meanwhile, least 70 people have been reportedly killed injabalia. eyewitnesses in the refugee camp in northern gaza say many people were killed in an overnight israeli air strike. israel has yet to comment. the uk prime minister rishi sunak has denied having doubts about the plan to send some asylum seekers to rwanda when he was chancellor in 2022. number ten documents seen by bbc news indicate he was not sure the deterrent would stop channel crossings. polls close in bangladesh elections, which are expected to be a landslide for the current prime minister. most opposition parties boycotted the election. rishi sunak has denied he had doubts over the rwanda scheme when he was chancellor. the prime minister told

laura kuenssberg that his job as chancellor was to "ask probing questions of every proposal" that crossed his desk. he made the comments in a wideranging interview in which he also talked about the government looking at legal options in the case of the post office horizon it scandal and tackling illegal migration. let's talk about immigration. it's one of your top priorities. we also know from documents the bbc saw this week that when you were chancellor you expressed doubts about number 10's desire to send migrants to rwanda. do you admit you had reservations? no, and i haven't seen the documents so i can't comment on them specifically. but i discussed it with the prime minister and ultimately funded the plans and the scheme and myjob now as prime minister is to get it up and running. i believe it's really important because it is about deterrence. the national crime agency has said you need a deterrent to solve the problem and i believe that. that's why i got a new deal with albania shortly after becoming pm, meaning we can return

to thousands of people to albania. we have seen the numbers arriving from albania drop by over 90%, showing deterrence works and that's what the rwanda scheme is about, providing that deterrent and that's why it's important to get it through parliament. the documents i have seen, number 10 documents from 2022, describe your view as believing the deterrent would not work. do you deny that? i haven't seen the documents so i can't comment on that. do you deny you had doubts about the deterrent effect of sending people to africa? the proof is in my actions. i obviously believe deterrence works because when i became prime minister, i prioritised getting a scheme up and running with albania, which is now working. we have returned more than 5,000 people to albania as a result of that new deal. we have seen the numbers coming from albania drop by over i9%, showing that deterrence works. that's why i prioritised getting that up and running.

the national crime agency also believes deterrence works. it's important to be crystal—clear with our audience, we are asking about this controversial scheme to send migrants arriving on uk shores to rwanda. we are not asking about what happened with the returns deal with albania. do you deny completely that you ever had any doubts about the efficacy or the value for money of sending migrants to rwanda? let's separate these things. i absolutely believe in the value and importance of having deterrence, and albania and rwanda are linked because they are both returns agreements that allow you to create deterrents. in terms of the scheme, i was chancellor at the time and myjob was to make sure we get value for money for taxpayers and ask questions whenever anybody wants to spend taxpayers�* money, and i would expect the same thing from the chancellor now. of course i would rigorously

scrutinise any proposal crossing my desk. ultimately, i agreed with the prime minister and funded the proposal, and the proof is in my actions. you admit you had hesitation about whether or not the scheme was value for money. you tell people when you moved into number 10, you wanted the highest standards of accountability and integrity so we are asking about being accountable for how you came to that decision. did you have hesitations about whether it would be value for money? i think you are expanding this beyond what it is. as chancellor, myjob is to scrutinise and ask tough questions of every single proposal that crosses my desk. that's myjob, when i was chancellor. it's the chancellor's job now because ultimately it is all taxpayers money. just because someone asks tough questions doesn't mean they don't believe in the proposal. what they should be doing, though, is making sure it goes through a process of rigorous scrutiny and i went through that process and ended up being satisfied it would deliver, which is why i agreed with the prime minister to fund the proposal.

and when i became prime minister, we have put new legislation before parliament and we have the albania scheme up and running, which is a similar version of deterrence. i'm not saying it's a good or bad thing for you as chancellor to ask those questions. i'm also not suggesting it was good or bad for you to have doubts and then change your mind, but this is absolutely one of your core priorities now so i want to be crystal—clear with the audience, are you admitting you had hesitations... no, that's the distinction you are trying to draw, which i don't think is fair. what did you have, then? myjob is to ask probing questions of every proposal that crosses my desk as chancellor. whether you have doubts about it or not, you should not come to it with a preconceived notion that everything is fine when you are spending taxpayers�* money. of course you shouldn't. you should always ask probing questions and approach things from a position of scepticism to ensure value for money for taxpayers. that's the job of the chancellor and the treasury when things cross their desk. but to infer from that that i don't believe

in the scheme or the principle of deterrence is wrong, i was doing myjob to get good value for money for taxpayers, i went through the process, funded the scheme with the prime minister. as prime minster myself, i have made sure we have a similar deterrence working with albania and i have made the point that it is because albania is working that we should have confidence the rwanda scheme would work too. it is curious that the view in number 10, as the documents i have seen clearly say, that you had doubts about the deterrence. i want to get this absolutely on the record, and i am not asking you to comment on leaked documents, i am asking you to say completely clearly whether you had any doubts about whether or not sending migrants to africa from uk shores would put people off making the journey across the channel. this hasn't been tried before in our country. it is fair to say it is novel. i have been clear that it is a novel scheme. but we should have more confidence today it will work because we have a returns agreement with albania that is working incredibly well.

it's a completely separate thing about sending people back to the country they have come from. i disagree, i believe the principle is the same. the principle is this — if you come here illegally you should not be able to stay here and you should be returned either to your home country or indeed to a safe alternative like rwanda. the principle is you shouldn't be able to said they here because we have somewhere else to send you and that's why deterrence that is so important, the national crime agency agrees and that's why i am keen to get the scheme up and running. people, they will disagree, and the labour party disagrees with the principle of having a deterrence and a working returns agreement. my view is you can't solve the problem without having a proper deterrent and rwanda is how we will do that. keir starmer will be here next week and we will put those questions to him. today, we are here to talk about what you think. these are critically important, notjust because it is important to the public, notjust because you have made it

a centrepiece of your premiership, but also some of your colleagues are not really convinced that you really mean what you say when it comes to immigration. the man who was immigration minister until not long ago, robertjenrick, a friend and former ally of yours, said this morning that your position is sophistry — in other words, you are misleading people, you don't really need it. you say you will do whatever it takes to get the policy off the ground and you want to pass new laws to do that. but this is a technical question but a very important one, if the european courts put down what is called a rule 39, an emergency measure to stop a plane taking off from the uk to go to rwanda, would you ever be willing to ignore a rule 39 order? there is a lot in there, but what i would say first and foremost, i am determined to stop the boats. and i believe it's important because it's a simple matter of fairness.

this is not something abstract or practical, this is about fairness. i don't believe it is right for people to jump the queue and come to our country illegally and put untold pressure on public services. you have said it before many times, but i would like you to address this specifically, would you ever ignore a rule 39? i have been very clear about this, i would not let a foreign court stopped our ability to remove people once we have been through our process of parliament and our court system. i have been crystal—clear about that. does that mean ignoring a rule 39 measure? i don't need to speculate... forgive me, you have said you will do whatever it takes, you will not let a foreign court to stop it happening, the practical way in which that could happen would be a rule 39. would you ever ignore a rule 39? lots of steps between now and then, i am entirely confident what we are doing is entirely

complied with international obligations. i have been crystal—clear, i will not let a foreign court block our ability to remove people safely to rwanda. you will not answer the question. i have been very clear. i have said it multiple times. when it comes to the specifics of how we do this, first, we have to get the bill through parliament and i am sure when keir starmer is here next week you will ask him, why are you not supportive of a workable deterrent like rwanda? we will make sure we can safely remove people. that is how i believe we will solve the problem. you asked before which i think is incredibly important, am i really committed to resolving the problem? here are the facts — before i became prime minister, the number of illegal arrivals into the country across the channel had quadrupled... they have gone down, because of the actions of this government, not by a little, down by over a third,

whilst across the rest of europe it has risen. we have a lot to talk about this morning and i really want to move on. i also want to say, you say you have been crystal—clear, you are not answering the question about whether you would ignore a rule 39. you can read the legislation we are passing very specifically which addresses the issue of making it crystal—clear it is a matter of ministers deciding on the circumstances of the rule 39. you cannot give a blanket answer but the legislation is crystal—clear it is ministers who will have the power to decide about rule 39 and i have been clear i will not let a foreign court block our ability to remove people safely to rwanda once the bill goes through parliament. another promise the public, we talked about this year ago, you promised to get waiting lists

down, there has been some progress on those waiting the longest, but overall, waiting lists are still going up. is it actually still a promise you are committed to? yes, of course. when i made the pledge, thank you for acknowledging we have made progress on the longest waits. we have said it would be in spring of this year we would see the waiting lists fall properly. in spite of the record resources we have put into the nhs, more doctors and nurses, community diagnostic centres, we are treating more people than ever before about waiting lists have not come down. 7.71 million people waiting... far too long. it is on your watch. yes, that has happened on my watch, i accept that, we have put in record resources, more doctors and nurses, community diagnostic centres, doing the right things, treating more people, we've obviously been hindered by industrial action. if you see what happened towards the end of last year, we had a period without any strikes

in the nhs and we saw the waiting lists fall, tens of thousands, by 65,000 over 0ctober, waiting lists started to fall when you had a period without industrial action. that gives me the confidence that once we can resolve the outstanding industrial action, we will be able to see waiting lists fall because of the extra investment into the nhs. if strikes have been the problem — and the evidence on how much they contribute to waiting lists is mixed, but clearly part of the problem — are you willing to improve your offer tojunior doctors? there is nearly 9% already offered to them and another 3% on the table, but to get them back to work, to stop this having an impact for patients, would you put more on the table? we already have and i think, again, if you look at the government's track record when it comes to resolving industrial action... i am asking if you would put more? it is important to have the context. the government has reached a resolution with every

other part of the nhs, nurses, midwives, paramedics, consultant doctors, specialty doctors most recently, so every other part of the nhs workforce — and i am grateful to them — has reached a resolution with the government on a reasonable, fair pay settlement. the only people that haven't are the junior doctors. the numbers that you gave demonstrate that the pay offer thejunior doctors already have is more generous than any other part of the nhs. those are the facts. given that we have managed to find resolution everywhere else, and that the junior doctors have now the most generous pay offer out of anybody in the nhs, i would strongly urge them to come back, talk to the government, so we can resolve the industrial action and start getting waiting lists down as the evidence shows we can do when there are not strikes. what do you think the chances are of resolving it? ultimately, it's a question for the junior doctors.

why, when they have the most generous pay settlement in the nhs, when every other part of the nhs workforce, nurses, midwives, paramedics, consultant doctors, have reached an agreement with the government, why haven't they? because what is clear is we can get the waiting lists down when we do not have strikes. that is what the numbers show and that is what everybody wants to see. i would urge the doctors to come back around the table to get everyone back in and we can start getting waiting lists falling, which is what everyone wants. many people watching this morning might wish your ministers had tried to resolve these strikes a long time ago because for many months, some of your colleagues said there was no more money, and there was more money in the end. the strikes, in many people's view, have contributed to a sense many people feel things are not working very well. one of the viewers wanted us to put this to you, he said, "from nhs delivery to potholes and everything in between,

delivery is getting worse, it's not good enough to blame covid or wars, the bottom line is it feels worse in this country for many ordinary people." is he wrong? talking about the outlook i was here almost exactly a year ago, we were talking about the outlook for the country over last year, if you think about what was being said then, people were projecting we would have a year—long deep recession this year. in fact, we have avoided that, outperformed countries like germany. inflation having an impact on gary and everyone else, was running at close to ii%, it's now more than halved, less than 4%. the notion we would be able to cut taxes for people like gary was fanciful, but in fact the chancellor has announced £20 billion of tax cuts. let's be clear on that point... for someone earning £35,000, it's a tax cut of £450. that shows we have made progress, the plan is working, we're starting to deliver the long—term change our country needs,

that i want to deliver for gary, and the job is to stick to the plan so we can give him and everyone else peace of mind that future is going to be better for their children and we can have a renewed sense of pride in the country. 0n the point of taxation, we must be clear with people, for those who earn least and those who earn most, have not seen a reduction in tax bills at the moment, the tax burden overall is at a record high. you have done your cut to national insurance, but not as simple as you have just suggested. if i can answer that, you have said very important thing. for those on the lowest incomes, we raised the national insurance threshold, personal allowance, so you can now earn £1,000 a month without paying any tax or national insurance, we did that, that disproportionately obviously benefits the lowest paid. national living wage went up by record amounts last year and this year. tax cuts, an average person working earning £35,000, from this weekend, is seeing a tax cut of £450.

it will make a difference to people like gary and everyone else. overall, the tax burden is higher than it has ever been and many people will see an improvement from this set of changes, but many people will not. you told the sunday telegraph... 27 million people in work will see a tax cut. you told the sunday telegraph your priority is cutting taxes, not more government spending. you said the only way to do that is to have a smaller public sector. which bits do you want to shrink? it is about the rate of growth between the economy and public services. my priority, going forward, which the chancellor reiterated at the weekend, ourjoint priority for the country is to make sure we control spending, control welfare, so we can cut people's taxes. because we have managed the economy responsibly, halved inflation,,

talking about public sector pay, an example of why it is the wrong thing to do. either way, keir opposed any one of those difficult decisions and i am sure you will ask him which ones he agrees. that's how you cut taxes — it requires discipline and making those difficult decisions and that is what i have done. but you have said the only way to cut taxes is to have a smaller public sector and you pointed to the welfare budget, so who will expect to have less generous welfare payments? i did notjust point to the welfare budget, it is across the board, it is about discipline on public sector pay, there's one example, which we have done last year, finding ways to make fair pay settlements. i made a decision before as chancellor to reduce the aid budget. that is something keir starmer

and the labour party oppose. we have seen a very significant rise in the number of people deemed unfit to work in the last couple of years, and that is something concerning to me. i believe very strongly in the importance of hard work and rewarding hard work, which is why we are cutting taxes on work this weekend very significantly. in the last decade, that system has not been reformed at all and you have seen the number of people signed off has tripled. do i think our country is three times sicker than a decade ago? no. the system is not working as it was designed to work. we are bringing forward reforms to look at the eligibility of who is signed off sick. that will not affect those on existing benefits, it will come in over time on people newly presenting to the welfare system, and that is something that is the right thing, it is about fairness. it's about making sure everybody who can work does work, and for everyone who is working hard, we reward the hard

work with tax cuts. it is a conservative approach, but it is right for our country and again i am sure you will ask keir starmer next week whether he agrees. you've been trying to helpfully suggest lots of questions for keir starmer, who will be here next week. this week, you are here to answer about your approach. we will talk more about your approach and the election in a few minutes. i want to touch on a few things that have really raised people's eyebrows in the last few months. the scandal at the post office has shone a light on how many lives were ruined, an itv drama has highlighted what happened there. we will be talking to a sub—postmaster later, but susan knight, postmistress, has this question. you can watch it. what are you going to do to ensure we get fair and final compensation, not in dribs and drabs? and not at a snail's pace? please stop making us still feel like victims.

i want to remind our viewers the post office is wholly owned by the government, so that perhaps point has not been made that much. only 11 out of 475 of the full and final compensation deals have been completed. can you set a deadline and tell people like susan when it will be sorted out? everyone has been shocked by watching what they have done over the past few days and beyond, and it is an appalling miscarriage of justice. it's obviously something that happened a very long time ago in the �*90s but hearing about it again shows what an appalling miscarriage ofjustice it is for everyone affected, and it is important that people get the justice they deserve. should they all be exonerated? the government has paid out almost £150 million to thousands of people already. of course, we want to get the money to the people as quickly as possible. that's why there are interim payments of up to, i think, £600,000 that can be made.

there are three different schemes available. for anyone affected, they should come forward, talk to the relevant bodies to have their case put through as quickly as possible. will you take extra measures? there is a report thejustice secretary is considering looking at exonerating everyone, a recommendation that has been made, or taking the post office's ability to investigate and prosecute away. would you like to see that happen? the justice secretary is looking at those things, it would not be right to pre—empt that process, there is legal complexity in all of those things, but he is looking at exactly those areas you have described. it is right we find every which way we can do to try to make this right for the people so wrongfully treated at the time. compensation is part of that, but as you say, there are legal things that might be possible. they are potentially on the table. i would not want to speculate. those are the types of things been looked at. what is also riling people is the mess around ppe

procurement in covid. i'm sure before christmas you saw michelle mone, former conservative peer, admitting she lied about her involvement in a ppe deal but she also believes very strongly she and her husband have been made there is a criminal investigation, i would not expect you to comment on that, but many ppe contracts seem to have gone wrong, £9 billion of waste. how are you trying to get money back from other companies involved in the waste of billions of pounds during the pandemic? will anyone else be held accountable? anybody who took advantage of an incredibly difficult time for our country, to either defraud the public or do things that were illegal should be pursued with the full force of the law. we were all going through an awful time as a country and the job was to get ppe to those on the front line who needed it. everyone will remember how stressful that was. if people were trying to take

advantage of that system and defraud the taxpayer, that is completely and utterly wrong, it's appalling, and we should pursue them with the full force of the law. do you believe that other people did? there are processes the government has to do, those investigations and that diligence. where we believe that has happened, the government will take action. in this particular instance, the government has taken legal action against the company in question, which is why i can't comment and more generally you wouldn't expect me to comment on individual cases. i take the matter incredibly seriously, it is wrong if that happened and where there is evidence of it, the government will pursue people with a full force of the law because that's the right thing to do. people shouldn't be able to get away with things like that. let's talk politics. you said this week the general election would be in the second half of the year. it seems like some of your mps are trying to make it happen in a slow and painful way, by making their own decisions and to pack up and go home. tory mp chris skidmore said

he was off this week and he wasn't very obliging about what you have been doing in government. there have been five by—elections since she became prime minister and 53 tory mps have said they will stand down. how can our viewers have confidence in your project when so many of your own team, or meant to be your own team, are walking away? it has been a tough time for our country over the past year or two with the legacy of covid and the impact it's had on backlogs, the war in ukraine, the impact on inflation and energy bills but i genuinely believe we have turned a corner and the country is pointing in the right direction. the plans we have put in place are starting to deliver the long—term change our country needs to see. why do so many of your colleagues not believe that? myjob is to talk to everybody show them we can stick with the plan because it is starting to work to deliver change that the country needs, the long—term change the country needs. we have talked about it already this interview,

the progress we have been making. of course, i know there is more to do, but progress is being made and the country is pointing in the right direction and if we stick to the plan, we can continue to deliver the long—term change the country needs and that's ultimately how we will provide everybody with the peace of mind that the future will be better for their children and they can have a renewed sense of pride in the united kingdom. hello. in some areas, the fog hasn't cleared today, notably in parts of northern ireland, the central belt of scotland, northwest england and north wales. and following on from some very wet weather to start january, we still have numerous flood warnings in force. the details on the website there. with high pressure hanging, notjust through this weekend but for most of next week, we do have a lot of dry weather now for the next four or five days, but it will continue to feel colder and with strong winds in the south, that will accentuate the chill. so, yes, it looks much drier, most definitely, but it will feel colder when you add on that wind in particular. and ice and fog are a real issue through the night—time periods as well. so for the rest of the day,

still a few showers across northeast england, northern scotland. still one or two, actually, through parts of east anglia, kent and essex. and that fog that we have, that i mentioned earlier as well, making it feel colder, so temperatures are a bit below par at the moment and they will stay that way for the next couple of days. in fact, overnight tonight, the fog will thicken up and return more widely. ice will develop where we've got a lot of standing water and spray, and particularly so where we see these showers pepping up through the night, so it is going to be widely frosty, even where temperatures stay a degree above freezing — of course, the ground will still freeze. still icy and slick, particularly because we've got those showers falling onto that cold ground, potentially washing off the salt. fog and ice hazards overnight tonight. there is a met office warning for the south and east. that's where we've got this feed of northeasterly winds starting to strengthen further and just pushing those showers in, so it looks as if we will see a centimetre or two of snow

for parts of east anglia, south—eastern england and through the day tomorrow, they're going to drag their way westwards on that breeze. you can see for the downs, we could see two or three centimetres and that, of course, will add to the risk of ice, it being quite slippery. elsewhere, perhaps fewer showers across northern scotland and eastern england. one or two for northern ireland and a few pushing across other southern parts of england and the channel islands. with that wind, it will feel colder still than today, so really quite a raw day or two to come across the southern half of the uk, in particular because of that wind and the stubborn fog problems further north, but importantly, the dry weather stays with us this week. live from london, this is bbc news. at least 70 people have been reportedly killed injabalia in northern gaza, with eyewitnesses describing overnight air strikes.

jordan's king abdullah warns antony blinken of the "catastrophic repercussions" of israel's campaign in gaza. the us secretary of state has since been in qatar, a key nation in talks with hamas. rishi sunak confirms that the government is looking at legal options to exonerate sub—postmasters who've been wrongfully convicted of fraud because of a faulty computer accounting system. polls close in bangladesh's election, early indications suggest a low turnout of voters, and the current prime minister is expected to win a fourth consecutive term. hello. i'm a i'm a lauren taylor. at least 70 people have been reportedly killed injabaliya in nothern gaza. reports say mostly women and children were killed in the strike overnight which hit a residential building in the al—faluja area. the israeli army claims it has "completed the dismantling" of hamas�*s command structure in the northern gaza strip. meanwhilejordan�*s king abdullah has

warned the us secretary of state antony blinken of �*catastrophic repercussions�*