# good night and joy... # she's like a patron saint, isn't she? l i think everybody come to pay their respects to sinead and honour her, the trail—blazer that she was. she spoke the truth, the irish people loved her and we'll miss her. she'll be very, very sadly missed. she was such a heartfelt, soul—deep activist for what she believed in and what she cared about. earlier, a private funeral service had included prayers led by an iman to reflect her islamic faith. bob geldof was amongst those invited, while hothouse flowers lead singer liam maonla was in the crowd. she went in there to crazy territories for us, for the nation and for the world. # nothing compares to you... # in the video for nothing compares 2 u, sinead o'connor shed two

of the most famous tears in music history. today, the crying was all for her. colin paterson, bbc news, bray, county wicklow. sinead o'connor, laid to rest today. what's behind the big rise in shoplifting — the state of the economy, effective decriminalisation

of petty crime, or technological advancements? shoplifting's been described by some retailers as an epidemic. tonight we'll talk to the head of security atjohn lewis. china s economy is faltering, with exports falling at their fastest rate since the pandemic. what impact will a slowdown of the world's second largest economy have on our own — and all of us? as the chair of parliament's standards committee reveals he's been subject to inappropriate touching from five other mps — we'll speak to sir chris bryant about his ideas for reforming wesminster�*s culture. and — twin russian strikes on a city in eastern ukraine kill civilians,

and then hit rescuers. another war crime say ukrainian officials. we'll speak to a human rights lawyer who's conducted over 60 investigations in conflict areas around the world. good evening. what's behind the rise in theft in supermarkets and department stores across the uk? the co—op says it's seen an increase in criminal gangs storming some of its stores and stealing large amounts of produce. in some cases — it says its staff are being pysically abused or threatened with weapons. this isn't someone stealing a fizzy drink or a bag of crisps, it says, but organised criminals who want to shock and scare with maximum effect. cases of shoplifting are estimated to have gone up from 2.9 million in 2013 to 7.9 million last year according to the british retail consortium. so what's behind it? here's sima. a co—op store in london

in february of this year. cctv footage shows how men jumped over the counter to steal alcohol and cigarettes. the retailer says attacks like this one are on the rise, with criminal gangs sometimes physically assaulting staff or threatening them with weapons. you know, when i've worked in stores, i've had knives pulled out at me. verbal abuse. homophobia. recently, when i was in a store, two men came in with machetes, trying to steal cash. it's, it's frightening. and it's frightening for all my colleagues across manchester. cases of shoplifting are estimated to have risen from 2.9 million in 2017 to 7.9 million in 2021, while the value of the thefts during this time has risen from £663 million to £953 million. like in other stores, co—op staff are now using body worn cameras to deter rising levels of theft.

in our high risk stores colleagues have these body cameras, and when they feel threatened, they can press the button on it. and it goes straight to our security centre where they can see what's happening live. they can call the police, they can gather evidence. and this is a way of supporting the police as well. but also it's a deterrent. when colleagues are wearing this, we do see less abuse because people think twice of doing it. convenience stores are notjust a place where people buy a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. it sometimes acts as a place for locals to congregate, to grab a coffee, to have a chat with the shop assistant. and so when they're under attack, it can often feel like the local community is under attack, too, building a sense of fear and trepidation. now several shop workers from various supermarkets have told us self—checkout tills are making stores more vulnerable to theft. this shop worker from one of britain's most popular supermarkets doesn't want to be identified over fears he'll lose his job for talking to us.

so what we see in the supermarket chain, we see lots of automation and less and less members of staff, so they can pay less and less wages. the less people there are on the shop floor, the easier it is for the shoplifter. we only have one set of eyes, and if there's only a bare minimum of staff working, it's just so much easier for the shoplifter to walk in and out without being seen. the british retail consortium says self—checkout tills make shopping faster and more convenient for many customers. it says retailers are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on security staff, cctv, security tags and other anti—crime measures. but their own data shows the amount retailers have been spending on their security has fallen over the last several years. in manchester, vaughn allen, who runs the city's business improvement district, which works to better the local retail environment, believes this fall in spending has

had an impact. we're seeing a number of factors that have affected shoplifting from within shops over the last, i guess, post—covid. one has been the continuing process, which has happened over the last ten years of shops taking out entire layers of staff. and that means shop floor staff. the reduction that anybody will see in their local 7—eleven or the local supermarket is quite marked as they move to self—service. but it also means security staff going out. it also means area managers going out. so there are fewer eyes on people within a store and that inevitably has an impact. that move to self—service tills may have also had an unexpected effect. separate research shows 93 retail stores surveyed around the world, including some in the uk, said self—checkout systems accounted for almost half of what they call malicious business losses, such as people leaving without paying. we recognise that there are challenges around recruiting

people to work in retail at the moment, but at the same time they've certainly been on a drive to try and reduce their labour costs as much as they possibly can. and i think many now recognise that perhaps they've gone too far and they need to now have a much more realistic staffing model that doesn't expose them to as much risk as what we're seeing at the moment. it's no secret the dynamics of the shop floor have evolved with technological advancement, but with theft said to be on the rise, the question is whether it's the authorities or the stores that must do more to reduce the crime. let's talk to the security director atjohn lewis, lucy brown, richard inglis, who owns three franchise welcome stores�* in southampton and daniel garnham, president of the security industry federation — a trade union for security guards — and he is also a former police officer. richard inglis, how bad is it in

your stores and is it getting worse? today we had seven events of shoplifting in our three stores alone and two of them involved violence and one was a high value one, someone loading a bag full of meat and try to force their way at the door. we were able to recover the door. we were able to recover the stock but there was violence and threats involved and that's the kind of thing that we face every day coming to work. not quite the environment people believe it is. is it getting worse? massively - environment people believe it is. is it getting worse? massively so, - it getting worse? massively so, since before — it getting worse? massively so, since before the _ it getting worse? massively so, since before the pandemic - it getting worse? massively so, since before the pandemic it. it getting worse? massively so, l since before the pandemic it was it getting worse? massively so, - since before the pandemic it was not great, but since then things have escalated and even the last six months there seems to be apathy amongst the public where they do not feel that they need to pay for things and we see more organised crime and more repeat offenders. it is now a dayjob to come into stores and a regular basis to steal. and it is not hidden, it is blatant, they are not hiding it and they are

threatening with knives and physical assaults, pushing staff out of the way which is now commonplace. interesting he said that they filled a bag for life, essentially. one viewer says it is scary to think that theft can happen to any of us and they will do anything to grab stuff, even filling up a trolley. charlie and baskett runners are a big problem for us, it isjust how you can get as much out of the store as you can on a run. sometimes not just one person, sometimes teams of four orfive at just one person, sometimes teams of four or five at the same time so very difficult to prevent. you say it is not hidden _ very difficult to prevent. you say it is not hidden and _ very difficult to prevent. you say it is not hidden and lucy - very difficult to prevent. you say it is not hidden and lucy brown, | it is not hidden and lucy brown, your chairman told us last week that this is a crisis in plain sight and she said that shoplifting injohn lewis stores has gone up 26% this year. what sort of people are targeting your stores? we year. what sort of people are targeting your stores? we are seeing a mix of peeple. _

targeting your stores? we are seeing a mix of peeple. a — targeting your stores? we are seeing a mix of people, a real— targeting your stores? we are seeing a mix of people, a real increase - targeting your stores? we are seeing a mix of people, a real increase in i a mix of people, a real increase in organised — a mix of people, a real increase in organised gangs whose job it is to steal, _ organised gangs whose job it is to steal, they come in and get what they can — steal, they come in and get what they can and they steal for resale. we see _ they can and they steal for resale. we see a — they can and they steal for resale. we see a number of people i would class _ we see a number of people i would class as_ we see a number of people i would class as having chaotic lives who maybe _ class as having chaotic lives who maybe have substance issues who are stealing _ maybe have substance issues who are stealing and to assuage that addiction or to sell it on. we are fortunate — addiction or to sell it on. we are fortunate that we are not the worst affected _ fortunate that we are not the worst affected in — fortunate that we are not the worst affected in the market but the statistics make it clear from the british— statistics make it clear from the british retail consortium that is a real problem. why british retail consortium that is a real problem-— real problem. why is the big question? — real problem. why is the big question? drug _ real problem. why is the big question? drug addiction - real problem. why is the big question? drug addiction is| real problem. why is the big | question? drug addiction is a real problem. why is the big - question? drug addiction is a big thin for question? drug addiction is a big thing for the _ question? drug addiction is a big thing for the chaotic _ question? drug addiction is a big thing for the chaotic side - question? drug addiction is a big thing for the chaotic side of - question? drug addiction is a big thing for the chaotic side of it, . thing for the chaotic side of it, alcohol addiction and also no threat of prosecution. they become so used to doing it that they do not fear it any more. it isjust happening more and more. when you get away with something repeatedly with no consequence to it then why would they stop. it has become the day job. they stop. it has become the day “oh. ., , , ., , .,

job. your members are employed to presumably — job. your members are employed to presumably step _ job. your members are employed to presumably stop shoplifters, - job. your members are employed to presumably stop shoplifters, can - presumably stop shoplifters, can they do thatjob? ihlat presumably stop shoplifters, can they do that job?— they do that “ob? not really, because they do that job? not really, because they _ they do that job? not really, because they have _ they do that job? not really, because they have been - they do that job? not really, i because they have been trained they do that job? not really, - because they have been trained on how to deal with conflict and how to be a security guard which means that they protect property and protect people from harm. but then they get out of the shot floor and they are being told we do not want you to be involved, we do not want you to be hands—on with his people. there is the fear of so if i get my hands on his people i could be assaulted or badly injured and may not be able to carry on myjob. i could be for example sued by the actual fee. so you are between a rock and a hard place with our members because they want to do the job but they feel they have their hands behind their back. we have more and more people being disciplined by the company for getting involved because their policy and procedure say you are not to get involved but to stand back but that goes against human nature and goes against their nature as a

security guard. brute and goes against their nature as a security guard-— security guard. we have another messaue security guard. we have another message from — security guard. we have another message from a _ security guard. we have another message from a viewer - security guard. we have another message from a viewer who - security guard. we have another l message from a viewer who wants security guard. we have another - message from a viewer who wants to ask lucy brown aboutjohn lewis and its nonintervention policy. they say the criminals know that the store staff and even security risk losing theirjobs if they intervene to prevent shoplifters. i5 theirjobs if they intervene to prevent shoplifters.— theirjobs if they intervene to prevent shoplifters. is that fair? the first thing _ prevent shoplifters. is that fair? the first thing i _ prevent shoplifters. is that fair? the first thing i would _ prevent shoplifters. is that fair? the first thing i would say - prevent shoplifters. is that fair? the first thing i would say is - prevent shoplifters. is that fair? the first thing i would say is we | prevent shoplifters. is that fair? i the first thing i would say is we do not want _ the first thing i would say is we do not want anyone to be harmed in the workplace _ not want anyone to be harmed in the workplace. shot is not somewhere you should _ workplace. shot is not somewhere you should go _ workplace. shot is not somewhere you should go to _ workplace. shot is not somewhere you should go to work to be harmed so we do have _ should go to work to be harmed so we do have guides and specially trained partners _ do have guides and specially trained partners in — do have guides and specially trained partners in who are trained to deter but for— partners in who are trained to deter but for the — partners in who are trained to deter but for the majority partners who do not have _ but for the majority partners who do not have that training they should use things — not have that training they should use things like body worn cameras to make _ use things like body worn cameras to make sure _ use things like body worn cameras to make sure we can get good footage to share with _ make sure we can get good footage to share with the police to make sure that people are apprehended. but that people are apprehended. emit that seems like you are confirming that seems like you are confirming that there is a nonintervention policy and this viewer says that is driving crime. we policy and this viewer says that is driving crime.— driving crime. we take our responsibility _ driving crime. we take our responsibility seriously - driving crime. we take our| responsibility seriously and driving crime. we take our - responsibility seriously and want to deter— responsibility seriously and want to

deter as _ responsibility seriously and want to deter as many people as we can and we do _ deter as many people as we can and we do when — deter as many people as we can and we do when appropriate that the example — we do when appropriate that the example when we're not sure if someone — example when we're not sure if someone could be assaulted, i do not want anyone — someone could be assaulted, i do not want anyone to be harmed in the course _ want anyone to be harmed in the course of— want anyone to be harmed in the course of their work. so want anyone to be harmed in the course of their work.— want anyone to be harmed in the course of their work. so what is the oint of course of their work. so what is the point of employing _ course of their work. so what is the point of employing security? - course of their work. so what is the point of employing security? we i course of their work. so what is the point of employing security? we do that because _ point of employing security? we do that because they _ point of employing security? we do that because they are _ point of employing security? we do that because they are able - point of employing security? we do that because they are able to - point of employing security? we do | that because they are able to detain but sometimes you have armed gangs who threaten people and at that point _ who threaten people and at that point we — who threaten people and at that point we need the police to come and intervene _ point we need the police to come and intervene. ., , ., ., ~' intervene. keith works used to work as a uuard intervene. keith works used to work as a guard at _ intervene. keith works used to work as a guard at tesco _ intervene. keith works used to work as a guard at tesco and _ intervene. keith works used to work as a guard at tesco and he - intervene. keith works used to work as a guard at tesco and he says - intervene. keith works used to workj as a guard at tesco and he says that the police do nothing, unless it is repeat offenders over £300 so they know that they will get a suspended sentence if for example they claim addiction. is that your experience of the police? brute addiction. is that your experience of the police?— of the police? we have to “ump throu~h of the police? we have to “ump through a i of the police? we have to “ump through a let i of the police? we have to “ump through a lot of i of the police? we have to “ump through a lot of hoops h of the police? we have to “ump through a lot of hoops to h of the police? we have tojump through a lot of hoops to get i through a lot of hoops to get prosecution, we have to provide entry and exit. what does that mean? we have to show them coming in and exiting with the stock and then a clear face shot and that it is over a set value to have any hope of

getting a prosecution. normally the only chance of that is if someone has done it multiple times so in reality someone can come in and steal a large amount of stock without fear of prosecution. but the idea that you _ without fear of prosecution. but the idea that you have _ without fear of prosecution. but the idea that you have to _ without fear of prosecution. but the idea that you have to show- without fear of prosecution. but the idea that you have to show entry . without fear of prosecution. but the | idea that you have to show entry and exit and a clear face shot is fair enough? it exit and a clear face shot is fair enou~h? ,, exit and a clear face shot is fair enou~h? , , , , , enough? it is but the burden is 'ust increasin: enough? it is but the burden is 'ust increasing on — enough? it is but the burden is 'ust increasing on us i enough? it is but the burden is 'ust increasing on us so i enough? it is but the burden is 'ust increasing on us so now if i enough? it is but the burden is 'ust increasing on us so now if we h enough? it is but the burden isjust increasing on us so now if we do i enough? it is but the burden isjust| increasing on us so now if we do not actually know the name of that person we cannot identify them, the chances of it getting a prosecution is low because the police just do not have the resources to identify these people. share not have the resources to identify these people-— not have the resources to identify these people. are you then saying that shoplifting — these people. are you then saying that shoplifting is _ these people. are you then saying that shoplifting is decriminalised? j that shoplifting is decriminalised? essentially, yes, it is so hard to get prosecution and the government has essentially turned shoplifting into a non—crime. that is notjust a police issue, the cps are not prosecuting, the courts do not have the space, the jails do not have the space and jails with the courts are

not taking it seriously. i5 space and jails with the courts are not taking it seriously. is it decriminalised? _ not taking it seriously. is it decriminalised? i- not taking it seriously. is it decriminalised? i think - not taking it seriously. is it decriminalised? i think it is difficult _ decriminalised? i think it is difficult to get prosecution. it is not that— difficult to get prosecution. it is not that we are trying to abdicate our responsibilities, we take them seriously— our responsibilities, we take them seriously as retailers but this is a society— seriously as retailers but this is a society problem and we need everyone to help _ society problem and we need everyone to help to _ society problem and we need everyone to help to resolve it. dan, society problem and we need everyone to help to resolve it.— to help to resolve it. dan, you talked about _ to help to resolve it. dan, you talked about some _ to help to resolve it. dan, you talked about some members. to help to resolve it. dan, you - talked about some members think there assaulted which no one wants to see happen but is that not part of the job sometimes? it to see happen but is that not part of the job sometimes?— of the job sometimes? it is the nature of the _ of the job sometimes? it is the nature of the role, _ of the job sometimes? it is the nature of the role, i _ of the job sometimes? it is the nature of the role, i agree. - of the job sometimes? it is the j nature of the role, i agree. our security officers need to be backed up, they are professional people and the go to work to protect people and stock but we need to help them. they cannot always been favour of the thieves all the time, we have to empower them to do theirjob and detainees people. and have more than just one person, give them a bit of back—up and some protective clothing

etc. but at the same time we do not want members to be heard so we are not telling them to go gung ho and all guns blazing, we want them to be protected. so security guards are confused, they're not sure whether they should or shouldn't, and whatever they choose seems to be the wrong decision. many of us will have seen videos if security guards interfering and that goes viral so do you think retailers don't want that kind of publicity? i'm sure it is bad publicity but think what it tends to show is that that it backs up what you are saying, there is this lawlessness and bravado are people going in and taking stuff and when somebody has the nerve even to stand up to them and say you should not be doing that, they are quite happy to get quite handy with these people. like you said, we have seen on tiktok a security guard on the floor with

four or five young men, security guard on the floor with four orfive young men, atjd sports for example. we need to give a bit of power back to the shop workers and security and at the same time, and security and at the same time, and i'm a former police officer, we need the police to be able to investigate these crimes and take them seriously. d0 investigate these crimes and take them seriously.— investigate these crimes and take them seriously. do you differentiate between somebody _ them seriously. do you differentiate between somebody who _ them seriously. do you differentiate between somebody who comes - them seriously. do you differentiate between somebody who comes in i them seriously. do you differentiate i between somebody who comes in and takes some nappies, steels nappies, and somebody steals an iphone or a bag of life full of meat? i and somebody steals an iphone or a bag of life full of meat?— bag of life full of meat? i think it's a misconception _ bag of life full of meat? i think it's a misconception that - bag of life full of meat? i think it's a misconception that is - bag of life full of meat? i think it's a misconception that is the j it's a misconception that is the type _ it's a misconception that is the type that — it's a misconception that is the type that think of the people are stealing — type that think of the people are stealing food. fire type that think of the people are stealing food.— type that think of the people are stealinr food. �* ,, ., �*, stealing food. are you saying that's not happening? _ stealing food. are you saying that's not happening? that _ stealing food. are you saying that's not happening? that it's _ stealing food. are you saying that's not happening? that it's not - stealing food. are you saying that's not happening? that it's not to - stealing food. are you saying that's not happening? that it's not to be. not happening? that it's not to be with the cost of living struggle that so many people are having? igrgte that so many people are having? we are seeing a lot of it at our level, it's more — are seeing a lot of it at our level, it's more to — are seeing a lot of it at our level, it's more to do with addiction problems— it's more to do with addiction problems and if somebody is stealing fresh meat, it's not because they are hungry— fresh meat, it's not because they are hungry for that day, it's because _ are hungry for that day, it's because they're selling it on the street— because they're selling it on the street and its supporting addiction and drug _ street and its supporting addiction and drug dealing and petty crime point _ and drug dealing and petty crime point of— and drug dealing and petty crime point of the people coming in, they are not— point of the people coming in, they are notjust — point of the people coming in, they are notjust shoplifting, they are

doing _ are notjust shoplifting, they are doing commercial burglaries, assaulting people on the streets, these _ assaulting people on the streets, these are — assaulting people on the streets, these are nasty individuals and they are not— these are nasty individuals and they are not being taken off the streets and having a security guard is great but if _ and having a security guard is great but if we _ and having a security guard is great but if we can't get a prosecution, we will— but if we can't get a prosecution, we will detain that guy or lady today— we will detain that guy or lady today but they are back on the street — today but they are back on the street the next day doing the same thing _ street the next day doing the same thing and _ street the next day doing the same thing and we are playing this silly game _ thing and we are playing this silly game at — thing and we are playing this silly game at the moment. until we can start to _ game at the moment. until we can start to look at how to stop the problem — start to look at how to stop the problem and teach these people it's not acceptable behaviour. it long—term but i'm seeing things at the moment where crimes in one county— the moment where crimes in one county or— the moment where crimes in one county or people do is move to the next county— county or people do is move to the next county along the whole process starts _ next county along the whole process starts again. they have got wise to it and _ starts again. they have got wise to it and we _ starts again. they have got wise to it and we need to start approaching it and we need to start approaching it differently and at the moment what _ it differently and at the moment what we're doing is not working in this country. what we're doing is not working in this country-— this country. thank you all very much. the world's second largest economy, china, seems to be experiencing an alarming slowdown according to new trade data released today. but it now looks possible that the us economy — which was widely predicted recently to be teetering on the edge of recession — could

now avoid that fate. meanwhile a new cloud of gloom hangs over the eurozone economy, despite the sharp decline in energy prices. so what is going on in the global economy? and what does it mean for the economy here in the uk — and all of us? it's a confusing picture. to help make it clearer — here's ben, with newsnight�*s global tracker. we had some worrying data from the world s second largest economy today. chinese exports injuly suffered their biggest year—on—year drop since the pandemic. chinese imports also fell more sharply than expected. and china is grappling not with inflation, like most of the rest of the world, but the risk of deflation — that's falling prices. what does it all mean and why does it matter to you? we're going to explain this through newsnight s global tracker lens. first of all, china's economy is unquestionably in a tricky spot. since the financial crisis in 2008, the country has relied on commercial and residential construction to drive growth. but that engine has been spluttering for some time due to a gargantuan and destabilising build—up of debt incurred to finance it. after the pandemic, there was a surge in global demand

for goods, which helped china's exporters. but now, as the latest data confirms, that boost also seems to be fading and domestic demand is weak too, despite the lifting of draconian covid restrictions on the chinese population late last year. so where does all that leave the chinese economy? the latest forecast from the oecd from june is 5.1% of gdp growth next year. that might sound impressive by western standards but it would be one of the weakest annual expansions for china in decades. let's also look at the oecd�*s latest projections for the g7, including the uk, for 202a. china towers above the rest and the weakest are the us and the uk onjust i%. but this is actually a good example of why we should be wary of forecasts, or rather not take them as gospel. because since those forecasts came out injune, the outlook in some

of these economies has shifted quite dramatically. the us, which was last year widely expected by analysts to be entering recession this year, is looking rather healthier, with some analysts saying it might actually achieve a soft landing, despite the aggressive interest rate hikes of its central bank. similarly, the bank of england forecast last week that the uk would, after all, narrowly avoid a recession. the outlook for the eurozone, where christine lagarde heads the central bank, on the other hand, is looking much bleaker than expected quite recently, with the recession risk on the continent said to be rising. but why does what happens in the global economy matter to us in the uk? well, the simplest way to think about this is to recognise that we are still an economy that is heavily reliant on trade. add up the value of all our exports and all our imports and you get to around 64% of the entire economy, which is, as you can see, actually much higher than the us, on 26%, and china, on 36%.

we're more in line with our european counterparts. the bottom line is that trade really matters to our economy. now, the uk's trade has taken a hit since brexit. here's the trade intensity of the rest of the g7 — trade as a share of the economy. and here's the uk. as you can see, a markedly worse performance since we left the single market. analysts say that's one of the reasons our economy has been so weak lately. exports are a very important part of our economy and so global growth is very important. as a result, we do need to care about what happens to our trading partners. if they are struggling, if growth is weak, if they are in recession, then we will see the impact on uk exports and we will see the impact on broader uk activity. so, why does the condition of the global economy — china, europe, the united states etc — matter to you? if the demand for uk goods and services is weaker

because our key trading partners are slowing down, we will, ultimately, feel it in our wages, our incomes, ourjobs and general living standards. there has been much said in recent months about the conduct of some of those elected to our parliament. here on this programme we've revealed shocking allegations of sexual harrassment and a culture in which power imbalances are allowed to fester and where many younger members of staff feel unable to trust the systems put in place to protect them. now a new voice has added his own account of falling victim to harrassment. sir chris bryant, the labour chairman of the committee on standards and priveleges — that's the group of mps whose job it is to uphold standards in parliament — says he himself has been inappropriately touched during his two decades in parliament by six mps. _by —— by five mps. the allegations of sexual misconduct come, of course, against a backdrop of wider concerns about behaviour during a parliamentary period which has been fractious and mired in scandal. sir chris bryant has written a book — code of conduct —

why we need to fix parliament and how to do it, and he's here. thank you for coming on the programme. we will talk about sexual harassment a little later but more broadly, do you think the reputation of mps in the eyes of the public is at a low point right now? i of mps in the eyes of the public is at a low point right now?- at a low point right now? i think parliament _ at a low point right now? i think parliament is _ at a low point right now? i think parliament is in _ at a low point right now? i think parliament is in real— at a low point right now? i think parliament is in real trouble, i at a low point right now? i think. parliament is in real trouble, both parliament is in real trouble, both parliament itself and the 650 of us there at the moment. if you look at there at the moment. if you look at the statistic and i will only do one at you, 22 mps in this parliament have been suspended for a day or more or have left parliament before a report into their conduct was brought forward. that is, by a country mile, the worst parliament in our history. that may be partly because we have got more punitive, we now have a system for dealing with sexual harassment issues docked the independent grievance complaints system. the scheme which looks at thoseissues system. the scheme which looks at those issues and i should say, in relation to the comments i made

about my own situation, all of those are 15 years ago or more and i feel ashamed in a way that we had a time in parliament where we pushed everything under the very elegant carpet and we really mustn't do that any more. i carpet and we really mustn't do that an more. , ., i. , _, any more. i will put to you second “obs and any more. i will put to you second jobs and earning _ any more. i will put to you second jobs and earning money _ any more. i will put to you second jobs and earning money outside . any more. i will put to you second jobs and earning money outside a| jobs and earning money outside a parliament, are they one of the big reasons the public might have lost faith in our politicians? yes. reasons the public might have lost faith in our politicians?— faith in our politicians? yes, but the keeper _ faith in our politicians? yes, but the keeper that _ faith in our politicians? yes, but the keeper that is _ faith in our politicians? yes, but the keeper that is where - faith in our politicians? yes, but the keeper that is where there l faith in our politicians? yes, but| the keeper that is where there is faith in our politicians? yes, but i the keeper that is where there is a conflict—of—interest punter in the owen paterson case, the former northern ireland secretary was being paid to act as a consultant for a couple of companies and he was peddling influence, trying to get a contract on behalf of those companies around westminster. clearly out of order, it had been out of order... clearly out of order, it had been out of order. . ._ clearly out of order, it had been out of order... some people might sa it is out of order... some people might say it is out— out of order... some people might say it is out of— out of order... some people might say it is out of order _ out of order... some people might say it is out of order that _ out of order... some people might say it is out of order that david - say it is out of order that david lammy has a show on lbc radio, nadine dorries writes a newspaper columns as a tv presenter, you write a book. these are second jobs and outside earnings. is that out of control? i outside earnings. is that out of control? ~ �* , , ., control? i think it's very important that anything _

control? i think it's very important that anything we _ control? i think it's very important that anything we do _ control? i think it's very important that anything we do is _ control? i think it's very important that anything we do is registered i that anything we do is registered because people should be able to see our earnings from outside, whether it is earned income or i would also argue unearned income so at the moment you can add up to 15% shareholding in the company and i have to register it. but shareholding in the company and i have to register it.— have to register it. but i'm asking if ou have to register it. but i'm asking if you think _ have to register it. but i'm asking if you think it's _ have to register it. but i'm asking if you think it's out _ have to register it. but i'm asking if you think it's out of— have to register it. but i'm asking if you think it's out of control. - if you think it's out of control. when you look at the figures, boris johnson earned 6 million since last september after quitting as prime minister and before resigning at uxbridge mp, and conservatives of geoffrey cox since 1919 and over 2 million from nine different law firms. labour'sjess phillips wrote a book —— since 2019. she earned over £230,000. that might sound out of control to some people. i over £230,000. that might sound out of control to some people.— of control to some people. i write a whole chapter— of control to some people. i write a whole chapter in _ of control to some people. i write a whole chapter in the _ of control to some people. i write a whole chapter in the book - of control to some people. i write a whole chapter in the book about. of control to some people. i write a | whole chapter in the book about this and i agree we have to go further to tackle some of the issues around second jobs, completely. tackle some of the issues around secondjobs, completely. ifi tackle some of the issues around second jobs, completely. if i answer directly the issue about me writing a book, iwould directly the issue about me writing a book, i would argue that writing a book about parliament, campaigning for parliament to change, to reform

the way it does its business is actually central to my being an mp. of course you would argue that because you've written the book and you being paid for it. you could write a column in a newspaper, do an interview about it on this programme. i5 interview about it on this programme-— interview about it on this programme. interview about it on this rrroramme. , , ., programme. is where there is a conflict of _ programme. is where there is a conflict of interest, _ programme. is where there is a conflict of interest, where - programme. is where there is a conflict of interest, where you i conflict of interest, where you think your role as an in pay and appropriate to pursue something else. i think it's fine, i think there's a good argument to say that you should not have mps any more on that revolving door with broadcasting because how can you be an independent person presenting the news on a news channel, interviewing another mp? that doesn't make any kind of sense punter and that applies to whatever party? of course. , , ,., ., ~ course. everything in my book a- lies course. everything in my book applies to _ course. everything in my book applies to everybody - course. everything in my book applies to everybody from - course. everything in my book applies to everybody from any course. everything in my book- applies to everybody from any party. is inevitable that if you write a book about contact, someone like me will present with an example of your own conduct and you can comment on it. in october last year you sit in parliament, i sought members being physically manhandled into another lobby and being bullied the speaker rejected your claim, the audit

report an investigation so have you corrected that in the commons? i have spoken about it in the book and written specifically about it. haste written specifically about it. have ou written specifically about it. have you collected _ written specifically about it. have you collected in _ written specifically about it. have you collected in the _ written specifically about it. have you collected in the commons because it was miss misleading? i don't get was. according to lindsay hoyle, it was. according to lindsay hoyle, it was. i was. according to lindsay hoyle, it was. , ., ., ., ., was. i sit on that occasion i had seen manhandling _ was. i sit on that occasion i had seen manhandling punter- was. i sit on that occasion i had seen manhandling punter i - was. i sit on that occasion i had seen manhandling punter i was| was. i sit on that occasion i had - seen manhandling punter i was wrong about that i have corrected the record about that. in about that i have corrected the record about that.— about that i have corrected the record about that. in the commons? on record about that. in the commons? 0n countless — record about that. in the commons? on countless programmes... - record about that. in the commons? on countless programmes... but - record about that. in the commons? i on countless programmes... but those are the rules. — on countless programmes... but those are the rules. you _ on countless programmes... but those are the rules, you have _ on countless programmes... but those are the rules, you have to _ on countless programmes... but those are the rules, you have to do _ on countless programmes... but those are the rules, you have to do it - on countless programmes... but those are the rules, you have to do it in - are the rules, you have to do it in the commons. i’m are the rules, you have to do it in the commons-— are the rules, you have to do it in the commons. i'm hesitating only because i the commons. i'm hesitating only because i can't— the commons. i'm hesitating only because i can't remember- the commons. i'm hesitating only. because i can't remember precisely what the words were i said a few weeks later in the house of commons but i've certainly corrected, mostly, victoria, i have corrected the record. but let me say this, —— honestly, victoria pondered what i saw in the lobby is that there was bullying. saw in the lobby is that there was bull in. ., saw in the lobby is that there was bull inr. ., ., . . ., saw in the lobby is that there was bull inr. ., ., saw in the lobby is that there was bull in. ., ., bullying. not according to lindsay ho le. i'm bullying. not according to lindsay hoyle- i'm sorry. _ bullying. not according to lindsay hoyle. i'm sorry, but _ bullying. not according to lindsay hoyle. i'm sorry, but i _ bullying. not according to lindsay hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know- bullying. not according to lindsay hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 i hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 other mps— hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 other mps who _ hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 other mps who said _ hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 other mps who said at - hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 other mps who said at the - hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20| other mps who said at the same hoyle. i'm sorry, but i know 20 - other mps who said at the same time it was bullying. i should not have used the word manhandling, it was

kettling, really. you used the word manhandling, it was kettling, really-— kettling, really. you should have been more _ kettling, really. you should have been more careful— kettling, really. you should have been more careful with - kettling, really. you should have been more careful with your- been more careful with your language?— language? and i said that categorically _ language? and i said that categorically in _ language? and i said that categorically in the - language? and i said that i categorically in the chamber language? and i said that - categorically in the chamber and those precise words two weeks ago. but let me take this to really important point, which is, i think the whole attitude of the way we do our business in parliament, the argy—bargy in premises questions, the way we treat each other, is doing damage to the way people view democracy in this country —— in prime minister's questions punt you're quite right to pick me up if i was precisely right, i shouldn't have said manhandled, but i hold to the fact that what i saw, by my standards, was bullying. and there was one way to deal with it, which is to have cameras in the division lobbies conduct that would be amazing. and the whole country can decide. ., ., , . , decide. you tweeted out pictures which is also _ decide. you tweeted out pictures which is also against _ decide. you tweeted out pictures which is also against commons i decide. you tweeted out pictures - which is also against commons rules. and i have apologised for that. i have loads to ask you. stop

ministers briefing newspapers, for example, about an announcement before they go to the comment and tell colleagues? —— would you stop ministers ponder the minister code says ministers must make announcements first to the house of commons and it does not happen, all the time. i commons and it does not happen, all the time. ., r' commons and it does not happen, all the time. . w , the time. i asked the independent adviser on the _ the time. i asked the independent adviser on the ministerial- the time. i asked the independent adviser on the ministerial code - the time. i asked the independent adviser on the ministerial code a i adviser on the ministerial code a few weeks ago whether he would investigate because it is breached day in, day out, and lindsay hoyle, appropriately, as become has endlessly been telling off ministers. i think we should decide that it ministers. i think we should decide thatitis ministers. i think we should decide that it is a breach of the house of commons and you will be suspended from the house if you keep on doing it. ., ., , ., from the house if you keep on doing it. ., ., i. ,., from the house if you keep on doing it. how would you prove they have briefed the — it. how would you prove they have briefed the newspaper? _ it. how would you prove they have briefed the newspaper? it - it. how would you prove they have briefed the newspaper? it is - it. how would you prove they have briefed the newspaper? it is self i briefed the newspaper? it is self evident in many _ briefed the newspaper? it is self evident in many cases. - briefed the newspaper? it is self evident in many cases. there - briefed the newspaper? it is self| evident in many cases. there was briefed the newspaper? it is self - evident in many cases. there was one budget were i think every single statistic that was in the budget had already appeared in the papers beforehand. and the truth is all the speaker would have to do is say it once, listen, administer, you are

out on your ear because this has got out on your ear because this has got out before it came to the house of commons and let's face it, rishi sunak himself, when he was announcing a major new policy about what to do about the workforce in the nhs, he did it on a friday afternoon when he could have waited until the monday in the house of commons. the speaker told them up but nothing happened. the commons. the speaker told them up but nothing happened.— but nothing happened. the changes ou have but nothing happened. the changes you have suggested _ but nothing happened. the changes you have suggested in _ but nothing happened. the changes you have suggested in your- but nothing happened. the changes you have suggested in your book i but nothing happened. the changes. you have suggested in your book and you have suggested in your book and you have suggested in your book and you have spoken about this evening, if those changes don't happen, i don't know if you have been given any assurances from keir starmer if labour win the next election that he would bring the same, but what are your worries? mr; would bring the same, but what are your worries?— your worries? my biggest worry is that cynical _ your worries? my biggest worry is that cynical people _ your worries? my biggest worry is that cynical people look _ your worries? my biggest worry is that cynical people look at - that cynical people look at parliament and there are big systemic problems as well, ppe contracts given out to cronies, the pork barrelling that goes on with the towns front and the levelling up a fund where ministers effectively write checks to individual mps are part that has to change but my worry is that if people become so cynical

about british politics, theyjust give up on democracy itself and that is when hard right or hard leftjust to take advantage and seek to undermine democracy itself. i was in the gym in my constituency a few weeks ago, it was the day after the report came out about borisjohnson and whether he lied to parliament, and whether he lied to parliament, and a young lad came up to me, must have been 19 and he said, you know what, if borisjohnson gets away with this lying, there's no point in voting in this country any more. but he didn't so the system worked. voting in this country any more. but| he didn't so the system worked. you could argue — he didn't so the system worked. gm. could argue except that the prime minister never bothered to up for the vote on owen paterson, never bothered for the —— to turn up on whether boris johnson bothered for the —— to turn up on whether borisjohnson have lied to parliament, and gave no advice to his own mps as to whether it was inappropriate to hold the committee that looked into borisjohnson as kangaroo court so i think there are still real problems.— kangaroo court so i think there are still real problems. thank you very much for coming _ still real problems. thank you very much for coming on. _ still real problems. thank you very much for coming on. in _ still real problems. thank you very much for coming on. in the - still real problems. thank you very much for coming on. in the book. still real problems. thank you veryj much for coming on. in the book is out next week.—

much for coming on. in the book is out next week. thank you for telling eve bod ! a deadly russian attack on a city in eastern ukraine in the last 2a hours appeared to be designed to specifically target paramedics and rescuers — that's according to ukrainian officials — and if true, it's a potential war crime. emergency workers arrived on the scene to treat the wounded and dig people out from under the rubble, only to be targeted themselves in a second missile strike. in a moment we'll talk to a human rights lawyer dr anya neystat, from the clooney foundation forjustice, who's carried out 60 investigations in conflict zones. first, here's emir. early monday evening in pokrovsk, a city 30 miles from the donetsk front lines. a missile hits an apartment block, home also to a restaurant popular with aid workers and journalists. a0 minutes later, a second strike.

translation: the phone rang. a neighbour was asking how i was. and then that's it. bang! the flames filled up my eyes. i fell down on the floor, onto the ground. translation: the first impact came. we were not hit. all was ok. i was talking on the phone, sitting, and then suddenly this flew out and it fell, wrapping me up. then the window fell on me. my back has cuts. translation: the first missile arrived at 7:15. | the second missile arrived almost a0 minutes later. almost all of the wounded are those who were on the street. so far, seven are known to have died and over 80 wounded. among those injured, police, rescuers and children. five civilians and two emergency workers among those killed, including 53—year—old andrei marchenko, deputy head of the local state emergency service.

translation: iskander| missiles against ordinary residential buildings. the second missile strike, unfortunately, resulted in the death of a member of the state emergency service. we have seen in the past russia targeting those who deliver humanitarian aid, by the so—called, as you say, double tap tactics. we sincerely hope that this is not something that will become a routine now for the aggressors. what we can say with certainty is that the whole campaign of missile terror against ukraine, the aim of it is to break the will of the ukrainian people. some believe what happens bears the hallmark of a so called double tap attack, and if so, it wouldn't be the first time russia has been accused of it. it's a tactic that's been denounced by many as a war crime that aims to hit the civilians and first responders who pull survivors from the rubble of a first strike. and it's a strategy that breeds terror and fear in local populations.

in syria's civil war, the un and rights groups accused russian planes of numerous double tap strikes in areas home to those rebelling against their ally, president bashar al—assad. now, some believe they're bringing this tactic to europe. ben emmerson is a barrister working with the ukrainian government to mount legal cases against russia. the so—called double tap strike is one of the most insidious forms of unlawful combat because it involves the deliberate targeting of medical and other protected personnel involved as first responders. we've seen a number of instances of double strikes, at least four or five, in which it seems very apparent that a deliberate strike has been mounted on those who were seeking

to render assistance. what do you think the likelihood is that this incident will be logged, picked up and ultimately prosecuted? the short answer is it is certain that those particular instances of secondary strikes on first responders are being, and i can say that categorically, investigated on the ground, the hallmarks of armed forces designed or set on a course of waging armed conflict without regard to the rules of international humanitarian law, so the rules of the laws of war, in other words. another grim case to be recorded in a war daily witness to violence that respects no rules, where any target, any person, is becoming fair game and justice feels ever more distant. let's talk to dr anya neistat. she's the legal director

of something called the docket initiative at the clooney foundation forjustice, she gathers evidence on war crimes. and you have just moved to ukraine with your husband to carry out this kind of work?— kind of work? indeed. i have been workinr kind of work? indeed. i have been working in — kind of work? indeed. i have been working in conflict _ kind of work? indeed. i have been working in conflict areas _ kind of work? indeed. i have been working in conflict areas for - kind of work? indeed. i have been working in conflict areas for most| working in conflict areas for most of my career. and we are focused on ukraine since the beginning of the full invasion last february, working and documenting patterns of crimes and documenting patterns of crimes and it made more sense to be here on the ground. in and it made more sense to be here on the round. , and it made more sense to be here on the ground-— the ground. in this twin missile strike today — the ground. in this twin missile strike today in _ the ground. in this twin missile strike today in eastern - the ground. in this twin missile strike today in eastern ukraine| strike today in eastern ukraine happened to you in syria. can you describe to our viewers what it was like? ~ , , ., y describe to our viewers what it was like? ~ , ., like? absolutely, and as we mentioned _ like? absolutely, and as we mentioned in _ like? absolutely, and as we mentioned in the _ like? absolutely, and as we mentioned in the previous i like? absolutely, and as we - mentioned in the previous report it is a tactic that was widely used in syria and it did happen in aleppo

when we documented a strike on a hospital in the middle of the city and literally perhaps 15 or 20 minutes after the first strike just as the rescuers rushed to help the wounded in the first strike, the second strike hit. and it happened in syria over and again and of course it isjust in syria over and again and of course it is just an absolutely horrendous seam as you can imagine. people who are trying to help those covered in blood, you know getting them the rubble, already wounded. and there it was also the children and adults as well. and medical workers. and at that moment and other strike hits. and in syria it was plain is making a second round to come to the same place to hit the same target. and in ukraine it is

quite worrisome to think that that might be