ithese five conservative meeting of these five conservative backbench groups, the european research group, the conservative group, the new conservatives group, the northern research group, and the common—sense group. david jones is my deputy chairman at the erg, he is also one of the four members of star chamber. again, to reiterate, the bottom line conclusion of the chart —— mega star chamber�*s report, this is taken from the report, and that reports is now available for anyone in this country to read by the lawyers have written website. the summary was, i quote, "the bill provides a partial and incomplete solution to the problem of legal challenges in the uk courts being used as a stratagem delay or defeat

the removal or illegal migrants to reminder. i willjust add, the common—sense group are now hosting a further meeting at 6p and this evening which is also going to be addressed by robertjenrick. —— at 6pm. so if you like, they come to us and at 6pm, we are going to there's info i can put it like that. that is where things currently sit, who would like to ask the first question?— would like to ask the first cuestion? ~ . , ., m question? what is the position... we discuss this — question? what is the position... we discuss this for _ question? what is the position... we discuss this for a _ question? what is the position... we discuss this for a good _ question? what is the position... we discuss this for a good hour - question? what is the position... we discuss this for a good hour and - question? what is the position... we discuss this for a good hour and a - discuss this for a good hour and a half, beth. and i am not sure that final decisions will be taken even today. because of the importance of the issue. but one thing that most of the members of that meeting i cared were clear about was coming

back to the overall provides an partial and incomplete solution. the feeling very much in the meeting is that the government will be best advised to pull the bill, and to come up with a revised version that works better than this one which has so many holes in it. inasmuch as there was a consensus, beth, that was a consensus. i5 there was a consensus, beth, that was a consensus.— was a consensus. is this a bill that can be fixed _ was a consensus. is this a bill that can be fixed by — was a consensus. is this a bill that can be fixed by tomorrow - was a consensus. is this a bill that can be fixed by tomorrow or - was a consensus. is this a bill that can be fixed by tomorrow or does | was a consensus. is this a bill that i can be fixed by tomorrow or does the whole thing just have to be torn up and started again at some later date? ., , date? right, iwill answer david in a moment -- _ date? right, iwill answer david in a moment -- asked _ date? right, iwill answer david in a moment -- asked david - date? right, iwill answer david in a moment -- asked david in - date? right, iwill answer david in a moment -- asked david in a - date? right, i will answer david in - a moment -- asked david in a moment a moment —— asked david in a moment to comment on that as well. what the star chamber had done in great detail is layout... sorry, just pausing for the whips office! hang on, they have laid out in great

detail where they believe the weaknesses are. it might be better to start again with a fresh bail thatis to start again with a fresh bail that is written on a different basis. . . that is written on a different basis. , , ., ~ basis. -- fresh bill. yeah, i think that's right- _ basis. -- fresh bill. yeah, i think that's right- i _ basis. -- fresh bill. yeah, i think that's right. i don't _ basis. -- fresh bill. yeah, i think that's right. i don't think - basis. -- fresh bill. yeah, i think that's right. i don't think that - basis. -- fresh bill. yeah, i thinkj that's right. i don't think that the bill is _ that's right. i don't think that the bill is easily amendable. and really i think_ bill is easily amendable. and really i think that the government needs to review— i think that the government needs to review it _ i think that the government needs to review it and maybe consider a completely new piece of legislation, because _ completely new piece of legislation, because this leads to so many gaps in the _ because this leads to so many gaps in the legislation and so many ways that people could actually evade the legislation if they wanted to remain in this_ legislation if they wanted to remain in this country. so, legislation if they wanted to remain in this country-— in this country. so, can we assume that if there _ in this country. so, can we assume that if there are _ in this country. so, can we assume that if there are no _ in this country. so, can we assume that if there are no changes - in this country. so, can we assume that if there are no changes to - in this country. so, can we assume that if there are no changes to the| that if there are no changes to the bill as laid out at the moment, you will vote against it? if i bill as laid out at the moment, you will vote against it?— will vote against it? if i were you, i wouldn't — will vote against it? if i were you, i wouldn't assume _ will vote against it? if i were you, i wouldn't assume anything - will vote against it? if i were you, i wouldn't assume anything until. will vote against it? if i were you, | i wouldn't assume anything until at least there has been a further meeting at 6pm.— least there has been a further meetin: at 6m. ., , ., meeting at 6pm. that is the logical assumption. _ meeting at 6pm. that is the logical assumption, isn't _ meeting at 6pm. that is the logical assumption, isn't it? _ meeting at 6pm. that is the logical assumption, isn't it? you - meeting at 6pm. that is the logical assumption, isn't it? you say - meeting at 6pm. that is the logical assumption, isn't it? you say you l assumption, isn't it? you say you want this withdrawn, it got so many holes in it. ~ , ., ~' holes in it. we, if you like, drouped — holes in it. we, if you like, drouped the _ holes in it. we, if you like, dropped the government i holes in it. we, if you like, dropped the government a| holes in it. we, if you like, - dropped the government a broad holes in it. we, if you like, _ dropped the government a broad hint. we will see how the government

reply. sorry, who hasn't had a go? the government say they have already gone as far as they can come of mps in their own party already think they have gone too far. —— there are mps in their own party. is it in the country or your party's interest to be coming out in the media like this are criticising them when they clearly trying to hold two sides of the party together?— the party together? well, we all want to step _ the party together? well, we all want to stop the _ the party together? well, we all want to stop the boats. - the party together? well, we all want to stop the boats. they - the party together? well, we all. want to stop the boats. they have been two legislative attempts already, nationalities and borders act didn't quite work, the illegal immigration act didn't quite work, so this is kind of, three strikes and you're out, isn't it? so what is really important is if you're going to put a bill through parliament to have a piece of legislation which is fit for purpose. as the bill is currently drafted, it isn't. beth, do you one the last word? three strikes and _

do you one the last word? three strikes and you're _ do you one the last word? three strikes and you're out, - do you one the last word? three strikes and you're out, the - do you one the last word? three i strikes and you're out, the obvious question is how could the pm carry on as pm after this if he loses the vote was macbeth, you are good at yourjob but i'm not going to get into hypotheticals. how much of a challenge to his authority is this? i how much of a challenge to his authority is this?— how much of a challenge to his authority is this? ithink, beth, ou can authority is this? ithink, beth, you can ask— authority is this? ithink, beth, you can ask the _ authority is this? ithink, beth, you can ask the prime - authority is this? ithink, beth, you can ask the prime minister| authority is this? i think, beth, - you can ask the prime minister that one. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time. there is a further meeting at 6pm this evening, thank you for coming. that is the conclusion of a press conference by the chairman of the erg group. this is a grouping of conservative mps that just erg group. this is a grouping of conservative mps thatjust happened a moment ago, so that was mark francois speaking. he reiterated a statement that had been published earlier which is the group's position on the government's new reminder legislation. so, he went on to say that the grouping feels that

they —— the rwanda bill is concerning and incomplete, a partial and incomplete solution to the legal challenges that the bill is likely to face in uk courts. now, he was also asked whether this meant that members of the erg group would vote against the legislation on tuesday, this vote is expected on tuesday parliament and he said, you cannot assume anything, on that point. he went on to say that there would be a further meeting this evening, 6pm. this will be a meeting between the erg, the european research group, and new conservatives, at 6pm. they will be looking into this issue again. this crucial vote for the government's flagship policy to stop illegal small boats crossing from france to the uk with illegal migrants. let's get more on another top story here on bbc news.

about 200 elite afghan specialforces, trained and funded by the uk, face imminent deportation back to their taliban—controlled homeland, the bbc has learned. the figures — gathered by a network of afghan veterans — reveal the scale of what one former uk general called "an absolute betrayal". the soldiers concerned fled to pakistan — which now says it will expel what it considers to be afghan refugees. newsnight s international correspondentjoe inwood has the story. they were afghanistan's elite, cf333 and atflilili, known as the triples. initially set up to tackle the opium trade, they soon became specialists in fighting the taliban. translation: at first we carried out thousands of operations _ to destroy the drugs trade. then after 2007, when the taliban networks gradually started

their activities, we carried out operations against them whenever they were. ali spent nearly two decades on front lines. this is him with members british special forces. the triples were at the front end of the uk—supported counter—terrorism operation, they did the most dangerous, the most difficult, the most important missions accompanied by british soldiers and did many things that british soldiers didn't do. now ali is in hiding in pakistan. he shows us around the single room where he and his family have barely left for three months. along with hundreds of his colleagues, ali couldn't get on evacuation flights when the taliban returned, so he headed to pakistan where he assumed he would get help from the uk's afghan relocation and assistance scheme. he was wrong.

translation: | have| been so disappointed. i served in different, high—ranking positions and fulfilled my duties honestly. he has twice been rejected on the grounds that he did not work for, or even with, the uk. according to the man who set up the triples, they didn'tjust work with the uk, they were entirely funded by them. so, we had one mission, we and british, and the donor for this mission, these triples, were britain, british government. it was crystal clear. so, 100% we worked together. that work made them fierce enemies of the taliban. for ali and his colleagues, being sent home could be a death sentence. translation: we know of many former

soldiers who were recognised _ and have disappeared, almost certainly killed. when iran and pakistan deport people, the taliban have a list in our biometric data. the arap scheme is managed by the uk ministry of defence. in a statement, they said... as pakistan seeks to find and deport afghans living there illegally... knocking on door. ..ali says time is running out. he hopes the uk will help him before it is too late. now, let's return to the covid inquiry. we have been carrying it throughout the day. we are expecting the inquiry to resume shortly after lunch, where we will hear more from the prime minister rishi sunak,

who is answering questions about his time as chancelor during the pandemic. and ellie is live now for us. we have had a morning of evidence from rishi sunak, the most significant thing was one of the first things he said which was an apology. it was interesting because we have had apologies from most of the politicians who appeared here. but the wording was, abolishing for —— apologies for the actions that were taken, passive language. he was chancellor not prime minister so borisjohnson was making the big decisions. but he was the right hand man as chancellor and was making big decisions when it came to the economy. so he shares some obvious responsibility. but again he was the most senior politician who is still in government now a few years on.

significantly there was an apology from him today.— significantly there was an apology from him today. significantly there was an apology from him toda . ~ ., ., ,. ~' from him today. what do you think we can exect from him today. what do you think we can exoect this — from him today. what do you think we can expect this afternoon? _ from him today. what do you think we can expect this afternoon? we - can expect this afternoon? we haven't got — can expect this afternoon? - haven't got onto that issue yet of eat outs to help out... the idea was that we were all offered up to £10 for a meal in the restaurant. there has been criticism over the last few weeks from scientists that that was a scheme that was not run past the scientists, they didn't know about it before the launch. there has been criticism that it led to an increase in the virus. there is patchy evidence over whether it significantly materially meant that the virus got worse if you like. there has been criticism from scientists that it was the wrong messaging from the government that at a time when the virus was still prevalent, albeit not as bad as

after lockdown, that it was still an issue and therefore contributed really to mix messaging in terms of what the great british public should be doing. we will get questions about that and shortly before the break we were moving through the timeline and the chronology of what was going on, getting towards that. i think we will get to that pretty quick. rishi sunak himself, the chancellor was the architect of the furlough scheme. that was the scheme in which employees and businesses were given up to 80% of an employee's wages, to pay wages if they could not work. it was pretty popular and celebrated at the time as being a great idea to keep the economy going... as being a great idea to keep the economy going. . .— as being a great idea to keep the economy going... early, i'm sorry to sto ou, economy going... early, i'm sorry to stop you. we — economy going... early, i'm sorry to stop you. we seem _ economy going... early, i'm sorry to stop you, we seem to _ economy going... early, i'm sorry to stop you, we seem to be _ economy going... early, i'm sorry to stop you, we seem to be doing - economy going... early, i'm sorry to stop you, we seem to be doing thisl economy going... early, i'm sorry to | stop you, we seem to be doing this a lot! the prime minister is speaking so we will cross over to the inquiry. the analysis showed there was a very significant difference between the economic impact of the one metre

rule and that of the second metre rule. and you and the treasury made it absolutely plain that if the tea metre rule continued, many businesses would remain unviable. yes or no? —— the two metre rule. well, what i did was convene a group of other secretaries of state including the department of business, dcms, transport and local government, together with the cdl, to take the evidence. a few major points, one is that it would make a big difference to the number of businesses that would open, or how they could possibly open, second with the international comparisons at that point, 2a other countries had something less than two metres and thirdly, international organisations like the world health organization, the european centre for diseases, recommending something different. i wrote to the prime minister on behalf of that group on the 3rd ofjune, the prime minister then convened a review panel involving the chief medical officer,

the chief economist, convened by the cabinet secretary, i wasn't involved in that process.— in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you — in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you to _ in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you to speed _ in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you to speed up _ in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you to speed up and - in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you to speed up and not - in that process. sorry, i know! had asked you to speed up and not too | asked you to speed up and not too much, it makes it very hard with stenographer! i wrote the letter on the food containing our evidence and the prime minister established a panel which included the chief medical officer, chaired by the cabinet secretary, they made a recommendation to the prime minister to move to one metre plus. that recommendation to the prime minister to move to one metre plus.— to move to one metre plus. at the heart of that _ to move to one metre plus. at the heart of that debate _ to move to one metre plus. at the heart of that debate was _ to move to one metre plus. at the heart of that debate was the - heart of that debate was the recognition of course that the two metre rule if it remained would be economic hugely damaging. but while sage and it was made plain to you in an e—mailfrom your principal private secretary on the lith of june, while sage adhered to the view that science supported the two metre

rule, the scientific impact was