# now and then # i miss you...# this is it — one final beatles song, released 43 years afterjohn lennon died. i was talking to yoko and she said, "ah, i think i've got a tape ofjohn". the audio on that cassette was thought to be unusable, until new computer technology allowed the remaining beatles to pulljohn lennon's voice out and make it sound like he was recording at abbey road again. # i know it's true...# it's absolutely wonderful. and having the voice ofjohn lennon on it, it's a beautiful thing. it's quite sad that that's it, i that's the end of an era but, you know, what a song to bow outwith! - when they broke up in 1970, it really was an acrimonious break—up. so what this song allows us to do is really have a more gentle and poignant goodbye.

it's the sound of four friends making music across time and space — and maybe the final chapter of rock's most influential band. mark savage, bbc news. time for a look at the weather. here's stav da naos.

cheering. until all people, israelis and palestinians between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.

free, free palestine. days after being suspended for using that controversial phrase at a rally for gaza, the labour mp andy mcdonald doubles down on his choice of language, telling us it wasn't provocative but a call for peace. suspended from the labour party, but andy mcdonald tells newsnight his speech was misunderstood, his critics inside the labour party should be careful about their words, and he meant it to support the right of israel to exist alongside a palestinian state. absolutely not to be provocative

but to pursue the cause of peace. i mean, please, i beg everybody to look at the words that i used, calling for israelis and palestinians to li in peaceful liberty together. we'll ask two influential figures his intervention is enough to get him back into the labour party. also tonight. the covid inquiry hears more explosive testimony — this time from the witness statement for the head of the nhs, who claims the then health secretary matt hancock, wanted to be the one who decided who lived and who died if the nhs was overwhelmed. i certainly wanted to discourage the idea that an individual secretary of state should be deciding how care would be provided. and a major newsnight investigation revels how putin's cronies are still dodging british anti money laundering laws by going through the seychelles.

you don't have to file anything ever again, there are no accounts. that's it, just a piece of paper with a couple of names and an address on, and you have now got yourself an english limited partnership. good evening. in an exclusive interview for newsnight, andy mcdonald, who has been suspended as a labour mp, following his fiery speech at a pro—palestinian rally on saturday, for using the phrase "between the river and the sea," is standing by his comments which have been deemed by the labour party as "deeply offensive." the phrase "between the river and the sea" refers to the land between the riverjordan and the mediterranean sea. critics of the expression argue it implicitly calls for the destruction of israel. but andy mcdonald refused to apologise, on the grounds that he'd been misunderstood and that he used the phrase to express his desire for israelis and palestinians to live side by side in the middle east. speaking to nick, he added that keir starmer was wrong to refuse to call for a ceasefire.

nick spoke to andy mcdonald earlier this evening, and asked him whether, at such a sensitive time, did he not need to be exceptionally careful in his use of language? after all, a senior labour source told newsnight that it was a provocative phrase. absolutely not to be provocative, but to pursue the cause of peace. i mean, please, i beg everybody to look at the words that i used, calling for israelis and palestinians to live in peaceful liberty together. you know, i'm not provoking a view to say that israel should not exist, or palestinian should be eradicated, and that the settlements expand and so on, i'm saying the exact opposite. i'm saying please, the only way we will resolve this isn't through military means, it is through a peace process that needs to be resurrected. so you are saying your wording

was actually a call for a two—state solution. it's a call for peace. and a two state solution. and a two—state solution. but why didn't you say two state solution outright, because you ended that particular part of your speech, and indeed ended your speech saying "free palestine" twice? well, let's examine that, because the people have called for free palestine, and i have empathy and sympathy with their cause, because what they want for themselves, in the west bank and in gaza, is to live in freedom, without the threat of violence, to be able to conduct their lives in accordance with basic human rights. is that really too much to ask? they were asking for their freedom in the west bank, and in gaza, not to be caged in the biggest open air prison in the world. that surely is not an unreasonable ask. i would say it's a legitimate ask for palestine, in gaza and in the west bank, to be free, for the people to live free and fulfilled lives, without fear of violence, without their lands and their properties being taken from them by force.

i think that's perfectly proper, and it is legitimate aspiration and ambition. given what is seen as the historical resonance of that phrase, "between the river and the sea", do you regret using it? i used those words to calibrate and move the debate in the direction of peace and a two—state solution. we are talking about geography in the middle east. that term has been used by a number of actors to mean a variety of things — freedom for palestine in the west bank and in gaza. it has been abused by people wanting a different outcome, a different solution, and not a two—state solution but predicated on the eradication of palestine or of israel.

and i depart from that vehemently, and this is why i am using the words that i did, carefully calibrated, to make sure that my meaning was clear. so no apology now, but if the chief whip was to say so you, "andy mcdonald, you need to apologise, to get the whip back", would you do that? well, we have just started the conversation, i have said that i trust that my clarification and explanation will be satisfactory to the labour party. and when lord mandelson picks up on the phrase you used the other day and says that you deserve to be out of the tent, he has the ear of keir starmer, do you think he is speaking for himself or reflecting some leadership thinking? i can only take peter mandelson, lord peter mandelson, at his word, and for him to interpret my remarks that seek peace and a two—state solution, and people living side by side in peace, as somehow capable of being

interpreted as promoting the destruction of israel, is quite frankly kafka—esque and perverse, and he should withdraw his remark. what we need now is careful comments, not factional indulgence and personal vendettas, whatever it may well be that peter mandelson is conducting. i think he should consider his words much more carefully than he has. in your speech you said that hamas was guilty of terrible crimes in israel on the 7th october, but you are saying — you then said, but that is not the reason why israel is taking the action in gaza, and you quoted a resident of the rafah area of gaza, saying "this is about ethnic cleansing." so are you saying that what israel is doing now in gaza is not

an act of self—defence, you are saying it is ethnic cleansing? look, let's wind that back because 1,400 people in israel were butchered by hamas, and i condemn their barbarity outright. they have taken hostages, innocent people, and they have got to be returned to their families. that has to be stressed and said. but we have to also understand that the origins and the context of this dreadful upsurge in horrific violence didn't start in october 2023. this has a long history of people being denied their rights. i'm joined now by andrew fisher, who was executive director of policy for labour underjeremy corbyn.

and in our salford studio, the former labour mp and honorary president of thejewish labour movement — dame louise ellman. good evening to you both 678 louise ellman you said on monday it was outray ask just he ellman you said on monday it was outray askjust he used the phrase river to the sea. you have heard him telling us there he supports a two—state solution, so are you in agreement? two-state solution, so are you in agreement?— two-state solution, so are you in aureement? , ., , ., , agreement? the use of the phrase between the _ agreement? the use of the phrase between the river _ agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and _ agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and the - agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and the sea, - agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and the sea, in i between the river and the sea, in the context of a very angry rally, a very angry pro palestine rally does mean the annihilation of israel and it is taken to mean that, we have a very, very difficult background building up here, there have been 800 anti—jewish hate crimes in this country since the massacre of moo people in israel, the biggest loss of life since the holocaust, when jewish children are afraid to show they arejewish and going to school and jewish students are having trouble. the jewish

and jewish students are having trouble. thejewish community are very uneasy an fearful as british citizens here in this country. so people should think what they are saying, in the context of that rally that phrase is known to mean the anigh laying of israel. 50 that phrase is known to mean the anigh laying of israel.— that phrase is known to mean the anigh laying of israel. so you don't believe what _ anigh laying of israel. so you don't believe what he saying? _ anigh laying of israel. so you don't believe what he saying? well, - anigh laying of israel. so you don't| believe what he saying? well, andy anigh laying of israel. so you don't i believe what he saying? well, andy i no will cive believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his _ believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his explanation _ believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his explanation to - believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his explanation to the . no will give his explanation to the investigation, he has to explain himself, but i know what those words sound, i know what they voke, i know what fear they bring to many citizens of the country, notjust jewish people, and we should be calling for peace, and israel is right, to try to stop hamas being able to stop more massacre, yesterday hamas were saying they were going to commit more and more massacres until the jewish were going to commit more and more massacres until thejewish state was annihilated so israel is right to try and stop that happening, and then there does need to be a proper peace initiative where we can hopefully arrive at a two—state solution but that maybe some time away. solution but that maybe some time

awa . �* , , ., ., away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when away. andrew fisher, when you heard that. when you _ away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when you heard _ away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when you heard reports- away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when you heard reports or - that, when you heard reports or perhaps you actually heard it at first hand, between the river and the sea, do you agree with louise ellman it can't mean anything else other than that in the context of which it was spoken {iii other than that in the context of which it was spoken— other than that in the context of which it was spoken of course not. he said he — which it was spoken of course not. he said he wants _ which it was spoken of course not. he said he wants all— which it was spoken of course not. he said he wants all people, - he said he wants all people, israelis _ he said he wants all people, israelis and palestinians, those two people. _ israelis and palestinians, those two people, that do live between the river and — people, that do live between the river and the sea, to live in peaceful— river and the sea, to live in peaceful liberty, that is calling for the — peaceful liberty, that is calling for the peaceful existence of two slaieses — for the peaceful existence of two stateses which he has called for before — stateses which he has called for before that rally, he has called for today— before that rally, he has called for today and — before that rally, he has called for today and at that rally, so it is very— today and at that rally, so it is very clear. _ today and at that rally, so it is very clear, and to say when people use the _ very clear, and to say when people use the phrase from the river to the sea use the phrase from the river to the see it— use the phrase from the river to the see it means — use the phrase from the river to the sea it means the anigh laying of israel_ sea it means the anigh laying of israel is — sea it means the anigh laying of israel is don honest because it has been _ israel is don honest because it has been used — israel is don honest because it has been used by people in likud, the israeli _ been used by people in likud, the israeli ambassador to the uk who called _ israeli ambassador to the uk who called for— israeli ambassador to the uk who called for a greater israel of eradicating palestine by that phrase _ eradicating palestine by that phrase. i eradicating palestine by that hrase. ~ , eradicating palestine by that phrase-_ so - eradicating palestine by that phrase._ so did | eradicating palestine by that - phrase._ so did likud phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. _

phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let _ phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let me _ phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let me just - phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let me just andy | in their charter. let me 'ust andy mcdonald told h in their charter. let me 'ust andy mcdonald told us, _ in their charter. let me 'ust andy mcdonald told us, told _ in their charter. let me just andy mcdonald told us, told us, - in their charter. let me just andy mcdonald told us, told us, that l in their charter. let me just andy l mcdonald told us, told us, that he does support a two—state solution, but in the speech he shared with us, he didn't is a that, should he have said explicitly at such a tempest which is time? he said explicitly at such a tempest which is time?— said explicitly at such a tempest which is time? . ., ., ., , which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call — which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call for _ which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call for a _ which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call for a two-state - he didn't call for a two—state solution. he didn't call for a two-state solution. ,., he didn't call for a two-state solution-— he didn't call for a two-state solution. ., , ., ._ solution. he said he wants to say israelis solution. he said he wants to say israelis and _ solution. he said he wants to say israelis and the _ solution. he said he wants to say israelis and the palestinians - solution. he said he wants to say| israelis and the palestinians living side by— israelis and the palestinians living side by side in peace, that means a two-state _ side by side in peace, that means a two—state solution clearly. to anybodyw _ two—state solution clearly. to anybody... not misrepresenting what he said _ anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. bul— anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. �* , ., , anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. �* , .,, ., anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. �* , ., , ., he said. but the phrase two state solution is _ he said. but the phrase two state solution is a _ he said. but the phrase two state solution is a very _ he said. but the phrase two state solution is a very important - he said. but the phrase two state solution is a very important one. | solution is a very important one. with hindsight, because it was a fiery rally, should he have explicitly said that, yes or no. think he has said it before, think he has used words that mean it and he has used words that mean it and he has used it in the interview with you tonight. it is clear where he stands, where i stand on it and i am sure where louise stands on it. shindig

sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald _ sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald said _ sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald said he _ sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald said he has had a lot of support from labour mps, do you think there was a chance keir starmer is overreacting because he is haunted by the labour party's past? is haunted by the labour party's -ast? is haunted by the labour party's ast? ,, ., ., , , ., past? keir starmer was showing leadership. _ past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and _ past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and he _ past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and he knows- past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and he knows the i past? keir starmer was showing l leadership, and he knows the fear that that phrase evokes, among the jewish community. and among the country general, who i think do want to see a two—state solution and it is wrong to have fear on our streets, and to have people rallying together and evoking fear and making the jewish together and evoking fear and making thejewish community together and evoking fear and making the jewish community feel extremely insecure in this country, after the horrors of those corbyn years, and the sooner that hamas can lose their capacity to inflict more damage, to conduct more massacres and the rules to find a negotiating two state solution, the better it will be for everyone, but in the meantime people should not try to stir up hatred. andrew fisher, regardless of andy

mcdonald's intention, arejewish people wrongs to be hurt? mcdonald's intention, are jewish people wrongs to be hurt? jewish eo - le people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong _ people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to _ people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to be _ people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to be hurt? - people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to be hurt? no - people wrongs to be hurt? jewish | people wrong to be hurt? no there are hundreds if not thousands on that rally— are hundreds if not thousands on that rally not feeling afraid, endep didding _ that rally not feeling afraid, endep didding supporting the call for a ceasefire — didding supporting the call for a ceasefire which was a peaceful rally~ — ceasefire which was a peaceful rally. from the people who were on it had _ rally. from the people who were on it had a _ rally. from the people who were on it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry— it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry or— it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry or fiery rally. | it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry or fiery rally-— angry or fiery rally. i think he was ve , he angry or fiery rally. i think he was very. he was _ angry or fiery rally. i think he was very. he was very _ angry or fiery rally. i think he was very, he was very forthright, - angry or fiery rally. i think he was very, he was very forthright, he l angry or fiery rally. i think he was i very, he was very forthright, he was making a rallying speech, but i am asking you, if there arejewish people who are hurt, by what he said, are they wrong to be hurt? look, i think people have to listen to what— look, i think people have to listen to what he — look, i think people have to listen to what he said, it was reported initially— to what he said, it was reported initially in — to what he said, it was reported initially in the times as he said, yeah— initially in the times as he said, yeah he — initially in the times as he said, yeah he called for palestine from the river— yeah he called for palestine from the river to the sea. sea. they issued. — the river to the sea. sea. they issued, admitted they were wrong and unfortunately by that stage the labour — unfortunately by that stage the labour party panicked and decided to suspend _ labour party panicked and decided to suspend him. if the times can admit they got— suspend him. if the times can admit they got it _ suspend him. if the times can admit they got it wrong i think the labour party— they got it wrong i think the labour party should as well.

you have heard from louise, and he did cause hurt by it, intentionally or not, and i take what he has said in good faith. should he acknowledge the hurt that he has caused and apologise for that? because he undoubtedly did cause hurt? weill. undoubtedly did cause hurt? well, i'm not undoubtedly did cause hurt? well, i'm not going _ undoubtedly did cause hurt? well, i'm not going to — undoubtedly did cause hurt? well, i'm not going to misrepresent what andy— i'm not going to misrepresent what andy has _ i'm not going to misrepresent what andy has said, or second—guess him. but he _ andy has said, or second—guess him. but he didn't— andy has said, or second—guess him. but he didn't apologise. andi andy has said, or second-guess him. but he didn't apologise.— but he didn't apologise. and i don't think ou but he didn't apologise. and i don't think you should _ but he didn't apologise. and i don't think you should apologise. - but he didn't apologise. and i don't think you should apologise. i - but he didn't apologise. and i don't think you should apologise. i thinkl think you should apologise. i think what he _ think you should apologise. i think what he said was very clear, and we heard _ what he said was very clear, and we heard from — what he said was very clear, and we heard from the ford report, which keir starmer commissioned, that he doesn't _ keir starmer commissioned, that he doesn't want to see people using anti—semitism as a factional weapon to have _ anti—semitism as a factional weapon to have fights within the labour party _ to have fights within the labour party it's — to have fights within the labour party. it's clear from andy mcdonald, consistently, overthe mcdonald, consistently, over the years. _ mcdonald, consistently, overthe years, that he call sway two—state solution _ years, that he call sway two—state solution and that is the clear application what he said in that speech — application what he said in that seech. ., , . , application what he said in that seech. ., , ~ , a ., application what he said in that seech. ., , ~ , ., ., speech. louise, if andy mcdonald had told us it was a _ speech. louise, if andy mcdonald had told us it was a clumsy _ speech. louise, if andy mcdonald had told us it was a clumsy use _ speech. louise, if andy mcdonald had told us it was a clumsy use of- told us it was a clumsy use of language, and apologised, do you think that would have been enough

for you? think that would have been enough foryou? i think that would have been enough for ou? ~' ., ., , for you? i think it would have been better if andy _ for you? i think it would have been better if andy had _ for you? i think it would have been better if andy had said _ for you? i think it would have been better if andy had said that. - for you? i think it would have been better if andy had said that. but i for you? i think it would have been better if andy had said that. but it| better if andy had said that. but it isn'tjust better if andy had said that. but it isn't just about andy, it is better if andy had said that. but it isn'tjust about andy, it is about the numerous rallies taking place, the numerous rallies taking place, the hatred that emanates from them, the hatred that emanates from them, the calls of changing things from the calls of changing things from the river to the sea. thejewish community knows what that means, and other rallies have called forjihad. photographs showing the hostages put up photographs showing the hostages put up in the streets in this country are being ripped down after 48 hours. half of them ripped down after 48 hours. jewish schoolchildren are afraid to show that they are jewish, going to school. this is a very bad situation and it should be diffused. we should not have hatred on our streets. thank you both very much indeed. the us secretary of state antony blinken is on his way back to tel aviv for his second visit since hamas launched its attack on october 7th, and is expected to emphasise the importance of protecting civilian lives, and reiterate a commitment to ensure palestinians are not forcibly displaced out of gaza, according to the white house national security spokesman.

the us secretary will arrive in israel on the day hezbollah's leader, hassan nasrallah, is due to give his first public address since the conflict began, a speech which its anticipated will signal an intensifying of hezbollah's involvement in the conflict. so far, hezbollah has drawn on a fraction of its firepower to attack israeli positions. today, hezbollah claimed they hit 19 targets in israel simultaneously, in what would be the most intense assault by the group on israel since hamas attacked israel. this, as thousands of foreign nationals and dual nationals wait to be funnelled through the rafah crossing into safety in egypt. yesterday, two british nationals got out of gaza, and according to the foreign office, more made it today, and declined to say how many. here'sjoe. yesterday we saw the first evacuations from gaza via the rafah crossing into egypt, and those evacuations have continued today. what more do we know? yesterday we saw just shy of 400 people, the vast majority of them

dual passport holders, and some injured palestinians coming out through the rafah crossing and into egypt. we saw roughly the same number today, 344 dual nationals, 21 injured palestinians, amongst the dual nationals were 74 americans and some brits as well. we don't know the exact number. this, of course, is being seen as a positive step. for the first time, people are getting out. but i think it is really worth bearing in mind that in terms of the total numbers of people that are trapped inside gaza at the moment, more than 2 million people, this is a drop in the ocean, although one that is being received positively internationally. tomorrow we are expecting — positively internationally. tomorrow we are expecting too _ positively internationally. tomorrow we are expecting too much - positively internationally. tomorrow we are expecting too much go - we are expecting too much go important interventions. 0ne we are expecting too much go important interventions. one from antony blinken, desperate to avoid an escalation, but also a speech from the leader of hezbollah, which could be crucial in determining if there is an escalation to the conflict? ~ , ,., , ., there is an escalation to the conflict?— there is an escalation to the conflict? ~ , ,., , ., ., conflict? absolutely, at the moment the israelis are _ conflict? absolutely, at the moment the israelis are focused _ conflict? absolutely, at the moment the israelis are focused down - conflict? absolutely, at the moment the israelis are focused down in - conflict? absolutely, at the moment the israelis are focused down in the | the israelis are focused down in the south, but they have a more significant threat to the north, hezbollah. they have tens of

thousands of battle hardened soldiers, thought to be over 100,000 rockets and missiles, more sophisticated than those of hamas. now, for the moment, they have been engaging in exchanges of fire. there were 19 rockets launched today. but they have been holding off a full—scale attack. in this speech tomorrow, one o'clock london time by hassan nasrallah, the leader of the shi'ite hezbollah militia, if they escalate, which is a possibility, that would be really significant for the israelis because it opens a second front. whether he does that is far from certain. second front. whether he does that is farfrom certain. he's got competing pressures. in the arab street, hezbollah are seen as a point of resistance. if they don't come to the defence of hamas, that would be seen as a betrayal of their cause, but if they do, it could be catastrophic for them, very problematic for the israelis as well, of course, and it really could widen this out. that is something the americans are desperate to avoid. we have antony blinken going

to the region and we have a huge us military presence in the mediterranean. they are trying to deter this at all costs.— deter this at all costs. thank you very much _ deter this at all costs. thank you very much indeed. _ deter this at all costs. thank you very much indeed. joining - deter this at all costs. thank you very much indeed. joining us - deter this at all costs. thank you | very much indeed. joining us from the us to discuss hopes of de—escalating the conflict is a former us secretary of defence. mary beth long, welcome to newsnight. can you blink and has said the us is determined to stop an escalation. is that possible? i determined to stop an escalation. is that possible?— that possible? i think not. i think at this point, secretary _ that possible? i think not. i think at this point, secretary antony i at this point, secretary antony blinken— at this point, secretary antony blinken is— at this point, secretary antony blinken is doing his best to contain what is _ blinken is doing his best to contain what is probably already an escalation in broadening, as your previous— escalation in broadening, as your previous speaker, kirsty, told us, hezbollah — previous speaker, kirsty, told us, hezbollah has already escalated, and ithink— hezbollah has already escalated, and i think there are someexpectation that there —

i think there are someexpectation that there might be forces in syria that there might be forces in syria that will— that there might be forces in syria that willjoin the hezbollah front in the north of israel. that will join the hezbollah front in the north of israel. hamas have been suggesting _ in the north of israel. hamas have been suggesting for days - in the north of israel. hamas have l been suggesting for days that there was a further hostage release ahead. if there's hostages were released, with that signal come in some way, a willingness to engage? i’m with that signal come in some way, a willingness to engage?— willingness to engage? i'm not clear on that. ithink— willingness to engage? i'm not clear on that. l think it _ willingness to engage? i'm not clear on that. i think it signals _ willingness to engage? i'm not clear on that. i think it signals a _ on that. i think it signals a willingness to cooperate with clauses — willingness to cooperate with clauses that fall far short of a ceasefire that people are asking for. it could be a ploy to get more energy. or— for. it could be a ploy to get more energy, or medical supplies, or water— energy, or medical supplies, or water into the population. hamas is walking _ water into the population. hamas is walking a very fine line between its own populace and the perception that they are _ own populace and the perception that they are exacerbating the problems with its own people, and appearing to be conciliatory and willing to speak, — to be conciliatory and willing to speak, and also calling on others to widen the _ speak, and also calling on others to widen the conflict.— widen the conflict. antony blinken is auoin to widen the conflict. antony blinken is going to call for _ widen the conflict. antony blinken is going to call for a pause, - widen the conflict. antony blinken is going to call for a pause, and i l is going to call for a pause, and i wonder, what is the qualitative

difference between a pause and a ceasefire? i difference between a pause and a ceasefire? ~ . difference between a pause and a ceasefire? ~ , .. ., , difference between a pause and a ceasefire? ~ , ., , ., ceasefire? i think it is actually a very important _ ceasefire? i think it is actually a very important difference. - ceasefire? i think it is actually a very important difference. it - ceasefire? i think it is actually a very important difference. it is l ceasefire? i think it is actually a i very important difference. it is the us willingly saying we are not going to call— us willingly saying we are not going to call for— us willingly saying we are not going to call for a ceasefire, but we are willing _ to call for a ceasefire, but we are willing to — to call for a ceasefire, but we are willing to make concessions to allow hostages _ willing to make concessions to allow hostages to be released, movement of medical— hostages to be released, movement of medical personnel and third parties out of— medical personnel and third parties out of the _ medical personnel and third parties out of the country into egypt. and, frankly, _ out of the country into egypt. and, frankly, probably for everyone to take the — frankly, probably for everyone to take the need to prepare for what appears _ take the need to prepare for what appears to— take the need to prepare for what appears to be building escalations from syria and the endangerment of jordah _ from syria and the endangerment of jordah as _ from syria and the endangerment of jordan. �* . . from syria and the endangerment of jordan. . , , ., ., jordan. as we see the mounting death toll and the toll _ jordan. as we see the mounting death toll and the toll of _ jordan. as we see the mounting death toll and the toll of the _ jordan. as we see the mounting death toll and the toll of the wounded, - toll and the toll of the wounded, the civilians in gaza, is there a sense that sympathy for israel is shifting in the us leadership? i think the further we get from the events— think the further we get from the events of— think the further we get from the events of the 7th of october, the image _ events of the 7th of october, the image of— events of the 7th of october, the image of the horror of what happened will dissipate, and the images of what _ will dissipate, and the images of what is _ will dissipate, and the images of what is happening in gaza and the devastation of their take front and

centre _ devastation of their take front and centre. there is growing empathy, i think. _ centre. there is growing empathy, i think. and _ centre. there is growing empathy, i think, and sympathy, from the us public _ think, and sympathy, from the us public i_ think, and sympathy, from the us public. i think one of the things the administration is trying to do is to— the administration is trying to do is to find — the administration is trying to do is to find that sweet spot between being _ is to find that sweet spot between being conciliatory in getting additional aid, being conciliatory in getting additionalaid, in being conciliatory in getting additional aid, in getting being conciliatory in getting additionalaid, in getting people out, and — additionalaid, in getting people out, and preparing itself for what appears — out, and preparing itself for what appears to— out, and preparing itself for what appears to be escalations. as part ofthat appears to be escalations. as part of that us focus, _ appears to be escalations. as part of that us focus, it _ appears to be escalations. as part of that us focus, it is _ appears to be escalations. as part of that us focus, it is what - appears to be escalations. as part of that us focus, it is what is - of that us focus, it is what is happening in the west bank, and the increase in settler violence. some of that settler violence, i suppose, being fuelled by the fact that netanyahu issued all of these m—16s, which the americans are saying is incredibly counter—productive. is there pressure going to be put on israel, do you think, by the americans over the west bank? i think the americans want to speak with netanyahu and with hamas and the leadership of the west bank as to what— the leadership of the west bank as to what the strategy is. it's very unclear— to what the strategy is. it's very unclear what the weapon hand—out was

supposed _ unclear what the weapon hand—out was supposed to _ unclear what the weapon hand—out was supposed to achieve. unclear what the weapon hand-out was supposed to achieve.— supposed to achieve. finally, as we were 'ust supposed to achieve. finally, as we were just talking _ supposed to achieve. finally, as we were just talking about, _ supposed to achieve. finally, as we were just talking about, the - supposed to achieve. finally, as we were just talking about, the leader| were just talking about, the leader of hezbollah is going to make his first speech, and inevitably, despite what antony blinken might want, is it your view that likely that this will press an escalation? i think the escalation is coming whether— i think the escalation is coming whether antony blinken comes or not. thank— whether antony blinken comes or not. thank you _ whether antony blinken comes or not. thank you forjoining us. some of the testimony at the covid inquiry this week has been both explosive and some might say shocking — not least one extract from the notebook of the chief scientific adviser sir patrick vallance which suggested the then prime minister borisjohnson was "obsessed with older people accepting their fate and letting the young get on with life and the economy going." but today the former nhs england chief sir simon stevens delivered a witness statement that was equally illuminating. it alleged that the then health sectrrary matt hancock wanted to decide who should live or die if the nhs was overwhelmed. so does mr hancock face

some difficult questions when he gives evidence himself? here'sjoe — and a warning there's some flash photography coming up. did he make massive mistakes, or is matt hancock a scapegoat in the post—pandemic blame game? he certainly seemed fond of self—flagellation in recent months. with all due respect, you're not a good looking guy, are you? pubes on your chest, boobs. so how did you do it, matty, babe? huh? but this week at the covid inquiry, the former health secretary has really been in the firing line, accused of lying, of arrogance, and today of wanting a say in who lived and died if hospitals became overwhelmed with pandemic patients. that was the claim of former nhs england ceo simon, now lord stephens, who wrote this in his submission, "the secretary of state for health and social care

took the position "that in this "profession or the public, should ultimately decide who should "live and who should die. "fortunately, this horrible dilemma never crystallised". giving evidence, lord stevens added this. i certainly wanted to discourage the idea that an individual secretary of state, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, should be deciding how care would be provided. now, simon stephens avoided criticising mr hancock and like another civil servant, chris wormald, said he hadn't seen evidence of lying. among other eye popping accusations this week, claims that matt hancock misled the cabinet over the existence of a pandemic plan which never materialised. and a top civil servant, helen mcnamara, with this recollection read by one of the inquiry lawyers, "he reassured me that he was, quote,

�*loving responsibility�* "and to demonstrate this took up a batsman's stance outside "the cabinet room and said �*they bowl them at me, i knock them away�*". i'm trying to explainjust how jarring some of that was and how different places lots of us who are all in the same, theoretically in the same place, that we were. and it does partly go back to my point about, kind of, nuclear levels of confidence. being the health secretary during a once—in—a—century pandemic was a tough job. some argue matt hancock was one of the government's best communicators, even if others felt his approach was a little too hands—on. dominic cummings has proved to be one of mr hancock's most constant critics, this week saying he was, quote, "a proven liar". but perhaps the most revealing claim, that borisjohnson resisted attempts to sack mr hancock to ensure he would be a sacrificial lamb

for this very public inquiry. the former pm's team have not commented on that. now, a spokesperson for the former health secretary has told us he will give his own version of events when he appears before the inquiry. that's likely before the end of the month. he survived the jungle and made it through sas—style interrogation. but appearing before baroness hallett is likely to be both more painful and a lot less profitable for matt hancock. last year, newsnight exposed how english limited partnerships were being exploited by close associates of vladimir putin and suspected criminals who were hiding behind sham "nominee" owners, in order to dodge anti—money laundering laws. but the government failed to clamp down and change the law to insist the people behind the firms are identified, saying its not a problem because the people behind the partnerships can't actually own anything. now, a nine—month investigation by the bbc, finance uncovered and the seychelles broadcasting corporation has found evidence

that that's not true. the investigation has uncovered a russian—owned secrecy factory, operating from the seychelles, which has not only helped create companies actually owned by more members of putin's inner circle, it has also helped to set up hundreds of limited partnerships registered in the uk that also mask their true owners, many of them from former soviet union countries. here's andy verity. yevgeny prigozhin, the recently killed boss of the wagner mercenary group, and leonid reiman, once putin's communications minister and an old friend of his since the 1990s. just two who've have been using the services of a russian—owned business that's become a secrecy factory. it's helped to create hundreds of uk—based firms where the real owners stay hidden. a nine month investigation by the bbc, finance uncovered and the seychelles broadcasting corporation reveals it's helped set

up companies which have owned assets including private jets and yachts, while masking who was really in control. and helped individuals use limited partnerships in the uk to secretly own assets — something the government thinks is impossible — or control them, including a sanctions busting oil tanker and criminal enterprises from alleged fraud, to fake medicine, to illegal essay writing. really can't even be called a loophole. i mean, it's so wide you can drive an oil tanker through it. this is the seychelles, best known as a destination for holidays and honeymoons. but this paradise in the indian ocean has a shady side. it's become a magnet for people from russia and otherformer soviet union countries who want to hide their wealth. and our own government is letting it happen. last year, the bbc and finance uncovered revealed how close associates of the russian president had been dodging sanctions

with impunity, while fugitive oligarchs and suspected criminals were using english limited partnerships to do business in secret. tonight, we expose a seychelles—based company selling secrecy on an industrial scale. run by russian national victoria valkovskaya, alpha consulting has helped set up hundreds of firms with sham nominees — pretend owners hiding who really controls them. among its clients was yevgeny prigozhin, who died on the 23rd of august, just two months after staging a short—lived armed rebellion against vladimir putin's war. prigozhin not only ran the wagner mercenary group — now designated terrorists — he also led the internet research agency hacking operation, which attempted to influence the 2018 us midterm elections. the us sanctioned a company set up by alpha called beratex group limited, which owned a jet and a yacht. now, leaked documents show that the hidden beneficial owner was an elderly woman from murmansk

on russia's arctic coast, who just happened to be the mother—in—law of yevgeny prigozhin. alpha also helped set up three offshore companies in which a beneficial interest was held by leonid reiman, a former putin adviser and communications minister who'd run a telecoms firm that employed the russian president's wife, lyudmila. reiman was found by a swiss tribunal in 2006 to have been the secret owner of a company called ipoc that received corrupt payments while he was communications minister. in 2008, a court in the british virgin islands fined ipoc $45 million after the company was convicted of perverting the course ofjustice and furnishing false information. it appears alpha's nominee failed to declare mr reimann was a politically exposed person. anti—money laundering experts say that's a clear breach of the rules. if you are knowingly doing

business with somebody who is a politically exposed person, and reimann is a close associate of putin, really clearly falls into that definition, so that's not an oversight. that is a failure. alpha consulting told us it carried out all the required checks on leonid reimann. it says it didn't find information to suggest that mr reimann was involved in money laundering or other wrongdoing. alpha wouldn't comment on the ultimate owner of beratex group limited, but said it was transferred to a different provider in 2015. and it's not only putin—linked oligarchs it's helped. from the seychelles, alpha consulting has been helping to create hundreds of anonymously—owned limited partnerships that exploit a gaping loophole in uk law, at ordinary addresses like this. if you believe the uk's official records, this building here in churchill way, cardiff, the office at the top above the beautician,

is a hive of industry. alpha consulting, since 2017, set up more than 280 partnerships here, some of which have been used to run oil tankers that have bust sanctions. let's see if anyone's in. surprise, surprise — there's no—one there. the truth is, of course, that most of the people who are signed up as the general partners of the companies registered here in cardiff have never actually set foot in the uk. they're effectively stooges, people in the seychelles who've been paid to give their signatures but don't actually know what's going on in the companies under their name. they're wonderful if you want to stay secret because the registration requirements are minimal. you don't have to ever file anything again. there are no accounts. that's it. just a piece of paper with a couple of names and an address on, and you've now got yourself an english limited partnership. before the english limited partnership goes on official

records at companies house, are there any checks on whether the owners are who they say they are? there are none. there are no checks. nothing at all? in fact, most of the information you don't even need to provide like your address. there has to be an address for the partnership. but you don't have to provide an address for the general partner, who themselves could be a company and from anywhere in the world. alpha looks like it's helping people run rings around the uk's attempt to out hidden owners. since 2017, it's helped create more than 900 limited partnerships — one in five of all such partnerships set up in that time. i call the home secretary to move second reading. the home office, led by suella braverman, decided not to amend the new economic crime and corporate transparency act to force them to disclose who owns or controls them. according to the government, that's not a problem because those english limited partnerships can't own anything. dirty money, fraudsters and gangsters are not welcome in the uk, but we've uncovered evidence that, far from - owning nothing, some of the english limited partnerships have been used to own or run very substantial assets, including oil tankers. many of them look like they're owned

by seychelles residents, including a man who seems like he must be a prolific entrepreneur — luther denis. he's the general partner of 184 uk limited partnerships, according to official documents. one of the companies that was under his name was called mister drake pc, which owned an oil tanker called the delfi that was wrecked off the coast of odessa in ukraine in 2019. investigations by the authorities have been unable to identify the secret owner hiding behind the mister drake partnership, or make them pay for the clean up. well, the beneficial owner, as they're known, are ultimately liable and responsible for any of the environmental costs or damages that the vessel causes. and also, if there is no known beneficial owner, if there is an environmental spill or if the crew are treated poorly in any way, then there's no recourse.

but we've seen documents saying the beneficial owner is alla koltunova over the mother of oleg koltunov, a former local politician in the now banned pro—russian party of the regions. another partnership, called silken, was involved in managing an oil tanker called ostra. under different names, it had already breached sanctions, and we've discovered its tracking data was turned off, vanishing for three weeks in september last year while off the coast of venezuela, indicating it may have breached sanctions there, too. in this context, a ship will go dark because it wants to obscure its destination and its ultimate loading of a cargo and where it will deliver it. and that is not only very dangerous, but it also means that the volumes of oil lifted and the sanction's circumvention can't be easily tracked, in order to deceive,, evade and keep one step ahead of any regulatory authorities that are monitoring these vessels.