rain will push night, some of that rain will push in across parts of northern ireland, wales, the far west of england. dry weather elsewhere, chilly in the north—east of scotland. it is an area of low pressure that will bring the rain during tomorrow. quite a shallow low so the winds will not be strong but the range certainly will be. quite heavy, a wet morning for parts of northern ireland, wales, northern england, southern scotland turning wet indeed. south—west scotland could be one of the wettest places through the day. northern scotland seeing showers. if you are stuck on the cloud and rain, you may see temperatures no higher than 14, 15, 16 degrees. see temperatures no higher than 14, 15,16 degrees. high pressure see temperatures no higher than 14, 15, 16 degrees. high pressure tries to build for a couple of days later in the week, it doesn't have much success, it will not kill off all the showers and for the weekend it

looks like low pressure will return. more rain, it will stay cool, no sign of any real heat even as we head into next week. thanks, ben. that's it. newsnight with victoria derbyshire is just getting under way on bbc two. now on bbc one, it's time tojoin our colleagues across the nations and regions for the news where you are. goodnight. a row has erupted within labour after sir keir starmer confirmed a future labour government would keep the conservatives�* two—child benefits cap. three years ago, the labour leader said he wanted to scrap it. he now says he won't, much to the dismay of many of his

members and plenty of mps. what's changed 7 we'll speak to the north of tyne mayor, who today resigned from labour, jamie driscoll, and former adviser to tony blairjohn mcternan. also tonight... a disturbing report on how ai is being used to create child sexual abuse imagery. it is really realistic. it is quite realistic _ it is really realistic. it is quite realistic. if _ it is really realistic. it is quite realistic. if i _ it is really realistic. it is quite realistic. if i saw _ it is really realistic. it is quite realistic. if i saw that - it is really realistic. it is quite realistic. if i saw that i - it is really realistic. it is quite realistic. if i saw that i would| realistic. if i saw that i would think it was _ realistic. if i saw that i would think it was a _ realistic. if i saw that i would think it was a photoshoppedl realistic. if i saw that i would - think it was a photoshopped image. obviously it is disgusting and that would instantly make me question whether or not it's real. but it's hard to know. and is it time to talk to the taliban? the conservative chair of the defence select committee says yes. the first female deputy speaker of the afghan parliament says no. just last month it was described by a labour shadow front bencher as "heinous". another�*s blamed it for keeping more people in poverty.

sir keir starmer himself tweeted back in 2020, "we must scrap the two child benefit cap". that explains why the labour leader is facing a backlash from some within his own party after he confirmed any future labour government would actually keep it. the policy prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for any third or subsequent child born after april 2017. it was introduced by former conservative chancellor george osborne and it was supposed to encourage parents of larger families to find a job or work more hours. research out today suggests it has failed to achieve that. in a moment, the economics. first, the politics. here's nick. a generation apart, different leaders, different times, but is keir starmer following the blair rule book as he seeks a route back to power? anger on the labour left over two developments in two days

with echoes from the new labour era. note from keir starmer to scrapping a totemic policy from the cameron era, the camp which stops parents claiming benefits for more than two children —— de cap. a changed tune when starmer was standing for the labour leadership as he talked about scrapping this. we labour leadership as he talked about scrapping thie— labour leadership as he talked about scrapping this-— scrapping this. we said over and over again _ scrapping this. we said over and over again that _ scrapping this. we said over and over again that our— scrapping this. we said over and over again that our approach - scrapping this. we said over and over again that our approach to l over again that our approach to mothers would be to help them to work so they could be better off than they could ever be on benefit. does the new starmer approach sound familiar? amid stern faces, harriet harman could single parent benefits for new claimants in 1997, as the blair government stuck to tory spending plans in its first two years. back to today and a serving labour mayor has left the party and will stand as an independent in a new mayoral contest. jamie driscoll was blocked from standing for

labour. , ., ~:: ~ labour. ken livingstone, 606 11,877..- _ labour. ken livingstone, 606 11,877... the— labour. ken livingstone, 606 11,877... the winning - labour. ken livingstone, 606 11,877... the winning and - 11,877... the winning and independent _ 11,877... the winning and independent candidate i 11,877... the winning and | independent candidate for 11,877... the winning and - independent candidate for london mayor after the leadership ensured he was not their candidate. they eventually asked him to come back. there is nothing new about battles in the labour party and no doubt we will see more of them in the run—up to the general election. keir starmer has a very clear view on this row over benefits for children. his values have not changed but the world has since, in his eyes, liz truss crashed the economy and soak fiscal discipline must come first. there is support for him in the shadow cabinet but also unease, words like disgraceful had been heard in the air this afternoon. i was very proudly elected on a manifesto where we would scrap the two child limit and keir starmer stood on a platform in the leadership election saying the same thing and only last month the dwp

shadow ministerjon ashworth said it was one of the most heedless elements of the system so i really was shocked and i am perplexed at his announcement yesterday. we have over [i his announcement yesterday. we have over 11 million children living in poverty, 5000 children in my constituency in extreme circumstances, and this is the wrong time to be making such announcements.- time to be making such announcements. ,, ., ., ., , announcements. the shadow cabinet minister cited — announcements. the shadow cabinet minister cited by _ announcements. the shadow cabinet minister cited by beth _ announcements. the shadow cabinet minister cited by beth winter- announcements. the shadow cabinet minister cited by beth winter says i minister cited by beth winter says tough decisions have to be made. my views on this particular aspect of universal— views on this particular aspect of universal credit are well documented. but i have also been pretty— documented. but i have also been pretty critical of what the conservatives have done to our economy, _ conservatives have done to our economy, crashing our economy, being very cavalier _ economy, crashing our economy, being very cavalier with public finances which _ very cavalier with public finances which has — very cavalier with public finances which has meant interest rates are going _ which has meant interest rates are going up. — which has meant interest rates are going up, mortgages are going up and of course _ going up, mortgages are going up and of course we have inflation at such levels _ of course we have inflation at such levels that — of course we have inflation at such levels that it is really hurting poorer — levels that it is really hurting poorer families. that means we have to he _ poorer families. that means we have to he really— poorer families. that means we have to be really disciplined in our approach _ to be really disciplined in our approach to public spending and we can make _ approach to public spending and we can make unfunded spending

commitments so keir starmer and our shadow— commitments so keir starmer and our shadow chancellor rachel reeves had been very— shadow chancellor rachel reeves had been very clear, we are not changing policv _ been very clear, we are not changing policy on _ been very clear, we are not changing policy on this. a been very clear, we are not changing policy on this-— policy on this. a prominent commentator _ policy on this. a prominent commentator on _ policy on this. a prominent commentator on labour i policy on this. a prominent l commentator on labour sees policy on this. a prominent _ commentator on labour sees parallels and difficult decision—making. we and difficult decision-making. we are and difficult decision—making. - are exactly where we were leading up to 97 when labour had iron discipline on any spending promises whatsoever. this one is incredibly painful because labour ministers labour shadow ministers themselves have said what a grotesque policy this is but the point is that keir starmer has said there will be no spending commitments until right up close to the election when, 18 months from now perhaps, they will decide exactly what the priorities should be. if they start spending loosely now, by the time they get there they will not be able to shape their priorities. so this fiscal toughness seems absolutely necessary but unbelievably painful.— but unbelievably painful. history hanuain but unbelievably painful. history

hanging heavy — but unbelievably painful. history hanging heavy but _ but unbelievably painful. history hanging heavy but for _ but unbelievably painful. history hanging heavy but for keir i but unbelievably painful. history i hanging heavy but for keir starmer, these are decisions made into des's conditions for today's world. sir keir starmer has dropped a number of pledges since becoming leader — this, scrapping tuition fees, pushing back the 28 billion a year it had promised to spend in transitioning to a green economy. he says the state of the economy means theyjust can't do all that — it would break their fiscal rules — the rules on taxes and spending they've set for themselves. we'll discuss this in a moment. first, ben with the economics. what are labour's chosen fiscal rules? how do they differ from those of the government and why do they matter to you? well, the rules have two key elements. first, that labour would not borrow to pay for day—to—day spending. second, that it would reduce debt as a share of the economy. let's break these down. day—to—day spending means things like public sector workers' wages, benefits and state pensions. flipside of this is that labour's rule means that it will be able to borrow for investment spending, that is things like infrastructure,

like medical equipment, reparing schools, renewable power and so on. that theoretically makes these rules looser than those of the current chancellor, jeremy hunt. that is because his rules do not carve out investment spending. but that brings us to the second element, the pledge of labour to reduce the national debt as a share of gdp. the shadow chancellor, rachel reeves, has said this will be done over the course of the next parliament. that, in effect, makes this target the same as that ofjeremy hunt, who is targeting debt to fall as a share of gdp in five years' time. as you can see here, this is only barely achieved on the current plans in 2027—28 with a fall ofjust 0.2% of gdp projected by the office for budget responsibility and the reality is that this is now out of date. rises in interest rates since the march budget pushing up government borrowing costs mean the obr is likely to project that this leeway is now gone in the autumn. this is obviously a problem

for the government as it will necessitate spending cuts or tax rises to stay on course for its debt target, yet it is also a problem for labour, given its own chosen debt rule. if labour were to win next year's general election, the party would almost certainly inherit very stretched public finances and this is why it has made some contentious decisions recently, such as watering down its green new deal investment pledge and also indicating it would not scrap the two child benefits cap. this policy currently affects 1.5 million children and it is estimated that scrapping it would cost around £1.7 billion a year. now, some economists argue that labour has erred in choosing this debt target. the second part is what is potentially wrong, that government investment, public investment, two things. one is very often there will be an asset associated with it, so even though it raises government debt as measured, there is an asset against that so net debt hasn't

necessarily increased. and the second thing is, if it does really raise growth over the medium to longer term, then this will be better for the debt—to—gdp ratio in the medium to longer term. but rightly or wrongly, the party is sticking to its chosen fiscal rules in the belief that the public has to be shown that labour would be responsible with the public finances. that does, though, have consequences. this shows child poverty rates for children in smaller families in yellow, all children in pink, and children in larger families in blue. as you can see, the poverty rate for children in largerfamilies is higher and seems to have worsened after the two child cap on benefits was imposed in 2017. and the impact of keeping the policy in place is set to grow more painful as the years go by. the poorest families are on the left and the wealthiest are on the right. the light bars show the impact of the two child benefit cap so far and then these dark bars show it when it is fully rolled out by 2035

and, as you can see, for some of the poorest families, it adds up to more than £1400 per year. now, to govern is to choose. labour is not yet in power but its choices on fiscal rules, even now, are set to resonate in people's lives if it does form the next government. let's speak now to jamie driscoll, north of tyne mayor, who today resigned from labour after being blocked by the party from running for another role in the north—east. and john mcternan, who served as political secretary to tony blair. who served as political welcome who served as political to both of you. heedless, said welcome to both of you. heedless, said the shadow work and pensions secretary, obtain and inhumane said the deputy leader angela rayner. how can labour support keeping a policy? because labour is going to inherit when we win the election next year or in 2025 the worst fiscal situation, the worst, most stretched public spending limits and tax

receipts of any incoming labour government since the war. and we have said very clearly we will say what we will do and we will say how we will fund it and there is loads of people who say we should remove this limit and after that, the next question is if you remove the total benefits cap and after that do something about local housing allowance and up about it universal credit itself because universal credit itself because universal credit is a consequence of osborne taking £12 billion out of welfare over the period he was chancellor. there is a whole load of things, labour has to have priorities, the language of priorities is the religion of socialism... so lifting kids out religion of socialism. .. so lifting kids out of— religion of socialism... so lifting kids out of property _ religion of socialism... so lifting kids out of property is _ religion of socialism... so lifting kids out of property is not i religion of socialism... so lifting kids out of property is not a i kids out of property is not a priority for labour?- kids out of property is not a priority for labour? lifting kids at a --roe priority for labour? lifting kids at a pr0pertv by _ priority for labour? lifting kids at a pr0pertv by growing _ priority for labour? lifting kids at a property by growing the - priority for labour? lifting kids at i a property by growing the economy so we can spend more on public services is the priority and it has to be. isn't this just fiscally sensible and also pretty popular with voters? i don't think the idea of keeping

people — i don't think the idea of keeping people in— i don't think the idea of keeping people in poverty actually is fiscally _ people in poverty actually is fiscally sensible at all. we know storihg — fiscally sensible at all. we know storing up problems for the long—term. if you look at where we are in_ long—term. if you look at where we are in brilain— long—term. if you look at where we are in britain now, i think everybody was not depending a political — everybody was not depending a political party would agree we are in a serious mess about a lot of things— in a serious mess about a lot of things and _ in a serious mess about a lot of things and this is a result of 13 years— things and this is a result of 13 years of— things and this is a result of 13 years of austerity where we have had public _ years of austerity where we have had public services, and it will cost a fortune — public services, and it will cost a fortune to — public services, and it will cost a fortune to keep kids in poverty, our health— fortune to keep kids in poverty, our health is— fortune to keep kids in poverty, our health is plummeting, our nhs waiting — health is plummeting, our nhs waiting lists are through the roof, teachers — waiting lists are through the roof, teachers are leaving education in droves — teachers are leaving education in droves. how will we get a healthy, productive, — droves. how will we get a healthy, productive, high skilled workforce? what _ productive, high skilled workforce? what do _ productive, high skilled workforce? what do you think this decision tells us about sir keir starmer�*s approach to welfare? i tells us about sir keir starmer's approach to welfare?— tells us about sir keir starmer's approach to welfare? i think if we look slightly _ approach to welfare? i think if we look slightly beyond _ approach to welfare? i think if we look slightly beyond that - approach to welfare? i think if we look slightly beyond that and i approach to welfare? i think if we look slightly beyond that and the | look slightly beyond that and the report _ look slightly beyond that and the report that came out recently, he says i'm — report that came out recently, he says i'm not interested in hope and change. _ says i'm not interested in hope and change. or— says i'm not interested in hope and change, orwhere says i'm not interested in hope and change, or where and saint no hope is better— change, or where and saint no hope is better than false hope. when you have the _ is better than false hope. when you have the leadership of the labour party— have the leadership of the labour party saying we have no hope, that goes _ party saying we have no hope, that goes beyond expectation management.

that is, _ goes beyond expectation management. that is, we _ goes beyond expectation management. that is, we don't have a plan, and i worried _ that is, we don't have a plan, and i worried about — that is, we don't have a plan, and i worried about that pond is that true? — worried about that pond is that true? ., ,., worried about that pond is that true? ., ., , �* ., worried about that pond is that true? ., ,�* ., ., worried about that pond is that true? ., , �* ., ., true? labour doesn't have a plan? if the do true? labour doesn't have a plan? if they do win. — true? labour doesn't have a plan? if they do win, what _ true? labour doesn't have a plan? if they do win, what would _ true? labour doesn't have a plan? if they do win, what would they - true? labour doesn't have a plan? if they do win, what would they do i they do win, what would they do differently? sir keir starmer is able to that in every interview to point out that britain is broken, using his words, but doesn't offer his plan change things. he using his words, but doesn't offer his plan change things.— his plan change things. he has clearly set _ his plan change things. he has clearly set out _ his plan change things. he has clearly set out in _ his plan change things. he has clearly set out in the five i clearly set out in the five missions, the five major areas in which he wants to embark on transforming the country and for me the central one is actually climate crisis and if we don't tackle that, everything else falls by the wayside point that you have to tackle the climate crisis.— point that you have to tackle the climate crisis. and he has pushed back its investment... _ climate crisis. and he has pushed back its investment... and i climate crisis. and he has pushed back its investment... and pretty| back its investment... and pretty aood at back its investment... and pretty good at politics. _ back its investment... and pretty good at politics, i _ back its investment... and pretty good at politics, i couldn't i back its investment... and pretty good at politics, i couldn't spent| good at politics, i couldn't spent £28 billion of capital in the first year of government, you have to get it running. the thing that he set out in the missions is over the first term, and i believe the two terms of labour government, if you set out big missions then everybody in the country, every individual and every business and community and community groups and trade union and

w wife, any organisation knows how they can contribute to growing the comic to increasing social mobility and rebuild health service in tackling crime and public order back into communities —— and wi. we have to have a change of government, the thing that holds back our great country is the current government. changing the government is the beginning but you have to be honest with people, we will be in a terrible situation and you can't wish away the damaged liz truss dead, the damage brexit has done, you can't wish away the damaged borisjohnson did. [30 you can't wish away the damaged boris johnson did.— boris johnson did. do you accept that? i am _ boris johnson did. do you accept that? i am a _ boris johnson did. do you accept that? i am a big _ boris johnson did. do you accept that? i am a big fan _ boris johnson did. do you accept that? i am a big fan of— boris johnson did. do you accept that? i am a big fan of fiscal- that? i am a big fan of fiscal responsibility _ that? i am a big fan of fiscal responsibility and _ that? i am a big fan of fiscal responsibility and i - that? i am a big fan of fiscal responsibility and i have i responsibility and i have demonstrated it and until today i was a _ demonstrated it and until today i was a labour member that didn't seem toiump_ was a labour member that didn't seem toiump in _ was a labour member that didn't seem tojump in the fact was a labour member that didn't seem to jump in the fact that was a labour member that didn't seem tojump in the fact that i've smashed _ tojump in the fact that i've smashed the job creation targets, every— smashed the job creation targets, every pound i investment returns more _ every pound i investment returns more than — every pound i investment returns more than £3 to treasury payroll taxes _ more than £3 to treasury payroll taxes alone. so more than £3 to treasury payroll taxes alone-— taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal responsible _ taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal responsible to _ taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal responsible to in _ taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal responsible to in your- taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal responsible to in your part i taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal responsible to in your part of i taxes alone. so big fan of fiscal. responsible to in your part of the world but not when it is sir keir starmer? i world but not when it is sir keir starmer? ., ._ world but not when it is sir keir starmer? ., , , ., starmer? i would say this is not fiscal responsibility. _ starmer? i would say this is not fiscal responsibility. what i starmer? i would say this is not fiscal responsibility. what is i starmer? i would say this is not fiscal responsibility. what is it? j fiscal responsibility. what is it? this is playing _

fiscal responsibility. what is it? this is playing to _ fiscal responsibility. what is it? this is playing to a _ fiscal responsibility. what is it? this is playing to a certain i this is playing to a certain selection of the electorate, daily mail readers, whatever they are... people _ mail readers, whatever they are... people who— mail readers, whatever they are... people who would need to vote for labour in order for you people who would need to vote for labour in orderfor you to gain a majority. i labour in order for you to gain a ma'ori . ., labour in order for you to gain a ma'ori . ~ , ., labour in order for you to gain a ma'ori . ~ y., .. ., , majority. i think if you actually exlain majority. i think if you actually explain the — majority. i think if you actually explain the reality _ majority. i think if you actually explain the reality of- majority. i think if you actually explain the reality of it, i majority. i think if you actually explain the reality of it, and i majority. i think if you actually| explain the reality of it, and we have _ explain the reality of it, and we have seen— explain the reality of it, and we have seen the economics reports on your own _ have seen the economics reports on your own programme, for example, investing _ your own programme, for example, investing in — your own programme, for example, investing in retrofitting homes every— investing in retrofitting homes every pound spent save the nhs 42p alone _ every pound spent save the nhs 42p alone so— every pound spent save the nhs 42p alone so investment is the way you -et alone so investment is the way you get this— alone so investment is the way you get this economy going again but you can't do _ get this economy going again but you can't do it— get this economy going again but you can't do it by saying, we have no hope. _ can't do it by saying, we have no hope. we — can't do it by saying, we have no hope, we won't spend anything. particular— hope, we won't spend anything. particular if we talk about that 28 billion— particular if we talk about that 28 billion for— particular if we talk about that 28 billion for the climate emergency, if you _ billion for the climate emergency, if you look— billion for the climate emergency, if you look at the us inflation protection act and it has lived in billions — protection act and it has lived in billions if— protection act and it has lived in billions if not trillions and you must — billions if not trillions and you must send a signal to the market. i work— must send a signal to the market. i work with— must send a signal to the market. i work with businesses every day and they need _ work with businesses every day and they need to see a long—term plan because _ they need to see a long—term plan because they can't turn the taps on and off— because they can't turn the taps on and off it— because they can't turn the taps on and off if they are hiring researchers and planting machinery. of the plan is £28 billion a year

that starts to ramp up in the second year of a labour government for as long as we have a labour government, which i believe will be a long time. but we have a situation in politics where everybody knows the voters trust labour to spend the money, they don't trust us to run the economy. they trust the tories to be hard—headed on the economy but not always with running public services. for labour to win we have to convince the voters and the voters we have to win are not the people who voted labour in 2019john mcgrath so who voted labour in 2019 john mcgrat ,., , who voted labour in 2019 john mcgrat , ., ., is not mcgrath so 'ust about image. is not about mcgrath so just about image. is not about image. _ mcgrath so just about image. is not about image, the _ mcgrath so just about image. is not about image, the public _ mcgrath so just about image. is not about image, the public have i mcgrath so just about image. is not about image, the public have to i about image, the public have to understand the contract labour on the economy and public services. they trust our hearts a strong and we will spend on public services. in the end, when election is about winning the of people who didn't vote for you and we've had former collections in a row where the public have said they don't want to vote labour. you have to listen if you get beaten and 2019 was the

worst election since the 1930s. you have to build but massively. normally takes two or three cycles to recover from a 2019 defeat. keir starmer is done a greatjob to get here, by being calm on this. we have to do this together. [30 here, by being calm on this. we have to do this together.— to do this together. do accept that the -a to do this together. do accept that the party is _ to do this together. do accept that the party is sticking _ to do this together. do accept that the party is sticking to _ to do this together. do accept that the party is sticking to a _ to do this together. do accept that the party is sticking to a chosen i the party is sticking to a chosen fiscal rules because the public is to be shown, according to sir keir starmer, that labour will be responsible with public finances? i don't think you win trust by saying what _ don't think you win trust by saying what you — don't think you win trust by saying what you are going to do and then you telling — what you are going to do and then you telling the truth it comes down a lot of— you telling the truth it comes down a lot of time to trust integrity and characters — a lot of time to trust integrity and characters. people across politics are worried — characters. people across politics are worried they can't trust anyone for trips— are worried they can't trust anyone for trips billions are thinking, who speaks _ for trips billions are thinking, who speaks for— for trips billions are thinking, who speaks for me right now? when the number— speaks for me right now? when the number one — speaks for me right now? when the number one trending on twitter tonight— number one trending on twitter tonight was a must sir kit staffer, ithink— tonight was a must sir kit staffer, i think that — tonight was a must sir kit staffer, i think that is not doing labour any favours _ i think that is not doing labour any favours. . �* i think that is not doing labour any favours. , �* ., favours. twitter isn't the real world. favours. twitter isn't the real world- nick _ favours. twitter isn't the real world. nick it _ favours. twitter isn't the real world. nick it indicates i favours. twitter isn't the real world. nick it indicates whatl favours. twitter isn't the real i world. nick it indicates what people worry about the if you are saying

stopping kids being in poverty would all depend on long—term costs is not all depend on long—term costs is not a priority, i all depend on long-term costs is not a riori , .. all depend on long-term costs is not a riori , ~' . all depend on long-term costs is not a riori , ~ , , a priority, i think people every -a will a priority, i think people every party will think— a priority, i think people every party will think twice - a priority, i think people every party will think twice docker i party will think twice docker getting _ party will think twice docker getting this comes out is a priority and will do everything we can to do that for having been beaten four times a row we had to go a long way meet the public where we are. what meet the public where we are. what the -a meet the public where we are. what the party should _ meet the public where we are. what the party should have _ meet the public where we are. what the party should have been doing is praising the work of metro mayors, who have _ praising the work of metro mayors, who have demonstrated that they can do it for— who have demonstrated that they can do it for tip— who have demonstrated that they can do it for tip i did this without risking — do it for tip i did this without risking a _ do it for tip i did this without risking a penny in council by working _ risking a penny in council by working with businesses to leave it in docker— working with businesses to leave it in docker l — working with businesses to leave it in docke .. working with businesses to leave it in docke ~' ., , ., in docker i think metro must have been great. _ in docker i think metro must have been great, within _ in docker i think metro must have been great, within the _ in docker i think metro must havej been great, within the constraints of central government. plan, thank you both of you. a world—leading child protection charity is calling on the prime minister to make the threat of ai—generated child sexual abuse imagery his top priority when the uk hosts the first global ai summit this year. the internet watch foundation, which specialises in finding and removing abuse images and videos from the internet, says ai

is a growing threat and last month began logging ai content for the first time. it discovered predators sharing galleries of synthetic images that are at times indistinguishable from real abuse images. our cyber correspondent, joe tidy, was shown redacted versions of some of the images. you may find his report upsetting. these days, anyone with a laptop can be an artist with al. and an idea, the sky's the limit. and online galleries and forums are exploding with creations. by typing in a few words, you can create any image that you like. so, for example, a cat holding a banana in the style of van gogh. let's try that. and there we are.

this is my favourite one. and of course this image has never existed. we've created it using the ai. the only real limit is your imagination, but there are some safeguards put in place. many of these tools have banned words or phrases to stop people creating illegal or offensive imagery. but we now know that hasn't really worked. there are only three organizations in the whole world who are licensed to actively search for child sexual abuse material. and this is one of them, the internet watch foundation here in cambridge. in this highly secured facility, the iwm finds, removes and logs some of the most abhorrent images and videos imaginable. their trained analysts say they're seeing a flood of images made with artificial intelligence. so what are we looking at then? and we're the first people outside of the charity to be shown redacted versions of some of the pictures being shared by predators.

so the first image i want to show you is more of a cartoony style of image of a girl on the beach. i'd say she's probably about 3 to 6 years old. it's really realistic. it's quite realistic. if i saw that, i would think it was a photoshopped image. obviously, the pose is disgusting and that would instantly make me question whether or not it's real. but it's hard to know. so this location is a bedroom, and that's quite classic of real images that we see of children posed in the bedroom. you see that type of image? yes. children doing that pose for that children that young? yes. it's still quite powerful. it's difficult.

because these are images of children being sexually abused. and we can't get away from that because that's what's happening. sorry. take a break? yeah, yeah, that's fine. sorry about that. i've never experienced anything like that. and it was a shock. absolutely. and there's no need to be sorry, because these images are shocking. so we're not going to look any more pictures. but that was the sort of the second most realistic of i think you were going to show me 11. just how bad does it get? it gets much more realistic. much more realistic than the one that i showed you. it varies. so from kind of that style all the way up to where it's very difficult to tell the difference between that and a real image.

last month, for the first time, the iwm started actively logging reports of ai images. analysts discovered galleries on multiple websites, some containing category a material, the most graphic possible. the team says predators are sharing tips on how to trick the ais into drawing the content. and there's evidence that open source image generators are proving popular with predators. the concern with open sources it's very difficult to control this because by definition, people can adjust and change and create their own versions of that. so you can have a version which has safeguards that prevents this. but as a community project, there's nothing stopping an appropriately skilled person removing these safeguards and creating another version based on the same type of software. the same code doesn't have these safeguards. stable diffusion is the most popular open source ai image generator. it's been repurposed and repackaged by countless websites and businesses. it's giving image generators from big tech firms like openai,

microsoft and others a run for their money in popularity and power. but stable diffusion doesn't have a silicon valley—startup origin story. it started here in a leafy downtown corner of munich, and the way it was launched and created was completely unique to any of the other image generators. we are all really now looking over the shoulder of a development process, which is super—rapid. professor bjorn ulmer was the lead scientist on the stable diffusion project. he and his team did their best to remove pornographic content from the 2 billion images that the al was trained on. but he admits that it wasn't perfect. they also coded in a list of hundreds of banned words and phrases, but of course, people quickly found a way to delete them. he defends their decision, though, to unleash his model onto the internet as open source. the dangers that you portrayed with open source?

yes, i see overall like this, this potential in generative ai, that's a powerful technology and powerful technologies can be misused. but closed source has not proven to be the way that would actually do this mitigation for us because it has been either leaked or even more importantly, just been implemented. but you must accept that by making yours open source, you've made it easier, very, very easy for people to download it and do whatever they want with it. of course, we made it easier and that's why we first off, also just released it to the research community. that was something that was important for me, that the models had just been released to the research community. we really need to face the fact that this is a worldwide, a global development. so us stopping it here would not stop the development of this technology globally, like worldwide, than in other countries, probably in non—democratic societies that this would continue.

and we really need to figure out mitigations that consider this global development that we're having here. professor ulmer says the fact that there are now hundreds of exciting spin—off academic projects using his model shows that making it open source was the right move. but the fact remains there are bad actors using it too. we found a twitter account belonging to an ai image creator who specializes in making sexualized portraits of pre—teen girls. the account has now been suspended. it had 8000 followers. i spoke to the person who owns the account and asked him why he does it. he says he's aware of the fact that his images do sexualize children but celebrates it. this is the first time in history that i can allow him to create what he calls cute images of girls without exploiting real children. dr michael burke is the former chief psychologist for the united states marshal service. he spent his career interviewing and evaluating sex offenders and paedophiles.

some people say that using al to create images of children in a sexualized way is better because there are no children harmed. what would you say to that? looking at this material, whether it's artificially generated, so—called synthetic children or they're genuine children, from an offender's perspective, it's still strengthening those dangerous impulses. it's still increasing their paedophilic arousal patterns. there's no doubt in my mind that al generated images are going to increase these predilections. they're going to reinforce this deviance, and it will lead to greater harm and greater risk of harm to children around the world. so what can be done? well, very little, in truth. no one is fully in charge of stable diffusion or any other open source ai generator.

all of the versatile api functionality is built from the ground up on our robust cloud platform stability. staility ai is the most prominent company developing it very good. its founder, imad mossack, helped fund professor ulmer�*s research. he declined to do an interview, but has previously said that the firm prohibits any misuse of its ai for illegal or immoral purposes. but of course, stability ai has no control over what others do with the source code. look, i want to make a $100 billion company to help a billion people. that's going to be cool. i hope you guysjoin me. and as regulators begin to plan potential legislation for al companies and products, it feels like in some cases the cat might already be out of the bag. that was cyber correspondent joe tidy, and the film was directed, shot and edited by jack garland. let's speak now to conservative peer lord bethell, former health minister and campaigner

against online harm, and there is a short delay on the line, i'm told. will the online safety bill be able to stop ai generated child sexual abuse images? the to stop ai generated child sexual abuse images?— to stop ai generated child sexual abuse images? to stop ai generated child sexual abuse imaues? , , .,, .,, abuse images? the bill is as good as abuse images? the bill is as good as a bill anywhere _ abuse images? the bill is as good as a bill anywhere in _ abuse images? the bill is as good as a bill anywhere in the _ abuse images? the bill is as good as a bill anywhere in the world - abuse images? the bill is as good as a bill anywhere in the world and i i a bill anywhere in the world and i think they've done a good job at trying to bring in the best laws possible. but the technology is moving so quickly. we don't have the data, the expertise, the people in the enforcement community or the policymakers to keep up with how quickly it's moving, so i think we need a mindset change in internet regulation and we need a lot more resources to keep up with these bad harms that your package revealed. i5 harms that your package revealed. is it not as simple as governments around the world simply criminalising this?-

around the world simply criminalising this? yes, well... there are _ criminalising this? yes, well... there are arguments _ criminalising this? yes, well... there are arguments for- criminalising this? yes, well... i there are arguments for licensing all ai, there are arguments for licensing allai, like there are arguments for licensing all ai, like we do in the biotech industry, where an agency like the human fishing authority is to authorise all use of human tissue for experiment, but that would put a huge break on innovation. these are really powerful technologies that can be used for great good, for increasing productivity and all our lives easier. it is reallyjust a question of intervening on the bad actors so i'm really reluctant to see that kind of criminalisation or licensing be put in place, but that is right, that the backstop we are looking at if we can't get on top of this. . .. looking at if we can't get on top of this. , ,, ., ., , ., ., this. these kind of images are going to be prolific. _ this. these kind of images are going to be prolific, aren't— this. these kind of images are going to be prolific, aren't they? - this. these kind of images are going to be prolific, aren't they? i - this. these kind of images are going to be prolific, aren't they? i agree i to be prolific, aren't they? i agree with the us _ to be prolific, aren't they? i agree

with the us marshal. _ to be prolific, aren't they? i agree with the us marshal. it's - to be prolific, aren't they? i agree with the us marshal. it's not i to be prolific, aren't they? i agree with the us marshal. it's notjustl with the us marshal. it's notjust that the images are prolific, what they are is a recruiting content for people ordinarily might not go anywhere near arming children in a sexualfashion but get anywhere near arming children in a sexual fashion but get caught up on a conveyor belt of extreme material and they go down the algorithmic rabbit hole that online harm, as we all know, creates. just add to it the metaverse technologies of headsets, gloves, the characterisation ai uses to try and bring these technologies to life, my goodness, this stuff could be really powerful and there is a economics behind it, because they can attract subscriptions, quite chunky subscriptions, quite chunky subscriptions, that will fuel a whole new pornography economy. i5 whole new pornography economy. is interesting, because children are not being harmed in the creation of ai generated abuse images but you see it as a kind of gateway, if you

like. absolutely, there will be people who say this is just digital playfulness and what happens on the screen stays on the screen and we should not get too worried about it but i don't accept that at all. i think this breaks down a very important barrier about harming children and about sexualising those who are underage and once you start breaking down those barriers in society, they are going to spill over into the real world very quickly indeed and we will see an uptick in real life harms to children. and very anxious about this indeed.— about this indeed. thank you very much for talking _ about this indeed. thank you very much for talking to _ about this indeed. thank you very much for talking to us, _ about this indeed. thank you very much for talking to us, lord i much for talking to us, lord bethell. you can get information and support for issues covered in that film via bbc action line — bbc.co.uk/actionline or by calling 0800110100.

is it time to re—engage with the taliban in afghanistan? two years after they returned to take over the country again after western troops pulled out, a taliban—led afghanistan presents a challenge that will probably confront western policymakers for generations. according to the us's institute of peace, the taliban s government has marginalized ethnic and political groups outside of its own core membership, excluded women from politics and education, alienated the country s largest foreign donors, committed war atrocities and continues to harbour international terrorist groups. yet, the chair of the defence select committee, tobias ellwood, has just been in afghsnitan and says, "however queasy we feel about it", we need to re—engage with the taliban. he's joining us down the line, and in the studio i'm joined fawzia koofi, who was the first female deputy speaker of the afghan parliament and in 2020 she was a part of the team which negotiated a peace deal with the taliban.

welcome to both of you. tobias ellwood, why do you say we need to re—engage and also that the uk should reopen its embassy in kabul? you summarised the very difficult challenges that lay ahead but in my visit, i was astonished with the profound change in complexion that i saw from a security perspective, certainly a corruption perspective, former president ashraf ghani's government, but also for trade as well. i'm not saying these things have not disappeared, i'm saying this war—torn nation has not experienced relative peace like this i think since the 1970s and that poses a very big question. if we do want to nudge this country forward, if we want to see better rights for women to get schools reopened, not just for 11—year—olds but half of the population under the age of 11,

the population under the age of 11, the kids, boys and girls, not going to school, do we do this by lecturing from afar or do we do this by starting to engage with that step of opening the embassy? the economy could collapse, there is a vacuum there to be filled by iranian influence, chinese or russians or both, terrorism could once again gripped the nation as well and with massive migration problems. we owe it to 40 massive migration problems. we owe it to a0 million people there who we have abandoned to have a better strategy than what we have at the moment which is from lecturing from distance which is having absolutely no effect. . ., ., ., distance which is having absolutely no effect. . ., , distance which is having absolutely noeffect. . ., , no effect. fawzia koofi, is tobias ellwood onto _ no effect. fawzia koofi, is tobias ellwood onto something? - no effect. fawzia koofi, is tobias ellwood onto something? he i no effect. fawzia koofi, is tobias ellwood onto something? he is l no effect. fawzia koofi, is tobias i ellwood onto something? he is not the only person _ ellwood onto something? he is not the only person campaigning i ellwood onto something? he is not the only person campaigning for. the only person campaigning for engagement with the taliban. in fact, _ engagement with the taliban. in fact, there is no re—engaging because _ fact, there is no re—engaging because of the world is already been engaged _ because of the world is already been engaged with taliban since 2013 and

has been _ engaged with taliban since 2013 and has been a — engaged with taliban since 2013 and has been a negotiation on and off. the us— has been a negotiation on and off. the us has— has been a negotiation on and off. the us has negotiated with the taliban, — the us has negotiated with the taliban, many eyelevel dignitaries including — taliban, many eyelevel dignitaries including members of parliament have is, are we best place to influence what is 9 members * travelled _ is, are we best place to influence what is 9 members of, is, are we best place to influence what is 9 members of parliament have including members of parliament have travelled to afghanistan since the alban— travelled to afghanistan since the travelled to afghanistan since the alban— travelled to afghanistan since the alban collapsed under the uk alban collapsed diplomats have travelled to afghanistan recently and like mr travelled to afghanistan since the alban collapsec travelled to diplomats have travelled to afghanistan recently and like mr ellwood, — afghanistan recently and like mr ellwood, there were a lot of other ellwood, — afghanistan recently and like mr ellwood, there were a lot diplomats who campaigned in clearly set they— diplomats who campaigned in clearly set they are taliban 2.0, they have afghanistan recently and like mr ellwood, th( taliban a lot they have changed. _ set they are taliban 2.0, they have changed, their views have changed, set they are taliban 2.0, they have changed. _ set they are taliban 2.0, they have changed, their views they are _ changed, their views have changed, they are open to women's rights and human— they are open to women's rights and human rights and that was the base set they are taliban 2.0, they have changed, their vil that the base we negotiated with the taliban. our human rights and that was the base we negotiated with the taliban. our hope was _ we negotiated with the taliban. our hope was we have actually tapped into the _ hope was we have actually tapped into the narrative created for us by the narrative created for us by people _ into the narrative created for us by people _ into the narrative created for us by pebble like — into the narrative created for us by people like him. so into the narrative created for us by into the narrative created for us by people like — into the narrative created for us by people like him. so into the narrative created for us by peeple like him-— peeple like him-— people like him. so it's not true. let me bring _ people like him. so it's not true. let me bring some _ people like him. so it's not true. people like him. so it's not true. let me bring _ people like him. so it's not true. let me bring some _ people like him. so it's not true. let me bring some facts - people like him. so it's not true. let me bring some facts and - people like him. so it's not true. - let me bring some facts and figures. let me bring some facts - people like him. so it's not true. let me bring some facts and - people like him. so it's not true. - first of— let me bring some facts and figures. first of all. _ let me bring some facts and figures. first of all, my question to this let me bring some facts and figures. gentleman is that how many women actually— how many women gentleman is that how many women actually— gentleman is that how many women actually he — gentleman is that how many women actually he met in his trip to gentleman is that how many women actually he — gentleman is that how many women actually he met in his trip to afghanistan?— actually he met in his trip to afghanistan? you can ask him. because i— afghanistan? you can ask him. because i saw— afghanistan? you can ask him. because i saw the _ afghanistan? you can ask him. because i saw the video - afghanistan? you can ask him. gentleman is that how many women actually he m( the his trip to gentleman is that how many women because i saw the video today | because i saw the video today campaigning for this. there are many actually he m( the his tr today because i saw the video today campaigning for this. there are many people _

campaigning for this. there are many pebble who _ campaigning for this. there are many people who work who campaign and the who campaign and the economic— people who work who campaign and the economic interest is at risk and i'm not saying — economic interest is at risk and i'm not saying we should not engage, i have bigoted with the taliban but we do have _ have bigoted with the taliban but we do have a _ have bigoted with the taliban but we do have a principle engagement. since _ do have a principle engagement. since two — do have a principle engagement. since two years there has been a world _ since two years there has been a world engagement with the taliban, what we _ world engagement with the taliban, what we have achieved? in fact we have _ what we have achieved? in fact we have given — what we have achieved? in fact we have given in to tell about and what we have _ have given in to tell about and what we have given is our rights. the right— we have given is our rights. the right of— we have given is our rights. the right of my— we have given is our rights. the right of my sisters and daughters and mothers and those who are suffering — and mothers and those who are suffering from any human rights, they are — suffering from any human rights, they are deprived. probably the next thln- they are deprived. probably the next thing that— they are deprived. probably the next thing that women will be told is to stop breathing. my expectation from the world _ stop breathing. my expectation from the world is to stand with the common— the world is to stand with the common principles instead of advocating for something that is actually— advocating for something that is actually has not responded. let�*s advocating for something that is actually has not responded. let's go back to mr ellwood. _ actually has not responded. let's go back to mr ellwood. did _ actually has not responded. let's go back to mr ellwood. did you - actually has not responded. let's go back to mr ellwood. did you meet i actually has not responded. let's go i back to mr ellwood. did you meet any women in afghanistan, do you talk to them and what you think of what fawzia koofi said?— them and what you think of what fawzia koofi said? many women as the are fawzia koofi said? many women as they are concerned, _ fawzia koofi said? many women as they are concerned, and _ fawzia koofi said? many women as they are concerned, and it - fawzia koofi said? many women as they are concerned, and it has - fawzia koofi said? many women as| they are concerned, and it has been expressed just now but the question

is, are we best place to influence what is going on