work that was done illnesses. the work that was done through— illnesses. the work that was done through this exercises and the work in scotland — through this exercises and the work in scotland that was done by local resilience — in scotland that was done by local resilience partnerships sitting under— resilience partnerships sitting under a — resilience partnerships sitting under a regional resilience partnership, in my view, was more important — partnership, in my view, was more important than having tweaked versions— important than having tweaked versions of a plan that was only ever— versions of a plan that was only ever going _ versions of a plan that was only ever going to be a template for the situation _ ever going to be a template for the situation that we ultimately found ourselves — situation that we ultimately found ourselves dealing with. as situation that we ultimately found ourselves dealing with. as it situation that we ultimately found ourselves dealing with. as it turned out, the ourselves dealing with. as it turned out. the reality _ ourselves dealing with. as it turned out, the reality was _ ourselves dealing with. as it turned out, the reality was that _ ourselves dealing with. as it turned out, the reality was that the - ourselves dealing with. as it turned out, the reality was that the plan, i out, the reality was that the plan, the strategy, the 2011 document required notjust tweaking, and it may well be that one just have stopped it tweaking had been significantly revised, it was and has been described by many witnesses is wholly inadequate. strategically. do you accept that there is now a much clearer understanding as to the nature and degree of inadequacy of the document? yes nature and degree of inadequacy of the document?—

the document? yes and if i may, erha -s the document? yes and if i may, perhaps break— the document? yes and if i may, perhaps break that down - the document? yes and if i may, perhaps break that down briefly. the document? yes and if i may, i perhaps break that down briefly into two parts _ perhaps break that down briefly into two parts. and perhaps give a little bit more _ two parts. and perhaps give a little bit more explanation for my use of the term _ bit more explanation for my use of the term "tweaked". had the processed to update the plan focused on updating an influenza preparedness plan, i can't be sure preparedness plan, ican't be sure about— preparedness plan, i can't be sure about this, — preparedness plan, i can't be sure about this, but i do not believe it would _ about this, but i do not believe it would have — about this, but i do not believe it would have changed significantly because — would have changed significantly because it would still have been a plan dealing with the potential for a flu pandemic. had it been a process— a flu pandemic. had it been a process designed to turn a flu plan into a _ process designed to turn a flu plan into a plan— process designed to turn a flu plan into a plan that was looking at a different— into a plan that was looking at a different range of pandemics, that may have — different range of pandemics, that may have been a more substantive exercise _ may have been a more substantive exercise in— may have been a more substantive exercise. in terms of your question, do i exercise. in terms of your question, do i accept — exercise. in terms of your question, do i accept that the plan was inadequate?, in summary, yes, the plan was _ inadequate?, in summary, yes, the plan was for— inadequate?, in summary, yes, the plan was for a different type of pandemic than the one we unfortunately were confronted with. what i _ unfortunately were confronted with. what i would say in addition is that

that does— what i would say in addition is that that does not mean no part of that plan was _ that does not mean no part of that plan was useful in any way because some _ plan was useful in any way because some of— plan was useful in any way because some of the consequence planning for a pandemic _ some of the consequence planning for a pandemic. there are some, as we know, _ a pandemic. there are some, as we know. and _ a pandemic. there are some, as we know, and will come under there is no doubt _ know, and will come under there is no doubt today, significant differences consequence between flu and what _ differences consequence between flu and what we ended up dealing with in terms _ and what we ended up dealing with in terms of— and what we ended up dealing with in terms of coronavirus pandemic, but some _ terms of coronavirus pandemic, but some of— terms of coronavirus pandemic, but some of the — terms of coronavirus pandemic, but some of the consequences were similar~ — some of the consequences were similar~ i— some of the consequences were similar. iwould, i guess, some of the consequences were similar. iwould, iguess, push some of the consequences were similar. iwould, i guess, push back a little _ similar. iwould, i guess, push back a little bit _ similar. iwould, i guess, push back a little bit against the notion that there _ a little bit against the notion that there was— a little bit against the notion that there was nothing in the flue planning _ there was nothing in the flue planning that served us any purpose at all— planning that served us any purpose at all when — planning that served us any purpose at all when it came to covid—19.you at all when it came to covid-19. you would accept _ at all when it came to covid-19. you would accept that _ at all when it came to covid—19. wm. would accept that there was no plan for non—influenza pandemic, at least on its own face, correct? that for non-influenza pandemic, at least on its own face, correct?— on its own face, correct? that is absolutely _ on its own face, correct? that is absolutely the _ on its own face, correct? that is absolutely the case, _ on its own face, correct? that is absolutely the case, but that. on its own face, correct? that is absolutely the case, but that is| on its own face, correct? that is i absolutely the case, but that is not to say— absolutely the case, but that is not to say there was no thinking in governments around non—influenza diseases. _

governments around non—influenza diseases, the high consequence of infectious — diseases, the high consequence of infectious diseases. a scottish government exercise look to the specifically but what there wasn't, and i_ specifically but what there wasn't, and i think— specifically but what there wasn't, and i think this is the significant -ap and i think this is the significant gap is _ and i think this is the significant gap is that— and i think this is the significant gap is that there was no set plan, which _ gap is that there was no set plan, which i _ gap is that there was no set plan, which i see — gap is that there was no set plan, which i see is not the same is not thinking, — which i see is not the same is not thinking, into how we dealt with the pandemic— thinking, into how we dealt with the pandemic that had features and characteristics of flue in terms of transmissibility, but also the severity— transmissibility, but also the severity and what we came to understand in terms of the asymptomatic transition of covid—19. if asymptomatic transition of covid—19. if you _ asymptomatic transition of covid—19. if you look— asymptomatic transition of covid—19. if you look at exercise irish, it was _ if you look at exercise irish, it was looking at the sars type incident _ was looking at the sars type incident but not a pandemic, one that was— incident but not a pandemic, one that was small and very contained. i would _ that was small and very contained. i would readily accept that there was a gap _ would readily accept that there was a gap in _ would readily accept that there was a gap in terms of the pandemic we ultimately— a gap in terms of the pandemic we ultimately were dealing with come but as— ultimately were dealing with come but as i_ ultimately were dealing with come but as i said, that does not mean the plan — but as i said, that does not mean the plan that was in place had no utility— the plan that was in place had no utility at — the plan that was in place had no utility at all. the plan that was in place had no utility at all-— utility at all. and i'm not suggesting _ utility at all. and i'm not suggesting it _

utility at all. and i'm not suggesting it had - utility at all. and i'm not suggesting it had no - utility at all. and i'm not i suggesting it had no utility. utility at all. and i'm not - suggesting it had no utility. the plan on his face called for flexible application in and called for flexibility. it proclaimed the fact that viral respiratory pathogenic outbreaks are, by their nature, inherently unpredictable. and therefore, the plan should be applied to non—influenza pandemics. but there was no development of that thinking, was there, in the plan? there was no debate about what those inherently unpredictable characteristics might consist of, the differences in the transmission rate or the viral load or severity or incubation period.— or incubation period. that's correct. — or incubation period. that's correct, isn't _ or incubation period. that's correct, isn't it? _ or incubation period. that's correct, isn't it? that - or incubation period. that's correct, isn't it? that is - or incubation period. that's - correct, isn't it? that is correct. that— correct, isn't it? that is correct. that said. — correct, isn't it? that is correct. that said, and obviously i am not a scientific— that said, and obviously i am not a scientific clinical expert in any way shape or form, but it may have been _ way shape or form, but it may have been difficult to capture the range of possibilities that you have just alluded _ of possibilities that you have just

alluded to their in a single plan. i think the — alluded to their in a single plan. i think the other point i would make about— think the other point i would make about the — think the other point i would make about the utility or otherwise of plans — about the utility or otherwise of plans. had the flu plan been reviewed and turned into something that wasn't looking at pandemics or the potential pandemics more widely, whether— the potential pandemics more widely, whether that plan would have served its purpose _ whether that plan would have served its purpose would have depended on the capabilities that lay underneath the capabilities that lay underneath the plan _ the capabilities that lay underneath the plan i— the capabilities that lay underneath the plan. iam the capabilities that lay underneath the plan. i am straying slightly perhaps — the plan. i am straying slightly perhaps into future modules here but for me. _ perhaps into future modules here but for me. the _ perhaps into future modules here but for me, the questions in my mind literally— for me, the questions in my mind literally every day are not so much did we _ literally every day are not so much did we lack— literally every day are not so much did we lack a plan, but did we lack the capabilities for dealing with a pandemic of the nature of covid—19? and i'm _ pandemic of the nature of covid—19? and i'm talking about contact tracing, — and i'm talking about contact tracing, testing, infrastructure in particular~ — tracing, testing, infrastructure in particular. but tracing, testing, infrastructure in articular. �* tracing, testing, infrastructure in articular. ., particular. but you would accept that had the _ particular. but you would accept that had the plan _ particular. but you would accept that had the plan focused - particular. but you would accept that had the plan focused more| that had the plan focused more plainly or clearly on the inherent unpredictability of viral respiratory pathogens and their

characteristics, and identified that the next pandemic might have different characteristics to influenza in terms of transmission rates, incubation period, viral load, severity, it is likely there would have been a much closer and clearer debate about the necessary countermeasures. for example, mass diagnostic testing, mass contact tracing, social restrictions, quarantining and so on. and that debate was wholly absent, wasn't it, from the strategy and from all the contemporaneous material? much of that, es, contemporaneous material? much of that. yes. was _ contemporaneous material? much of that, yes, was absent _ contemporaneous material? much of that, yes, was absent from - contemporaneous material? much of that, yes, was absent from that - contemporaneous material? much of that, yes, was absent from that and | that, yes, was absent from that and i do that, yes, was absent from that and i do think— that, yes, was absent from that and i do think that is fair and, yes, with— i do think that is fair and, yes, with retrospect and in hindsight, i think— with retrospect and in hindsight, i think we _ with retrospect and in hindsight, i think we would all have benefited from much earlier discussion around some _ from much earlier discussion around some of— from much earlier discussion around some of these things. i suppose the only point— some of these things. i suppose the only point i— some of these things. i suppose the only point i am making and maybe this comes — only point i am making and maybe this comes from too many years in

government, not now obviously, i think— government, not now obviously, i think there — government, not now obviously, i think there is a real danger in putting — think there is a real danger in putting an overemphasis on plans. there _ putting an overemphasis on plans. there is— putting an overemphasis on plans. there is often a tendency in government to say we have a plan, it sits on— government to say we have a plan, it sits on the _ government to say we have a plan, it sits on the shelf and so we have done _ sits on the shelf and so we have done the — sits on the shelf and so we have done the preparation and it's what, as i done the preparation and it's what, as i think— done the preparation and it's what, as i think what you're paying to be fairly. _ as i think what you're paying to be fairly, what lies underneath that and had — fairly, what lies underneath that and had been a that looked at the range _ and had been a that looked at the range of— and had been a that looked at the range of things other than flu, then it is possible we would have had a greater— it is possible we would have had a greater discussion around some of the elements that came up when covid struck~ _ the elements that came up when covid struck~ the— the elements that came up when covid struck. . ,., , struck. the reason i put the question — struck. the reason i put the question to _ struck. the reason i put the question to you _ struck. the reason i put the question to you is _ struck. the reason i put the question to you is to - struck. the reason i put the l question to you is to respond to your suggestion that there were flaws in the plan may not matter above what matters more is capability. had it been a proper development of the issue of the required amount of measures, there

are properly identified risks of non—influenza pandemics of that document, that capability is likely to have been better development by the time covid struck. l to have been better development by the time covid struck.— the time covid struck. i think that is fair and l _ the time covid struck. i think that is fair and i would _ the time covid struck. i think that is fair and i would accept - the time covid struck. i think that is fair and i would accept that - is fair and i would accept that and ithink— is fair and i would accept that and i think it — is fair and i would accept that and i think it would come down to how precise _ i think it would come down to how precise some of those other addictions or... i think it's a fair comment— addictions or... i think it's a fair comment -- _ addictions or... i think it's a fair comment —— addictions... addictions or... i think it's a fair comment -- addictions. . .- addictions or... i think it's a fair comment -- addictions... but not having a plan in government and the reasonable expectation about what it will do and that it says it will do us is in and meet the need of the emergency which has arisen, would you agree that buckland tended to focus on catastrophic consequences of a pandemic influenza as opposed to trying to vent those

catastrophic consequences from developing... l’m catastrophic consequences from developing---_ developing... i'm not sure i entirely _ developing... i'm not sure i entirely agree _ developing... i'm not sure i entirely agree with - developing... i'm not sure i entirely agree with that - developing... i'm not sure i entirely agree with that and developing... i'm not sure i - entirely agree with that and again, i am perhaps from straight with the question— i am perhaps from straight with the question being anchored in the flu preparedness plan and some of the handling _ preparedness plan and some of the handling of covid. i suppose there is a question in the context of a pandemic, _ is a question in the context of a pandemic, what do we mean by prevention? i think is a question about— prevention? i think is a question about whether any single country could _ about whether any single country could prevent or stop pandemic happening and clearly there are measures individually that people tried to _ measures individually that people tried to prevent those from getting it but— tried to prevent those from getting it but in— tried to prevent those from getting it but in the context of a pandemic, and i_ it but in the context of a pandemic, and i can— it but in the context of a pandemic, and i can only speak from my own government in scotland it was never the case _ government in scotland it was never the case when covid struck that we 'ust the case when covid struck that we just accepted as a given that i

really— just accepted as a given that i really worst—case scenario was going to unfold _ really worst—case scenario was going to unfold. we were determined to do everything _ to unfold. we were determined to do everything we could and i think this is what _ everything we could and i think this is what prevention means in a pandemic— is what prevention means in a pandemic context which is to suppress— pandemic context which is to suppress it to the questions i think that are _ suppress it to the questions i think that are really important for us all to consider— that are really important for us all to consider very frankly is could or should _ to consider very frankly is could or should we — to consider very frankly is could or should we have done more to surprise to the _ should we have done more to surprise to the maximum covid? but speaking on behalf— to the maximum covid? but speaking on behalf of the government i lead at the time, it was never the case that we simply accepted that there is a level— that we simply accepted that there is a level of hand that is going to be done — is a level of hand that is going to be done by— is a level of hand that is going to be done by this virus and we accept that _ be done by this virus and we accept that we _ be done by this virus and we accept that we are — be done by this virus and we accept that. we are always and it became in fact later— that. we are always and it became in fact later on — that. we are always and it became in fact later on one of the points of difference — fact later on one of the points of difference between the scottish and the uk _ difference between the scottish and the uk government, the extent to which _ the uk government, the extent to which we — the uk government, the extent to which we were still seeking to suppress— which we were still seeking to suppress as opposed to live with the virus, _ suppress as opposed to live with the virus. so _ suppress as opposed to live with the virus. so i _ suppress as opposed to live with the virus, so i accept or don't accept that— virus, so i accept or don't accept that in— virus, so i accept or don't accept that in my— virus, so i accept or don't accept that in my mind there was an acceptance of harm that we were allowing — acceptance of harm that we were allowing to have.—

acceptance of harm that we were allowing to have. that's not answer my questions. _ allowing to have. that's not answer my questions. mr _ allowing to have. that's not answer my questions, mrjohn. _ allowing to have. that's not answer my questions, mrjohn. my - allowing to have. that's not answer| my questions, mrjohn. my question my questions, mrjohn. my question of —— sturgeon... my question revolves around strategy and this consequence of the strategy and attended to focus on trying to deal with the consequence of catastrophic emergency rather than be prepared in the first place. for example, you have acknowledged that the absence of thinking on the two main methods by which catastrophic consequences can be prevented, mass diagnostic testing and mass contact tracing, were wholly absent from the strategic debate.— were wholly absent from the strategic debate. forgive me ifi wasn't answering _ strategic debate. forgive me ifi wasn't answering your _ strategic debate. forgive me if ij wasn't answering your question, i wasn't answering your question, i was seeking to try to answer but perhaps— was seeking to try to answer but perhaps went on to covid and the flu plan i_ perhaps went on to covid and the flu plan~ ithink— perhaps went on to covid and the flu plan. i think your questions, which

is reasonable, is looking at flu and what _ is reasonable, is looking at flu and what would — is reasonable, is looking at flu and what would have been perhaps in that plan had _ what would have been perhaps in that plan had been looking more widely was not _ plan had been looking more widely was not there. what i was seeking to address— was not there. what i was seeking to address was— was not there. what i was seeking to address was the notion that either in the _ address was the notion that either in the flue — address was the notion that either in the flue plan or later in covid that— in the flue plan or later in covid that there — in the flue plan or later in covid that there was simply an acceptance of the _ that there was simply an acceptance of the level of consequence. i can't remember— of the level of consequence. i can't remember the precise text on the 2011 remember the precise text on the 20" flu _ remember the precise text on the 2011 flu plan but there is a reasonable worst—case scenario in it and are _ reasonable worst—case scenario in it and are not— reasonable worst—case scenario in it and are not necessarily that we take account _ and are not necessarily that we take account of— and are not necessarily that we take account of the countermeasures you take to _ account of the countermeasures you take to try— account of the countermeasures you take to try and reduce. either in the plan — take to try and reduce. either in the plan or— take to try and reduce. either in the plan or in the handling of covid — the plan or in the handling of covid. speaking from my perspective, it was— covid. speaking from my perspective, it was not _ covid. speaking from my perspective, it was not simply a level of consequence that we accept that we cannot— consequence that we accept that we cannot do— consequence that we accept that we cannot do anything about. i do think. — cannot do anything about. i do think, discuss your point mass testing — think, discuss your point mass testing and contact tracing, the question. — testing and contact tracing, the question, which is very legitimate, is should _ question, which is very legitimate, is should we have done more in terms

of suppressing? it's also the case of i of suppressing? it's also the case of i don't — of suppressing? it's also the case of i don't think for any responsible government can ever in a contest like this be — government can ever in a contest like this be either trying to suppress or dealing with the consequences. you have to do both and that— consequences. you have to do both and that is— consequences. you have to do both and that is a — consequences. you have to do both and that is a feature of the planning _ and that is a feature of the planning as well. i�*m and that is a feature of the planning as well. and that is a feature of the ”lannin as well. �* ., ., , planning as well. i'm going to put that over to. .. _ planning as well. i'm going to put that over to. .. but _ planning as well. i'm going to put that over to. .. but in _ planning as well. i'm going to put that over to. .. but in relation - that over to... but in relation to the strategy, we agree to disagree that the strategy, because it proclaimed its applicability to non—flu pandemics, whilst in plaintiff ability to be flexible to non—influencer pandemics, did not provide the tools necessary to be able to deal with them. i'm not asking you again and i'm not seeking your answer in relation to how this government did respond what this

approach was once it was struck by the pandemic, but in terms of the strategising and planning and the preparedness at an overarching level, that thinking and the development of the necessary tools was absent from the soul strategy document that was meant to be applicable. l document that was meant to be applicable-— document that was meant to be i applicable-— we applicable. i think that is fair. we have to take _ applicable. i think that is fair. we have to take a _ applicable. i think that is fair. we have to take a break— applicable. i think that is fair. we have to take a break every - applicable. i think that is fair. we have to take a break every so - applicable. i think that is fair. we i have to take a break every so often. would that be a suitable time? tater? would that be a suitable time? very suitable. would that be a suitable time? very suitable- we — would that be a suitable time? very suitable. we shall _ would that be a suitable time? , suitable. we shall return at 1130 am. ., ., , am. you have been watching the uk covid inquiry — am. you have been watching the uk covid inquiry for _ am. you have been watching the uk covid inquiry for the _ am. you have been watching the uk covid inquiry for the former - am. you have been watching the uk covid inquiry for the former first i covid inquiry for the former first minister of scotland, nicola sturgeon, has been giving herfirst bit of evidence. she started by offering her sympathies and condolences to all those affected by the pandemic. she also thanked all those who contributed to the

national response, but she said the government she led did the best it could to take the right decisions, but she accepts they were not always right. ms sturgeon said no plan will ever completely replicate what in reality happens when a pandemic hits us. you heard her being questioned about the 2011 strategy that was the four nations strategy on influenza. she was asked if it was wholly inadequate when it came to dealing with covid and she said, yes, it was for a different type of pandemic, in this case flu. but she also said it did not mean that part of the plan was not useful when it came to the covid pandemic. she said no plan for anything but the influenza pandemic was set to deal with the covid and she accepted there was a gap. she went on to say she never accepted what was put is the reasonable

worst—case scenario, that there would be a level of harm from covid. she said that they worked to suppress it as a scottish government. she had sort of accepted that work could and should have been done to —— more work, but she said the scottish government worked to suppress it as she put it and it became a point of difference between her and, became a point of difference between herand, her scottish became a point of difference between her and, her scottish government and the uk government, so that was between the suppressing and trying to keep a covid under control in the early stages of the pandemic and actually allowing it to develop in the community and she was quite strong and that she felt that the scottish government did were to suppress it and she never accepted what was described as a reasonable worst—case scenario or a level of harm to the public from covid and saying that later in the pandemic it

became a point of difference between the uk and the scottish governments. she said she admitted that the 2011 formations plan was not updated and turn to the lessons of the swine flu pandemic —— four nations... had been updated and it would not change the fundamental assumptions and planning for it. she was talking the swine flu saying 20% of people including half of school children were affected with the swine flu during the first years of the pandemic in 2009. there we go, that is the latest from the covid inquiry and don't forget, when it does restart, nicola sturgeon will continue to give evidence and you can follow that honour our special live stream on the bbc news website and also on the bbc news iplayer and we will keep you updated here on bbc news. i want to turn now to our other breaking news story. the government's planned to deport asylum seekers to rwanda has been

deemed unlawful by the high court in london. three seniorjudges ruled, by a majority, that rwanda could not be treated as a safe third country. the judgment is a major setback to prime minister rishi sunak. rwanda's government has issued a reaction insisting the country is, to quote them, one of the safest in the world. to quote them, one of the safest in the world. the ruling was delivered byjudge ian burnett. 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 would be unlawful. finally, i should make clear that our decision implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the rwanda policy. those are entirely a matter for government, which the court has nothing to say. 0ur concern is only one of the policy complies with the law as laid down by parliament. 0ur correspondentjoe

inwood is outside court. for viewers joining for viewersjoining us, some are put thejudge has said. this for viewersjoining us, some are put the judge has said.— the judge has said. this was a split decision, the judge has said. this was a split decision. two _ the judge has said. this was a split decision, two judges _ the judge has said. this was a split decision, two judges took - the judge has said. this was a split decision, two judges took one i decision, two judges took one view, onejudge took the decision, two judges took one view, one judge took the other hand the question at the heart of this is whether rwanda is a safe third country. two of those judges came to the conclusion that it was not and that the asylum system in rwanda was not able to give people their affair rides had they been sent there, whereas the other chiefjustice about the procedures were in place. all of them said the rwandan government was acting in good faith in doing this and that is something in doing this and that is something in the statement the rwandan government has also emphasised, but it was decided by majority, 2—1, but if people are sent to rwanda was a significant risk that people might be sent on or back to the country of origin. be sent on or back to the country of

oriain.~ . v be sent on or back to the country of oriain.~ . �*, ., be sent on or back to the country of ori.in_. ., �*, ., ., , origin. what's the reaction outside the court by _ origin. what's the reaction outside the court by campaigners? - the court by campaigners? obviously the court by campaigners? obviously the campaigners _ the court by campaigners? obviously the campaigners are _ the court by campaigners? obviously the campaigners are very _ the court by campaigners? obviously the campaigners are very happy i the court by campaigners? obviously the campaigners are very happy at i the campaigners are very happy at this point. they feel they have one andindeed this point. they feel they have one and indeed they have won and i'm joined now by someone who was involved in the case. natasha from freedom of torture, explain your role in what has been going on today. role in what has been going on toda . ~ . ., , role in what has been going on toda. . _ today. we are really pleased by toda 's today. we are really pleased by today'sjudgment, _ today. we are really pleased by today'sjudgment, it's - today. we are really pleased by today'sjudgment, it's a - today'sjudgment, it's a real victory— today'sjudgment, it's a real victory for the people we serve and we got _ victory for the people we serve and we got involved in this case as an intervenor— we got involved in this case as an intervenor because we believe, based on years— intervenor because we believe, based on years of— intervenor because we believe, based on years of clinical expertise, that people _ on years of clinical expertise, that people who have survived torture face incredible hurdles in the termination system in order to be able to— termination system in order to be able to disclose the horrific events they have — able to disclose the horrific events they have been through and we were greatly— they have been through and we were greatly concerned that the proposals would _ greatly concerned that the proposals would not _ greatly concerned that the proposals would not allow for that and would indeed _ would not allow for that and would indeed see these people being expelled to countries like rwanda, so we're _ expelled to countries like rwanda, so we're really pleased with the results — so we're really pleased with the results. . . so we're really pleased with the results. , . _, . , so we're really pleased with the results. . ., results. explain the concerns around rwanda. results. explain the concerns around rwanda- ls — results. explain the concerns around rwanda- is it— results. explain the concerns around rwanda. is it that _ results. explain the concerns around rwanda. is it that you _ results. explain the concerns around rwanda. is it that you were - rwanda. is it that you were concerned about how that they will

be treated in rwanda or that if they were sent to rwanda they would then be sent on to another country where they would be badly treated? tote be sent on to another country where they would be badly treated? we are concerned with _ they would be badly treated? we are concerned with everything _ they would be badly treated? we are concerned with everything to - they would be badly treated? we are concerned with everything to do i they would be badly treated? we are concerned with everything to do with| concerned with everything to do with this proposal from start to finish. from _ this proposal from start to finish. from the — this proposal from start to finish. from the uk side, everything to do with procedural fairness, inability to screen— with procedural fairness, inability to screen out torture survivors which _ to screen out torture survivors which would see people who had survived — which would see people who had survived these horrific things been sent to _ survived these horrific things been sent to countries like rwanda and indeed _ sent to countries like rwanda and indeed were a country like rwanda, once a _ indeed were a country like rwanda, once a person arrives there, they are really— once a person arrives there, they are really entering into the unknown and that _ are really entering into the unknown and that there is a risk that people who have faced these things such as torture _ who have faced these things such as torture would be at risk of further risk and _ torture would be at risk of further risk and further potential torture. we are _ risk and further potential torture. we are really happy with the result today— we are really happy with the result today because the result today has said that _ today because the result today has said that there is that risk. and the rwandan _ said that there is that risk. thin. the rwandan government, who are the partner in this, have said that they stand behind the policy and they have said that "we make a significant contribution to the

impacts of global migration crisis. everyone does know what it is to flee home and make life a new country." they say they're a compassionate society. what is your reaction to the statement from rounding government? the rwandan covernment rounding government? the rwandan government is _ rounding government? the rwandan government is set _ rounding government? the rwandan government is set to _ rounding government? the rwandan government is set to profit - government is set to profit massively from the scheme. we have called _ massively from the scheme. we have called the _ massively from the scheme. we have called the scheme a cash for humans deal~ _ called the scheme a cash for humans deal it— called the scheme a cash for humans deal it is— called the scheme a cash for humans deal it is in— called the scheme a cash for humans deal. it is in the rwandan government's interest to sell the scheme — government's interest to sell the scheme as something that is great with procedural safeguards in place but that's— with procedural safeguards in place but that's not the reality and we're really _ but that's not the reality and we're really pleased that the court has listened — really pleased that the court has listened today and exactly that. what _ listened today and exactly that. what we — listened today and exactly that. what we have seen today so as one of the government's solutions to the big challenge that they face, one of the government wasn't a key five pledges to stop the boats, they say that's what they are going to achieve and of course there are tens of thousands more who have arrived in small boats and would you agree there is a problem there and if so what was your solution remote?

obviously, nobody wants to see anybody — obviously, nobody wants to see anybody getting in a small boat, they are — anybody getting in a small boat, they are absolutely horrific and it's incredibly dangerous and we see people _ it's incredibly dangerous and we see people in— it's incredibly dangerous and we see people in our therapy rooms every day who— people in our therapy rooms every day who say it would full length of the have _ day who say it would full length of the have to go through in order to arrive _ the have to go through in order to arrive in— the have to go through in order to arrive in the — the have to go through in order to arrive in the uk. these small boats, of course, _ arrive in the uk. these small boats, of course, we — arrive in the uk. these small boats, of course, we would love to see them stopped _ of course, we would love to see them stopped but _ of course, we would love to see them stopped but the fact is that these sorts— stopped but the fact is that these sorts of— stopped but the fact is that these sorts of deterrents and measures do not work _ sorts of deterrents and measures do not work. there is absolutely no evidence — not work. there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they will and even — evidence to suggest that they will and even the foreign affairs committee last year are a couple of years _ committee last year are a couple of years ago— committee last year are a couple of years ago found that actually what needs _ years ago found that actually what needs to _ years ago found that actually what needs to happen is that the government needs to open safe routes to stop _ government needs to open safe routes to stop the _ government needs to open safe routes to stop the boats. if you're fleeing sudan, _ to stop the boats. if you're fleeing sudan, there are no ways to get here _ sudan, there are no ways to get here there _ sudan, there are no ways to get here. there is a handful of a family run union options may be available in extreme — run union options may be available in extreme circumstances but there is not _ in extreme circumstances but there is not even — in extreme circumstances but there is not even an embassy in sudan. the

point _ is not even an embassy in sudan. the point is _ is not even an embassy in sudan. the point is these — is not even an embassy in sudan. the point is these pathways need to be created and so we have been calling on the _ created and so we have been calling on the government for a number of things— on the government for a number of things and — on the government for a number of things and instead of listening to the experts involved and sorting out the experts involved and sorting out the system — the experts involved and sorting out the system as it stands and creating safe routes. — the system as it stands and creating safe routes, they need to get a grip. _ safe routes, they need to get a grip, listen and abandon these sort of cruel— grip, listen and abandon these sort of cruel policies. it�*s grip, listen and abandon these sort of cruel policies.— of cruel policies. it's possible they don't — of cruel policies. it's possible they don't work _ of cruel policies. it's possible they don't work at _ of cruel policies. it's possible they don't work at the - of cruel policies. it's possible i they don't work at the moment because people know the challenges taking place and that actually it would have a deterrent effect if it were being implemented successfully. we work with survivors of torture every _ we work with survivors of torture every day — we work with survivors of torture every day and we work alongside survivors— every day and we work alongside survivors of torture every day and what _ survivors of torture every day and what they — survivors of torture every day and what they will tell us is that when you are fleeing a burning house, you are not— you are fleeing a burning house, you are not wondering what the uk government are up to, you are fleeing _ government are up to, you are fleeing for— government are up to, you are fleeing for your life and you are going _ fleeing for your life and you are going to — fleeing for your life and you are going to the place you think are safe and — going to the place you think are safe and the other thing to is we

know— safe and the other thing to is we know the — safe and the other thing to is we know the debts in the channel are happening, we know these dreadful deaths _ happening, we know these dreadful deaths are happening in the ageing and emit _ deaths are happening in the ageing and emita— deaths are happening in the ageing and emit a train right after the horrific— and emit a train right after the horrific case of 700 people drowning in greece _ horrific case of 700 people drowning in greece. the very next day, boats were _ in greece. the very next day, boats were coming — in greece. the very next day, boats were coming. people are afraid for their lives— were coming. people are afraid for their lives and they are risking... but there — their lives and they are risking... but there is— their lives and they are risking... but there is a difference, i can understand if somebody is fleeing syria or sudan, but the argument one would make is that there are not fleeing from a dangerous country, they are fleeing from france. but what people initial rush legislation says that — what people initial rush legislation says that people can assign a clean dish or— says that people can assign a clean dish or claim asylum in a country in a country— dish or claim asylum in a country in a country they choose. if we have safe routes — a country they choose. if we have safe routes people would not be getting — safe routes people would not be getting in or making a channel crossing _ getting in or making a channel crossing. who wants to get in an inflatable — crossing. who wants to get in an inflatable mini dinghy with small children— inflatable mini dinghy with small children and one of the busiest shipping — children and one of the busiest shipping lanes in europe? nobody, i

can guite _ shipping lanes in europe? nobody, i can quite assure you. and the problem — can quite assure you. and the problem and the people are coming to the uk _ problem and the people are coming to the uk for— problem and the people are coming to the uk for a _ problem and the people are coming to the uk fora number of problem and the people are coming to the uk for a number of reasons. we have _ the uk for a number of reasons. we have interviewed multiple survivors of torture _ have interviewed multiple survivors of torture to really understand what drives _ of torture to really understand what drives people to make these journeys and there _ drives people to make these journeys and there are a number of reasons, there _ and there are a number of reasons, there are _ and there are a number of reasons, there are family links, there are language — there are family links, there are language links and there is also the idea of— language links and there is also the idea of the — language links and there is also the idea of the bbc, people say we listen _ idea of the bbc, people say we listen to— idea of the bbc, people say we listen to the bbc back home and it's something _ listen to the bbc back home and it's something that is familiar and they think about it as a country of safety— think about it as a country of safety and people associate this country — safety and people associate this country with the rule of law, which is again— country with the rule of law, which is again today why this is a really important — is again today why this is a really important day for us.— important day for us. where do you think aoes important day for us. where do you think goes next? _ important day for us. where do you think goes next? i _ important day for us. where do you think goes next? i know _ important day for us. where do you think goes next? i know you're i important day for us. where do you think goes next? i know you're not| think goes next? i know you're not one of the main participants, as you say, you're an intervenor e, where you think this will go? will you go to the supreme court? what would be your expectation? what to the supreme court? what would be your expectation?_ your expectation? what i would love as of the government _ your expectation? what i would love as of the government just _ your expectation? what i would love as of the governmentjust backs i your expectation? what i would love | as of the governmentjust backs down and abandons this policy. unfortunately, given as one of rishi sunaks—

unfortunately, given as one of rishi sunak's and — unfortunately, given as one of rishi sunak's and so a brother and's flashy— sunak's and so a brother and's flashy policies, i think that they would _ flashy policies, i think that they would be — flashy policies, i think that they would be belligerent and get permission to the supreme court and take it _ permission to the supreme court and take it all— permission to the supreme court and take it all the way. and if that is the case, — take it all the way. and if that is the case, will be closely monitoring exactly _ the case, will be closely monitoring exactly what they're doing and standing — exactly what they're doing and standing in solidarity with our clients — standing in solidarity with our clients and people seeking asylum and torture survivors who have been through _ and torture survivors who have been through the — and torture survivors who have been through the unimaginable and do not want to— through the unimaginable and do not want to see schemes like this taking brand _ want to see schemes like this taking brand. ., ., , ., want to see schemes like this taking brand. . . , . . ~ want to see schemes like this taking brand. ., .,, ., ., ~ i., , . brand. natasha, thank you very much and so, as brand. natasha, thank you very much and so. as you _ brand. natasha, thank you very much and so, as you are _ brand. natasha, thank you very much and so, as you are hearing _ brand. natasha, thank you very much and so, as you are hearing there, i and so, as you are hearing there, this is being seen by the organisations and charities who brought this as a victory and they have turned down essentially and stopped one of the government's flagship policies, but this is very unlikely to be the end of it. fine unlikely to be the end of it. one final question, _ unlikely to be the end of it. one final question, do _ unlikely to be the end of it. one final question, do we _ unlikely to be the end of it. one final question, do we have of timescale of the government can appeal to the supreme court on this? yes, the 6th ofjuly. the government

has to get a written appealing by the 6th ofjuly. i don't with a firm timetable and what would after that, but they clearly are trying to get this going quickly and so it is within a week or so that we will find out what the government has no those involved in the recovery said there is what york to be done those involved in the recovery said there is what the to be done those involved in the recovery said there is what the government has no decision is but i suspect we might find out what the government has no decision is but human remains. find out rather soon than that. joe, thank ou find out rather soon than that. joe, thank you very _ find out rather soon than that. joe, thank you very much. _ find out rather soon than that. joe, thank you very much. if you are joining us the new is that the plan to ascend asylum seekers to rwanda has been ruled unlawful. we are getting early reaction from the government and this comes from cabinet minister penny morant who was saying and responding to a question in the house of commons and saying it was a "mixed judgment because although what she says is absolutely true in terms of their ruling, they have also confirmed that rwanda is a safe third country." she went on to say that this is clearly a matter for the home office had to update the house on and we respect the court was my

decision and we will have a statement today from the home secretary on that matter. so penny morant suggesting that we could hear a secretary statement later today on that ruling that rwanda has been ruled, the plan to send asylum seekers to rwanda has been ruled unlawful. you were watching bbc news. it is now 1130. medical officials will examine possible human remains. the us coast guard says human the us coast guard says human remains are believed to have been remains are believed to have been found in the wreckage found in the wreckage of the titan submersible. of the titan submersible. the craft imploded on a dive to the site of the titanic earlier this month — killing all five passengers. those involved in the recovery said

there is still work to be done