rainfall event. extreme rain has hit north—west india, three times the normal rainfall, record rain in japan, devastating things here, at the end of last week we saw spain with cars and people being washed down streets with hail. it comes off the back of what was said was the warmest week on record and of course, higher temperatures globally means more intense and extreme rainfall, but there are other things as play for vermont and that is because the system that brought the rain, this low pressure got stuck, it got trapped by this massive air of high pressure, we are on the other side of that, does that sound like comprehensive safeguarding practice?

as further allegations against the presenter emerge tonight, we'll ask where this crisis goes next. and there are further questions for the sun — including — why will no one from the newspaper talk to us? today, the bbc�*s director—general did speak. clearly these are damaging to the bbc. it is not a good situation. also tonight. the government faced down mps who wanted to dilute its illegal migration bill. but could there be more challenges to come? we'll talk to a conservative former minister who wants downing street to compromise. and — in the last few minutes the government has said the g7�*s going to announce, quote, a "significant international framework for ukraine's long—term security arrangements" at the nato summit tomorrow. will president zelensky be satisifed with that for now? we'll talk to his former defence minister. good evening. as we came on air last night we tried to be really clear

with everyone watching about the limits to what we actually know as fact in the ongoing crisis that has engulfed the bbc and one of its leading presenters. today, following an intervention from the bbc director—general tim davie and a publication of a timeline of the organisation's interraction with the parents of a person allegedly paid for sexually explicit pictures by the presenter, it's fair to say we have answers to at least some of the big questions. but in their place swept in several new ones — about the pace of the bbc�*s response to the complaint made to it in may. about the conduct of the presenter, who's facing new allegations in a report from bbc news colleagues into allegedly menacing messages he sent to a person in their early 20s on a dating app. about the journalism of the sun, which sticks by its story despite an attack on it by the young person at its heart. and tonight aboutjust how long the anonymity of the presenter can hold — with some high profile bbc colleagues coming out in the last few hours to call for him to identify himself.

we'll discus all of this in a moment and make sense of where it leaves us. first here's sima. some of the whatsapp messages from staff at the bbc as it continues to be the focus in the media and beyond. and to convey the scale of the crisis facing the organisation today the prime minister even waded in. well, obviously, they're very serious and concerning allegations and that's why i'm pleased that the culture secretary spoke to the director general of the bbc over the weekend and is confident that the bbc is investigating this both rigorously and rapidly. i think that's the right course of action. some of the malicious stuff online i would condemn. while the director general said he couldn't get into specifics about the complaint due to privacy reasons, and that the police had asked the bbc to pause

its investigation while it looked into what happened. he admitted the allegations had been difficult. these are clearly damaging to the bbc. it's not a good situation. but i think there's a few things, as director general, i care deeply about. one is the ability for our newsroom to report independently without fear or favour. the interview with him was carried out in the early afternoon. a few hours later, more serious allegations were made about the presenter. according to journalists within bbc news, he sent a person in their twenties menacing and abusive messages after meeting them on a dating app. the presenter hasn't responded to the allegations. some staff were quick to react. this comes less than 2a hours after a lawyer's letter on behalf of the young person at the heart of the story in the sun

was sent to the bbc saying the allegations were rubbish. this is a fast paced story, constantly changing as new information comes to light. now, fresh allegations have arguably put this place under more pressure to answer some more crucial questions. had anyone heard of any similar allegations, and, if so, what action was taken? today, the bbc executive provided some new information about the initial complaint, making clear that it tried to contact the complainant twice over several weeks after receiving it. now it faces criticism about why it didn't try harder to reach them when the complaint was of a serious nature. the sun says, "it remains to be understood why the allegations weren't escalated and the presenter was not spoken to at the time". while the bbc says, "it has processes and protocols for receiving information

and managing complaints when they are first made, we always take these matters extremely seriously and seek to manage them with the appropriate duty of care". it's a complex picture, but it's been another tough day for the bbc as it continues to fight to preserve its reputation as the mouthpiece for honesty and transparency. sima's here. another tricky date for some. as we heard there — another tricky date for some. as we heard there are _ another tricky date for some. as we heard there are people _ another tricky date for some. as we heard there are people in _ another tricky date for some. as we heard there are people in this - heard there are people in this building feeling disturbed unfeeling is this going to end. today the director general spoke for the first time since the allegations in the newspaper saying there are perhaps lessons to be learnt about protocols in place at the moment and he will indeed be feeling a lot of pressure this evening because with each twist

and turn more uncomfortable questions are being asked. who heard what and when and why did it take several weeks for the organisation to speak to the presenter. more allegations have come to light and there is further pressure to name there is further pressure to name the presenter. yet again the front page of �*the sun' has another story about him making further allegations and todayjeremy vine has said i'm starting to think the bbc presenter involved in the scandal should come forward publicly. more vitriol will be thrown at innocent colleagues. he went on to say that the bbc was on its knees with this issue. also important to say that the presenter at the centre of this has not said anything so far and neither have his lawyers. as i said in that report we just saw this is a very fast—moving story and i think there is a danger that as the bbc deals with legal and privacy issues it risks the

perception to its critics that the organisation is a slow—moving bureaucracy in the face of serious allegations. something the director general tried to put into context earlier today.— general tried to put into context earliertoda . �*, . ., . , ., earlier today. let's have a clip. no cli -. earlier today. let's have a clip. no cli. m earlier today. let's have a clip. no clip. my mistake, _ earlier today. let's have a clip. no clip. my mistake, i— earlier today. let's have a clip. no clip. my mistake, i am _ earlier today. let's have a clip. no clip. my mistake, i am sorry. - we're going to talk now to harvey proctor, former conservative mp and who had his home raided by the met police following false claims by the fantastist carl beech. also here is the journalist and legal expertjoshua rosenberg. joshua rosenberg, bbc news has reported a second person in their 20s claims to have felt threatened and scared by the presenter. �*the sun' claims tonight the presenter allegedly broke lockdown rules to meet someone from a dating site. this morning we had the first complainant and this afternoon the second and this evening number three

and who knows what we will get tomorrow. it is much easier to dismiss one complaint that it is to dismiss one complaint that it is to dismiss two or three. and so this puts pressure certainly on the bbc presenter to respond. why? because the allegations are harder to dismiss. i'm sure that he has something to say. he is choosing not to say at perhaps on legal advice or perhaps on other advice we know nothing about. but it is quite clear that this story will continue until it is resolved and the police investigation which is just at a preliminary stage will take a long time. the bbc owes a duty to its employee if that is what he is, contractual staff member or whatever his position may be, and is not going to name him or in any way

throw him under a bus. so the question for him really is what he is going to do and presumably that is going to do and presumably that is what thinking about. we had the bbc timeline _ is what thinking about. we had the bbc timeline of _ is what thinking about. we had the bbc timeline of events _ is what thinking about. we had the bbc timeline of events today - is what thinking about. we had the bbc timeline of events today and l is what thinking about. we had the l bbc timeline of events today and the efforts it made to contact the original complainant, one e—mail and one phone call with no response and thenit one phone call with no response and then it was left until �*the sun' got in touch with the bbc last thursday. i think the bbc would accept this was not the best way to handle this and the director general tim is concerned and there is an internal review into how this was handled. if the bbc knew about the seriousness of the allegations when they were first reported at the time and simply relied on one e—mail and one phone call and then put it on hold to see why the family did not get back to the bbc, that may well not have been an adequate response but equally you would have thought that the family concerned having complained to the bbc and not got a response would have got back to them

and said what has happened to our complaint? and said what has happened to our comlaint? ., , and said what has happened to our comlaint? . , ., and said what has happened to our comlaint? ., , ., ., and said what has happened to our comlaint? ., , ., . complaint? harvey proctor, are you heartened that _ complaint? harvey proctor, are you heartened that this _ complaint? harvey proctor, are you heartened that this presenter - complaint? harvey proctor, are you heartened that this presenter has l heartened that this presenter has not officially been named? he must not officially been named? he must not be named- _ not officially been named? he must not be named. unless _ not officially been named? he must not be named. unless the - not officially been named? he must not be named. unless the police . not be named. unless the police decide to charge him. at the moment that looks to be a remote possibility. we believe in this country that anonymity before charge and we should stick to that. make sure that the bbc sticks to that. let's make sure people on the internet to stick to that. that is impossible. let's make sure that the police stick to that. i know that in my case this did not happen. i was named very quickly. there was no anonymity before charge for myself. i was not even charged but my name

was over the headlines of newspapers and if i may say so, on the bbc radio and television. the presenter that we are — radio and television. the presenter that we are talking _ radio and television. the presenter that we are talking about _ radio and television. the presenter that we are talking about here - radio and television. the presenter that we are talking about here may| that we are talking about here may never be charged of course, we have to wait for the police to do what they call a scoping exercise. as you say your circumstances were very different to those that we are discussing, you faced very serious allegations and there was a police inquiry. the claims were made against you were totally false and in fact accuser was jailed for perverting the course ofjustice, fraud and child sexual offences. if i mayjust ask fraud and child sexual offences. if i may just ask you the fraud and child sexual offences. if i mayjust ask you the question. earlier it talked about numbers of complainants and that two others had come forward but is not the number but the quality of the evidence and there not any evidence yet. in my case when i on television and radio at a press conference and appealed

for anyone who had credible and true evidence to come forward, two other people came forward. the metropolitan police did not investigate them. but now after all these years witness a and witness b are currently being investigated by west midlands police for perverting the course ofjustice. so numbers are not quality i'm afraid, joshua rosenberg. d0 are not quality i'm afraid, joshua rosenberg-— are not quality i'm afraid, joshua rosenbera. ., ., are not quality i'm afraid, joshua rosenber. ., ., i] rosenberg. do you want to respond? i said that numbers _ rosenberg. do you want to respond? i said that numbers are _ rosenberg. do you want to respond? i said that numbers are only _ rosenberg. do you want to respond? i said that numbers are only numbers . said that numbers are only numbers and obviously we want to see the evidence of high, so harvey proctor is right about that but we will wait to see what happens. let’s is right about that but we will wait to see what happens.— to see what happens. let's play a cli from to see what happens. let's play a clip from you _ to see what happens. let's play a clip from you from _ to see what happens. let's play a clip from you from that _ to see what happens. let's play a clip from you from that press - clip from you from that press conference. i am a homosexual. i am not a murderer. i'm not a paedophile or pederast. let me be frank.

i pleaded guilty to four charges of gross indecency in 1987 relating to the then age of consent for homosexual activity. those offences are no longer offences as the age of consent has dropped from 21, to 18, to 16. why did you decide to take control in that way?— why did you decide to take control inthatwa? , in that way? because i was fed up as i think the presenter _ in that way? because i was fed up as i think the presenter today _ in that way? because i was fed up as i think the presenter today will - in that way? because i was fed up as i think the presenter today will be i i think the presenter today will be fed up, with people dripping information into the media which had no relevance or no evidential basis. that included the metropolitan police before they started to investigate whether my accuser was credible and true, they included radio television and included the bbc. i will leave it at that. if i

may say so with regard to recent events, operation you tree, operation midland, the paul scofield issue and the present one, there is a faint aroma of homophobia along these matters. a faint aroma of homophobia along these mattere— a faint aroma of homophobia along these matters. let me bring joshua back in. as more information comes in how much pressure does that put on? it certainly puts a lot of pressure on the way _ certainly puts a lot of pressure on the way that you've been describing. to pick— the way that you've been describing. to pick up— the way that you've been describing. to pick up harvey proctor's point about_ to pick up harvey proctor's point about the — to pick up harvey proctor's point about the fact that the numbers, complainant number two was investigated by the bbc. i can't talk about complaint number three or number_ talk about complaint number three or number one _ talk about complaint number three or number one because they spoke to the sun but the _ number one because they spoke to the sun but the complainant who complained to the bbc, those

allegations were investigated, phone numbers— allegations were investigated, phone numbers were checked and so on and one has_ numbers were checked and so on and one has to _ numbers were checked and so on and one has to trust the bbc... the bbc, ou ma one has to trust the bbc... the bbc, you may like — one has to trust the bbc... the bbc, you may like to _ one has to trust the bbc... the bbc, you may like to think _ one has to trust the bbc... the bbc, you may like to think that _ one has to trust the bbc... the bbc, you may like to think that they - you may like to think that they should be, but they are not the police. it should be, but they are not the olice. , ., ., should be, but they are not the olice. , . ., ., should be, but they are not the olice. , ., ., ., , police. it is human nature to be cufious police. it is human nature to be curious and _ police. it is human nature to be curious and to _ police. it is human nature to be curious and to want _ police. it is human nature to be curious and to want to - police. it is human nature to be curious and to want to find - police. it is human nature to be curious and to want to find out. j curious and to want to find out. please let me finish. there are many thousands of people on social media who are gossiping. do you think that people sometimes forget that there are human beings at the centre of these stories, with families? yes. these stories, with families? yes, i started my — these stories, with families? yes, i started my comments _ these stories, with families? yes, i started my comments by _ these stories, with families? yes, i started my comments by saying - these stories, with families? yes, i| started my comments by saying that there are at least two vulnerable people involved in this. the complainant and the alleged suspect. i know personally, without going into details, the pain and hurt that the person will be suffering. i would suggest, knowing what happened

to me, if the presenter is innocent, then he should go and throw a press conference at the earliest opportunity and turn the tide of this slanderous tittle tattle that appears to be about and seems to be engaging everyone in a frenzy. it's a frenzy, by the way, that people are using to beat the bbc with a big stick, this moral stick. i think it should cease. leave the police to do theirjob should cease. leave the police to do their job and should cease. leave the police to do theirjob and let's see what happens when the police decide to arrest or not arrest this person.— not arrest this person. thank you for our not arrest this person. thank you for your contribution. _ not arrest this person. thank you for your contribution. goes - not arrest this person. thank you i for your contribution. goes without saying, we asked the sun for an interview, and we did last night as

well and we've invited the editor on tomorrow night, so we'll see. if rishi sunak needed any evidence of the urgency he faces on his promise to deliver on his pledge to, as he puts it, stop the boats, then the latest data on the number of people who made the channel crossing might give him pause for thought. 1,600 people arrived into the uk in the last four days — bringing the total to more than 13,000 this year. perhaps, then, it's understandable just why in the last few hours things have become so heated in the house of commons, where ministers have gone on the offensive to undo changes made by peers to the government's flagship migration bill. the showdown with the lords comes against a backdrop of conflict with some of the government's own backbenchers — who believe the government is going too far in some areas — and the opposition — who say the bill won't stop the boats anyway. in a moment, we'll speak live to one of the key conservative rebels and ask if he's happy with the concessions made by the government. first here's nick with the latest. what has happened way shallower abc

up what has happened way shallower abc up to —— a busy afternoon and evening in the commons. the up to -- a busy afternoon and evening in the commons. the house of lords have made _ evening in the commons. the house of lords have made changes. _ evening in the commons. the house of lords have made changes. to - lords have made changes. to change the atmosphere over the last 48 hours they have made concessions to potential rebels. the main areas were the detention of pregnant women. rebels say the government completely backed down. on the retrospective application of the bill and on the detention of unaccompanied minors, and the rebels on that one said it didn't go far enough. it set the scene for the votes and it was vote after vote after vote. i was standing where you are allowed to stand as a member of are allowed to stand as a member of a lobby. you can't be in the members's lobby. it looks like the motorway, they come round and go round and vote and there were 18 votes. 0ne cabinet minister said

they thought it was unprecedented to have this many votes. i think you have this many votes. i think you have to go back around 50 years to have to go back around 50 years to have that many votes in one go. now, there were some rebellions and the key ones were on the detention of unaccompanied minors and on modern slavery. 0n modern slavery, trafficking, theresa may rebelled. that's the first time as i understand it that she has rebelled against the conservative whip. she feels strongly about it. the word from inside government is that theresa may, they say, is absolutely right to say that this is unravelling her approach on modern slavery, which is something she has always campaigned on. it is right to say they are unravelling it and the government so yeah we are, because we disagree and we think this has to be done. their work rebellions but the government, as i said, won comfortably. 0ne the government, as i said, won comfortably. one member of a cabinet said that the elected chamber has spoken. another minister who is pretty much at the heart of this,

they said to me that they are not minded to make any more concessions but another member of the cabinet said its going to go back to the house of lords and let's see how it works out there. they may need to be more concessions.— works out there. they may need to be more concessions._ it | more concessions. anything else? it then aoes more concessions. anything else? it then goes back _ more concessions. anything else? it then goes back to _ more concessions. anything else? it then goes back to the _ more concessions. anything else? it then goes back to the house - more concessions. anything else? it then goes back to the house of- then goes back to the house of lords. and it is ping—pong, it goes back to the commons, then to the lords. my instinct is that in the lords. my instinct is that in the lords they might have another go, they may hope for more concessions on things like the detention of unaccompanied minors, but the core group of crossbenchers, the judges, they won't want to go to the wire on this. interestingly the labour party, if they take this to the wire, the bill may run out of time, it may not be on the statute book in the summer and with the labour party want to be accused of stopping the bill? what they are saying is that the bill doesn't work. if they asked to have stopped it, then the conservatives could turn that around on them. ., .,

conservatives could turn that around on them. ., ,, i. a i'm joined now by the conservative mp tim loughton. hello to you. evening. have you ever voted 18 times _ hello to you. evening. have you ever voted 18 times before _ hello to you. evening. have you ever voted 18 times before in _ hello to you. evening. have you ever voted 18 times before in one - hello to you. evening. have you ever voted 18 times before in one go? - hello to you. evening. have you ever voted 18 times before in one go? i i voted 18 times before in one go? i don't think we have. apparently in 1971, the industrial, whatever act it was, which was a bit before my time. unprecedented but very efficient, 18 votes in three and a half hours but it was a bit of a conveyor belt, as nick says. what do these 18 votes _ conveyor belt, as nick says. what do these 18 votes in _ conveyor belt, as nick says. what do these 18 votes in one _ conveyor belt, as nick says. what do these 18 votes in one go _ conveyor belt, as nick says. what do these 18 votes in one go tell- conveyor belt, as nick says. what do these 18 votes in one go tell us - these 18 votes in one go tell us about the legislation? it these 18 votes in one go tell us about the legislation?- about the legislation? it would alwa s be about the legislation? it would always be controversial, - about the legislation? it would always be controversial, some| about the legislation? it would - always be controversial, some really sensitive issues, especially around the detention of children and pregnant women. that's been resolved, i hope, today. the house of lords really took it to task. they were always going to. to send back 20 mm and to the house of commons is a lot. —— 20 amendments to the house of commons. there are several more days next week when we

can send it back and they can play ping—pong for as long as they like and if they for long enough, there will be recess. the government want to get the legislation through before the summer recess. some brinkmanship next week. [30 before the summer recess. some brinkmanship next week.- before the summer recess. some brinkmanship next week. do you have a messare brinkmanship next week. do you have a message for— brinkmanship next week. do you have a message for the _ brinkmanship next week. do you have a message for the ps? _ brinkmanship next week. do you have a message for the ps? there - brinkmanship next week. do you have a message for the ps? there are - a message for the ps? there are certain key _ a message for the ps? there are certain key issues _ a message for the ps? there are certain key issues and _ a message for the ps? there are certain key issues and they - a message for the ps? there are certain key issues and they were | a message for the ps? there are . certain key issues and they were the amendments i voted against the government on —— do you have a message for the peers. they have got the child detention reduced. the questions are how you look after the children. they need to be inappropriate, date and with appropriate services. there is a big grey area —— they need to be in appropriate accommodation. share grey area -- they need to be in appropriate accommodation. are you comfortable with _ appropriate accommodation. are you comfortable with eight _ appropriate accommodation. are you comfortable with eight days? - appropriate accommodation. are you comfortable with eight days? the - comfortable with eight days? the government _ comfortable with eight days? iie: government have comfortable with eight days? tie: government have that comfortable with eight days? ti2 government have that power already, the question is whether you look after them appropriately in age appropriate accommodation. whether

there's access — appropriate accommodation. whether there's access to _ appropriate accommodation. whether there's access to adults? _ appropriate accommodation. whether there's access to adults? and - there's access to adults? and whether they _ there's access to adults? and whether they can _ there's access to adults? fific whether they can quickly there's access to adults? elic whether they can quickly go to foster care in the normal way. according to the refugee council there is still no statutory limit, no legal limit on the length of time and unaccompanied child asylum seeker can be detained.- and unaccompanied child asylum seeker can be detained. that's the oint. the seeker can be detained. that's the point. the government _ seeker can be detained. that's the point. the government have - seeker can be detained. that's the point. the government have said l seeker can be detained. that's the | point. the government have said it will go down to eight days for certain states of children, actually it doesn't cover children. so certain states of children, actually it doesn't cover children.- it doesn't cover children. so some children can _ it doesn't cover children. so some children can be _ it doesn't cover children. so some children can be detained - children can be detained indefinitely?— children can be detained indefinitely? children can be detained indefinitel ? , , ., indefinitely? they can be detained for ei . ht indefinitely? they can be detained for eight days _ indefinitely? they can be detained for eight days with _ indefinitely? they can be detained for eight days with a _ indefinitely? they can be detained for eight days with a view - indefinitely? they can be detained for eight days with a view to - indefinitely? they can be detained for eight days with a view to them | for eight days with a view to them being deported but for children coming into the country, technically it can be indefinite and then they can apply for bail. that's not guaranteed. there's still lots of questions, that's why this has be sorted out. children should only be detained if it's in their interests, if there is a risk of them absconding and in the least possible time. they should be looked after. if we get those assurances, some

more details on the face of the bill we can come to some agreement. as it stands there are too many question marks. we are talking to over 5000 two we are talking potentially over 5000 unaccompanied children. as a former children's minister, anyone can see that an unaccompanied child getting off a boat after hr matic —— after a traumaticjourney without their parents are going to be traumatised.— be traumatised. there are young children who _ be traumatised. there are young children who need _ be traumatised. there are young children who need maximum - be traumatised. there are young - children who need maximum support and they need to be put in some kind of children's home, foster care, as we would with a child needing care in this country. a lot of the people coming across our older teenagers or young men in their 20s claiming to be under the age of 18. that's where the problem is, how you determine whether they are genuinely children in a swift time. it is taking too long. they have to do something about that. they must ensure that

adults separated from genuine children in the meantime... it is complicated but the government must give more assurances to get the legislation through.— legislation through. let's talk about victims _ legislation through. let's talk about victims of _ legislation through. let's talk about victims of modern - legislation through. let's talk . about victims of modern slavery. legislation through. let's talk - about victims of modern slavery. the government says that this bill will enable more perpetrators to be stopped. theresa may says it will do the exact opposite, they can't both be right. i the exact opposite, they can't both be riuht. ., the exact opposite, they can't both be riuht. . be right. i agreed with theresa may. the modern-day _ be right. i agreed with theresa may. the modern-day slavery _ be right. i agreed with theresa may. the modern-day slavery legislation | the modern—day slavery legislation was one of the hallmarks of her term in office. it is world beating legislation and i think it is something we should be proud of. there are problems with this new bill that effectively could undermine some of those victims, that they would effectively be deported before they could apply to the national referral mechanism which assesses if they are in danger. but crucially they take evidence to and try capture the traffickers, the smugglers who put them in that position in the first place. we need them to be seen as

victims, and to help in closing down the perpetrators in these criminal gangs. there is a risk under the legislation that they could be deported or go underground before they have a chance to do that. i think theresa may is right. it is easily resolved. the government must be practical in making concessions over the next few days and then people will rally behind it. the immigration — people will rally behind it. the immigration minister said in the commerce today, some of the amendments made in the house of lords before it came back to you were actually generally about wrecking it. were actually generally about wrecking it-— were actually generally about - wrecking it._ you agree? wrecking it. they were. you agree? yes. but wrecking it. they were. you agree? yes- iout rrot _ wrecking it. they were. you agree? yes. but not the _ wrecking it. they were. you agree? yes. but not the amendments - wrecking it. they were. you agree? yes. but not the amendments that| wrecking it. they were. you agree? . yes. but not the amendments that you want? there are three main areas where the government have to do better, on the detention of children... better, on the detention of children. . ._ better, on the detention of children... ~ , . ., , children... why are the amendments ou children... why are the amendments you support — children... why are the amendments you support rrot _ children... why are the amendments you support not undermining - children... why are the amendments you support not undermining it? - you support not undermining it? ti2 government, we want to beef up the safe and legal roots. 0n child detention they have already made some concessions and we want them to

go further with safeguards around age—appropriate... and on modern slavery i think the government is just wrong. there are many other amendments coming before the lords which are about taking out chunks of the bill which were wrecking. the liberal democrats want to direct the bill entirely. they didn't get it there way. they are three genuine areas of concern with the government can do better and we hope they will. when this becomes law you cannot put anyone on a plane to go to rwanda. so the whole thing is performative so you can say you are going to stop the boats, but you can't. you so you can say you are going to stop the boats, but you can't.— the boats, but you can't. you can't not ut the boats, but you can't. you can't rrot put anybody — the boats, but you can't. you can't not put anybody on _ the boats, but you can't. you can't not put anybody on the _ the boats, but you can't. you can't not put anybody on the plane, - the boats, but you can't. you can't i not put anybody on the plane, there are certain cases where people can be returned. we need more of those returns. there are also questions about the people coming over who will now be subject to detention. physically, where are you going to put them because we have a shortage of places to put them which is so many are in hotels which are not secure. the government knows it has

to do a lot of work, more, to make the bill practically enforceable as well. ., ., ., ., ., well. you have to wait for the a- eal well. you have to wait for the appeal at _ well. you have to wait for the appeal at the _ well. you have to wait for the appeal at the supreme - well. you have to wait for the appeal at the supreme court | well. you have to wait for the - appeal at the supreme court which could be next year. the appeal at the supreme court which could be next year.— could be next year. the rwanda scheme is _ could be next year. the rwanda scheme is just _ could be next year. the rwanda scheme is just one _ could be next year. the rwanda scheme isjust one part. - could be next year. the rwanda scheme isjust one part. that'sl could be next year. the rwanda i scheme isjust one part. that's the scheme is 'ust one part. that's the bit i'm scheme isjust one part. that's the bit i'm talking _ scheme isjust one part. that's the bit i'm talking about. _ scheme isjust one part. that's the bit i'm talking about. when - scheme isjust one part. that's the bit i'm talking about. when the - bit i'm talking about. when the rwanda scheme _ bit i'm talking about. when the rwanda scheme goes - bit i'm talking about. when the rwanda scheme goes to - bit i'm talking about. when the rwanda scheme goes to the . bit i'm talking about. when the - rwanda scheme goes to the supreme court which hopefully will be this autumn, if it gets up and running quickly that could be a very clear deterrent and... quickly that could be a very clear deterrent and. . ._ deterrent and... then the whole thin is. deterrent and... then the whole thing is- the _ deterrent and... then the whole thing is. the government - deterrent and... then the whole thing is. the government needs| deterrent and... then the whole i thing is. the government needs to deterrent and... then the whole - thing is. the government needs to be lookin: at thing is. the government needs to be looking at alternatives _ thing is. the government needs to be looking at alternatives to _ thing is. the government needs to be looking at alternatives to the - looking at alternatives to the rwanda scheme.— looking at alternatives to the rwanda scheme. ~ , ., rwanda scheme. well... there is no one else coming forward. _ rwanda scheme. well... there is no one else coming forward. what - rwanda scheme. well... there is no one else coming forward. what is i one else coming forward. what is important. _ one else coming forward. what is important, when _ one else coming forward. what is important, when the _ one else coming forward. what is important, when the home - one else coming forward. what is| important, when the home affairs select committee went to calais earlier this year and spoke to authorities, the interesting thing they said, when the rwanda scheme was announced by the government there was a surge in people in calais looking to cross the channel who went to the french authorities to try and regularise their status

in france because they didn't want to risk going to rwanda. it will become a lot if —— a lottery whether you are in a hotel in kent or going to rwanda. it hasn't started so the deterrent effect has fizzled out. we had the economic assessment from the home office which said it was uncertain about the deterrent effect. i'vejust given uncertain about the deterrent effect. i've just given a clear example of how it was. the home office's own _ example of how it was. the home office's own assessment... - example of how it was. the home office's own assessment... i'm i office's own assessment... i'm tellin: office's own assessment... i'm telling you _ office's own assessment... i'm telling you what _ office's own assessment... th telling you what the french authorities... telling you what the french authorities. . ._ telling you what the french authorities... , �* ., authorities... they didn't mention that in the — authorities... they didn't mention that in the economic _ authorities... they didn't mention i that in the economic assessment... can i ask you about the painting over of the mickey mouse mural at the reception centre in dover? painted over at the order of the immigration mr because he felt that it represented too welcoming eight message. t it represented too welcoming eight messaue. ., �* ., ., message. i wouldn't have done because it _ message. i wouldn't have done because it sends _ message. i wouldn't have done because it sends out _ message. i wouldn't have done because it sends out the i message. i wouldn't have done

because it sends out the wrong message and i would think they regret it now might why do you think he probably begets it? it isa it is a minor issue that now has been blown out of all proportion and that will now be attached to his name. if i was in that position i would not have done it.- name. if i was in that position i would not have done it. thank you for bein: would not have done it. thank you for being here tonight. _ in the last few minutes, the uk government's revealed the g7 is expected to announce what's described as a "significant international framework for ukraine's long—term security arrangements" at the nato summit tomorrow. downing street's even suggested it could be a "major step" towards ending the war. that all sounds pretty positive for ukraine — and yet president zelensky today has struck a very different tone. mark's here. tell us more about the announcement. this is the coordinated announcement

between nato and g7. as you say it is about framework and i think the most interesting phrase from downing street is about security guarantees to ukraine in the event of any future attack. it would seem some sorts of promises of action if ukraine does stop the current hostilities with russia about preventing future occurrence of a similar kind of conflict. 0bviously today what we got as further details of military assistance and suggestions that they could be fast tracked into nato summed up byjens stoltenberg at the summit. what we have agreed today is a strong, united and positive message to ukraine about enduring support but also a positive message, the path forward for membership. there's never been as strong a message from nato at any time, both when it comes to political

message on the path for membership and complete support from nato allies, military support but also the practical support on how to ensure full interoperability. what he did not say is when ukraine canjoin nato and in what he did not say is when ukraine can join nato and in theory the invitation has been on the table for 15 years. so it will disappoint a lot of the ukrainians. teiiii 15 years. so it will disappoint a lot of the ukrainians.— 15 years. so it will disappoint a lot of the ukrainians. tell us more about the response _ lot of the ukrainians. tell us more about the response from - lot of the ukrainians. tell us more about the response from ukraine. | about the response from ukraine. seeing the way that things were going on his way back president zelensky tweeted this morning in quite emotive language, the key phrase was that by not giving them membership right now, nato was effectively leaving on the table the possibility of ruling it out in a negotiation with russia. in other words selling out the ukrainians as

part of a price of peace. so fascinating to see that frustration from president zelensky coming out into the open. and now let's talk to andriy zagorodniuk, chairman of center for defence strategies and former minister of defence of ukraine, who joins us from kyiv. thank you for talking to our audience. president zelensky threatened earlier he would not attend the nato summit if there is not some kind of concrete timeline for ukrainejoining nato. but he has not got what he wanted. has for ukraine joining nato. but he has not got what he wanted.— not got what he wanted. has he failed? it is — not got what he wanted. has he failed? it is a _ not got what he wanted. has he failed? it is a question - not got what he wanted. has he failed? it is a question over i failed? it is a question over whether he felt just the situation that nato cannot provide any specific plan to ukraine. and that is what is happening. this is frustrating because nato is a bit

self—contradictory and if we look at the communication published today, article 11 is about ukrainian membership and what it says is that we fully support ukraine and its right to choose its own security arrangements. ukraine will be a future member of nato and ukraine has come a long way already in its reform so there is no membership action plan required so no conditions. and down at the end of the same article they say ukraine can enter into negotiations when the allies agree and when conditions are met. so the question is what conditions are to be met. so essentially in the law is called agreement to agree which does not make much sense and is a paradox and thatis make much sense and is a paradox and that is frustrating because basically we are walking around the

idea of membership. let basically we are walking around the idea of membership.— basically we are walking around the idea of membership. let me ask you, if i ma , idea of membership. let me ask you, if i may. do — idea of membership. let me ask you, if i may. do you _ idea of membership. let me ask you, if i may, do you want _ idea of membership. let me ask you, if i may, do you want a _ idea of membership. let me ask you, if i may, do you want a specific i if i may, do you want a specific date? to if i may, do you want a specific date? ., , ., , , , date? to be honest, the president never asked _ date? to be honest, the president never asked for _ date? to be honest, the president never asked for a _ date? to be honest, the president never asked for a date _ date? to be honest, the president never asked for a date because i date? to be honest, the president. never asked for a date because that would be related to some event and it is difficult. the president never suggested that ukraine would accept straightaway because that is probably unrealistic. because the war is still going _ probably unrealistic. because the war is still going on _ probably unrealistic. because the war is still going on and - probably unrealistic. because the war is still going on and you i probably unrealistic. because the| war is still going on and you would not expect other members to get involved in that. find not expect other members to get involved in that.— involved in that. and by the way article five _ involved in that. and by the way article five of _ involved in that. and by the way article five of the _ involved in that. and by the way article five of the nato - involved in that. and by the way article five of the nato chargerl article five of the nato charger does not assume that the countries must send troops into the country, what it says is they should provide reasonable response. and since we've received so much support from nato countries some could argue that we have already received what we would

have already received what we would have as nato members. but nevertheless we did not demand membership or any specific timeline. the question is when needed something concrete and that did not show up. and more than that we received words that were self contradictory. he received words that were self contradictory.— received words that were self contradicto . , ., contradictory. he did get something concrete today. _ contradictory. he did get something concrete today, not _ contradictory. he did get something concrete today, not on _ contradictory. he did get something concrete today, not on nato - contradictory. he did get something concrete today, not on nato but i contradictory. he did get something concrete today, not on nato but on| concrete today, not on nato but on the f-16 concrete today, not on nato but on the f—16 partnership? that concrete today, not on nato but on the f-16 partnership?— the f-16 partnership? that is different story. _ the f-16 partnership? that is different story. but _ the f-16 partnership? that is different story. but still- the f-16 partnership? that is i different story. but still something concrete. different story. but still something concrete- of— different story. but still something concrete. of course _ different story. but still something concrete. of course that _ different story. but still something concrete. of course that was i different story. but still something concrete. of course that was not . concrete. of course that was not art of concrete. of course that was not part of the _ concrete. of course that was not part of the membership - concrete. of course that was not i part of the membership discussion. that partnership was a discussion for some time and it was not a nato organisation, it was with a number of countries and basically they agreed on support on the margins of the nato conference. in the fight we received so much support from western allies is huge and we are very grateful for that. so there's no doubt about that. but we are just

discussing membership. no doubt about that. but we are 'ust discussing membership.i no doubt about that. but we are 'ust discussing membership. thank you for talkin: to discussing membership. thank you for talking to us- — mortgage rates today reached a level not seen since the 2008 financial crisis — higher than even in the aftermath of liz truss's calamitous mini—budget. bank bosses were hauled in front of mps today to account for the impact of such rates on home owners. mortgage rates are going up because the bank of england is putting up its own base rate to bring down inflation — and further hikes are expected. but some economists are questioning whether the reliance only on interest rates to tackle inflation is either fair or wise. should the government be looking at taking action elsewhere. here's ben. city traders expect interest rates to rise even higher after the pound dropped to a record low this morning. we thought we'd left this behind... tonight, a number of banks and lenders have stopped offering new mortgages offering new mortgages because of the volatility in the currency markets. because of the volatility ..but are we now back ..but are we now back in the same mess? 2—year and 5—year average mortgage in the same mess? rates spiked above 6%

after liz truss's mini—budget — after liz truss's mini—budget — which helped end her premiership. which helped end her premiership. but today those rates are back but today those rates are back to and even above those punishing to and even above those punishing rates seen last autumn — rates seen last autumn — at 6.66% for a 2—year fix at 6.66% for a 2—year fix and 6.17% for a 5—year one. and 6.17% for a 5—year one. some liz truss supporters some liz truss supporters have suggested we've got have suggested we've got in the value of sterling. the excruiciating mortgage rates the excruiciating mortgage rates but none of the growth—boosting tax but none of the growth—boosting tax cuts that she put forward — cuts that she put forward — so the worst of both worlds. so the worst of both worlds. but that's rather misleading. but that's rather misleading. the economic context the economic context today is very different. today is very different. mortgage rates today are rising, mortgage rates today are rising, not because of a sense in markets that the government has lost control not because of a sense in markets of borrowing, as was the case last autumn — but rather because of the strong expectation that the bank of england is going to have to raise interest rates several more times to deal with the uk's sticky inflation problem. that reality is reflected