the principle of deporting people, whether it is lawful or not, but whether rwanda specifically was a safe third country and the split decision is it

is not and therefore it will almost certainly go to appeal to the supreme court.— certainly go to appeal to the sureme court. ~ ., ., , ., . certainly go to appeal to the sureme court. ~ ., ., ., supreme court. what has rwanda said throuuhout supreme court. what has rwanda said throughout discussions _ supreme court. what has rwanda said throughout discussions around - supreme court. what has rwanda said throughout discussions around this? i throughout discussions around this? what has kigali said on the matter? they have said they are a safe third country. rwanda is a fascinating place. many people will know it because of the appalling genocide in the 1990s. but because of the appalling genocide in the 19905. but it because of the appalling genocide in the 1990s. but it is a country that has made significant economic progress since then, many questions over its human rights. they have always maintained they are a safe country, they treat asylum seekers well, and they are ready to uphold their side of the bargain. worth pointing out all threejudges their side of the bargain. worth pointing out all three judges said that they thought rwanda was acting in good faith but two simply said the system was not up to the kind of task it would be set. but rwanda has also taken a large amount of money for this, £140 million at this point, and they have not received a

single asylum seeker yet. they have always maintained they are acting in good faith and would be willing to uphold their half of the deal. ladle uphold their half of the deal. we will leave at there for now, thank you, joe. staying with the story, we will speak to enver solomon, chief executive of the refugee council. —— enver solomon. a charity working with refugees and people seeking asylum in the uk. thank you for joining us. your reaction to what you heard, what do you understand you heard, what do you understand you heard, what do you understand you heard today?— you heard today? what the court is makin: you heard today? what the court is making very _ you heard today? what the court is making very clear— you heard today? what the court is making very clear is _ you heard today? what the court is making very clear is in _ you heard today? what the court is making very clear is in its - you heard today? what the court is| making very clear is in itsjudgment the system in rwanda for how it treats people who are fleeing war, persecution and torture, who would be sent to rwanda, seeking asylum, and then would have to be dealt with through the rwandan asylum system, what the court is saying it is not confident or satisfied the rwandan asylum system is good enough and

will follow due process, processes which the court found clearly to be unfit for purpose. the fact that the court has made thatjudgment on the one hand is positive because it means the british government now cannot send people to rwanda, but on the other hand still deeply disappointing that the refugee council because the court isn't saying the whole approach of the british government is unlawful and we are of the view and we think the majority of the british people are of the view if someone comes to this country fleeing violence in countries such as sudan, syria, fleeing the clutches of tyrannical... fleeing the clutches of rannical. .. ., ., , fleeing the clutches of rannical... ., ., , tyrannical... unfortunately it looks like we have _ tyrannical... unfortunately it looks like we have lost _ tyrannical. .. unfortunately it looks like we have lost enver— tyrannical... unfortunately it looks like we have lost enver solomon, l like we have lost enver solomon, gremlins and the system. i wonder if we can return the rob watson, political correspondent, who has been following the judgment this morning and has all of the context and background to the story. when we

heard the statement being read out, thejudge heard the statement being read out, the judge underscored the importance of... they were complying with the law as laid down by parliament, there has been huge opposition to this, i wasjust looking there has been huge opposition to this, i was just looking at some of the statements that were put out, the statements that were put out, the church of england, archbishops describing it as an immoral policy that shames britain. this was all about the law as laid down by parliament according to the court of appeal. parliament according to the court of a- eal. , parliament according to the court of aueal. , , ., ,, appeal. yes, absolutely. thank goodness- _ appeal. yes, absolutely. thank goodness. since _ appeal. yes, absolutely. thank goodness. since the _ appeal. yes, absolutely. thank goodness. since the last i appeal. yes, absolutely. thank goodness. since the last time | appeal. yes, absolutely. thank goodness. since the last time i | goodness. since the last time i spoke to you, i have had a chance to read thejudgment twice. spoke to you, i have had a chance to read the judgment twice. it is true even as we relate live on bbc news, it was slightly confusing because of theissue it was slightly confusing because of the issue of the first of all you hear what the majority is, the descent is... anyway, let us strip it away. essentially the ruling by the court is very simple and bad

news for the government on the face of it because absolutely the majority of the judges said, look, this policy is unlawful. they are not talking about the morality of it, whether the government policy is a good idea, whether it would deter people. or how it makes britain look internationally. none of that at all. strict ruling, as mr solomon was saying, it would be potentially a breach of parliamentary law. why parliamentary law? because sending people to a country where you are not sure they would get the treatment would be in breach of european convention on human rights. that is nothing to do with britain's membership of the eu now terminated. interestingly, one thing that may come out as a result of this is those on the right of the government and conservative party might say, we need to get out of the european convention on human rights and set “p convention on human rights and set up our own system of what

constitutes rights for uk citizens and those who come here. absolutely, straightforward ruling, you cannot send people to rwanda because as far as the majority of the judges were concerned it is not a safe place. possible you might send someone to rwanda and they then get deported back to the country where they were from where they would not be safe and that would be in breach of european human rights law which of course is endorsed by the uk parliament. sorry for the long answer. we also heard from the judge there, he painted a picture, didn't he, of how confusing this— he painted a picture, didn't he, of how confusing this was, the factors involved, how confusing this was, the factors involved. and _ how confusing this was, the factors involved, and you _ how confusing this was, the factors involved, and you have _ how confusing this was, the factors involved, and you have got - how confusing this was, the factors involved, and you have got the i involved, and you have got the european court of human rights, i havejust been looking european court of human rights, i have just been looking at the judiciary website, which the judge did direct us to, and they point out that the divisional court dealt with claims by 11 individuals and several

organisations, the unhcr is involved as an international organisation as well, the aspects of brexit, as you hinted out there, the involvement or participation of the european court of human rights, why is that important, rob? 50 of human rights, why is that important, rob?— of human rights, why is that important, rob? of human rights, why is that imortant, rob? ,, i. ., important, rob? so i guess you have a two separate _ important, rob? so i guess you have a two separate issues _ important, rob? so i guess you have a two separate issues here, - important, rob? so i guess you have a two separate issues here, you i important, rob? so i guess you have a two separate issues here, you have got domestic uk politics, and polling suggests that certainly amongst conservative voters, it is popular, the idea of deporting people to rwanda. so one imagines that elements of the government site, you know, this shows you what we are up against, the lefty lawyers, maybe we need to leave the european convention on human rights so we could enable this policy to go on in a way that our courts would consider to be lawful. the other international dimension, and in some ways this is more a satiric, is the extent to which, you know, the government, while knowing it may be

popular at home to take a tougher line on people coming in boats, it might be worried that you have got yet another legaljudgment in a uk court that sort of implies that britain is sort of packing international trends, wants to do things that could be in violation of eu and other conventions, and so if you like, there is the other aspect which shows you why it is complex being in government — if you like, international reputational damage to the uk, because you might say some of the things that have followed britain's departure from the european union have led to damage to britain's international reputation, so that is some of the balancing act that the government will have to figure out over the next few days. i mean, we will say, obviously, at 5pm this evening, what are the immediate responses to this particular ruling, and whether it decides to challenge it in the supreme court. we and whether it decides to challenge it in the supreme court.— and whether it decides to challenge it in the supreme court. we heard a lot about article _

it in the supreme court. we heard a lot about article three _ it in the supreme court. we heard a lot about article three of _ it in the supreme court. we heard a lot about article three of the i lot about article three of the european convention on human rights, how is it that it was deemed that rwanda was in breach of that, or rather the uk government would be in breach of that if it sent asylum seekers to rwanda? what has rwanda not delivered in terms of keeping that designation of a safe third country? well, it is interesting that you reminded everyone that the judges thought the assurances from the rwandan government, the assurances they had made two we carrier authorities were made genuinely, but it is just the majority view of the judges was that it could not be absolutely sure that all the monitoring and safety processes were in place that could ensure that people who were deported from the uk to rwanda were not then mistakenly deported back to countries or objected to countries where they might suffer abuses to

the human rights. as i understand it, you know, that is basically what underlies all of this judgment, that thejudges simply were underlies all of this judgment, that the judges simply were not convinced, whatever reassurances rwanda had provided, that it absolutely was a safe third country that you could deport people do. i want you to stay with us, because i want you to stay with us, because i want to remind judges what exactly what was said earlier. this was judge ian byrne at delivering the ruling and a decision. the judge ian byrne at delivering the ruling and a decision.— judge ian byrne at delivering the ruling and a decision. the result is that the high _ ruling and a decision. the result is that the high court _ ruling and a decision. the result is that the high court decision i ruling and a decision. the result is that the high court decision that i that the high court decision that rwanda — that the high court decision that rwanda was a safe third country is reversed _ rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected, removal of asylum _ processes are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to rwanda will be unlawful — asylum seekers to rwanda will be unlawful. finally, ishould asylum seekers to rwanda will be unlawful. finally, i should make clear— unlawful. finally, i should make clear that — unlawful. finally, i should make clear that our decision implies no view— clear that our decision implies no view whatever about the political merits _ view whatever about the political merits or — view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the rwanda policy _ merits or otherwise of the rwanda policy. those are entirely a matter for the _ policy. those are entirely a matter for the government, on which the court _ for the government, on which the court has — for the government, on which the court has nothing to say. our

concern — court has nothing to say. our concern is _ court has nothing to say. our concern is only whether the policy complies— concern is only whether the policy complies with the law as laid down by parliament. so complies with the law as laid down by parliament.— complies with the law as laid down by parliament. so that was the 'udge a short time — by parliament. so that was the 'udge a short time ago i by parliament. so that was the 'udge a short time ago at i by parliament. so that was the 'udge a short time ago at the i by parliament. so that was the 'udge a short time ago at the court i by parliament. so that was the judge a short time ago at the court of- a short time ago at the court of appeal in central london. joshua rosenberg is outside the courts after that ruling was made, he has been following the story for us, and just remind our viewers, joshua, what was ruled and what does this mean for the british government? it is a defeat for the british government, it means that no one can be sent to rwanda. there is of course, the possibility of an appeal, and the lord chiefjustice of england and wales, who you heard speaking just now, has indicated that any appeal has to be dealt with quickly, the government would have to lodge any appeal within a week. it seems to me that there is a very good chance that this case will go

to the united kingdom supreme court, and that is because lord burnett, who use all speaking there, was in the minority, this was a majority decision, and the lord chiefjustice was effectively overruled by his two colleagues, the master of the rolls and lord justice underhill. when you have a split decision on the substance of a case like this, it is very likely that the supreme court will want to resolve the decision one way or another. in terms of hearing, i do not suppose there will be one before the autumn, september or october, perhaps a few weeks to reach a decision. i'm sure the government will want to appeal, although it hasn't had any longer to digest thisjudgment and although it hasn't had any longer to digest this judgment and its 160 pages than we have had. i am sure the government will want to appeal, but nevertheless it will want to

consider the judgment, but nevertheless it will want to considerthejudgment, considerwhat grounds of appeal it may have, before seeking to take this case to the united kingdom's highest court. in terms of the timing and how this is going through legal process, does this sound right? you hear of cases taken years this sound right? you hear of cases ta ken years to this sound right? you hear of cases taken years to reach the stage we are at, is this moving particularly quickly through the legal system? it quickly through the legal system? if is moving quickly. the way it works, a bit like a duck to's appointment, if it is really urgent, they move quickly. like a doctor's appointment. this is not like the prorogation case in 2019, where the supreme court came back from its summer holidays in september, heard the appeal over three days and gave a decision in the beginning of the following week. on the other hand, it has got to this stage quite quickly. the decision by the high

court was before christmas, it is very complicated, and as i say, this is a lengthyjudgment, and you can be confident that they have been arguments behind the scenes between the threejudges. it arguments behind the scenes between the three judges. it is worth saying that they agreed on most points. the one point on which they did not agree was about the deficiencies in the asylum system in rwanda. the majority, as i think you have been reporting, said there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk that people sent to rwanda will return to their home countries, where they face persecution and inhumane treatment, when in fact they have a good claim for asylum. when in fact they have a good claim forasylum. but when in fact they have a good claim for asylum. but lord burnett takes a different view, he reached the opposite conclusion, he takes the view that the procedures put in place in the rwanda agreement and the assurances given by the rwanda government are sufficient to ensure there is no real risk that asylum seekers will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution. so with this particular disagreement between three of the

most seniorjudges in england and wales, i think there is every chance it will go to the supreme court. joshua, stay with us, because you mention to the response from the rwandan mention to the response from the rwanda ., ., ., , . ., mention to the response from the rwanda ., ., ., , _, ., rwandan government, that has come to us now at bbc — rwandan government, that has come to us now at bbc news. _ rwandan government, that has come to us now at bbc news. i _ rwandan government, that has come to us now at bbc news. i will _ rwandan government, that has come to us now at bbc news. i will take - rwandan government, that has come to us now at bbc news. i will take you i us now at bbc news. i will take you through what a spokesperson for the government of rwanda have said. while this is, ultimately, a decision for the uk'sjudicial decision for the uk's judicial system, decision for the uk'sjudicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees. rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, and we have been recognised by the unhcr and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees. we make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. rwanda knows what it means to be forced to flee home and make a new life in a new country. the statement goes on to say, as a

society and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as rwandans. everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this. rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. the broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at immeasurable human cost. when they migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they will need to build new lives in rwanda. so that is a statement we have received here following that ruling by the court of appeal in london, that deportations by the uk government are unlawful, the statement coming from the spokesperson for the

government of rwanda. let me go back, let me go back tojoshua it now. joshua, that is a statement from the rwandan government. i want to come back to what rwanda has to do, or what thejudges have to come back to what rwanda has to do, or what the judges have said to come back to what rwanda has to do, or what thejudges have said has to be done, for it to keep its third safe country designation. a short time ago, you mention to the supreme court, you said it is likely this case will end up in the supreme court. how does it become eligible to be taken up in the supreme court? well, dealing with that point first, a case cannot go to the supreme court unless the appellant, in this case the uk government, is given permission. it has two options. it can ask thejudges permission. it has two options. it can ask the judges here at the court of appealfor can ask the judges here at the court of appeal for permission, and can ask the judges here at the court of appealfor permission, and i'm sure that is what it will seek to do, that can be done in writing. i would have thought there is a good chance they will give permission, normally they do not, because they

will say, well, you had better ask the supreme court themselves. but given that this was a split decision and so important to get it right, i would have thought there is a good chance they will give permission. but as i say, if the appealjudges here do not give permission, the government has a second chance, they can go to the other side of london, to westminster, where the supreme court lives, and ask the supreme court lives, and ask the supreme court for permission. if permission is refused by both courts, that is the end of it, there is no hearing and the decision will stand, and handicap�*s only option is to pass new legislation, which of course it is doing at the moment, so it may not be too much of a problem for it. legislation may be a sway forward if it fails to persuade the court. excuse me. but on the question that you raised about the rwandan government's views, well, you can understand why they say they are a

safe third country, and they have persuaded the most seniorjudge in england and wales, lord burnett of modern come of that point. he says the chance of failed asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin are very low, because rwanda does not have agreements in place with the countries in question, and extensive monitoring arrangements, formal and informal, of all those sent to rwanda and the asylum claims once there provide powerful protection, the arrangements being put in place provide sufficient safeguards in the context where if both governments would be determined to make the agreement work, so it agrees very much with the rwandan government. however, that was not the view of the two judges sitting with them, and when you have a court with them, and when you have a court with three judges and they disagree, well, the majority decides.— well, the ma'ority decides. joshua, was there well, the majority decides. joshua, was there any _ well, the majority decides. joshua, was there any explanation - well, the majority decides. joshua, was there any explanation as - well, the majority decides. joshua, was there any explanation as to - well, the majority decides. joshua, | was there any explanation as to the evidence behind why they thought

rwanda was not a third safe country? what evidence do they look at? j rwanda was not a third safe country? what evidence do they look at? h mm what evidence do they look at? i am lad ou what evidence do they look at? i am glad you asked _ what evidence do they look at? i am glad you asked me — what evidence do they look at? i—n glad you asked me that, because this is thejudgment, 161 pages, and if we look through it, there is an index, and it does talk about the safety of rwanda issues, remaining issues for discussion, and conclusions. if i turn to paragraph 119 of thejudgment, conclusions. if i turn to paragraph 119 of the judgment, because this is what the index at the front very kindly helps us with, they discuss... this is the master of the rolls discussing in great detail the law, the issues, the asylum system, criticisms of particular stages in the process, the unhcr, the high commissionerfor the process, the unhcr, the high commissioner for refugees has said

there have been instances where individual seeking asylum in rwanda were denied the opportunity to make asylum claims at all. the unhcr, which gave evidence to the court, relies on cases where people were sent back from airports, the government of rwanda says that they were denied entry but disagrees on the reasons. there is tremendous detail in this document, which has been published and is available online to read. this is from lord justice underhill, saying it relies on what happens to individuals who sought asylum in israel and were relocated to rwanda, and the question was, what happened to them? so there is tremendously detailed evidence there, but it is not the sort of thing we can summarise in a few quick moments.— sort of thing we can summarise in a few quick moments. thank you very much for explaining _ few quick moments. thank you very much for explaining that _ few quick moments. thank you very much for explaining that that - much for explaining that that evidence is there in the document that you have been looking through, i am impressed that you can do that live on tv! just before we carry on,

i want to bring you some reaction that we are receiving from charities and bodies, who always raise concerns over this bill by the uk government from the very start, the chief executive of freedom from torture, as it said this is a victory for reason and compassion, we are delighted that the verdict reflected what the people of this country already knew, the cash for humans deal with the land is not only deeply immoral, it flies in the face of the laws of this country. every day, and i therapy rooms, torture survivors confide in our clinicians, and as we outlined in our intervention in the court of appeal, this dirty deal, according

to freedom from torture, this dirty deal with rwanda does too little to identify and protect survivors and other vulnerable groups. it would see them placed at risk of further harm. rishi sunak�*s inhumane policy has sparked anger across the uk from protesters on the streets to faith leaders and cultural icons. if he is serious about offering sanctuary to those most in need, he should focus on rebuilding a fair and compassionate asylum system, one that welcomes and offers a fair hearing to refugees no matter how they arrive. so that was just one reaction from freedom from torture and their chief executive. a reaction to the decision delivered by the court of appeal. i'm going to cross live now to enver solomon, we were speaking earlier, we did lose you, a glitch in our system, chief

executive of the refugee council, you have been working obviously with refugees and those people seeking asylum in the uk. from what you have heard, then, earlier, from thejudge, is from the judge, is there some safety for the people you are working with? there are some, but not enough, we are working right across england with people in the asylum are working right across england with people in the asylum system, we know that they _ with people in the asylum system, we know that they are _ with people in the asylum system, we know that they are people, _ with people in the asylum system, we know that they are people, men, - know that they are people, men, women and children, children who came to this country alone, who are frightened, terrified and distressed about the prospect of being sent to rwanda. we have even seen incidences of people self—harming, people feeling suicidal as a result. that the fact that the government will now not be able, as the judgment stands, the government will not be able to send people to rwanda has to

be good news. however, it is important to recognise that the court is not ruling that the government's overall policy is unlawful, so in that regard, the government will be able to continue with its policy, in its attempt to send people to other countries, to banish them there, to not allow them to have a fair hearing on uk soil, and we think that policy is both unworkable, unprincipled and hugely costly, and we think it is fundamentally wrong and not what the british people believe in, who we think believe in the right to have a fair hearing on uk soil. if you come here fleeing countries such as afghanistan and iran, where there is time a nickel role.— time a nickel role. enver solomon, i know we will— time a nickel role. enver solomon, i know we will be _ time a nickel role. enver solomon, i know we will be discussing - time a nickel role. enver solomon, i know we will be discussing this - know we will be discussing this further, but we are going to leave it there. —— where there is tyra —— tyrannical rule. news that nicola sturgeon,

scotland's former first minister, has begun to give evidence to the uk covid inquiry about how prepared the scottish government was for the pandemic and also how it was handled. i wonder if we can give you some live pictures from inside the committee room. nicola sturgeon and john swinney facing questions about their decisions at the time. the inquiry was set up to investigate the uk response to the virus and will also look at the impact of the pandemic and the lessons that can be learned. public hearings are set to continue until 2026. now, there are four modules to this inquiry, the first of which is resilience and preparedness, the second was the core uk decision—making, and political governance. the third module of this inquiry is the impact

of the covid pandemic on the health care systems in the four nations of the uk. and fourthly and finally, the uk. and fourthly and finally, the inquiry will also be examining the inquiry will also be examining the vaccines and therapeutics and their roles that they played in fighting the pandemic. so the prime minister, just to give you a little bit of background, the prime minister at the time, in may 2021, was borisjohnson, and it was him who announced that this inquiry would be held. it is set up to examine the uk's response to and the impact of the covid pandemic. so let's go live to hear what she is saying. it is headed cabinet subcommittee on scottish government resilience, influenza h1n1 pandemic review of the scottish government response,

and it was a paper by the cabinet secretary for health and wellbeing. you were deputy first minister and cabinet secretary for health and therefore may we presume that was you? j therefore may we presume that was ou? ., ., ., . a ., you? i would have to check the date to see whether— you? i would have to check the date to see whether i _ you? i would have to check the date to see whether i was _ you? i would have to check the date to see whether i was still— you? i would have to check the date to see whether i was still health - to see whether i was still health secretary— to see whether i was still health secretary when the paper was produced, but i believe that would have been— produced, but i believe that would have been me, yes. | produced, but i believe that would have been me, yes.— produced, but i believe that would have been me, yes. i think the paper was produced — have been me, yes. i think the paper was produced in _ have been me, yes. i think the paper was produced in 2011, _ have been me, yes. i think the paper was produced in 2011, you _ have been me, yes. i think the paper was produced in 2011, you are - was produced in 2011, you are cabinet secretary for health until the 19th of may 2011. j cabinet secretary for health until the 19th of may 2011.— cabinet secretary for health until the 19th of may 2011. i was cabinet secretary for _ the 19th of may 2011. i was cabinet secretary for health _ the 19th of may 2011. i was cabinet secretary for health until - the 19th of may 2011. i was cabinet secretary for health until late - secretary for health until late 2012, — secretary for health until late 2012, that would have been me in that case — 2012, that would have been me in that case. , , ., ., 2012, that would have been me in that case. , y., ., ., , that case. yes, you are cabinet secretary _ that case. yes, you are cabinet secretary for — that case. yes, you are cabinet secretary for health _ that case. yes, you are cabinet secretary for health until- that case. yes, you are cabinet secretary for health until then, that case. yes, you are cabinet - secretary for health until then, and then health, wellbeing and city strategy. then health, wellbeing and city stratea . ., ~ , ., then health, wellbeing and city stratea . ., ~ ., strategy. thank you for reminding me! pare strategy. thank you for reminding me! page five _ strategy. thank you for reminding me! page five of _ strategy. thank you for reminding me! page five of the _

strategy. thank you for reminding me! page five of the report... - strategy. thank you for reminding me! page five of the report... it l me! page five of the report... it refers at the _ me! page five of the report... it refers at the bottom _ me! page five of the report... it refers at the bottom of - me! page five of the report... it refers at the bottom of the - me! page five of the report... it| refers at the bottom of the page me! page five of the report... it i refers at the bottom of the page to planning assumptions, respondents recognise the limitations of modelling. however, it was felt it would be helpful to update the planning assumptions more quickly to reflect the picture on the ground. in effect, reflecting the most likely scenario, rather than the worst case scenario. respondents felt it would have been helpful for the process to test the planning assumptions to be more explicit. the planning assumptions which were published did not hold much weight with respondents on the ground that they did not reflect what they were experiencing. these references to the planning assumptions and to national and local views as to how efficient or useful they were, was that a reference to the broad

governmental system by which risks are assessed, grouped together, and assumptions made for the purposes of planning as to how those risks should be addressed? 50 planning as to how those risks should be addressed?- planning as to how those risks should be addressed? so my reading of these paragraphs, _ should be addressed? so my reading of these paragraphs, and _ should be addressed? so my reading of these paragraphs, and forgive - should be addressed? so my reading| of these paragraphs, and forgive me, i would _ of these paragraphs, and forgive me, i would need to see these paragraphs in the _ i would need to see these paragraphs in the context of the whole paper to be certain _ in the context of the whole paper to be certain that what i'm about to say be certain that what i'm about to say is _ be certain that what i'm about to say is correct, but certainly in relation — say is correct, but certainly in relation to— say is correct, but certainly in relation to the second bullet point there. _ relation to the second bullet point there, what that seems to me to reflect— there, what that seems to me to reflect is— there, what that seems to me to reflect is something that was certainly true in the handling of the h1n1— certainly true in the handling of the h1n1 pandemic, is that the pandemic did not unfold in the way that the _ pandemic did not unfold in the way that the plans and the modelling and the reasonable worst scenario estimates had indicated that it would. — estimates had indicated that it would, and that had relevance, i think. _ would, and that had relevance, i think. what— would, and that had relevance, i think, what we learned about the strength— think, what we learned about the strength and weaknesses of pre—pandemic planning. so my reading of that— pre—pandemic planning. so my reading of that is_ pre—pandemic planning. so my reading of that is that it was a statement about— of that is that it was a statement about the — of that is that it was a statement

about the gap that opened up during the swine _ about the gap that opened up during the swine flu pandemic between what the swine flu pandemic between what the plan _ the swine flu pandemic between what the plan told us what happen and what _ the plan told us what happen and what in _ the plan told us what happen and what in reality happened. that issue, what in reality happened. that issue. the _ what in reality happened. that issue, the divergence - what in reality happened. trust issue, the divergence between risk assessments, plan, identification of response and the reality of a pandemic, was an issue that continued to bedevil this area of strategy planning, did it not? yes. strategy planning, did it not? yes, it did, i strategy planning, did it not? yes, it did. i think— strategy planning, did it not? yes, it did, | think that _ strategy planning, did it not? yes, it did, i think that is _ strategy planning, did it not? yes, it did, i think that is fair _ it did, i think that is fair comment. i also, it did, i think that is fair comment. ialso, having now come in different— comment. ialso, having now come in different capacities, as we have been _ different capacities, as we have been covering, been involved in response — been covering, been involved in response to two pandemics., to some extent, _ response to two pandemics., to some extent, think— response to two pandemics., to some extent, think there is an inevitability about that being a problem that will always exist to some _ problem that will always exist to some extent, because there is no plan that— some extent, because there is no plan that will ever completely replicate what happens in reality

when _ replicate what happens in reality when a — replicate what happens in reality when a pandemic unfortunately confronts us.— confronts us. indeed. page 11, retatedly...- _ confronts us. indeed. page 11, relatedly,... in _ confronts us. indeed. page 11, relatedly,... in the _ confronts us. indeed. page 11, relatedly,... in the middle - confronts us. indeed. page 11, relatedly,... in the middle of| confronts us. indeed. page 11, i relatedly,... in the middle of the page, there is this heading, actions to be taken forward as part of the uk wide review into the influenza a h1n1 response, was that a reference to the review which was carried out in fact by dame deirdre hine? yes. we will oversee _ in fact by dame deirdre hine? yes. we will oversee the _ in fact by dame deirdre hine? yes. we will oversee the work _ in fact by dame deirdre hine? yes. we will oversee the work of - in fact by dame deirdre hine? yes. we will oversee the work of the review team through scottish government representation on the reference group, will consider the implications for scotland of the emerging findings, specifically those relating to, and then the bottom bullet point, future iterations of the pandemic framework. was that reference to the pandemic flu framework a reference

to the then pre—existing scottish strategy for dealing with pandemic flu, and also, the prospective, anticipated united kingdom strategy for dealing with influenza pandemic, which i will come to in a moment? 50 which i will come to in a moment? so i which i will come to in a moment? 50 i suspect that that would have been, effectively, both of those things, it would — effectively, both of those things, it would have been a reference to whatever— it would have been a reference to whatever pandemic flu framework was in existence at the time, the pre—existing scottish government one, _ pre—existing scottish government one. and — pre—existing scottish government one, and then what became the uk wide pandemic flu preparedness plan in 201i _ wide pandemic flu preparedness plan in 2011. ., ~ , ,, ., wide pandemic flu preparedness plan in 2011. ., a ,, ., in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as m lad in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as my lady has — in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as my lady has heard — in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as my lady has heard in _ in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as my lady has heard in the _ in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as my lady has heard in the course - in 2011. thereafter, ms sturgeon, as my lady has heard in the course of. my lady has heard in the course of evidence, underthe my lady has heard in the course of evidence, under the four nations approach, the united kingdom drew up and disseminated a new 2011 strategy, and that is what became the sole strategy for dealing with pandemics, and it was of course a

strategy which, on its face, dealt only with influenza pandemic. there was a commitment there in that review by the scottish government to keeping future iterations of the pandemic strategy under review, but to a very large extent that did not happen, did it? the to a very large extent that did not happen. did it?— happen, did it? the 2011 four nations plan _ happen, did it? the 2011 four nations plan was _ happen, did it? the 2011 four nations plan was not - happen, did it? the 2011four| nations plan was not updated. happen, did it? the 2011 four - nations plan was not updated. now, for that— nations plan was not updated. now, for that to _ nations plan was not updated. now, for that to have been updated on a micronesian spaces, would obviously have required the engagement of all four governments. in my view, this takes _ four governments. in my view, this takes us _ four governments. in my view, this takes us to— four governments. in my view, this takes us to the heart of the most important — takes us to the heart of the most important lessons we learn from the extent because of looking at other illnesses. lessons we learn from the swine _ important lessons we learn from the swine flu _ important lessons we learn from the important lessons we learn from the swine _ important lessons we learn from the swine flu _ important lessons we learn from the swine flu pandemic. had that plan swine flu pandemic. had that plan been _ been _ swine flu pandemic. had that plan been updated, i do not necessarily swine flu pandemic. had that plan been updated, i do not necessarily been updated, ! do not necessarily think— been updated, i do not necessarily been updated, ! do not necessarily think— been updated, i do not necessarily think it _ been updated, i do not necessarily think it would have changed think it _ been updated, i do not necessarily think it would have changed substantially. i think i heard substantially. i think i heard professor sir chris were made a professor sir chris were made a similar— similar— professor sir chris were made a similar point to you last week. —— professor sir chris were made a similar point to you last week. ——

professor— similar point to you last week. —— professor cert chris whitty. in professor— similar point to you last week. —— professor cert chris whitty. in brief, — professor cert chris whitty. in brief, the _ professor cert chris whitty. in brief, — professor cert chris whitty. in brief, the _ professor cert chris whitty. in brief, the two lessons that i took brief, the two lessons that i took from _ brief, the two lessons that i took from swine — brief, the two lessons that i took from swine flu in relation to plans from _ brief, the two lessons that i took from swine — brief, the two lessons that i took from swine flu in relation to plans were, _ were, _ from swine flu in relation to plans were, firstly, and i have already from swine flu in relation to plans were, firstly, and i have already touched — were, firstly, and i have already touched on _ touched — were, firstly, and i have already touched on _ were, firstly, and i have already touched on this, the importance of were, firstly, and i have already touched on this, the importance of any plan _ touched on this, the importance of any plan being adaptable and any plan _ touched on this, the importance of any plan being adaptable and flexible when it first confronts flexible when it first confronts illnesses. the reality — flexible when it first confronts reality. in summary, what happened reality — flexible when it first confronts in swine _ reality. in summary, what happened reality. in as the in swine flu — reality. in summary, what happened in swine flu was that, as the pandemic— in swine flu was that, as the pandemic thankfully turned out to be in swine flu was that, as the pandemic— in swine flu was that, as the pandemic thankfully turned out to be niilder_ pandemic thankfully turned out to be milder than we had anticipated, there _ milder than we had anticipated, there was— milder than we had anticipated, there was a period when the governments tried to make the pandemic fit the plan, rather than adapt _ pandemic fit the plan, rather than adapt the — pandemic fit the plan, rather than adapt the plan to the pandemic. so flexibility— adapt the plan to the pandemic. so flexibility is the first point. when there is a planned then there is work— when there is a planned then there is work done to test a plan. and that would — is work done to test a plan. and that would talk about exercising sickness — that would talk about exercising sickness and a uk business and then in a scottish— sickness and a uk business and then in a scottish basis to a lesser extent— in a scottish basis to a lesser extent because of looking at other

illnesses — extent because of looking at other